Ceftazidime–Avibactam-Based Versus Tigecycline-Based Regimen for the Treatment of Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae-Induced Pneumonia in Critically Ill Patients

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the present study was to assess the safety profile and outcomes of a ceftazidime–avibactam (CAZ-AVI)-based regimen and compare them with those of a tigecycline (TGC)-based regimen in intensive care unit (ICU) for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP), which is classified into hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). METHODS: Clinical and microbiological cure rates, 28-day survival rates, and safety evaluation findings were compared between patients treated with CAZ-AVI-based regimen and those treated with TGC-based regimen in this retrospective study. Conventional multivariate logistic regression analysis and regression adjustment analysis with propensity score (PS) were performed to control for confounding variables. RESULTS: A total of 105 cases of critically ill ICU patients with CRKP-induced HAP or VAP were included in the present study from July 2019 to September 2020; 62 patients (59%) received TGC-based regimen and 43 patients (41%) received CAZ-AVI-based regimen. The most common concomitant agent in the CAZ-AVI group and TGC group was carbapenem (44.2% versus 62.9%, P = 0.058), while only a small proportion of the study population received CAZ-AVI and TGC monotherapy (20.9% versus 6.5%, P = 0.027). The clinical and microbiological cure rates of the CAZ-AVI group were superior to those of the TGC group [51.2% versus 29.0% (P = 0.022) and 74.4% versus 33.9% (P < 0.001), respectively]. No significant differences in the 28-day survival rates were identified between the two groups (69.8% versus 66.1%, P = 0.695). Conventional multivariate logistic regression and PS analyses showed that patients who had used CAZ-AVI were more likely to have achieved a clinical cure [4.767 (95%CI 1.694-13.414), P=0.003;3.405 (95%CI 1.304-8.889), P=0.012] and microbiological success [6.664 (95%CI 2.626-16.915), P<0.001;7.778 (95%CI 2.717-22.265), P<0.001] than patients who used TGC. However, the difference in the 28-day survival rates between the two groups was not significant. According to the safety evaluation findings, the CAZ-AVI group exhibited a generally lower incidence of adverse reactions compared with that in the TGC group. CONCLUSIONS: CAZ-AVI may be a suitable alternative for TGC in the treatment of critically ill patients with CRKP-induced HAP or VAP. These observations require further confirmation in larger randomized prospective clinical trials.