Cargando…

647. Cefepime Versus Carbapenems for the Treatment of ESBL-producing Enterobacterales among Non-blood Isolates

BACKGROUND: The incidence of organisms with extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs) is increasing. The data for using cefepime in ESBL-producing Enterobacterales infections is conflicting. More favorable outcomes are likely if minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) < 2 mcg/mL. The aim of this...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Garcia, Brandon, King, Madeline, Kludjian, Geena, Hanretty, Alexandra
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9752075/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofac492.699
_version_ 1784850630244827136
author Garcia, Brandon
King, Madeline
Kludjian, Geena
Hanretty, Alexandra
author_facet Garcia, Brandon
King, Madeline
Kludjian, Geena
Hanretty, Alexandra
author_sort Garcia, Brandon
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The incidence of organisms with extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs) is increasing. The data for using cefepime in ESBL-producing Enterobacterales infections is conflicting. More favorable outcomes are likely if minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) < 2 mcg/mL. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of cefepime versus carbapenems for ESBL-producing, non-bloodstream Enterobacterales infections. METHODS: This study was a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients who received cefepime or a carbapenem for at least 72 hours for the definitive treatment of an ESBL-producing Enterobacterales non-bloodstream infection between Jan. 1, 2011 and Sept. 30, 2021. ESBL production was identified if the isolate either had a positive confirmatory ESBL test from VITEK 2 (bioMérieux) or phenotypic resistance to ceftriaxone. Isolates had to have a MIC < 2 mcg/mL to cefepime or be susceptible to carbapenems. Isolates with a cefepime MIC 4-8 mcg/mL were not included due to likely higher rates of treatment failure. The primary endpoint was clinical failure, defined as persistence of symptoms requiring escalation of therapy or death. Descriptive statistics were used to compare groups. A univariate analysis and odds ratio was calculated for clinical outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred patients were included. Twenty-two patients received cefepime and 78 received a carbapenem. Table 1 describes patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Most patients had a urinary tract infection (UTI) (94%). More patients receiving cefepime were admitted to the intensive care unit (40.9% versus 15.4%). Treatment with cefepime displayed higher rates of clinical failure when compared to treatment with carbapenems (13.6% versus 6.4%). Cohen’s d-test for clinical failure was 0.46, indicating a medium effect. [Figure: see text] CONCLUSION: Based on our analysis, cefepime may have higher rates of clinical failure when compared to carbapenem treatment for ESBL-producing Enterobacterales. Most of our patients were treated for UTIs and the sample size for both arms were limited, particularly for the cefepime arm. Further research is needed to confirm the role of cefepime as a carbapenem-sparing option in the treatment of these drug-resistant infections. DISCLOSURES: Madeline King, PharmD, Shionogi: Honoraria|Tetraphase: speakers' bureau.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9752075
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97520752022-12-16 647. Cefepime Versus Carbapenems for the Treatment of ESBL-producing Enterobacterales among Non-blood Isolates Garcia, Brandon King, Madeline Kludjian, Geena Hanretty, Alexandra Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: The incidence of organisms with extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs) is increasing. The data for using cefepime in ESBL-producing Enterobacterales infections is conflicting. More favorable outcomes are likely if minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) < 2 mcg/mL. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of cefepime versus carbapenems for ESBL-producing, non-bloodstream Enterobacterales infections. METHODS: This study was a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients who received cefepime or a carbapenem for at least 72 hours for the definitive treatment of an ESBL-producing Enterobacterales non-bloodstream infection between Jan. 1, 2011 and Sept. 30, 2021. ESBL production was identified if the isolate either had a positive confirmatory ESBL test from VITEK 2 (bioMérieux) or phenotypic resistance to ceftriaxone. Isolates had to have a MIC < 2 mcg/mL to cefepime or be susceptible to carbapenems. Isolates with a cefepime MIC 4-8 mcg/mL were not included due to likely higher rates of treatment failure. The primary endpoint was clinical failure, defined as persistence of symptoms requiring escalation of therapy or death. Descriptive statistics were used to compare groups. A univariate analysis and odds ratio was calculated for clinical outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred patients were included. Twenty-two patients received cefepime and 78 received a carbapenem. Table 1 describes patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Most patients had a urinary tract infection (UTI) (94%). More patients receiving cefepime were admitted to the intensive care unit (40.9% versus 15.4%). Treatment with cefepime displayed higher rates of clinical failure when compared to treatment with carbapenems (13.6% versus 6.4%). Cohen’s d-test for clinical failure was 0.46, indicating a medium effect. [Figure: see text] CONCLUSION: Based on our analysis, cefepime may have higher rates of clinical failure when compared to carbapenem treatment for ESBL-producing Enterobacterales. Most of our patients were treated for UTIs and the sample size for both arms were limited, particularly for the cefepime arm. Further research is needed to confirm the role of cefepime as a carbapenem-sparing option in the treatment of these drug-resistant infections. DISCLOSURES: Madeline King, PharmD, Shionogi: Honoraria|Tetraphase: speakers' bureau. Oxford University Press 2022-12-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9752075/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofac492.699 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Abstracts
Garcia, Brandon
King, Madeline
Kludjian, Geena
Hanretty, Alexandra
647. Cefepime Versus Carbapenems for the Treatment of ESBL-producing Enterobacterales among Non-blood Isolates
title 647. Cefepime Versus Carbapenems for the Treatment of ESBL-producing Enterobacterales among Non-blood Isolates
title_full 647. Cefepime Versus Carbapenems for the Treatment of ESBL-producing Enterobacterales among Non-blood Isolates
title_fullStr 647. Cefepime Versus Carbapenems for the Treatment of ESBL-producing Enterobacterales among Non-blood Isolates
title_full_unstemmed 647. Cefepime Versus Carbapenems for the Treatment of ESBL-producing Enterobacterales among Non-blood Isolates
title_short 647. Cefepime Versus Carbapenems for the Treatment of ESBL-producing Enterobacterales among Non-blood Isolates
title_sort 647. cefepime versus carbapenems for the treatment of esbl-producing enterobacterales among non-blood isolates
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9752075/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofac492.699
work_keys_str_mv AT garciabrandon 647cefepimeversuscarbapenemsforthetreatmentofesblproducingenterobacteralesamongnonbloodisolates
AT kingmadeline 647cefepimeversuscarbapenemsforthetreatmentofesblproducingenterobacteralesamongnonbloodisolates
AT kludjiangeena 647cefepimeversuscarbapenemsforthetreatmentofesblproducingenterobacteralesamongnonbloodisolates
AT hanrettyalexandra 647cefepimeversuscarbapenemsforthetreatmentofesblproducingenterobacteralesamongnonbloodisolates