RESUMEN
The urgent requirement for swift diagnostic methods in pathogen identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing is emphasized by rising bacterial resistance and limited treatment options, which are particularly critical in sepsis management. The shift from traditional phenotype-based methods to rapid molecular and mass spectrometry techniques has significantly reduced result turnaround times, enhancing patient outcomes. In this systematic review with meta-analysis, the aspects of correct empirical antimicrobial therapy are evaluated to determine their impact on mortality. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and MEDLINE. Studies evaluating mortality associated with empirical adequate and inadequate therapy in different sites of infection were included. Outcomes included clinical cures in microbiologically evaluable patients. Among the sites of infection, the most studied were bloodstream infections (n = 9), followed by respiratory tract infections (n = 5), intra-abdominal infections (n = 5), and urinary tract infections (evaluated by 3 studies). Inadequate therapy was associated with an increase in mortality between 11 and 68%. Technologies to speed up pathogen identification are extremely necessary to reduce mortality.
RESUMEN
We evaluated the performance of ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane-tazobactam MicroScan Neg multidrug-resistant MIC 1 (NMR1) panel for clinical carbapenem-nonsusceptible Gram-negative bacilli isolates. We evaluated 212 clinically significant carbapenem-nonsusceptible Gram-negative bacilli (139 Pseudomonas aeruginosa and 73 KPC-producing Enterobacterales) from 71 Brazilian hospitals (2013 to 2020). Ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane-tazobactam MICs from the panel were compared with a broth microdilution (BMD) test as the reference method. Essential agreement (EA) and categorical agreement (CA) were assessed. For P. aeruginosa, antimicrobial susceptibility testing error rates were calculated using the error-rate bound method. Discrepancies were initially observed with 11 isolates; 4 resolved after retesting, 2 in favor of the NMR1 and 2 in favor of the BMD method. The ceftazidime-avibactam EA (overall and evaluable) was 100% for P. aeruginosa and Enterobacterales. The CA was 100% for Enterobacterales and 98.6% for P. aeruginosa. The ceftolozane-tazobactam EA was 98.6% and 100% (overall and evaluable, respectively), and the CA was 96.4% for P. aeruginosa. For ceftazidime/avibactam, no very major error (VME) was found, and the major error (ME) rate was 4.2% (2/48). For ceftolozane-tazobactam and P. aeruginosa, using the CLSI breakpoints, the minor error (mE) was 11.4%, and no VME or ME was found. While using EUCAST breakpoints, the VME was 11.4% with no ME. The mE becomes ME or VME in the absence of the intermediate category. All categorical errors were also within 1 log of MIC variation, and the adjusted error rate for CLSI/EUCAST was 0% (0/212). The NMR1 panel is an option to test ceftazidime-avibactam for KPC-producing Enterobacterales and carbapenem-nonsusceptible P. aeruginosa. When a MIC of 4 mg/liter for ceftolozane-tazobactam is obtained using this method, an alert could be created, and the results could be confirmed by an alternative method.
