A targeted likelihood estimation comparing cefepime and piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).

Cefepime and piperacillin/tazobactam are antimicrobials recommended by IDSA/ATS guidelines for the empirical management of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Concerns have been raised about which should be used in clinical practice. This study aims to compare the effect of cefepime and piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill CAP patients through a targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE). A total of 2026 ICU-admitted patients with CAP were included. Among them, (47%) presented respiratory failure, and (27%) developed septic shock. A total of (68%) received cefepime and (32%) piperacillin/tazobactam-based treatment. After running the TMLE, we found that cefepime and piperacillin/tazobactam-based treatments have comparable 28-day, hospital, and ICU mortality. Additionally, age, PTT, serum potassium and temperature were associated with preferring cefepime over piperacillin/tazobactam (OR 1.14 95% CI [1.01-1.27], p = 0.03), (OR 1.14 95% CI [1.03-1.26], p = 0.009), (OR 1.1 95% CI [1.01-1.22], p = 0.039) and (OR 1.13 95% CI [1.03-1.24], p = 0.014)]. Our study found a similar mortality rate among ICU-admitted CAP patients treated with cefepime and piperacillin/tazobactam. Clinicians may consider factors such as availability and safety profiles when making treatment decisions.

Statistical design and optimization of nano-transfersomes based chitosan gel for transdermal delivery of cefepime.

OBJECTIVES: This research aimed to overcome challenges posed by cefepime excessive elimination rate and poor patient compliance by developing transdermal delivery system using nano-transfersomes based chitosan gel. METHODS: Rotary evaporation-sonication method and the Box-Behnken model were used to prepare cefepime loaded nano-transfersomes (CPE-NTFs). The physiochemical characterization of CPE-NTFs were analyzed including DLS, deformability index, DSC and antimicrobial study. Optimized CPE-NTFs loaded into chitosan gel and appropriately characterized. In vitro release, ex vivo and in vivo studies were performed. RESULTS: The CPE-NTFs were physically stable with particle size 222.6 ± 1.8 nm, polydispersity index 0.163 ± 0.02, zeta potential -20.8 ± 0.1 mv, entrapment efficiency 81.4 ± 1.1% and deformability index 71 ± 0.2. DSC analysis confirmed successful drug loading and thermal stability. FTIR analysis showed no chemical interaction among the excipients of CPE-NTFs gel. The antibacterial activity demonstrated a remarkable reduction in the minimum inhibitory concentration of cefepime when incorporated into nano-transfersomes. CPE-NTFs based chitosan gel (CPE-NTFs gel) showed significant physicochemical properties. In vitro release studies exhibited sustained release behavior over 24 h, and ex vivo studies indicated enhanced permeation and retention compared to conventional cefepime gel. In vivo skin irritation studies confirmed CPE-NTFs gel was nonirritating and biocompatible for transdermal delivery. CONCLUSION: This research showed nano-transfersomes based chitosan gel is a promising approach for cefepime transdermal delivery and provides sustained release of cefepime.

Mortality of Patients With Sepsis Administered Piperacillin-Tazobactam vs Cefepime.

Importance: Experimental and observational studies have suggested that empirical treatment for bacterial sepsis with antianaerobic antibiotics (eg, piperacillin-tazobactam) is associated with adverse outcomes compared with anaerobe-sparing antibiotics (eg, cefepime). However, a recent pragmatic clinical trial of piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime showed no difference in short-term outcomes at 14 days. Further studies are needed to help clarify the empirical use of these agents. Objective: To examine the use of piperacillin-tazobactam compared with cefepime in 90-day mortality in patients treated empirically for sepsis, using instrumental variable analysis of a 15-month piperacillin-tazobactam shortage. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a retrospective cohort study, hospital admissions at the University of Michigan from July 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018, including a piperacillin-tazobactam shortage period from June 12, 2015, to September 18, 2016, were examined. Adult patients with suspected sepsis treated with vancomycin and either piperacillin-tazobactam or cefepime for conditions with presumed equipoise between piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime were included in the study. Data analysis was conducted from December 17, 2022, to April 11, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included organ failure-free, ventilator-free, and vasopressor-free days. The 15-month piperacillin-tazobactam shortage period was used as an instrumental variable for unmeasured confounding in antibiotic selection. Results: Among 7569 patients (4174 men [55%]; median age, 63 [IQR 52-73] years) with sepsis meeting study eligibility, 4523 were treated with vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam and 3046 were treated with vancomycin and cefepime. Of patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam, only 152 (3%) received it during the shortage. Treatment groups did not differ significantly in age, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, or time to antibiotic administration. In an instrumental variable analysis, piperacillin-tazobactam was associated with an absolute mortality increase of 5.0% at 90 days (95% CI, 1.9%-8.1%) and 2.1 (95% CI, 1.4-2.7) fewer organ failure-free days, 1.1 (95% CI, 0.57-1.62) fewer ventilator-free days, and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.01-2.01) fewer vasopressor-free days. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with suspected sepsis and no clear indication for antianaerobic coverage, administration of piperacillin-tazobactam was associated with higher mortality and increased duration of organ dysfunction compared with cefepime. These findings suggest that the widespread use of empirical antianaerobic antibiotics in sepsis may be harmful.

Effect modification of dosing strategy (AUC or trough) on AKI associated with vancomycin in combination with piperacillin/tazobactam or cefepime and meropenem.

Piperacillin-tazobactam (TZP), cefepime (FEP), or meropenem (MEM) and vancomycin (VAN) are commonly used in combination for sepsis. Studies have shown an increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) with TZP and VAN compared to FEP or MEM. VAN guidelines recommend area under the curve (AUC) monitoring over trough (Tr) to minimize the risk of AKI. We investigated the association of AKI and MAKE-30 with the two VAN monitoring strategies when used in combination with TZP or FEP/MEM. Adult patients between 2015 and 2019 with VAN > 72 hours were included. Patients with AKI prior to or within 48 hours of VAN or baseline CrCl of ≤30 mL/min were excluded. Four cohorts were defined: FEP/MEM/Tr, FEP/MEM/AUC, TZP/Tr, and TZP/AUC. A Cox Proportional Hazard Model was used to model AKI as a function of the incidence rate of at-risk days, testing monitoring strategy as a treatment effect modification. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model MAKE-30. Overall incidence of AKI was 18.6%; FEP/MEM/Tr = 115 (14.6%), FEP/MEM/AUC = 52 (14.9%), TZP/Tr = 189 (26%), and TZP/AUC = 96 (17.1%) (P < 0.001). Both drug group [(TZP; P = 0.0085)] and monitoring strategy [(Tr; P = 0.0007)] were highly associated with the development of AKI; however, the effect was not modified with interaction term [(TZP*Tr); 0.085)]. The odds of developing MAKE-30 were not different between any group and FEP/MEM/AUC. The effect of VAN/TZP on the development of AKI was not modified by the VAN monitoring strategy (AUC vs trough). MAKE-30 outcomes were not different among the four cohorts.

Towards optimizing cefepime/tazobactam (WCK 4282) exposure to achieve efficacy against piperacillin/tazobactam-resistant ESBL infections: dose recommendations for various renal functions, including intermittent haemodialysis, in healthy individuals.

OBJECTIVES: WCK 4282 is a novel combination of cefepime 2 g and tazobactam 2 g being developed for the treatment of infections caused by piperacillin/tazobactam-resistant ESBL infections. The dosing regimen for cefepime/tazobactam needs to be optimized to generate adequate exposures to treat infections caused by ESBL-producing pathogens resistant to both cefepime and piperacillin/tazobactam. METHODS: We developed pharmacokinetic population models of cefepime and tazobactam to evaluate the optimal dose adjustments in patients, including those with augmented renal clearance as well as various degrees of renal impairment, and also for those on intermittent haemodialysis. Optimal doses for various degrees of renal function were identified by determining the PTA for a range of MICs. To cover ESBL-producing pathogens with an cefepime/tazobactam MIC of 16 mg/L, a dosing regimen of 2 g q8h infused over 1.5 h resulted in a combined PTA of 99% for the mean murine 1 log10-kill target for the cefepime/tazobactam combination. RESULTS: We found that to adjust for renal function, doses need to be reduced to 1 g q8h, 500 mg q8h and 500 mg q12h for patients with CLCR of 30-59, 15-29 and 8-14 mL/min (as well as patients with intermittent haemodialysis), respectively. In patients with high to augmented CLR (estimated CLCR 120-180 mL/min), a prolonged 4 h infusion of standard dose is required. CONCLUSIONS: The suggested dosing regimens will result in exposures of cefepime and tazobactam that would be adequate for infections caused by ESBL-producing pathogens with a cefepime/tazobactam MICs up to 16 mg/L.

Cefepime-Taniborbactam in Complicated Urinary Tract Infection.

BACKGROUND: Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales species and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa are global health threats. Cefepime-taniborbactam is an investigational ß-lactam and ß-lactamase inhibitor combination with activity against Enterobacterales species and P. aeruginosa expressing serine and metallo-ß-lactamases. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned hospitalized adults with complicated urinary tract infection (UTI), including acute pyelonephritis, in a 2:1 ratio to receive intravenous cefepime-taniborbactam (2.5 g) or meropenem (1 g) every 8 hours for 7 days; this duration could be extended up to 14 days in case of bacteremia. The primary outcome was both microbiologic and clinical success (composite success) on trial days 19 to 23 in the microbiologic intention-to-treat (microITT) population (patients who had a qualifying gram-negative pathogen against which both study drugs were active). A prespecified superiority analysis of the primary outcome was performed after confirmation of noninferiority. RESULTS: Of the 661 patients who underwent randomization, 436 (66.0%) were included in the microITT population. The mean age of the patients was 56.2 years, and 38.1% were 65 years of age or older. In the microITT population, 57.8% of the patients had complicated UTI, 42.2% had acute pyelonephritis, and 13.1% had bacteremia. Composite success occurred in 207 of 293 patients (70.6%) in the cefepime-taniborbactam group and in 83 of 143 patients (58.0%) in the meropenem group. Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem regarding the primary outcome (treatment difference, 12.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 3.1 to 22.2; P = 0.009). Differences in treatment response were sustained at late follow-up (trial days 28 to 35), when cefepime-taniborbactam had higher composite success and clinical success. Adverse events occurred in 35.5% and 29.0% of patients in the cefepime-taniborbactam group and the meropenem group, respectively, with headache, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, and nausea the most frequently reported; the frequency of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem for the treatment of complicated UTI that included acute pyelonephritis, with a safety profile similar to that of meropenem. (Funded by Venatorx Pharmaceuticals and others; CERTAIN-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03840148.).

Intravenous push antibiotics in the emergency department: Education and implementation.

PURPOSE: Intravenous push antibiotics can serve as an alternative to intravenous piggyback antibiotics while providing the same pharmacodynamics and adverse effect profile, easing shortage pressures and decreasing order to administration time, as well as representing a potential cost savings. The purpose of this study was to determine whether intravenous push antibiotics could decrease the time from an order to the start of administration compared to piggyback antibiotics in emergency departments. This study also measured the cost savings of antibiotic preparation and administration and assessed nursing satisfaction when using intravenous push antibiotics. METHODS: Sample instances of use of intravenous push and piggyback antibiotics were identified. Patients were included if they were 18 years of age or older and received at least a single dose of intravenous push or piggyback ceftriaxone, cefepime, cefazolin, or meropenem in one of the institution's emergency departments. The primary outcome of the study was to compare the time from the order to the start of administration of intravenous push vs piggyback antibiotics. The secondary outcome was to compare the cost of antibiotic preparation for the 2 methods. RESULTS: The intravenous push and piggyback groups each had 43 patients. The time from the order to the start of administration decreased from 74 (interquartile range, 29-114) minutes in the piggyback group to 31 (interquartile range, 21-52) minutes in the push group (P = 0.003). When the estimated monthly cost savings for ceftriaxone, cefepime, and meropenem were added together, across the emergency departments, an estimated $227,930.88 is saved per year when using intravenous push antibiotics. CONCLUSION: Intravenous push antibiotics decrease the time from ordering to the start of administration and result in significant cost savings.

Effect of Cefepime/Enmetazobactam vs Piperacillin/Tazobactam on Clinical Cure and Microbiological Eradication in Patients With Complicated Urinary Tract Infection or Acute Pyelonephritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Cefepime/enmetazobactam is a novel ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combination and a potential empirical therapy for resistant gram-negative infections. Objective: To evaluate whether cefepime/enmetazobactam was noninferior to piperacillin/tazobactam for the primary outcome of treatment efficacy in patients with complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) or acute pyelonephritis. Design, Setting, and Participants: A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter, noninferiority clinical trial conducted at 90 sites in Europe, North and Central America, South America, and South Africa. Recruitment occurred between September 24, 2018, and November 2, 2019. Final follow-up occurred November 26, 2019. Participants were adult patients aged 18 years or older with a clinical diagnosis of complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis caused by gram-negative urinary pathogens. Interventions: Eligible patients were randomized to receive either cefepime, 2 g/enmetazobactam, 0.5 g (n = 520), or piperacillin, 4 g/tazobactam, 0.5 g (n = 521), by 2-hour infusion every 8 hours for 7 days (up to 14 days in patients with a positive blood culture at baseline). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in the primary analysis set (patients who received any amount of study drug with a baseline gram-negative pathogen not resistant to either treatment and ≥105 colony-forming units [CFU]/mL in urine culture or the same pathogen present in concurrent blood and urine cultures) who achieved overall treatment success (defined as clinical cure combined with microbiological eradication [<103 CFU/mL in urine] of infection). Two-sided 95% CIs were computed using the stratified Newcombe method. The prespecified noninferiority margin was -10%. If noninferiority was established, a superiority comparison was also prespecified. Results: Among 1041 patients randomized (mean age, 54.7 years; 573 women [55.0%]), 1034 (99.3%) received study drug and 995 (95.6%) completed the trial. Among the primary analysis set, the primary outcome occurred in 79.1% (273/345) of patients receiving cefepime/enmetazobactam compared with 58.9% (196/333) receiving piperacillin/tazobactam (between-group difference, 21.2% [95% CI, 14.3% to 27.9%]). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 50.0% (258/516) of patients treated with cefepime/enmetazobactam and 44.0% (228/518) with piperacillin/tazobactam; most were mild to moderate in severity (89.9% vs 88.6%, respectively). A total of 1.7% (9/516) of participants who received cefepime/enmetazobactam and 0.8% (4/518) of those who received piperacillin/tazobactam did not complete the assigned therapy due to adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis caused by gram-negative pathogens, cefepime/enmetazobactam, compared with piperacillin/tazobactam, met criteria for noninferiority as well as superiority with respect to the primary outcome of clinical cure and microbiological eradication. Further research is needed to determine the potential role for cefepime/enmetazobactam in the treatment of complicated UTI and pyelonephritis. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03687255.

Pharmacokinetics of Cefepime in Children on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: External Model Validation, Model Improvement and Dose Optimization.

BACKGROUND: Cefepime is a first-line therapy for Gram-negative infections in children on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Cefepime pharmacokinetics (PK) in children on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation still needs to be better established. METHODS: This was a prospective single-center PK study. A maximum of 12 PK samples per patient were collected in children <18 years old on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation who received clinically indicated cefepime. External validation of a previously published population PK model was performed by applying the model in a new data set. The predictive performance of the model was determined by calculating prediction errors. Because of poor predictive performance, a revised model was developed using NONMEM and a combined data set that included data from both studies. Dose-exposure simulations were performed using the final model. Optimal dosing was judged based on the ability to maintain free cefepime concentrations above the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) for 68% and 100% of the dosing interval. RESULTS: Seventeen children contributed 105 PK samples. The mean (95% CI) and median (interquartile range) prediction errors were 33.7% (19.8-47.7) and 17.5% (-22.6 to 74.4). A combined data set was created, which included 33 children contributing 310 PK samples. The final improved 2-compartment model included weight and serum creatinine on clearance and oxygenator day and blood transfusion on volume of the central compartment. At an MIC of 8 mg/L, 50 mg/kg/dose every 8 hours reached target concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Dosing intervals of 8 hours were needed to reach adequate concentrations at an MIC of 8 mg/L. Longer dosing intervals were adequate with higher serum creatinine and lower MICs.

Evaluation of Individualized Cefepime Dosing Strategy Using Population Pharmacokinetics.

The use of population pharmacokinetics (PK) to optimize cefepime dosing could be an effective strategy, given the increasing prevalence of resistant gram-negative organisms. The objective of this study is to retrospectively compare dosing using a PK approach (intervention) vs traditional dosing (control) for cefepime in patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Adult hospitalized patients with HAP or VAP receiving cefepime for ≥72 hours were screened first from August 2018 to January 2019 to be included in the intervention group, then screened during the preintervention period from August 2017 to July 2018 for the control group. Clinical improvement on day 7 of cefepime therapy was achieved in 72% of the patients in the intervention group and 70% of the patients in the control group (P = .8110). However, the clinical cure rate in the intervention group was higher than that of the control group (50% vs 36.5%; P = .0034). Cefepime dosing using population PK appears to be a novel, effective, and safe dosing strategy for patients with HAP or VAP.

Cefepime and diclofenac sodium combined treatment-potentiated multiple organ injury: Role of oxidative damage and disrupted lipid metabolism.

Concurrent exposure to antimicrobial and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is usually inevitable in most infections and postsurgery. Consequently, the present study was designed to assess the intertwining impact of coadministration of cefepime (CP, a wide spectrum antibiotic) and diclofenac sodium (DF, an NSAID) on rat's liver, kidney, and testes. Rats received saline, CP (180 mg/kg/day, IM), DF (10 mg/kg/day, IM), or a combination of CP and DF. After 14 days, CP or DF induced tissue damage expressed by marked biochemical alterations in hepatic and renal function tests. Besides this, disrupted lipid metabolism and testosterone levels along with significant histological changes in hepatic, renal, and testicular tissues were noticed. A significant increase in malondialdehyde and decreases in superoxide dismutase and catalase activities alongside significant upregulated caspase 3 expression in tissues following CP or DF treatment suggested a bearable influence of oxidative stress, lipid peroxidation, and cell death. Accordingly, the simultaneous therapy of CP and DF evoked more obvious tissue damage than their individual treatment. Overall, data concluded that concurrent use of CP and DF in medical practice is a worrisome matter, so it should be done cautiously to avoid synergistic deleterious outcomes.

Low prevalence of tissue detection of cefepime and daptomycin used as empirical treatment during revision for periprosthetic joint infections: results of a prospective multicenter study.

Data demonstrating that antibiotics administered intraoperatively in patients with surgical revision for periprosthetic joint infection achieve concentrations exceeding minimal inhibitory concentrations of the identified bacteria at the surgical site when the new implant is inserted are lacking. We prospectively included patients with periprosthetic joint infection operated with one- or two-stage replacement during which cefepime (2g)-daptomycin (10mg/kg) combination was administered intravenously as intraoperative empirical antibiotic treatment. Three biopsies (two bones and one synovial membrane) were taken from each patient just before the insertion of the new implant. Eighteen adults of median age 68 years were included. Knee was involved in 10 patients (55.6%) and surgery consisted in one-/two-stage replacement in 11/7 patients. A tourniquet was used during the intervention in the 10 patients with knee prosthesis. Among 54 tissue samples, cefepime and daptomycin were detected respectively in 35 (64.8%) and 21 (38.9%) cases (P=0.01). A total of 17 bacteria dominated by staphylococci (n=14) were identified in 10 patients; tissue inhibitory quotient calculated in 51 samples was >1 in 22 cases (43.1%) for cefepime and in 16 cases (31.4%) for daptomycin. The proportion of tissue samples with detectable antibiotic was significantly higher in hip versus knee prosthesis (P=0.03). The present study suggests that intraoperative empirical administration of cefepime-daptomycin combination during septic prosthetic joint replacement results in a high proportion of tissue samples in which at least one of the two antibiotics was not detected or at a low concentration despite satisfactory concomitant blood serum concentrations.

Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Dosage Individualization of Cefepime in Critically Ill Patients: A Case Study.

OBJECTIVE: The authors report on a case of a 59-year-old man hospitalized in the intensive care unit because of severe SARS-COV-2 infection (COVID-19). BACKGROUND: The patient had several comorbidities, including liver cirrhosis. He developed ventilation-associated bacterial pneumonia for which he was administered cefepime at an initial dose of 2 g/8 hours. Therapeutic drug monitoring was performed, showing overexposure with an initial trough concentration of >60 mg/L. METHODS: Analysis of pharmacokinetic data and model-based dose adjustment was performed using BestDose software. RESULTS: The patient had unexpected pharmacokinetic parameter values. Serum creatinine was only moderately increased, whereas measured creatinine clearance based on urine collection showed impaired renal function. Bacterial minimum inhibitory concentration was also considered in the dosing decisions. After dose reduction to 0.5 g/8 hours, the cefepime trough concentration progressively declined and reached the target values by the end of the therapy. A post-hoc analysis provided a different interpretation of drug overexposure. CONCLUSION: This case report illustrates how physiological, microbiological, and drug concentration data can be used for model-based dosage individualization of cefepime in intensive care unit patients.

Model-based approach to sampling optimization in studies of antibacterial drugs for infants and young children.

Clinical trials for pediatric indications and new pediatric drugs face challenges, including the limited blood volume due to the patients' small bodies. In Japan, the Evaluation Committee on Unapproved or Off-labeled Drugs with High Medical Needs has discussed the necessity of pediatric indications against the background of a lack of Japanese pediatric data. The limited treatment options regarding antibiotics for pediatric patients are associated with the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Regulatory guidelines promote the use of model-based drug development to reduce practical and ethical constraints for pediatric patients. Sampling optimization is one of the key study designs for pediatric drug development. In this simulation study, we evaluated the precision of the empirical Bayes estimates of pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters based on the sampling times optimized by published pediatric population PK models. We selected three previous PK studies of cefepime and ciprofloxacin in infants and young children as paradigms. The number of sampling times was reduced from original full sampling times to two to four sampling times based on the Fisher information matrix. We observed that the precision of empirical Bayes estimates of the key PK parameters and the predicted efficacy based on the reduced sampling times were generally comparable to those based on the original full sampling times. The model-based approach to sampling optimization provided a maximization of PK information with a minimum burden on infants and young children for the future development of pediatric drugs.

In vitro activity of cefepime/zidebactam (WCK 5222) against recent Gram-negative isolates collected from high resistance settings of Greek hospitals.

Cefepime/zidebactam is in clinical development for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative infections. MICs of cefepime/zidebactam (1:1) and comparators against Enterobacterales (n = 563), Pseudomonas (n = 172) and Acinetobacter baumannii (n =181) collected from 15 Greek hospitals (2014-2018) were determined by reference broth microdilution method. The isolates exhibited high carbapenem resistance rates [(Enterobacterales (75%), Pseudomonas (75%) and A. baumannii (98.3%)]. Cefepime/zidebactam showed MIC50/90 of 0.5/2 mg/L, against Enterobacterales including metallo-ß-lactamases (MBL)-producers. Reduced susceptibility rates to tigecycline (16.8%), colistin (47.4%), ceftazidime/avibactam (59.8%), and imipenem/relebactam (61%) indicated high prevalence of multi-drug resistance among Greek Enterobacterales. Cefepime/zidebactam exhibited MIC50/90 of 8/16 mg/L against Pseudomonas including MBL-producers. The MIC50/90 of ceftazidime/avibactam and imipenem/relebactam were high (≥32 mg/L). Cefepime/zidebactam showed MIC90 of 64 mg/L against A. baumannii which is within its therapeutic scope. Other antibiotics including colistin showed limited activity against A. baumannii. The activity of cefepime/zidebactam against multi-drug-resistant isolates is attributable to zidebactam mediated novel ß-lactam-enhancer mechanism.

Cefepime Dosing in Neonates: What is the Evidence?

OBJECTIVE: Recommended cefepime dosing strategies in neonates varies in commonly utilized dosing references with regard to dose and frequency. The objective of this review is to summarize and evaluate the available literature describing cefepime dosing in neonatal patients. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a literature review in MEDLINE using the keyword cefepime. The search was limited to the English language, humans, and patients <2 months of age. We evaluated four pharmacokinetic studies and two studies describing the use of cefepime in clinical practice. RESULTS: The available studies assessing cefepime serum concentrations in neonatal patients demonstrated maintenance of adequate pharmacokinetic parameters when utilizing a dosing frequency of every 12 hours, specifically for organisms with a minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ≤ 8 mg/L. In studies evaluating clinical outcomes of cefepime use in neonates, the most frequent adverse effects reported included seizures and hypophosphatemia. Microbiologic cure was demonstrated with a dosing regimen of 50 mg/kg per dose every 12 hours. CONCLUSION: Cefepime dosed 30 to 50 mg/kg per dose every 12 hours may be appropriate to achieve a concentration two to four times above an MIC ≤ 8 mg/L for at least 60% of the dosing interval in neonatal patients.

Analysis of blood stream infections, antibiograms and clinical outcomes in haematological patients with febrile neutropenia: data from a tertiary care haematology institute in India.

Timely administration of appropriate empirical antibiotics in febrile neutropenia is crucial for favourable patient outcomes. There are guidelines in place recommending such antibiotics. However, regional variations and local epidemiological data must be evaluated to tailor the antibiotics for best possible and rational use. In this study, we audited the clinical and microbiological data of febrile neutropenic episodes occurring at a tertiary care haematology institution. Three hundred and ninety-three febrile neutropenic episodes occurring in 123 patients over a 1-year period were analysed for microbial profile, sensitivity and resistance patterns, and finally clinical outcomes. Gram-negative bacilli (GNB) blood stream infections (46.9%) were more prevalent as compared to gram-positive infections (41.9%). Overall mortality due to complicated neutropenic sepsis was 19.5% (24/123 patients). Increased resistance to carbapenems, beta-lactam beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations, aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, and cephalosporins were observed. Cefepime and tigecycline resistance were seen in 20% and 15% GNB isolates, respectively. Chest was the most frequent focus of infection, and acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) was the most common underlying disorder which correlated with the likelihood of death (p < 0.01). Multidrug-resistant GNB (esp. Klebsiella sp.) are still most worrisome isolates in neutropenic patients. Single-agent cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam/tigecycline combination may be considered empirical agents. Chest infections and AML were independent predictors of poor clinical outcome in neutropenic patients. Regular audit of infections and antibiotic susceptibility data is needed to improve clinical outcomes in patients with febrile neutropenia.

Impact of a cefepime shortage on dosing regimens and outcomes in hospitalized adults with febrile neutropenia.

BACKGROUND: Drug shortages may negatively impact outcomes in hospitalized patients. A cefepime dosing regimen of 1 gram every 6 hours (1 g q6h) has shown to provide similar exposures above target minimum inhibitory concentrations compared to the regimen of 2 g q8h approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for febrile neutropenia. Our objective was to determine if the dosing regimen of 1 g q6h amidst a cefepime shortage is an appropriate alternative for the treatment of febrile neutropenia. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of hospitalized patients who received cefepime for febrile neutropenia over a two-year period was performed. Patients were grouped based on cefepime dosing strategy: 2 g q8h vs. 1 g q6h. The primary objective was to compare time to defervescence after cefepime initiation. Secondary objectives included all-cause 30-day mortality, duration of antibiotic therapy, and inpatient length of stay. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients in each arm were included. There were no differences in baseline age or severity of illness between groups. There was no difference in the primary objective as median time to defervescence was similar between the 2 g q8h and 1 g q6h groups (69.0 vs. 65.3 h: p= 0.67). Additionally, no differences were found in the secondary objectives of all-cause 30-day mortality (10.7% vs. 9.3%: p = 0.79), duration of therapy (80.8 vs. 88.0 h: p = 0.34), or length of stay (9 vs. 7 days: p = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified no differences in clinical outcomes with cefepime 1 g q6h compared to the traditional FDA-approved 2 g q8h regimen for the treatment of febrile neutropenia.