Clinical outcomes in patients infected with ertapenem-only-resistant Enterobacterales versus multi-carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales.

BACKGROUND: Use of anti-carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (anti-CRE) agents such as ceftazidime/avibactam has been associated with improved clinical outcome in cohorts that primarily include patients infected with CRE that are resistant to meropenem (MCRE). OBJECTIVES: To clarify whether patients with CRE resistant to ertapenem but susceptible to meropenem (ertapenem-only-resistant Enterobacterales; EORE) benefit from therapy with anti-CRE agents. METHODS: Patients treated for CRE infection in hospitals in the USA between 2016 and 2019 and enrolled in the CRACKLE-2 study were included. The primary outcome was the desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) assessed at 30 days after index cultures. RESULTS: The EORE group included 213 patients and the MCRE group included 643. The demographics were similar between the groups except for the patients' race and origin before admission. The MCRE group received anti-CRE agents for definitive therapy significantly more frequently compared with the EORE group (30% versus 5% for ceftazidime/avibactam). We did not observe a significant difference between the groups in the adjusted DOOR probability of a more desirable outcome for a randomly selected patient in the EORE group compared with the MCRE group (52.5%; 95% CI, 48.3%-56.7%). The MCRE group had a similar proportion of patients who died at 30 days (26% versus 21%) and who were discharged to home (29% versus 40%), compared with the EORE group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with clinical EORE infection rarely received anti-CRE agents, but attained similar outcomes compared with patients with MCRE infection. The findings support current IDSA treatment guidance for meropenem- or imipenem-based therapy for treatment of EORE infections.

Clinical Impact of Ceftriaxone Resistance in Escherichia coli Bloodstream Infections: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

Background: Ceftriaxone-resistant (CRO-R) Escherichia coli bloodstream infections (BSIs) are common. Methods: This is a prospective cohort of patients with E coli BSI at 14 United States hospitals between November 2020 and April 2021. For each patient with a CRO-R E coli BSI enrolled, the next consecutive patient with a ceftriaxone-susceptible (CRO-S) E coli BSI was included. Primary outcome was desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) at day 30, with 50% probability of worse outcomes in the CRO-R group as the null hypothesis. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to reduce confounding. Results: Notable differences between patients infected with CRO-R and CRO-S E coli BSI included the proportion with Pitt bacteremia score ≥4 (23% vs 15%, P = .079) and the median time to active antibiotic therapy (12 hours [interquartile range {IQR}, 1-35 hours] vs 1 hour [IQR, 0-6 hours]; P < .001). Unadjusted DOOR analyses indicated a 58% probability (95% confidence interval [CI], 52%-63%) for a worse clinical outcome in CRO-R versus CRO-S BSI. In the IPW-adjusted cohort, no difference was observed (54% [95% CI, 47%-61%]). Secondary outcomes included unadjusted and adjusted differences in the proportion of 30-day mortality between CRO-R and CRO-S BSIs (-5.3% [95% CI, -10.3% to -.4%] and -1.8 [95% CI, -6.7% to 3.2%], respectively), postculture median length of stay (8 days [IQR, 5-13 days] vs 6 days [IQR, 4-9 days]; P < .001), and incident admission to a long-term care facility (22% vs 12%, P = .045). Conclusions: Patients with CRO-R E coli BSI generally have poorer outcomes compared to patients infected with CRO-S E coli BSI, even after adjusting for important confounders.