Cefepime vs Piperacillin-Tazobactam in Adults Hospitalized With Acute Infection: The ACORN Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam are commonly administered to hospitalized adults for empirical treatment of infection. Although piperacillin-tazobactam has been hypothesized to cause acute kidney injury and cefepime has been hypothesized to cause neurological dysfunction, their comparative safety has not been evaluated in a randomized clinical trial. Objective: To determine whether the choice between cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam affects the risks of acute kidney injury or neurological dysfunction. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Antibiotic Choice on Renal Outcomes (ACORN) randomized clinical trial compared cefepime vs piperacillin-tazobactam in adults for whom a clinician initiated an order for antipseudomonal antibiotics within 12 hours of presentation to the hospital in the emergency department or medical intensive care unit at an academic medical center in the US between November 10, 2021, and October 7, 2022. The final date of follow-up was November 4, 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the highest stage of acute kidney injury or death by day 14, measured on a 5-level ordinal scale ranging from no acute kidney injury to death. The 2 secondary outcomes were the incidence of major adverse kidney events at day 14 and the number of days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days. Results: There were 2511 patients included in the primary analysis (median age, 58 years [IQR, 43-69 years]; 42.7% were female; 16.3% were Non-Hispanic Black; 5.4% were Hispanic; 94.7% were enrolled in the emergency department; and 77.2% were receiving vancomycin at enrollment). The highest stage of acute kidney injury or death was not significantly different between the cefepime group and the piperacillin-tazobactam group; there were 85 patients (n = 1214; 7.0%) in the cefepime group with stage 3 acute kidney injury and 92 (7.6%) who died vs 97 patients (n = 1297; 7.5%) in the piperacillin-tazobactam group with stage 3 acute kidney injury and 78 (6.0%) who died (odds ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.80 to 1.13], P = .56). The incidence of major adverse kidney events at day 14 did not differ between groups (124 patients [10.2%] in the cefepime group vs 114 patients [8.8%] in the piperacillin-tazobactam group; absolute difference, 1.4% [95% CI, -1.0% to 3.8%]). Patients in the cefepime group experienced fewer days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days (mean [SD], 11.9 [4.6] days vs 12.2 [4.3] days in the piperacillin-tazobactam group; odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.95]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among hospitalized adults in this randomized clinical trial, treatment with piperacillin-tazobactam did not increase the incidence of acute kidney injury or death. Treatment with cefepime resulted in more neurological dysfunction. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05094154.

Estimation of thigh muscle cross-sectional area by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in frail elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: Thigh muscle mass and cross-sectional area (CSA) are useful indexes of sarcopenia and the response to treatment in older patients. Current criterion methods are computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare thigh muscle mass estimated by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), a less expensive and more accessible method, with thigh muscle CSA determined by CT in a group of elderly patients recovering from hip fracture. DESIGN: Midthigh muscle CSA (in cm(2)) was assessed from a 1-mm CT slice and midthigh muscle mass (g) from a 1.3-cm DXA slice in 30 patients (24 women) aged 81 +/- 8 y during 12 mo of follow-up. Fat-to-lean soft tissue ratios were calculated with each technique to permit direct comparison of a variable in the same units. RESULTS: Baseline midthigh muscle CSA was highly correlated with midthigh muscle mass (r = 0.86, P < 0.001) such that DXA predicted CT-determined CSA with an SEE of 10 cm(2) (an error of approximately 12% of the mean CSA value). CT- and DXA-determined ratios of midthigh fat to lean mass were similarly related (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.87, P < 0.001). When data were expressed as the changes from baseline to follow-up, CT and DXA changes were weakly correlated (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.51, P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of sarcopenia by DXA midthigh slice is a potential low-radiation, accessible alternative to CT scanning of older patients. The errors inherent in this technique indicate, however, that it should be applied to groups of patients rather than to individuals or to evaluate the response to interventions.