Norfloxacin prophylaxis effect on multidrug resistance in patients with cirrhosis and bacterial infections.

It is unclear whether norfloxacin predisposes to infections by multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). We aimed to evaluate if patients with cirrhosis receiving norfloxacin prophylaxis at the time of the diagnosis of bacterial infections were more likely to present a multidrug-resistant isolate than those without prophylaxis. This is a cross-sectional study of hospitalized patients with cirrhosis and bacterial infections from Argentina and Uruguay (NCT03919032) from September 2018 to December 2020. The outcome variable was a multidrug-resistant bacterial infection. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of norfloxacin on infection caused by MDROs considering potential confounders. Among the 472 patients from 28 centers, 53 (11%) were receiving norfloxacin at the time of the bacterial infection. Patients receiving norfloxacin had higher MELD-sodium, were more likely to have ascites or encephalopathy, to receive rifaximin, beta-blockers, and proton-pump inhibitors, to have a nosocomial or health-care-associated infection, prior bacterial infections, admissions to critical care units or invasive procedures, and to be admitted in a liver transplant center. In addition, we found that 13 (24.5%) patients with norfloxacin and 90 (21.5%) of those not receiving it presented infections caused by MDROs (adjusted OR 1.55; 95% CI: 0.60-4.03; p = 0.360). The use of norfloxacin prophylaxis at the time of the diagnosis of bacterial infections was not associated with multidrug resistance. These results help empiric antibiotic selection and reassure the current indication of norfloxacin prophylaxis in well-selected patients.Study registration number: NCT03919032.

Clinical and microbiological characteristics of bacterial infections in patients with cirrhosis. A prospective cohort study from Argentina and Uruguay.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: there is insufficient data regarding bacterial infections in patients with cirrhosis to support recommendations for empiric antibiotic treatments, particularly in Latin America. This study aimed to evaluate bacterial infection's clinical impact and microbiological characteristics, intending to serve as a platform to revise current practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: multicenter prospective cohort study of patients with cirrhosis and bacterial infections from Argentina and Uruguay. Patient and infection-related information were collected, focusing on microbiology, antibiotic susceptibility patterns, and outcomes. RESULTS: 472 patients were included. Spontaneous bacterial infections and urinary tract infections (UTIs) were registered in 187 (39.6%) and 116 (24.6%) patients, respectively, representing the most common infections. Of the 256 culture-positive infections, 103 (40.2%) were caused by multidrug-resistant organisms (reaching 50% for UTI), and 181 (70.7%) received adequate initial antibiotic treatment. The coverage of cefepime and ceftriaxone was over 70% for the empirical treatment of community-acquired spontaneous infections, but ceftazidime´s coverage was only 40%. For all UTI cases and for healthcare-associated or nosocomial spontaneous bacterial infections, the lower-spectrum antibiotics that covered at least 70% of the isolations were imipenem and meropenem. During hospitalization, a second bacterial infection was diagnosed in 9.8% of patients, 23.9% required at least one organ support, and 19.5% died. CONCLUSIONS: short-term mortality of bacterial infections in patients with cirrhosis is very high, and a high percentage were caused by multidrug-resistant organisms, particularly in UTIs. The information provided might serve to adapt recommendations, particularly related to empirical antibiotic treatment in Argentina and Uruguay. The study was registered in Clinical Trials (NCT03919032).

A Latin American survey on demographic aspects of hospitalized, decompensated cirrhotic patients and the resources for their management.

INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES: Liver cirrhosis is a major cause of mortality worldwide. Adequate diagnosis and treatment of decompensating events requires of both medical skills and updated technical resources. The objectives of this study were to search the demographic profile of hospitalized cirrhotic patients in a group of Latin American hospitals and the availability of expertise/facilities for the diagnosis and therapy of decompensation episodes. METHODS: A cross sectional, multicenter survey of hospitalized cirrhotic patients. RESULTS: 377 patients, (62% males; 58±11 years) (BMI>25, 57%; diabetes 32%) were hospitalized at 65 centers (63 urbans; 57 academically affiliated) in 13 countries on the survey date. Main admission causes were ascites, gastrointestinal bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis/other infections. Most prevalent etiologies were alcohol-related (AR) (40%); non-alcoholic-steatohepatitis (NASH) (23%), hepatitis C virus infection (HCV) (7%) and autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) (6%). The most frequent concurrent etiologies were AR+NASH. Expertise and resources in every analyzed issue were highly available among participating centers, mostly accomplishing valid guidelines. However, availability of these facilities was significantly higher at institutions located in areas with population>500,000 (n=45) and in those having a higher complexity level (Gastrointestinal, Liver and Internal Medicine Departments at the same hospital (n=22). CONCLUSIONS: The epidemiological etiologic profile in hospitalized, decompensated cirrhotic patients in Latin America is similar to main contemporary emergent agents worldwide. Medical and technical resources are highly available, mostly at great population urban areas and high complexity medical centers. Main diagnostic and therapeutic approaches accomplish current guidelines recommendations.

Proton pump inhibitor therapy does not increase the incidence of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhosis: a multicenter prospective study.

BACKGROUND & AIM: Retrospective studies show an association between proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP). We investigate the relationship between PPI and SBP in decompensated cirrhotic patients in a large nationwide prospective study. METHODS: Seven hundred seventy patients with a diagnosis of decompensated cirrhosis were admitted consecutively in 23 hospitals in Argentina from March 2011 to April 2012; the patients were carefully investigated for PPI consumption in the previous 3 months. In total, 251 patients were excluded because of active gastrointestinal hemorrhage, antibiotic use during the preceding weeks, HIV-positive status and immunosuppressive therapy. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-six out of 519 patients (43.5%) had received PPI therapy within the last 3 months. In 135 patients, PPIs were administered for longer than 2 weeks. A bacterial infection was shown in 255 patients (49.1%). SBP was diagnosed in 95 patients out of 394 patients with ascites (24.7%). There was no significant difference in the rate of PPI consumption between the infected and the non-infected patients (44.3% vs. 42.8%) or between the SBP patients and the patients with ascites without SBP (46% vs. 42%). In the SBP patients, the duration of PPI administration did not influence the rate of SBP occurrence. The type of bacteria and the origin of SBP infection were similar in the patients with and without PPI. CONCLUSION: In the current large, multicenter, prospective study, PPI therapy, specifically evaluated at admission of consecutive cirrhotic patients, was not associated with a higher risk of SBP.

Towards evidence-based empiric antibiotic recommendations for spontaneous infections in patients with cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: With the emergence of multidrug-resistant infections, healthcare professionals must evaluate the effectiveness of empiric antibiotic treatments. AIMS: To assess the antibiotic susceptibility patterns of microorganisms causing spontaneous infections in patients with cirrhosis and to evaluate the suitability of empiric antibiotic treatments based on major clinical guidelines. METHODS: This cross-sectional study utilized two datasets from prospective studies of patients with cirrhosis and culture-positive spontaneous bacterial infections in Argentina and Uruguay. We estimated susceptibility to commonly used antibiotics and assessed coverage following European and American recommendations. RESULTS: We analyzed 238 episodes of culture-positive spontaneous infections in 229 patients. When implementing the recommendations for empiric treatment of community-acquired spontaneous infections, ceftazidime would result in 39 % coverage, whereas ceftriaxone would reach 70 %. Cefepime, which is not included in the recommendations, would have provided coverage of 74 %. Using ertapenem for nosocomial infections would have only covered 56 % of these episodes, whereas meropenem or imipenem reached 73 % coverage. Only the combination of meropenem or imipenem plus vancomycin would achieve a coverage surpassing 85 % in healthcare-associated or nosocomial spontaneous bacterial infections. CONCLUSIONS: Our study uncovers inadequate coverage in specific clinical scenarios when adhering to recommendations, underscoring the necessity of guidelines based on local epidemiological data.

Are laboratory-based antibiograms reliable to guide the selection of empirical antimicrobial treatment in patients with hospital-acquired infections?

OBJECTIVES: Antibiograms are often taken into account to define a rational selection of an empirical antimicrobial therapy for treating patients with hospital-acquired infections. In this study, we performed a paired comparison between the antibiogram constructed with laboratory-based data and that formed with data subjected to prior clinical validation. METHODS: Between 2003 and 2005, the laboratory of microbiology printed in duplicate every individual susceptibility report corresponding to hospitalized patients and the copy was sent to the department of infection control. Every individual report was assessed in real time at the bedside of the patient by a multidisciplinary team for clinical significance and appropriateness of the specimen, as well as for the type, source and origin of the infection. Cumulative resistance rates were estimated in parallel at the laboratory with the whole data, and at the infection control department with data subjected to prior clinical validation. These rates were designated as 'laboratory-based' and 'clinically based', respectively. RESULTS: A total of 2305 individual susceptibility reports were assessed. Only 1429 (62.0%) were considered as clinically significant by the multidisciplinary team. Escherichia coli, Enterobacter cloacae, Citrobacter freundii group, Klebsiella species and Proteus mirabilis resistant to broad-spectrum cephalosporins, as well as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, were significantly more frequent in the clinically based rates (P < or = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory-based data underestimate the frequency of several major resistant organisms in patients with hospital-acquired infection. Previous clinical validation of the individual susceptibility reports seems to be a suitable strategy to get more reliable data.