Impact of ceftazidime/avibactam versus best available therapy on mortality from infections caused by carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CAVICOR study).

BACKGROUND: Infections caused by carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) are not well represented in pivotal trials with ceftazidime/avibactam. The best strategy for the treatment of these infections is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre retrospective observational study of patients who received ≥48 h of ceftazidime/avibactam or best available therapy (BAT) for documented CPE infections. The primary outcome was 30 day crude mortality. Secondary outcomes were 21 day clinical response and microbiological response. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to identify factors predictive of 30 day crude mortality. A propensity score to receive treatment with ceftazidime/avibactam was used as a covariate in the analysis. RESULTS: The cohort included 339 patients with CPE infections. Ceftazidime/avibactam treatment was used in 189 (55.8%) patients and 150 (44.2%) received BAT at a median of 2 days after diagnosis of infection. In multivariate analysis, ceftazidime/avibactam treatment was associated with survival (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.20-0.80; P = 0.01), whereas INCREMENT-CPE scores of >7 points (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.18-1.5.58; P = 0.01) and SOFA score (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08-1.34; P = 0.001) were associated with higher mortality. In patients with INCREMENT-CPE scores of >7 points, ceftazidime/avibactam treatment was associated with lower mortality compared with BAT (16/73, 21.9% versus 23/49, 46.9%; P = 0.004). Ceftazidime/avibactam was also an independent factor of 21 day clinical response (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.16-5.12; P = 0.02) and microbiological eradication (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18-0.85; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Ceftazidime/avibactam is an effective alternative for the treatment of CPE infections, especially in patients with INCREMENT-CPE scores of >7 points. A randomized controlled trial should confirm these findings.

Impact of ertapenem use on Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii imipenem susceptibility rates: collateral damage or positive effect on hospital ecology?

BACKGROUND: Conflicting evidence has been reported on the impact of ertapenem use on the susceptibility of Pseudomonas spp. to group 2 carbapenems. No extensive data for Acinetobacter baumannii are currently available. METHODS: A retrospective time-series segmented regression analysis was conducted in a tertiary centre from January 2001 to December 2011. Ertapenem was introduced in January 2005. Antimicrobial drug use was defined as the number of defined daily doses/100 patient-days (DDDs/100 PDs). Susceptibility (CLSI) was measured in terms of proportion and incidence density. RESULTS: Mean monthly use of imipenem was 2.9 ±â€Š0.9 DDDs/100 PDs, as compared with 1.2 ±â€Š0.7 DDDs/100 PDs for meropenem and 1.0 ±â€Š0.7 DDDs/100 PDs for ertapenem (after its introduction). After ertapenem adoption, a downward trend was seen in the use of imipenem (P = 0.016) and ciprofloxacin (P = 0.004). A total of 6272 Pseudomonas aeruginosa and 1093 A. baumannii isolates were evaluated. Susceptibility of P. aeruginosa to imipenem improved after ertapenem introduction, both according to the proportion of susceptible isolates (P = 0.002) and to the incidence density of resistance (P ≤ 0.001). No significant change was seen in A. baumannii susceptibility to imipenem (P = 0.772). By multiple linear regression analysis, the incidence density of imipenem-resistant P. aeruginosa increased with the use of imipenem (P = 0.003) and ciprofloxacin (P = 0.008). Occurrence of outbreaks (P ≤ 0.001) and use of gentamicin (P = 0.007) were associated with A. baumannii resistance to imipenem. CONCLUSIONS: Use of ertapenem was directly associated with a downward trend in the use of imipenem and ciprofloxacin, which may have contributed to improve the susceptibility of P. aeruginosa to imipenem. Ertapenem use had no impact on the susceptibility of A. baumannii to imipenem.