Cefepime versus carbapenems for treatment of AmpC beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales bloodstream infections.

PURPOSE: Cefepime is recommended for treating infections caused by AmpC beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (AmpC-PE), though supporting evidence is limited. Therefore, this study compared outcomes associated with cefepime versus carbapenem therapy for bloodstream infections (BSIs) caused by AmpC-PE after phenotypic exclusion of ESBL-co-producing isolates. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compared definite cefepime versus carbapenem treatment for AmpC-PE BSI in hospitalized patients of the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, between 01/2015 and 07/2020. Primary outcomes included in-hospital death, renal impairment and neurologic adverse events; secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay and recurrent infection. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy episodes of AmpC-PE BSI were included, 162, 77 and 31 were treated with a carbapenem, cefepime and other antibiotics, respectively. Patients treated with carbapenems were more likely to be transferred to the ICU on admission and more frequently had central venous catheter as a source of infection. In uni- and multivariable analyses, primary and secondary outcomes did not differ between the two treatment groups, except for more frequent occurrence of neurological adverse events among patients treated with carbapenems and shorter length of hospital stay among survivors treated with cefepime. CONCLUSION: After excluding isolates with phenotypic ESBL-co-production, cefepime was not associated with adverse outcomes compared to carbapenems when used to treat BSIs caused by AmpC-PE. Our study provides evidence to support the use of cefepime as a safe treatment strategy for AmpC-PE BSI, particularly in clinically stable patients without initial renal impairment or increased susceptibility to neurological adverse events.

Efficacy of ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitors to treat extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales bacteremia secondary to urinary tract infection in kidney transplant recipients (INCREMENT-SOT Project).

BACKGROUND: Whether active therapy with ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitors (BLBLI) is as affective as carbapenems for extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E) bloodstream infection (BSI) secondary to urinary tract infection (UTI) in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) remains unclear. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 306 KTR admitted to 30 centers from January 2014 to October 2016. Therapeutic failure (lack of cure or clinical improvement and/or death from any cause) at days 7 and 30 from ESBL-E BSI onset was the primary and secondary study outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: Therapeutic failure at days 7 and 30 occurred in 8.2% (25/306) and 13.4% (41/306) of patients. Hospital-acquired BSI (adjusted OR [aOR]: 4.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50-11.20) and Pitt score (aOR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.21-1.77) were independently associated with therapeutic failure at day 7. Age-adjusted Charlson Index (aOR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.05-1.48), Pitt score (aOR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.35-2.17), and lymphocyte count ≤500 cells/µL at presentation (aOR: 3.16; 95% CI: 1.42-7.06) predicted therapeutic failure at day 30. Carbapenem monotherapy (68.6%, primarily meropenem) was the most frequent active therapy, followed by BLBLI monotherapy (10.8%, mostly piperacillin-tazobactam). Propensity score (PS)-adjusted models revealed no significant impact of the choice of active therapy (carbapenem-containing vs any other regimen, BLBLI- vs carbapenem-based monotherapy) within the first 72 hours on any of the study outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that active therapy based on BLBLI may be as effective as carbapenem-containing regimens for ESBL-E BSI secondary to UTI in the specific population of KTR. Potential residual confounding and unpowered sample size cannot be excluded (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02852902).

Ceftolozane/Tazobactam and Ceftazidime/Avibactam for Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Infections in Immunocompetent Patients: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

Complicated infections from multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) represent a serious problem presenting many challenges. Resistance to many classes of antibiotics reduces the probability of an adequate empirical treatment, with unfavorable consequences, increasing morbidity and mortality. Readily available patient medical history and updated information about the local microbiological epidemiology remain critical for defining the baseline risk of MDR-GNB infections and guiding empirical treatment choices, with the aim of avoiding both undertreatment and overtreatment. There are few literature data that report real-life experiences in the use of ceftolozane/tazobactam and ceftazidime/avibactam, with particular reference to microbiological cure. Some studies reported experiences for the treatment of MDR-GNB infections in patients with hematological malignancies or specifically in Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. We report our clinical single-center experience regarding the real-life use of ceftolozane/tazobactam and ceftazidime/avibactam to treat serious and complicated infections due to MDR-GNB and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), with particular regard given to intra-abdominal and urinary tract infections and sepsis.

Clinical Experience with Ceftazidime-Avibactam for the Treatment of Infections due to Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria Other than Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales.

BACKGROUND: Experience in real clinical practice with ceftazidime-avibactam for the treatment of serious infections due to gram-negative bacteria (GNB) other than carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) is very limited. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective multicenter study of patients hospitalized in 13 Italian hospitals who received ≤72 h of ceftazidime-avibactam for GNB other than CRE to assess the rates of clinical success, resistance development, and occurrence of adverse events. RESULTS: Ceftazidime-avibactam was used to treat 41 patients with GNB infections other than CRE. Median age was 62 years and 68% of them were male. The main causative agents were P.aeruginosa (33/41; 80.5%) and extended spectrum beta lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacterales (4/41, 9.8%). Four patients had polymicrobial infections. All strains were susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam. The most common primary infection was nosocomial pneumonia (n = 20; 48.8%), primary bacteremia (n = 7; 17.1%), intra-abdominal infection (n = 4; 9.8%), and bone infection (n = 4; 9.8%). Ceftazidime-avibactam was mainly administered as a combination treatment (n = 33; 80.5%) and the median length of therapy was 13 days. Clinical success at the end of the follow-up period was 90.5%, and the only risk factor for treatment failure at multivariate analysis was receiving continuous renal replacement therapy during ceftazidime-avibactam. There was no association between clinical failures and type of primary infection, microbiological isolates, and monotherapy with ceftazidime-avibactam. Only one patient experienced recurrent infection 5 days after the end of treatment. Development of resistance to ceftazidime-avibactam was not detected in any case during the whole follow-up period. No adverse events related to ceftazidime-avibactam were observed in the study population. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftazidime-avibactam may be a valuable therapeutic option for serious infections due to GNB other than CRE.

Cefoxitin-based antibiotic therapy for extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae prostatitis: a prospective pilot study.

The emergence of extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-E) infections requires re-assessment of therapeutic choices. Here we report the efficacy of cefoxitin-based antibiotic therapy for ESBL-E prostatitis. A prospective study including patients with ESBL-E prostatitis resistant to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and fluoroquinolones from January 2014 to March 2016 was conducted. Cefoxitin was administered by continuous infusion for 3 weeks in the case of acute bacterial prostatitis or 6 weeks in the case of chronic bacterial prostatitis (CBP), with intravenous fosfomycin for the first 5 days. Urological investigations were performed to diagnose underlying urinary tract pathology. Clinical and microbiological efficacy were evaluated 3 months (M3) and 6 months (M6) after the end of therapy. A total of 23 patients were included in the study. The median patient age was 74 years (range 48-88 years). Of the 23 infections, 14 (61%) were CBP and 12 (52%) were healthcare-associated infections. The bacteria involved were Escherichia coli in 11 cases, Klebsiella pneumoniae in 10 cases and Klebsiella oxytoca in 2 cases. Clinical cure was observed in 19/23 patients (83%) at M3 and in 17/22 patients (77%) at M6. Urocultures were sterile in 13/23 patients (57%) at M3 and in 9/19 patients (47%) and M6. Urinary colonisation was observed in 6/19 patients (32%) with clinical cure at M3 and 5/14 patients (36%) with clinical cure at M6. No resistance to cefoxitin was detected. Surgical treatment was required for 7/23 patients (30%). In conclusion, cefoxitin-based antibiotic therapy is suitable for difficult-to-treat ESBL-E infections such as prostatitis.