Dataset Information

Antimicrobial Resistance or Delayed Appropriate Therapy-Does One Influence Outcomes More Than the Other Among Patients With Serious Infections Due to Carbapenem-Resistant Versus Carbapenem-Susceptible Enterobacteriaceae?

ABSTRACT: Background:The relative contribution of antimicrobial resistance versus delayed appropriate treatment to the clinical and economic burden of Enterobacteriaceae infections is not well understood. Methods:Using a large US hospital database, we identified all admissions between July 2011 and September 2014 with evidence of serious Enterobacteriaceae infection. The "index date" was the earliest date on which a culture positive for Enterobacteriaceae was drawn. Infections were classified as carbapenem-resistant (CRE) or carbapenem-susceptible (CSE). Receipt of antimicrobials with activity against all index pathogens on the index date or ?2 days thereafter was deemed as "timely"; all other instances were "delayed." Associations between CRE status and delayed appropriate therapy on outcomes were estimated using inverse probability weighting and multivariate regression models (ie, logistic model for discharge destination and composite mortality [in-hospital death or discharge to hospice] or generalized linear model for duration of antibiotic therapy, hospital length of stay [LOS], and costs). Results:A total of 50 069 patients met selection criteria; 514 patients (1.0%) had CRE. Overall, 67.5% of CSE patients (vs 44.6%, CRE) received timely appropriate therapy (P < .01). Irrespective of CRE status, patients who received delayed appropriate therapy had longer durations of antibiotic therapy and LOS, higher costs, lower likelihood of discharge to home, and greater likelihood of the composite mortality outcome (P for trend < .01). Conclusions:Delayed appropriate therapy is a more important driver of outcomes than CRE, although the 2 factors are somewhat synergistic. Better methods of early CRE identification may improve outcomes in this patient population.

SUBMITTER: Lodise TP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6546203 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Antimicrobial Resistance or Delayed Appropriate Therapy-Does One Influence Outcomes More Than the Other Among Patients With Serious Infections Due to Carbapenem-Resistant Versus Carbapenem-Susceptible Enterobacteriaceae?

Lodise Thomas P TP Berger Ariel A Altincatal Arman A Wang Rosa R Bhagnani Tarun T Gillard Patrick P Bonine Nicole G NG

Open forum infectious diseases 20190423 6

<h4>Background</h4>The relative contribution of antimicrobial resistance versus delayed appropriate treatment to the clinical and economic burden of Enterobacteriaceae infections is not well understood.<h4>Methods</h4>Using a large US hospital database, we identified all admissions between July 2011 and September 2014 with evidence of serious Enterobacteriaceae infection. The "index date" was the earliest date on which a culture positive for Enterobacteriaceae was drawn. Infections were classifi ...[more]

PMID: 31198817

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:The efficacy of ceftazidime-avibactam-a cephalosporin-?-lactamase inhibitor combination with in vitro activity against Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE)-compared with colistin remains unknown. Methods:Patients initially treated with either ceftazidime-avibactam or colistin for CRE infections were selected from the Consortium on Resistance Against Carbapenems in Klebsiella and other Enterobacteriaceae (CRACKLE), a prospective, multicenter, observational study. Efficacy, safety, and benefit-risk analyses were performed using intent-to-treat analyses with partial credit and the desirability of outcome ranking approaches. The ordinal efficacy outcome was based on disposition at day 30 after starting treatment (home vs not home but not observed to die in the hospital vs hospital death). All analyses were adjusted for confounding using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Results:Thirty-eight patients were treated first with ceftazidime-avibactam and 99 with colistin. Most patients received additional anti-CRE agents as part of their treatment. Bloodstream (n = 63; 46%) and respiratory (n = 30; 22%) infections were most common. In patients treated with ceftazidime-avibactam versus colistin, IPTW-adjusted all-cause hospital mortality 30 days after starting treatment was 9% versus 32%, respectively (difference, 23%; 95% bootstrap confidence interval, 9%-35%; P = .001). In an analysis of disposition at 30 days, patients treated with ceftazidime-avibactam, compared with those treated within colistin, had an IPTW-adjusted probability of a better outcome of 64% (95% confidence interval, 57%-71%). Partial credit analyses indicated uniform superiority of ceftazidime-avibactam to colistin. Conclusions:Ceftazidime-avibactam may be a reasonable alternative to colistin in the treatment of K. pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing CRE infections. These findings require confirmation in a randomized controlled trial.

Project description:Abstract Background Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae with a piperacillin-tazobactam–nonsusceptible/ceftriaxone-susceptible (TZP-NS/CRO-S) phenotype have been increasingly identified, with limited available literature evaluating treatment strategies. Methods This was a retrospective study of noncritically ill adults hospitalized between 2013 and 2021 and treated at least 48 hours for TZP-NS/CRO-S E coli or K pneumoniae infections. The primary composite endpoint included escalation to intensive care unit, infection- or treatment-related readmission, mortality, and infection recurrence. Outcomes were compared between groups who received carbapenem (CG) versus carbapenem-sparing agents (CSG) as targeted gram-negative therapy. Results Of 1062 patients screened, 200 were included (CG, n = 51; CSG, n = 149). Baseline characteristics, including Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI; median [interquartile range], 6 [3–9] vs 6 [4–9]; P = .704), were similar between groups, except for more immunocompromised CG patients (29% vs 11%, P = .001). The most common infection sources were urinary (31% vs 57%, P = .002) and bloodstream (18% vs 17%, P = .887). Eighty-eight percent of the CG received meropenem, while 58% of the CSG received ceftriaxone as targeted therapy. There was no statistical difference in the primary endpoint between overall groups (27% vs 17%, P = .123), nor when stratified by infection source. More patients in the CSG switched to oral therapy (15 [29%] vs 100 [67%], P < .001). In multivariate analysis, CCI was an independent predictor of the primary outcome (odds ratio [OR], 1.199 [95% confidence interval, 1.074–1.340]; P = .001), while treatment with carbapenem-sparing therapy was not. Conclusions Our study did not find improved clinical outcomes with targeted carbapenem therapy for TZP-NS/CRO-S infections. Carbapenem-sparing agents may be considered to spare carbapenems in noncritically ill patients similar to those included in our cohort. Piperacillin-tazobactam–nonsusceptible/ceftriaxone-susceptible Enterobacterales have been increasingly identified in the New York metropolitan area. In noncritically ill patients with uncomplicated infections of this phenotype, carbapenem-sparing agents, including third-generation cephalosporins, may be considered.

Dataset Information

Antimicrobial Resistance or Delayed Appropriate Therapy-Does One Influence Outcomes More Than the Other Among Patients With Serious Infections Due to Carbapenem-Resistant Versus Carbapenem-Susceptible Enterobacteriaceae?

Publications

Antimicrobial Resistance or Delayed Appropriate Therapy-Does One Influence Outcomes More Than the Other Among Patients With Serious Infections Due to Carbapenem-Resistant Versus Carbapenem-Susceptible Enterobacteriaceae?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets