Dataset Information

Evaluation of the INCREMENT-CPE, Pitt Bacteremia and qPitt Scores in Patients with Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Infections Treated with Ceftazidime-Avibactam.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictive performance of the INCREMENT-CPE (ICS), Pitt bacteremia score (PBS) and qPitt for mortality among patients treated with ceftazidime-avibactam for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections.

Methods

Retrospective, multicenter, cohort study of patients with CRE infections treated with ceftazidime-avibactam between 2015 and 2019. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Predictive performance was determined by assessing discrimination, calibration and precision.

Results

In total, 109 patients were included. Thirty-day mortality occurred in 18 (16.5%) patients. There were no significant differences in discrimination of the three scores [area under the curve (AUC) ICS 0.7039, 95% CI 0.5848-0.8230, PBS 0.6893, 95% CI 0.5709-0.8076, and qPitt 0.6847, 95% CI 0.5671-0.8023; P > 0.05 all pairwise comparisons]. All scores showed adequate calibration and precision. When dichotomized at the optimal cut-points of 11, 3, and 2 for the ICS, PBS, and qPitt, respectively, all scores had NPV > 90% at the expense of low PPV. Patients in the high-risk groups had a relative risk for mortality of 3.184 (95% CI 1.35-8.930), 3.068 (95% CI 1.094-8.606), and 2.850 (95% CI 1.016-7.994) for the dichotomized ICS, PBS, and qPitt, scores respectively. Treatment-related variables (early active antibiotic therapy, combination antibiotics and renal ceftazidime-avibactam dose adjustment) were not associated with mortality after controlling for the risk scores.

Conclusions

In patients treated with ceftazidime-avibactam for CRE infections, mortality risk scores demonstrated variable performance. Modifications to scoring systems to more accurately predict outcomes in the era of novel antibiotics are warranted.

SUBMITTER: Jorgensen SCJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7223509 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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.