Reese A Cosimi1, Zachary W Howe2, Lindsay M Saum1,3. 1. Ascension - St. Vincent Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 2. Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, USA. 3. Butler University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Abstract
Background: Pharmacodynamic models support potential improved antimicrobial pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic goal attainment in patients treated with extended-infusion (EI) versus intermittent-infusion (II) cefepime. Small clinical studies demonstrate inconsistent findings in patient outcomes, necessitating a deeper review of this administration method. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing patients receiving EI versus II cefepime between September 1, 2017, and March 31, 2018. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality. Secondary objectives included length of hospital and ICU stay, time to defervescence, duration of therapy, duration of mechanical ventilation, and readmission rate. Subgroup analyses for the primary objective were conducted based on comorbid burden and isolate susceptibilities. Results: No statistically significant differences were noted in the 645 included patients for the primary outcome between the EI and II groups (7.8% vs 10.4%, P = .32). Median length of stay was 9 days (IQR 12) versus 11 days (IQR 14) (P = .30), respectively. In addition, statistical significance was not seen in any of the subgroups for the primary outcome including patients with APACHE II score ≥ 20 (17.4% vs 30.6%, P = .26) and for infections caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (5.9% vs 20.0%, P = .23) or Enterobacteriaceae (11.1% vs 20.0%, P = .13) with minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ≥ 4. Conclusion: No statistically significant differences were noted between EI and II groups, although benefits in specific subpopulations may exist when these results are correlated with findings from studies examining alternative antipseudomonal beta lactams.
Background: Pharmacodynamic models support potential improved antimicrobial pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic goal attainment in patients treated with extended-infusion (EI) versus intermittent-infusion (II) cefepime. Small clinical studies demonstrate inconsistent findings in patient outcomes, necessitating a deeper review of this administration method. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing patients receiving EI versus II cefepime between September 1, 2017, and March 31, 2018. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality. Secondary objectives included length of hospital and ICU stay, time to defervescence, duration of therapy, duration of mechanical ventilation, and readmission rate. Subgroup analyses for the primary objective were conducted based on comorbid burden and isolate susceptibilities. Results: No statistically significant differences were noted in the 645 included patients for the primary outcome between the EI and II groups (7.8% vs 10.4%, P = .32). Median length of stay was 9 days (IQR 12) versus 11 days (IQR 14) (P = .30), respectively. In addition, statistical significance was not seen in any of the subgroups for the primary outcome including patients with APACHE II score ≥ 20 (17.4% vs 30.6%, P = .26) and for infections caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (5.9% vs 20.0%, P = .23) or Enterobacteriaceae (11.1% vs 20.0%, P = .13) with minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ≥ 4. Conclusion: No statistically significant differences were noted between EI and II groups, although benefits in specific subpopulations may exist when these results are correlated with findings from studies examining alternative antipseudomonal beta lactams.
Authors: R Brigg Turner; Douglas Slain; Karen Petros; Lisa A Keller; Arif R Sarwari Journal: Int J Antimicrob Agents Date: 2015-04-27 Impact factor: 5.283
Authors: Mohd H Abdul-Aziz; Helmi Sulaiman; Mohd-Basri Mat-Nor; Vineya Rai; Kang K Wong; Mohd S Hasan; Azrin N Abd Rahman; Janattul A Jamal; Steven C Wallis; Jeffrey Lipman; Christine E Staatz; Jason A Roberts Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Rebekah H Wrenn; David Cluck; LeAnne Kennedy; Christopher Ohl; John C Williamson Journal: J Oncol Pharm Pract Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 1.809
Authors: Mohd H Abdul-Aziz; Jeffrey Lipman; Murat Akova; Matteo Bassetti; Jan J De Waele; George Dimopoulos; Joel Dulhunty; Kirsi-Maija Kaukonen; Despoina Koulenti; Claude Martin; Philippe Montravers; Jordi Rello; Andrew Rhodes; Therese Starr; Steven C Wallis; Jason A Roberts Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2015-10-03 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Helio S Sader; Mariana Castanheira; Leonard R Duncan; Robert K Flamm Journal: Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 2.803
Authors: Rebecca H Sunenshine; Marc-Oliver Wright; Lisa L Maragakis; Anthony D Harris; Xiaoyan Song; Joan Hebden; Sara E Cosgrove; Ashley Anderson; Jennifer Carnell; Daniel B Jernigan; David G Kleinbaum; Trish M Perl; Harold C Standiford; Arjun Srinivasan Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 6.883