Background: Cefoxitin has shown in vitro activity against Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase (ESBL) producing Enterobacterales. Outcome data regarding cefoxitin as a carbapenem sparing agent in the management of urinary tract infections (UTI) are scarce. We sought to evaluate the clinical and microbiologic efficacy of cefoxitin as compared to ertapenem. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted at our quaternary care institution between May 2015 and March 2019. We identified all patients who received cefoxitin for the treatment of UTI during the study period and used Charlson Comorbidity Index to select a matching cohort from patients who received ertapenem. Primary end points were clinical and microbiological cure. Results: Thirty patients who received cefoxitin were matched with 55 patients who received ertapenem. Clinical cure was marginally in favor of ertapenem: 83.2% in cefoxitin group versus 96.8% in ertapenem group (P = .042). However, 90-day recurrence was in favor of cefoxitin: 13.5% in cefoxitin group versus 34.8% in ertapenem group (P = .045). Microbiologic cure was not significant between the 2 groups with 88.6% success in cefoxitin versus 100% in ertapenem. Additionally, the group difference on 30-day recurrence or relapse rates and the 90-day mortality rate were not clinically significant. Conclusion: Cefoxitin achieved similar microbiologic cure rate when compared to ertapenem for the treatment of UTI caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacterales. No significant differences were found in 30-day recurrence/relapse or mortality rates. Larger randomized controlled trials are required to identify the clinical sittings in which cefoxitin could be used as a carbapenem-sparing agent in the treatment of UTI.
Background: Cefoxitin has shown in vitro activity against Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase (ESBL) producing Enterobacterales. Outcome data regarding cefoxitin as a carbapenem sparing agent in the management of urinary tract infections (UTI) are scarce. We sought to evaluate the clinical and microbiologic efficacy of cefoxitin as compared to ertapenem. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted at our quaternary care institution between May 2015 and March 2019. We identified all patients who received cefoxitin for the treatment of UTI during the study period and used Charlson Comorbidity Index to select a matching cohort from patients who received ertapenem. Primary end points were clinical and microbiological cure. Results: Thirty patients who received cefoxitin were matched with 55 patients who received ertapenem. Clinical cure was marginally in favor of ertapenem: 83.2% in cefoxitin group versus 96.8% in ertapenem group (P = .042). However, 90-day recurrence was in favor of cefoxitin: 13.5% in cefoxitin group versus 34.8% in ertapenem group (P = .045). Microbiologic cure was not significant between the 2 groups with 88.6% success in cefoxitin versus 100% in ertapenem. Additionally, the group difference on 30-day recurrence or relapse rates and the 90-day mortality rate were not clinically significant. Conclusion: Cefoxitin achieved similar microbiologic cure rate when compared to ertapenem for the treatment of UTI caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacterales. No significant differences were found in 30-day recurrence/relapse or mortality rates. Larger randomized controlled trials are required to identify the clinical sittings in which cefoxitin could be used as a carbapenem-sparing agent in the treatment of UTI.
Authors: Pranita D Tamma; Samuel L Aitken; Robert A Bonomo; Amy J Mathers; David van Duin; Cornelius J Clancy Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 20.999
Authors: David L Paterson; Wen-Chien Ko; Anne Von Gottberg; Sunita Mohapatra; Jose Maria Casellas; Herman Goossens; Lutfiye Mulazimoglu; Gordon Trenholme; Keith P Klugman; Robert A Bonomo; Louis B Rice; Marilyn M Wagener; Joseph G McCormack; Victor L Yu Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2004-06-08 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: A Mambie; F Vuotto; D Poitrenaud; P Weyrich; O Cannesson; R Dessein; K Faure; B Guery; T Galpérine Journal: Med Mal Infect Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 2.152