Piperacillin/tazobactam vs. cefepime or carbapenems for the treatment of bloodstream infections due to bacteria producing chromosomal AmpC beta-lactamase: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lorenzo Onorato, Ilaria de Luca, Annabella Salvati, Caterina Monari, Nicola Coppola
{"title":"Piperacillin/tazobactam vs. cefepime or carbapenems for the treatment of bloodstream infections due to bacteria producing chromosomal AmpC beta-lactamase: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Lorenzo Onorato, Ilaria de Luca, Annabella Salvati, Caterina Monari, Nicola Coppola","doi":"10.1007/s15010-024-02447-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The best treatment for bloodstream infections (BSI) due to chromosomal AmpC (c-AmpC) producing Enterobacterales is not clearly defined.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To describe the clinical and microbiological outcomes of patients treated with piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime or carbapenems for bloodstream infections (BSIs) due to c-AmpC beta-lactamase-producing strains.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE to screen original reports published up to January 2024.</p><p><strong>Study eligibility criteria: </strong>RCTs and observational studies investigating all-cause mortality, clinical failure, microbiological failure or rate of ADRs of patients treated with piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime or carbapenems.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Patients with bloodstream infections due to c-AmpC producing bacteria.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime or carbapenems as targeted treatment.</p><p><strong>Assessment of risk of bias: </strong>We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs, and the Newcastle Ottawa scale for observational studies.</p><p><strong>Methods of data synthesis: </strong>We conducted a meta-analysis pooling Risk ratios (RRs) through random effect models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We screened 1,720 original reports, and 20 studies (1 RCTs, 1 case-control study, 18 cohort studies) were included in the analysis, for a total of 2,834 patients. When comparing piperacillin/tazobactam with alternative treatments (cefepime or carbapenems), no significant difference in mortality rate was observed between the treatment groups (RR: 1.1; 95% CI: 0.76-1.58, p = 0.61), while an higher rate of microbiological failure (RR: 1.80; 95% CI: 1.15-2.82, p = 0.01) and clinical failure (RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.00-2.40, p = 0.05) was observed among patients receiving piperacillin/tazobactam. No difference was observed in microbiological and clinical failure rate among patients treated with cefepime or carbapenems, with a lower mortality rate in those receiving cefepime (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.59-0.94, p = 0.014).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Cefepime represents an excellent alternative to carbapenems for BSI due to AmpC-producing strains, whereas piperacillin/tazobactam is associated with a higher rate of clinical and microbiological failure. There is an urgent need for randomized clinical trials that aim to define the best carbapenem-sparing strategy in these infections.</p>","PeriodicalId":13600,"journal":{"name":"Infection","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-024-02447-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The best treatment for bloodstream infections (BSI) due to chromosomal AmpC (c-AmpC) producing Enterobacterales is not clearly defined.
Objectives: To describe the clinical and microbiological outcomes of patients treated with piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime or carbapenems for bloodstream infections (BSIs) due to c-AmpC beta-lactamase-producing strains.
Data sources: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE to screen original reports published up to January 2024.
Study eligibility criteria: RCTs and observational studies investigating all-cause mortality, clinical failure, microbiological failure or rate of ADRs of patients treated with piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime or carbapenems.
Participants: Patients with bloodstream infections due to c-AmpC producing bacteria.
Interventions: Piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime or carbapenems as targeted treatment.
Assessment of risk of bias: We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs, and the Newcastle Ottawa scale for observational studies.
Methods of data synthesis: We conducted a meta-analysis pooling Risk ratios (RRs) through random effect models.
Results: We screened 1,720 original reports, and 20 studies (1 RCTs, 1 case-control study, 18 cohort studies) were included in the analysis, for a total of 2,834 patients. When comparing piperacillin/tazobactam with alternative treatments (cefepime or carbapenems), no significant difference in mortality rate was observed between the treatment groups (RR: 1.1; 95% CI: 0.76-1.58, p = 0.61), while an higher rate of microbiological failure (RR: 1.80; 95% CI: 1.15-2.82, p = 0.01) and clinical failure (RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.00-2.40, p = 0.05) was observed among patients receiving piperacillin/tazobactam. No difference was observed in microbiological and clinical failure rate among patients treated with cefepime or carbapenems, with a lower mortality rate in those receiving cefepime (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.59-0.94, p = 0.014).
Conclusions: Cefepime represents an excellent alternative to carbapenems for BSI due to AmpC-producing strains, whereas piperacillin/tazobactam is associated with a higher rate of clinical and microbiological failure. There is an urgent need for randomized clinical trials that aim to define the best carbapenem-sparing strategy in these infections.
期刊介绍：
Infection is a journal dedicated to serving as a global forum for the presentation and discussion of clinically relevant information on infectious diseases. Its primary goal is to engage readers and contributors from various regions around the world in the exchange of knowledge about the etiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of infectious diseases, both in outpatient and inpatient settings.
The journal covers a wide range of topics, including:
Etiology: The study of the causes of infectious diseases.
Pathogenesis: The process by which an infectious agent causes disease.
Diagnosis: The methods and techniques used to identify infectious diseases.
Treatment: The medical interventions and strategies employed to treat infectious diseases.
Public Health: Issues of local, regional, or international significance related to infectious diseases, including prevention, control, and management strategies.
Hospital Epidemiology: The study of the spread of infectious diseases within healthcare settings and the measures to prevent nosocomial infections.
In addition to these, Infection also includes a specialized "Images" section, which focuses on high-quality visual content, such as images, photographs, and microscopic slides, accompanied by brief abstracts. This section is designed to highlight the clinical and diagnostic value of visual aids in the field of infectious diseases, as many conditions present with characteristic clinical signs that can be diagnosed through inspection, and imaging and microscopy are crucial for accurate diagnosis. The journal's comprehensive approach ensures that it remains a valuable resource for healthcare professionals and researchers in the field of infectious diseases.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
