Clinical comparison of ertapenem and cefepime for treatment of infections caused by AmpC beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae.

Lisa M Blanchette, Joseph L Kuti, David P Nicolau, Michael D Nailor
{"title":"Clinical comparison of ertapenem and cefepime for treatment of infections caused by AmpC beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae.","authors":"Lisa M Blanchette,&nbsp;Joseph L Kuti,&nbsp;David P Nicolau,&nbsp;Michael D Nailor","doi":"10.3109/00365548.2014.954262","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There are no comparative data evaluating outcomes of ertapenem treatment for infections with AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae. This retrospective matched case-control study was conducted between 2009 and 2012. Sixteen cases treated with ertapenem were matched 1:2 with 32 control cases treated with cefepime based on age, culture source, and hospital service. There were more cefepime-resistant organisms in the ertapenem group (cefepime resistance present in 44% of patients treated with ertapenem compared with 0% of control patients, p < 0.001). Ertapenem was used empirically in 25% of patients compared with 88% who received cefepime empirically (p < 0.001). Consequently, 56% of patients on ertapenem received inappropriate initial therapy compared with 9% of patients on cefepime (p < 0.001). No differences in clinical success were identified (69% for ertapenem vs 88% for cefepime, p = 0.138). Although a trend favoring cefepime could be suspected, it should be noted that no statistically significant difference in clinical success was detected despite the presence of more resistant organisms and delays in initiation of appropriate therapy among patients receiving ertapenem.</p>","PeriodicalId":21541,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3109/00365548.2014.954262","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3109/00365548.2014.954262","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2014/9/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

There are no comparative data evaluating outcomes of ertapenem treatment for infections with AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae. This retrospective matched case-control study was conducted between 2009 and 2012. Sixteen cases treated with ertapenem were matched 1:2 with 32 control cases treated with cefepime based on age, culture source, and hospital service. There were more cefepime-resistant organisms in the ertapenem group (cefepime resistance present in 44% of patients treated with ertapenem compared with 0% of control patients, p < 0.001). Ertapenem was used empirically in 25% of patients compared with 88% who received cefepime empirically (p < 0.001). Consequently, 56% of patients on ertapenem received inappropriate initial therapy compared with 9% of patients on cefepime (p < 0.001). No differences in clinical success were identified (69% for ertapenem vs 88% for cefepime, p = 0.138). Although a trend favoring cefepime could be suspected, it should be noted that no statistically significant difference in clinical success was detected despite the presence of more resistant organisms and delays in initiation of appropriate therapy among patients receiving ertapenem.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
厄他培南与头孢吡肟治疗产AmpC内酰胺酶肠杆菌科感染的临床比较。
尚无比较数据评估厄他培南治疗产ampc肠杆菌科感染的结果。本回顾性匹配病例对照研究于2009年至2012年进行。依他培南16例与头孢吡肟32例对照,按年龄、培养源、医院服务情况进行1:2匹配。厄他培南组有更多的头孢吡肟耐药菌(接受厄他培南治疗的患者中有44%对头孢吡肟耐药,对照组为0%,p < 0.001)。25%的患者经验性使用厄他培南,而88%的患者经验性使用头孢吡肟(p < 0.001)。因此,56%的厄他培南患者接受了不适当的初始治疗,而9%的头孢吡肟患者接受了不适当的初始治疗(p < 0.001)。临床成功率无差异(厄他培南为69%,头孢吡肟为88%,p = 0.138)。虽然可能怀疑有偏向头孢吡肟的趋势,但应该注意的是,尽管在接受厄他培南的患者中存在更多耐药菌和延迟开始适当治疗,但临床成功率没有统计学上的显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Performance of the Simplexa™ Flu A/B & RSV Direct Kit on respiratory samples collected in saline solution. Elevated levels of circulating histones indicate disease activity in patients with hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD). The decline of the impetigo epidemic caused by the epidemic European fusidic acid-resistant impetigo clone: an 11.5-year population-based incidence study from a community in Western Norway. Efficacy and safety of switching to raltegravir plus atazanavir dual therapy in pretreated HIV-1-infected patients over 144 weeks: a cohort study. Alternative diagnosis in the putative ventilator-associated pneumonia patient not meeting lavage-based diagnostic criteria.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1