Oral ß-lactams vs fluoroquinolones and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole for step-down therapy for Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, and Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia.

PURPOSE: To compare rates of treatment failure for patients with bloodstream infections (BSIs) due to Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, or Proteus mirabilis who received oral step-down antibiotic therapy with either a fluoroquinolone (FQ) or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (SXT) to rates for those who received an oral ß-lactam (BL). METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter, cohort study included 397 unique adult hospitalized patients with a BSI due to E. coli, K. pneumoniae, or P. mirabilis at 6 hospitals in central Texas between July 11, 2016, and July 11, 2018. The primary outcome was a composite of treatment failure comprising 30-day readmission due to recurrence, 30-day all-cause mortality, and change in oral antibiotic. Secondary outcomes included 90-day development of Clostridioides difficile infection, 90-day colonization with a multidrug-resistant organism, 90-day all-cause readmission, hospital length of stay, and the individual components of the primary outcome. RESULTS: Of the 397 patients included, 200 received oral step-down therapy with a BL while 197 received an FQ or SXT. Most patients had an infection due to E. coli (82.8%) and a urinary source of infection (85%). Median total duration of therapy was 14 days in both groups. No difference in treatment failure was identified between the groups treated with a BL and FQ/SXT (7% vs 5.8%, P = 0.561). Median hospital length of stay was the only secondary endpoint in which there was an observed difference (6 vs 5 days, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: We observed no difference in treatment failure rates for patients receiving an oral BL compared to an oral FQ or SXT for step-down therapy of BSIs due to E. coli, K. pneumoniae, and P. mirabilis.

Cefepime Versus Piperacillin-Tazobactam for the Treatment of Intra-Abdominal Infections Secondary to Potential AmpC Beta-Lactamase-Producing Organisms.

Background: Recent studies have established cefepime as an effective treatment option for AmpC beta-lactamase (AmpC) Enterobacterales; however, the efficacy of beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitors is unclear. Objective: The objective of this study was to determine if piperacillintazobactamis an appropriate alternative to cefepime for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) secondary to AmpC-producing organisms. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted in hospitalized adults with an IAI caused by an AmpC-producing organism and received either cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam for definitive treatment after a source control procedure. The primary outcome was a composite of surgical site infections, recurrent IAIs, or in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the composite outcome, hospital length of stay (LOS), microbiologic failure, study antibiotic duration, time to clinical resolution, and incidence of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). Results: This study included 119 patients. There was no difference in the primary outcome between the cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam groups (35% vs 27%, P = 0.14). Microbiological failure was the only secondary outcome with an observed difference between groups (17% vs 0%, P = 0.01): hospital LOS (15 vs 13 days, P = 0.09), days of therapy (7 vs 7 days, P = 0.87), time to clinical resolution (7 vs 4 days, P = 0.30), and CDI (1% vs 2%, P = 0.58) were all similar.

A Comparison of Outcomes With and Without Infectious Diseases Consultation for Enterococcal Bacteraemia in a Multicenter Healthcare System.

INTRODUCTION: It is unknown whether infectious diseases consultation improves outcomes for enterococcal bacteraemia in a multicentre healthcare system. METHODS: This retrospective multicentre observational cohort study included 250 adult patients with enterococcal bacteraemia between July 2016 and December 2020. The primary endpoint was a composite of clinical failure, including persistent bacteraemia, persistent fever, and in-hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints included adherence to a treatment bundle (appropriate empiric and definitive antibiotics, appropriate planned treatment duration, obtaining repeat blood cultures and an echocardiogram). RESULTS: Clinical failure occurred in 35 of 155 patients (22.6%) with an infectious diseases consultation and 16 of 95 patients (16.8%) without an infectious diseases consultation (P = 0.274). Multivariate analysis identified vasopressors as the only independent predictor of the primary outcome. Infectious diseases consultation resulted in higher adherence to a treatment bundle, including echocardiogram (75.5% vs. 34.7%; P < 0.0001), repeat blood cultures (85.2% vs. 68.4%; P = 0.002), appropriate definitive antibiotics (70.5% vs. 91.6%; P < 0.0001) and appropriate planned durations of therapy (81.1% vs. 94.2%; P = 0.001). More patients in the consult group were treated with ampicillin (47.1% vs. 22.1%; P < 0.0001) and fewer were treated with vancomycin (17.4% vs. 24.2%; P = 0.068). CONCLUSION: Despite finding no difference in clinical failure between groups, this study highlights important benefits of infectious diseases consultation in enterococcal bacteraemia.

Effect of a Health Care System Respiratory Fluoroquinolone Restriction Program To Alter Utilization and Impact Rates of Clostridium difficile Infection.

Fluoroquinolones are one of the most commonly prescribed antibiotic classes in the United States despite their association with adverse consequences, including Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). We sought to evaluate the impact of a health care system antimicrobial stewardship-initiated respiratory fluoroquinolone restriction program on utilization, appropriateness of quinolone-based therapy based on institutional guidelines, and CDI rates. After implementation, respiratory fluoroquinolone utilization decreased from a monthly mean and standard deviation (SD) of 41.0 (SD = 4.4) days of therapy (DOT) per 1,000 patient days (PD) preintervention to 21.5 (SD = 6.4) DOT/1,000 PD and 4.8 (SD = 3.6) DOT/1,000 PD posteducation and postrestriction, respectively. Using segmented regression analysis, both education (14.5 DOT/1,000 PD per month decrease; P = 0.023) and restriction (24.5 DOT/1,000 PD per month decrease; P < 0.0001) were associated with decreased utilization. In addition, the CDI rates decreased significantly (P = 0.044) from preintervention using education (3.43 cases/10,000 PD) and restriction (2.2 cases/10,000 PD). Mean monthly CDI cases/10,000 PD decreased from 4.0 (SD = 2.1) preintervention to 2.2 (SD = 1.35) postrestriction. A significant increase in appropriate respiratory fluoroquinolone use occurred postrestriction versus preintervention in patients administered at least one dose (74/130 [57%] versus 74/232 [32%]; P < 0.001), as well as in those receiving two or more doses (47/65 [72%] versus 67/191 [35%]; P < 0.001). A significant reduction in the annual acquisition cost of moxifloxacin, the formulary respiratory fluoroquinolone, was observed postrestriction compared to preintervention within the health care system ($123,882 versus $12,273; P = 0.002). Implementation of a stewardship-initiated respiratory fluoroquinolone restriction program can increase appropriate use while reducing overall utilization, acquisition cost, and CDI rates within a health care system.

Are first-generation cephalosporins obsolete? A retrospective, non-inferiority, cohort study comparing empirical therapy with cefazolin versus ceftriaxone for acute pyelonephritis in hospitalized patients.

OBJECTIVES: Literature is lacking regarding the utilization of first-generation cephalosporins for the treatment of acute pyelonephritis. The aim of this study was to determine whether cefazolin is non-inferior to ceftriaxone for the empirical treatment of acute pyelonephritis in hospitalized patients. The primary outcome included a composite of symptomatic resolution plus either defervescence at 72 h or normalization of serum white blood cell count at 72 h (non-inferiority margin 15%). Secondary outcomes included length of stay and 30 day readmission. A subgroup analysis of the composite outcome was also conducted for imaging-confirmed pyelonephritis. METHODS: This was a retrospective, non-inferiority, multicentre, cohort study comparing cefazolin versus ceftriaxone for the empirical treatment of acute pyelonephritis in hospitalized patients. RESULTS: Overall, 184 patients received one of the two treatments between July 2009 and March 2015. The composite outcome was achieved in 80/92 (87.0%) in the cefazolin group versus 79/92 (85.9%) in the ceftriaxone group (absolute difference 1.1%, 95% CI -11.1% to 8.9%, P = 0.83), meeting the pre-defined criteria for non-inferiority. The composite outcome for patients with imaging-confirmed pyelonephritis was achieved in 46/56 (82.1%) versus 42/50 (84.0%) for the cefazolin group and the ceftriaxone group, respectively (absolute difference 1.9%, 95% CI -12.8% to 16.5%, P = 0.80). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in length of stay or 30 day readmission for cystitis or pyelonephritis. CONCLUSIONS: Cefazolin was non-inferior to ceftriaxone with regard to clinical response for the treatment of hospitalized patients with acute pyelonephritis in this study. No difference was observed for length of stay or 30 day readmission.