RESUMO
Background: Extended infusion cefepime (1 gram every 6 hours administered over 3 hours) achieves pharmacodynamic efficacy against bacteria with a MIC of ≤8 mg/L in Monte Carlo simulations. This regimen has not been evaluated in clinical practice. Objective: Compare clinical and economic outcomes for cefepime by intermittent infusion and by extended infusion in the acute-care setting. Design: Single-center, retrospective cohort study. Setting: Tertiary-care academic medical center. Patients: Hospitalized adults who received cefepime between August 2016 and July 2018 with a diagnosis of sepsis or pneumonia. Methods: Clinical and economic outcomes were compared for patients who received empiric cefepime via intermittent infusion (30-minute infusion of 2 g every 8 hours) or extended infusion (3-hour infusion of 1 g every 6 hours). Clinical outcomes analyses were carried out using appropriate statistical methods. Results: Overall, 111 patients received intermittent infusion and 93 patients received extended infusion. Approximately half of the included patients had a positive culture for a bacterial pathogen (intermittent infusion 45.9% vs extended infusion 47.3%). Median hospital length of stay (intermittent infusion 6 days vs extended infusion 6 days; P = .67) and 90-day readmission rates (intermittent infusion 61.3% vs extended infusion 67.7%; P = .34) did not differ between the groups. Mortality was infrequent in both groups (intermittent infusion 2.9% vs extended infusion 1.5%; P = .45). Cefepime cost per patient was lower with cefepime by extended infusion: average total daily cost $86.06 for intermittent infusion versus $43.39 for extended infusion. Conclusions: Cefepime via extended infusion (4 grams/day) did not differ in clinical outcomes compared to intermittent infusion (6 grams/day) but reduced drug expenditure. Prospective, multicenter, high-quality studies should be conducted to evaluate a mortality difference between these regimens.
