Deal Eli N, Micek Scott T, Reichley Richard M, Ritchie David J
Department of Pharmacy, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri 63110, USA.
Clin Ther. 2009 Feb;31(2):299-310. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2009.02.015.
Various dosing strategies for cefepime have been developed in an effort to maximize pharmacodynamic exposure of this agent against gram-negative infections. An assessment of cefepime dosing strategies is warranted given recent reports of poorer treatment outcomes associated with cefepime compared with other antibiotics, particularly in patients infected with gram-negative organisms with elevated MICs.
The aims of this study were to compare the efficacy of cefepime IV at a dose of 1 g q8h (adjusted based on renal function) with those of other appropriate antimicrobials in the treatment of gramnegative pulmonary and bloodstream infections and to identify risk factors for treatment failure.
This single-center, open-label, prospective, observational study was conducted at a tertiary care center (Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri). Isolates from infections in adult patients with bacteremia or pulmonary infection caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter aerogenes, Enterobacter cloacae, or Citrobacter freundii were assessed in a noninterventional manner. Infections were identified using an electronic notification system. Patients receiving appropriate monotherapy against the studied isolate within 24 hours of culture attainment were stratified into 1 of 3 cohorts according to treatment outcome, as follows: treatment success (resolution of initial fever or elevated white blood cell count to normal values plus the presence of repeat negative cultures from the initial site or below the quantitative definition for infection), improvement (treatment success without repeat negative cultures), or treatment failure (persistent or repeat positive cultures for the original organism at the infected site despite appropriate and adequate antimicrobial therapy, lack of resolution in fever or leukocytosis, switch to an alternative antibiotic, or the addition of another antibiotic with gram-negative coverage after > or =3 days of the initial regimen, relapse of infection within 14 days, or mortality attributable to the index infection). Multivariate regression analysis was used to examine risk factors associated with treatment failure.
Data from 120 patients (56.7% male; mean age, 62.2 years) were analyzed. Treatment failure occurred in 48.6% (36/74) of patients who received cefepime versus 32.6% (15/46) of those who received other antibiotics; this difference was not statistically significant. The proportion of patients with markers of increased severity of illness (intensive care unit [P = 0.005] and mechanical ventilation [P = 0.002]) was significantly greater in the cefepime group compared with the group that received other antibiotics. Multivariate logistic regression identified infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.40 [95% CI, 1.01-2.00]) and mechanical ventilation (AOR, 7.08 [95% CI, 1.80-31.3]) as being associated with treatment failure in patients who received cefepime. Mechanical ventilation (AOR, 3.97 [95% CI, 1.47-11.1]) and neutropenia (AOR, 5.26 [95% CI, 1.28-20.0]) were independent predictors of treatment failure among all patients studied.
Based on these results in this small cohort, the efficacy of this cefepime dosing strategy (1 g q8h) appeared to be similar to that of other antimicrobials.
已制定了多种头孢吡肟给药策略,以最大程度地提高该药物对革兰氏阴性菌感染的药效学暴露。鉴于最近有报道称,与其他抗生素相比,头孢吡肟的治疗效果较差,尤其是在感染了 MIC 升高的革兰氏阴性菌的患者中,因此有必要对头孢吡肟给药策略进行评估。
本研究的目的是比较静脉注射 1 g 头孢吡肟(根据肾功能调整剂量)每 8 小时一次与其他合适抗菌药物治疗革兰氏阴性肺部和血流感染的疗效,并确定治疗失败的危险因素。
这项单中心、开放标签、前瞻性观察性研究在一家三级医疗中心(密苏里州圣路易斯市的巴恩斯犹太医院)进行。对成年患者因铜绿假单胞菌、产气肠杆菌、阴沟肠杆菌或弗氏柠檬酸杆菌引起的菌血症或肺部感染的分离株进行非干预性评估。使用电子通知系统识别感染。在培养结果出来后的 24 小时内接受针对所研究分离株的适当单药治疗的患者,根据治疗结果分为以下 3 个队列之一:治疗成功(初始发热或白细胞计数升高恢复至正常水平,加上初始部位重复培养阴性或低于感染的定量定义)、改善(治疗成功但无重复培养阴性)或治疗失败(尽管进行了适当且充分的抗菌治疗,但感染部位原病原体持续或重复培养阳性、发热或白细胞增多未缓解、改用另一种抗生素或在初始治疗方案≥3 天后加用另一种覆盖革兰氏阴性菌的抗生素、感染在 14 天内复发或因该指数感染导致死亡)。采用多变量回归分析来检查与治疗失败相关的危险因素。
分析了 120 例患者的数据(男性占 56.7%;平均年龄 62.2 岁)。接受头孢吡肟治疗的患者中有 48.6%(36/74)发生治疗失败,而接受其他抗生素治疗的患者中有 32.6%(15/46)发生治疗失败;这种差异无统计学意义。与接受其他抗生素治疗的组相比,头孢吡肟组中病情严重程度增加标志物(重症监护病房 [P = 0.005] 和机械通气 [P = 0.002])的患者比例明显更高。多变量逻辑回归确定,铜绿假单胞菌感染(调整后的优势比 [AOR],1.40 [95% CI,1.01 - 2.00])和机械通气(AOR,7.08 [95% CI,1.80 - 31.3])与接受头孢吡肟治疗的患者治疗失败有关。在所有研究患者中,机械通气(AOR,3.97 [95% CI,1.47 - 11.1])和中性粒细胞减少(AOR,5.26 [95% CI,1.28 - 20.0])是治疗失败的独立预测因素。
基于这个小队列的这些结果,这种头孢吡肟给药策略(每 8 小时 1 g)的疗效似乎与其他抗菌药物相似。