An evaluation of antipseudomonal dosing on the incidence of treatment failure.

INTRODUCTION

Significant mortality is associated with delays in appropriate antibiotic therapy in infections. The impact of empiric dosing on clinical outcomes has been largely unreported.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort compared treatment failure in patients receiving guideline-concordant or guideline-discordant empiric therapy with cefepime, meropenem, or piperacillin/tazobactam. Patients with culture-positive between 1 July 2013 and 31 July 2019 were eligible for inclusion. Patients with cystic fibrosis, polymicrobial infection, and urinary or pulmonary colonization were excluded. The composite primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as (1) therapy modification due to resistance/perceived treatment failure, (2) increased/unchanged qSOFA, or (3) persistent fever 48 h after initiating appropriate therapy. Secondary outcomes included rate of infectious diseases consultation, all-cause inpatient mortality, mechanical ventilation requirement, and infection-related intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay.

RESULTS

In total, 198 patients were included: 90 guideline-concordant and 108 guideline-discordant. Baseline characteristics were balanced. Treatment failure was more common in the guideline-discordant than the guideline-concordant group (62% versus 48%;  = 0.04). This remained significant when adjusting for supratherapeutic dosing ( = 0.02). Infectious diseases consultation was higher in the guideline-discordant group (46% versus 29%,  = 0.01), while intensive care unit length of stay was longer in the guideline-concordant group (4.5 versus 3 days,  = 0.03). Additional secondary outcomes were similar.

CONCLUSION

Treatment failure was significantly higher in patients receiving guideline-discordant empiric antipseudomonal dosing. Guideline-directed dosing, disease states, and patient-specific factors should be assessed when considering empiric antipseudomonal dosing.