Peters David M, Winter Jessica B, Droege Christopher A, Ernst Neil E, Liao Siyun
Cedarville University, Cedarville, OH, USA.
Miami Valley Hospital, Dayton, OH, USA.
Hosp Pharm. 2021 Oct;56(5):560-568. doi: 10.1177/0018578720931463. Epub 2020 Jun 4.
Induction of antibiotic resistance is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in AmpC β-lactamase producing Enterobacteriaceae. The use of ceftriaxone is controversial for treatment of these organisms due to concerns for inducible resistance. This study was designed to compare treatment failure rates between ceftriaxone and antipseudomonal β-lactam antibiotics when used as definitive therapy for organisms most commonly associated with chromosomal AmpC β-lactamase production. A retrospective, single-center cohort study was performed enrolling patients hospitalized with monomicrobial , or spp. infections. The primary objective compared proportion of treatment failure between groups. All patients received either ceftriaxone or an antipseudomonal β-lactam alone within 24 hours of culture finalization, and with a duration of at least 72 hours for definitive treatment. Treatment failure was defined as either clinical failure (abnormal white blood cell count or temperature on day 7 or 14 post-antibiotics) or microbiologic failure (regrowth of the same organism at same site within 14 or 21 days). Of 192 total patients, treatment failure was observed in 24/71 patients (34%) receiving ceftriaxone and in 42/121 patients (35%) receiving antipseudomonal β-lactam ( = .98). No difference was observed between clinical or microbiologic failure rates between groups. The ceftriaxone group had significantly more patients undergoing treatment for urinary tract infections (51% vs 17%, < .001), but treatment failure rates remained similar between groups when comparing infections of all other sources. Ceftriaxone has comparable treatment failure rates to antipseudomonal β-lactams for susceptible Enterobacteriaceae infections and may be considered as a therapeutic option. Further, prospective research is needed to validate optimal dosing and application in all sites of infection.
在产AmpCβ-内酰胺酶的肠杆菌科细菌中,抗生素耐药性的诱导与发病率和死亡率增加相关。由于担心诱导性耐药,头孢曲松用于治疗这些细菌存在争议。本研究旨在比较头孢曲松和抗假单胞菌β-内酰胺类抗生素作为最常与染色体AmpCβ-内酰胺酶产生相关的细菌的确定性治疗时的治疗失败率。进行了一项回顾性单中心队列研究,纳入因单一微生物或感染住院的患者。主要目的是比较各组之间的治疗失败比例。所有患者在培养结果确定后24小时内单独接受头孢曲松或抗假单胞菌β-内酰胺类药物治疗,且确定性治疗持续时间至少72小时。治疗失败定义为临床失败(抗生素治疗后第7天或第14天白细胞计数或体温异常)或微生物学失败(14天或21天内在同一部位同一细菌再次生长)。在192例患者中,接受头孢曲松治疗的71例患者中有24例(34%)出现治疗失败,接受抗假单胞菌β-内酰胺类药物治疗的121例患者中有42例(35%)出现治疗失败(=0.98)。两组之间的临床或微生物学失败率无差异。头孢曲松组接受尿路感染治疗的患者明显更多(51%对17%,<0.001),但在比较所有其他感染源时,两组之间的治疗失败率仍然相似。对于易感肠杆菌科细菌感染,头孢曲松的治疗失败率与抗假单胞菌β-内酰胺类药物相当,可作为一种治疗选择。此外,需要进行前瞻性研究以验证在所有感染部位的最佳剂量和应用。