4.5 Article

Ceftazidime-avibactam treatment in bacteremia caused by OXA-48 carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-022-04482-9

Keywords

Bacteremia; Klebsiella pneumoniae; Carbapenemase; OXA-48-type; Ceftazidime-avibactam; Mortality

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to analyze the clinical efficacy of CAZ-AVI compared with BAT in patients with CRKp-OXA-48 bacteremia. The results showed that CAZ-AVI treatment might be associated with a higher clinical success rate, especially in patients younger than 70 years old.
Therapeutic options for bacteremia caused by carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) OXA-48-type are limited. The objective of this study was to analyze clinical success of CAZ-AVI compared with best available therapy (BAT) in patients with Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing OXA-48-type bacteremia (CRKp-OXA-48). We conducted a retrospective, single-center observational study in adult patients with CRKp-OXA-48 between December 2015 and May 2019. We collected the patients' clinical and epidemiological characteristics, antibiotic treatment (CAZ-AVI vs. BAT), and evolution. Factors associated with clinical success were analyzed using binary logistic regression. The study included 76 patients with CRKp-OXA-48-type bacteremia 33 received CAZ-AVI and 43 BAT. CAZ-AVI was mainly used in monotherapy (91%). Clinical success was more common in patients <70-year-old (OR 4.79, 95% CI [1.435-16.002], p= 0.011) and CAZ-AVI treatment (OR 6.69, 95% CI [1.68-26.604], p =0.007). Kaplan-Meier survival curve of 14-day mortality showed a lower mortality in patients who received CAZ-AVI (log rank 0.013). However, CAZ-AVI did not achieve statistical difference in IPTW for 14- and 30-day mortality (aOR 0.1, 95% CI [0.02-1.22], p =0.07 6 and aOR 1.7, 95% CI [0.48-5.98], p= 0.413, respectively). CAZ-AVI treatment might be associated with a greater clinical success in CRKp-OXA-48 bacteremia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available