4.7 Article

Retrospective analysis comparing oral stepdown therapy for enterobacteriaceae bloodstream infections: fluoroquinolones versus β-lactams

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2017.12.007

关键词

Gram-negative; Bacteraemia; Escherichia coli; Oral antibiotics; beta-Lactam; Fluoroquinolone

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Enterobacteriaceae bloodstream infections (EB-BSIs) are a common manifestation of Gram-negative sepsis and are initially managed with empirical intravenous antibiotics. Upon stabilisation and source control, patients are often transitioned to an oral agent. Fluoroquinolones (FQs) plays a prominent role in stepdown therapy for severe infections owing to favourable pharmacokinetic parameters; however, serious adverse events (AEs) have been documented with their use. A total of 224 adults with EB-BSI initiated on empirical intravenous antibiotics with stepdown to oral beta-lactam (BLM) (n = 84) or FQ (n = 140) were studied to compare clinical success and identify risk factors for treatment failure. Subgroups of early versus late oral stepdown and short versus extended duration of therapy (DOT) were assessed. Stepdown therapy with oral BLM was non-inferior to oral FQ (86.9% vs. 87.1%; mean difference 0.2%, 97.5% CI -10.3 to 10.7). Microbiological success (94.0% vs. 97.9%; P > 0.05) and 30-day re-admission (14.3% vs. 14.3%; P > 0.05) were similar. Patients were more likely to complete their BLM course without an AE compared with FQs (91.7% vs. 82.1%; P = 0.049). Clinical success was comparable between early and late stepdown (86.7% vs. 87.5%; P > 0.05) and short versus extended DOT (88.2% vs. 86.7%; P > 0.05). Negative predictors of clinical success identified by logistic regression were complicated diabetes (OR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.15-0.83) and urinary abnormality (OR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.16-0.94). These findings suggest that oral BLMs were noninferior to FQs as stepdown therapy for EB-BSI, with less AEs. (c) 2017 Elsevier B.V. and International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据