Treatment of Piperacillin-Tazobactam-Nonsusceptible/Ceftriaxone-Susceptible Infections With Carbapenem Versus Carbapenem-Sparing Antimicrobials

John Cao; Yanina Dubrovskaya; Justin Siegfried; Arnold Decano; Dana Mazo; Sarah Hochman; Ioannis M Zacharioudakis; Jonathan So; Sadie Solomon; John Papadopoulos; Kassandra Marsh

doi:10.1093/ofid/ofad262

Treatment of Piperacillin-Tazobactam-Nonsusceptible/Ceftriaxone-Susceptible Infections With Carbapenem Versus Carbapenem-Sparing Antimicrobials

Open Forum Infect Dis. 2023 Jun 8;10(6):ofad262. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofad262. eCollection 2023 Jun.

Affiliations

¹ Department of Pharmacy, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York, USA.
² Division of Infectious Diseases, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York, USA.
³ Department of Population Health, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York, USA.
⁴ Department of Infection Prevention and Control, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York, USA.

Abstract

Background: Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae with a piperacillin-tazobactam-nonsusceptible/ceftriaxone-susceptible (TZP-NS/CRO-S) phenotype have been increasingly identified, with limited available literature evaluating treatment strategies.

Methods: This was a retrospective study of noncritically ill adults hospitalized between 2013 and 2021 and treated at least 48 hours for TZP-NS/CRO-S E coli or K pneumoniae infections. The primary composite endpoint included escalation to intensive care unit, infection- or treatment-related readmission, mortality, and infection recurrence. Outcomes were compared between groups who received carbapenem (CG) versus carbapenem-sparing agents (CSG) as targeted gram-negative therapy.

Results: Of 1062 patients screened, 200 were included (CG, n = 51; CSG, n = 149). Baseline characteristics, including Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI; median [interquartile range], 6 [3-9] vs 6 [4-9]; P = .704), were similar between groups, except for more immunocompromised CG patients (29% vs 11%, P = .001). The most common infection sources were urinary (31% vs 57%, P = .002) and bloodstream (18% vs 17%, P = .887). Eighty-eight percent of the CG received meropenem, while 58% of the CSG received ceftriaxone as targeted therapy. There was no statistical difference in the primary endpoint between overall groups (27% vs 17%, P = .123), nor when stratified by infection source. More patients in the CSG switched to oral therapy (15 [29%] vs 100 [67%], P < .001). In multivariate analysis, CCI was an independent predictor of the primary outcome (odds ratio [OR], 1.199 [95% confidence interval, 1.074-1.340]; P = .001), while treatment with carbapenem-sparing therapy was not.

Conclusions: Our study did not find improved clinical outcomes with targeted carbapenem therapy for TZP-NS/CRO-S infections. Carbapenem-sparing agents may be considered to spare carbapenems in noncritically ill patients similar to those included in our cohort.

Keywords: Escherichia; Klebsiella; carbapenems; cephalosporins; β-lactamases.