Evaluation of Short Versus Long Courses of Antibiotics in Critically Ill Patients With Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-12 DOI:10.1177/10600280241231611
Daniel T Anderson, Divisha Sharma, Aaron M Chase, Zoheb Irshad Sulaiman, August H Anderson, Ashley L Huggett, Joshua Eudy
{"title":"Evaluation of Short Versus Long Courses of Antibiotics in Critically Ill Patients With Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections.","authors":"Daniel T Anderson, Divisha Sharma, Aaron M Chase, Zoheb Irshad Sulaiman, August H Anderson, Ashley L Huggett, Joshua Eudy","doi":"10.1177/10600280241231611","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Short courses of antibiotics (7-10 days) are effective for uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infections (GN-BSI). However, prior studies have been limited to small cohorts of critically ill patients.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of short courses of therapy compared with longer courses in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with GN-BSI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Propensity-matched, retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients with GN-BSI. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day mortality or 60-day relapse. Secondary endpoints were components of the composite, 30-day relapse, cure with or without adverse drug events (ADE), and ADEs. Regression analysis was performed to identify factors predictive of the composite outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>225 patients were included in the propensity analysis, 145 in the long cohort and 80 in the short cohort. The primary outcome occurred in 3.8% of patients in the short group and 9.0% of patients in the long group (<i>P</i> = 0.24). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (3.8% vs 5.5%, <i>P</i> = 0.79), 60-day relapse (0% vs 3.4%, <i>P</i> = 0.23), or 30-day readmission (20% vs 22.8%, <i>P</i> = 0.76). ADEs were more common in the long group (47.2% vs 34.1%, OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.04-2.9), primarily attributable to diarrhea.</p><p><strong>Conclusion and relevance: </strong>In critically ill patients with GN-BSI, there were no efficacy outcome differences in patients treated with a short course of antibiotics compared with longer. However, patients in the short group were less likely to experience ADE. These findings suggest that short courses of antibiotics are effective for GN-BSI in critically ill patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11317549/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10600280241231611","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Short courses of antibiotics (7-10 days) are effective for uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infections (GN-BSI). However, prior studies have been limited to small cohorts of critically ill patients.

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of short courses of therapy compared with longer courses in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with GN-BSI.

Methods: Propensity-matched, retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients with GN-BSI. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day mortality or 60-day relapse. Secondary endpoints were components of the composite, 30-day relapse, cure with or without adverse drug events (ADE), and ADEs. Regression analysis was performed to identify factors predictive of the composite outcome.

Results: 225 patients were included in the propensity analysis, 145 in the long cohort and 80 in the short cohort. The primary outcome occurred in 3.8% of patients in the short group and 9.0% of patients in the long group (P = 0.24). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (3.8% vs 5.5%, P = 0.79), 60-day relapse (0% vs 3.4%, P = 0.23), or 30-day readmission (20% vs 22.8%, P = 0.76). ADEs were more common in the long group (47.2% vs 34.1%, OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.04-2.9), primarily attributable to diarrhea.

Conclusion and relevance: In critically ill patients with GN-BSI, there were no efficacy outcome differences in patients treated with a short course of antibiotics compared with longer. However, patients in the short group were less likely to experience ADE. These findings suggest that short courses of antibiotics are effective for GN-BSI in critically ill patients.

评估对患有革兰氏阴性血流感染的重症患者使用短程抗生素与使用长程抗生素的效果。
背景:短期抗生素疗程(7-10 天)对无并发症的革兰氏阴性血流感染(GN-BSI)有效。然而,之前的研究仅限于小部分重症患者:本研究旨在评估重症监护室(ICU)收治的革兰阴性血流感染患者短期治疗与长期治疗的安全性和有效性:对 GN-BSI 重症患者进行倾向匹配、回顾性队列研究。主要研究结果是 30 天死亡率或 60 天复发率的综合结果。次要终点是综合结果的组成部分、30 天复发、有或无药物不良事件 (ADE) 的治愈以及 ADE。结果:225名患者被纳入倾向分析,其中145人被纳入长队列,80人被纳入短队列。在短队列和长队列中,分别有 3.8% 和 9.0% 的患者出现了主要结局(P = 0.24)。30天死亡率(3.8% vs 5.5%,P = 0.79)、60天复发率(0% vs 3.4%,P = 0.23)或30天再入院率(20% vs 22.8%,P = 0.76)均无差异。ADEs在长期组更为常见(47.2% vs 34.1%,OR 1.7,95% CI 1.04-2.9),主要归因于腹泻:在患有 GN-BSI 的重症患者中,短期抗生素治疗与长期抗生素治疗在疗效上没有差异。不过,短疗程组患者发生 ADE 的可能性较低。这些研究结果表明,短程抗生素对重症患者的 GN-BSI 治疗有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信