Effectiveness of traditional non-carbapenem β-lactams vs. novel β-lactams for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a retrospective cohort study.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Namareq F Aldardeer, Hatun M Labban, Raghad T Alhuthil, Seham H Aljahdali, Moataz H Alharbi, Riham A Alharbi, Mohammed I Al Musawa, Abdulrahman A Almalki, Thamer A Almangour
{"title":"Effectiveness of traditional non-carbapenem β-lactams vs. novel β-lactams for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Namareq F Aldardeer, Hatun M Labban, Raghad T Alhuthil, Seham H Aljahdali, Moataz H Alharbi, Riham A Alharbi, Mohammed I Al Musawa, Abdulrahman A Almalki, Thamer A Almangour","doi":"10.1186/s12879-024-10365-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA) as one of the three critical priority pathogens. There is scarce literature evaluating the treatment outcomes in patients with CRPA infections treated with traditional non-carbapenem β-lactam (NCBL) agents. Thus, this study aims to assess the effectiveness of traditional NCBL compared to novel β-lactam agents (NVL) for treating non-carbapenem β-lactam -susceptible CRPA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted between January 2016 and December 2022. The study included adult patients 18 years and older with infection due to CRPA who were treated based on microbiology sensitivity with traditional NCBL or NVL for more than 48 h. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>124 patients were included: 98 (79%) in the NCBL group and 26 (20.9%) in the NVL group. 78 (62.9%) patients were male. The median (interquartile range (IQR)) age of included patients was 64 (45, 77) years. A total of 84 (67.7%) patients were critically ill, with an overall median (IQR) APACHE II score of 18 (13.5, 23). The rates of 30-day mortality in NCBL and NVL groups were 41 (41.8%) and 12 (46.2%), respectively; P = 0.692.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In patients with CRPA infections susceptible to traditional NCBL, there was no statisticallly significant difference in 30-day mortality among patients who were treated with traditional NCBL compared with NVL. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":8981,"journal":{"name":"BMC Infectious Diseases","volume":"24 1","pages":"1455"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11663332/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-024-10365-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA) as one of the three critical priority pathogens. There is scarce literature evaluating the treatment outcomes in patients with CRPA infections treated with traditional non-carbapenem β-lactam (NCBL) agents. Thus, this study aims to assess the effectiveness of traditional NCBL compared to novel β-lactam agents (NVL) for treating non-carbapenem β-lactam -susceptible CRPA.

Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted between January 2016 and December 2022. The study included adult patients 18 years and older with infection due to CRPA who were treated based on microbiology sensitivity with traditional NCBL or NVL for more than 48 h. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

Results: 124 patients were included: 98 (79%) in the NCBL group and 26 (20.9%) in the NVL group. 78 (62.9%) patients were male. The median (interquartile range (IQR)) age of included patients was 64 (45, 77) years. A total of 84 (67.7%) patients were critically ill, with an overall median (IQR) APACHE II score of 18 (13.5, 23). The rates of 30-day mortality in NCBL and NVL groups were 41 (41.8%) and 12 (46.2%), respectively; P = 0.692.

Conclusion: In patients with CRPA infections susceptible to traditional NCBL, there was no statisticallly significant difference in 30-day mortality among patients who were treated with traditional NCBL compared with NVL. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings.

传统非碳青霉烯β-内酰胺类药物与新型β-内酰胺类药物治疗耐碳青霉烯假单胞菌的疗效:一项回顾性队列研究
背景:世界卫生组织(WHO)已确定碳青霉烯耐药铜绿假单胞菌(CRPA)为三种关键优先病原体之一。很少有文献评价传统的非碳青霉烯β-内酰胺(NCBL)药物治疗CRPA感染患者的治疗效果。因此,本研究旨在评估传统NCBL与新型β-内酰胺药物(NVL)治疗非碳青霉烯类β-内酰胺敏感CRPA的有效性。方法:2016年1月至2022年12月进行单中心回顾性队列研究。该研究纳入了18岁及以上因CRPA感染的成年患者,他们根据微生物敏感性使用传统的NCBL或NVL治疗超过48小时。主要结局是30天死亡率。结果:纳入124例患者:NCBL组98例(79%),NVL组26例(20.9%)。男性78例(62.9%)。纳入患者的年龄中位数(四分位间距(IQR))为64岁(45,77)岁。84例(67.7%)患者为危重患者,总体中位(IQR) APACHE II评分为18(13.5,23)。NCBL组和NVL组30天死亡率分别为41(41.8%)和12 (46.2%);p = 0.692。结论:在传统NCBL易感的CRPA感染患者中,与NVL相比,传统NCBL治疗的患者30天死亡率无统计学差异。需要更大样本量的进一步研究来证实这些发现。
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
BMC Infectious Diseases
BMC Infectious Diseases 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
860
审稿时长
3.3 months
期刊介绍: BMC Infectious Diseases is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of infectious and sexually transmitted diseases in humans, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
×
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