Comparison of Oral Cephalosporin and Penicillin Step-Down Therapy for the Treatment of Gram-Negative Blood Stream Infections: A Retrospective Observational Study.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Annals of Pharmacotherapy Pub Date : 2026-12-01 Epub Date: 2026-03-23 DOI:10.1177/10600280261426346
Bethany Volkmar, Caitlin C Akerman, Alison I Orvin
{"title":"Comparison of Oral Cephalosporin and Penicillin Step-Down Therapy for the Treatment of Gram-Negative Blood Stream Infections: A Retrospective Observational Study.","authors":"Bethany Volkmar, Caitlin C Akerman, Alison I Orvin","doi":"10.1177/10600280261426346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Oral step-down therapy for the treatment of gram-negative blood stream infections (GNBSIs) has been shown to be noninferior to full courses of intravenous (IV) therapy. Studies comparing oral fluoroquinolones, sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (SMX-TMP), and beta-lactams have reported similar treatment outcomes, but beta-lactam groups have been small, and efficacy has been questioned given lower oral bioavailability.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral cephalosporins compared with penicillins for step-down therapy for the treatment of GNBSI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective study in adult patients admitted for Enterobacterales GNBSI that were transitioned from IV antibiotics to an oral beta-lactam. The primary outcome was treatment failure. Secondary outcomes included components of the primary outcome, microbiological failure, antibiotic-associated adverse drug events (ADEs), and <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> infection (CDI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 280 patients with GNBSI with step-down to an oral penicillin (<i>n</i> = 140) or cephalosporin (<i>n</i> = 140) were included. More patients in the cephalosporin group had a urinary source of infection (87.9% vs 62.1%, <i>P</i> < 0.001) and urinary abnormalities (40% vs 28.6%, <i>P</i> = 0.044). Treatment failure with oral cephalosporins was noninferior to penicillins (7.1% vs 7.1%; 95% confidence interval [-6.4, 6.4], <i>P</i> = 0.002). No significant differences were found for microbiological failure, antibiotic-associated ADEs, or CDI.</p><p><strong>Conclusion and relevance: </strong>Oral cephalosporins were noninferior to oral penicillins as step-down therapy for Enterobacterales GNBSI. This represents the first comparison of oral beta-lactams for the treatment of GNBSI.</p>","PeriodicalId":7933,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Pharmacotherapy","volume":" ","pages":"1174-1181"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Pharmacotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10600280261426346","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Oral step-down therapy for the treatment of gram-negative blood stream infections (GNBSIs) has been shown to be noninferior to full courses of intravenous (IV) therapy. Studies comparing oral fluoroquinolones, sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (SMX-TMP), and beta-lactams have reported similar treatment outcomes, but beta-lactam groups have been small, and efficacy has been questioned given lower oral bioavailability.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral cephalosporins compared with penicillins for step-down therapy for the treatment of GNBSI.

Methods: This was a retrospective study in adult patients admitted for Enterobacterales GNBSI that were transitioned from IV antibiotics to an oral beta-lactam. The primary outcome was treatment failure. Secondary outcomes included components of the primary outcome, microbiological failure, antibiotic-associated adverse drug events (ADEs), and Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI).

Results: Overall, 280 patients with GNBSI with step-down to an oral penicillin (n = 140) or cephalosporin (n = 140) were included. More patients in the cephalosporin group had a urinary source of infection (87.9% vs 62.1%, P < 0.001) and urinary abnormalities (40% vs 28.6%, P = 0.044). Treatment failure with oral cephalosporins was noninferior to penicillins (7.1% vs 7.1%; 95% confidence interval [-6.4, 6.4], P = 0.002). No significant differences were found for microbiological failure, antibiotic-associated ADEs, or CDI.

Conclusion and relevance: Oral cephalosporins were noninferior to oral penicillins as step-down therapy for Enterobacterales GNBSI. This represents the first comparison of oral beta-lactams for the treatment of GNBSI.

口服头孢菌素与青霉素降压治疗革兰氏阴性血流感染的比较:回顾性观察研究。
背景:口服降压疗法治疗革兰氏阴性血流感染(gnbsi)已被证明不逊于全疗程静脉(IV)治疗。比较口服氟喹诺酮类药物、磺胺甲恶唑-甲氧苄啶(SMX-TMP)和β -内酰胺类药物的研究报告了相似的治疗结果,但β -内酰胺类药物的数量很少,而且由于口服生物利用度较低,其疗效受到质疑。目的:本研究旨在评价口服头孢菌素与青霉素降压治疗GNBSI的安全性和有效性。方法:这是一项回顾性研究,对从静脉注射抗生素过渡到口服β -内酰胺的肠杆菌属GNBSI住院的成年患者进行研究。主要结局是治疗失败。次要结局包括主要结局的组成部分,微生物学失败,抗生素相关药物不良事件(ADEs)和艰难梭菌感染(CDI)。结果:总的来说,280例GNBSI患者减少到口服青霉素(n = 140)或头孢菌素(n = 140)。头孢菌素组泌尿系感染源(87.9% vs 62.1%, P < 0.001)和泌尿系异常(40% vs 28.6%, P = 0.044)较多。口服头孢菌素治疗失败率不低于青霉素类(7.1% vs 7.1%; 95%可信区间[-6.4,6.4],P = 0.002)。微生物衰竭、抗生素相关ade或CDI方面没有发现显著差异。结论及意义:口服头孢菌素治疗肠杆菌GNBSI的降压治疗效果不逊于口服青霉素。这是口服β -内酰胺类药物治疗GNBSI的首次比较。
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
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
166
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Pharmacotherapy (AOP) is a peer-reviewed journal that advances pharmacotherapy throughout the world by publishing high-quality research and review articles to achieve the most desired health outcomes.The articles provide cutting-edge information about the most efficient, safe and cost-effective pharmacotherapy for the treatment and prevention of various illnesses. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 14 days
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书