Ceftazidime-avibactam as monotherapy or in combination for targeted treatment of KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae infections in ICUs: a comparative analysis through counterfactual framework and desirability of outcome ranking.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Andrea Marino, Alberto Enrico Maraolo, Maria Mazzitelli, Alessandra Oliva, Nicholas Geremia, Andrea De Vito, Federica Cosentino, Chiara Gullotta, Vincenzo Scaglione, Eleonora Vania, Sara Lo Menzo, Paolo Navalesi, Lorenzo Volpicelli, Andrea Fiori, Pamela Prestifilippo, Annamaria Cattelan, Claudio Maria Mastroianni, Giordano Madeddu, Bruno Cacopardo, Giuseppe Nunnari
{"title":"Ceftazidime-avibactam as monotherapy or in combination for targeted treatment of KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae infections in ICUs: a comparative analysis through counterfactual framework and desirability of outcome ranking.","authors":"Andrea Marino, Alberto Enrico Maraolo, Maria Mazzitelli, Alessandra Oliva, Nicholas Geremia, Andrea De Vito, Federica Cosentino, Chiara Gullotta, Vincenzo Scaglione, Eleonora Vania, Sara Lo Menzo, Paolo Navalesi, Lorenzo Volpicelli, Andrea Fiori, Pamela Prestifilippo, Annamaria Cattelan, Claudio Maria Mastroianni, Giordano Madeddu, Bruno Cacopardo, Giuseppe Nunnari","doi":"10.1007/s10096-026-05529-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the causal effect of ceftazidime/avibactam (C/A) combination therapy versus monotherapy on mortality and clinical success in patients with KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae (KPC-Kp) infections in intensive care unit.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multi-centre, retrospective observational study (2021-2023) included adults with KPC-Kp bloodstream infections or pneumonia treated with C/A-based regimens. We employed a counterfactual framework using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to estimate the average treatment effect on 30-day mortality. Clinical success was further assessed using Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) analysis and partial credit scoring based on patient-perspective scenarios.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 123 included patients, 77 (62.6%) received monotherapy and 46 (37.4%) received combination therapy. The combination group presented with significantly higher baseline severity, including higher APACHE II scores and rates of septic shock. In the IPTW-adjusted analysis, 30-day survival was 73.8% (95% CI: 56-92%) with combination therapy compared with 60.8% (95% CI: 46.8-77%) with monotherapy. The survival probability ratio was 1.21 (95% CI: 0.80-1.45), indicating no statistically significant survival benefit. The DOOR analysis showed a 54.7% (95% CI: 48.9%-60.4%) probability of a more favourable outcome with combination therapy, which was not statistically significant. Mean partial credit scores did not differ significantly across scenarios prioritizing survival or adverse event avoidance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this cohort, C/A-based combination therapy did not provide a significant survival advantage or an improved clinical desirability ranking compared with monotherapy, after adjusting for confounding factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":11782,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-026-05529-x","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

Purpose: To evaluate the causal effect of ceftazidime/avibactam (C/A) combination therapy versus monotherapy on mortality and clinical success in patients with KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae (KPC-Kp) infections in intensive care unit.

Methods: This multi-centre, retrospective observational study (2021-2023) included adults with KPC-Kp bloodstream infections or pneumonia treated with C/A-based regimens. We employed a counterfactual framework using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to estimate the average treatment effect on 30-day mortality. Clinical success was further assessed using Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) analysis and partial credit scoring based on patient-perspective scenarios.

Results: Among 123 included patients, 77 (62.6%) received monotherapy and 46 (37.4%) received combination therapy. The combination group presented with significantly higher baseline severity, including higher APACHE II scores and rates of septic shock. In the IPTW-adjusted analysis, 30-day survival was 73.8% (95% CI: 56-92%) with combination therapy compared with 60.8% (95% CI: 46.8-77%) with monotherapy. The survival probability ratio was 1.21 (95% CI: 0.80-1.45), indicating no statistically significant survival benefit. The DOOR analysis showed a 54.7% (95% CI: 48.9%-60.4%) probability of a more favourable outcome with combination therapy, which was not statistically significant. Mean partial credit scores did not differ significantly across scenarios prioritizing survival or adverse event avoidance.

Conclusions: In this cohort, C/A-based combination therapy did not provide a significant survival advantage or an improved clinical desirability ranking compared with monotherapy, after adjusting for confounding factors.

头孢他啶-阿维巴坦单药或联用靶向治疗icu中产生kpc的肺炎克雷伯菌感染:基于反事实框架和结果排序合意性的比较分析
目的:评价头孢他啶/阿维巴坦(C/A)联合治疗与单药治疗对重症监护病房产kpc肺炎克雷伯菌(KPC-Kp)感染患者死亡率和临床成功率的因果关系。方法:这项多中心、回顾性观察性研究(2021-2023)纳入了接受C/基方案治疗的KPC-Kp血流感染或肺炎的成年人。我们采用了一个反事实框架,使用治疗加权逆概率(IPTW)来估计对30天死亡率的平均治疗效果。临床成功的进一步评估采用可取性结果排名(DOOR)分析和基于患者观点的部分信用评分。结果:123例患者中,单药治疗77例(62.6%),联合治疗46例(37.4%)。联合组表现出明显更高的基线严重程度,包括更高的APACHE II评分和脓毒性休克率。在iptw校正分析中,联合治疗的30天生存率为73.8% (95% CI: 56-92%),而单药治疗的30天生存率为60.8% (95% CI: 46.8-77%)。生存概率比为1.21 (95% CI: 0.80-1.45),无统计学意义的生存获益。DOOR分析显示,联合治疗获得更有利结果的概率为54.7% (95% CI: 48.9%-60.4%),无统计学意义。平均部分信用评分在优先生存或不良事件避免的情况下没有显着差异。结论:在该队列中,在调整混杂因素后,与单药治疗相比,基于C/的联合治疗没有提供显着的生存优势或改善的临床期望排名。
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
10.40
自引率
2.20%
发文量
138
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: EJCMID is an interdisciplinary journal devoted to the publication of communications on infectious diseases of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin.
×
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