头孢羟氨苄治疗重症监护病房中难以治疗的 Nf-GNB

IF 5.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Charles-Hervé Vacheron, Anne Kaas, Jean-Philippe Rasigade, Frederic Aubrun, Laurent Argaud, Baptiste Balanca, Jean-Luc Fellahi, Jean Christophe Richard, Anne-Claire Lukaszewicz, Florent Wallet, Olivier Dauwalder, Arnaud Friggeri
{"title":"头孢羟氨苄治疗重症监护病房中难以治疗的 Nf-GNB","authors":"Charles-Hervé Vacheron, Anne Kaas, Jean-Philippe Rasigade, Frederic Aubrun, Laurent Argaud, Baptiste Balanca, Jean-Luc Fellahi, Jean Christophe Richard, Anne-Claire Lukaszewicz, Florent Wallet, Olivier Dauwalder, Arnaud Friggeri","doi":"10.1186/s13613-024-01308-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The efficacy and safety of cefiderocol in ICU patients with difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR) non-fermenting Gram-negative bacteria (Nf-GNB) are not as well-established. Consequently, we conducted a cohort study to compare Cefiderocol with the Best Available Therapy (BAT) in ICU patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included adult patients from 9 different ICUs, including a burn ICU unit, from 2019 to 2023 treated with Cefiderocol for DTR Nf-GNB isolated from the blood or lungs. We matched each patient at a 1:2 ratio based on the same DTR Nf-GBN isolated pathogen, and when possible, within the same type of ICU (burn unit or not). The primary endpoint of the study was the clinical cure at 15 days, with secondary endpoints including clinical cure at 30 days, relapse, and in-ICU mortality. For each outcome, adjusted odds ratios were estimated using bidirectional stepwise regression in a final model, which included 13 preselected confounders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 27 patients with cefiderocol, matched with 54 patients receiving the BAT. Four patients were not exactly matched on the type of ICU unit. Characteristics were comparable between groups, mostly male with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 3 [1-5], and 28% had immunosuppression. Cefiderocol patients were most likely to have higher number of antibiotic lines. The main DTR Nf-GNB identified was Pseudomonas aeruginosa (81.5%), followed by Acinetobater baumanii (14.8%) and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (3.7%). Pneumonia was the identified infection in 21 (78.8%) patients in the Cefiderocol group and in 51 (94.4%) patients in the BAT group (p = 0.054). Clinical cure at 15 and 30-day and the in-ICU mortality was comparable between groups, however relapse was higher in the cefiderocol group (8-29.6% vs. 4-7.4%;aOR 10.06[1.96;51.53]) CONCLUSION: Cefiderocol did not show an improvement in clinical cure or mortality rates compared to BAT in the treatment of DTR Nf-GNB, but it was associated with a higher relapse rate.</p>","PeriodicalId":7966,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Intensive Care","volume":"14 1","pages":"73"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11089025/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cefiderocol in Difficult-to-Treat Nf-GNB in ICU Settings.\",\"authors\":\"Charles-Hervé Vacheron, Anne Kaas, Jean-Philippe Rasigade, Frederic Aubrun, Laurent Argaud, Baptiste Balanca, Jean-Luc Fellahi, Jean Christophe Richard, Anne-Claire Lukaszewicz, Florent Wallet, Olivier Dauwalder, Arnaud Friggeri\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13613-024-01308-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The efficacy and safety of cefiderocol in ICU patients with difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR) non-fermenting Gram-negative bacteria (Nf-GNB) are not as well-established. Consequently, we conducted a cohort study to compare Cefiderocol with the Best Available Therapy (BAT) in ICU patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included adult patients from 9 different ICUs, including a burn ICU unit, from 2019 to 2023 treated with Cefiderocol for DTR Nf-GNB isolated from the blood or lungs. We matched each patient at a 1:2 ratio based on the same DTR Nf-GBN isolated pathogen, and when possible, within the same type of ICU (burn unit or not). The primary endpoint of the study was the clinical cure at 15 days, with secondary endpoints including clinical cure at 30 days, relapse, and in-ICU mortality. For each outcome, adjusted odds ratios were estimated using bidirectional stepwise regression in a final model, which included 13 preselected confounders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 27 patients with cefiderocol, matched with 54 patients receiving the BAT. Four patients were not exactly matched on the type of ICU unit. Characteristics were comparable between groups, mostly male with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 3 [1-5], and 28% had immunosuppression. Cefiderocol patients were most likely to have higher number of antibiotic lines. The main DTR Nf-GNB identified was Pseudomonas aeruginosa (81.5%), followed by Acinetobater baumanii (14.8%) and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (3.7%). Pneumonia was the identified infection in 21 (78.8%) patients in the Cefiderocol group and in 51 (94.4%) patients in the BAT group (p = 0.054). Clinical cure at 15 and 30-day and the in-ICU mortality was comparable between groups, however relapse was higher in the cefiderocol group (8-29.6% vs. 4-7.4%;aOR 10.06[1.96;51.53]) CONCLUSION: Cefiderocol did not show an improvement in clinical cure or mortality rates compared to BAT in the treatment of DTR Nf-GNB, but it was associated with a higher relapse rate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Intensive Care\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"73\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11089025/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Intensive Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-024-01308-z\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-024-01308-z","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:头孢羟氨苄对患有难治性耐药性(DTR)非发酵革兰氏阴性菌(Nf-GNB)的 ICU 患者的疗效和安全性尚未得到充分证实。因此,我们开展了一项队列研究,比较 Cefiderocol 与 ICU 患者的最佳可用疗法 (BAT):我们纳入了来自 9 个不同重症监护病房(包括一个烧伤重症监护病房)的成年患者,这些患者在 2019 年至 2023 年期间接受了 Cefiderocol 治疗,以治疗从血液或肺部分离出的 DTR Nf-GNB。我们根据分离出的相同 DTR Nf-GNB 病原体,并尽可能在相同类型的 ICU(烧伤科或非烧伤科)内,按 1:2 的比例对每位患者进行配对。研究的主要终点是 15 天的临床治愈率,次要终点包括 30 天的临床治愈率、复发率和 ICU 内死亡率。对于每种结果,我们都在最终模型中使用双向逐步回归法估算了调整后的几率比,其中包括 13 个预选混杂因素:结果:我们纳入了 27 名患有头孢克肟的患者和 54 名接受 BAT 治疗的患者。有四名患者的重症监护病房类型不完全匹配。两组患者的特征相当,大多为男性,夏尔森综合指数为 3 [1-5],28% 的患者有免疫抑制。头孢菌素患者最有可能使用较多的抗生素。发现的主要 DTR Nf-GNB 是铜绿假单胞菌(81.5%),其次是鲍曼不动杆菌(14.8%)和嗜麦芽血单胞菌(3.7%)。在 Cefiderocol 组的 21 名患者(78.8%)和 BAT 组的 51 名患者(94.4%)中,肺炎是确定的感染病原体(p = 0.054)。两组患者在 15 天和 30 天的临床治愈率以及重症监护室内的死亡率相当,但头孢羟氨苄组的复发率更高(8-29.6% vs. 4-7.4%;aOR 10.06[1.96;51.53])。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Cefiderocol in Difficult-to-Treat Nf-GNB in ICU Settings.

Cefiderocol in Difficult-to-Treat Nf-GNB in ICU Settings.

Background: The efficacy and safety of cefiderocol in ICU patients with difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR) non-fermenting Gram-negative bacteria (Nf-GNB) are not as well-established. Consequently, we conducted a cohort study to compare Cefiderocol with the Best Available Therapy (BAT) in ICU patients.

Methods: We included adult patients from 9 different ICUs, including a burn ICU unit, from 2019 to 2023 treated with Cefiderocol for DTR Nf-GNB isolated from the blood or lungs. We matched each patient at a 1:2 ratio based on the same DTR Nf-GBN isolated pathogen, and when possible, within the same type of ICU (burn unit or not). The primary endpoint of the study was the clinical cure at 15 days, with secondary endpoints including clinical cure at 30 days, relapse, and in-ICU mortality. For each outcome, adjusted odds ratios were estimated using bidirectional stepwise regression in a final model, which included 13 preselected confounders.

Results: We included 27 patients with cefiderocol, matched with 54 patients receiving the BAT. Four patients were not exactly matched on the type of ICU unit. Characteristics were comparable between groups, mostly male with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 3 [1-5], and 28% had immunosuppression. Cefiderocol patients were most likely to have higher number of antibiotic lines. The main DTR Nf-GNB identified was Pseudomonas aeruginosa (81.5%), followed by Acinetobater baumanii (14.8%) and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (3.7%). Pneumonia was the identified infection in 21 (78.8%) patients in the Cefiderocol group and in 51 (94.4%) patients in the BAT group (p = 0.054). Clinical cure at 15 and 30-day and the in-ICU mortality was comparable between groups, however relapse was higher in the cefiderocol group (8-29.6% vs. 4-7.4%;aOR 10.06[1.96;51.53]) CONCLUSION: Cefiderocol did not show an improvement in clinical cure or mortality rates compared to BAT in the treatment of DTR Nf-GNB, but it was associated with a higher relapse rate.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Intensive Care
Annals of Intensive Care CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
14.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
107
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Intensive Care is an online peer-reviewed journal that publishes high-quality review articles and original research papers in the field of intensive care medicine. It targets critical care providers including attending physicians, fellows, residents, nurses, and physiotherapists, who aim to enhance their knowledge and provide optimal care for their patients. The journal's articles are included in various prestigious databases such as CAS, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, OCLC, PubMed, PubMed Central, Science Citation Index Expanded, SCOPUS, and Summon by Serial Solutions.
×
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