Ertapenem versus ceftriaxone and metronidazole as treatment for complicated intra-abdominal infections

The efficacy and safety of eravacycline compared with current clinically common antibiotics in the treatment of adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections: A Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

Eravacycline is a novel, fully synthetic fluorocycline antibiotic for the treatment of adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs). However, the efficacy and safety of eravacycline compared with current clinically common antibiotics remain unknown.

Objective

This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of eravacycline and other clinically common antibiotics in China, including tigecycline, meropenem, ertapenem, ceftazidime/avibactam+metronidazole, piperacillin/tazobactam, imipenem/cilastatin, and ceftriaxone+metronidazole, for the treatment of adults with cIAIs and to provide a reference for clinical choice.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were electronically searched to collect clinical randomized controlled studies (RCTs) comparing different antibiotics in the treatment of patients with cIAIs from inception to June 1, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies.

Results

A total of 4050 articles were initially retrieved, and 25 RCTs were included after screening, involving eight treatment therapies and 9372 patients. The results of network meta-analysis showed that in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the clinically evaluable (CE) population, and the microbiologically evaluable (ME) population, the clinical response rate of eravacycline was not significantly different from that of the other 7 therapies (P > 0.05). In terms of microbiological response rate, eravacycline was significantly better than tigecycline [tigecycline vs. eravacycline: RR = 0.82, 95%CI (0.65,0.99)], and there was no significant difference between the other 6 regimens and eravacycline (P > 0.05). In terms of safety, the incidence of serious adverse events, discontinuation rate, and all-cause mortality of eravacycline were not significantly different from those of the other 7 treatment therapies (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Based on the evidence generated by the current noninferiority clinical trial design, the efficacy and safety of eravacycline for the treatment of adults with cIAIs are not significantly different from those of the other 7 commonly used clinical antibiotics in China. In terms of microbiological response rate, eravacycline was significantly better than tigecycline. In view of the severe multidrug-resistant situation in China, existing drugs have difficulty meeting the needs of clinical treatment, and the new antibacterial drug eravacycline may be one of the preferred options for the treatment of cIAIs in adults.

Diagnosis and Management of Intraabdominal Infection: Guidelines by the Chinese Society of Surgical Infection and Intensive Care and the Chinese College of Gastrointestinal Fistula Surgeons

The Chinese guidelines for IAI presented here were developed by a panel that included experts from the fields of surgery, critical care, microbiology, infection control, pharmacology, and evidence-based medicine. All questions were structured in population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes format, and evidence profiles were generated. Recommendations were generated following the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system or Best Practice Statement (BPS), when applicable. The final guidelines include 45 graded recommendations and 17 BPSs, including the classification of disease severity, diagnosis, source control, antimicrobial therapy, microbiologic evaluation, nutritional therapy, other supportive therapies, diagnosis and management of specific IAIs, and recognition and management of source control failure. Recommendations on fluid resuscitation and organ support therapy could not be formulated and thus were not included. Accordingly, additional high-quality clinical studies should be performed in the future to address the clinicians' concerns.

Carbapenems vs β-Lactam Monotherapy or Combination Therapy for the Treatment of Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) result in significant morbidity, mortality, and cost. Carbapenem-resistant sepsis has increased dramatically in the last decade, resulting in infections that are difficult to treat and associated with high mortality rates. To prevent further antibacterial resistance, it is necessary to use carbapenem selectively. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of carbapenems vs alternative β-lactam monotherapy or combination therapy for the treatment of cIAIs.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Medline (via Ovid SP), and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing carbapenems vs alternative β-lactam monotherapy or combination therapy for the treatment of cIAIs.

Results

Twenty-two studies involving 7720 participants were included in the analysis. There were no differences in clinical treatment success (odds ratio [OR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71–1.05; I² = 35%), microbiological treatment success (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.71–1.09; I² = 25%), adverse events (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.87–1.09; I² = 17%), or mortality (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.68–1.35; I² = 7%). Patients

treated with imipenem were more likely to experience clinical or microbiological failure than those treated with alternative β-lactam monotherapy or combination therapy.

Conclusions

No differences in clinical outcomes were observed between carbapenems and noncarbapenem β-lactams in cIAIs. Patients treated with imipenem were more likely to experience clinical or microbiological failure than those treated with alternative β-lactam monotherapy or combination therapy.

The Surgical Infection Society Revised Guidelines on the Management of Intra-Abdominal Infection

BACKGROUND

Previous evidence-based guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infection (IAI) were published by the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) in 1992, 2002, and 2010. At the time the most recent guideline was released, the plan was to update the guideline every five years to ensure the timeliness and appropriateness of the recommendations.

METHODS

Based on the previous guidelines, the task force outlined a number of topics related to the treatment of patients with IAI and then developed key questions on these various topics. All questions were approached using general and specific literature searches, focusing on articles and other information published since 2008. These publications and additional materials published before 2008 were reviewed by the task force as a whole or by individual subgroups as to relevance to individual questions. Recommendations were developed by a process of iterative consensus, with all task force members voting to accept or reject each recommendation. Grading was based on the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system; the quality of the evidence was graded as high, moderate, or weak, and the strength of the recommendation was graded as strong or weak. Review of the document was performed by members of the SIS who were not on the task force. After responses were made to all critiques, the document was approved as an official guideline of the SIS by the Executive Council.

RESULTS

This guideline summarizes the current recommendations developed by the task force on the treatment of patients who have IAI. Evidence-based recommendations have been made regarding risk assessment in individual patients; source control; the timing, selection, and duration of antimicrobial therapy; and suggested approaches to patients who fail initial therapy. Additional recommendations related to the treatment of pediatric patients with IAI have been included.

SUMMARY

The current recommendations of the SIS regarding the treatment of patients with IAI are provided in this guideline.

The impact of revised CLSI cefazolin breakpoints on the clinical outcomes of Escherichia coli bacteremia

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The susceptibility breakpoints of cephalosporins for Enterobacteriaceae were revised by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) in 2010 and 2011. The clinical outcome and susceptibility data were analyzed to evaluate the impact of revised CLSI cefazolin breakpoints on the treatment of Escherichia coli bacteremia.

METHODS

Forty-three bacteremic Escherichia coli isolates from Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan, during the period from January 2013 to December 2013, were selected to analyze the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) distributions of cefazolin and the correlated clinical responses to cefazolin therapy.

RESULTS

The modal cefazolin MIC among the 43 isolates was 1 μg/mL and accounted for 18 (42%) isolates. The cumulative percentage for MICs ≤ 2 μg/mL was 79%. The conventional dosing regimens achieved clinical cure in 33 (97%) of 34 patients with bacteremia due to E. coli with a cefazolin MIC ≤ 2 μg/mL, in all of the six patients with a cefazolin MIC of 4 μg/mL, and all of the three patients with a cefazolin MIC of 8 μg/mL.

CONCLUSION

The microbiological data support the revised CLSI breakpoints of cefazolin. The conventional cefazolin dosing regimens can still achieve satisfactory clinical cure rates for bacteremia of E. coli with a cefazolin MIC ≤ 2 μg/mL in patients without severe septic shock. Before the approval of the efficacy of cefazolin for the treatment of E. coli isolates with a cefazolin MIC of 4 μg/mL, it is prudent to use cefazolin only when a high drug level can be achieved in the infection site, such as the urinary tract.

Clinical experience with ertapenem in the treatment of infections of the biliary tract in daily practice in five Spanish hospitals

Efficacy of ertapenem in biliary tract infections in daily practice was retrospectively analyzed. Records of patients admitted to five Spanish hospitals (January 2007/February 2011) with biliary infections (cholecystitis/cholangitis) treated with ertapenem for ≥72 hours were reviewed. A total of 187 patients (mean 63.8±19.3 years, 52.9% males) were identified. Up to 96 (51.3%) were operated, with cholecystectomy (97.9%) and primary laparoscopy approach (75%) as most frequent intervention. Non-operated patients presented higher age (71.0±17.5 vs 56.9±18.5 years; P<0.001), heart insufficiency (11.0 vs 3.1%; P = 0.044) and the Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis score (2.99±2.26 vs 1.94±2.34; P<0.001); and longer length of stay (10.3±6.6 vs 9.1±7.0; P = 0.005). Mean duration of treatment was 6.89±3.38 days. Overall favourable response was 87.7% (95% CI = 83.0-92.4) at the end of treatment. In the multivariate analysis (P<0.001, R² Cox = 0.10), non-favourable response was associated with Charlson index≥5 (OR = 18.71; 95% CI: 1.26-278.55; P = 0.034), pericholecystic abscess (OR = 5.30; 95% CI: 1.26-22.37; P = 0.023) and >3 days from symptoms start to admission (OR = 3.02; 95% CI: 1.13-8.04; P = 0.027).

Efficacy of ertapenem for treatment of bloodstream infections caused by extended-spectrum-β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae

Ertapenem is active against extended-spectrum-β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae organisms but inactive against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii. Due to a lack of therapeutic data for ertapenem in the treatment of ESBL bloodstream infections (BSIs), group 2 carbapenems (e.g., imipenem or meropenem) are often preferred for treatment of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae, although their antipseudomonal activity is unnecessary. From 2005 to 2010, 261 patients with ESBL BSIs were analyzed. Outcomes were equivalent between patients treated with ertapenem and those treated with group 2 carbapenems (mortality rates of 6% and 18%, respectively; P = 0.18).

Epileptogenic potential of carbapenem agents: mechanism of action, seizure rates, and clinical considerations

Antimicrobials are the most frequently implicated class of drugs in drug-induced seizure, with β-lactams being the class of antimicrobials most often implicated. The seizure-inducing potential of the carbapenem subclass may be directly related to their β-lactam ring structure. Data on individual carbapenems and seizure activity are scarce. To evaluate the available evidence on the association between carbapenem agents and seizure activity, we conducted a literature search of the MEDLINE (1966-May 2010), EMBASE (1974-May 2010), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-May 2010) databases. Reference citations from the retrieved articles were also reviewed. Mechanistically, seizure propensity of the β-lactams is related to their binding to γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors. There are numerous reports of seizure activity associated with imipenem-cilastatin, with seizure rates ranging from 3-33%. For meropenem, doripenem, and ertapenem, the seizure rate for each agent is reported as less than 1%. However, as their use increases and expands into new patient populations, the rate of seizures with these agents may increase. High-dose therapy, especially in patients with renal dysfunction, preexisting central nervous system abnormalities, or a seizure history increases the likelihood of seizure activity. Although specific studies have not been conducted, data indicate that carbapenem-associated seizure is best managed with benzodiazepines, followed by other agents that enhance GABA transmission. Due to the drug interaction between carbapenems and valproic acid, resulting in clinically significant declines in valproic acid serum concentrations, the combination should be avoided whenever possible. Clinicians should be vigilant regarding the possibility of carbapenem-induced seizures when selecting and dosing antimicrobial therapy.

Meta-analysis: ertapenem for complicated intra-abdominal infections

BACKGROUND

Ertapenem is a new member of the carbapenem class of antibiotics, with a favourable pharmacokinetic profile, but a narrower spectrum of antimicrobial activity, compared with older representatives of this class.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ertapenem for treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials identified in PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus that compared ertapenem with other antimicrobial regimens, in patients of all ages, with complicated intra-abdominal infections. The primary outcomes evaluated were clinical success (cure or improvement) in the modified intention-to-treat population and clinical adverse events.

RESULTS

Six randomized-controlled trials involving patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections, mainly of mild-to-moderate severity (three with a double-blind design; one performed in children) that compared ertapenem treatment (once daily) against piperacillin/tazobactam, ceftriaxone plus metronidazole and ticarcillin/clavulanic acid (in three, two and one randomized-controlled trials respectively) were included. No difference was found between adult patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections treated with ertapenem vs. comparators, regarding clinical success (five randomized-controlled trials, 2002 patients, fixed-effect model, odds ratio: 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89-1.39); clinical adverse events (four randomized-controlled trials, 1530 patients, fixed-effect model, OR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.61-1.20); microbiological success; mortality and withdrawals because of adverse events. Ertapenem was associated with more laboratory adverse events (four randomized-controlled trials, 1530 patients, fixed-effect model, OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.14-2.61), but none was reported as serious.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis provides additional evidence that ertapenem can be used as effectively and safely, as other recommended antimicrobial regimens, for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections, particularly of mild-to-moderate severity.

A prospective, double-blind, multicenter, randomized trial comparing ertapenem 3 vs >or=5 days in community-acquired intraabdominal infection

Severe secondary peritonitis is diagnosed in only 20-30% of all patients, but studies to date have persisted in using a standard fixed duration of antibiotic therapy. This prospective, double-blind, multicenter, randomized clinical study compared the clinical and bacteriological efficacy and tolerability of ertapenem (1 g/day) 3 days (group I) vs >or=5 days (group II) in 111 patients with localized peritonitis (appendicitis vs non-appendicitis) of mild to moderate severity, requiring surgical intervention. In evaluable patients, the clinical response as primary efficacy outcome were assessed at the test-of-cure 2 and 4 weeks after discontinuation of antibacterial therapy. Ninety patients were evaluable. In groups I and II, 92.9 and 89.6% of patients were cured, respectively; 95.3% in group I and 93.7% in group II showed eradication. These differences were not statistically significant. The most frequent bacteria recovered were Escherichia coli and Bacteroides fragilis. A wound infection developed in seven patients (7.7%) and an intraabdominal infection in one patient (1.1%). There was a low frequency of drug-related clinical or laboratory adverse effects in both groups. Our study demonstrated that, in patients with localized community-acquired intraabdominal infection, a 3-day course of ertapenem had the same clinical and bacteriological efficacy as a standard duration.

Bowel colonization with vancomycin-resistant enterococci after antimicrobial therapy for intra-abdominal infections: observations from 2 randomized comparative clinical trials of ertapenem therapy

The impact of different antimicrobial regimens for intra-abdominal infections on the frequency of bowel colonization with vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) was examined in 2 randomized open-label trials of intra-abdominal infection comparing piperacillin-tazobactam or ceftriaxone/metronidazole with ertapenem. In these short-term studies, overall rates of bowel colonization with VRE were generally comparable after treatment with piperacillin-tazobactam, ceftriaxone/metronidazole, or ertapenem.