Piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefotaxime plus metronidazole for the treatment of severe intra-abdominal infection in hospitalized pediatric patients

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.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Appropriate Empiric Anti-Enterococcal Therapy for Intra-Abdominal Infection

Background: Delayed treatment of seriously infected patients results in increased mortality. However, antimicrobial therapy for the initial 24 to 48 hours is mostly empirically provided, without evidence regarding the causative pathogen. Whether empiric anti-enterococcal therapy should be administered to treat intra-abdominal infection (IAI) before obtaining culture results remains unknown. We performed a meta-analysis to explore the effects of empiric enterococci covered antibiotic therapy in IAI and the risk factors for enterococcal infection in IAI. Methods: We searched multiple databases systematically and included 23 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 13 observational studies. The quality of included studies was assessed, and the reporting bias was evaluated. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects or fixed effects models according to the heterogeneity. The risk ratio (RR), odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Results: Enterococci-covered antibiotic regimens provided no improvement in treatment success compared with control regimens (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.00; p = 0.15), with similar mortality and adverse effects in both arms. Basic characteristic analysis revealed that most of the enrolled patients with IAI in RCTs were young, lower risk community-acquired intra-abdominal infection (CA-IAI) patients with a relatively low APACHE II score. Interestingly, risk factor screening revealed that malignancy, corticosteroid use, operation, any antibiotic treatment, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), and indwelling urinary catheter could predispose the patients with IAI to a substantially higher risk of enterococcal infection. "Hospital acquired" itself was a risk factor (OR, 2.81; 95% CI, 2.34-3.39; p < 0.001). Conclusion: It is unnecessary to use additional agents empirically to specifically provide anti-enterococcal coverage for the management of CA-IAI in lower risk patients without evidence of causative pathogen, and risk factors can increase the risk of enterococcal infection. Thus, there is a rationale for providing empiric anti-enterococcal coverage for severely ill patients with CA-IAI with high risk factors and patients with hospital-acquired intra-abdominal infection (HA-IAI).

Piperacillin-tazobactam in pediatric cancer patients younger than 25 months: a retrospective multicenter survey

Piperacillin-Tazobactam (Pip-Taz) is an evidence-based empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia in adolescents and adults. No data are available in pediatric cancer patients <25 months of age. In this retrospective, multicenter data survey, the analysis focuses on safety, tolerance, and efficacy. The daily dose administered was 240 mg/kg given in three equally divided doses. Data on 156 Pip-Taz treatment courses in 69 children <25 months from five pediatric cancer treatment centers (2001-2005) were analyzed. The median duration of treatment with Pip-Taz was 5 days (range, 1-23 days; 1-12 Pip-Taz courses per patient). Pip-Taz was started on the first day of fever in 90% of all courses, in 6% in the first 72 h, and in 4% as second- or third-line agent. Forty-five percent of all patients were neutropenic. In all patients, the outcome was favorable independent whether Pip-Taz was given as monotherapy (42 courses; 27%) or in combination. Overall, Pip-Taz was well tolerated and discontinued due to adverse events in only two patients who experienced non-life-threatening allergic reactions (skin rash and wheezing). The results of this study are preliminary due to the methodological limitations of a retrospective survey. Taking this bias into consideration, Pip-Taz appears to be a safe, and feasible alternative in pediatric cancer patients with febrile neutropenia <25 months of age suggesting that the inclusion of children of all age groups in future prospective controlled studies evaluating Pip-Taz is justified.

Piperacillin/tazobactam: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in moderate to severe bacterial infections

Piperacillin/tazobactam is a beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combination with a broad spectrum of antibacterial activity against most Gram-positive and Gram-negative aerobic bacteria and anaerobic bacteria. Piperacillin/tazobactam is effective and well-tolerated in patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI), intra-abdominal infections, skin and soft tissue infections, and febrile neutropenia. In comparative clinical trials against various other antibacterial regimens, piperacillin/tazobactam has shown higher clinical success rates, particularly in the treatment of patients with intra-abdominal infections and febrile neutropenia. Cost analyses of piperacillin/tazobactam have been variable, in part, because of differences in specific costs included. Three US cost analyses found that piperacillin/tazobactam had lower total medical costs than clindamycin plus gentamicin or imipenem/cilastatin in intra-abdominal infections, and ticarcillin/ clavulanic acid in community-acquired pneumonia. Piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin had lower total costs than ceftazidime plus amikacin in another cost analysis of patients with febrile neutropenic episodes modelled in nine European countries. However, piperacillin/tazobactam plus tobramycin was more costly than ceftazidime plus tobramycin in hospital-acquired pneumonia in a US cost analysis. In cost-effectiveness analyses, all studies of intra-abdominal infections, pneumonia and febrile neutropenic episodes consistently reported lower costs per unit of effectiveness versus comparators. Piperacillin/tazobactam was dominant (greater efficacy and lower costs) versus imipenem/cilastatin in intra-abdominal infections and ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin or meropenem in pneumonia. Piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin was dominant over ceftazidime plus amikacin in the treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes. In a cost-effectiveness analysis of skin and soft tissue infection, piperacillin/tazobactam had lower costs per successfully treated patient than ceftriaxone or cefotaxime, but a slightly higher cost-effectiveness ratio than amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. All cost-effectiveness analyses were based on decision-analytical models.

CONCLUSIONS

Piperacillin/tazobactam is likely to reduce overall treatment costs of moderate to severe bacterial infections by increasing initial treatment success, thereby reducing the length of hospital stay and the use of additional antibacterials. Piperacillin/tazobactam has shown clinical and economic advantages over standard antibacterial regimens in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections, LRTIs, febrile episodes in patients with neutropenia, and skin and soft tissue infections, although more complete published data are needed to confirm these results. Present data regarding clinical efficacy, bacterial resistance and costs would support the use of piperacillin/tazobactam as an empirical first-line option in moderate to severe bacterial infections.