Hospital Length of Stay Among Patients Receiving Intermittent Versus Prolonged Piperacillin/Tazobactam Infusion in the Intensive Care Units

A Randomized Clinical Trial of Bayesian-Guided Beta-Lactam Infusion Strategy and Associated Bacterial Resistance and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Severe Pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial resistance is a growing health concern worldwide. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of beta-lactam infusion on the emergence of bacterial resistance in patients with severe pneumonia in the intensive care unit.

METHODS

Adult intensive care patients receiving cefepime, meropenem, or piperacillin-tazobactam for severe pneumonia caused by Gram-negative bacteria were randomized to receive beta-lactams as an intermittent (30 minutes) or continuous (24 hours) infusion. Respiratory samples for culture and susceptibility testing, with minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC), were collected once a week for up to 4 weeks. Beta-lactam plasma concentrations were measured and therapeutic drug monitoring was performed using Bayesian software as the standard of care.

RESULTS

The study was terminated early owing to slow enrollment. Thirty-five patients were enrolled in this study. Cefepime (n = 22) was the most commonly prescribed drug at randomization, followed by piperacillin (n = 8) and meropenem (n = 5). Nineteen patients were randomized into the continuous infusion arm and 16 into the intermittent infusion arm. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most common respiratory isolate (n = 19). Eighteen patients were included in the final analyses. No differences in bacterial resistance were observed between arms ( P = 0.67). No significant differences in superinfection ( P = 1), microbiological cure ( P = 0.85), clinical cure at day 7 ( P = 0.1), clinical cure at end of therapy ( P = 0.56), mortality ( P = 1), intensive care unit length of stay ( P = 0.37), or hospital length of stay ( P = 0.83) were observed. Achieving 100% ƒT > MIC ( P = 0.04) and ƒT > 4 × MIC ( P = 0.02) increased likelihood of clinical cure at day 7 of therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in the emergence of bacterial resistance or clinical outcomes were observed between intermittent and continuous infusions. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic target attainment may be associated with a clinical cure on day 7.

Prolonged infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics for Gram-negative infections: rationale and evidence base

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review is to discuss the rationale of and current evidence for prolonged beta-lactam infusion in the management of Gram-negative infections.

RECENT FINDINGS

Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) data from various in-vitro and in-vivo experimental studies conclusively support prolonged infusion over intermittent infusion in terms of achieving effective beta-lactam exposure for maximal bacterial killing. Superior PK/PD target attainment has been demonstrated with prolonged beta-lactam infusion in patient populations that are more likely to have less susceptible Gram-negative infections. These populations include critically ill patients, cystic fibrosis patients and patients with malignant diseases. The clinical impact of prolonged beta-lactam infusion is likely to be the greatest in these patient groups: critically ill patients with a high level of illness severity who are not receiving renal replacement therapy; patients with nonfermenting Gram-negative bacilli infection and patients with respiratory infection. Critically ill patients with augmented renal clearance may not achieve effective beta-lactam exposure even with the use of prolonged infusion. Maximizing the effectiveness of prolonged beta-lactam infusion via therapeutic drug monitoring is becoming a more common strategy in the management of critically ill patients with Gram-negative infection.

SUMMARY

Prolonged beta-lactam infusion may not benefit all patients but only for those who are critically ill and/or immunocompromised, who are also more likely to have less susceptible Gram-negative infections.

Loading dose and efficacy of continuous or extended infusion of beta-lactams compared with intermittent administration in patients with critical illnesses: A subgroup meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

The role of continuous/extended beta-lactam infusions (CEIs) in improving clinical outcomes among critically ill patients remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of CEI versus intermittent administration (IA) of beta-lactams by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase were searched from inception until December 2018 for studies comparing clinical outcomes of CEI versus IA in critically ill patients. The meta-analysis included 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 13 non-RCTs.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

For CEI versus IA, the summary relative risk (RR) for overall mortality and clinical cure was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72-0.94) and 1.31 (95% CI: 1.15-1.49), respectively. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses of the loading dose revealed a significantly increased clinical cure rate in the loading-dose group (RR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.22-1.69), which remained significant after adjustments for beta-lactam type, and association between clinical cure and loading dose for clinical cure (RR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.20-1.80; p = .001). Subgroup analysis of administration type indicated that both groups had low mortality and high clinical cure rates; however, the heterogeneity analysis did not support an association across continuous infusion and extended infusion groups. Subgroup analysis of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) score was conducted; according to APACHE scores ≥ 16, overall mortality and clinical cure significantly differed between CEI and IA.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

CEIs with loading-dose treatment may significantly improve the clinical outcomes in critically ill sepsis or septic shock patients.

Optimal infusion rate in antimicrobial therapy explosion of evidence in the last five years

Background

Sporadic studies in antimicrobial therapy have evaluated the effects of infusion rates on therapeutic and economic outcomes, and new findings may challenge the regular infusion regimen.

Methods

Focusing on studies comparing the outcomes of different infusion regimens, the relevant literature was identified by searching PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus from January 1, 2013 to March 1, 2018. Papers were finally chosen using a PRISMA flowchart.

Results

Antimicrobials with the superiority of prolonged infusion to standard infusion in terms of efficacy and safety include meropenem, doripenem, imipenem, cefepime, ceftazidime, piperacillin/tazobactam, linezolid, and vancomycin. The strategy of concomitantly reducing total daily dose and prolonging infusion time may cause treatment failure (eg, imipenem). Extended infusion of piperacillin/tazobactam has pharmacoeconomic advantage over standard infusion. Prolonged infusion of voriconazole is inferior to standard infusion because of lower efficacy caused by pharmacokinetic changes. Comparable outcomes following standard infusion and continuous infusion were observed with norvancomycin and nafcillin. Factors determining whether prolonged infusion has a benefit over standard infusion include MIC of bacterial pathogens, bacterial density, diagnosis, disease severity, total daily dose, and renal function.

Conclusion

To maximally preserve the effectiveness of current antimicrobials, effective interventions should be implemented to enhance the application of optimal infusion strategies. For reducing nephrotoxicity, prolonged infusion of meropenem is better than conventional infusion in neonates with Gram-negative late-onset sepsis, and continuous infusion of vancomycin is superior to intermittent infusion. For increasing efficacy, prolonged or continuous infusion of time-dependent antimicrobials (eg, meropenem, doripenem, imipenem, cefepime, ceftazidime, piperacillin/tazobactam, linezolid, and vancomycin) is an optimal choice. Nevertheless, such advantages may only be demonstrated in special clinical circumstances and special populations (eg, patients with a sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score≥9, respiratory tract infections, urinary or intra-abdominal infections, or infections caused by less susceptible pathogens would benefit from prolonged infusion of piperacillin/tazobactam).