T.E.A. Study: three-day ertapenem versus three-day Ampicillin-Sulbactam

Association between bacterial resistance profile and the development of intra-abdominal abscesses in pediatric patients with perforated appendicitis: cohort study

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to determine the association between the presence of a microorganism resistant to the antibiotic used in empirical therapy and the development of intra-abdominal abscesses in children with perforated appendicitis.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted in patients under 18 years of age who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy between November 1, 2019, and September 30, 2020, in whom perforated appendicitis was documented intraoperatively. Peritoneal fluid samples were taken for bacteria culture purposes, and clinical and microbiological data were collected from all patients.

RESULTS

A total of 232 patients were included in the study. The most isolated microorganisms were Escherichia coli (80.14%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (7.45%). In addition, 5.31% of E. coli isolates were classified as ESBL-producing organisms. No association was found between a germ resistant to empiric antimicrobial therapy and the development of a postoperative intra-abdominal abscess. Multivariate analysis showed that being a high-risk patient on admission (OR 2.89 (p = 0.01)) was associated with the development of intra-abdominal abscesses postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

E. coli was the most commonly isolated microorganism, with a low rate of ESBL-producing isolates. No association between resistance and risk of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess was found. However, it was identified that being a high-risk patient on admission was associated with this complication.

TYPE OF STUDY

Prognosis study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

Carbapenem Antibiotics Versus Other Antibiotics for Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections: a Systematic Review and Patient-Level Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (PROSPERO CRD42018108854)

BACKGROUND

The treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections remains a challenge. Both optimal medical and surgical therapy (i.e., source control) are needed to achieve low mortality and morbidity. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the impact of carbapenem antibiotic therapy compared to other antibiotics in complicated intra-abdominal infections (secondary peritonitis) with an emphasis on mortality and postoperative complications.

METHODS

A systematic literature search from PubMed/Medline and Web of Science databases was carried out. The last search was conducted in August 2022. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Pre-defined outcomes were mortality, treatment success, treatment failure, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Ten randomized controlled trials, published from 1983 to 2013 with a total of 2377 patients (1255 patients in the carbapenem antibiotics group and 1122 in the control group), were identified. A meta-analysis comparing patients undergoing carbapenem antibiotic therapy and patients receiving other antibiotics was performed. No significant difference regarding mortality (OR 1.19, 95% CI [0.79; 1.82], p = 0.40), treatment success (OR 1.17, 95% CI [0.72; 1.91], p = 0.53), and treatment failure (OR 0.84, 95% CI [0.48; 1.45], p = 0.52) was observed. Carbapenem therapy was associated with fewer adverse events compared to therapy with other antibiotics (OR 0.79, 95% CI [0.65; 0.97], p = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

There is currently no evidence that carbapenem antibiotics are superior in terms of mortality, and success or failure for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections (secondary peritonitis). The rate of adverse events is lower under carbapenem therapy compared to control antibiotics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018108854.

Effectiveness of Five Antibiotic Regimens for the Treatment of Intra-Abdominal Infection in Bogotá

Background: Intra-abdominal infection (IAI) results in prolonged in-hospital length-of-stay, critical care unit requirements, and multiple surgical procedures. Several antimicrobial agents are available for treatment of IAI. In Colombia, there are no data on the comparative effectiveness of the different regimens used. Patients and Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was completed in four third-level hospitals by comparing treatment effectiveness of five different antibiotic protocols (ampicillin-sulbactam, clindamycin-amikacin, piperacillin-tazobactam, amikacin-metronidazole, and cefuroxime-metronidazole) in patients with a diagnosis of IAI. Analysis was based on a composed outcome of therapeutic failure (change of antibiotic because of no clinical improvement, requirement of surgical re-intervention, post-operative infection, change of antibiotic because of antimicrobial resistance, and in-hospital mortality). Association of each antibiotic protocol to therapeutic failure was assessed through logistic regression analysis. Results: Five hundred ninety-three individuals were included. Two hundred twenty-nine were prescribed ampicillin-sulbactam; 170, clindamycin-amikacin; 77, amikacin-metronidazole; 83, piperacillin-tazobactam; and 34, cefuroxime-metronidazole. Therapeutic failure rate was 22%. Multivariable analysis showed none of the evaluated antibiotic protocols had an association with the primary outcome. Variables having an association for higher risk were age >70 years old (odds ratio [OR], 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-4.18); complicated IAI (OR, 3.36; 95% CI, 1.4-8.07); and World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) Sepsis Severity Score (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.18-1.45). Adequate source control (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.45) and hospitalization at Health Center 2 (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.14-0.63) were identified as protective factors. Conclusions: There are no differences between the rate of therapeutic failure among the different antibiotic protocols evaluated. This outcome depends heavily on risk factors related to disease severity when surgical intervention occurs.

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).

Moxifloxacin in Pediatric Patients With Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections: Results of the MOXIPEDIA Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to evaluate primarily the safety and also the efficacy of moxifloxacin (MXF) in children with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs).

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled study, 451 pediatric patients aged 3 months to 17 years with cIAIs were treated with intravenous/oral MXF (N = 301) or comparator (COMP, intravenous ertapenem followed by oral amoxicillin/clavulanate; N = 150) for 5 to 14 days. Doses of MXF were selected based on the results of a Phase 1 study in pediatric patients (NCT01049022). The primary endpoint was safety, with particular focus on cardiac and musculoskeletal safety; clinical and bacteriologic efficacy at test of cure was also investigated.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients with adverse events (AEs) was comparable between the 2 treatment arms (MXF: 58.1% and COMP: 54.7%). The incidence of drug-related AEs was higher in the MXF arm than in the COMP arm (14.3% and 6.7%, respectively). No cases of QTc interval prolongation-related morbidity or mortality were observed. The proportion of patients with musculoskeletal AEs was comparable between treatment arms; no drug-related events were reported. Clinical cure rates were 84.6% and 95.5% in the MXF and COMP arms, respectively, in patients with confirmed pathogen(s) at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

MXF treatment was well tolerated in children with cIAIs. However, a lower clinical cure rate was observed with MXF treatment compared with COMP. This study does not support a recommendation of MXF for children with cIAIs when alternative more efficacious antibiotics with better safety profile are available.

Disease-based antimicrobial stewardship: a review of active and passive approaches to patient management

Although new antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs) often begin by targeting the reduction of antimicrobial use, an increasing focus of ASPs is to improve the management of specific infectious diseases. Disease-based antimicrobial stewardship emphasizes improving patient outcomes by optimizing antimicrobial use and increasing compliance with performance measures. Directing efforts towards the comprehensive management of specific infections allows ASPs to promote the shift in healthcare towards improving quality, safety and patient outcome metrics for specific diseases. This review evaluates published active and passive disease-based antimicrobial stewardship interventions and their impact on antimicrobial use and associated patient outcomes for patients with pneumonia, acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, bloodstream infections, urinary tract infections, asymptomatic bacteriuria, Clostridium difficile infection and intra-abdominal infections. Current literature suggests that disease-based antimicrobial stewardship effects on medical management and patient outcomes vary based on infectious disease syndrome, resource availability and intervention type.

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.

Treatment Modalities and Antimicrobial Stewardship Initiatives in the Management of Intra-Abdominal Infections

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) focus on improving the utilization of broad spectrum antibiotics to decrease the incidence of multidrug-resistant Gram positive and Gram negative pathogens. Hospital admission for both medical and surgical intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) commonly results in the empiric use of broad spectrum antibiotics such as fluoroquinolones, beta-lactam beta-lactamase inhibitors, and carbapenems that can select for resistant organisms. This review will discuss the management of uncomplicated and complicated IAIs as well as highlight stewardship initiatives focusing on the proper use of broad spectrum antibiotics.

β-Lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors versus carbapenems for the treatment of sepsis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Data on the relative efficacy of β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors (BL/BLIs) versus carbapenems are scant.

METHODS

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any BL/BLI versus any carbapenem for the treatment of sepsis. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. A broad search was conducted with no restrictions on language, publication status or date. Two reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria and extracted the data. Assessment of risk of bias was performed using the domain-based approach. Subgroup analyses were used to investigate heterogeneity and focus on patient groups more likely to harbour ESBL-positive bacteria. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated and pooled.

RESULTS

Thirty-one RCTs were included. There was no difference between BL/BLIs and carbapenems in terms of mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79-1.20), without heterogeneity. No differences were observed with regard to clinical or microbiological failure and bacterial superinfections. The results were not affected by risk of bias. No differences were detected in the subgroups of patients with nosocomial infections, Gram-negative infections and neutropenic fever. Adverse events requiring discontinuation were more common with BL/BLIs, on account of an increased incidence of diarrhoea. However, Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.10-0.87) was more frequent with carbapenems and seizures were more frequent with imipenem (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in efficacy between BL/BLIs and carbapenems exist in RCTs including patient populations with a certain, albeit unknown, rate of ESBL-positive bacteria causing infections.