Ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for the treatment of complicated infections: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

WHO's essential medicines and AWaRe: recommendations on first- and second-choice antibiotics for empiric treatment of clinical infections

The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) prioritizes medicines that have significant global public health value. The EML can also deliver important messages on appropriate medicine use. Since 2017, in response to the growing challenge of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics on the EML have been reviewed and categorized into three groups: Access, Watch, and Reserve, leading to a new categorization called AWaRe. These categories were developed taking into account the impact of different antibiotics and classes on antimicrobial resistance and the implications for their appropriate use. The 2023 AWaRe classification provides empirical guidance on 41 essential antibiotics for over 30 clinical infections targeting both the primary health care and hospital facility setting. A further 257 antibiotics not included on the EML have been allocated an AWaRe group for stewardship and monitoring purposes. This article describes the development of AWaRe, focussing on the clinical evidence base that guided the selection of Access, Watch, or Reserve antibiotics as first and second choices for each infection. The overarching objective was to offer a tool for optimizing the quality of global antibiotic prescribing and reduce inappropriate use by encouraging the use of Access antibiotics (or no antibiotics) where appropriate. This clinical evidence evaluation and subsequent EML recommendations are the basis for the AWaRe antibiotic book and related smartphone applications. By providing guidance on antibiotic prioritization, AWaRe aims to facilitate the revision of national lists of essential medicines, update national prescribing guidelines, and supervise antibiotic use. Adherence to AWaRe would extend the effectiveness of current antibiotics while helping countries expand access to these life-saving medicines for the benefit of current and future patients, health professionals, and the environment.

Piperacillin/tazobactam vs carbapenems for patients with bacterial infection: Protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Early empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy is recommended for patients with severe infections, including sepsis. β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations or carbapenems are often used to ensure coverage of likely pathogens. Piperacillin/tazobactam is proposed as a carbapenem-sparing agent to reduce the incidence of multidrug-resistant bacteria and superinfections. In the recently published MERINO trial, increased mortality from piperacillin/tazobactam was suggested in patients with bacteraemia with resistant Escherichia coli or Klebsiella species. Whether these findings also apply to empirical piperacillin/tazobactam in patients with other severe infections, including sepsis, is unknown. We aim to assess the benefits and harms of empirical and definitive piperacillin/tazobactam vs carbapenems for patients with severe bacterial infections.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol has been prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols statement, the Cochrane Handbook and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We will include randomised clinical trials assessing piperacillin/tazobactam vs carbapenems in patients with severe bacterial infections of any origin. The primary outcome will be all-cause short-term mortality ≤ 90 days. Secondary outcomes will include all-cause long-term mortality > 90 days, adverse events, quality of life, use of life support, secondary infections, antibiotic resistance, and length of stay. We will conduct meta-analyses, including pre-planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses for all assessed outcomes. The risk of random errors in the meta-analyses will be assessed by trial sequential analysis.

Clinical efficacy of piperacillin/tazobactam in the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections

INTRODUCTION

Complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) are skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) that involve deep soft tissue. cSSTIs often require surgical intervention and/or hospitalization. cSSTIs are associated with significant mortality and morbidity, and carry a significant burden on health care systems. Piperacillin/tazobactam has been regarded as a standard treatment for cSSTIs because of its antibiotic spectrum, safety and clinical efficacy. Several antibiotics, as compared to piperacillin/tazobactam, have been evaluated in the treatment of cSSTIs. Areas covered: This review summarizes randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical efficacy of piperacillin/tazobactam for the treatment of cSSTIs. Expert opinion: Piperacillin/tazobactam, which covers most causative organisms in cSSTIs, is the drug of choice for the treatment of cSSTIs. Other options such as ertapenem and moxifloxacin may be reasonable where multiple daily dosing or intravenous administration is inappropriate. But in general, they should be avoided as an empirical treatment because of their highly association with resistant bacteria, which are becoming a global threat. Therefore, piperacilin/tazobactam is appropriate as an empirical therapy for the treatment of SSTIs and should be de-escalated as soon as causative organisms are identified, their drug-sensitivity results are available, and clinical condition becomes stable.

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).