Evidence Hub

Global epidemiology and clinical outcomes of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and associated carbapenemases (POP): a prospective cohort study

Jinnethe Reyes, L. Komarow, Liang Chen, Lizhao Ge, B. Hanson, E. Cober, Erica S. Herc, T. Alenazi et al.

The Lancet Microbe, 2023

972 participants · 219 citations

Abstract

Summary Background Carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA) is a global threat, but the distribution and clinical significance of carbapenemases are unclear. The aim of this study was to define characteristics and outcomes of CRPA infections and the global frequency and clinical impact of carbapenemases harboured by CRPA. Methods We conducted an observational, prospective cohort study of CRPA isolated from bloodstream, respiratory, urine, or wound cultures of patients at 44 hospitals (10 countries) between Dec 1, 2018, and Nov 30, 2019. Clinical data were abstracted from health records and CRPA isolates were whole-genome sequenced. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality from the day the index culture was collected. We compared outcomes of patients with CRPA infections by infection type and across geographic regions and performed an inverse probability weighted analysis to assess the association between carbapenemase production and 30-day mortality. Findings We enrolled 972 patients (USA n=527, China n=171, south and central America n=127, Middle East n=91, Australia and Singapore n=56), of whom 581 (60%) had CRPA infections. 30-day mortality differed by infection type (bloodstream 21 [30%] of 69, respiratory 69 [19%] of 358, wound nine [14%] of 66, urine six [7%] of 88; p=0·0012) and geographical region (Middle East 15 [29%] of 52, south and central America 20 [27%] of 73, USA 60 [19%] of 308, Australia and Singapore three [11%] of 28, China seven [6%] of 120;…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 972 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free