Evidence Hub

Carbapenem use in extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales infections in US hospitals and influence of IDSA guidance: a retrospective cohort study

Walker MK, Diao G, Warner S, Babiker A, Neupane M, Strich JR, Yek C, Kadri SS et al.

The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 2024

6 citations

Abstract

Background: Disparate and rapidly changing practice recommendations from major professional infectious diseases societies for managing non-severe infections caused by extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales might hamper carbapenem stewardship. We aimed to understand the real-world management of extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant (ECR) Enterobacterales infections in US hospitals and factors influencing preference for carbapenems over alternative treatments.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with ECR Enterobacterales infections in the PINC AI database. Antibiotic regimens were assessed during empirical and targeted treatment periods and by infection severity and site. Likelihood of receiving targeted carbapenems over time and before or after initial release of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidance on Sept 8, 2020, was established with generalised estimating equations controlling for patient, hospital, and temporal confounders.

Findings: Between Jan 1, 2018, and Dec 31, 2021, 30 041 inpatient encounters with ECR Enterobacterales infections were identified at 168 US hospitals, of which 16 006 (53·3%) encounters were in women and 14 035 (46·7%) were in men, with a mean age of 67·3 years (SD 15·1). Although few patients received carbapenems empirically (5324 [17·7%] of 30 041), many did so as targeted treatment (17 518 [58·3%] of 30 041), including subgroups of patients…

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.

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