Evidence Hub

Clinical Impact of the Revised 2019 CLSI Levofloxacin Breakpoints in Patients with Enterobacterales Bacteremia

Ho-Yin Huang, Chu-Feng Wang, Po-Liang Lu, Sung-Pin Tseng, Ya-ling Wang, Tun-Chieh Chen, Ko Chang, H. Tu et al.

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 2021

308 participants · 11 citations

Abstract

The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) revised the fluoroquinolone MIC breakpoints for Enterobacterales in 2019, based on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses. However, clinical evidence supporting these breakpoint revisions is limited. ABSTRACT The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) revised the fluoroquinolone MIC breakpoints for Enterobacterales in 2019, based on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses. However, clinical evidence supporting these breakpoint revisions is limited. A retrospective study was conducted at 3 hospitals in Taiwan between January 2017 and March 2019. Patients treated with levofloxacin for bacteremia caused by members of the Enterobacterales with high MICs (1 or 2 μg/ml; levofloxacin susceptible by pre-2019 CLSI breakpoints) were compared with those with low-MIC bacteremia (≤0.5 μg/ml; levofloxacin susceptible by 2019 CLSI breakpoints) to assess therapeutic effectiveness by multivariable logistic regression. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality, and the secondary outcome was the emergence of levofloxacin-resistant isolates within 90 days after levofloxacin initiation. A total of 308 patients were eligible for the study. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that patients infected with high-MIC isolates (n = 63) had a significantly lower survival rate than those infected with low-MIC isolates (n = 245) (P = 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression revealed that high levofloxacin MIC was a predictor of 30-day mortality…

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: 308 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