Evidence Hub

Effect of differences in MIC values on clinical outcomes in patients with bloodstream infections caused by gram-negative organisms treated with levofloxacin

Robyn DeFife, Marc H. Scheetz, Joe M. Feinglass, Michael J. Postelnick, Kimberly K. Scarsi

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 2008

404 participants · 44 citations

Abstract

Emerging evidence suggests that current fluoroquinolone dosing strategies may be inadequate to treat bloodstream infections caused by organisms classified as sensitive. This study sought to determine if differences in MICs for levofloxacin-susceptible gram-negative organisms correlate with differences in patient outcomes. A retrospective cohort study evaluated patients treated with levofloxacin for bloodstream infections caused by susceptible gram-negative organisms. Patients infected with gram-negative organisms for which MICs indicated susceptibility were categorized into three groups: those with organisms for which MICs were low (<or=0.25 mg/liter), intermediate (0.5 mg/liter), and high (1 or 2 mg/liter). Patients were evaluated for baseline similarity, all-cause mortality, and measurements of morbidity. A total of 404 patients with bloodstream infections caused by gram-negative organisms were identified. Of these patients, 312 were treated with levofloxacin and included in the analysis. No significant difference in all-cause mortality among the three groups was observed. The high-MIC group had a significantly longer average hospital stay postculture than the low- and intermediate-MIC groups (16.4 days versus 7.3 and 7.9 days; P < 0.01) and a significantly longer duration of infection (2.1 days versus 1.0 and 1.2 days; P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis adjusting for covariates revealed that a high MIC was associated with an increase of 5.67 days (95% confidence interval,…

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: 404 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