Evidence Hub

Efficacy and Safety of Ceftazidime–Avibactam Alone versus Ceftazidime–Avibactam Plus Fosfomycin for the Treatment of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: A Multicentric Retrospective Study from the SUSANA Cohort

Marco Fois, A. De Vito, Francesca Cherchi, E. Ricci, Michela Pontolillo, K. Falasca, Nicolò Corti, A. Comelli et al.

Antibiotics, 2024

6 citations

Abstract

Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilation-associated pneumonia (VAP) are challenging clinical conditions due to the challenging tissue penetrability of the lung. This study aims to evaluate the potential role of fosfomycin (FOS) associated with ceftazidime/avibactam (CZA) in improving the outcome in this setting. We performed a retrospective study including people with HAP or VAP treated with CZA or CZA+FOS for at least 72 h. Clinical data were collected from the SUSANA study, a multicentric cohort to monitor the efficacy and safety of the newer antimicrobial agents. A total of 75 nosocomial pneumonia episodes were included in the analysis. Of these, 34 received CZA alone and 41 in combination with FOS (CZA+FOS). People treated with CZA alone were older, more frequently male, received a prolonged infusion more frequently, and were less frequently affected by carbapenem-resistant infections (p = 0.01, p = 0.06, p < 0.001, p = 0.03, respectively). No difference was found in terms of survival at 28 days from treatment start between CZA and CZA+FOS at the multivariate analysis (HR = 0.32; 95% CI = 0.07–1.39; p = 0.128), while prolonged infusion showed a lower mortality rate at 28 days (HR = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.14–0.96; p = 0.04). Regarding safety, three adverse events (one acute kidney failure, one multiorgan failure, and one urticaria) were reported. Our study found no significant association between combination therapy and mortality. Further investigations, with larger…

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