Evidence Hub

A descriptive case series of PK/PD target attainment and microbiological outcome in critically ill patients with documented severe XDR Acinetobacter baumannii BSI and/or VAP treated with cefiderocol

M. Gatti, M. Bartoletti, P. Cojutti, P. Gaibani, M. Conti, M. Giannella, P. Viale, F. Pea

Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance, 2021

65 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To explore the relationship between cefiderocol pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) target attainment and microbiological outcome in critically ill patients affected by extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (XDR-AB) bloodstream infection (BSI) and/or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).

METHODS

Patients who received compassionate use of cefiderocol for treating documented XDR-AB infections at the intensive care unit of the IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria of Bologna and who underwent therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) from 15 March to 30 April 2021 were retrospectively assessed. Cefiderocol trough concentration (Cmin) was determined at steady-state, and the free fraction (fCmin) was calculated according to a plasma protein binding of 58%. The fCmin/MIC ratio was selected as PD parameter of cefiderocol efficacy, and defined as optimal if ≥ 4, quasi-optimal if between 1 and 4, and suboptimal if < 1. The association between fCmin/MIC and microbiological outcome was assessed.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients treated with cefiderocol for the management of XDR-AB infections (six BSIs plus VAP, 5 VAP and 2 BSI) were retrieved. fCmin/MIC ratios were suboptimal in 3 cases (23%), and quasi-optimal or optimal in 5 cases each (39%). Microbiological failure occurred in 7 cases (54%; six with VAP and one with both VAP and BSI). Microbiological failure occurred in 80% of patients with suboptimal fCmin/MIC compared to 29% of those achieving optimal or…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

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