Evidence Hub

β-Lactam/β-lactam inhibitor combinations for the treatment of bacteremia due to extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli: a post hoc analysis of prospective cohorts

Rodríguez-Baño J, Navarro MD, Retamar P, Picón E, Pascual Á, Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamases–Red Española de Investigación en Patología Infecciosa/Grupo de Estudio de Infección Hospitalaria Group

Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2012

103 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli (ESBL-EC) is an important cause of invasive infections. Alternatives to carbapenems--considered the drugs of choice--are needed because of the emergence of carbapenemase-producing enterobacteria. The efficacy of ß-lactam/ß-lactam inhibitors (BLBLI) in such infections is controversial.

METHODS: The authors performed a post hoc analysis of patients with bloodstream infections due to ESBL-EC from 6 published prospective cohorts. Mortality and length of hospital stay in patients treated with an active BLBLI (amoxicillin-clavulanic acid [AMC] and piperacillin-tazobactam [PTZ]) or carbapenem were compared in 2 cohorts: the empirical therapy cohort (ETC) and the definitive therapy cohort (DTC). Confounding was controlled by multivariate analysis; for patients in the ETC, a propensity score for receiving carbapenem was also used.

RESULTS: The ETC included 103 patients (BLBLI, 72; carbapenem, 31), and the DTC included 174 (BLBLI, 54; carbapenem, 120). Mortality rates at day 30 for those treated with BLBLI versus carbapenems were 9.7% versus 19.4% for the ETC and 9.3% versus 16.7% for the DTC, respectively (P > .2, log-rank test). After adjustment for confounders, no association was found between either empirical therapy with BLBLI (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], .29-4.40; P = .84) or definitive therapy (adjusted HR, 0.76; 95% CI, .28-2.07; P = .5) and increased mortality.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, 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: 103 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