Ceftazidime–Avibactam-Based Versus Tigecycline-Based Regimen for the Treatment of Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae-Induced Pneumonia in Critically Ill Patients

Introduction The aim of the present study was to assess the safety profile and outcomes of a ceftazidime–avibactam (CAZ-AVI)-based regimen and compare them with those of a tigecycline (TGC)-based regimen in intensive care unit (ICU) for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CR...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Infectious diseases and therapy 2021-12, Vol.10 (4), p.2721-2734
Hauptverfasser: Shi, Ying, Hu, Jing, Liu, Peiben, Wang, Tingting, Wang, Han, Liu, Yun, Cao, Quan, Zuo, Xiangrong
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction The aim of the present study was to assess the safety profile and outcomes of a ceftazidime–avibactam (CAZ-AVI)-based regimen and compare them with those of a tigecycline (TGC)-based regimen in intensive care unit (ICU) for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP), which is classified into hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Methods Clinical and microbiological cure rates, 28-day survival rates, and safety evaluation findings were compared between patients treated with CAZ-AVI-based regimen and those treated with TGC-based regimen in this retrospective study. Conventional multivariate logistic regression analysis and regression adjustment analysis with propensity score (PS) were performed to control for confounding variables. Results A total of 105 cases of critically ill ICU patients with CRKP-induced HAP or VAP were included in the present study from July 2019 to September 2020; 62 patients (59%) received TGC-based regimen and 43 patients (41%) received CAZ-AVI-based regimen. The most common concomitant agent in the CAZ-AVI group and TGC group was carbapenem (44.2% versus 62.9%, P  = 0.058), while only a small proportion of the study population received CAZ-AVI and TGC monotherapy (20.9% versus 6.5%, P  = 0.027). The clinical and microbiological cure rates of the CAZ-AVI group were superior to those of the TGC group [51.2% versus 29.0% ( P  = 0.022) and 74.4% versus 33.9% ( P  
ISSN:2193-8229
2193-6382
DOI:10.1007/s40121-021-00542-3