Submitted:
11 June 2024
Posted:
12 June 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Results
3. Discussion
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Study Design
4.2. Study Subjects
4.3. Endpoints
4.4. Sample Size
4.5. Data Analysis
4.6. Outcomes
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gandra S, Tseng KK, Arora A; et al. The Mortality Burden of Multidrug-resistant Pathogens in India: A Retrospective, Observational Study. Clin Infect Dis. 2019.69(4):563-70. [CrossRef]
- Guidance on Diagnosis & Management of Carbapenem Resistant Gram-negative Infections: ICMR year. [Available from: https://main.icmr.nic.in/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Diagnosis_and_management_of_CROs.pdf.
- Veeraraghavan B, Pragasam AK, Bakthavatchalam YD; et al. Newer beta-Lactam/beta-Lactamase inhibitor for multidrug-resistant gram-negative infections: Challenges, implications and surveillance strategy for India. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2018.36(3):334-43. [CrossRef]
- Veeraraghavan B, Pragasam AK, Bakthavatchalam YD; et al. Colistin-sparing approaches with newer antimicrobials to treat carbapenem-resistant organisms: Current evidence and future prospects. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2019.37(1):72-90. [CrossRef]
- Veeraraghavan B, Walia K. Antimicrobial susceptibility profile & resistance mechanisms of Global Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (GLASS) priority pathogens from India. Indian J Med Res. 2019.149(2):87-96. [CrossRef]
- Rathish B, Wilson A, Warrier A; et al. Clinical Outcomes in Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Infections Treated With Ceftazidime-Avibactam: A Single-Center Observational Study. Cureus. 2021.13(2):e13081. [CrossRef]
- Shirley M. Ceftazidime-Avibactam: A Review in the Treatment of Serious Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections. Drugs. 2018.78(6):675-92. [CrossRef]
- Recommendations of the SEC (Antimicrobial & Antiviral) made in its 98 th meeting held on 20.01.2021 at CDSCO HQ New Delhi: CDSCO year. [cited 2022 11 August]. Available from: https://cdsco.gov.in/opencms/resources/UploadCDSCOWeb/2018/UploadCommitteeFiles/SEC%20antimicrobial%20Recommendation%2020.01.2021%20F1.pdf.
- Zasowski EJ, Rybak JM, Rybak MJ. The beta-Lactams Strike Back: Ceftazidime-Avibactam. Pharmacotherapy. 2015.35(8):755-70. [CrossRef]
- Soriano A, Montravers P, Bassetti M; et al. The Use and Effectiveness of Ceftazidime-Avibactam in Real-World Clinical Practice: EZTEAM Study. Infect Dis Ther. 2023.12(3):891-917. [CrossRef]
- Bhadade R, Harde M, deSouza R; et al. Emerging trends of nosocomial pneumonia in intensive care unit of a tertiary care public teaching hospital in Western India. Ann Afr Med. 2017.16(3):107-13. [CrossRef]
- Choudhuri AH, Chakravarty M, Uppal R. Epidemiology and characteristics of nosocomial infections in critically ill patients in a tertiary care Intensive Care Unit of Northern India. Saudi J Anaesth. 2017.11(4):402-7. [CrossRef]
- Pfizer. Local Product Document: Ceftazidime Pentahydrate and Avibactam Sodium; LPDZAV022021. Data on file. 2021. p.
- Rodgers P, Kamat S, Adhav C. Ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole vs. meropenem in complicated intra-abdominal infections: Indian subset from RECLAIM. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2022.16(2):305-13. [CrossRef]
- Sathe P, Kamat S, Adhav C. Clinical outcomes of ceftazidime-avibactam versus meropenem in Indian patients with nosocomial pneumonia: Subset analysis from the REPROVE study. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2021.39(3):363-6. [CrossRef]
- Nagvekar V, Shah A, Unadkat VP; et al. Clinical Outcome of Patients on Ceftazidime-Avibactam and Combination Therapy in Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2021.25(7):780-4. [CrossRef]
- Jorgensen SCJ, Trinh TD, Zasowski EJ; et al. Real-World Experience With Ceftazidime-Avibactam for Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019.6(12):ofz522. [CrossRef]
- Caston JJ, Cano A, Perez-Camacho I; et al. Impact of ceftazidime/avibactam versus best available therapy on mortality from infections caused by carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CAVICOR study). J Antimicrob Chemother. 2022. [CrossRef]
- Satlin MJ, Chen L, Gomez-Simmonds A; et al. Impact of a Rapid Molecular Test for Klebsiella pneumoniae Carbapenemase and Ceftazidime-Avibactam Use on Outcomes after Bacteremia Caused by Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales. Clin Infect Dis. 2022. [CrossRef]
- Das S, Li J, Riccobene T; et al. Dose Selection and Validation for Ceftazidime-Avibactam in Adults with Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections, Complicated Urinary Tract Infections, and Nosocomial Pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019.63(4). [CrossRef]
- Barber KE, Wagner JL, Larry RC; et al. Frequency of and risk factors for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. J Med Microbiol. 2021.70(2). [CrossRef]
- Falagas ME, Rafailidis PI, Kofteridis D; et al. Risk factors of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae infections: A matched case control study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007.60(5):1124-30. [CrossRef]
- Gupta N, Limbago BM, Patel JB; et al. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: Epidemiology and prevention. Clin Infect Dis. 2011.53(1):60-7. [CrossRef]
- Logan LK, Weinstein RA. The Epidemiology of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae: The Impact and Evolution of a Global Menace. J Infect Dis. 2017.215(suppl_1):S28-S36. [CrossRef]
- Temkin E, Torre-Cisneros J, Beovic B; et al. Ceftazidime-Avibactam as Salvage Therapy for Infections Caused by Carbapenem-Resistant Organisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017.61(2). [CrossRef]
| Characteristic (Unit) | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Male | 123 (65.1) |
| Female | 66 (34.9) |
| Age (Years) | Mean - 55.6 (S.D.: 17.8) |
| Median - 57.0 (18 – 98) | |
| Diagnosis | |
| UTI | 55 (29.1) |
| IAI | 30 (15.9) |
| NP | 55 (29.1) |
| Others | 49 (25.9) |
| DCCI Score (N = 164) | Mean - 3.3 (S.D.: 02.4) |
| Median - 3.0 (0 – 11) | |
| Source of Infection | |
| Hospital-Acquired Infection (HAI) | 72 (38.1) |
| Healthcare-Associated Infection (HCAI) | 65 (34.4) |
| Community-Acquired Infection (CAI) | 52 (27.5) |
| Source of Admission | |
| Outpatient | 42 (22.2) |
| Long-term care facility | 19 (10.0) |
| Transfer from acute care hospital | 23 (12.2) |
| Direct admission | 105 (55.6) |
| Current Admission to ICU | |
| Yes | 162 (85.7) |
| No | 27 (14.3) |
| Renal dysfunction | |
| Yes | 71 (37.6) |
| No | 118 (62.4) |
| Renal dysfunction severity (based on creatinine clearance) | N = 66 |
| Mild | 10 (15.1) |
| Moderate | 28 (42.4) |
| Severe | 28 (42.4) |
| Indwelling devices | 157 (83.1) |
| Urinary catheter | 120 (76.4) |
| Intravenous peripheral catheter | 77 (49.0) |
| Tracheal intubation | 72 (45.9) |
| Intravenous central catheter | 57 (36.3) |
| Arterial catheter | 49 (31.2) |
| Arteriovenous cannula | 46 (29.3) |
| Tracheal cannula | 27 (17.2) |
| Other | 21 (12.7) |
| APACHE II Score | |
| Yes | 85 |
| Score | Mean – 23.2 (S. D.: 16.2) |
| Median – 18.0 (0 – 72) | |
| Microorganisms identified with respect to/concerning Infections | |
| IAI | N = 30 |
| Gram-negative, Klebsiella pneumoniae | 18 (60.0) |
| Gram-negative, Escherichia Coli | 09 (30.0) |
| NP | N = 55 |
| Gram-negative, Klebsiella pneumoniae | 42 (76.4) |
| Gram-negative Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 15 (27.3) |
| UTI | N = 55 |
| Gram-negative, Klebsiella pneumoniae | 41 (74.5) |
| Gram-negative, Escherichia Coli | 14 (25.5) |
| Abbreviations: APACHE, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation; DCCI, Deyo-Charlson Comorbidity Index; IAI, intra-abdominal infection; N, number of subjects in Ceftazidime-avibactam group; n, number of subjects in the specified category; NP, nosocomial pneumonia; S.D., standard deviation; UTI, urinary tract infection | |
| Generic Drug Name | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Any antimicrobials(s) used concurrently with ceftazidime-avibactam | 156 (82.5) |
| Aztreonam | 66 (42.3) |
| Colistin | 33 (21.2) |
| Fosfomycin | 30 (19.2) |
| Meropenem | 22 (14.1) |
| Tigecycline | 18 (11.5) |
| Metronidazole | 16 (10.3) |
| Other | 43 (27.6) |
| Number of subjects with at least one prior antimicrobials | 126 (66.7) |
| Meropenem | 80 (63.4) |
| Colistin | 39 (30.9) |
| Fosfomycin | 26 (20.6) |
| Tigecycline | 24 (19.0) |
| Other | 47 (37.3) |
| Duration of Administration (hours; n = 189) | Mean - 2.1 (S.D.: 0.8) |
| Median - 2.0 (0.5 – 3) | |
| Total Duration of therapy (days; n = 179) | Mean – 6.92 (S.D.: 4.1) |
| Median - 6.0 (2 – 19) | |
| Hospital LOS (days; n = 180) | Mean – 23.1 (S.D.: 15.1) |
| Median – 20 (2 - 70) | |
| ICU LOS (days; n = 155) | Mean – 15.7 (S.D.: 14.3) |
| Median – 11 (1 – 69) | |
| Abbreviations: LOS, length of stay; S.D., standard deviation | |
| Pathogens identified | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Pathogens isolated | 84 |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae | 57 (67.9) |
| Escherichia coli | 15 (17.9) |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 11 (13.1) |
| Klebsiella spp | 04 (04.8) |
| Enterococcus spp | 02 (02.4) |
| Enterobacter spp | 01 (01.2) |
| Enterobacter cloacae | 01 (01.2) |
| Proteus mirabilis | 01 (01.2) |
| Pseudomonas spp | 01 (01.2) |
| Others | 03 (03.6) |
| Genotyping done | 16 |
| SHV, CTX-M, OXA-48-like | 04 (25) |
| CTX-M, NDM, VIM | 02 (12.5) |
| CTX-M, NDM | 02 (12.5) |
| NDM | 02 (12.5) |
| CTX-M, NDM, and OXA-48-like | 01 (6.2) |
| SHV, CTX-M | 01 (6.2) |
| SHV, CTX-M, NDM | 01 (6.2) |
| CTX-M, OXA-48-like | 01 (6.2) |
| Others | 02 (12.5) |
| Time points of Evaluation | Clinical Symptom Improvement | n/N (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| All subjects | 72 Hours (Day 3) | Assessed | 103/189 (54.5) |
| Symptom Assessment | Symptom Improved | 82/103 (79.6) | |
| Symptom Worsened | 21/103 (20.4) | ||
| Day 7 | Assessed | 83/189 (43.9) | |
| Outcomes | Clinical Success | 66/83 (79.5) | |
| Clinical Failure | 12/83 (14.5) | ||
| Clinical Indeterminate | 05/83 (06.0) | ||
| Day 14/EOT | Assessed | 59/189 (31.2) | |
| Outcomes | Clinical Success | 45/59 (76.3) | |
| Clinical Failure | 13/59 (22.0) | ||
| Clinical Indeterminate | 01/59 (01.7) | ||
| All subjects (Exposure within 72 hours of admission) | 72 Hours (Day 3) | Assessed | 32/57 (56.1) |
| Symptom Assessment | Symptom Improved | 29/32 (90.6) | |
| Symptom Worsened | 03/32 (9.4) | ||
| Day 7 | Assessed | 21/57 (36.8) | |
| Outcomes | Clinical Success | 17/21 (81.0) | |
| Clinical Failure | 3/21 (14.3) | ||
| Clinical Indeterminate | 01/21 (4.7) | ||
| Day 14/EOT | Assessed | 20/57 (35.1) | |
| Outcomes | Clinical Success | 19/20 (95.0) | |
| Clinical Failure | 01/20 (5.0) | ||
| Clinical Indeterminate | 0/20 (0.0) | ||
| Monotherapy patients (n = 33) | 72 Hours (Day 3) | Assessed | 19/33 (57.6) |
| Symptom Assessment | Symptom Improved | 16/19 (84.2) | |
| Symptom Worsened | 03/19 (15.8) | ||
| Day 7 | Assessed | 21/33 (63.6) | |
| Outcomes | Clinical Success | 18/21 (85.7) | |
| Clinical Failure | 02/21 (9.5) | ||
| Clinical Indeterminate | 01/21 (4.8) | ||
| Day 14/EOT | Assessed | 09/33 (27.3) | |
| Outcomes | Clinical Success | 07/09 (77.8) | |
| Clinical Failure | 02/09 (22.2) | ||
| Abbreviations: EOT, End of Treatment | |||
| Time point of Evaluation | Microbiological Evaluation | n/N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Day 7 | Microbiological Evaluation Available | 50/189 (26.5) |
| Unevaluable | 72/189 (38.1) | |
| Unknown status | 67/189 (35.4) | |
| Microbiological Evaluation | Microbiological Success | 38/50 (76.0) |
| Microbiological Failure | 05/50 (10.0) | |
| Emergent Infections | 07/50 (14.0) | |
| Day 14/EOT | Microbiological Evaluation Available | 68/189 (36.0) |
| Unevaluable | 51/189 (27.0) | |
| Unknown status | 70/189 (37.0) | |
| Microbiological Evaluation | Microbiological Success | 41/68 (60.3) |
| Microbiological Failure | 19/68 (27.9) | |
| Emergent Infections | 08/68 (11.8) | |
| Monotherapy patients (n = 33) | ||
| Day 7 | Microbiological Evaluation Available | 07/33 (21.2) |
| Unevaluable/Unknown | 26/22 (78.8) | |
| Microbiological Evaluation | Microbiological Success | 07/07 (100.0) |
| Microbiological Failure | 0 (0) | |
| Emergent Infections | 0 (0) | |
| Day 14/EOT | Microbiological Evaluation Available | 06/33 (18.2) |
| Unevaluable/Unknown | 27/33 (81.8) | |
| Microbiological Evaluation | Microbiological Success | 04/06 (66.7) |
| Microbiological Failure | 02/06 (33.3) | |
| Emergent Infections | 0 (0) | |
| Abbreviations: EOT, End of Treatment | ||
| Susceptibility | Ceftazidime-avibactam (N = 189) |
|---|---|
| Done | 47 (24.9) |
| Not Done | 142 (75.1) |
| Susceptible | |
| Yes | 34 (72.3) |
| No | 13 (27.7) |
| Method used | |
| Disc | 03 (6.4) |
| E-Test | 41 (87.2) |
| Missing data | 03 (6.4) |
| If E-test, MIC value | 41 |
| Median - 2.0 (0.016 – 256) | |
| Susceptible Organism | % susceptibility |
| Klebsiella pneumonia | 58.8% |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 26.5% |
| Burkholderia cepacia | 5.9% |
| Stenotrophomonas maltophilia | 5.9% |
| Enterobacter aerogenes | 2.9% |
| Abbreviations: E-test; MDR, multi-drug resistant; MIC, minimum inhibitory concentration. Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) breakpoints as per European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) guidelines for ceftazidime avibactam are: for susceptibility - ≤8 mg/L and for resistance - >8 mg/L for both Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa. | |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
