Next Article in Journal
Antibiotic Resistance and Genetic Profiles of Vibrio parahaemolyticus Isolated from Farmed Pacific White Shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) in Ningde Regions
Previous Article in Journal
Increasing the Pentose Phosphate Pathway Flux to Improve Plasmid DNA Production in Engineered E. coli
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effects of Antiperspirant Aluminum Chlorohydrate on the Development of Antibiotic Resistance in Staphylococcus epidermidis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/microorganisms12010151
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Real-Time TDM-Guided Optimal Joint PK/PD Target Attainment of Continuous Infusion Piperacillin–Tazobactam Monotherapy Is an Effective Carbapenem-Sparing Strategy for Treating Non-Severe ESBL-Producing Enterobacterales Secondary Bloodstream Infections: Findings from a Prospective Pilot Study

by
Milo Gatti
1,2,
Cecilia Bonazzetti
1,3,
Renato Pascale
1,3,
Maddalena Giannella
1,3,
Pierluigi Viale
1,3 and
Federico Pea
1,2,*
1
Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
2
Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Department for Integrated Infectious Risk Management, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
3
Infectious Disease Unit, Department for Integrated Infectious Risk Management, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2024, 12(1), 151; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12010151
Submission received: 22 December 2023 / Revised: 8 January 2024 / Accepted: 10 January 2024 / Published: 12 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antimicrobial Stewardship Strategies to Improve Antimicrobial Use)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Objectives: To assess the impact of optimal joint pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) target attainment of continuous infusion (CI) piperacillin–tazobactam monotherapy on the microbiological outcome of documented ESBL-producing Enterobacterlaes secondary bloodstream infections (BSIs). (2) Methods: Patients hospitalized in the period January 2022–October 2023, having a documented secondary BSI caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacterales, and being eligible for definitive targeted CI piperacillin–tazobactam monotherapy according to specific pre-defined inclusion criteria (i.e., absence of septic shock at onset; favorable clinical evolution in the first 48 h after starting treatment; low–intermediate risk primary infection source) were prospectively enrolled. A real-time therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-guided expert clinical pharmacological advice (ECPA) program was adopted for optimizing (PK/PD) target attainment of CI piperacillin–tazobactam monotherapy. Steady-state plasma concentrations (Css) of both piperacillin and tazobactam were measured, and the free fractions (f) were calculated based on theoretical protein binding. The joint PK/PD target attainment was considered optimal whenever the piperacillin fCss/MIC ratio was >4 and the tazobactam fCss/target concentration (CT) ratio was >1 (quasi-optimal or suboptimal if only one or neither of the two thresholds were achieved, respectively). Univariate analysis was carried out for assessing variables potentially associated with failure in achieving the optimal joint PK/PD target of piperacillin–tazobactam and microbiological eradication. (3) Results: Overall, 35 patients (median age 79 years; male 51.4%) were prospectively included. Secondary BSIs resulted from urinary tract infections as a primary source in 77.2% of cases. The joint PK/PD target attainment was optimal in as many as 97.1% of patients (34/35). Microbiological eradication occurred in 91.4% of cases (32/35). Attaining the quasi-optimal/suboptimal joint PK/PD target of CI piperacillin–tazobactam showed a trend toward a higher risk of microbiological failure (33.3% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.08) (4) Conclusions: Real-time TDM-guided optimal joint PK/PD target attainment of CI piperacillin–tazobactam monotherapy may represent a valuable and effective carbapenem-sparing strategy when dealing with non-severe ESBL-producing Enterobacterales secondary BSIs.

1. Introduction

Infections caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacterales represent a global health concern. Several epidemiological studies have shown that ESBL-producing Enterobacterales resistant to third-generation cephalosporins may represent up to 35% and 18% of Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli clinical isolates, respectively [1,2,3,4]. In a recent meta-analysis, infections caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacterales were associated with higher mortality rates compared with those caused by non-ESBL-producing Enterobacterales [5].
In the MERINO trial, treatment of bloodstream infections (BSIs) caused by ceftriaxone-resistant Escherichia coli or Klebsiella pneumoniae with piperacillin–tazobactam did not reach a non-inferior mortality rate compared with meropenem [6]. However, a large debate still exists nowadays about which therapeutic choices should be preferred in this scenario [7,8,9,10,11,12], as argued both in the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) guidelines and in the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidance [13,14]. On the one hand, in the MERINO trial, findings of the inferiority of the piperacillin–tazobactam arm could have been affected by using an intermittent infusion dosing scheme of 4.5 g every 6 h over 30 min [6], which could have been suboptimal, also considering that in a post hoc analysis several clinical isolates were found to be resistant to piperacillin–tazobactam at broth microdilution testing [15]. On the other hand, the worrisome ever-growing increase in carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative infections promoted by the selective pressure deriving from extensive carbapenem use [16,17] may call into question the potential role that carbapenem-sparing strategies based on piperacillin–tazobactam could have in some non-severe clinical scenarios of ESBL-producing Enterobacterales infections [10]. In this latter regard, several well-designed observational studies have shown that no significant difference exists in terms of the mortality rate between piperacillin–tazobactam and carbapenems in the treatment of secondary BSIs caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacterales [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37]. Additionally, the use of piperacillin–tazobactam compared with that of carbapenems was associated with a lower occurrence of colonization and/or infection caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) or carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogens. In a retrospective observational multicentric study including 151 patients with ESBL-producing BSIs, Ng et al. found that piperacillin–tazobactam was associated with a significantly lower acquisition of MDR bacterial infections compared with carbapenems (7.4% vs. 24.6%; p = 0.01) [20]. Similarly, in a retrospective observational multicentric study including 186 patients affected by ESBL-producing bacteremic urinary infections, Sharara et al. reported a trend toward a lower rate of 30-day colonization, with carbapenem-producing Enterobacterales among those receiving piperacillin–tazobactam compared with those receiving carbapenems (2% vs. 8%; p = 0.09) [30].
Some studies showed that when using beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations (BL/BLIc), attaining optimal joint pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) targets of both the BL and the BLI may be beneficial in terms of both maximizing the clinical/microbiological outcome and preventing resistance development [38,39]. In this scenario, implementing a real-time therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-based expert clinical pharmacological advice (ECPA) program may represent a valuable approach for assessing the optimal joint PK/PD target attainment of BL/BLIc administered by continuous infusion (CI) [40].
The aim of this study was to assess whether the optimal joint PK/PD target attainment of CI piperacillin–tazobactam monotherapy could represent a valuable carbapenem-sparing strategy in treating patients with documented BSIs caused by ESBL-producing Escherichia coli or Klebsiella pneumoniae.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Inclusion Criteria

This prospective study was carried out between 1 January 2022 and 30 October 2023 in the medical wards, surgical wards, or intensive care units (ICUs) of the IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria of Bologna, Italy. The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the local ethical committee (No. EM 232–2022_308/2021/Oss/AOUBo on 16 March 2022 and No. 894/2021/Oss/AOUBo on 15 November 2021). Signed informed consent was collected from each included patient. Patients were enrolled if they met the following inclusion criteria: (a) having a documented piperacillin–tazobactam fully susceptible ESBL-producing Enterobacterales secondary BSI (phenotypically identified as being resistant to ceftriaxone and/or cefotaxime, as previously reported [6]); and (b) being eligible for definitive CI piperacillin–tazobactam targeted monotherapy according to the following pre-defined inclusion criteria: absence of septic shock at onset; favorable clinical evolution during the first 48 h after starting empirical treatment with piperacillin–tazobactam; low–intermediate risk primary infection source, namely, urinary tract infection (UTI), biliary/intrabdominal infection (IAI), or catheter-related (CR) BSI. Table 1 summarizes the inclusion criteria.
All of the patients received piperacillin–tazobactam therapy optimized by means of a real-time TDM-guided ECPA program and at least one follow-up blood culture a minimum of after 48 h from starting therapy for assessing microbiological outcome.

2.2. Data Collection

Demographic data (age, sex, weight, height, and body mass index (BMI)), clinical/laboratory data (admission ward, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), immunocompetence status, baseline creatinine clearance (CLCr), need for intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) or continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), occurrence of augmented renal clearance (ARC), and status of source control), microbiological data (type/site of infection, and ESBL-producing clinical isolate with an MIC value for piperacillin–tazobactam), piperacillin–tazobactam treatment data (dosing regimen at baseline, average piperacillin and tazobactam steady-state concentrations (Css) during treatment, number of TDM-based ECPAs, recommended dosing adjustments at first and at subsequent ECPAs, and treatment duration), and microbiological/clinical outcome data (microbiological eradication/failure, eventual resistance development, 30-day relapse, clinical cure, and 30-day mortality rate) were prospectively collected.
Immunocompetence status was defined as depressed whenever one or more of the following conditions existed: need for long-term use of corticosteroids and/or of biologic and/or antineoplastic agents; occurrence of solid or hematologic malignancies; previous solid organ (SOT) or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT); and underlying HIV disease or autoimmune disease [41].
ARC was defined as a measured (based on 24 h urine collection) or an estimated (according to the CDK-EPI formula) creatinine clearance above 130 mL/min and 120 mL/min in males and females, respectively [42].
The status of source control was defined as failed whenever blood cultures were still positive seven days after the index culture, as previously reported [43].
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria were adopted for defining the different types of infection [44]. Secondary BSIs were defined on the basis of [44] the simultaneous isolation of the same pathogen from at least one blood culture drawn by direct venipuncture and from the primary source, namely, from the peritoneal fluid, abdominal specimens, or bile in the case of IAI [45,46]; from urine cultures with a bacterial load of at least >105 CFU/mL in the case of UTIs [44,45]; and from blood cultures drawn through a vascular device having 2 h shorter positivization time in the case of CR-BSI [44].
Piperacillin–tazobactam susceptibility was tested by means of a semi-automated broth microdilution method (Microscan Beckman NMDRM1). The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) clinical breakpoints were adopted for interpreting MIC results [47]. A threshold value of ≤8 mg/L identified Enterobacterales isolates susceptible to piperacillin–tazobactam [48].

2.3. Definition of Outcome Variables

Microbiological outcomes were defined as eradication whenever the index pathogen was undetectable at the follow-up blood cultures, and, in contrast, as failure whenever the index pathogen was still detectable at the follow-up blood cultures (breakthrough BSI).
Resistance development was defined as an increase in the piperacillin–tazobactam MIC beyond the EUCAST clinical breakpoint of susceptibility.
Thirty-day relapse was defined as the re-growth of the index pathogen in blood cultures carried out within 30 days from stopping piperacillin–tazobactam therapy.
Clinical outcomes were defined as cures if a complete resolution of biochemical and clinical signs and symptoms of the infection was coupled with a documented microbiological eradication at the end of treatment and with an absence of relapse at the 30-day follow-up [49].

2.4. Piperacillin–Tazobactam Dosing Regimens, Sampling Procedure, and Implementation of a Real-Time TDM-Guided ECPA Program for Dosing Personalization

Piperacillin–tazobactam was started with a loading dose of 9 g administered over 2 h infusion immediately followed by a maintenance administered by CI [50] that was initially chosen according to the status of the patient’s renal function.
TDM of piperacillin and of tazobactam was assessed at steady-state (Css), firstly after at least 24 h from starting therapy in order to be in steady-state conditions, and subsequently whenever feasible every 48–72 h during the whole treatment course. Total piperacillin and tazobactam Css were measured by means of a validated liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry method [51]. By considering the plasma protein binding of piperacillin and of tazobactam reported in the literature, namely, 20% and 23%, respectively [52], the free (f) Css were calculated by multiplying the total Css by 0.80 and 0.77, respectively.
A real-time TDM-guided ECPA program supported by skilled MD Clinical Pharmacologists was used for optimizing the joint piperacillin–tazobactam PK/PD target in each individual patient, as previously reported [40].

2.5. Definition of Optimal, Quasi-Optimal, and Suboptimal Joint PK/PD Target Attainment of Piperacillin–Tazobactam

The PD determinant selected for assessing the efficacy of piperacillin–tazobactam monotherapy was a joint PK/PD target, as previously described [38]. Briefly, the joint PK/PD target was considered optimal whenever the piperacillin fCss/MIC ratio was >4 and the tazobactam fCss/target concentration (CT) ratio was >1 (where CT is the fixed tazobactam target concentration of 4 mg/L proposed by the EUCAST for testing the in vitro susceptibility of the piperacillin–tazobactam combination); it was considered quasi-optimal whenever only one of the two thresholds was attained and suboptimal whenever none of the two was attained [38].
In patients having multiple TDM-guided ECPA programs during the treatment course, the average piperacillin and tazobactam fCss were calculated. The impact of the quality of the joint PK/PD target attainment of CI piperacillin–tazobactam on the microbiological outcome was then investigated.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Continuous data were expressed as the median and interquartile range (IQR), whereas categorical variables were presented as counts or percentages. Univariate analyses (carried out by means of the Fisher’s exact test or the chi-squared test in cases of categorical variables, or by means of the Mann–Whitney U test in cases of continuous variables) were performed for comparing the potential correlation of the patients’ variables in attaining optimal vs. quasi-optimal/suboptimal piperacillin–tazobactam joint PK/PD targets, and in achieving microbiological eradication vs. microbiological failure. Statistical analyses were performed by means of MedCalc for Windows (MedCalc statistical software Ltd., version 19.6.1, Ostend, Belgium), and significance was defined as a p value < 0.05.

3. Results

Overall, a total of 35 hospitalized patients received definitive monotherapy with TDM-guided CI piperacillin–tazobactam for treating secondary ESBL-producing Enterobacterales BSI during the study period. Demographics and clinical features of the included patients are reported in Table 2.
The median (IQR) age was 79 years (68–85 years), with a slight male preponderance (51.4%). The median (IQR) CCI was 6 points (5–8.5 points), and 42.9% of cases were immunodepressed. Most patients were admitted to medical wards (21/35; 60.0%), and 10 (28.6%) were admitted to ICUs.
The median (IQR) baseline CLCr was 34 mL/min/1.73 m2 (19–47 mL/min/1.73 m2). Three patients (8.6%) underwent CRRT or IHD, and none experienced ARC.
The vast majority of secondary BSIs were related to UTIs (27/35; 77.2%); four were related to IAI, and four were related to CR-BSI (11.4%) as the primary source. Most patients (30/35; 85.7%) had effective source control. Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae were the only two species of Enterobacterales isolated, and were detected in 22 and 13 of the index blood cultures, respectively. Most isolates exhibited an MIC value of 8 mg/L, namely, borderline with the EUCAST clinical breakpoint (25/35; 71.4%).
Piperacillin–tazobactam was administered at a median (IQR) daily dose of 9 g (6.75 g–13.5 g); the median (IQR) treatment duration was 10 days (7.25–13.75 days). Median (IQR) piperacillin and tazobactam fCss were 66.1 mg/L (37.1–99.0 mg/L) and 8.6 mg/L (5.4–14.9 mg/L), respectively. The median piperacillin fCss/MIC ratio and the median tazobactam fCss/CT ratio were 8.9 (5.6–13.8) and 2.2 (1.4–3.7), respectively.
In total, 78 TDM-based ECPA programs for personalizing the CI piperacillin–tazobactam dosing regimen were performed, with a median (IQR) number of 2 (1–3) per patient. At first TDM-based ECPA, dosing reduction was recommended in the majority of cases (32/35; 91.4%). Overall, dosing adjustments were recommended in 46 out of 78 TDM-based ECPAs (59.0%), with three increases (3.9%) and 43 decreases (55.1%). Notably, optimal joint PK/PD target of piperacillin–tazobactam was attained in as many as 97.1% of cases (34/35), (in 1 case (2.9%) this was quasi-optimal; never suboptimal).
Microbiological eradication was obtained in 32 out of 35 cases (91.4%), whereas failure occurred in 3 cases (8.6%) (2 breakthrough BSIs and 1 30-day relapse). Developed resistance to piperacillin–tazobactam occurred only in one case (2.9%). Clinical cure was documented in 26 patients (74.3%), and the 30-day mortality rate was 8.6%.
Univariate analysis assessing variables potentially associated with microbiological eradication vs. failure is summarized in Table 3.
Only quasi-optimal/suboptimal joint PK/PD target attainment of piperacillin–tazobactam showed a trend toward a higher risk of microbiological failure compared with optimal joint PK/PD target attainment (33.3% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.08; Figure 1).

4. Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first prospective study that has explored the relationship between a joint PK/PD target attainment of CI piperacillin–tazobactam and the microbiological outcome among hospitalized patients receiving definitive CI piperacillin–tazobactam monotherapy for treating non-severe ESBL-producing Enterobacterales secondary BSIs. Notably, the findings showed that in the vast majority of patients, real-time TDM-guided ECPA programs of CI piperacillin–tazobactam facilitated optimal joint PK/PD target attainment and microbiological eradication.
In a recent retrospective study carried out among 43 ICU critically ill patients having documented Gram-negative BSI and/or ventilator-associated pneumonia, we showed that the TDM-guided attainment of optimal joint PK/PD target of CI piperacillin–tazobactam monotherapy granted very high microbiological eradication rates (87.4%) and resulted in protection against microbiological failure (OR 0.03; 95%CI 0.003–0.27; p = 0.002) [53]. Although in that study the number of patients having ESBL-producing Enterobacterales infections was quite limited (only 6/43), the findings allowed us to hypothesize that this strategy could have been potentially effective even when dealing with ESBL producers [53].
Indeed, using definitive piperacillin–tazobactam monotherapy for treating ESBL-producing Enterobacterales BSIs was called into question by the findings of the MERINO trial, showing that, in this setting, piperacillin–tazobactam use was associated with higher mortality rates compared with meropenem use [6]. However, arguments that the results of the MERINO trial could have been at least partially affected by the fact that PK/PD target attainment of piperacillin–tazobactam could have been suboptimal due to intermittent infusion administration should not be overlooked [10].
Consequently, in the post-MERINO trial era, some guidance and/or viewpoints started suggesting that piperacillin–tazobactam administered by extended-infusion or, even better, by CI, could have represented a valuable option for treating ESBL-producing Enterobacterales secondary BSIs, especially whenever originating from sources at low–intermediate infection risk, namely, UTIs, IAIs, or CR-BSIs, being non-severe, and being caused by fully susceptible piperacillin–tazobactam strains [10,11,13,54].
The findings of our study may support the contention that administering piperacillin–tazobactam by CI and optimizing the joint PK/PD target attainment in real time thanks to a TDM-guided ECPA program may result in very high microbiological eradication rates among patients affected by non-severe secondary BSIs, even when caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacterales. Notably, in our study, we have introduced the innovative concept of joint PK/PD target for optimizing piperacillin–tazobactam therapy. According to this, in order to maximize clinical efficacy and prevent microbiological failure, it is important to attain an optimal PK/PD target not only for piperacillin, namely, the beta-lactam, but also for tazobactam, namely, the beta-lactamase inhibitor. In this regard, administering piperacillin–tazobactam by CI and adapting dosing regimens based on a TDM-guided approach may both maximize the PK/PD target of piperacillin to 100%fT>4–8×MIC and steadily maintain the tazobactam Css above the fixed tazobactam target concentration of 4 mg/L proposed by the EUCAST for testing the in vitro susceptibility of the piperacillin–tazobactam combination [55]. In the scenario of challenging clinical conditions, such as those of BSIs due to ESBL-producing Enterobacterales, attaining an optimal PK/PD target for both piperacillin and tazobactam could represent a major driver for improving both the clinical efficacy and prevention of Gram-negative resistance occurrence as much as possible, considering that different preclinical studies have reported a consistent decrease in piperacillin MIC values in the presence of a tazobactam concentration increase [56,57,58]. Particularly, in a hollow-fiber infection model in which different ESBL-producing clinical isolates were tested, the attainment of a piperacillin–tazobactam exposure of %fT > instantaneous MIC (MICi; namely, the changing pathogen susceptibility in the presence of changing inhibitor concentrations) higher than 55.1–73.6% was significantly associated with the prevention of bacterial regrowth [56,57,58]. Indeed, the confirmatory findings of this being a very suitable subset of patients in which applying this approach could represent a valuable carbapenem-sparing option, enabling improved antimicrobial stewardship programs focused at decreasing carbapenem use in settings with a high prevalence of carbapenemase-producing Gram-negatives [10]. Obviously, appropriate source control should be mandatory in this context for minimizing either the risk of microbiological failure or that of relapse occurrence, as previously reported [54,59].
Finally, it should also be mentioned that the availability of a real-time TDM-guided ECPA program may prove to be extremely helpful in promptly recognizing and correcting cases having only quasi-optimal/suboptimal joint PK/PD target attainment of CI piperacillin–tazobactam. Indeed, the implementation of a real-time TDM-guided strategy was significantly associated with higher target attainment rates compared with the standard approach [60].
Limitations of our study should be acknowledged. The study design was monocentric, and the sample size was quite limited. Conversely, the prospective design is a point of strength, as was enrolling patients receiving piperacillin–tazobactam monotherapy. This confirmed the valuable role of piperacillin–tazobactam as a carbapenem-sparing strategy in this setting by avoiding any confounding bias on clinical and microbiological outcomes associated with the eventual use of combination therapy with other anti-Gram-negative antibiotics.

5. Conclusions

The preliminary findings of this prospective study suggest that real-time TDM-guided optimal joint PK/PD target attainment of CI piperacillin–tazobactam monotherapy may represent a valuable and effective carbapenem-sparing strategy when dealing with non-severe ESBL-producing Enterobacterales secondary BSIs. Larger definitive confirmatory studies are warranted.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.G. (Milo Gatti), M.G. (Maddalena Giannella), P.V. and F.P.; methodology, M.G. (Milo Gatti), M.G. (Maddalena Giannella), P.V. and F.P.; formal analysis, M.G. (Milo Gatti); data curation, M.G. (Milo Gatti), C.B. and R.P.; writing—original draft preparation, M.G. (Milo Gatti); writing—review and editing, M.G. (Maddalena Giannella), P.V. and F.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the local ethical committee (No. EM 232–2022_308/2021/Oss/AOUBo on 16 March 2022 and No. 894/2021/Oss/AOUBo on 15 November 2021). Signed informed consent was collected from each included patient.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy concerns.

Conflicts of Interest

M.G. received personal fees from Angelini; P.V. has served as a consultant for Biomerieux, Gilead, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nabriva, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Thermo-Fisher, and Venatorx, and received payment for serving on the speaker’s bureau for Correvio, Gilead, MerckSharp & Dohme, Nordic Pharma, and Pfizer; F.P. participated in speaker bureau for Angelini, BeiGene, Gilead, InfectoPharm, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, and Shionogi, and on advisory boards for BeiGene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, and Viatris. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Jernigan, J.A.; Hatfield, K.M.; Wolford, H.; Nelson, R.E.; Olubajo, B.; Reddy, S.C.; McCarthy, N.; Paul, P.; McDonald, L.C.; Kallen, A.; et al. Multidrug-Resistant Bacterial Infections in U.S. Hospitalized Patients, 2012–2017. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 1309–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Paterson, D.L.; Hujer, K.M.; Hujer, A.M.; Yeiser, B.; Bonomo, M.D.; Rice, L.B.; Bonomo, R.A.; International Klebsiella Study Group. Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamases in Klebsiella Pneumoniae Bloodstream Isolates from Seven Countries: Dominance and Widespread Prevalence of SHV- and CTX-M-Type Beta-Lactamases. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2003, 47, 3554–3560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kazmierczak, K.M.; de Jonge, B.L.M.; Stone, G.G.; Sahm, D.F. Longitudinal Analysis of ESBL and Carbapenemase Carriage among Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Isolates Collected in Europe as Part of the International Network for Optimal Resistance Monitoring (INFORM) Global Surveillance Programme, 2013-17. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2020, 75, 1165–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Coque, T.M.; Baquero, F.; Canton, R. Increasing Prevalence of ESBL-Producing Enterobacteriaceae in Europe. Eurosurveillance 2008, 13, 19044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ling, W.; Furuya-Kanamori, L.; Ezure, Y.; Harris, P.N.A.; Paterson, D.L. Adverse Clinical Outcomes Associated with Infections by Enterobacterales Producing ESBL (ESBL-E): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAC Antimicrob. Resist. 2021, 3, dlab068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Harris, P.N.A.; Tambyah, P.A.; Lye, D.C.; Mo, Y.; Lee, T.H.; Yilmaz, M.; Alenazi, T.H.; Arabi, Y.; Falcone, M.; Bassetti, M.; et al. Effect of Piperacillin-Tazobactam vs Meropenem on 30-Day Mortality for Patients with E Coli or Klebsiella Pneumoniae Bloodstream Infection and Ceftriaxone Resistance: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2018, 320, 984–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tamma, P.D.; Mathers, A.J. Navigating Treatment Approaches for Presumed ESBL-Producing Infections. JAC Antimicrob. Resist. 2021, 3, dlaa111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Paterson, D.L.; Henderson, A.; Harris, P.N.A. Current Evidence for Therapy of Ceftriaxone-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteremia. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 2020, 33, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Paterson, D.L.; Isler, B.; Harris, P.N.A. PRO: Carbapenems Should Be Used for ALL Infections Caused by Ceftriaxone-Resistant Enterobacterales. JAC Antimicrob. Resist. 2021, 3, dlab013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Rodríguez-Baño, J.; Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, B.; Pascual, A. CON: Carbapenems Are NOT Necessary for All Infections Caused by Ceftriaxone-Resistant Enterobacterales. JAC Antimicrob. Resist. 2021, 3, dlaa112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gatti, M.; Viaggi, B.; Rossolini, G.M.; Pea, F.; Viale, P. An Evidence-Based Multidisciplinary Approach Focused at Creating Algorithms for Targeted Therapy of BSIs, CUTIs, and CIAIs Caused by Enterobacterales in Critically Ill Adult Patients. Infect. Drug Resist. 2021, 14, 2461–2498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Karaiskos, I.; Giamarellou, H. Carbapenem-Sparing Strategies for ESBL Producers: When and How. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Paul, M.; Carrara, E.; Retamar, P.; Tängdén, T.; Bitterman, R.; Bonomo, R.A.; de Waele, J.; Daikos, G.L.; Akova, M.; Harbarth, S.; et al. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Guidelines for the Treatment of Infections Caused by Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacilli (Endorsed by European Society of Intensive Care Medicine). Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2022, 28, 521–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tamma, P.D.; Aitken, S.L.; Bonomo, R.A.; Mathers, A.J.; van Duin, D.; Clancy, C.J. Infectious Diseases Society of America 2023 Guidance on the Treatment of Antimicrobial Resistant Gram-Negative Infections. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2023, ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Henderson, A.; Paterson, D.L.; Chatfield, M.D.; Tambyah, P.A.; Lye, D.C.; De, P.P.; Lin, R.T.P.; Chew, K.L.; Yin, M.; Lee, T.H.; et al. Association Between Minimum Inhibitory Concentration, Beta-Lactamase Genes and Mortality for Patients Treated with Piperacillin/Tazobactam or Meropenem From the MERINO Study. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2021, 73, e3842–e3850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Klein, E.Y.; Van Boeckel, T.P.; Martinez, E.M.; Pant, S.; Gandra, S.; Levin, S.A.; Goossens, H.; Laxminarayan, R. Global Increase and Geographic Convergence in Antibiotic Consumption between 2000 and 2015. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, E3463–E3470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Bonomo, R.A.; Burd, E.M.; Conly, J.; Limbago, B.M.; Poirel, L.; Segre, J.A.; Westblade, L.F. Carbapenemase-Producing Organisms: A Global Scourge. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2018, 66, 1290–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Benanti, G.E.; Brown, A.R.T.; Shigle, T.L.; Tarrand, J.J.; Bhatti, M.M.; McDaneld, P.M.; Shelburne, S.A.; Aitken, S.L. Carbapenem versus Cefepime or Piperacillin-Tazobactam for Empiric Treatment of Bacteremia Due to Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase-Producing Escherichia Coli in Patients with Hematologic Malignancy. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2019, 63, 10–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Harris, P.N.A.; Yin, M.; Jureen, R.; Chew, J.; Ali, J.; Paynter, S.; Paterson, D.L.; Tambyah, P.A. Comparable Outcomes for β-Lactam/β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations and Carbapenems in Definitive Treatment of Bloodstream Infections Caused by Cefotaxime-Resistant Escherichia Coli or Klebsiella Pneumoniae. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2015, 4, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ng, T.M.; Khong, W.X.; Harris, P.N.A.; De, P.P.; Chow, A.; Tambyah, P.A.; Lye, D.C. Empiric Piperacillin-Tazobactam versus Carbapenems in the Treatment of Bacteraemia Due to Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0153696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Seo, Y.B.; Lee, J.; Kim, Y.K.; Lee, S.S.; Lee, J.-A.; Kim, H.Y.; Uh, Y.; Kim, H.-S.; Song, W. Randomized Controlled Trial of Piperacillin-Tazobactam, Cefepime and Ertapenem for the Treatment of Urinary Tract Infection Caused by Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Producing Escherichia Coli. BMC Infect. Dis. 2017, 17, 404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rodríguez-Baño, J.; Navarro, M.D.; Retamar, P.; Picón, E.; Pascual, Á.; Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamases–Red Española de Investigación en Patología Infecciosa/Grupo de Estudio de Infección Hospitalaria Group. 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. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2012, 54, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Rodríguez-Baño, J.; Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, B.; Kahlmeter, G. Antibiotics for Ceftriaxone-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacterial Bloodstream Infections. JAMA 2019, 321, 612–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, B.; Pérez-Galera, S.; Salamanca, E.; de Cueto, M.; Calbo, E.; Almirante, B.; Viale, P.; Oliver, A.; Pintado, V.; Gasch, O.; et al. A Multinational, Preregistered Cohort Study of β-Lactam/β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations for Treatment of Bloodstream Infections Due to Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016, 60, 4159–4169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, B.; Bonomo, R.A.; Carmeli, Y.; Paterson, D.L.; Almirante, B.; Martínez-Martínez, L.; Oliver, A.; Calbo, E.; Peña, C.; Akova, M.; et al. Ertapenem for the Treatment of Bloodstream Infections Due to ESBL-Producing Enterobacteriaceae: A Multinational Pre-Registered Cohort Study. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2016, 71, 1672–1680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gudiol, C.; Cuervo, G.; Carratalà, J. Optimizing Therapy of Bloodstream Infection Due to Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae. Curr. Opin. Crit. Care 2019, 25, 438–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gudiol, C.; Royo-Cebrecos, C.; Abdala, E.; Akova, M.; Álvarez, R.; Maestro-de la Calle, G.; Cano, A.; Cervera, C.; Clemente, W.T.; Martín-Dávila, P.; et al. Efficacy of β-Lactam/β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations for the Treatment of Bloodstream Infection Due to Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae in Hematological Patients with Neutropenia. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2017, 61, e00164-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nasir, N.; Ahmed, S.; Razi, S.; Awan, S.; Mahmood, S.F. Risk Factors for Mortality of Patients with Ceftriaxone Resistant E. Coli Bacteremia Receiving Carbapenem versus Beta Lactam/Beta Lactamase Inhibitor Therapy. BMC Res. Notes 2019, 12, 611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ko, J.-H.; Lee, N.R.; Joo, E.-J.; Moon, S.-Y.; Choi, J.-K.; Park, D.A.; Peck, K.R. Appropriate Non-Carbapenems Are Not Inferior to Carbapenems as Initial Empirical Therapy for Bacteremia Caused by Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae: A Propensity Score Weighted Multicenter Cohort Study. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2018, 37, 305–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sharara, S.L.; Amoah, J.; Pana, Z.D.; Simner, P.J.; Cosgrove, S.E.; Tamma, P.D. Is Piperacillin-Tazobactam Effective for the Treatment of Pyelonephritis Caused by Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase-Producing Organisms? Clin. Infect. Dis. 2020, 71, e331–e337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yoon, Y.K.; Kim, J.H.; Sohn, J.W.; Yang, K.S.; Kim, M.J. Role of Piperacillin/Tazobactam as a Carbapenem-Sparing Antibiotic for Treatment of Acute Pyelonephritis Due to Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase-Producing Escherichia Coli. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2017, 49, 410–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. John, R.; Colley, P.; Nguyen, H.L.; Berhe, M. Outcomes Analysis in Patients with Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase Bacteremia Empirically Treated with Piperacillin/Tazobactam versus Carbapenems. Proceedings 2019, 32, 187–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kang, C.-I.; Park, S.Y.; Chung, D.R.; Peck, K.R.; Song, J.-H. Piperacillin-Tazobactam as an Initial Empirical Therapy of Bacteremia Caused by Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase-Producing Escherichia Coli and Klebsiella Pneumoniae. J. Infect. 2012, 64, 533–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Branton, A.C.; Vu, C.H.; Venugopalan, V.; Santevecchi, B.A.; Cherabuddi, K.; Ramphal, R.; Manohar, T.; Desear, K.E. Re-Evaluation of Cefepime or Piperacillin/Tazobactam to Decrease Use of Carbapenems in ESBL-Producing Enterobacterales Urinary Tract Infections (REDUCE-UTI). JAC Antimicrob. Resist. 2023, 5, dlad021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Stefanos, S.S.; Sakaan, S.; Samarin, M.; Gelfand, M.S.; Cleveland, K.O.; Gant, J.; Kermeen, S.; Hobbs, D.A.; Hobbs, A.L.V. Assessing Clinical Cure of Empirical Piperacillin/Tazobactam for ESBL Urinary Tract Infections (ACCEPT-UTI). JAC Antimicrob. Resist. 2023, 5, dlad055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, W.; Yan, C.-Y.; Li, S.-R.; Fan, T.-T.; Cao, S.-S.; Cui, B.; Li, M.-Y.; Fan, B.-Y.; Ji, B.; Wang, L.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of Piperacillin-Tazobactam Compared with Meropenem in Treating Complicated Urinary Tract Infections Including Acute Pyelonephritis Due to Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2023, 13, 1093842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hoashi, K.; Hayama, B.; Suzuki, M.; Sakurai, A.; Takehana, K.; Enokida, T.; Takeda, K.; Ohkushi, D.; Doi, Y.; Harada, S. Comparison of the Treatment Outcome of Piperacillin-Tazobactam versus Carbapenems for Patients with Bacteremia Caused by Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase-Producing Escherichia Coli in Areas with Low Frequency of Coproduction of OXA-1: A Preliminary Analysis. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022, 10, e0220622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Berrino, P.M.; Gatti, M.; Rinaldi, M.; Brunocilla, E.; Viale, P.; Pea, F. Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Target Attainment of Continuous Infusion Piperacillin–Tazobactam or Meropenem and Microbiological Outcome among Urologic Patients with Documented Gram-Negative Infections. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Gatti, M.; Rinaldi, M.; Bonazzetti, C.; Gaibani, P.; Giannella, M.; Viale, P.; Pea, F. Could an Optimized Joint Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Target Attainment of Continuous Infusion Ceftazidime-Avibactam Be a Way to Avoid the Need for Combo Therapy in the Targeted Treatment of Deep-Seated DTR Gram-Negative Infections? Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2023, 67, e0096923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gatti, M.; Cojutti, P.G.; Bartoletti, M.; Tonetti, T.; Bianchini, A.; Ramirez, S.; Pizzilli, G.; Ambretti, S.; Giannella, M.; Mancini, R.; et al. Expert Clinical Pharmacological Advice May Make an Antimicrobial TDM Program for Emerging Candidates More Clinically Useful in Tailoring Therapy of Critically Ill Patients. Crit. Care 2022, 26, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Russell, L.; Pène, F.; Martin-Loeches, I. Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria in the Grey Shades of Immunosuppression. Intensive Care Med. 2023, 49, 216–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cook, A.M.; Hatton-Kolpek, J. Augmented Renal Clearance. Pharmacotherapy 2019, 39, 346–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Giannella, M.; Pascale, R.; Pancaldi, L.; Monari, C.; Ianniruberto, S.; Malosso, P.; Bussini, L.; Bartoletti, M.; Tedeschi, S.; Ambretti, S.; et al. Follow-up Blood Cultures Are Associated with Improved Outcome of Patients with Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections: Retrospective Observational Cohort Study. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2020, 26, 897–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Horan, T.C.; Andrus, M.; Dudeck, M.A. CDC/NHSN Surveillance Definition of Health Care-Associated Infection and Criteria for Specific Types of Infections in the Acute Care Setting. Am. J. Infect. Control 2008, 36, 309–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Miller, J.M.; Binnicker, M.J.; Campbell, S.; Carroll, K.C.; Chapin, K.C.; Gilligan, P.H.; Gonzalez, M.D.; Jerris, R.C.; Kehl, S.C.; Patel, R.; et al. A Guide to Utilization of the Microbiology Laboratory for Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases: 2018 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Society for Microbiology. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2018, 67, e1–e94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Silva-Nunes, J.; Cardoso, T. Intra-Abdominal Infections: The Role of Different Classifications on the Selection of the Best Antibiotic Treatment. BMC Infect. Dis. 2019, 19, 980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. EUCAST—European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Breakpoint Tables for Interpretation of MICs and Zone Diameters Version 12.0, Valid from 2022-01-01. Available online: https://www.eucast.org/fileadmin/src/media/PDFs/EUCAST_files/Breakpoint_tables/v_14.0_Breakpoint_Tables.pdf (accessed on 22 December 2023).
  48. EUCAST—European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Piperacillin-Tazobactam Breakpoints for Enterobacterales—General Consultion 2020. Available online: https://www.eucast.org/fileadmin/src/media/PDFs/EUCAST_files/Consultation/2020/Pip-Taz_Enterobacterales_General_consultation_final_20200710.pdf (accessed on 22 December 2023).
  49. Vena, A.; Giacobbe, D.R.; Castaldo, N.; Cattelan, A.; Mussini, C.; Luzzati, R.; Rosa, F.G.D.; Del Puente, F.; Mastroianni, C.M.; Cascio, A.; et al. Clinical Experience with Ceftazidime-Avibactam for the Treatment of Infections Due to Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria Other than Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales. Antibiotics 2020, 9, E71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Loeuille, G.; D’Huart, E.; Vigneron, J.; Nisse, Y.-E.; Beiler, B.; Polo, C.; Ayari, G.; Sacrez, M.; Demoré, B.; Charmillon, A. Stability Studies of 16 Antibiotics for Continuous Infusion in Intensive Care Units and for Performing Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Gatti, M.; Cojutti, P.G.; Pascale, R.; Tonetti, T.; Laici, C.; Dell’Olio, A.; Siniscalchi, A.; Giannella, M.; Viale, P.; Pea, F. Assessment of a PK/PD Target of Continuous Infusion Beta-Lactams Useful for Preventing Microbiological Failure and/or Resistance Development in Critically Ill Patients Affected by Documented Gram-Negative Infections. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sörgel, F.; Kinzig, M. The Chemistry, Pharmacokinetics and Tissue Distribution of Piperacillin/Tazobactam. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 1993, 31 (Suppl. SA), 39–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gatti, M.; Rinaldi, M.; Tonetti, T.; Siniscalchi, A.; Viale, P.; Pea, F. Could an Optimized Joint Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Target Attainment of Continuous Infusion Piperacillin-Tazobactam be a Valuable Innovative Approach for Maximizing the Effectiveness of Monotherapy Even in the Treatment of Critically Ill Patients with Documented Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacterales Bloodstream Infections and/or Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia? Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, B.; Rodríguez-Baño, J. Current Options for the Treatment of Infections Due to Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae in Different Groups of Patients. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2019, 25, 932–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Sumi, C.D.; Heffernan, A.J.; Lipman, J.; Roberts, J.A.; Sime, F.B. What Antibiotic Exposures Are Required to Suppress the Emergence of Resistance for Gram-Negative Bacteria? A Systematic Review. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 2019, 58, 1407–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Abodakpi, H.; Chang, K.-T.; Gao, S.; Sánchez-Díaz, A.M.; Cantón, R.; Tam, V.H. Optimal Piperacillin-Tazobactam Dosing Strategies against Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2019, 63, e01906-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Abodakpi, H.; Chang, K.T.; Zhou, J.; Byerly, C.; Tam, V.H. A Novel Framework to Compare the Effectiveness of β-Lactamase Inhibitors against Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2019, 25, 1154.e9–1154.e14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Tam, V.H.; Abodakpi, H.; Wang, W.; Ledesma, K.R.; Merlau, P.R.; Chan, K.; Altman, R.; Tran, T.T.; Nikolaou, M.; Sofjan, A.K. Optimizing Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics of β-Lactam/β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations against High Inocula of ESBL-Producing Bacteria. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2021, 76, 179–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Gatti, M.; Bonazzetti, C.; Tazza, B.; Pascale, R.; Miani, B.; Malosso, M.; Beci, G.; Marzolla, D.; Rinaldi, M.; Viale, P.; et al. Impact on Clinical Outcome of Follow-up Blood Cultures and Risk Factors for Persistent Bacteraemia in Patients with Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2023, 29, 1150–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Pai Mangalore, R.; Ashok, A.; Lee, S.J.; Romero, L.; Peel, T.N.; Udy, A.A.; Peleg, A.Y. Beta-Lactam Antibiotic Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2022, 75, 1848–1860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Microorganisms 12 00151 g001
Figure 1. Relationship between microbiological outcome and optimal (green box), quasi-optimal (yellow box) or suboptimal (red box) joint PK/PD target attainment of piperacillin–tazobactam. A stronger trend toward higher microbiological failure rates was found among patients attaining the quasi-optimal/suboptimal joint PK/PD target of piperacillin–tazobactam than in those attaining the optimal target (33.3% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.08). CR-BSI: catheter-related bloodstream infection; IAI: intrabdominal infection; UTI: urinary tract infection.
Figure 1. Relationship between microbiological outcome and optimal (green box), quasi-optimal (yellow box) or suboptimal (red box) joint PK/PD target attainment of piperacillin–tazobactam. A stronger trend toward higher microbiological failure rates was found among patients attaining the quasi-optimal/suboptimal joint PK/PD target of piperacillin–tazobactam than in those attaining the optimal target (33.3% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.08). CR-BSI: catheter-related bloodstream infection; IAI: intrabdominal infection; UTI: urinary tract infection.
Microorganisms 12 00151 g001
Table 1. Summary of the inclusion criteria for prospectively treating monotherapy patients having secondary bloodstream infections caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacterales with piperacillin–tazobactam.
Table 1. Summary of the inclusion criteria for prospectively treating monotherapy patients having secondary bloodstream infections caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacterales with piperacillin–tazobactam.
VariablesInclusion Criteria
PathogenESBL-producing Enterobacterales fully susceptible to piperacillin–tazobactam according to the EUCAST (i.e., MIC values ≤ 8 mg/L)
Antibiotic treatmentPiperacillin–tazobactam monotherapy by CI
No additional agent with activity against Gram-negative pathogens was allowed (namely, aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, fosfomycin, tigecycline, and/or colistin)
Type of infectionSecondary BSI originating from sources at low–intermediate infection risk (namely, UTIs, IAIs, or CR-BSIs-BSI), and effective source control
Severity of infection at presentationNon-severe infections without septic shock at onset occurring both in non-ICU-admitted patients and in ICU-admitted patients
Favorable clinical response within the first 48 h after starting empirical treatment with piperacillin–tazobactam
BSI: bloodstream infection; CI: continuous infusion; CR-BSI: catheter-related bloodstream infection; ESBL: extended spectrum beta-lactamase; EUCAST: European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; IAI: intrabdominal infection; ICU: intensive care unit; MIC: minimum inhibitory concentration; UTI: urinary tract infection.
Table 2. Demographic, clinical characteristics, and piperacillin–tazobactam treatment features of the included patients having definitive TDM-guided CI piperacillin–tazobactam monotherapy for treating BSIs caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacterales.
Table 2. Demographic, clinical characteristics, and piperacillin–tazobactam treatment features of the included patients having definitive TDM-guided CI piperacillin–tazobactam monotherapy for treating BSIs caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacterales.
Demographics and Clinical VariablesPatients (N = 35)
Patient demographics
Age (years) (median (IQR))79 (68–85)
Gender (male/female) (n (%))18/17 (51.4/48.6)
Body weight (Kg) (median (IQR))70 (62–75)
Body mass index (Kg/m2) (median (IQR))24.2 (21.7–26.2)
Admission ward (n (%))
Medical21 (60.0)
Surgical4 (11.4)
ICU10 (28.6)
Underlying conditions
Charlson Comorbidity Index (median (IQR))6 (5–8.5)
Immunosuppression (n (%))15 (42.9)
Status of renal function
Baseline CLCR (mL/min/1.73 m2) (median (IQR))34 (19–47)
IHD/CRRT (n (%))3 (8.6)
Augmented renal clearance (n (%))0 (0.0)
Source of BSI (n (%))
UTI27 (77.2)
IAI4 (11.4)
CR-BSI4 (11.4)
Failure in achieving effective source control (n (%))5 (14.3)
ESBL-producing Enterobacterales (n (%))
Escherichia coli22 (62.9)
Klebsiella pneumoniae13 (37.1)
MIC value (n (%))
4 mg/L10 (28.6)
8 mg/L25 (71.4)
Piperacillin–tazobactam treatment
Daily dose (mg) (median (IQR))9 g/day (6.75 g/day–13.5 g/day)
Treatment duration (days) (median (IQR))10 (7.25–13.75)
Piperacillin fCss (mg/L) (median (IQR))66.1 (37.1–99.0)
Tazobactam fCss (mg/L) (median (IQR))8.6 (5.4–14.9)
Piperacillin fCss/MIC ratio (median (IQR))8.9 (5.6–13.8)
Tazobactam fCss/CT ratio (median (IQR))2.2 (1.4–3.7)
PK/PD target attainment
Overall optimal joint PK/PD target (n (%))34 (97.1)
Overall quasi-optimal joint PK/PD target (n (%))1 (2.9)
Overall suboptimal joint PK/PD target (n (%))0 (0.0)
Overall optimal joint PK/PD target at first TDM assessment (n (%))34 (97.1)
Overall quasi-optimal joint PK/PD target at first TDM assessment (n (%))1 (2.9)
Overall suboptimal joint PK/PD target at first TDM assessment (n (%))0 (0.0)
ECPA program
Overall TDM-based ECPAs78
Number of TDM-based ECPA programs per treatment course (median (IQR))2 (1–3)
Number of dosage confirmations at first TDM assessment (n (%))3 (8.6)
Number of dosage decreases at first TDM assessment (n (%))32 (91.4)
Number of dosage increases at first TDM assessment (n (%))0 (0.0)
Overall number of dosage confirmations (n (%))32 (41.0)
Overall number of dosage decreases (n (%))43 (55.1)
Overall number of dosage increases (n (%))3 (3.9)
Outcome
Microbiological eradication (n (%))32 (91.4)
Resistance development (n (%))1 (2.9)
30-day relapse (n (%))1 (2.9)
Clinical cure (n (%))26 (74.3)
30-day mortality (n (%))3 (8.6)
BSI: bloodstream infection; CLCR: creatinine clearance; CR-BSI: catheter-related bloodstream infection; CRRT: continuous renal replacement therapy; ECPA: expert clinical pharmacological advice; fCss: free steady-state concentrations; fCT: free target concentrations; IAI: intrabdominal infection; ICU: intensive care unit; IHD: intermittent hemodialysis; IQR: interquartile range; MIC: minimum inhibitory concentration; PK/PD: pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic; TDM: therapeutic drug monitoring; UTI: urinary tract infection.
Table 3. Univariate analysis comparing patients’ variables potentially associated with microbiological eradication vs. microbiological failure.
Table 3. Univariate analysis comparing patients’ variables potentially associated with microbiological eradication vs. microbiological failure.
VariablesMicrobiological Eradication
(N = 32)		Microbiological
Failure
(N = 3)		Univariate Analysis
p Value
Patient demographics
Age (years) (median (IQR))79 (67.75–85)78 (78–84)0.58
Gender (male/female) (n (%))16/16 (50.0/50.0)2/1 (66.7/33.3)0.99
Body weight (Kg) (median (IQR))70 (62–75)63 (61.5–71.5)0.74
Body mass index (Kg/m2) (median (IQR))24.2 (21.8–26.2)24.6 (22.7–27.9)0.81
Admission ward (n (%))
Medical20 (62.5)1 (33.3)0.55
Surgical4 (12.5)0 (0.0)0.99
ICU8 (25.0)2 (66.7)0.19
Underlying conditions
Charlson Comorbidity Index (median (IQR))6 (5–8.25)6 (5.5–8.5)0.81
Immunosuppression (n (%))14 (43.8)1 (33.3)0.99
IHD/CRRT (n (%))3 (9.4)0 (0.0)0.99
Source of BSI (n (%))
UTI26 (81.2)1 (33.3)0.12
IAI3 (9.4)1 (33.3)0.31
CR-BSI3 (9.4)1 (33.3)0.31
Failure in achieving complete source control (n (%))4 (12.5)1 (33.3)0.38
ESBL-producing Enterobacterales (n (%))
Escherichia coli20 (62.5)2 (66.7)0.99
Klebsiella pneumonia12 (37.5)1 (33.3)0.99
MIC value (n (%))
4 mg/L8 (25.0)2 (66.7)0.19
8 mg/L24 (75.0)1 (33.3)0.19
Piperacillin–tazobactam treatment and joint PK/PD target attainment
Quasi-optimal/suboptimal
joint PK/PD target attainment		0 (0.0)1 (33.3)0.08
BSI: bloodstream infection; CR-BSI: catheter-related bloodstream infection; CRRT: continuous renal replacement therapy; IAI: intrabdominal infection; ICU: intensive care unit; IHD: intermittent hemodialysis; IQR: interquartile range; MIC: minimum inhibitory concentration; PK/PD: pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic; UTI: urinary tract infection.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gatti, M.; Bonazzetti, C.; Pascale, R.; Giannella, M.; Viale, P.; Pea, F. Real-Time TDM-Guided Optimal Joint PK/PD Target Attainment of Continuous Infusion Piperacillin–Tazobactam Monotherapy Is an Effective Carbapenem-Sparing Strategy for Treating Non-Severe ESBL-Producing Enterobacterales Secondary Bloodstream Infections: Findings from a Prospective Pilot Study. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 151. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12010151

AMA Style

Gatti M, Bonazzetti C, Pascale R, Giannella M, Viale P, Pea F. Real-Time TDM-Guided Optimal Joint PK/PD Target Attainment of Continuous Infusion Piperacillin–Tazobactam Monotherapy Is an Effective Carbapenem-Sparing Strategy for Treating Non-Severe ESBL-Producing Enterobacterales Secondary Bloodstream Infections: Findings from a Prospective Pilot Study. Microorganisms. 2024; 12(1):151. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12010151

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gatti, Milo, Cecilia Bonazzetti, Renato Pascale, Maddalena Giannella, Pierluigi Viale, and Federico Pea. 2024. "Real-Time TDM-Guided Optimal Joint PK/PD Target Attainment of Continuous Infusion Piperacillin–Tazobactam Monotherapy Is an Effective Carbapenem-Sparing Strategy for Treating Non-Severe ESBL-Producing Enterobacterales Secondary Bloodstream Infections: Findings from a Prospective Pilot Study" Microorganisms 12, no. 1: 151. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12010151

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop