1576 - Re-Evaluation of cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam to Decrease Use of Carbapenems in ESBL-Producing Enterobacterales BloodStream Infections (REDUCE-BSI)

Background: The ideal therapy for treatment of bloodstream infections (BSI) due to ESBL-producing organisms is widely debated. Although prior studies have demonstrated efficacy of non-carbapenems (CBPNs) for ESBL infections, results from the MERINO study group found increased mortality associated with piperacillin/tazobactam (PT) when compared with meropenem for treatment of ESBL BSI. The goal of this study was to investigate patient outcomes associated with the use of CBPN-sparing therapies (PT and cefepime (CEF)) for ESBL BSI. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality between non-CBPN (PT and CEF) and CBPN groups. Secondary outcomes included clinical cure, microbiologic cure, infection recurrence, and development of resistance.

Methods: This was a retrospective observational study of patients admitted to the hospital from May 2016 - May 2019 with a positive blood culture for an ESBL-producing organism. Patients receiving meropenem, ertapenem, PT, or CEF were included. Patients were excluded if < 18 years old, receiving antibiotics for < 24 hours, treated for a polymicrobial BSI, or receiving concomitant antibiotic therapy for another gram-negative (non-ESBL) infection.

Results: One hundred and fourteen patients were analyzed; 74 (65%) patients received CBPN therapy compared with 40 (35%) patients that received a non-CBPN (CEF N=30, PT N=10). There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 6% (N=7). Eight percent of patients (N=6) in the CBPN arm died compared to 3% (N=1) of patients in the non-CBPN arm, P = 0.42. No difference in mortality was detected between groups when evaluating subgroups with Pitt bacteremia score ≥4 (N=25), requiring ICU admission (N=50), non-genitourinary source (N=50), or by causative organism (N=76 E. coli; N=38 Klebsiella spp.). There was no difference between groups for secondary outcomes.

Conclusion: CEF and PT are reasonable options for the treatment of ESBL BSI and did not result in increased mortality or decreased clinical efficacy when compared to CBPNs in this cohort.