Search

[Background] Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteraemia is a common and serious infection. No consensus exists regarding whether definitive combination therapy is superior to monotherapy. We aimed to evaluate the impact of combination therapy on mortality., [Methods] This was a multicentre retrospective study (nine countries, 25 centres), including 1277 patients with P. aeruginosa bacteraemia during 2009–15. We evaluated the association between β-lactam plus aminoglycoside or quinolone combination therapy versus β-lactam monotherapy and mortality. The primary outcome was 30 day all-cause mortality. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were conducted, introducing combination as a time-dependent variable. Propensity score was conducted to adjust for confounding for choosing combination therapy over monotherapy., [Results] Of 1119 patients included, 843 received definitive monotherapy and 276 received combination therapy (59% aminoglycoside and 41% quinolone). Mortality at 30 days was 16.9% (189/1119) and was similar between combination (45/276; 16.3%) and monotherapy (144/843; 17.1%) groups (P = 0.765). In multivariate Cox regression, combination therapy was not associated with reduced mortality (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.64–1.53). No advantage in terms of clinical failure, microbiological failure or recurrent/persistent bacteraemia was demonstrated using combination therapy. Likewise, adverse events and resistance development were similar for the two regimens., [Conclusions] In this retrospective cohort, no mortality advantage was demonstrated using combination therapy over monotherapy for P. aeruginosa bacteraemia. Combination therapy did not improve clinical or microbiological failure rates, nor affect adverse events or resistance development. Our finding of no benefit with combination therapy needs confirmation in well-designed randomized controlled trials.

This study was presented as poster presentation at the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases annual conference, Madrid, Spain, 21–24 April 2018., [Background] The optimal antibiotic regimen for Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia is controversial. Although β-lactam monotherapy is common, data to guide the choice between antibiotics are scarce. We aimed to compare ceftazidime, carbapenems, and piperacillin-tazobactam as definitive monotherapy. [Methods] A multinational retrospective study (9 countries, 25 centers) including 767 hospitalized patients with P. aeruginosa bacteremia treated with β-lactam monotherapy during 2009–2015. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Univariate and multivariate, including propensity-adjusted, analyses were conducted introducing monotherapy type as an independent variable. [Results] Thirty-day mortality was 37/213 (17.4%), 42/210 (20%), and 55/344 (16%) in the ceftazidime, carbapenem, and piperacillin-tazobactam groups, respectively. Type of monotherapy was not significantly associated with mortality in either univariate, multivariate, or propensity-adjusted analyses (odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52–2.46, for ceftazidime; OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.67–2.51, for piperacillin-tazobactam, with carbapenems as reference in propensity adjusted multivariate analysis; 542 patients). No significant difference between antibiotics was demonstrated for clinical failure, microbiological failure, or adverse events. Isolation of P. aeruginosa with new resistance to antipseudomonal drugs was significantly more frequent with carbapenems (36/206 [17.5%]) versus ceftazidime (25/201 [12.4%]) and piperacillin-tazobactam (28/332 [8.4%] (P = .007). [Conclusions] No significant difference in mortality, clinical, and microbiological outcomes or adverse events was demonstrated between ceftazidime, carbapenems, and piperacillin-tazobactam as definitive treatment of P. aeruginosa bacteremia. Higher rates of resistant P. aeruginosa after patients were treated with carbapenems, along with the general preference for carbapenem-sparing regimens, suggests using ceftazidime or piperacillin-tazobactam for treating susceptible infection., This study was conducted with no external funding. In Sweden only, the research was funded by grants from the Stockholm County Council and Emil and Wera Cornell Foundation.