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

Abstract

IntroductionThe 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).MethodsClinical 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.ResultsA 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 < 0.001), respectively]. No significant differences in the 28-day survival rates were identified between the two groups (69.8% versus 66.1%, P = 0.695). Conventional multivariate logistic regression and PS analyses showed that patients who had used CAZ-AVI were more likely to have achieved a clinical cure [4.767 (95%CI 1.694-13.414), P=0.003;3.405 (95%CI 1.304-8.889), P=0.012] and microbiological success [6.664 (95%CI 2.626-16.915), P<0.001;7.778 (95%CI 2.717-22.265), P<0.001] than patients who used TGC. However, the difference in the 28-day survival rates between the two groups was not significant. According to the safety evaluation findings, the CAZ-AVI group exhibited a generally lower incidence of adverse reactions compared with that in the TGC group.ConclusionsCAZ-AVI may be a suitable alternative for TGC in the treatment of critically ill patients with CRKP-induced HAP or VAP. These observations require further confirmation in larger randomized prospective clinical trials.