Early treatment response to piperacillin/tazobactam in patients with bloodstream infections caused by non-ESBL ampicillin/sulbactam-resistant Escherichia coli: a binational cohort study

Abstract

Abstract Purpose This study aimed to compare treatment outcomes for bloodstream infections (BSI) caused by a piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZ)-susceptible E. coli among three patient groups: BSI caused by ampicillin/sulbactam (AMP/SLB)-resistant isolates treated with PIP/TAZ, BSI caused by AMP/SLB-sensitive isolates treated with PIP/TAZ, and BSI caused by AMP/SLB-resistant isolates treated with another monotherapy. Methods This retrospective study was conducted in two academic centres in Europe. Adult patients with E. coli BSI were screened from 2014 to 2020. Inclusion criteria were non-ESBL BSI and initial monotherapy for ≥ 72 h. To reduce the expected bias between the patient groups, propensity score matching was performed. The primary outcome was early treatment response after 72 h and required absence of SOFA score increase in ICU/IMC patients, as well as resolution of fever, leukocytosis, and bacteraemia. Results Of the 1707 patients screened, 315 (18.5%) were included in the final analysis. Urinary tract infection was the most common source of BSI (54.9%). Monotherapies other than PIP/TAZ were cephalosporins (48.6%), carbapenems (34.3%), and quinolones (17.1%). Enhanced early treatment response rate was detected (p = 0.04) in patients with BSI caused by AMP/SLB-resistant isolates treated with another monotherapy (74.3%) compared to those treated with PIP/TAZ (57.1%), and was mainly driven by the use of cephalosporins and quinolones (p ≤ 0.03). Clinical success, 28-day mortality, and rate of relapsing BSI did not significantly differ between the groups. Conclusions Our study suggests that initial use of PIP/TAZ may be associated with reduced early treatment response in E. coli BSI caused by AMP/SLB-resistant isolates compared to alternative monotherapies.