Piperacillin/tazobactam in the treatment of hospitalized patients with urinary tract infections: an open non-comparative and multicentered trial

Unitary Tract Infection Treatment: When to Use What Agents including Beta-lactam Combination Agents

In this study, the authors review antibiotic treatment options for both acute uncomplicated and complicated urinary tract infection (UTI). In addition, they also review regimens used in the setting of drug-resistant pathogens including vancomycin resistant Enterococcus, extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing Enterobacterals, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterals and carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas, which are encountered with increasing frequency.

A Meta-Analysis on Clinical Outcomes of Ceftolozane versus Piperacillin in Combination with Tazobactam in Patients with Complicated Urinary Tract Infections

Objective

To evaluate efficacy and adverse events of ceftolozane/tazobactam in complicated UTI including acute pyelonephritis.

Method

Databases that include PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and TRIP were searched. All randomized controlled trials and cohort studies were considered for the study. Statistical analysis was done using a fixed effects model, and results were expressed in proportion for dichotomous data and risk ratio for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

A clinical cure of ceftolozane/tazobactam was found to be 92% with 95% CI of 90-94 while that of piperacillin/tazobactam was only 78% (95% CI, 74-82) in patients with complicated UTI. Microbiological eradication was still higher in the ceftolozane/tazobactam group (83%, 95% CI 81-88) when compared with piperacillin/tazobactam (63% 95% CI, 58.77-65.2). Ceftolozane/tazobactam was more effective in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections other than acute pyelonephritis as compared to piperacillin/tazobactam (RR = 1.21, 95% CI, 1.07-1.23). Serious adverse events were found comparable in both groups (RR = 1.15, 95% CI, 0.64-2.09).

Conclusion

The analysis showed that ceftolozane/tazobactam has better clinical outcomes including cure rates and low resistance for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection.

Treatment efficacy and superinfection rates in complicated urinarytract infections treated with ertapenem or piperacillin tazobactam

BACKGROUND/AIM

In this retrospective study, the efficacy of ertapenem and piperacillin tazobactam was compared in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs). Treatment responses were also evaluated for both antibiotics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 230 patients were enrolled in the study. Of these, 170 received ertapenem and 60 received piperacillin-tazobactam.

RESULTS

In both groups, urine cultures after 48 h were negative for the initial uropathogen. The frequency of superinfection was 29.4% in the ertapenem group and 8.3% in the piperacillin-tazobactam group over the duration of treatment (P < 0.05). Urinary catheterization increased the superinfection risk 2.88-fold in the ertapenem group and diabetes mellitus increased the risk 8.50-fold in the piperacillin-tazobactam group (CI: 1.44-5.76 and 1.16-62.09, respectively, P < 0.05). The main pathogen isolated from superinfection in the ertapenem group after 48 h was Enterococcus spp. (71.4%).

CONCLUSION

Both ertapenem and piperacillin-tazobactam were effective in the treatment of cUTIs caused by ESBL-producing microorganisms. A high frequency of superinfection in the ertapenem group was the result of Enterococcus and Pseudomonas spp., against which ertapenem is not active. In the presence of urinary catheterization, diabetes mellitus, and urological intervention, patients should be closely monitored for the development of a superinfection, especially patients receiving ertapenem.

Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam versus imipenem-cilastatin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, including acute pyelonephritis, in hospitalized adults: results of a prospective, investigator-blinded, randomized study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this prospective phase II, randomized, investigator-blinded study (NCT00690378) was to compare the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam and imipenem-cilastatin in hospitalized adults with serious complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) due to Gram-negative pathogens.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients aged between 18 and 90 years with cUTI were enrolled and stratified by infection type (acute pyelonephritis or other cUTI) and randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous ceftazidime 500 mg plus avibactam 125 mg every 8 hours or imipenem-cilastatin 500 mg every 6 hours. Patients meeting pre-specified improvement criteria after 4 days could be switched to oral ciprofloxacin. Patients were treated for a total of 7-14 days. The primary efficacy objective was a favorable microbiological response at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit 5-9 days post-therapy in microbiologically evaluable (ME) patients.

RESULTS

Overall, 135 patients received study therapy (safety population); 62 were included in the ME population (ceftazidime-avibactam, n = 27; imipenem-cilastatin, n = 35). The predominant uropathogen was Escherichia coli. Favorable microbiological response was achieved in 70.4% of ME patients receiving ceftazidime-avibactam and 71.4% receiving imipenem-cilastatin at the TOC visit (observed difference -1.1% [95% CI: -27.2%, 25.0%]). Among ME patients with ceftazidime-resistant uropathogens, response was observed in 6/7 (85.7%) receiving ceftazidime-avibactam. Adverse events were observed in 67.6% and 76.1% of patients receiving ceftazidime-avibactam and imipenem-cilastatin, respectively. Limitations of the study include the small number of patients in the ME population.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam may be similar to that of imipenem-cilastatin.

Complicated urinary tract infection in adults

BACKGROUND

Complicated urinary tract infection occurs in individuals with functional or structural abnormalities of the genitourinary tract.

OBJECTIVE

To review current knowledge relevant to complicated urinary tract infection, and to provide evidence-based recommendations for management.

METHODS

The literature was reviewed through a PubMed search, and additional articles were identified by journal reference review. A draft guideline was prepared and critically reviewed by members of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada Guidelines Committee, with modifications incorporated following the review.

RESULTS

Many urological abnormalities may be associated with complicated urinary infection. There is a wide spectrum of potential infecting organisms, and isolated bacteria tend to be more resistant to antimicrobial therapy. Morbidity and infection outcomes in subjects with complicated urinary infection are principally determined by the underlying abnormality rather than the infection. Principles of management include uniform collection of a urine specimen for culture before antimicrobial therapy, characterization of the underlying genitourinary abnormality, and nontreatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria except before an invasive genitourinary procedure. The antimicrobial regimen is determined by clinical presentation, patient tolerance, renal function and known or anticipated infecting organisms. If the underlying abnormality contributing to the urinary infection cannot be corrected, then early post-treatment recurrence of infection is anticipated.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of complicated urinary infection is individualized depending on patient variables and the infecting organism. Further clinical investigations are necessary to assist in determining optimal antimicrobial regimens.

Piperacillin 2 g/tazobactam 0.5 g is as effective as imipenem 0.5 g/cilastatin 0.5 g for the treatment of acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis and complicated urinary tract infections

This randomised, double-blind, multicentre trial compared piperacillin/tazobactam (2 g/0.5 g/q8h) and imipenem/cilastatin (0.5 g/0.5 g/q8h) as monotherapy in patients with acute pyelonephritis or complicated urinary tract infections. In total, 237 patients were randomised to receive either piperacillin/tazobactam (n=161) or imipenem/cilastatin (n=166). At the early follow-up (=test-of-cure-visit) 5-9 days after antibiotic therapy, clinical success was noted in 122/147 (83.0%) piperacillin/tazobactam recipients compared with 123/154 (79.9%) imipenem/cilastatin recipients, thus proving that both treatments were equally effective. On a descriptive level, an advantage of piperacillin/tazobactam was demonstrated. Microbiological success at the early follow-up was 78/135 (57.8%) for piperacillin/tazobactam and 70/144 (48.6%) for imipenem/cilastatin. These results were confirmed by equivalent success rates on the last therapy day. Both drugs were generally well tolerated.

Piperacillin/tazobactam: an updated review of its use in the treatment of bacterial infections

Piperacillin/tazobactam is a beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combination with a broad spectrum of antibacterial activity encompassing most Gram-positive and Gram-negative aerobic bacteria and anaerobic bacteria, including many pathogens producing beta-lactamases. Evidence from clinical trials in adults has shown that piperacillin/tazobactam, administered in an 8:1 ratio, is an effective treatment for patients with lower respiratory tract, intra-abdominal, urinary tract, gynaecological and skin/soft tissue infections, and for fever in patients with neutropenia. Combination regimens of piperacillin/tazobactam plus an aminoglycoside are used to treat patients with severe nosocomial (hospital-acquired) infections. In clinical trials, piperacillin/tazobactam was significantly more effective than ticarcillin/clavulanic acid in terms of clinical and microbiological outcome in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. In patients with intra-abdominal infections, clinical and bacteriological response rates were significantly higher with piperacillin/tazobactam than with imipenem/cilastatin (administered at a dosage lower than is recommended in countries outside Scandinavia). Piperacillin/tazobactam in combination with amikacin was at least as effective as ceftazidime plus amikacin in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia and was significantly more effective than ceftazidime plus amikacin in the empirical treatment of febrile episodes in patients with neutropenia or granulocytopenia. In other trials, the efficacy of piperacillin/tazobactam was similar to that of standard aminoglycoside-containing and other treatment regimens in patients with intra-abdominal, skin/soft tissue or gynaecological infections. Piperacillin/tazobactam is generally well tolerated. The most frequent adverse events are gastrointestinal symptoms (most commonly diarrhoea) and skin reactions. The incidence of adverse events with piperacillin/tazobactam is higher when the combination is given in combination with an aminoglycoside than when given as monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Because of the broad spectrum of antibacterial activity provided by piperacillin/tazobactam, it is useful for the treatment of patients with polymicrobial infections caused by aerobic or anaerobic beta-lactamase-producing bacteria. Piperacillin/tazobactam appears to have a particularly useful role in the treatment of patients with intra-abdominal infections and, in combination with amikacin, in the treatment of patients with febrile neutropenia, especially given the current prevalence of Gram-positive infections in this group.