Retrospective study finds similar mortality and clinical cure between ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in ESBL bloodstream infections, suggesting a viable carbapenem-sparing alternative.
OBJECTIVES: Ceftolozane/tazobactam has been developed as a novel carbapenem-sparing agent. Our study aimed at comparing the effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem for the treatment of bloodstream infections (BSIs) due to ESBL producers. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted at the Laiko General Hospital of Athens from 1 January 2022 to 28 February 2024. Patients with BSIs due to ESBL-producing Enterobacterales were identified using electronic health records. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to compare the two treatment modalities. The primary endpoint was 30 day all-cause mortality; secondary endpoints included clinical cure, in-hospital mortality and antibiotic consumption. RESULTS: We identified 144 patients with ESBL BSIs, of whom 115 were included in our analysis (ceftolozane/tazobactam, n = 41 versus meropenem, n = 74). The mean age was 73.6 ± 14.1 years and 55.7% (64/115) were male. Persons treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam were older (78.2 ± 13.3 versus 70.9 ± 14 years, P = 0.008) and their isolates were more likely to be susceptible to cefoxitin (2.4% versus 21.6%, P = 0.005). There were no significant differences between the two groups in clinical cure rates (68.3% versus 75.7%, P = 0.511), in-hospital mortality (34.1% versus 29.7%, P = 0.677) or 30 day mortality (34.1% versus 29.7%, P = 0.677). These findings were confirmed by IPTW analysis, which showed no difference between ceftolozane/tazobactam and the carbapenem for clinical cure (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.12-1.53, P = 0.193), hospital mortality (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.54-5.51, P = 0.360) and 30 day mortality (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.54-5.48, P = 0.357). CONCLUSIONS: Ceftolozane/tazobactam is a viable alternative to meropenem for the treatment of ESBL BSIs. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Basoulis et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: