IntroductionCefiderocol is a siderophore cephalosporin showing activity against various carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (CR-GNB). No data currently exist about real-world use of cefiderocol in terms of types of therapy (e.g., empirical or targeted, monotherapy or combined regimens), indications, and patient characteristics.MethodsIn this multicenter, prospective study, we aimed at describing the use of cefiderocol in terms of types of therapy, indications, and patient characteristics.ResultsCefiderocol was administered as empirical and targeted therapy in 27.5% (55/200) and 72.5% (145/200) of cases, respectively. Overall, it was administered as monotherapy in 101/200 cases (50.5%) and as part of a combined regimen for CR-GNB infections in the remaining 99/200 cases (49.5%). In multivariable analysis, previous isolation of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii odds ratio (OR) 2.56, with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.01-6.46, p = 0.047] and previous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (OR 8.73, 95% CI 1.05-72.54, p = 0.045) were associated with administration of cefiderocol as part of a combined regimen, whereas chronic kidney disease was associated with cefiderocol monotherapy (OR 0.38 for combined regimen, 95% CI 0.16-0.91, p = 0.029). Cumulative 30-day mortality was 19.8%, 45.0%, 20.7%, and 22.7% in patients receiving targeted cefiderocol for infections by Enterobacterales, A. baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and any metallo-beta-lactamase producers, respectively.ConclusionsCefiderocol is mainly used for targeted treatment, although empirical therapies account for more than 25% of prescriptions, thus requiring dedicated standardization and guidance. The almost equal distribution of cefiderocol monotherapy and cefiderocol-based combination therapies underlines the need for further study to ascertain possible differences in efficacy between the two approaches.

Use of Cefiderocol in Adult Patients: Descriptive Analysis from a Prospective, Multicenter, Cohort Study

Giacobbe, Daniele Roberto;Labate, Laura;Russo Artimagnella, Chiara;Signori, Alessio;Di Pilato, Vincenzo;Briano, Federica;Del Bono, Valerio;Mikulska, Malgorzata;Giacomini, Mauro;Marchese, Anna;Vena, Antonio;Bassetti, Matteo
2024-01-01

Abstract

IntroductionCefiderocol is a siderophore cephalosporin showing activity against various carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (CR-GNB). No data currently exist about real-world use of cefiderocol in terms of types of therapy (e.g., empirical or targeted, monotherapy or combined regimens), indications, and patient characteristics.MethodsIn this multicenter, prospective study, we aimed at describing the use of cefiderocol in terms of types of therapy, indications, and patient characteristics.ResultsCefiderocol was administered as empirical and targeted therapy in 27.5% (55/200) and 72.5% (145/200) of cases, respectively. Overall, it was administered as monotherapy in 101/200 cases (50.5%) and as part of a combined regimen for CR-GNB infections in the remaining 99/200 cases (49.5%). In multivariable analysis, previous isolation of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii odds ratio (OR) 2.56, with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.01-6.46, p = 0.047] and previous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (OR 8.73, 95% CI 1.05-72.54, p = 0.045) were associated with administration of cefiderocol as part of a combined regimen, whereas chronic kidney disease was associated with cefiderocol monotherapy (OR 0.38 for combined regimen, 95% CI 0.16-0.91, p = 0.029). Cumulative 30-day mortality was 19.8%, 45.0%, 20.7%, and 22.7% in patients receiving targeted cefiderocol for infections by Enterobacterales, A. baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and any metallo-beta-lactamase producers, respectively.ConclusionsCefiderocol is mainly used for targeted treatment, although empirical therapies account for more than 25% of prescriptions, thus requiring dedicated standardization and guidance. The almost equal distribution of cefiderocol monotherapy and cefiderocol-based combination therapies underlines the need for further study to ascertain possible differences in efficacy between the two approaches.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11567/1220331
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact