4.2 Article

Ertapenem in outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy for complicated urinary tract infections

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 29, 期 1, 页码 25-29

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/1120009X.2016.1158937

关键词

Complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs); Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy; Ertapenem; Multi-drug-resistant organisms

资金

  1. Investigator Initiated Studies Program of Merck Co. Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Ertapenem is a broad-spectrum antibiotic that is increasingly being utilized. Its dosing convenience renders it suitable for outpatient therapy, and its pharmacokinetic characteristics favour its use against complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs). Despite this, sufficient clinical data are lacking for its use against cUTIs in the outpatient setting. We assessed the microbiological and clinical cure rates associated with ertapenem treatment for cUTIs in two outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) departments. Methods: We undertook a prospective observational study of adult patients who received ertapenem for cUTIs between August 2010 and August 2014. Data on patient characteristics, clinical progress and microbiological results were collected and analysed. Results: Sixty-one patients were enrolled. The median age was 59 years (range 24, 83) and 61% were male. The most common diagnoses were pyelonephritis (39%) and prostatitis (15%). The most common causative organism was Escherichia coli (67%). Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing organisms were detected in 72% of infections. Microbiological cure was achieved in 67% overall, and was less likely in those with Klebsiella pneumoniae infection (OR = 0.21 [95% CI: 0.05 to 0.85] p = 0.029). Clinical cure was observed in 92% of patients. Conclusion: In this study of treating cUTIs with ertapenem, we have demonstrated good clinical outcomes. A lower than expected microbiological cure rate was observed in those with Klebsiella pneumoniae infection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据