Combination therapy vs. monotherapy for Gram-negative bloodstream infection: matching by predicted prognosis

The utility of empirical combination antimicrobial therapy for Gram-negative bloodstream infection (BSI) remains unclear. This retrospective, quasi-experimental matched cohort study examined the impact of empirical combination therapy on mortality in patients with Gram-negative BSI. Hospitalized adults with Gram-negative BSI from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2013 at Palmetto Health Hospitals in Columbia, SC, USA were identified. Patients receiving combination therapy or beta-lactam monotherapy were matched 1:1 based on age, sex and Bloodstream Infection Mortality Risk Score (BSIMRS). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression with propensity score adjustment was used to examine overall 28–day mortality and within predefined BSIMRS categories (<5 and ≥5). A total of 380 patients receiving combination therapy or monotherapy for Gram-negative BSI were included in the study. Median age was 66 years and 204 (54%) were female. Overall, 28-day mortality in patients who received combination therapy and monotherapy was 13% and 15%, respectively (P?=?0.51). After stratification by BSIMRS, mortality in both combination therapy and monotherapy groups was 1.1% in patients with BSIMRS <5 (P?=?0.98) and 27% and 32%, respectively, in patients with BSIMRS ≥5 (P?=?0.47). After adjusting for propensity to receive combination therapy, risk of mortality was not significantly different for combination therapy compared to monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51–1.60). This finding persisted for both subgroups of BSIMRS <5 (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.04–24.28) and BSIMRS ≥5 (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46–1.48). There is no survival benefit from empirical combination therapy over monotherapy in patients with Gram-negative BSI, regardless of predicted prognosis at initial presentation.     

Enhanced terminal room disinfection and acquisition and infection caused by multidrug-resistant organisms and Clostridium diffcile(the Benefits of Enhanced Terminal Room Disinfection study):a cluster-randomised,multicentre,crossover study

中文:背景患者入院后可从不当消毒的环境表面获得多药耐药菌和艰难梭菌。本文确定了3种强化的终末消毒(入住同一病房的两名患者之间的消毒)策略,对感染耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)、耐万古霉素肠球菌(VRE)、艰难梭菌(CD)和多重耐药不动杆菌的影响。方法本文在美国东南部的9家医院开展了一项务实的、集群-随机、交叉研究。凡曾有感染或定植目标细菌感染患者居住过的病房,患者出院后随机采取4种消毒策略中的一种方法进行终末消毒:对照(季胺盐类消毒剂消毒,但凡遇到CD采用含氯消毒剂);UV(季胺盐类+UV-C消毒,但凡遇到CD采用含氯消毒剂+UV-C);含氯消毒剂;含氯消毒剂+UV-C。凡入住目标病房的患者被列为暴露人群。这4种终末消毒方法分别在每家医院连续实施7个月的周期。本文随机设计这几种消毒策略在每家医院内的实施顺序(1:1:1:1)。主要产出的结果是,观察暴露患者中目标细菌的感染的发生或定植情况,以及ITT人群中暴露患者CD感染发生率。本研究ClinicalTrials.gov注册编号:NCT01579370。结果共有31 226名患者暴露,其中21 395(69%)符合标准,包括4 916名对照组,5 178名UV组,5 438名含氯消毒剂组,以及5 863名含氯消毒剂+UV组。在对照组中,22 426个暴露日中有115名患者发生目标细菌的感染(51.3/10000暴露日)。在标准清洁策略的基础上增加UV消毒的暴露患者,其目标细菌感染的发生率明显较低(n=76;33.9/10 000暴露日;RR:0.70,95%CI:0.50～0.988;P=0.036)。含氯消毒剂组(n=101;41.6/10 000暴露日;RR:0.85,95%CI:0.69～1.04;P=0.116),或含氯消毒剂+UV组患者(n=131;45.6/10 000暴露日;RR:0.91,95%CI:0.76～1.09;P=0.303)的目标细菌的感染率,其差异无统计学意义。同样,在含氯消毒剂的基础上增加UV消毒,暴露患者中CD感染率也没有发生改变((n=38 vs 36;30.4 vs 31.6/10 000暴露日;RR:1.0,95%CI:0.57-1.75;P=0.997)。解释污染的医疗机构环境是获得病原微生物的重要来源;强化终末消毒可以降低这一风险。