The Role of Fosfomycin-Containing Regimens in Reducing Mortality From Infections Caused by Metallo-β-Lactamase–Producing Enterobacterales
Stelios F Assimakopoulos,Markos Marangos
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciae196
IF: 20.999
2024-05-11
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Abstract:To the editor —We read with great interest the recent article by Falcone et al [1] on the clinical features and outcomes of infections caused by metallo-β-lactamase (MBL)–producing Enterobacterales. In their prospective observational study, 343 patients were included, and the 30-day mortality was 29.7%. In a previous prospective, observational study of patients with MBL bloodstream infections, it was shown that the combination of ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA) plus aztreonam (ATM) was associated with reduced mortality risk compared with colistin-containing regimens [2]. The combination of CZA + ATM is recommended in current guidelines as the first-line option against infections by MBL-producing Enterobacterales [3–5]. It is noteworthy in the commented study that although the combination of CZA + ATM did lead to lower mortality (22.3%) compared with colistin-containing regimens (50%) or cefiderocol-containing regimens (33%), it was not the best treatment option in terms of patient survival. Specifically, patients who received "other active antibiotics" (OAAs) presented a 30-day mortality rate of 13.5% (5 of 37). However, the Kaplan–Meier survival curve of the OAA group is reversely presented with the CZA + ATM curve, leading to some confusion (Figure 3). In addition, there is a discrepancy in mortality rates for the OAA group; as noted in the Results section, mortality was 13.5% (5 of 37), while in Figure 2, the number presented above the corresponding bar was even lower (3 of 37, 8.1%; P = .046 versus CZA + ATM, χ 2 test). A more detailed look at the regimens used in the OAA group (Table 3) reveals that most patients received a fosfomycin-containing regimen; interestingly, 15 of 37 had received fosfomycin monotherapy, 2 of 37 received a combination with meropenem or gentamycin, respectively, while 16 patients received tigecycline ± fosfomycin, without any further clarification. Although the mortality by individual regimen is not provided in the article, the worst mortality scenario for the fosfomycin-containing regimen could be calculated if we attribute all 5 deaths in the OAA group to the fosfomycin-containing regimen and consider the minimum number of patients who could have been included in this group, which is 18 (counting that at least 1 patient in the tigecycline ± fosfomycin group received fosfomycin in addition to tigecycline). In this case, the worst mortality rate for the fosfomycin-containing regimen would be 5 of 18 (27.7%), which is the second-best treatment outcome. However, given the fact that 17.5% of the enrolled patients had complicated urinary tract infections, for which tigecycline is not an option, while 75.5% of cases suffered from bloodstream infections and hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated pneumonia, for which tigecycline should not be used as monotherapy, it is tempting to speculate that a significant portion of the tigecycline ± fosfomycin subgroup may have received combination therapy with fosfomycin. This would be interpreted as an even lower mortality rate for the fosfomycin-based regimen in the OAA group; nevertheless, these important data are lacking. In addition, the in vitro susceptibility rate of MBL-producing Enterobacterales to fosfomycin is quite sufficient (67.1%), according to Table 1. However, we are cautious in interpreting these data since susceptibility and resistance rates for several antibiotics are presented in reverse order. Taking into consideration that this is the largest clinical study on MBL-producing Enterobacterales infections published to date, it would be very helpful if the authors could further clarify the promising results of the OAA group, with a special emphasis on the role of fosfomycin and the type of infection.
immunology,infectious diseases,microbiology