Cefepime vs other antibacterial agents for the treatment of Enterobacter species bacteremia

Background: Carbapenems are recommended for treatment of Enterobacter infections with AmpC phenotypes. Although isolates are typically susceptible to cefepime in vitro, there are few data supporting its clinical efficacy.

Methods: We reviewed all cases of Enterobacter species bacteremia at 2 academic hospitals from 2005 to 2011. Outcomes of interest were (1) persistent bacteremia ≥1 calendar day and (2) in-hospital mortality. We fit logistic regression models, adjusting for clinical risk factors and Pitt bacteremia score and performed propensity score analyses to compare the efficacy of cefepime and carbapenems.

Results: Three hundred sixty-eight patients experienced Enterobacter species bacteremia and received at least 1 antimicrobial agent, of whom 52 (14%) died during hospitalization. Median age was 59 years; 19% were neutropenic, and 22% were in an intensive care unit on the day of bacteremia. Twenty-nine (11%) patients had persistent bacteremia for ≥1 day after antibacterial initiation. None of the 36 patients who received single-agent cefepime (0%) had persistent bacteremia, as opposed to 4 of 16 (25%) of those who received single-agent carbapenem (P < .01). In multivariable models, there was no association between carbapenem use and persistent bacteremia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.52; 95% CI, .58-3.98; P = .39), and a nonsignificant lower odds ratio with cefepime use (aOR, 0.52; 95% CI, .19-1.40; P = .19). In-hospital mortality was similar for use of cefepime and carbapenems in adjusted regression models and propensity-score matched analyses.

Conclusions: Cefepime has a similar efficacy as carbapenems for the treatment of Enterobacter species bacteremia. Its use should be further explored as a carbapenem-sparing agent in this clinical scenario.