Cefepime

Importance: Cefepime/enmetazobactam is a novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combination and a potential empirical therapy for resistant gram-negative infections. Objective: To evaluate whether cefepime/enmetazobactam was noninferior to piperacillin/tazobactam for the primary outcome of treatment efficacy in patients with complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) or acute pyelonephritis. Design, setting, and participants: A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter, noninferiority clinical trial conducted at 90 sites in Europe, North and Central America, South America, and South Africa. Recruitment occurred between September 24, 2018, and November 2, 2019. Final follow-up occurred November 26, 2019. Participants were adult patients aged 18 years or older with a clinical diagnosis of complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis caused by gram-negative urinary pathogens. Interventions: Eligible patients were randomized to receive either cefepime, 2 g/enmetazobactam, 0.5 g (n = 520), or piperacillin, 4 g/tazobactam, 0.5 g (n = 521), by 2-hour infusion every 8 hours for 7 days (up to 14 days in patients with a positive blood culture at baseline). Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in the primary analysis set (patients who received any amount of study drug with a baseline gram-negative pathogen not resistant to either treatment and ≥105 colony-forming units [CFU]/mL in urine culture or the same pathogen present in concurrent blood and urine cultures) who achieved overall treatment success (defined as clinical cure combined with microbiological eradication [<103 CFU/mL in urine] of infection). Two-sided 95% CIs were computed using the stratified Newcombe method. The prespecified noninferiority margin was -10%. If noninferiority was established, a superiority comparison was also prespecified. Results: Among 1041 patients randomized (mean age, 54.7 years; 573 women [55.0%]), 1034 (99.3%) received study drug and 995 (95.6%) completed the trial. Among the primary analysis set, the primary outcome occurred in 79.1% (273/345) of patients receiving cefepime/enmetazobactam compared with 58.9% (196/333) receiving piperacillin/tazobactam (between-group difference, 21.2% [95% CI, 14.3% to 27.9%]). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 50.0% (258/516) of patients treated with cefepime/enmetazobactam and 44.0% (228/518) with piperacillin/tazobactam; most were mild to moderate in severity (89.9% vs 88.6%, respectively). A total of 1.7% (9/516) of participants who received cefepime/enmetazobactam and 0.8% (4/518) of those who received piperacillin/tazobactam did not complete the assigned therapy due to adverse events. Conclusions and relevance: Among patients with complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis caused by gram-negative pathogens, cefepime/enmetazobactam, compared with piperacillin/tazobactam, met criteria for noninferiority as well as superiority with respect to the primary outcome of clinical cure and microbiological eradication. Further research is needed to determine the potential role for cefepime/enmetazobactam in the treatment of complicated UTI and pyelonephritis. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03687255.

Background: Cefepime-induced neurotoxicity (CIN) has been well acknowledged among clinicians, although there are no clear diagnostic criteria or specific laboratory testing to help with its diagnosis. We aimed to summarize the existing evidence regarding CIN and provide future agendas for research. Methods: Following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for all peer-reviewed articles using keywords including 'cefepime', 'neurotoxicity', 'encephalopathy' and 'seizure', from their inception to 20 January 2022. Results: We included 92 articles, including 23 observational studies and 69 cases from case reports and case series, in the systematic review. Among 119 patients with CIN, 23.5% were in the ICU at the time of diagnosis and nearly 90% of the cases showed renal dysfunction.Cefepime overdoses were described in 41%. The median latency period of developing CIN from cefepime initiation was 4 days, and about 12% developed CIN during empirical treatment. CIN patients commonly manifested altered mental status (93%), myoclonus (37%) and non-convulsive seizure epilepticus (28%). A serum cefepime trough level of >20 mg/L would put patients at risk for CIN. CIN-related symptoms were ameliorated in 97.5% by dose reduction or discontinuation of cefepime, with median time to improvement of 3 days. No CIN-associated deaths were reported. Conclusions: This systematic review summarizes the current evidence and characteristics of CIN. In the current situation where there are no CIN diagnostic criteria and the drug monitoring platform is not routinely available, candidates for cefepime should be carefully selected. Also, based on these findings, it needs to be appropriately dosed to avoid the development of CIN.

Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) devices are lifesaving for critically ill patients with multi-organ dysfunction. Despite this, patients supported with ECLS are at high risk for ECLS-related complications, including nosocomial infections, and mortality rates are high in this patient population. The high mortality rates are suspected to be, in part, a result of significantly altered drug disposition by the ECLS circuit, resulting in suboptimal antimicrobial dosing. Cefepime is commonly used in critically ill patients with serious infections. Cefepime dosing is not routinely guided by therapeutic drug monitoring and treatment success is dependent upon the percentage of time of the dosing interval that the drug concentration remains above the minimum inhibitory concentration of the organism. This ex vivo study measured the extraction of cefepime by continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) circuits. Cefepime was studied in four closed-loop CRRT circuit configurations and a single closed-loop ECMO circuit configuration. Circuits were primed with a physiologic human blood-plasma mixture and the drug was dosed to achieve therapeutic concentrations. Serial blood samples were collected over time and concentrations were quantified using validated assays. In ex vivo CRRT experiments, cefepime was rapidly cleared by dialysis, hemofiltration, and hemodiafiltration, with greater than 96% cefepime eliminated from the circuit by 2 hours. In the ECMO circuits, the mean recovery of cefepime was similar in both circuit and standard control. Mean (standard deviation) recovery of cefepime in the ECMO circuits (n = 6) was 39.2% (8.0) at 24 hours. Mean recovery in the standard control (n = 3) at 24 hours was 52.2% (1.5). Cefepime is rapidly cleared by dialysis, hemofiltration, and hemodiafiltration in the CRRT circuit but minimally adsorbed by either the CRRT or ECMO circuits. Dosing adjustments are needed for patients supported with CRRT.