In this study, we retrospectively reviewed the clinical experience of patients receiving doripenem-containing regimens for the treatment of healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) in a tertiary care center and assessed the clinical usefulness of doripenem therapy in this clinical setting. In this retrospective study, the medical records of all adult patients who had ever received doripenem-containing therapy for the treatment of HCAIs were reviewed between September 1, 2012 and August 31, 2014, and the following data were extracted: age, gender, type of infection, disease severity, underlying comorbidities or conditions, and laboratory results. Additionally, we also extracted data regarding the rates of mortality and clinical and microbiological response. A total of 184 adult patients with HCAIs who had received doripenem-containing therapy were included in this study. Respiratory tract infections (n = 91, 49.5%) were the most common type of infection, followed by urinary tract infections, intra-abdominal infections and skin and soft tissue infections. The mean APACHE II score was 14.5. The rate of clinical success was 78.2%, and the overall in-hospital mortality rate was only 13.0%. Among patients, in-hospital mortality was independently and significantly associated with APACHE II score (odds ratio (OR), 1.2825; 95% CI, 1.1123–1.4788) and achieving clinical success (OR, 0.003; 95% CI, 0.0003–0.409). In conclusion, the overall in-hospital mortality rate was low and the clinical success rate was high among HCAI patients receiving doripenem treatment. These results suggest that doripenem may be judiciously used for the treatment of patients with HCAIs.
Citation: Chao C-M, Chen C-C, Huang H-L, Chuang Y-C, Lai C-C, Tang H-J (2016) Clinical Experience of Patients Receiving Doripenem-Containing Regimens for the Treatment of Healthcare-Associated Infections. PLoS ONE 11(12): e0167522. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167522
Editor: Dongsheng Zhou, Beijing Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology, CHINA
Received: June 28, 2016; Accepted: November 15, 2016; Published: December 1, 2016
Copyright: © 2016 Chao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
In an era of increasing bacterial antimicrobial resistance, broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as carbapenems, have been recommended as one of the most effective antibiotics in the treatment of serious infections caused by resistant pathogens, especially multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacilli (MDR-GNB) [1,2]. Within the carbapenem category, imipenem and meropenem are the most common used agents for healthcare-associated infections (HCAI), and ertapenem is indicated for the treatment of community-acquired infections. However, in response to increasing use of imipenem and meropenem, bacteria have increasingly demonstrated decreased carbapenem susceptibility [3,4]. In this context, doripenem—an agent in the carbapenem class that has been recently introduced into clinical use—may be another drug of choice due to exhibiting in vitro antimicrobial activity that is comparable with that of other carbapenems [5–9].
Because most automated susceptibility testing panels  do not include doripenem, and knowledge about the in vitro activity of doripenem against clinically isolated pathogens in the context of increasing carbapenem resistance is limited [11,12], clinicians usually more frequently prescribe imipenem or meropenem rather than doripenem in clinical practice. Thus, data regarding the clinical experience of patients receiving doripenem are limited. However, carbapenems other than imipenem and meropenem are needed for treating HCAIs, which are commonly caused by multidrug-resistant Gram negative bacilli (MDR-GNB). Currently, the only FDA-approved indication for doripenem is the treatment of adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections and complicated urinary tract infections. As a member of the carbapenem family, we would expect that further clinical usefulness of doripenem may be demonstrated. Therefore, we retrospectively reviewed the clinical experience of patients receiving doripenem-containing regimens for the treatment of HCAIs in a tertiary care center and assessed the clinical usefulness of doripenem therapy in this clinical setting.
Materials and Methods
Patients and hospital setting
This study was conducted in the Chi Mei Medical Center, a tertiary referral hospital that has 1288 beds. In this retrospective study, the medical records of all adult patients who had ever received doripenem-containing for the treatment of HCAIs were reviewed between September 1, 2012 and August 31, 2014. In this hospital, doripenem can only be prescribed after the approval of an infectious disease specialist according to the established guidelines. Additionally, patients who received doripenem for less than three days were excluded. The following data were extracted: age; gender; type of infection; disease severity, as indicated by Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scores; underlying comorbidities or conditions, including cancer, stroke, liver cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic respiratory failure on mechanical ventilation, chronic kidney disease, autoimmune diseases, use of steroids or immunosuppressants, HIV infection, and recent operations (within three months); and laboratory results. Additionally, we collected data regarding the rates of mortality and clinical and microbiological response. These data were collected on a routine basis, and analyses were carried out retrospectively. Therefore, no informed consent was required, and informed consent was specifically waived by the Institutional Review Board. Ethics approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of Chi Mei Medical Center.
Patients with HCAIs were identify based on having any one of the following risk factors: receipt of parenteral antibiotic treatment, chemotherapy or wound management within 30 days; living in nursing homes or long-term care facilities; being admitted to the hospital for more than two days within the prior 90 days; receipt of hemodialysis therapy in dialysis facilities; and clinical manifestations of infections requiring antibiotic treatment . The diagnosis of the infection focus of the HCAI was made based on clinical, bacteriological, and radiological investigations as reported previously . Mortality was defined as death from all causes during hospitalization. Similar to a previous report , a successful clinical response was defined as the resolution or improvement of the signs and symptoms of infection and requirement of no further antibiotic treatment after the discontinuation of doripenem therapy. In contrast, clinical failure was defined as the persistent presence of the signs and symptoms of the infection during doripenem treatment. Microbiological eradication was defined as the absence of the original baseline pathogens in a follow-up specimen.
Continuous variables are reported as means and standard deviations, and categorical variables are presented as counts and proportions. The univariate differences between surviving and deceased patients at hospital discharge were examined using Student T tests or chi-square tests. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 19.0 for Windows (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
During the study period, a total of 184 adult patients with HCAIs who received doripenem-contain therapy were included in this study (Table 1) (data in S1 Appendix). Most of the patients received doripenem due to antimicrobial resistance (susceptibility-based; n = 165), while 15 received doripenem due to previously demonstrated drug intolerance, and one patient received doripenem because of an allergy to other antibiotics. A total of 27 patients received in combination with another antimicrobial agent. Among these patients, sulbactam was the most commonly used agent (received by 8 patients), followed by colimycin (received by 6 patients). The mean age of the patients was 72.4 years, and 145 (78.8%) patients were classified as elderly patients (≥ 65 years old). Men accounted for 61.4% of the patients. Respiratory tract infections (n = 91, 49.5%) were the most common type of infection, followed by urinary tract infections, intra-abdominal infections and skin and soft tissue infections. Approximately 45% of patients had various devices in place, such as a Foley catheter, central venous catheter, and endotracheal tube. Among the patients, the mean disease severity scores were 4.7 ± 3.1 according to their Charlson score, 4.2 ± 2.8 according to their SOFA score, 1.7 ± 1.5 according to their Pitt score, and 14.5 ± 5.9 according to their APACHE II score. Diabetes mellitus was the most common underlying disease, followed by cancer and stroke. Immunosuppressant and steroid use were identified in 7.6% and 29.3% of cases, respectively. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most common causative pathogen (n = 53, 28.8%), followed by Escherichia coli (n = 39, 21.2%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 33, 17.9%) and Acinetobacter baumannii (n = 30, 16.3%). Table 2 shows the distribution of the eight most commonly detected organisms by sampling location. The distribution of varied in different types of clinical specimens. Extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) production was detected in 21 E. coli and 15 K. pneumoniae isolates. The average duration of doripenem use was 9.6 days. In terms of clinical response, 144 (78.2%) patients achieved clinical success after receiving doripenem-containing regimens. 50 patients who had the microbiologic response data, microbiologic eradication was only observed in 19 (38%) patients.
Of the participants included in this study, 24 died, resulting in a mortality rate of 13.0%. Table 3 summarizes the results of the comparisons between the 24 deceased and 160 surviving patients. We found that deceased patients were more likely to have higher APACHE II scores, and underlying stroke than were surviving patients. In contrast, patients who achieved clinical success had a higher probability of survival to discharge than did patients with clinical failure (p < 0.001). Additionally, we found that the in-hospital mortality rate was highest among patients with respiratory tract infections (20.9%), followed by intra-abdominal infections (11.8%) and skin and soft tissue infections (6.7%). Among the four major types of HCAIs, the rate of clinical success was highest for intra-abdominal infections (94.1%), followed by urinary tract infections (89.6%), skin and soft tissue infections (80.0%) and respiratory tract infections (70.3%) (Table 4). Among the 50 cases for whom microbiological response data were available, the rates of microbiological eradication varied by type of infection. Moreover, Table 5 shows sites, clinical sources, and causal organisms of infections in the 31 cases who did not achieve microbiological eradication. Among the cases with microbiological failure, most of the clinical specimens were collected from drainage or devices, including biliary drainage, endotracheal tubes, Foley catheters, and external ventricular drainage. After performing multivariable analysis, we found that in-hospital mortality was independently and significantly associated with APACHE II score (odds ratio (OR), 1.2825; 95% CI, 1.1123–1.4788) and clinical success (OR, 0.003; 95% CI, 0.0003–0.409).
In this study, which included 184 patients with HCAIs, while we demonstrated the effectiveness of doripenem in the investigated clinical setting, the rates of clinical response and in-hospital mortality among included patients varied by type of infection. In the present work, respiratory tract infections were the most common indication for doripenem, with 91 respiratory tract infection cases receiving doripenem therapy, followed by urinary tract infections (n = 48), intra-abdominal infections (n = 17), and skin/soft tissue infections (n = 15). The overall rate of in-hospital mortality was 13.0%; however, the mortality rate ranged from 0% to 20.9% depending on the site of infection. Additionally, the clinical success rate was 89.4% and ranged from 70.3% to 100.0%. Our findings are in line with the findings of a review  of several clinical trials conducted by Lo et al. and a recent meta-analysis , both of which reported that doripenem was not inferior to the comparators, such as meropenem, imipenem, piperacillin/tazobactam, or levofloxacin, in its efficacy and safety profile in patients with a wide range of serious hospital-acquired infections. Thus, these results suggest that doripenem may serve as an effective treatment option in the armamentarium of antibiotics available to treat HCAIs.
For one of the FDA-approved indications, urinary tract infections, the rates of in-hospital mortality and clinical success were 4.2% and 89.6%, respectively, among the 48 nosocomial urinary tract infection patients. In addition, the rate of microbiological eradication was 75.5% (8/12). All four cases who did not achieve microbiological eradication had Foley catheters in situ, which may have been associated with increased difficulty in the eradication of causative pathogens. A Japanese study  demonstrated that the clinical efficacy of doripenem was comparable to that of meropenem in patients with complicated urinary tract infections (93.4% versus 92.4%) and that the two agents had similar bacteriologic response rates (95.9% in doripenem group versus 92.4% in meropenem group). The microbiological response to doripenem observed in the present work was similar to that reported in the study conducted by Vazquez et al. in which favorable microbiological responses were achieved in 71.4% of the 35 microbiologically evaluable patients receiving imipenem treatment for complicated urinary tract infection in a hospitalized adult population . Therefore, both our findings and those of previous reports [16,18] suggest that doripenem may be as useful as other carbapenems for the treatment of hospital-associated urinary tract infections.
For another FDA-approved indication, intra-abdominal infections, the rates of in-hospital mortality and clinical success were 11.8%, and 94.1%, respectively, among the 17 hospital-acquired intra-abdominal infection cases. In a previous study that investigated the efficacy of tigecycline and imipenem in 199 patients with mild to moderately severe (mean APACHE II score of 4.6) complicated intra-abdominal infections, Chen et al.  found that the rate of clinical cure was 90.9%-97.9% among imipenem-treated patients and 81.7%-86.5% among tigecycline-treated patients. Another investigation  reported similar findings, suggesting that doripenem was effective and not inferior to meropenem in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections (clinical cure rate: 77.9% to 85.9% versus 78.9% to 85.3%). In sum, these findings indicate that doripenem was as effective as other carbapenems and tigecycline for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections.
For healthcare-associated pneumonia, the rates of in-hospital mortality and clinical success were 20.9%, and 70.3% for 91 cases, respectively. Only a limited number of studies [22–24] have assessed the clinical effectiveness of doripenem for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. One prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter study  found the clinical cure rate of nosocomial pneumonia following doripenem treatment was 81.3%, which was not different from the clinical cure rates observed following piperacillin/tazobactam treatment (79.8%). Another large, phase III study  compared doripenem with imipenem for the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia and that showed the clinical cure rates among clinically evaluable patients were 68.3% in the doripenem group and 64.2% in the imipenem group. Therefore, the authors concluded that doripenem was clinically efficacious and therapeutically non-inferior to imipenem in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia . However, one recent study  reported higher rates of clinical failure and mortality in microbiologically confirmed late-onset ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) patients who received a 7-day course of doripenem relative to those who received a 10-day course of imipenem. The difference observed in the VAP outcomes analysis may be due to differences in the duration of treatment (fixed 7 day course of treatment in the study conducted by Kollef et al. versus a longer course of 7–14 days in the study conducted by Chastre et al.). In our study, the mean duration of doripenem use was 9.6 days, and more than third-fourths of patients received more than 7 days of doripenem treatment. Thus, we observed better outcomes in patients with nosocomial pneumonia in the present work. In another Japanese study , a randomized, double-blind trial was conducted to compares doripenem with meropenem in the treatment of patients with respiratory tract infections. The authors found that the clinical efficacies were 92.7% in the doripenem group and 90.7% in the meropenem group, further confirming that doripenem is not inferior to meropenem in the treatment of respiratory tract infection . In summary, although doripenem has not yet been approved by the FDA for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia, the aforementioned findings and the results of our study both indicate that doripenem is not inferior to other carbapenems or beta-lactams in the clinical setting.
In this study, we found the clinical outcome of in-hospital mortality was independently associated with disease severity as indicated by APACHE II scores. This finding is reasonable and consistent with those of many previous studies [26–28], which indicated that higher disease severity contributes to overall mortality. This finding suggests that more aggressive treatment should be applied for the treatment of patients with more severe HCAIs. In addition, we found that the rate of clinical success was correlated with the rate of in-hospital mortality. Based on this finding, it may be inferred that the majority of in-hospital mortality occurred as a result of the HCAI itself; however, evaluating attributable mortality rather than all-cause mortality may help to further clarify this association.
There were several limitations to this study. First, this study was conducted in a referral center, and the number of included cases was limited; therefore, our findings may not be generalizable to other hospital settings. Second, this study was a retrospective investigation, and therefore, the results of this study may have been affected by different sources of bias, such missing data. However, for the most part, the impact of missing data on the study results was minimal. An exception the overall minimal bias associated with missing data may be observed in the evaluation of microbiological response. Only fifty patients had sufficiently complete data to allow for an assessment of the rate of microbiological eradication. Finally, we evaluated the clinical efficacy of doripenem in the treatment of HCAIs but did not assess the safety of doripenem-containing regimens. Further studies are warranted to clarify this issue.
The most common indication for doripenem was respiratory tract infections, which is not an non-FDA approved indication, whereas the use of doripenem for FDA-approved indications, such as urinary tract infections or intra-abdominal infections, was less common in our institution. However, we found that the rate of overall in-hospital mortality rate was low and the rate of clinical success rate was high among HCAI patients. These results suggest that an adequate duration of doripenem treatment duration may be judiciously used for the treatment of patients with HCAIs, including respiratory tract infections and other FDA-approved indications.
- Conceptualization: CMC HJT.
- Data curation: CCC HLH YCC CCL.
- Supervision: HJT.
- Writing – original draft: CMC CCL HJT.
- 1. Baldwin CM, Lyseng-Williamson KA, Keam SJ (2008) Meropenem: a review of its use in the treatment of serious bacterial infections. Drugs 68: 803–838. pmid:18416587
- 2. Rodloff AC, Goldstein EJ, Torres A (2006) Two decades of imipenem therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother 58: 916–929. pmid:16997845
- 3. Pogue JM, Mann T, Barber KE, Kaye KS (2013) Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: epidemiology, surveillance and management. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 11: 383–393. pmid:23566148
- 4. Kanj SS, Kanafani ZA (2011) Current concepts in antimicrobial therapy against resistant gram-negative organisms: extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Mayo Clin Proc 86: 250–259. pmid:21364117
- 5. Jones RN, Huynh HK, Biedenbach DJ, Fritsche TR, Sader HS (2004) Doripenem (S-4661), a novel carbapenem: comparative activity against contemporary pathogens including bactericidal action and preliminary in vitro methods evaluations. J Antimicrob Chemother 54: 144–154. pmid:15190031
- 6. Mushtaq S, Ge Y, Livermore DM (2004) Doripenem versus Pseudomonas aeruginosa in vitro: activity against characterized isolates, mutants, and transconjugants and resistance selection potential. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 48: 3086–3092. pmid:15273124
- 7. Fritsche TR, Stilwell MG, Jones RN (2005) Antimicrobial activity of doripenem (S-4661): a global surveillance report (2003). Clin Microbiol Infect 11: 974–984. pmid:16307551
- 8. Castanheira M, Jones RN, Livermore DM (2009) Antimicrobial activities of doripenem and other carbapenems against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, other nonfermentative bacilli, and Aeromonas spp. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 63: 426–433. pmid:19249180
- 9. Livermore DM (2009) Doripenem: antimicrobial profile and clinical potential. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 63: 455–458. pmid:19302929
- 10. Hagihara M, Kuti JL, Nicolau DP (2012) Predicting doripenem susceptibility based on meropenem and imipenem interpretation for Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 72: 258–262. pmid:22209563
- 11. Lee H, Ko KS, Song JH, Peck KR (2011) Antimicrobial activity of doripenem and other carbapenems against gram-negative pathogens from Korea. Microb Drug Resist 17: 37–45. pmid:20950191
- 12. Dong SX, Wang JT, Chang SC (2012) Activities of doripenem against nosocomial bacteremic drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in a medical center in Taiwan. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 45: 459–464. pmid:23102796
- 13. Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA (2008) CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control 36: 309–332. pmid:18538699
- 14. Tan CK, Lai CC, Wang JY, Lin SH, Liao CH, Huang YT, et al. (2010) Bacteremia caused by non-faecalis and non-faecium enterococcus species at a Medical center in Taiwan, 2000 to 2008. J Infect 61: 34–43. pmid:20433865
- 15. Kuo SC, Wang FD, Fung CP, Chen LY, Chen SJ, Chiang MC, et al. (2011) Clinical experience with tigecycline as treatment for serious infections in elderly and critically ill patients. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 44: 45–51. pmid:21531352
- 16. Lo TS, Borchardt SM, Welch JM, Rohrich MA, Alonto AM, Alonto AV. (2009) Doripenem in hospital infections: a focus on nosocomial pneumonia, complicated intra-abdominal infections, and complicated urinary tract infections. Infect Drug Resist 2: 41–49. pmid:21694886
- 17. Qu XY, Hu TT, Zhou W (2015) A meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of doripenem for treating bacterial infections. Braz J Infect Dis 19: 156–162. pmid:25636188
- 18. Kamidono S A S, Hirose T, Hirose T, Kishi J, Tsugawa M, Tetsuro M, et al. (2005) Double-blind, controlled study to evaluate safety and efficacy of doripenem and meropenem in patients with complicated urinary tract infection. Jpn J Chemother 53 (Suppl 1): 244–259.
- 19. Vazquez JA, Gonzalez Patzan LD, Stricklin D, Duttaroy DD, Kreidly Z, Lipka J, et al. (2012) Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam versus imipenem-cilastatin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, including acute pyelonephritis, in hospitalized adults: results of a prospective, investigator-blinded, randomized study. Curr Med Res Opin 28: 1921–1931. pmid:23145859
- 20. Chen Z, Wu J, Zhang Y, Wei J, Leng X, Bi J, et al. (2010) Efficacy and safety of tigecycline monotherapy vs. imipenem/cilastatin in Chinese patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Infect Dis 10: 217. pmid:20663130
- 21. Lucasti C, Jasovich A, Umeh O, Jiang J, Kaniga K, Friedland I. (2008) Efficacy and tolerability of IV doripenem versus meropenem in adults with complicated intra-abdominal infection: a phase III, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study. Clin Ther 30: 868–883. pmid:18555934
- 22. Rea-Neto A, Niederman M, Lobo SM, Schroeder E, Lee M, Kaniga K, et al. (2008) Efficacy and safety of doripenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in nosocomial pneumonia: a randomized, open-label, multicenter study. Curr Med Res Opin 24: 2113–2126. pmid:18549664
- 23. Chastre J, Wunderink R, Prokocimer P, Lee M, Kaniga K, Friedland I. (2008) Efficacy and safety of intravenous infusion of doripenem versus imipenem in ventilator-associated pneumonia: a multicenter, randomized study. Crit Care Med 36: 1089–1096. pmid:18379232
- 24. Saito A W A, Nakata K, Nakata K, Odagiri S, Aoki N, Matsushima T, et al (2005) Comparative study of doripenem and meropenem in respiratory infections. Phase III double-blind comparative study. Jpn J Chemother 53 (Suppl. 1): 185–204.
- 25. Kollef MH, Chastre J, Clavel M, Restrepo MI, Michiels B, Kaniga K, et al. (2012) A randomized trial of 7-day doripenem versus 10-day imipenem-cilastatin for ventilator-associated pneumonia. Crit Care 16: R218. pmid:23148736
- 26. van Vught LA, Klein Klouwenberg PM, Spitoni C, Scicluna BP, Wiewel MA, Horn J, et al. (2016) Incidence, risk factors, and attributable mortality of secondary infections in the intensive care unit after admission for sepsis. JAMA 315: 1469–1479. pmid:26975785
- 27. Dabar G, Harmouche C, Salameh P, Jaber BL, Jamaleddine G, Waked M, et al. (2015) Community- and healthcare-associated infections in critically ill patients: a multicenter cohort study. Int J Infect Dis 37: 80–85. pmid:26051976
- 28. Boncagni F, Francolini R, Nataloni S, Skrami E, Gesuita R, Donati A, et al. (2015) Epidemiology and clinical outcome of Healthcare-Associated Infections: a 4-year experience of an Italian ICU. Minerva Anestesiol 81: 765–775. pmid:25582669