What is the appropriate antimicrobial therapy for infections caused by extended‑spectrum β‑lactamase (ESBL)‑producing Enterobacteriaceae?

Antimicrobial Therapy for ESBL-Producing Enterobacteriaceae Infections

Primary Recommendation

Carbapenems remain the drugs of choice for serious ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae infections, with meropenem or imipenem preferred for critically ill patients and ertapenem reserved for less severe, hemodynamically stable presentations. 1, 2, 3

---

Treatment Algorithm by Clinical Severity

Critically Ill Patients or Septic Shock

• Initiate meropenem 1g IV every 8 hours or imipenem/cilastatin 1g IV every 8 hours immediately for patients with hemodynamic instability, high bacterial loads, or elevated β-lactam MICs. 4, 3
• Group 2 carbapenems (meropenem, imipenem, doripenem) provide broader coverage against non-fermentative gram-negative bacilli compared to ertapenem. 5
• Combination therapy with an aminoglycoside should be considered for high-risk patients in septic shock or with pneumonia, as this approach is associated with better outcomes. 6

Moderate Severity, Hemodynamically Stable Patients

• Ertapenem 1g IV daily is appropriate for patients without septic shock when Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus are not concerns. 1, 4
• Ertapenem simplifies therapy with once-daily dosing and demonstrates similar or better outcomes compared to imipenem/meropenem for ESBL bloodstream infections. 1
• Use high-dose ertapenem for optimal outcomes in moderate-severity presentations. 3

Mild Presentations or Low-Risk Sources

For non-critically ill patients with milder infections (e.g., uncomplicated pyelonephritis from urinary source), carbapenem-sparing alternatives may be considered: 3, 7

• Piperacillin/tazobactam 4.5g IV every 6 hours (extended infusion) is an alternative specifically for ESBL-producing E. coli, though not for ESBL-producing Klebsiella due to in vitro-in vivo discordance concerns. 4, 7, 8
• Intravenous fosfomycin demonstrates non-inferiority to meropenem for bacteremic UTI caused by E. coli with high-certainty evidence, though it carries an 8.6% risk of heart failure versus 1.4% with meropenem, requiring cardiac monitoring in at-risk patients. 4
• Aminoglycosides (amikacin 15-20 mg/kg IV every 24 hours) can be effective for bacteremic UTI of urinary tract source, but duration should be limited to avoid nephrotoxicity. 4

---

Newer Agents for Carbapenem-Sparing Strategies

Ceftazidime/avibactam and ceftolozane/tazobactam are approved for complicated intra-abdominal infections (with metronidazole) and complicated UTIs, offering valuable carbapenem-sparing options to preserve carbapenem activity. 5, 2

• Ceftazidime/avibactam has in vitro activity against KPC-producing K. pneumoniae and should be considered when carbapenem resistance is a concern. 5, 6
• Ceftolozane/tazobactam has excellent activity against MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa but limited data exist for routine ESBL treatment. 5
• Reserve these newer agents as last-resort drugs given limited clinical experience and concerns about resistance development. 3, 6

---

Antimicrobial Stewardship Principles

Carbapenem Stewardship

• Limit carbapenem use to preserve this antibiotic class, as indiscriminate use has contributed to the emergence of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. 5, 7
• In settings with high incidence of carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae, carbapenem-sparing regimens are strongly recommended even for ESBL infections. 5, 4
• De-escalate from carbapenem to narrower-spectrum agents when susceptibilities allow to reduce mortality in ICU patients and preserve carbapenem effectiveness. 4

Avoid These Common Pitfalls

• Discourage extended use of cephalosporins in settings with high ESBL prevalence, limiting them to pathogen-directed therapy only, as they exert selective pressure resulting in emergence of resistance. 5, 2
• Avoid fluoroquinolones empirically due to high resistance rates (>60-93%) in ESBL-producing E. coli and their selective pressure for ESBL and MRSA emergence. 5, 4
• All cephalosporins are ineffective against ESBL-producers by definition, as ESBL enzymes hydrolyze all cephalosporins including ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, ceftazidime, and cefepime. 2, 4

---

Source Control and Microbiological Testing

Mandatory Source Control

• Adequate source control (debridement, drainage, surgical intervention) is mandatory, as antimicrobial therapy alone is insufficient for infected sites with devitalized tissue or undrained abscesses. 1

Intraoperative Cultures

• Obtain intraperitoneal specimens for microbiological evaluation in all patients with healthcare-associated infections, community-acquired infections at risk for resistant pathogens (prior antimicrobial therapy), and critically ill patients. 5
• Collect at least 1-2 mL of peritoneal fluid/tissue from the infection site and transport properly to the microbiology laboratory. 5
• Perform Gram stain, aerobic and anaerobic culture, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing on all specimens. 5

De-escalation Strategy

• Reassess the patient when microbiological results are available and consider antimicrobial de-escalation or withdrawal based on susceptibility testing. 5
• In clinical practice, less than 50% of patients with ESBL infections are successfully de-escalated after empirical carbapenem treatment, with antimicrobial resistance (44.7%), infection relapse (26.9%), and clinical instability (19.2%) being the most common barriers. 9

---

Treatment Duration

• Typical treatment course is 7-14 days for complicated infections such as pyelonephritis, with duration guided by clinical response and resolution of symptoms. 4
• For uncomplicated acute cholecystitis and acute appendicitis, post-operative antimicrobial therapy is not necessary when source control is adequate. 5
• When patients are not severely ill and source control is complete, a short course (3-5 days) of post-operative therapy is appropriate for intra-abdominal infections. 5

---

Special Considerations

Coverage Gaps

• Ertapenem lacks activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus species; alternative agents (meropenem, imipenem, or piperacillin/tazobactam) are required if these pathogens are concerns. 5, 1
• Tigecycline has favorable activity against ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae but lacks activity against P. aeruginosa or P. mirabilis, and caution is advised in suspected bacteremia and healthcare-associated pneumonia. 5

Co-Resistance Patterns

• ESBL-producing organisms frequently carry additional resistance mechanisms including aminoglycosides, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and fluoroquinolones, necessitating susceptibility-guided therapy. 2
• E. coli-related infections appear to be a protective factor against maintaining carbapenem prescription, suggesting better de-escalation opportunities. 9

Enterococcal Coverage

• Antimicrobial resistance among enterococcal isolates (ampicillin, gentamicin, or vancomycin resistance) is mostly found in nosocomial (postoperative or tertiary) peritonitis. 5
• For vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), treatment with linezolid (mono-microbial infection) or tigecycline (polymicrobial infection) is appropriate. 5