Cited by 150Acute Kidney Injury ResearchAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and EfficacyAntibiotic Use and Resistance

Cefepime vs Piperacillin-Tazobactam in Adults Hospitalized With Acute Infection: The ACORN Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Qian, Edward T., Casey, Jonathan D., Wright, Adam, Wang, Li, Shotwell, Matthew S., Siemann, Justin K., Dear, Mary Lynn, Stollings, Joanna L. +53 more·2023·JAMA

Abstract

Importance: Cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam are commonly administered to hospitalized adults for empirical treatment of infection. Although piperacillin-tazobactam has been hypothesized to cause acute kidney injury and cefepime has been hypothesized to cause neurological dysfunction, their comparative safety has not been evaluated in a randomized clinical trial. Objective: To determine whether the choice between cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam affects the risks of acute kidney injury or neurological dysfunction. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Antibiotic Choice on Renal Outcomes (ACORN) randomized clinical trial compared cefepime vs piperacillin-tazobactam in adults for whom a clinician initiated an order for antipseudomonal antibiotics within 12 hours of presentation to the hospital in the emergency department or medical intensive care unit at an academic medical center in the US between November 10, 2021, and October 7, 2022. The final date of follow-up was November 4, 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the highest stage of acute kidney injury or death by day 14, measured on a 5-level ordinal scale ranging from no acute kidney injury to death. The 2 secondary outcomes were the incidence of major adverse kidney events at day 14 and the number of days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days. Results: There were 2511 patients included in the primary analysis (median age, 58 years [IQR, 43-69 years]; 42.7% were female; 16.3% were Non-Hispanic Black; 5.4% were Hispanic; 94.7% were enrolled in the emergency department; and 77.2% were receiving vancomycin at enrollment). The highest stage of acute kidney injury or death was not significantly different between the cefepime group and the piperacillin-tazobactam group; there were 85 patients (n = 1214; 7.0%) in the cefepime group with stage 3 acute kidney injury and 92 (7.6%) who died vs 97 patients (n = 1297; 7.5%) in the piperacillin-tazobactam group with stage 3 acute kidney injury and 78 (6.0%) who died (odds ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.80 to 1.13], P = .56). The incidence of major adverse kidney events at day 14 did not differ between groups (124 patients [10.2%] in the cefepime group vs 114 patients [8.8%] in the piperacillin-tazobactam group; absolute difference, 1.4% [95% CI, −1.0% to 3.8%]). Patients in the cefepime group experienced fewer days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days (mean [SD], 11.9 [4.6] days vs 12.2 [4.3] days in the piperacillin-tazobactam group; odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.95]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among hospitalized adults in this randomized clinical trial, treatment with piperacillin-tazobactam did not increase the incidence of acute kidney injury or death. Treatment with cefepime resulted in more neurological dysfunction. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05094154

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2023.20583

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Qian, E. T., Casey, J. D., Wright, A., Wang, L., Shotwell, M. S., Siemann, J. K., Dear, M. L., Stollings, J. L., Lloyd, B. D., Marvi, T. K., Seitz, K. P., Nelson, G. E., Wright, P. W., Siew, E. D., Dennis, B. M., Wrenn, J. O., Andereck, J. W., Han, J. H., Self, W. H., Semler, M. W., Rice, T. W., Vanderbilt Center for Learning Healthcare and the Pragmatic Critical Care Research Group, Bernard, G. R., Dittus, R. S., Dwyer, S., Embi, P. J., Freundlich, R. E., Gatto, C. L., Harrell, F. E., Harris, P. A., Hartert, T., Hayman, J., Ivory, C. H., Kleinpell, R., Kripalani, S., Lindsell, C. J., Liska, L. A., Luther, P., Morrison, J., Nantais, T., Pulley, J. M., Rehm, K., Rice, T. W., Rotheman, R. L., Runyan, P., Self, W. H., Semler, M. W., Steaban, R., Stone, C. A., Walker, P. D., Wilkens, C. H., Wright, A., Zukerman, A. D., Fitzgerald, C., Casey, J. D., Seitz, K. P., Rhoads, J., Womack, K., Wang, L., Imhoff, B., & Shotwell, M. S.
Affiliations
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
  • Department of Emergency Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
  • VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • for the Vanderbilt Center for Learning Healthcare and the Pragmatic Critical Care Research Group
Corresponding author
Qian, Edward T.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2023-10-24
Volume
330
Issue
16
Pages
1557
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W4387638731
Cited by
150
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 2
FWCI
28.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (U24TR001608, UL1TR002243, U24TR004437)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R18HS026158, R18 HS025910, R18 HS026616)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (OT2HL156812, K23HL153584, K23HL143053, T32HL087738, R33HL155810, U01HL168478, R01HL161635, R01HL164909)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35GM145375)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK114809)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024975)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Acute Kidney Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Antibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
Keywords
cefepime, piperacillin-tazobactam, acute kidney injury, neurological disorders, delirium, coma, empirical antibiotic therapy, hospitalized adults, antibiotic safety, renal outcomes, mortality, vancomycin, emergency department, intensive care unit, sepsis, critically ill patients
MeSH terms
Cefepime, Piperacillin, Tazobactam Drug Combination, Adult, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Coma, Delirium, Drug Therapy, Combination, Female, Humans, Kidney, Male, Middle Aged, Piperacillin, Retrospective Studies, Sepsis, Acute Kidney Injury

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review