In vitro activity of imipenem/releactam and comparator agents against clinical bacterial isolates from patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Gram-negative bacilli (GNB) are currently the predominant bacterial pathogens in patients with cancer. Many GNB have become problematic due to the widespread emergence of resistance. Imipenem/relebactam (IMI/REL) is a combination of the carbapenem imipenem with relebactam, a non-ß-lactam ß-lactamase inhibitor. It is active against most pathogenic GNB including many that are resistant to other agents. We compared its in vitro activity to six other agents against 490 GNB recovered exclusively from patients with cancer because such data are scarce. METHODS: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) microbroth dilution methods were used for susceptibility testing. Whole genome sequencing (Illumina MiSeq) was performed on 30 selected isolates. RESULTS: IMI/REL was active against 98% of Enterobacterales and 87% of non-Enterobacterales isolates (excluding Stenotrophomonas maltophilia). It had potent activity against extended spectrum ß-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and other Enterobacterales (Enterobacter cloacae, Citrobacter Spp., and Serratia Spp.) and moderate activity against carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales. IMI/REL had potent activity against Achromobacter Spp., non-multidrug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Sphingomonas paucimobilis and moderate activity against multidrug resistant P. aeruginosa. Overall, IMI/REL was associated with the lowest number of nonsusceptible isolates compared with six other agents (imipenem, meropenem, cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, amikacin, and tigecycline) commonly used in patients with cancer. Whole genome sequencing performed on 30 resistant isolates (10 each of E. coli, K. pneumonia, and P. aeruginosa) did not reveal any predominant mechanism of resistance to IMI/REL. CONCLUSION: Its in vitro activity indicates that IMI/REL might have a role to play in the treatment of Gram-negative infections in patients with cancer.

Review of allergic reactions from use of chlorhexidine on medical products in clinical settings over 40 years: Risks and mitigations.

Chlorhexidine is an antimicrobial agent widely used for infection prevention in medical settings. Nevertheless, allergic reactions ranging from mild to severe have been reported following its use. In this review, we analyzed all case reports published between the introduction of chlorhexidine and the end of 2019 for allergic responses associated with the use of medical devices and or other medical products containing chlorhexidine (CHX) to ascertain the prevalence of severe CHX allergic reactions and what practices might best mitigate those risks.In total, 77 publications containing 124 reported cases of allergic reactions were grouped into 3 product categories, catheters, semisolids, and fluid products. The country, type of reaction, route of sensitization, allergy confirmation, and intervention or mitigation was extracted for each case. Overall, 30 cases were associated with catheters, 46 cases were associated with semisolid products, and 48 cases were associated with the use of other medical products. Severe cases were managed with intravenous fluids, steroids, and epinephrine (adrenaline). None of the reported cases were fatal. The allergy risks can be mitigated by better warning and training clinicians and by recording and screening patient histories for CHX presensitization from prior exposure. For patients undergoing pre-use blood tests, IgE antibody screens can also be performed. Finally, as a precaution in the event a rare severe allergic reaction occurs, procedure carts and rooms can be prestocked with injectable epinephrine and other rapidly acting anti-inflammatory medications.

Enhanced Biofilm Eradication and Reduced Cytotoxicity of a Novel Polygalacturonic and Caprylic Acid Wound Ointment Compared with Common Antiseptic Ointments.

Antiseptic wound ointments are widely used to treat dermal wounds that are microbially contaminated. Polygalacturonic acid (PG)+caprylic acid (CAP) is a novel combination that has been shown to eradicate biofilms. We developed a novel PG+CAP ointment and compared the biofilm eradication capability and cytotoxicity of PG+CAP with that of commercially available antiseptic wound ointments. We used a well-established biofilm model to quantitatively assess the eradication of organisms following exposure to the wound ointments for 2 hours. PG+CAP ointment completely eradicated Candida albicans, multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus biofilms, whereas MediHoney, polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB), and benzalkonium chloride (BZK) ointments failed to eradicate all biofilms within 2 hours. We assessed cytotoxicity by exposing L-929 fibroblasts to extracts of each ointment; Trypan blue exclusion was used to assess cell viability, and Alamar blue conversion was used to assess metabolic function. After exposure to PG+CAP and MediHoney, fibroblast viability was 96.23% and 95.23%, respectively (Trypan blue), and was comparable to untreated cells (98.77%). PHMB and BZK showed reduced viability (83.25% and 77.83%, respectively, p < 0.05). Metabolic activity results followed a similar pattern. Cytotoxicity of PG+CAP ointment towards erythrocytes was comparable to saline. PG+CAP ointment seems to be safe and can rapidly eradicate microbial biofilm; thus, PG+CAP ointment merits further in vivo testing as a potential antimicrobial wound ointment.

Minocycline-EDTA-Ethanol Antimicrobial Catheter Lock Solution Is Highly Effective In Vitro for Eradication of Candida auris Biofilms.

Candida auris is an emerging pathogen that can cause virulent central-line-associated bloodstream infections. Catheter salvage through the eradication of biofilms is a desirable therapeutic option. We compared taurolidine and minocycline-EDTA-ethanol (MEE) catheter lock solutions in vitro for the eradication of biofilms of 10 C. auris strains. MEE fully eradicated all C. auris biofilms, while taurolidine lock partially eradicated all of the C. auris biofilms. The superiority was significant for all C. auris strains tested (P = 0.002).

The potential for developing new antimicrobial resistance from the use of medical devices containing chlorhexidine, minocycline, rifampicin and their combinations: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Catheter infections remain one of the most persistent adverse events causing significant morbidity, economic impact and mortality. Several strategies have been proposed to reduce these infections including the use of catheters embedded with antibiotics and/or antiseptics. One reoccurring challenge is the fear that antimicrobial medical devices will induce resistance. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the evidence for induced antimicrobial resistance caused by exposure to antimicrobial medical devices. METHODS: Four electronic databases [MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Scopus] were screened for studies published between 1983 and 2019 regarding assessment of microbial resistance with use of medical devices containing chlorhexidine, minocycline, rifampicin or combinations thereof. Development of new resistance, selection for tolerant organisms and 'no change in resistance' were assessed. RESULTS: Forty-four publications, grouped by study type and stratified by drug assessed, were included for analyses. The majority of studies found no change in resistance after exposure to antimicrobial medical devices (13 in vitro, 2 in vivo, 20 clinical). Development of new resistance was commonly reported with the use of rifampicin as a single agent and only reported in one study assessing the minocycline/rifampicin combination (M/R); however, the increase in MIC was well below clinical relevance. CONCLUSIONS: Emergence of new resistance to combinations of M/R, minocycline/rifampicin/chlorhexidine (M/R/CH) and chlorhexidine/silver sulfadiazine (CHXSS) was rare. No clinical trials confirmed its occurrence and some refuted it. The risk of development of new resistance to these antimicrobial combinations appears more fear-based than substantiated by clinical and experimental evidence but warrants continued surveillance.