Cefiderocol for the Treatment of Infections Due to Metallo-B-lactamase-Producing Pathogens in the CREDIBLE-CR and APEKS-NP Phase 3 Randomized Studies.

In the CREDIBLE-CR and APEKS-NP studies, cefiderocol treatment was effective against gram-negative bacteria producing metallo-B-lactamases; rates of clinical cure (70.8% [17/24]), microbiological eradication (58.3% [14/24]), and day 28 all-cause mortality (12.5% [3/24]) compared favorably with comparators of best-available therapy and high-dose meropenem (40.0% [4/10], 30.0% [3/10], and 50.0% [5/10], respectively).

In vivo fitness of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii strains in murine infection is associated with treatment failure in human infections.

OBJECTIVES: Mortality among patients with carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) infections varies between studies. We examined whether in vivo fitness of CRAB strains is associated with clinical outcomes in patients with CRAB infections. METHODS: Isolates were collected from patients enrolled in the AIDA trial with hospital-acquired pneumonia, bloodstream infections and/or urinary tract infections caused by CRAB. The primary outcome was 14-day clinical failure, defined as failure to meet all criteria: alive; haemodynamically stable; improved or stable Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score; improved or stable oxygenation; and microbiological cure of bacteraemia. The secondary outcome was 14-day mortality. We tested in vivo growth using a neutropenic murine thigh infection model. Fitness was defined based on the CFU count 24 hours after injection of an inoculum of 105 CFU. We used mixed-effects logistic regression to test the association between fitness and the two outcomes. RESULTS: The sample included 266 patients; 215 (80.8%) experienced clinical failure. CRAB fitness ranged from 5.23 to 10.08 log CFU/g. The odds of clinical failure increased by 62% for every 1-log CFU/g increase in fitness (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.04-2.52). After adjusting for age, Charlson score, SOFA score and acquisition in the intensive care unit, fitness remained significant (adjusted OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.03-2.59). CRAB fitness had a similar effect on 14-day mortailty, although the association was not statistically significant (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.95-2.57). It became significant after adjusting for age, Charlson score, SOFA score and recent surgery (adjusted OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.09-3.25). CONCLUSIONS: In vivo CRAB fitness was associated with clinical failure in patients with CRAB infection.

Treatment of Bacteremia Caused by Enterobacter spp.: Should the Potential for AmpC Induction Dictate Therapy? A Retrospective Study.

Objective: Carbapenems are considered treatment of choice for bacteremia caused by potential AmpC-producing bacteria, including Enterobacter spp. We aimed to compare mortality following carbapenem vs. alternative antibiotics for the treatment of Enterobacter spp. bacteremia. Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study in two centers in Israel. We included hospitalized patients with Enterobacter bacteremia treated with third-generation cephalosporins (3GC), piperacillin/tazobactam, quinolones, or carbapenem monotherapy as the main antibiotic in the first week of treatment, between 2010 and 2017. Cefepime was excluded due to nonavailability during study years. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted, introducing the main antibiotic as an independent variable. Results: Two hundred seventy-seven consecutive patients were included in the analyses. Of these, 73 were treated with 3GC, 39 with piperacillin/tazobactam, 104 with quinolones, and 61 with carbapenems. All-cause 30-day mortality was 16% (45 patients). The type of antibiotics was not significantly associated with mortality on univariate or multivariate analyses. With carbapenems as reference, adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for mortality were 0.708, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.231-2.176 with 3GC; OR 1.172, 95% CI 0.388-3.537 with piperacillin/tazobactam; and OR 0.586, 95% CI 0.229-1.4 with quinolones. The main antibiotic was not associated with repeated growth of Entrobacter spp. in blood cultures or other clinical specimens. Resistance development was observed with 3GC and piperacillin/tazobactam. Conclusions: Carbapenem treatment was not advantageous to alternative antibiotics, including 3GC, among patients with Enterobacter spp. bacteremia in an observational study.

Colistin plus meropenem for carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative infections: in vitro synergism is not associated with better clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: In vitro models showing synergism between polymyxins and carbapenems support combination treatment for carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative (CRGN) infections. We tested the association between the presence of in vitro synergism and clinical outcomes in patients treated with colistin plus meropenem. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of AIDA, a randomized controlled trial comparing colistin with colistin-meropenem for severe CRGN infections. We tested in vitro synergism using a checkerboard assay. Based on the fractional inhibitory concentration (ΣFIC) index for each colistin-meropenem combination, we categorized results as synergistic, antagonistic or additive/indifferent. The primary outcome was clinical failure at 14 days. Secondary outcomes were 14- and 28-day mortality and microbiological failure. RESULTS: The sample included 171 patients with infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (n = 131), Enterobacteriaceae (n = 37) and Pseudomonas aeuruginosa (n = 3). In vitro testing showed synergism for 73 isolates, antagonism for 20 and additivism/indifference for 78. In patients who received any colistin plus meropenem, clinical failure at 14 days was 59/78 (75.6%) in the additivism/indifference group (reference category), 54/73 (74.0%) in the synergism group (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.31-1.83), and 11/20 (55%) in the antagonism group (aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.22-2.73). There was no significant difference between groups for any secondary outcome. Comparing the synergism group to patients treated with colistin monotherapy, synergism was not protective against 14-day clinical failure (aOR 0.52, 95% CI 0.26-1.04) or 14-day mortality (aOR1.09, 95% CI 0.60-1.96). DISCUSSION: In vitro synergism between colistin and meropenem via checkerboard method did not translate into clinical benefit.

Colistin Resistance Development Following Colistin-Meropenem Combination Therapy Versus Colistin Monotherapy in Patients With Infections Caused by Carbapenem-Resistant Organisms.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether carbapenem-colistin combination therapy reduces the emergence of colistin resistance, compared to colistin monotherapy, when given to patients with infections due to carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative organisms. METHODS: This is a pre-planned analysis of a secondary outcome from a randomized, controlled trial comparing colistin monotherapy with colistin-meropenem combination for the treatment of severe infections caused by carbapenem-resistant, colistin-susceptible Gram-negative bacteria. We evaluated rectal swabs taken on Day 7 or later for the presence of new colistin-resistant (ColR) isolates. We evaluated the emergence of any ColR isolate and the emergence of ColR Enterobacteriaceae (ColR-E). RESULTS: Data were available for 214 patients for the primary analysis; emergent ColR organisms were detected in 22 (10.3%). No difference was observed between patients randomized to treatment with colistin monotherapy (10/106, 9.4%) versus patients randomized to colistin-meropenem combination therapy (12/108, 11.1%; P = .669). ColR-E organisms were detected in 18/249 (7.2%) patients available for analysis. No difference was observed between the 2 treatment arms (colistin monotherapy 6/128 [4.7%] vs combination therapy 12/121 [9.9%]; P = .111). Enterobacteriaceae, as the index isolate, was found to be associated with development of ColR-E (hazard ratio, 3.875; 95% confidence interval, 1.475-10.184; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Carbapenem-colistin combination therapy did not reduce the incidence of colistin resistance emergence in patients with infections due to carbapenem-resistant organisms. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the development of colistin resistance and methods for its prevention.

Ceftazidime, Carbapenems, or Piperacillin-tazobactam as Single Definitive Therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa Bloodstream Infection: A Multisite Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal antibiotic regimen for Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia is controversial. Although ß-lactam monotherapy is common, data to guide the choice between antibiotics are scarce. We aimed to compare ceftazidime, carbapenems, and piperacillin-tazobactam as definitive monotherapy. METHODS: A multinational retrospective study (9 countries, 25 centers) including 767 hospitalized patients with P. aeruginosa bacteremia treated with ß-lactam monotherapy during 2009-2015. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Univariate and multivariate, including propensity-adjusted, analyses were conducted introducing monotherapy type as an independent variable. RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality was 37/213 (17.4%), 42/210 (20%), and 55/344 (16%) in the ceftazidime, carbapenem, and piperacillin-tazobactam groups, respectively. Type of monotherapy was not significantly associated with mortality in either univariate, multivariate, or propensity-adjusted analyses (odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-2.46, for ceftazidime; OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.67-2.51, for piperacillin-tazobactam, with carbapenems as reference in propensity adjusted multivariate analysis; 542 patients). No significant difference between antibiotics was demonstrated for clinical failure, microbiological failure, or adverse events. Isolation of P. aeruginosa with new resistance to antipseudomonal drugs was significantly more frequent with carbapenems (36/206 [17.5%]) versus ceftazidime (25/201 [12.4%]) and piperacillin-tazobactam (28/332 [8.4%] (P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference in mortality, clinical, and microbiological outcomes or adverse events was demonstrated between ceftazidime, carbapenems, and piperacillin-tazobactam as definitive treatment of P. aeruginosa bacteremia. Higher rates of resistant P. aeruginosa after patients were treated with carbapenems, along with the general preference for carbapenem-sparing regimens, suggests using ceftazidime or piperacillin-tazobactam for treating susceptible infection.

Treatment Outcomes of Colistin- and Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii Infections: An Exploratory Subgroup Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the association between mortality and colistin resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii infections and the interaction with antibiotic therapy. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of patients with carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections treated with colistin or colistin-meropenem combination. We evaluated patients with infection caused by carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii (CRAB) identified as colistin susceptible (CoS) at the time of treatment and compared patients in which the isolate was confirmed as CoS with those whose isolates were retrospectively identified as colistin resistant (CoR) when tested by broth microdilution (BMD). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Data were available for 266 patients (214 CoS and 52 CoR isolates). Patients with CoR isolates had higher baseline functional capacity and lower rates of mechanical ventilation than patients with CoS isolates. All-cause 28-day mortality was 42.3% (22/52) among patients with CoR strains and 52.8% (113/214) among patients with CoS isolates (P = .174). After adjusting for variables associated with mortality, the mortality rate was lower among patients with CoR isolates (odds ratio [OR], 0.285 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .118-.686]). This difference was associated with treatment arm: Mortality rates among patients with CoR isolates were higher in those randomized to colistin-meropenem combination therapy compared to colistin monotherapy (OR, 3.065 [95% CI, 1.021-9.202]). CONCLUSIONS: Colistin resistance determined by BMD was associated with lower mortality among patients with severe CRAB infections. Among patients with CoR isolates, colistin monotherapy was associated with a better outcome compared to colistin-meropenem combination therapy. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01732250.

Analysis of the clinical antibacterial and antituberculosis pipeline.

This analysis of the global clinical antibacterial pipeline was done in support of the Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance. The study analysed to what extent antibacterial and antimycobacterial drugs for systemic human use as well as oral non-systemic antibacterial drugs for Clostridium difficile infections were active against pathogens included in the WHO priority pathogen list and their innovativeness measured by their absence of cross-resistance (new class, target, mode of action). As of July 1, 2018, 30 new chemical entity (NCE) antibacterial drugs, ten biologics, ten NCEs against Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and four NCEs against C difficile were identified. Of the 30 NCEs, 11 are expected to have some activity against at least one critical priority pathogen expressing carbapenem resistance. The clinical pipeline is dominated by derivatives of established classes and most development candidates display limited innovation. New antibacterial drugs without pre-existing cross-resistance are under-represented and are urgently needed, especially for geographical regions with high resistance rates among Gram-negative bacteria and M tuberculosis.

The association between treatment appropriateness according to EUCAST and CLSI breakpoints and mortality among patients with candidemia: a retrospective observational study.

To evaluate the association between appropriate antifungal treatment and mortality among patients with candidemia using different breakpoint definitions. In a retrospective study, we included all adults with candidemia in a tertiary center between 2009 and 2015. We defined three versions of appropriate (covering) antifungal treatment, according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 2008, CLSI 2012, and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) (2017 update) breakpoints. For empiric treatment, we evaluated the association with 30-day mortality. For definitive treatment, we evaluated the association with 90-day mortality among patients surviving the first week after candidemia onset. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) from a bivariate logistic regression with 95% confidence intervals are reported. We identified 302 patients with 308 separate candidemia episodes. The crude 30-day mortality was 55% (168/308). Resistance to anidulafungin increased from 3.5 to 51.6% and to fluconazole from 15.2 to 44.1%, when applying CLSI 2008 and EUCAST definitions, respectively. Appropriate empirical treatment was significantly associated with lower 30-day mortality using the CLSI 2008 definitions, adjusted OR 0.56 (0.33-0.96). The associations were similar, though not statistically significant for EUCAST, 0.58 (0.33-1.00), and CLSI 2012, OR 0.62 (0.37-1.04). Appropriate definitive treatment according to CLSI 2012 and EUCAST was independently associated with lower 90-day mortality, ORs 0.31 (0.13-0.75) and 0.44 (0.23-0.8), respectively. With CLSI 2008, the association was similar but not statistically significant, OR 0.4 (0.11-1.41), with few isolates classified as resistant. Considering the major shift in resistance prevalence when applying CLSI 2008, CLSI 2012, and EUCAST breakpoint definitions, no major differences were observed in their association with mortality.

Interventions for the prevention of recurrent erysipelas and cellulitis.

BACKGROUND: Erysipelas and cellulitis (hereafter referred to as 'cellulitis') are common bacterial skin infections usually affecting the lower extremities. Despite their burden of morbidity, the evidence for different prevention strategies is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and adverse effects of antibiotic prophylaxis or other prophylactic interventions for the prevention of recurrent episodes of cellulitis in adults aged over 16. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to June 2016: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registry databases, and checked reference lists of included studies and reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We searched two sets of dermatology conference proceedings, and BIOSIS Previews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials evaluating any therapy for the prevention of recurrent cellulitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently carried out study selection, data extraction, assessment of risks of bias, and analyses. Our primary prespecified outcome was recurrence of cellulitis when on treatment and after treatment. Our secondary outcomes included incidence rate, time to next episode, hospitalisation, quality of life, development of resistance to antibiotics, adverse reactions and mortality. MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials, with a total of 573 evaluable participants, who were aged on average between 50 and 70. There were few previous episodes of cellulitis in those recruited to the trials, ranging between one and four episodes per study.Five of the six included trials assessed prevention with antibiotics in participants with cellulitis of the legs, and one assessed selenium in participants with cellulitis of the arms. Among the studies assessing antibiotics, one study evaluated oral erythromycin (n = 32) and four studies assessed penicillin (n = 481). Treatment duration varied from six to 18 months, and two studies continued to follow up participants after discontinuation of prophylaxis, with a follow-up period of up to one and a half to two years. Four studies were single-centre, and two were multicentre; they were conducted in five countries: the UK, Sweden, Tunisia, Israel, and Austria.Based on five trials, antibiotic prophylaxis (at the end of the treatment phase ('on prophylaxis')) decreased the risk of cellulitis recurrence by 69%, compared to no treatment or placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.72; n = 513; P = 0.007), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) six, (95% CI 5 to 15), and we rated the certainty of evidence for this outcome as moderate.Under prophylactic treatment and compared to no treatment or placebo, antibiotic prophylaxis reduced the incidence rate of cellulitis by 56% (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89; four studies; n = 473; P value = 0.02; moderate-certainty evidence) and significantly decreased the rate until the next episode of cellulitis (hazard ratio (HR) 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.78; three studies; n = 437; P = 0.002; moderate-certainty evidence).The protective effects of antibiotic did not last after prophylaxis had been stopped ('post-prophylaxis') for risk of cellulitis recurrence (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.31; two studies; n = 287; P = 0.52), incidence rate of cellulitis (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.36; two studies; n = 287; P = 0.74), and rate until next episode of cellulitis (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.56; two studies; n = 287). Evidence was of low certainty.Effects are relevant mainly for people after at least two episodes of leg cellulitis occurring within a period up to three years.We found no significant differences in adverse effects or hospitalisation between antibiotic and no treatment or placebo; for adverse effects: RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.30; four studies; n = 469; P = 0.48; for hospitalisation: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.57; three studies; n = 429; P = 0.47, with certainty of evidence rated low for these outcomes. The existing data did not allow us to fully explore its impact on length of hospital stay.The common adverse reactions were gastrointestinal symptoms, mainly nausea and diarrhoea; rash (severe cutaneous adverse reactions were not reported); and thrush. Three studies reported adverse effects that led to discontinuation of the assigned therapy. In one study (erythromycin), three participants reported abdominal pain and nausea, so their treatment was changed to penicillin. In another study, two participants treated with penicillin withdrew from treatment due to diarrhoea or nausea. In one study, around 10% of participants stopped treatment due to pain at the injection site (the active treatment group was given intramuscular injections of benzathine penicillin).None of the included studies assessed the development of antimicrobial resistance or quality-of-life measures.With regard to the risks of bias, two included studies were at low risk of bias and we judged three others as being at high risk of bias, mainly due to lack of blinding. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In terms of recurrence, incidence, and time to next episode, antibiotic is probably an effective preventive treatment for recurrent cellulitis of the lower limbs in those under prophylactic treatment, compared with placebo or no treatment (moderate-certainty evidence). However, these preventive effects of antibiotics appear to diminish after they are discontinued (low-certainty evidence). Treatment with antibiotic does not trigger any serious adverse events, and those associated are minor, such as nausea and rash (low-certainty evidence). The evidence is limited to people with at least two past episodes of leg cellulitis within a time frame of up to three years, and none of the studies investigated other common interventions such as lymphoedema reduction methods or proper skin care. Larger, high-quality studies are warranted, including long-term follow-up and other prophylactic measures.

Revival of old antibiotics: needs, the state of evidence and expectations.

The gap between the emergence of antibiotic resistance and new antibiotic development has drawn attention to old antibiotics whose spectrum of coverage frequently comprises highly resistant bacteria. However, these antibiotics have frequently not undergone the structured process of antibiotic development of modern antibiotics, from pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) studies establishing safe and effective dosing, establishment of susceptibility breakpoints, to clinical trials establishing clinical safety and effectiveness. In this review, we highlight the gaps for which we need old antibiotics in community- and hospital-acquired infections. Reviewing recently published and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) shows advances in our understanding of the efficacy and effectiveness of oral fosfomycin, mecillinam and nitrofurantoin for cystitis, and of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole for complicated skin infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in the community. Summarising older evidence shows the inferiority of chloramphenicol versus modern antibiotics for severe infections. We lack studies on severe infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria and other multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria in hospitalised and critically ill patients; ongoing studies assessing colistin and intravenous fosfomycin might fill in some gaps. In the re-development process of old antibiotics, we mandate modern PK/PD studies comprising special populations as well as RCTs addressing the target population of patients in need of these antibiotics powered to examine patient-relevant outcomes. Structured antibiotic re-development from the laboratory to evidence-based treatment recommendations requires public funding, multidisciplinary collaboration, international co-ordination, and methods to streamline the recruitment of critically ill patients infected by MDR bacteria.

Predicting Antibiotic Resistance in Urinary Tract Infection Patients with Prior Urine Cultures.

To improve antibiotic prescribing, we sought to establish the probability of a resistant organism in urine culture given a previous resistant culture in a setting endemic for multidrug-resistant (MDR) organisms. We performed a retrospective analysis of inpatients with paired positive urine cultures. We focused on ciprofloxacin-resistant (cipro(r)) Gram-negative bacteria, extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), and carbapenem-resistant nonfermenters (CRNF). Comparisons were made between the frequency of each resistance phenotype following a previous culture with the same phenotype and the overall frequency of that phenotype, and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. We performed a regression to assess the effects of other variables on the likelihood of a repeat resistant culture. A total of 4,409 patients (52.5% women; median age, 70 years) with 19,546 paired positive urine cultures were analyzed. The frequencies of cipro(r) bacteria, ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae, CRE, and CRNF among all cultures were 47.7%, 30.6%, 1.7%, and 2.6%, respectively. ORs for repeated resistance phenotypes were 1.87, 3.19, 48.25, and 19.02 for cipro(r) bacteria, ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae, CRE, and CRNF, respectively (P < 0.001 for all). At 1 month, the frequencies of repeated resistance phenotypes were 77.4%, 66.4%, 57.1%, and 33.3% for cipro(r) bacteria, ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae, CRE, and CRNF, respectively. Increasing time between cultures and the presence of an intervening nonresistant culture significantly reduced the chances of a repeat resistant culture. Associations were statistically significant over the duration of follow-up (60 months) for CRE and for up to 6 months for all other pathogens. Knowledge of microbiology results in the six preceding months may assist with antibiotic stewardship and improve the appropriateness of empirical treatment for urinary tract infections (UTIs).

Multicentre open-label randomised controlled trial to compare colistin alone with colistin plus meropenem for the treatment of severe infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative infections (AIDA): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria has driven renewed interest in older antibacterials, including colistin. Previous studies have shown that colistin is less effective and more toxic than modern antibiotics. In vitro synergy studies and clinical observational studies suggest a benefit of combining colistin with a carbapenem. A randomised controlled study is necessary for clarification. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, investigator-initiated, open-label, randomised controlled superiority 1:1 study comparing colistin monotherapy with colistin-meropenem combination therapy for infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. The study is being conducted in 6 centres in 3 countries (Italy, Greece and Israel). We include patients with hospital-associated and ventilator-associated pneumonia, bloodstream infections and urosepsis. The primary outcome is treatment success at day 14, defined as survival, haemodynamic stability, stable or improved respiratory status for patients with pneumonia, microbiological cure for patients with bacteraemia and stability or improvement of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. Secondary outcomes include 14-day and 28-day mortality as well as other clinical end points and safety outcomes. A sample size of 360 patients was calculated on the basis of an absolute improvement in clinical success of 15% with combination therapy. Outcomes will be assessed by intention to treat. Serum colistin samples are obtained from all patients to obtain population pharmacokinetic models. Microbiological sampling includes weekly surveillance samples with analysis of resistance mechanisms and synergy. An observational trial is evaluating patients who met eligibility requirements but were not randomised in order to assess generalisability of findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by ethics committees at each centre and informed consent will be obtained for all patients. The trial is being performed under the auspices of an independent data and safety monitoring committee and is included in a broad dissemination strategy regarding revival of old antibiotics. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01732250 and 2012-004819-31; Pre-results.

Oral iron supplements for children in malaria-endemic areas.

BACKGROUND: Iron-deficiency anaemia is common during childhood. Iron administration has been claimed to increase the risk of malaria. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects and safety of iron supplementation, with or without folic acid, in children living in areas with hyperendemic or holoendemic malaria transmission. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (up to August 2015) and LILACS (up to February 2015). We also checked the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) up to February 2015. We contacted the primary investigators of all included trials, ongoing trials, and those awaiting assessment to ask for unpublished data and further trials. We scanned references of included trials, pertinent reviews, and previous meta-analyses for additional references. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individually randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs conducted in hyperendemic and holoendemic malaria regions or that reported on any malaria-related outcomes that included children younger than 18 years of age. We included trials that compared orally administered iron, iron with folic acid, and iron with antimalarial treatment versus placebo or no treatment. We included trials of iron supplementation or fortification interventions if they provided at least 80% of the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for prevention of anaemia by age. Antihelminthics could be administered to either group, and micronutrients had to be administered equally to both groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes were clinical malaria, severe malaria, and death from any cause. We assessed the risk of bias in included trials with domain-based evaluation and assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We performed a fixed-effect meta-analysis for all outcomes and random-effects meta-analysis for hematological outcomes, and adjusted analyses for cluster RCTs. We based the subgroup analyses for anaemia at baseline, age, and malaria prevention or management services on trial-level data. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-five trials (31,955 children) met the inclusion criteria. Overall, iron does not cause an excess of clinical malaria (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.87 to 1.00; 14 trials, 7168 children, high quality evidence). Iron probably does not cause an excess of clinical malaria in both populations where anaemia is common and those in which anaemia is uncommon. In areas where there are prevention and management services for malaria, iron (with or without folic acid) may reduce clinical malaria (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97; seven trials, 5586 participants, low quality evidence), while in areas where such services are unavailable, iron (with or without folic acid) may increase the incidence of malaria, although the lower CIs indicate no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.31; nine trials, 19,086 participants, low quality evidence). Iron supplementation does not cause an excess of severe malaria (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98; 6 trials, 3421 children, high quality evidence). We did not observe any differences for deaths (control event rate 1%, low quality evidence). Iron and antimalarial treatment reduced clinical malaria (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.67; three trials, 728 children, high quality evidence). Overall, iron resulted in fewer anaemic children at follow up, and the end average change in haemoglobin from base line was higher with iron. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Iron treatment does not increase the risk of clinical malaria when regular malaria prevention or management services are provided. Where resources are limited, iron can be administered without screening for anaemia or for iron deficiency, as long as malaria prevention or management services are provided efficiently.

Antibiotics for preventing meningococcal infections.

BACKGROUND: Meningococcal disease is a contagious bacterial infection caused by Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis). Household contacts have the highest risk of contracting the disease during the first week of a case being detected. Prophylaxis is considered for close contacts of people with a meningococcal infection and populations with known high carriage rates. OBJECTIVES: To study the effectiveness, adverse events and development of drug resistance of different antibiotics as prophylactic treatment regimens for meningococcal infection. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 6, MEDLINE (January 1966 to June week 1, 2013), EMBASE (1980 to June 2013) and LILACS (1982 to June 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs addressing the effectiveness of different antibiotics for: (a) prophylaxis against meningococcal disease; (b) eradication of N. meningitidis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently appraised the quality and extracted data from the included trials. We analysed dichotomous data by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each trial. MAIN RESULTS: No new trials were found for inclusion in this update. We included 24 studies; 19 including 2531 randomised participants and five including 4354 cluster-randomised participants. There were no cases of meningococcal disease during follow-up in the trials, thus effectiveness regarding prevention of future disease cannot be directly assessed.Mortality that was reported in one study was not related to meningococcal disease or treatment. Ciprofloxacin (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.12), rifampin (rifampicin) (RR 0.17; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.24), minocycline (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.37) and penicillin (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.94) proved effective at eradicating N. meningitidis one week after treatment when compared with placebo. Rifampin (RR 0.20; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.29), ciprofloxacin (RR 0.03; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.42) and penicillin (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.79) still proved effective at one to two weeks. Rifampin was effective compared to placebo up to four weeks after treatment but resistant isolates were seen following prophylactic treatment. No trials evaluated ceftriaxone against placebo but rifampin was less effective than ceftriaxone after one to two weeks of follow-up (RR 5.93; 95% CI 1.22 to 28.68). Mild adverse events associated with treatment were observed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Using rifampin during an outbreak may lead to the circulation of resistant isolates. Use of ciprofloxacin, ceftriaxone or penicillin should be considered. All four agents were effective for up to two weeks follow-up, though more trials comparing the effectiveness of these agents for eradicating N. meningitidis would provide important insights.

A breach in patients' safety in randomized controlled trials of antibiotic drugs.

In a number of randomized controlled trials of antibiotic drugs the pathogens cultured from patients and their in vitro susceptibilities to the study drugs were not disclosed to the physicians during the whole course of the disease. These trials included patients with sepsis and bacteraemia. In clinical practice the information on the pathogen and its susceptibilities serves to re-evaluate the antibiotic treatment on the second or third day. As there is strong evidence that antibiotic treatment (empirical and definitive) matching the in vitro susceptibility of the pathogen reduces fatality rates in severe infections, withholding these data is a breach in patient safety. Sponsors and investigators of clinical trials of antibiotic drugs should ensure that the susceptibility of pathogens to the trial drugs are made available to clinicians in real time and taken into account when considering change in patient management, as would be the case in routine clinical practice. Members of research ethics committees should make sure that the protocols provide for this, while journals considering publication of clinical trial results should ask that details on the availability of susceptibilities to the trial antibiotics are disclosed in the methods section.

Oral iron supplements for children in malaria-endemic areas.

BACKGROUND: Iron-deficiency anaemia is common during childhood. Iron supplementation has been claimed to increase the risk of malaria. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of iron on malaria and deaths. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library, PUBMED, MEDLINE, LILACS; and trial registry databases, all up to June 2011. We scanned references of included trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Individually and cluster randomized controlled trials conducted in hypoendemic to holoendemic malaria regions and including children below 18 years of age. We included trials comparing orally administered iron, iron with antimalarial treatment, or iron with folic acid versus placebo or no treatment. Iron fortification was excluded. Antihelminthics could be administered to either group. Additional micronutrients had to be administered equally to both groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes were clinical (symptomatic) malaria, severe malaria, and death. Two authors independently selected the studies and extracted the data. We assessed heterogeneity and conducted subgroup analyses by the presence of anaemia at baseline, age, and malaria endemicity. We assessed risk of bias using domain-based evaluation. We performed a fixed-effect meta-analysis for all outcomes and random-effects meta-analysis for hematological outcomes. We adjusted analyses for cluster randomized trials. MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-one trials (45,353 children) were included. For clinical malaria, no significant difference between iron alone and placebo was detected, (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.90 to 1.09, 13 trials). The results were similar in the subgroups of non-anaemic children and children below 2 years of age. There was no significant difference in deaths in hyper- and holoendemic areas, risk difference +1.93 per 1000 children (95% CI -1.78 to 5.64, 13 trials, 17,898 children). Iron administered for treatment of anaemia resulted in a larger increase in haemoglobin than iron given for prevention, and the benefit was similar in hyper- or holoendemic and lower endemicity settings. Iron and folic acid supplementation resulted in mixed results for severe malaria. Overall, the risk for clinical malaria was higher with iron or with iron plus folic acid in trials where services did not provide for malaria surveillance and treatment. Iron with antimalarial treatment significantly reduced malaria. Iron supplementation during an acute attack of malaria did not increase the risk for parasitological failure, (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.24, three trials) or deaths. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Iron alone or with antimalaria treatment does not increase the risk of clinical malaria or death when regular malaria surveillance and treatment services are provided. There is no need to screen for anaemia prior to iron supplementation.

Antibiotics for preventing meningococcal infections.

BACKGROUND: Meningococcal disease is a contagious bacterial infection caused by Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis). Household contacts have the highest risk of contracting the disease during the first week of a case being detected. Prophylaxis is considered for close contacts of people with a meningococcal infection and populations with known high carriage rates. OBJECTIVES: To study the effectiveness of different prophylactic treatment regimens. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2011, Issue 2) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (January 1966 to May Week 3, 2011), EMBASE (1980 to May 2011) and LILACS (1982 to May 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs addressing the effectiveness of different antibiotics for: (a) prophylaxis against meningococcal disease; (b) eradication of N. meningitidis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently appraised the quality and extracted data from the included trials. We analysed dichotomous data by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each trial. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies; 19 including 2531 randomised participants and five including 4354 cluster-randomised participants. There were no cases of meningococcal disease during follow up in the trials, thus effectiveness regarding prevention of future disease cannot be directly assessed.Ciprofloxacin (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.12), rifampin (rifampicin) (RR 0.17; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.24), minocycline (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.37) and penicillin (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.94) proved effective at eradicating N. meningitidis one week after treatment when compared with placebo. Rifampin (RR 0.20; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.29), ciprofloxacin (RR 0.03; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.42) and penicillin (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.79) still proved effective at one to two weeks. Rifampin was effective compared to placebo up to four weeks after treatment but resistant isolates were seen following prophylactic treatment. No trials evaluated ceftriaxone against placebo but ceftriaxone was more effective than rifampin after one to two weeks of follow up (RR 5.93; 95% CI 1.22 to 28.68). Mild adverse events associated with treatment were observed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Using rifampin during an outbreak may lead to the circulation of resistant isolates. Use of ciprofloxacin, ceftriaxone or penicillin should be considered. All four agents were effective for up to two weeks follow up, though more trials comparing the effectiveness of these agents for eradicating N. meningitidis would provide important insights.

Importance of appropriate empirical antibiotic therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia.

OBJECTIVES: To document the effects of appropriate and inappropriate empirical antibiotic therapy on mortality in a cohort of patients with bacteraemia due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and to summarize effects with previous studies. METHODS: In the retrospective cohort study, episodes of clinically significant MRSA bacteraemia during a 15 year period were included. Polymicrobial episodes were excluded unless MRSA was isolated in more than one bottle and co-pathogens were given appropriate empirical antibiotic treatment. Appropriate empirical treatment was defined as matching in vitro susceptibility and started within 48 h of blood-culture taking, except for single aminoglycosides or rifampicin. We assessed univariate and multivariate associations between appropriate empirical therapy and 30 day all-cause mortality. Multivariable analysis was conducted using backward stepwise logistic regression. We reviewed all studies assessing the effects of appropriate empirical antibiotic treatment on mortality for MRSA infections and compiled adjusted odds ratios (ORs) using a random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Five hundred and ten episodes of MRSA bacteraemia were included. There were no cases of community-acquired infection. The 30 day mortality was 43.9% (224/510) and was stable throughout the study period. Mortality was significantly higher among patients receiving inappropriate (168/342, 49.1%) compared with those receiving appropriate (56/168, 33.3%) empirical antibiotic treatment, P = 0.001. In the adjusted analysis the OR was 2.15 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34-3.46]. Pooling of six studies using adequate methodology for the adjusted analysis resulted in an OR of 1.98 (95% CI 1.62-2.44). CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate empirical antibiotic treatment has a significant survival benefit in MRSA bacteraemia. Treatment guidelines should consider this benefit.

Oral iron supplementation for preventing or treating anaemia among children in malaria-endemic areas.

BACKGROUND: Iron-deficiency anaemia is common during childhood. Iron supplementation has been claimed to increase the risk of malaria. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of iron on malaria and deaths. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library (2009, issue 1); MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS and metaRegister of Controlled Trials, all up to March 2009. We scanned references of included trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Individually and cluster-randomized controlled trials conducted in hypoendemic to holoendemic malaria regions and including children < 18 years. We included trials comparing orally administered iron with or without folic acid vs. placebo or no treatment. Iron fortification was excluded. Antimalarials and/or antiparasitics could be administered to either group. Additional micronutrients could only be administered equally to both groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes were malaria-related events and deaths. Secondary outcomes included haemoglobin, anaemia, other infections, growth, hospitalizations, and clinic visits. We assessed risk of bias using domain-based evaluation. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We contacted authors for missing data. We assessed heterogeneity. We performed fixed-effect meta-analysis and presented random-effects results when heterogeneity was present. We present pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used adjusted analyses for cluster-randomized trials. MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-eight trials (42,981 children) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Iron supplementation did not increase the risk of clinical malaria (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13; 22,724 children, 14 trials, random-effects model). The risk was similar among children who were non-anaemic at baseline (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09). An increased risk of malaria with iron was observed in trials that did not provide malaria surveillance and treatment. The risk of malaria parasitaemia was higher with iron (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.26), but there was no difference in adequately concealed trials. Iron + antimalarial was protective for malaria (four trials). Iron did not increase the risk of parasitological failure when given during malaria (three trials). There was no increased risk of death across all trials comparing iron versus placebo (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.36; 21,272 children, 12 trials). Iron supplementation increased haemoglobin, with significant heterogeneity, and malaria endemicity did not affect this effect. Growth and other infections were mostly not affected by iron supplementation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Iron does not increase the risk of clinical malaria or death, when regular malaria surveillance and treatment services are provided. There is no need to screen for anaemia prior to iron supplementation.