Optimization of polymyxin B regimens for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant organism nosocomial pneumonia: a real-world prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Polymyxin B is the first-line therapy for Carbapenem-resistant organism (CRO) nosocomial pneumonia. However, clinical data for its pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) relationship are limited. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between polymyxin B exposure and efficacy for the treatment of CRO pneumonia in critically ill patients, and to optimize the individual dosing regimens. METHODS: Patients treated with polymyxin B for CRO pneumonia were enrolled. Blood samples were assayed using a validated high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method. Population PK analysis and Monte Carlo simulation were performed using Phoenix NLME software. Logistic regression analyses and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were employed to identify the significant predictors and PK/PD indices of polymyxin B efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were included, and the population PK model was developed based on 295 plasma concentrations. AUCss,24 h/MIC (AOR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99, p = 0.009), daily dose (AOR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.99, p = 0.028), and combination of inhaled polymyxin B (AOR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.11-0.94, p = 0.039) were independent risk factors for polymyxin B efficacy. ROC curve showed that AUCss,24 h/MIC is the most predictive PK/PD index of polymyxin B for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia caused by CRO, and the optimal cutoff point value was 66.9 in patients receiving combination therapy with another antimicrobial. Model-based simulation suggests that the maintaining daily dose of 75 and 100 mg Q12 h could achieve ≥ 90% PTA of this clinical target at MIC values ≤ 0.5 and 1 mg/L, respectively. For patients unable to achieve the target concentration by intravenous administration, adjunctive inhalation of polymyxin B would be beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: For CRO pneumonia, daily dose of 75 and 100 mg Q12 h was recommended for clinical efficacy. Inhalation of polymyxin B is beneficial for patients who cannot achieve the target concentration by intravenous administration.

Iron serum levels and iron homeostasis parameters in patients with nosocomial pneumonia treated with cefiderocol: post hoc analysis of the APEKS-NP study.

Critically ill patients often present with low serum iron levels or anemia. We evaluated the impact of iron levels and iron homeostasis on the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol, an iron-chelator siderophore cephalosporin, in patients with nosocomial pneumonia in a post hoc analysis of the randomized, double-blind, Phase 3 APEKS-NP study (NCT03032380). Patients with Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia received cefiderocol 2 g, 3-h infusion, q8h, or high-dose, extended-infusion meropenem 2 g, 3-h infusion, q8h, for 7-14 days. Efficacy and safety parameters, including specific iron homeostasis parameters (i.e., hepcidin, iron, total iron binding capacity, transferrin saturation), were analyzed according to baseline iron levels. In the cefiderocol and meropenem arms, 79.1% (117/148) and 83.3% (125/150) randomized patients, respectively, had low baseline serum iron levels. Rates of 14-day (12.3% [14/114] vs 11.6% [14/121]) and 28-day all-cause mortality (20.5% [23/112] vs 19.0% [23/121]), clinical cure (63.2% [72/114] vs 67.2% [82/122]), and microbiological eradication (43.6% [41/94] vs 48.1% [51/106]) at test of cure were similar in cefiderocol vs meropenem arms, respectively. In the overall safety population, rates of anemia-related adverse events were similar (cefiderocol arm 18.2% [27/148], meropenem arm 18.7% [28/150]). Changes from baseline to test of cure in hepcidin, iron, total iron binding capacity, and transferrin saturation were similar between treatment arms. Cefiderocol treatment did not affect iron homeostasis, and its efficacy and safety were not influenced by baseline serum iron levels. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT03032380. Date of registration: 26 January 2017.

Factors associated with the appropriate use of ultra-broad spectrum antibiotics, meropenem, for suspected healthcare-associated pneumonia.

ABSTRACT: Pneumonia is a common disease-causing hospitalization. When a healthcare-associated infection is suspected, antibiotics that provide coverage for multi-drug resistant (MDR) or extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) bacteria are frequently prescribed. Limited data is available for guidance on using meropenem as a first-line empiric antimicrobial in hospitalized patients with risk factors for MDR/ESBL bacterial infections.This was a single-center, retrospective study designed and conducted to identify factors associated with positive cultures for MDR/ESBL pathogens in hospitalized patients with suspected healthcare-associated pneumonia.Of the 246 patients, 103 patients (41%) received meropenem. Among patients prescribed meropenem, MDR/ESBL pathogens were detected in only 20 patients (13%). Patients admitted from a skilled nursing facility/long-term acute care (SNF/LTAC) or with a history of a positive culture for MDR/ESBL pathogens were significantly associated with positive cultures of MDR/ESBL pathogens during the hospitalization (odds ratio [95% confidence intervals], 31.40 [5.20-189.6] in SNF/LTAC and 18.50 [2.98-115.1] in history of culture-positive MDR/ESBL pathogen). There was no significant difference in mortality between the 3 antibiotic groups.Admission from a SNF/LTAC or having a history of cultures positive for MDR/ESBL pathogens were significantly associated with a positive culture for MDR/ESBL pathogens during the subsequent admission. We did not detect significant association between meropenem use as a first-line drug and morbidity and mortality for patients admitted to the hospital with suspected healthcare-associated pneumonia, and further prospective studies with larger sample size are needed to confirm our findings.

Clinical outcomes of ceftazidime-avibactam versus meropenem in Indian patients with nosocomial pneumonia: Subset analysis from the REPROVE study.

The efficacy and safety of Ceftazidime-Avibactam (CAZ-AVI) as compared to meropenem for nosocomial pneumonia was established in a randomized, phase-III, non-inferiority trial REPROVE, which included Indian patients. We determined if the results for the Indian patients were in-line with the results of overall population. Descriptive analysis of efficacy and safety demonstrated ceftazidime-avibactam was comparable to meropenem in the management of nosocomial pneumonia in Indian patients and it may be a useful addition to the armamentarium of antibiotics for management of such infections with Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas.

An evaluation of meropenem/vaborbactam for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia.

Introduction: Nosocomial pneumonias are the second most common healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs), often associated with the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Acinetobacter species, and Enterobacter species. Increasing use of carbapenems has led to an increase in the prevalence of carbapenem-resistant gram-negative organisms, such as carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), P. aeruginosa (CRPA), and Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), limiting treatment options for patients at high-risk of multi-drug resistant (MDR) gram-negative pathogens. Areas covered: The purpose of this review is to discuss the role of meropenem/vaborbactam, a beta-lactam combined with a novel non-beta-lactam cyclic boronic acid beta-lactamase inhibitor (BLI), for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia based on its chemistry, pharmacokinetics/dynamics, microbiological spectrum of activity, mechanisms of resistance, safety, and clinical efficacy. Expert opinion: Currently, any utilization of meropenem/vaborbactam beyond its FDA-approved indication for complicated urinary tract infections is considered off-label use; however, based on the pulmonary penetration of meropenem/vaborbactam, it is highly likely to be a safe and effective alternative to more toxic agents, like aminoglycosides and polymixins, for targeted therapy in pulmonary infections due to CRE. Unfortunately, the multifactorial resistance pattern of CRPA and other non-lactose-fermenting gram-negative bacteria restricts activity against these organisms which are common pathogens implicated in nosocomial pneumonia.

Community-acquired pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a Chinese adult: A case report.

RATIONALE: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has been established as an important cause of severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) with very high mortality. Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) producing MRSA has been reported to be associated with necrotizing pneumonia and worse outcome. The incidence of community-acquired MRSA (CA-MRSA) pneumonia is very low, as only a few CA-MRSA pneumonia cases were reported in the last few years. We present a case of severe CAP caused by PVL-positive MRSA with ensuing septic shock. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 68-year-old male with no concerning medical history had developed a fever that reached 39.0°C, a productive cough that was sustained for 5 days, and hypodynamia. He was treated with azithromycin and alexipyretic in a nearby clinic for 2 days in which the symptoms were alleviated. However, 1 day later, the symptoms worsened, and he was taken to a local Chinese medicine hospital for traditional medicine treatment. However, his clinical condition deteriorated rapidly, and he then developed dyspnea and hemoptysis. DIAGNOSIS: CA-MRSA pneumonia and septic shock. The sputum culture showed MRSA. Polymerase chain reaction of MRSA isolates was positive for PVL genes. INTERVENTIONS: Mechanical ventilation, fluid resuscitation, and antibiotic therapy were performed. Antibiotic therapy included mezlocillin sodium/sulbactam sodium, linezolid, and oseltamivir. OUTCOMES: He died after 12 hours of treatment. LESSONS: This is a report of severe pneumonia due to PVL-positive CA-MRSA in a healthy adult. CA-MRSA should be considered a pathogen of severe CAP, especially when combined with septic shock in previously healthy individuals.

In Vitro Activity of Ceftazidime-Avibactam against Isolates from Respiratory and Blood Specimens from Patients with Nosocomial Pneumonia, Including Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia, in a Phase 3 Clinical Trial.

Nosocomial pneumonia (NP), including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), is increasingly associated with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens. This study describes the in vitro activity of ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftazidime, and relevant comparator agents against bacterial pathogens isolated from patients with NP, including VAP, enrolled in a ceftazidime-avibactam phase 3 trial. Gram-positive pathogens were included if coisolated with a Gram-negative pathogen. In vitro susceptibility was determined at a central laboratory using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution methods. Of 817 randomized patients, 457 (55.9%) had ≥1 Gram-negative bacterial pathogen(s) isolated at baseline, and 149 (18.2%) had ≥1 Gram-positive pathogen(s) coisolated. The most common isolated pathogens were Klebsiella pneumoniae (18.8%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (15.8%), and Staphylococcus aureus (11.5%). Ceftazidime-avibactam was highly active in vitro against 370 isolates of Enterobacteriaceae, with 98.6% susceptible (MIC90, 0.5 µg/ml) compared with 73.2% susceptible for ceftazidime (MIC90, >64 µg/ml). The percent susceptibility values for ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftazidime against 129 P. aeruginosa isolates were 88.4% and 72.9% (MIC90 values of 16 µg/ml and 64 µg/ml), respectively. Among ceftazidime-nonsusceptible Gram-negative isolates, ceftazidime-avibactam percent susceptibility values were 94.9% for 99 Enterobacteriaceae and 60.0% for 35 P. aeruginosa MIC90 values for linezolid and vancomycin (permitted per protocol for Gram-positive coverage) were within their respective MIC susceptibility breakpoints against the Gram-positive pathogens isolated. This analysis demonstrates that ceftazidime-avibactam was active in vitro against the majority of Enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa isolates from patients with NP, including VAP, in a phase 3 trial. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT01808092.).

A successful program preventing nonventilator hospital-acquired pneumonia in a large hospital system.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate a program to presvent hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP). DESIGN: Prospective, observational, surveillance program to identify HAP before and after 7 interventions. An order set automatically triggered in programmatically identified high-risk patients. SETTING: All 21 hospitals of an integrated healthcare system with 4.4 million members. PATIENTS: All hospitalized patients. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions for high-risk patients included mobilization, upright feeding, swallowing evaluation, sedation restrictions, elevated head of bed, oral care and tube care. RESULTS: HAP rates decreased between 2012 and 2018: from 5.92 to 1.79 per 1,000 admissions (P = .0031) and from 24.57 to 6.49 per 100,000 members (P = .0014). HAP mortality decreased from 1.05 to 0.34 per 1,000 admissions and from 4.37 to 1.24 per 100,000 members. Concomitant antibiotic utilization demonstrated reductions of broad-spectrum antibiotics. Antibiotic therapy per 100,000 members was measured as follows: carbapenem days (694 to 463; P = .0020), aminoglycoside days (154 to 61; P = .0165), vancomycin days (2,087 to 1,783; P = .002), and quinolone days (2,162 to 1,287; P < .0001). Only cephalosporin use increased, driven by ceftriaxone days (264 to 460; P = .0009). Benzodiazepine use decreased between 2014 to 2016: 10.4% to 8.8% of inpatient days. Mortality for patients with HAP was 18% in 2012% and 19% in 2016 (P = .439). CONCLUSION: HAP rates, mortality, and broad-spectrum antibiotic use were all reduced significantly following these interventions, despite the absence of strong supportive literature for guidance. Most interventions augmented basic nursing care. None had risks of adverse consequences. These results support the need to examine practices to improve care despite limited literature and the need to further study these difficult areas of care.

Relevance of healthcare-associated pneumonia for empirical antibiotic therapy in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus whether patients with healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) should be considered as a patient with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics, or as a patient with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), and treated with narrow-spectrum antibiotics. HCAP research has focused mostly on the predictive value for non-susceptibility to broad-spectrum antibiotics and multi-drug resistant pathogens, in settings with moderate to high levels of antibiotic resistance. We investigated whether HCAP criteria predicts non-susceptibility to different empirical strategies, including narrow-spectrum antibiotics in the Dutch setting. METHODS: In a post hoc analysis of patients with moderate-severe CAP in seven Dutch hospitals, we compared in vitro antibiotic susceptibilities of definite and possible causative pathogens of CAP and HCAP to amoxicillin and broader antibiotic regimens. In a sensitivity analysis, pathogens with missing susceptibilities were assumed susceptible (best-case scenario) or non-susceptible (worst-case scenario). RESULTS: Among 2,283 patients with moderate-severe CAP, 23.1% (n = 527) were classified as HCAP. Non-susceptibility to amoxicillin ranged from 11.3% (95% CI 9.9-12.8%; best-case) to 14.4% (95% CI 12.8-16.1%; worst-case) in CAP patients and from 16.7% (95% CI 13.8-20.1%; best-case) to 19.7% (95% CI 16.6-23.3%; worst-case) in HCAP patients. The largest reduction in non-susceptibility was achieved by adding ciprofloxacin to amoxicillin treatment in both CAP patients (10% absolute risk reduction) and HCAP patients (11-16% reduction). CONCLUSIONS: In the Netherlands, HCAP criteria predict higher amoxicillin non-susceptibility in patients hospitalized with moderate-severe CAP. Although broadening the antibiotic spectrum of empiric treatment reduced the likelihood of non-susceptibility, absolute reductions of non-susceptibility in HCAP patients were too low to justify the universal use of broad-spectrum empirical therapy.No abstract available.

Carbapenems vs. alternative ß-lactams for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Carbapenems have shown efficacy in treating nosocomial pneumonias in clinical trials despite a reported low lung penetration compared with other ß-lactams. Preserving the clinical activity of carbapenems through stewardship efforts is essential. The aim of this review was to identify any differences in outcomes potentially as a function of decreased penetration. METHODS: PubMed and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for clinical trials comparing carbapenems with other anti-pseudomonal ß-lactams for treatment of nosocomial pneumonia through to end December 2016. Trials reporting clinical and microbiological outcomes associated with treatment were included. Pediatric studies and those with uneven comparators (e.g., carbapenem vs. combination Gram-negative therapy) were excluded. Fixed effects models were used to evaluate the impact of treatment on the odds of clinical failure, death, or microbiological failure. RESULTS: 252 unique articles were identified; five met inclusion criteria and comprised 640 patients in the carbapenem group and 634 patients in the ß-lactam group. No differences in clinical failure (odds ratio [OR] 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.81-1.44], I2=16%) or mortality (OR 0.75, CI 0.57-1.11, I2=0%) were noted between groups. Patients infected with P. aeruginosa and treated with imipenem were more likely to experience clinical failure (OR 4.21, CI 1.51-11.12, I2=44%) and to develop resistance to the study carbapenem (OR 2.86, CI 1.08-6.44, I2= 13%) than those treated with alternative ß-lactams. CONCLUSIONS: No differences in clinical outcomes were observed between carbapenems and non-carbapenem ß-lactams in nosocomial pneumonias. Those infected with P. aeruginosa fared worse and were more likely to have resistance develop if they were treated with imipenem. Additional studies are warranted.

Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia and Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia: Bacterial Aetiology, Antibiotic Resistance and Treatment Outcomes: A Study From North India.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding the comparative profiling of HCAP and HAP from developing countries like India are scant. We set out to address the microbial aetiology, antibiotic resistance and treatment outcomes in patients with HCAP and HAP. METHODS: 318 consenting patients with HCAP (n = 165, aged 16-90 years; median 60 years; 97 males) or HAP (n = 153; aged 16-85 years; median 45 years; 92 males) presenting to a tertiary care hospital in North India from 2013 to 2015 were prospectively recruited for the study. Data on patient characteristics, microbial aetiology, APACHE II scores, treatment outcomes and mortality were studied. Clinical outcomes were compared with various possible predictors employing logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Patients in HCAP had more comorbidity. Escherichia coli (30, 18%) and Acinetobacter baumannii (62, 41%) were the most commonly isolated bacteria in HCAP and HAP, respectively. Multidrug-resistant bacteria were isolated more frequently in HCAP, only because the incidence of extensively drug-resistant bacteria was markedly high in HAP (p = 0.00). The mean APACHE II score was lower in HCAP (17.55 ± 6.406, range 30) compared to HAP (19.74 ± 8.843, range 37; p = 0.013). The length of stay ≥ 5 days (p = 0.036) and in-hospital mortality was higher in HAP group (p = 0.002). The most reliable predictors of in-hospital mortality in HCAP and HAP were APACHE II score ≥ 17 (OR = 14, p = 0.00; HAP: OR = 10.8, p = 0.00), and septic shock (OR = 4.5, p = 0.00; HAP: OR = 6.9, p = 0.00). CONCLUSION: The patient characteristics in HCAP, treatment outcomes, bacterial aetiology, and a higher incidence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, suggest that HCAP although not as severe as HAP, can be grouped as a separate third entity.