Clinical outcomes in patients infected with ertapenem-only-resistant Enterobacterales versus multi-carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales.

BACKGROUND: Use of anti-carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (anti-CRE) agents such as ceftazidime/avibactam has been associated with improved clinical outcome in cohorts that primarily include patients infected with CRE that are resistant to meropenem (MCRE). OBJECTIVES: To clarify whether patients with CRE resistant to ertapenem but susceptible to meropenem (ertapenem-only-resistant Enterobacterales; EORE) benefit from therapy with anti-CRE agents. METHODS: Patients treated for CRE infection in hospitals in the USA between 2016 and 2019 and enrolled in the CRACKLE-2 study were included. The primary outcome was the desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) assessed at 30 days after index cultures. RESULTS: The EORE group included 213 patients and the MCRE group included 643. The demographics were similar between the groups except for the patients' race and origin before admission. The MCRE group received anti-CRE agents for definitive therapy significantly more frequently compared with the EORE group (30% versus 5% for ceftazidime/avibactam). We did not observe a significant difference between the groups in the adjusted DOOR probability of a more desirable outcome for a randomly selected patient in the EORE group compared with the MCRE group (52.5%; 95% CI, 48.3%-56.7%). The MCRE group had a similar proportion of patients who died at 30 days (26% versus 21%) and who were discharged to home (29% versus 40%), compared with the EORE group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with clinical EORE infection rarely received anti-CRE agents, but attained similar outcomes compared with patients with MCRE infection. The findings support current IDSA treatment guidance for meropenem- or imipenem-based therapy for treatment of EORE infections.

Antibiotic Myths for the Infectious Diseases Clinician.

Antimicrobials are commonly prescribed and often misunderstood. With more than 50% of hospitalized patients receiving an antimicrobial agent at any point in time, judicious and optimal use of these drugs is paramount to advancing patient care. This narrative will focus on myths relevant to nuanced consultation from infectious diseases specialists, particularly surrounding specific considerations for a variety of antibiotics.

Transmission of Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in US Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKp) is the most prevalent carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales in the United States. We evaluated CRKp clustering in patients in US hospitals. METHODS: From April 2016 to August 2017, 350 patients with clonal group 258 CRKp were enrolled in the Consortium on Resistance Against Carbapenems in Klebsiella and other Enterobacteriaceae, a prospective, multicenter, cohort study. A maximum likelihood tree was constructed using RAxML. Static clusters shared ≤21 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) and a most recent common ancestor. Dynamic clusters incorporated SNP distance, culture timing, and rates of SNP accumulation and transmission using the R program TransCluster. RESULTS: Most patients were admitted from home (n = 150, 43%) or long-term care facilities (n = 115, 33%). Urine (n = 149, 43%) was the most common isolation site. Overall, 55 static and 47 dynamics clusters were identified involving 210 of 350 (60%) and 194 of 350 (55%) patients, respectively. Approximately half of static clusters were identical to dynamic clusters. Static clusters consisted of 33 (60%) intrasystem and 22 (40%) intersystem clusters. Dynamic clusters consisted of 32 (68%) intrasystem and 15 (32%) intersystem clusters and had fewer SNP differences than static clusters (8 vs 9; P = .045; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -4 to 0). Dynamic intersystem clusters contained more patients than dynamic intrasystem clusters (median [interquartile range], 4 [2, 7] vs 2 [2, 2]; P = .007; 95% CI: -3 to 0). CONCLUSIONS: Widespread intrasystem and intersystem transmission of CRKp was identified in hospitalized US patients. Use of different methods for assessing genetic similarity resulted in only minor differences in interpretation.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. OBJECTIVE: Develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. RESULTS: Based on the most recent search conducted on May 31, 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 30 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were done which provided much needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved which we hope future trials can answer.

Lessons Learned from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Therapies: Critical Perspectives From the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) COVID-19 Treatment Guideline Panel.

Despite the challenges of the pandemic, there has been substantial progress with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies. Pivotal COVID-19 trials like SOLIDARITY, RECOVERY, and ACCT-1 were rapidly conducted and data disseminated to support effective therapies. However, critical shortcomings remain on trial conduct, dissemination and interpretation of study results, and regulatory guidance in pandemic settings. The lessons that we learned have implications for both the current pandemic and future emerging infectious diseases. There is a need for establishing and standardizing clinical meaningful outcomes in therapeutic trials and for targeting defined populations and phenotypes that will most benefit from specific therapies. Standardized processes should be established for rapid and critical data review and dissemination to ensure scientific integrity. Clarity around the evidence standards needed for issuance of both emergency use authorization (EUA) and biologic license application (BLA) should be established and an infrastructure for executing rapid trials in epidemic settings maintained.

Therapeutic Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) During Pandemics: Double-edged Swords.

Given the urgent need for treatments during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for multiple therapies. In several instances, however, these EUAs were issued before sufficient evidence of a given therapy's efficacy and safety were available, potentially promoting ineffective or even harmful therapies and undermining the generation of definitive evidence. We describe the strengths and weaknesses of the different therapeutic EUAs issued during this pandemic. We also contrast them to the vaccine EUAs and suggest a framework and criteria for an evidence-based, trustworthy, and publicly transparent therapeutic EUA process for future pandemics.

Omadacycline: A Modernized Tetracycline.

When tetracyclines were introduced in the 1940s, these antibiotics offered a broad spectrum of activity against multiple types of pathogens. However, their utility waned after the selection of tetracycline resistance in the pathogens against which they were effective. Omadacycline is a semisynthetic aminomethylcycline antibacterial derived from the tetracycline class of antibiotics that is unaffected by these resistance mechanisms. It has an appropriate spectrum of activity for community-acquired infections, including those caused by many resistant organisms. Omadacycline offers a well-tolerated treatment for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Omadacycline has minimal known drug-drug interactions, and should be administered in a fasting state, avoiding dairy and cation-containing products for at least 4 hours after dosing. It does not require dose adjustments for sex, age, or hepatic or renal impairment, and has a safety profile similar to that of other oral tetracyclines. Because omadacycline can be administered effectively orally, it can help reduce hospitalization costs associated with intravenous antibiotic administration. This special supplement to Clinical Infectious Diseases offers an in-depth examination of omadacycline development, including discussions of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic trials, spectrum of activity and preclinical data, early clinical trials, phase III clinical trials, and an integrated safety summary.

Eravacycline: The Tetracyclines Strike Back.

Objective: To review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, and place in therapy of eravacycline, a novel fluorocycline antibiotic from the tetracycline family. Data Sources: A PubMed search was conducted for data between 1946 and March 2019 using MeSH terms eravacycline and TP-434. An internet search was conducted for unpublished clinical research. Study Selection and Data Extraction: The literature search was limited to English-language studies that described clinical efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics in humans and animals. Abstracts featuring prepublished data were also evaluated for inclusion. Data Synthesis: Eravacycline has in vitro activity against multidrug-resistant organisms, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, and Acinetobacter. It was approved for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) in adults following favorable results of 2 phase III trials, IGNITE 1 and IGNITE 4, compared with ertapenem and meropenem, respectively. The most common adverse drug events associated with eravacycline were infusion site reactions (7.7%), nausea (6.5%), vomiting (3.7%), and diarrhea (2.3%). Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Eravacycline will likely be most useful for resistant infections when lack of tolerability, resistant phenotypes, or allergies prevent the use of ß-lactams. Conclusions: Eravacycline is a new tetracycline antibiotic with a broad spectrum of activity that has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of cIAIs. Although it has activity against multidrug-resistant organisms, data are limited for other indications.

Multicenter Study of Outcomes with Ceftazidime-Avibactam in Patients with Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Infections.

Ceftazidime-avibactam is a novel cephalosporin-beta-lactamase inhibitor combination that is active against many carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE). We describe a retrospective chart review for 60 patients who received ceftazidime-avibactam for a CRE infection. In-hospital mortality was 32%, 53% of patients had microbiological cure, and 65% had clinical success. In this severely ill population with CRE infections, ceftazidime-avibactam was an appropriate option.

Ertapenem-Containing Double-Carbapenem Therapy for Treatment of Infections Caused by Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae.

We describe outcomes of patients with infections with carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) who received ertapenem-containing double-carbapenem therapy (ECDCT). Clinical success was observed in 7/18 (39%) patients overall: bloodstream infections, 3/7 (43%); pneumonia, 1/5 (20%); intraabdominal infections, 0/2 (0%); urinary tract infections, 2/3 (67%); and a skin and skin structure infection, 1/1 (100%). Microbiologic success was observed in 11/14 (79%) evaluable patients; 5/18 (28%) patients died. ECDCT may be effective for CRKP infections with limited treatment options.

Clinical and economic benefits of fidaxomicin compared to vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection.

We studied the clinical and economic impact of a protocol encouraging the use of fidaxomicin as a first-line drug for treatment of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in patients hospitalized during a 2-year period. This study evaluated patients who received oral vancomycin or fidaxomicin for the treatment of CDI during a 2-year period. All included patients were eligible for administration of fidaxomicin via a protocol that encouraged its use for selected patients. The primary clinical endpoint was 90-day readmission with a diagnosis of CDI. Hospital charges and insurance reimbursements for readmissions were calculated along with the cost of CDI therapy to estimate the financial impact of the choice of therapy. Recurrences were seen in 10/49 (20.4%) fidaxomicin patients and 19/46 (41.3%) vancomycin patients (P = 0.027). In a multivariate analysis that included determinations of severity of CDI, serum creatinine increases, and concomitant antibiotic use, only fidaxomicin was significantly associated with decreased recurrence (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12 to 0.93). The total lengths of stay of readmitted patients were 183 days for vancomycin and 87 days for fidaxomicin, with costs of $454,800 and $196,200, respectively. Readmissions for CDI were reimbursed on the basis of the severity of CDI, totaling $151,136 for vancomycin and $107,176 for fidaxomicin. Fidaxomicin drug costs totaled $62,112, and vancomycin drug costs were $6,646. We calculated that the hospital lost an average of $3,286 per fidaxomicin-treated patient and $6,333 per vancomycin-treated patient, thus saving $3,047 per patient with fidaxomicin. Fidaxomicin use for CDI treatment prevented readmission and decreased hospital costs compared to use of oral vancomycin.

Vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bacteremia pharmacotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on the pharmacotherapy of bloodstream infections (BSI) caused by vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). DATA SOURCES: A MEDLINE literature search was performed for the period 1946 to May 2014 using the search terms Enterococcus, enterococci, vancomycin-resistant, VRE, bacteremia, and bloodstream infection. References were also identified from selected review articles. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: English-language case series, cohort studies, and meta-analyses assessing the options in the pharmacotherapy of VRE BSIs in adult patients were evaluated. DATA SYNTHESIS: Studies were identified that utilized linezolid, quinupristin/dalfopristin (Q/D), and daptomycin. In all, 8 comparative retrospective cohort studies, 2 meta-analyses of daptomycin and linezolid, and 3 retrospective comparisons of linezolid and Q/D were included for review. Mortality associated with VRE BSIs was high across studies, and the ability to determine differences in outcomes between agents was confounded by the complex nature of the patients included. Two meta-analyses comparing daptomycin with linezolid for VRE BSIs found modest advantages for linezolid, but these conclusions may be hampered by heterogeneity within the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: VRE BSIs remain a difficult-to-treat clinical situation. Differences in toxicity between the agents used to treat it are clear, but therapeutic differences are more difficult to discern. Meta-analyses suggest that a moderate advantage for linezolid over daptomycin may exist, but problems with the nature of studies that they included make definitive conclusions difficult.

ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combinations: from then to now.

OBJECTIVE: To review the available evidence regarding the utility of the currently available ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combinations (BLICs) as well as the emerging body of data for the novel agents in the pipeline. DATA SOURCES: A MEDLINE literature search (1960-August 2014) was performed using the search terms ß-lactamase, ß-lactamase inhibitor, clavulanate, sulbactam, tazobactam, avibactam, NXL104, MK-7655, and RPX7009. Current studies focusing on new agents were obtained from clinicaltrials.gov. Additional references were identified from a review of literature citations and meeting abstracts. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All English-language studies pertaining to BLICs were evaluated. DATA SYNTHESIS: Historical clinical and in vitro data focusing on the characteristics of the conventional BLICs are reviewed. Avibactam, relebactam (formerly MK-7655), and RPX7009 are new ß-lactamase inhibitors that are being studied in combination with ß-lactams. Clinical and in vitro data that provide support for their use for multidrug-resistant organisms are reviewed. ß-Lactam antibiotics are a mainstay for the treatment of many infections. The addition of ß-lactamase inhibitors enhances their activity against organisms that produce ß-lactamases; however, organisms that produce extended-spectrum ß-lactamases, AmpC ß-lactamases, and carbapenemases are proliferating. The BLICs (amoxicillin/clavulanate, ticarcillin/clavulanate, ampicillin/sulbactam, and piperacillin/tazobactam) lack activity against some of these enzymes, presenting a critical need for new antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: The historical BLICs are useful for many infections; however, evolving resistance limits their use. The new BLICs (combinations with avibactam, relebactam, and RPX7009) may be valuable options for patients infected with multidrug-resistant organisms.

Knowledge and attitudes of doctor of pharmacy students regarding the appropriate use of antimicrobials.

Pharmacists are key partners in antimicrobial stewardship efforts, yet their degree of education on and attitudes toward this topic during training are not well documented. An electronic survey measuring knowledge and attitudes regarding antimicrobial use and resistance was administered to graduating pharmacy students at 12 US schools of pharmacy. Of 1445 pharmacy students, 579 (40%) completed the survey. The vast majority (94%) believed that strong knowledge of antimicrobials was important for their pharmacy careers, and 89% desired more education on appropriate antimicrobial use. Most students (84%) considered their pharmacy education regarding antimicrobials useful or very useful, but there was significant variability on perceptions of preparation for most antimicrobial stewardship activities according to the students' school. The mean number of correct answers on a section of 11 knowledge questions was 5.8 (standard deviation 2.0; P value for score between schools <.001). On multivariable linear regression analysis, significant predictors of a higher knowledge score were pharmacy school attended, planned postgraduate training, completion of a clinical rotation in infectious diseases, perception of pharmacy school education as useful, use of resources to answer the knowledge questions, and use of Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines and smartphone applications as frequent resources for learning about antimicrobials. Pharmacy students perceive antimicrobial stewardship to be an important healthcare issue and desire more education on the subject. Student perceptions of antimicrobial coursework and actual antimicrobial knowledge scores significantly varied by the school of pharmacy attended. Sharing of best practices among institutions may enhance the preparation of future pharmacists to contribute to effective antimicrobial stewardship.

Case-case-control study of patients with carbapenem-resistant and third-generation-cephalosporin-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infections.

Strains of third-generation-cephalosporin-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (3GCRKP) and carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae (CRKP) are rapidly spreading. Evidence is needed to establish whether differences exist between patients at risk for 3GCRKP and those at risk for CRKP bloodstream infections (BSIs); thus, this retrospective case-case-control study was conducted to determine if the risk factors for these two infections differ. The inclusion criteria for cases were positive blood cultures for K. pneumoniae, first episode of BSI, age of ≥18 years, and susceptibility results indicating resistance to either third-generation cephalosporins (3GCRKP group) or carbapenems and cephalosporins (CRKP group). Controls were patients admitted for ≥72 h and were matched to cases by month/year and medical unit. Variables of interest were analyzed by univariate analysis, and those of significance were analyzed by logistic regression. In total, 111 patients with 3GCRKP BSIs and 43 patients with CRKP BSIs were matched to 154 controls. Multivariate analyses of 3GCRKP case and control groups demonstrated that a length of stay (LOS) of >40 days (odds ratio [OR], 17.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.7 to 84.3), the use of antibiotics in the past 90 days (OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.5 to 11.9), and the presence of a central venous catheter (OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.3 to 13.4) were independent risk factors. Multivariate analyses of the CRKP case and control groups demonstrated that a LOS of >40 days (OR, 13.5; 95% CI, 2.9 to 62.8) and the use of antibiotics in the past 90 days (OR, 5.9; 95% CI, 1.3 to 26.5) were independent risk factors. Similar factors put patients at risk for these two types of K. pneumoniae BSIs.

Improving antibiotic utilization through an outpatient stewardship initiative.

Antibiotic prescribing errors at hospital discharge are common. We designed a pharmacist-driven antimicrobial stewardship program to evaluate prescriptions prior to being transmitted to community pharmacies. Drug-related problems were identified in prescriptions for 48 of 149 patients, resulting in 55 interventions. Review at discharge improves outpatient prescribing of antimicrobials.