Clinical evaluation of the BioFire Respiratory Pathogen Panel for the guidance of empirical antimicrobial therapy in critically ill patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia: A multicenter, quality improvement project.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine whether implementing antimicrobial stewardship based on multiplex bacterial PCR examination of respiratory fluid can enhance outcomes of critically ill patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP). METHODS: We conducted a quality improvement study in two hospitals in France. Adult patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation with a diagnosis of HAP were included. In the pre-intervention period (August 2019 to April 2020), antimicrobial therapy followed European guidelines. In the «intervention¼ phase (June 2020 to October 2021), treatment followed a multiplex PCR-guided protocol. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint made of mortality on day 28, clinical cure between days 7 and 10, and duration of invasive mechanical ventilation on day 28. The primary outcome was analyzed with a DOOR strategy. RESULTS: A total of 443 patients were included in 3 ICUs from 2 hospitals (220 pre-intervention; 223 intervention). No difference in the ranking of the primary composite outcome was found (DOOR: 50.3%; 95%CI, 49.9%-50.8%). The number of invasive mechanical ventilation-free days at day 28 was 10.0 [0.0; 19.0] in the baseline period and 9.0 [0.0; 20.0] days during the intervention period (p = 0.95). The time-to-efficient antimicrobial treatment was 0.43 ± 1.29 days before versus 0.55 ± 1.13 days after the intervention (p = 0.56). CONCLUSION: Implementation of Rapid Multiplex PCR to guide empirical antimicrobial therapy for critically ill patients with HAP was not associated with better outcomes. However, adherence to stewardship was low, and the study may have had limited power to detect a clinically important difference.

Molecular pharmacodynamics of meropenem for nosocomial pneumonia caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, commonly caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Meropenem is a commonly used therapeutic agent, although emergent resistance occurs during treatment. We used a rabbit HAP infection model to assess the bacterial kill and resistance pharmacodynamics of meropenem. Meropenem 5 mg/kg administered subcutaneously (s.c.) q8h (±amikacin 3.33-5 mg/kg q8h administered intravenously[i.v.]) or meropenem 30 mg/kg s.c. q8h regimens were assessed in a rabbit lung infection model infected with P. aeruginosa, with bacterial quantification and phenotypic/genotypic characterization of emergent resistant isolates. The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic output was fitted to a mathematical model, and human-like regimens were simulated to predict outcomes in a clinical context. Increasing meropenem monotherapy demonstrated a dose-response effect to bacterial kill and an inverted U relationship with emergent resistance. The addition of amikacin to meropenem suppressed the emergence of resistance. A network of porin loss, efflux upregulation, and increased expression of AmpC was identified as the mechanism of this emergent resistance. A bridging simulation using human pharmacokinetics identified meropenem 2 g i.v. q8h as the licensed clinical regimen most likely to suppress resistance. We demonstrate an innovative experimental platform to phenotypically and genotypically characterize bacterial emergent resistance pharmacodynamics in HAP. For meropenem, we have demonstrated the risk of resistance emergence during therapy and identified two mitigating strategies: (i) regimen intensification and (ii) use of combination therapy. This platform will allow pre-clinical assessment of emergent resistance risk during treatment of HAP for other antimicrobials, to allow construction of clinical regimens that mitigate this risk.IMPORTANCEThe emergence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) during antimicrobial treatment for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is a well-documented problem (particularly in pneumonia caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa) that contributes to the wider global antimicrobial resistance crisis. During drug development, regimens are typically determined by their sufficiency to achieve bactericidal effect. Prevention of the emergence of resistance pharmacodynamics is usually not characterized or used to determine the regimen. The innovative experimental platform described here allows characterization of the emergence of AMR during the treatment of HAP and the development of strategies to mitigate this. We have demonstrated this specifically for meropenem-a broad-spectrum antibiotic commonly used to treat HAP. We have characterized the antimicrobial resistance pharmacodynamics of meropenem when used to treat HAP, caused by initially meropenem-susceptible P. aeruginosa, phenotypically and genotypically. We have also shown that intensifying the regimen and using combination therapy are both strategies that can both treat HAP and suppress the emergence of resistance.

Single-drug versus combination antimicrobial therapy in critically ill patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia due to Gram-negative pathogens: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.

KEY MESSAGES: In this study including 391 critically ill patients with nosocomial pneumonia due to Gram-negative pathogens, combination therapy was not associated with a reduced hazard of death at Day 28 or a greater likelihood of clinical cure at Day 14. No over-risk of AKI was observed in patients receiving combination therapy. BACKGROUND: The benefits and harms of combination antimicrobial therapy remain controversial in critically ill patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), ventilated HAP (vHAP) or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) involving Gram-negative bacteria. METHODS: We included all patients in the prospective multicenter OutcomeRea database with a first HAP, vHAP or VAP due to a single Gram-negative bacterium and treated with initial adequate single-drug or combination therapy. The primary endpoint was Day-28 all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were clinical cure rate at Day 14 and a composite outcome of death or treatment-emergent acute kidney injury (AKI) at Day 7. The average effects of combination therapy on the study endpoints were investigated through inverse probability of treatment-weighted regression and multivariable regression models. Subgroups analyses were performed according to the resistance phenotype of the causative pathogens (multidrug-resistant or not), the pivotal (carbapenems or others) and companion (aminoglycosides/polymyxins or others) drug classes, the duration of combination therapy (< 3 or ≥ 3 days), the SOFA score value at pneumonia onset (< 7 or ≥ 7 points), and in patients with pneumonia due to non-fermenting Gram-negative bacteria, pneumonia-related bloodstream infection, or septic shock. RESULTS: Among the 391 included patients, 151 (38.6%) received single-drug therapy and 240 (61.4%) received combination therapy. VAP (overall, 67.3%), vHAP (16.4%) and HAP (16.4%) were equally distributed in the two groups. All-cause mortality rates at Day 28 (overall, 31.2%), clinical cure rate at Day 14 (43.7%) and the rate of death or AKI at Day 7 (41.2%) did not significantly differ between the groups. In inverse probability of treatment-weighted analyses, combination therapy was not independently associated with the likelihood of all-cause death at Day 28 (adjusted odd ratio [aOR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-1.77; P = 0.56), clinical cure at Day 14 (aOR, 0.79; 95% CI 0.53-1.20; P = 0.27) or death or AKI at Day 7 (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI 0.71-1.63; P = 0.73). Multivariable regression models and subgroup analyses provided similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Initial combination therapy exerts no independent impact on Day-28 mortality, clinical cure rate at Day 14, and the hazard of death or AKI at Day 7 in critically ill patients with mono-bacterial HAP, vHAP or VAP due to Gram-negative bacteria.

Which trial do we need? Combination antimicrobial therapy for hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Meropenem therapy will be open-label, while tobramycin or placebo will be administered in a double-blind fashion. The primary trial endpoint will be a composite hierarchical outcome of 1) 28-day all-cause mortality, 2) ventilator-free days, and 3) modified time to clinical stability, evaluated using a win ratio methodology (see below). Secondary trial outcomes will include frequency of safety events (acute kidney injury), resolution of circulatory shock, recurrent HABP, and emergence of meropenem resistance both during treatment and in cases of recurrent infection. Using simulation studies to inform sample size calculations, we estimate that recruitment of 130 patients per treatment arm would provide at least 80% power to detect a win ratio of 1.50 while preserving a two-sided type 1 error rate of 0.05.

Efficacy of combination therapy with standard-dose carbapenem for treating nosocomial pneumonia caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in intensive care units: A multicentre retrospective propensity score-matched study.

Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) infection is common worldwide. Despite carbapenem resistance, standard-dose carbapenems are still used in clinical practice. Hence in this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and outcomes of a regimen containing standard-dose carbapenems with those of a regimen lacking carbapenems during the treatment of critically ill patients with CRAB nosocomial pneumonia in the intensive care unit (ICU). Initially, 735 patients were recruited for this multicentre retrospective cohort study. After exclusion, time-window bias adjustment, and propensity score matching, multiple clinical outcomes were compared between the carbapenem-containing (CC) (n = 166) and no carbapenem-containing (NCC) (n = 166) groups. The CC group showed a higher risk of clinical failure on day 7 than the NCC group (44.6% vs. 33.1%, P = 0.043). The lengths of ICU stay (21 and 16 days, P = 0.024) and hospital stay (61 and 44 days, P = 0.003) were longer in the CC group than in the NCC group. Multivariate analysis showed that the CC regimen was associated with higher clinical failure (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.05-2.56, P = 0.031) and lower microbiological eradication (aOR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.23-1.00, P = 0.049) at day 7 than the NCC group. Thus, a regimen containing a standard dose of carbapenem should be prescribed with caution for treating CRAB nosocomial pneumonia in the ICU.

Moving Beyond Mortality: Development and Application of a Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) Endpoint for Hospital-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) are frequently caused by multidrug-resistant organisms. Patient-centered endpoints in clinical trials are needed to develop new antibiotics for HABP/VABP. Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is a paradigm for the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials based on a patient-centered, benefit-risk evaluation. METHODS: A multidisciplinary committee created an infectious diseases DOOR endpoint customized for HABP/VABP, incorporating infectious complications, serious adverse events, and mortality. We applied this to 2 previously completed, large randomized controlled trials for HABP/VABP. ZEPHyR compared vancomycin to linezolid and VITAL compared linezolid to tedizolid. For each trial, we evaluated the DOOR distribution and probability, including DOOR component and partial credit analyses. We also applied DOOR in subgroup analyses. RESULTS: In both trials, the HABP/VABP DOOR demonstrated similar overall clinical outcomes between treatment groups. In ZEPHyR, the probability that a participant treated with linezolid would have a more desirable outcome than a participant treated with vancomycin was 50.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45.1%--55.3%). In VITAL, the probability that a participant treated with tedizolid would have a more desirable outcome than a participant treated with linezolid was 48.7% (95% CI, 44.8%-52.6%). The DOOR component analysis revealed that participants treated with tedizolid had a less desirable outcome than those treated with linezolid when considering clinical response alone. However, participants with decreased renal function had improved overall outcomes with tedizolid. CONCLUSIONS: The HABP/VABP DOOR provided more granular information about clinical outcomes than is typically presented in clinical trials. HABP/VABP trials would benefit from prospectively using DOOR.

[Diagnosis and antibiotic therapy of nosocomial pneumonia in adults: from recommendations to real practice. A review].

Nosocomial pneumonia is a healthcare-associated infection with significant consequences for the patient and the healthcare system. The efficacy of treatment significantly depends on the timeliness and adequacy of the antibiotic therapy regimen. The growth of resistance of gram-negative pathogens of nosocomial pneumonia to antimicrobial agents increases the risk of prescribing inadequate empirical therapy, which worsens the results of patient treatment. Identification of risk factors for infection with multidrug-resistant microorganisms, careful local microbiological monitoring with detection of resistance mechanisms, implementation of antimicrobial therapy control strategy and use of rational combinations of antibacterial drugs are of great importance. In addition, the importance of using new drugs with activity against carbapenem-resistant strains, including ceftazidime/aviabactam, must be understood. This review outlines the current data on the etiology, features of diagnosis and antibacterial therapy of nosocomial pneumonia.

Nosocomial pneumonia: Current etiology and impact on antimicrobial therapy.

Nosocomial pneumonia is an infection with high clinical impact and high morbimortality in which Pseudomonas aeruginosa plays a priority role, especially in the critically ill patient. Conventional antipseudomonal treatments, historically considered as standard, are currently facing important challenges due to the increase of antimicrobial resistance. In recent years, new antimicrobials have been developed with attractive sensitivity profiles and remarkable efficacy in clinical scenarios of nosocomial pneumonia including bacteremia, mechanical ventilation, infections with multidrug-resistant organisms or situations of therapeutic failure. This new evidence underscores the need to update current clinical guidelines for the antimicrobial treatment of nosocomial pneumonia, especially in the most critically ill patients.

In vitro activity of ceftobiprole and dalbavancin against a collection of coagulase-negative staphylococci isolates from clinical samples with reduced susceptibility to daptomycin and/or resistant to linezolid or glycopeptides / Evaluación de la actividad in vitro de ceftobiprol y dalbavancina frente a estafilococos coagulasa negativos con sensibilidad disminuida a daptomicina y/o resistentes a linezolid o glucopéptidos aislados de muestras clínicas

Introduction:The aim was to investigate the in vitro activity of ceftobiprole and dalbavancin against a collection of coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) isolates with reduced susceptibility to daptomycin or resistant to linezolid and/or glycopeptides. Methods: A total of 228 CoNS were tested using the Vitek-2 AST-626 cards (bioMérieux) and MIC of daptomycin, linezolid, vancomycin and teicoplanin were confirmed by Etest Strips (bioMérieux). Susceptibility testing for ceftobiprole and dalbavancin were performed by CLSI broth microdilution methodology. Results were interpreted according to 2021 EUCAST clinical breakpoints. Results: Ceftobiprole and dalbavancin were active against 96.0% and 93.0% of CoNS, respectively, MIC90 were 2 and 0.125mg/L. MICs of ceptobiprole were higher against S. hominis and S. haemolyticus (MIC90 4mg/L). Dalbavancin exhibited higher MICs against S. haemolyticus and CoNS with reduced susceptibility to daptomycin and resistant to teicoplanin. Conclusion: Ceftobiprole and dalbavancin demonstrated a high in vitro activity against our collection of CoNS isolates.(AU)

Introducción: El objetivo fue evaluar la actividad in vitro de dalbavancina y ceftobiprol frente a estafilococos coagulasa negativos (ECN) con sensibilidad disminuida a daptomicina y/o resistentes a linezolid o glucopéptidos. Métodos: Se testó la sensibilidad de 228 ECN con tarjetas VITEK®2 AST-626 (bioMérieux) y las CMI de daptomicina, linezolid, vancomicina y teicoplanina fueron confirmadas con tiras Etest® (bioMérieux). El ensayo de sensibilidad frente a ceftobiprol y dalbavancina se realizó mediante microdilución en caldo (metodología CLSI). Los resultados se interpretaron siguiendo los puntos de corte de EUCAST 2021. Resultados: Ceftobiprol y dalbavancina fueron activos en el 96,0 y 93% de ECN, las CMI90 fueron 2 y 0,125mg/L, respectivamente. Las CMI de ceftobiprol fueron superiores en Staphylococcus hominis y Staphylococcus haemolyticus (CMI90 4mg/L). Dalbavancina exhibió mayores CMI en S. haemolyticus y en ECN con sensibilidad disminuida a daptomicina o resistentes a teicoplanina. Conclusión: Ceftobiprol y dalbavancina han demostrado una potente actividad in vitro frente a esta colección de ECN.(AU)

Comparative study of the etiology of nosocomial bacteremic pneumonia in ventilated and non-ventilated patients: a 10-year experience in an institution.

IMPORTANCE: This study on bacteremic nosocomial pneumonia (bNP) demonstrates the importance of this condition both in patients undergoing and not undergoing mechanical ventilation. Staphylococcus aureus, Enterobacterales, and non-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli are all causative agents in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), with a predominance of S. aureus in HAP and of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in VAP. Mortality in this condition is very high. Therefore, new therapeutic and preventive approaches should be sought.

Comparative efficacy and safety of non-polymyxin antibiotics against nosocomial pneumonia, complicated intra-abdominal infection, or complicated urinary tract infection: A network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: The increasing epidemic of infections caused by drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria has led to the development of several antibiotic therapies. Owing to the scarcity of head-to-head comparisons of current and emerging antibiotics, the present network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of antibiotics in patients with nosocomial pneumonia, complicated intra-abdominal infection, or complicated urinary tract infection. METHODS: Two independent researchers systematically searched databases up to August 2022 and included 26 randomised controlled trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The protocol was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO (CRD42021237798). The frequentist random effects model (R version 3.5.1, netmeta package) was utilized. The DerSimonian-Laird random effects model was used to estimate heterogeneity. The calculated P-score was applied to rank the interventions. Additionally, inconsistencies, publication bias, and subgroup effects were assessed in the present study to avoid bias. RESULTS: There was no significant difference among included antibiotics in terms of clinical response and mortality, probably because most antibiotic trials were designed to be non-inferior. In terms of P-score ranking, carbapenems may be the recommended choice considering both adverse events and clinical responses. On the other hand, for carbapenem-sparing options, ceftolozane-tazobactam was the preferred antibiotic for nosocomial pneumonia; eravacycline, for complicated intra-abdominal infection; and cefiderocol, for complicated urinary tract infection. CONCLUSION: Carbapenems may be preferable options in terms of safety and efficacy for the treatment of Gram-negative bacterial complicated infections. However, to preserve the effectiveness of carbapenems, it is important to consider carbapenem-sparing regimens.

Changes in the prevalence of pathogens causing hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and the impact of their antimicrobial resistance patterns on clinical outcomes: A propensity-score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate changes in the prevalence of pathogens causing hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and their antimicrobial resistance patterns in recent years, and to identify risk factors for 28-day all-cause mortality (ACM) in patients with HABP. METHODS: A propensity-score-matched study was performed by randomly allocating patients with ventilator-associated and non-ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia admitted to two university hospitals between 2011 and 2021. RESULTS: In total, 17,250 patients with HABP were enrolled. The annual incidence of Staphylococcus aureus HABP decreased during the study period, while that of Klebsiella pneumoniae HABP increased significantly each year. Over the same period, the resistance rate of S. aureus to methicillin decreased from 88.4% to 64.4%, while the non-susceptibility rate of K. pneumoniae to carbapenems increased from 0% to 38%. HABP caused by A. baumannii [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-1.79], K. pneumoniae (aOR 1.28, 95% CI 1.16-1.40) and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (aOR 1.32, 95% CI 1.05-1.66) was a risk factor for 28-day ACM. Patients with HABP caused by methicillin-resistant S. aureus and carbapenem-non-susceptible A. baumannii or K. pneumoniae had a significantly lower probability of survival. HABP with preceding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was associated with high 28-day ACM (aOR 5.40, 955 CI 3.03-9.64) and high incidence of bacteraemic pneumonia (aOR 40.55, 95% CI 5.26-312.79). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed shifting trends in HABP-causing pathogens in terms of annual incidence and resistance rates to major therapeutic antimicrobial agents. HABP-causing bacterial pathogens, their antimicrobial resistance phenotypes, and preceding COVID-19 were significantly associated with progression of HABP to bloodstream infection and 28-day ACM in infected patients.

Clinical outcomes and safety of intravenous polymyxin B-based treatment in critically ill patients with carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii nosocomial pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES: Polymyxin B (PMB)-based therapy is one of the most important treatments for patients with nosocomial pneumonia caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB). However, the optimal PMB-based combination regimen has not been well documented. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 111 critically ill patients in the intensive care unit with CRAB nosocomial pneumonia who received intravenous PMB-based therapy between 1 January 2018 and 1 June 2022 were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to explore risk factors for mortality in the enrolled patients treated with PMB-based regimens and the three most frequent combination regimens. RESULTS: PMB + sulbactam (SB) regimen was significantly associated with a decreased risk of mortality (aHR = 0.10, 95% CI 0.03-0.39; P = 0.001). The proportion of low-dose PMB in PMB + SB regimen (79.2%) was higher than in PMB + carbapenem (61.9%) or tigecycline (50.0%) regimens. In contrast, PMB + carbapenem regimen significantly increased mortality (aHR = 3.27, 95% CI 1.47-7.27; P = 0.004). Although the proportion of high-dose PMB in PMB + tigecycline (17.9%) was higher than in the other two regimens, mortality remained highest (42.9%) and serum creatinine increased significantly. CONCLUSIONS: PMB in combination with SB may be a promising treatment option for patients with CRAB-induced nosocomial pneumonia, as mortality was significantly reduced with low-dose PMB and no increased risk of nephrotoxicity was observed.

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.

Optimizing antibiotic dosing regimens for nosocomial pneumonia: a window of opportunity for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling.

INTRODUCTION: Determining antibiotic exposure in the lung and the threshold(s) needed for effective antibacterial killing is paramount during development of new antibiotics for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia, as these exposures directly affect clinical outcomes and resistance development. The use of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling is recommended by regulatory agencies to evaluate antibiotic pulmonary exposure and optimize dosage regimen selection. This process has been implemented in newer antibiotic development. AREAS COVERED: This review will discuss the basis for conducting pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies to support dosage regimen selection and optimization for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data that supported recent hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia indications for ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftazidime/avibactam, imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam, and cefiderocol will be reviewed. EXPERT OPINION: Optimal drug development requires the integration of preclinical pharmacodynamic studies, healthy volunteers and ideally patient bronchoalveolar lavage pharmacokinetic studies, Monte-Carlo simulation, and clinical trials. Currently, plasma exposure has been successfully used as a surrogate for lung exposure threshold. Future studies are needed to identify the value of lung pharmacodynamic thresholds in nosocomial pneumonia antibiotic dosage optimization.

Evaluation of efficacy and safety of lascufloxacin for nursing and healthcare associated pneumonia: single-arm, open-label clinical trial: A study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Lascufloxacin hydrochloride (LSFX) is a quinolone antibiotic that inhibits DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV of bacteria, it is anticipated to minimize antibiotic resistance in bacteria. It exhibits antibacterial activity against a relatively wide range of bacterial species, including anaerobic bacteria, and its efficacy and safety against community-acquired pneumonia have been shown; however, its efficacy and safety against nursing and healthcare associated pneumonia (NHCAP) have not been verified. METHODS/DESIGN: Here, a single-arm, open-label, uncontrolled study was conducted in which LSFX was administered to patients with NHCAP at 24 facilities. The research subjects (77 cases) were orally administered 75 mg of LSFX once a day for 7 days. The primary endpoint was the clinical efficacy at the time of test of cure (TOC) (TOC; 5-10 days after the end of LSFX administration), while the secondary endpoints were the efficacy at the time of end of treatment, early clinical efficacy, microbiological efficacy at the time of TOC and end of treatment, and safety evaluation of LSFX. DISCUSSION: NHCAP is a common pneumonia in clinical settings and a notable pneumonia whose mortality is high compared to community-acquired pneumonia. The present study showed the efficacy and safety of LSFX against NHCAP, which could lead to a larger number of therapeutic options for NHCAP.

A 600 mg of fixed-dose linezolid in renally impaired patients versus 15 mg/kg intermittent dose-optimized vancomycin in renally non-impaired patients: A single centre retrospective analysis for adult patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

OBJECTIVES: Both linezolid and vancomycin are approved by USFDA and IDSA guidelines for the management of nosocomial pneumonia due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in clinical practice. Baseline creatinine clearance is the criterion for prescribing vancomycin or linezolid for hospital-acquired pneumonia in our institution. However, patients with renal function impairment are far more difficult to manage in intensive care. Thus, the objectives of the study were to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of 600 mg of fixed-dose linezolid with intermittent dose-optimised vancomycin in hospital-acquired pneumonia due to MRSA and to evaluate parameters of clinical cure. METHODS: Analysis of a review of patients' charts. Patients with creatinine clearance <80 ml/min received 600 mg linezolid/12 h (n = 139, LN cohort), and patients with creatinine clearance ≥80 ml/min received intravenous 15 mg/kg vancomycin/12 h for 1-2 weeks consecutively or 3 weeks in case of bacteremia (n = 152, VC cohort) for management of hospital-acquired pneumonia due to MRSA. RESULTS: A 59% of patients from the LN cohort and 47% of patients from the VC cohort were clinically cured. Administration of systemic steroids (p = 0.0412) and ≥ 80 ml/min creatinine clearance (p = 0.0498) were the independent parameters for the clinical cure of patients. Nephrotoxicity was higher among patients of the VC cohort than the LN cohort (p = 0.0464). Treatment failed in 41% of patients from the LN cohort and in 53% of patients from the VC cohort (p = 0.0200). CONCLUSIONS: A 600 mg of fixed-dose linezolid is an ideal alternative to intermittent dose-optimised vancomycin for better clinical outcomes for patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia due to MRSA, especially for patients with renal impairment.

In vivo pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic evaluation of cefepime/taniborbactam combination against cefepime-non-susceptible Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a murine pneumonia model.

BACKGROUND: Cefepime/taniborbactam is a cephalosporin/bicyclic boronate ß-lactamase inhibitor combination in clinical development for nosocomial pneumonia due to MDR Gram-negative bacteria. A murine pneumonia model was used to characterize cefepime/taniborbactam in vivo pharmacodynamics against Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains. METHODS: Clinical cefepime-non-susceptible Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa strains expressing serine carbapenemases and/or other cefepime-hydrolysing ß-lactamases with cefepime/taniborbactam combination MICs of 0.12-16 mg/L were used. Cefepime and taniborbactam human-simulated regimens equivalent to clinical doses (i.e. 2/0.5 g q8h) were established in the pneumonia model. The in vivo activity of the cefepime human-simulated regimen given alone or concomitantly with escalating taniborbactam exposures against eight Enterobacterales and four P. aeruginosa strains was assessed. Taniborbactam pharmacokinetics were evaluated to determine systemic exposures of regimens used; taniborbactam fAUC0-24/MIC values required for efficacy were estimated using the Hill equation. In addition, the in vivo activity of the cefepime/taniborbactam combination human-simulated regimen was assessed against 18 strains. RESULTS: Among Enterobacterales, median taniborbactam fAUC0-24/MIC values associated with stasis and 1 log kill were 0.96 and 4.03, respectively, while for P. aeruginosa, requirements were 1.35 and 3.02 for stasis and 1 log kill, respectively. The cefepime/taniborbactam human-simulated regimen produced >2 log kill in 14/18 strains and >1 log kill in 18/18 strains. CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime/taniborbactam produced marked in vivo bactericidal activity against cefepime-non-susceptible Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa isolates with cefepime/taniborbactam MICs up to and including 16 mg/L in the pneumonia model. Assessments of the probability of clinical attainment of the identified targets should be undertaken to support the selected cefepime/taniborbactam dose for treatment of nosocomial pneumonia.

Characteristics and local risk factors of community-acquired and health-care-associated Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia.

This study aims at identifying characteristics, risk factors and mortality of community-acquired (CAP) and health-care-associated pneumonia (HCAP) by Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus). We retrieved adults with S. aureus CAP or HCAP diagnosed by blood or pleural effusion culture in 2.6 years, and compared with those of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) CAP or HCAP diagnosed by blood or respiratory culture, or urine antigen. We found 18 patients with CAP and 9 HCAP due to S. aureus (female 33%, 66.6 ± 12.4 years-old), and 48 patients with CAP and 15 HCAP due to S pneumoniae (female 41%, 69.5 ± 17.5 years). Diabetes mellitus (52% vs. 24%, p = 0.019), hemodialysis (11% vs. 0%, p = 0.046), skin lesions (44% vs. 0%, p < 0.001), cavitary nodules (37% vs. 1.6%, p < 0.001) and pleural effusions (48% vs. 18%, p = 0.007) were more common in staphylococcal than pneumococcal group. Three patients with staphylococcal pneumonia had acute myocardial infarction. Pneumonia severity index (139 ± 52 vs. 109 ± 43, p = 0.005) and 30-day mortality (41% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.001) were higher in staphylococcal group. Multivariate analysis showed underlying disease (especially cancer and cirrhosis), risk class 4/5, altered mentality, shock and bilateral pneumonia were risk factors for 30-day mortality.

A multiplex pneumonia panel for diagnosis of hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia in the era of emerging antimicrobial resistance.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR), including multidrug (MDR) and extensively drug-resistant (XDR) bacteria, is an essential consideration in the prevention and management of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). In the AMR era, the clinical utility of the BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel Plus (BFPP) to diagnose HAP/VAP has not been thoroughly evaluated. Methods: We enrolled adult hospitalized patients with HAP or VAP at Siriraj Hospital and Saraburi Hospital from July 2019-October 2021. Respiratory samples were collected for standard microbiological assays, antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST), and the BFPP analysis. Results: Of 40 subjects, 21 were men. The median duration of HAP/VAP diagnoses was 10.5 (5, 21.5) days, and 36 endotracheal aspirate and 4 sputum samples were collected. Standard cultures isolated 54 organisms-A. baumannii (37.0%), P. aeruginosa (29.6%), and S. maltophilia (16.7%). 68.6% of Gram Negatives showed an MDR or XDR profile. BFPP detected 77 bacterial targets-A. baumannii 32.5%, P. aeruginosa 26.3%, and K. pneumoniae 17.5%. Of 28 detected AMR gene targets, CTX-M (42.5%), OXA-48-like (25%), and NDM (14.3%) were the most common. Compared with standard testing, the BFPP had an overall sensitivity of 98% (88-100%), specificity of 81% (74-87%), positive predictive value of 60% (47-71%), negative predictive value of 99% (96-100%), and kappa (κ) coefficient of 0.64 (0.53-0.75). The concordance between phenotypic AST and detected AMR genes in Enterobacterales was 0.57. There was no concordance among A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, and S. aureus. Conclusions: The BFPP has excellent diagnostic sensitivity to detect HAP/VAP etiology. The absence of S. maltophilia and discordance of AMR gene results limit the test performance.