Impact of combination therapy with aminoglycosides on the outcome of ICU-acquired bacteraemias

Multidrug-Resistant Sepsis: A Critical Healthcare Challenge

Sepsis globally accounts for an alarming annual toll of 48.9 million cases, resulting in 11 million deaths, and inflicts an economic burden of approximately USD 38 billion on the United States healthcare system. The rise of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) has elevated the urgency surrounding the management of multidrug-resistant (MDR) sepsis, evolving into a critical global health concern. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current epidemiology of (MDR) sepsis and its associated healthcare challenges, particularly in critically ill hospitalized patients. Highlighted findings demonstrated the complex nature of (MDR) sepsis pathophysiology and the resulting immune responses, which significantly hinder sepsis treatment. Studies also revealed that aging, antibiotic overuse or abuse, inadequate empiric antibiotic therapy, and underlying comorbidities contribute significantly to recurrent sepsis, thereby leading to septic shock, multi-organ failure, and ultimately immune paralysis, which all contribute to high mortality rates among sepsis patients. Moreover, studies confirmed a correlation between elevated readmission rates and an increased risk of cognitive and organ dysfunction among sepsis patients, amplifying hospital-associated costs. To mitigate the impact of sepsis burden, researchers have directed their efforts towards innovative diagnostic methods like point-of-care testing (POCT) devices for rapid, accurate, and particularly bedside detection of sepsis; however, these methods are currently limited to detecting only a few resistance biomarkers, thus warranting further exploration. Numerous interventions have also been introduced to treat MDR sepsis, including combination therapy with antibiotics from two different classes and precision therapy, which involves personalized treatment strategies tailored to individual needs. Finally, addressing MDR-associated healthcare challenges at regional levels based on local pathogen resistance patterns emerges as a critical strategy for effective sepsis treatment and minimizing adverse effects.

A narrative review on antimicrobial therapy in septic shock: updates and controversies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Antibiotics are an essential treatment for septic shock. This review provides an overview of the key issues in antimicrobial therapy for septic shock. We include a summary of available evidence with an emphasis on data published in the last few years.

RECENT FINDINGS

We examine apparently contradictory data supporting the importance of minimizing time to antimicrobial therapy in sepsis, discuss approaches to choosing appropriate antibiotics, and review the importance and challenges presented by antimicrobial dosing. Lastly, we evaluate the evolving concepts of de-escalation, and optimization of the duration of antimicrobials.

SUMMARY

The topics discussed in this review provide background to key clinical decisions in antimicrobial therapy for septic shock: timing, antibiotic choice, dosage, de-escalation, and duration. Although acknowledging some controversy, antimicrobial therapy in septic shock should be delivered early, be of the adequate spectrum, appropriately and individually dosed, rationalized when possible, and of minimal effective duration.

Combination Therapy with Aminoglycoside in Bacteremiasdue to ESBL-Producing Enterobacteriaceae in ICU

Objectives: Evaluation of the efficacy of empirical aminoglycoside in critically ill patients with bloodstream infections caused by extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-E BSI). Methods: Patients treated between 2011 and 2018 for ESBL-E BSI in the ICU of six French hospitals were included in a retrospective observational cohort study. The primary endpoint was mortality on day 30. Results: Among 307 patients, 169 (55%) were treated with empirical aminoglycoside. Death rate was 40% (43% with vs. 39% without aminoglycoside, p = 0.55). Factors independently associated with death were age ≥70 years (OR: 2.67; 95% CI: 1.09–6.54, p = 0.03), history of transplantation (OR 5.2; 95% CI: 1.4–19.35, p = 0.01), hospital acquired infection (OR 8.67; 95% CI: 1.74–43.08, p = 0.008), vasoactive drugs >48 h after BSI onset (OR 3.61; 95% CI: 1.62–8.02, p = 0.001), occurrence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR 2.42; 95% CI: 1.14–5.16, p = 0.02), or acute renal failure (OR 2.49; 95% CI: 1.14–5.47, p = 0.02). Antibiotherapy appropriateness was more frequent in the aminoglycoside group (91.7% vs. 77%, p = 0.001). Rate of renal impairment was similar in both groups (21% vs. 24%, p = 0.59). Conclusions: In intensive care unit (ICU) patients with ESBL-E BSI, empirical treatment with aminoglycoside was frequent. It demonstrated no impact on mortality, despite increasing treatment appropriateness.

Antibiotic treatment in patients with sepsis: a narrative review

Sepsis is a medical emergency and life-threatening condition due to a dysregulated host response to infection, with unacceptably high morbidity and mortality. Similar to acute myocardial infarction or cerebral vascular accident, sepsis is a severe and continuous time-dependent condition. Thus, in the case of sepsis, early and adequate administration of antimicrobials must be a priority, ideally within the first hour of diagnosis, simultaneously with organ support.As a consequence of the emergence of multidrug-resistant pathogens, the choice of antimicrobials should be performed according to the local pathogen patterns of resistance. Individual antimicrobial optimization is essential to achieve adequate concentrations of antimicrobials, to reduce adverse effects, and to ensure successful outcomes, as well as preventing the emergence of multidrug-resistant pathogens. The loading dose is the administration of an initial higher dose of antimicrobials, regardless of the presence of organ dysfunction. Further doses should be implemented according to pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of antimicrobials and should be adjusted according to the presence of renal or liver dysfunction. Extended or continuous infusion of beta-lactams and therapeutic drug monitoring can help to achieve therapeutic levels of antimicrobials. Duration and adequacy of treatment must be reviewed at regular intervals to allow effective de-escalation and administration of short courses of antimicrobials for most patients. Antimicrobial stewardship frameworks, leadership, focus on the optimal duration of treatments, de-escalation, and novel diagnostic stewardship approaches will help us to improve patients the process of care and overall quality of care.

Bacterial sepsis : Diagnostics and calculated antibiotic therapy

The mortality of patients with sepsis and septic shock is still unacceptably high. An effective calculated antibiotic treatment within 1 h of recognition of sepsis is an important target of sepsis treatment. Delays lead to an increase in mortality; therefore, structured treatment concepts form a rational foundation, taking relevant diagnostic and treatment steps into consideration. In addition to the assumed infection and individual risks of each patient, local resistance patterns and specific problem pathogens must be taken into account during the selection of anti-infective treatment. Many pathophysiologic alterations influence the pharmacokinetics (PK) of antibiotics during sepsis. The principle of standard dosing should be abandoned and replaced by an individual treatment approach with stronger weighting of the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) index of the substance groups. Although this is not yet the clinical standard, prolonged (or continuous) infusion of β‑lactam antibiotics and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) can help to achieve defined PK targets. Prolonged infusion is sufficient without TDM, but for continuous infusion, TDM is generally necessary. A further argument for individual PK/PD-oriented antibiotic approaches is the increasing number of infections due to multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens in the intensive care unit. For effective treatment, antibiotic stewardship teams (ABS teams) are becoming more established. Interdisciplinary cooperation of the ABS team with infectious disease (ID) specialists, microbiologists, and clinical pharmacists leads not only to rational administration of antibiotics, but also has a positive influence on treatment outcome. The gold standards for pathogen identification are still culture-based detection and microbiologic resistance testing for the various antibiotic groups. Despite the rapid investigation time, novel polymerase chain reaction(PCR)-based procedures for pathogen identification and resistance determination are currently only an adjunct to routine sepsis diagnostics, due to the limited number of studies, high costs, and limited availability. In complicated septic courses with multiple anti-infective therapies or recurrent sepsis, PCR-based procedures can be used in addition to treatment monitoring and diagnostics. Novel antibiotics represent potent alternatives in the treatment of MDR infections. Due to the often defined spectrum of pathogens and the practically (still) absent resistance, they are suitable for targeted treatment of severe MDR infections (therapy escalation). (Contribution available free of charge by "Free Access" [ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00101-017-0396-z ].).

An approach to antibiotic treatment in patients with sepsis

Sepsis is a medical emergency and life-threatening condition due to a dysregulated host response to infection, which is time-dependent and associated with unacceptably high mortality. Thus, when treating suspicious or confirmed cases of sepsis, clinicians must initiate broad-spectrum antimicrobials within the first hour of diagnosis. Optimizing antibiotic use is essential to ensure successful outcomes and to reduce adverse antibiotic effects, as well as preventing drug resistance. All likely pathogens involved should be considered to provide an appropriate antibiotic coverage. Clinicians must investigate on the previous risk of multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens, and the principle of individualized dosing should replace the principle of standard dosing. The loading dose is an initial higher dose of an antibiotic for all patients, yet an individualized treatment approach for further doses should be implemented according to pharmacokinetics (PK)/pharmacodynamics (PD) and the presence of renal/liver dysfunction. Extended or continuous infusion of beta-lactams and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) can help to achieve therapeutic levels of antimicrobials. Reevaluation of duration and appropriateness of treatment at regular intervals are also necessary. De-escalation and shortened courses of antimicrobials must be considered for most patients, except in some justified circumstances. Leadership, teamwork, antimicrobial stewardship (AS) frameworks, guideline’s recommendations on the optimal duration of treatments, de-escalation, and novel diagnostic stewardship approaches will help us to improve patients’ quality of care.

Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) POSITION STATEMENT: Why IDSA Did Not Endorse the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines

IDSA did not endorse the 2016 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines despite being represented in the working group that drafted the guidelines document. Leadership from the IDSA, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine had numerous amicable discussions primarily regarding the bolded, rated guidelines recommendations. Our societies had different perspectives, however, regarding the interpretation of the major studies that informed the guidelines' recommendations, thus leading us to different conclusions and different perspectives on the recommendations. IDSA consequently elected not to endorse the guidelines. IDSA nonetheless hopes to be able to continue collaborating with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign and the Society of Critical Care Medicine to resolve our differences and to develop further strategies together to prevent sepsis and septic shock as well as reduce death and disability from these conditions both nationally and globally.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Research Priorities for Sepsis and Septic Shock

OBJECTIVE

To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations.

METHODS

Each committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (Supplemental Table 1, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/CCM/D636) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroups: infection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science.

RESULTS

The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions: 1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; 2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; 3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; 4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; 5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and 6) what information identifies organ dysfunction?

CONCLUSIONS

While the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

[Bacterial sepsis : Diagnostics and calculated antibiotic therapy]

The mortality of patients with sepsis and septic shock is still unacceptably high. An effective antibiotic treatment within 1 h of recognition of sepsis is an important target of sepsis treatment. Delays lead to an increase in mortality; therefore, structured treatment concepts form a rational foundation, taking relevant diagnostic and treatment steps into consideration. In addition to the assumed focus and individual risks of each patient, local resistance patterns and specific problem pathogens must be taken into account for selection of anti-infection treatment. Many pathophysiological alterations influence the pharmacokinetics of antibiotics during sepsis. The principle of standard dosing should be abandoned and replaced by an individual treatment approach with stronger weighting of the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) index of the substance groups. Although this is not yet the clinical standard, prolonged (or continuous) infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) can help to achieve defined PK targets. Prolonged infusion is sufficient without TDM but for continuous infusion TDM is basically necessary. A further argument for individual PK/PD-oriented antibiotic approaches is the increasing number of infections due to multidrug resistant pathogens (MDR) in the intensive care unit. For effective treatment antibiotic stewardship teams (ABS team) are becoming more established. Interdisciplinary cooperation of the ABS team with infectiologists, microbiologists and clinical pharmacists leads not only to a rational administration of antibiotics but also has a positive influence on the outcome. The gold standards for pathogen detection are still culture-based detection and microbiological resistance testing for the various antibiotic groups. Despite the rapid investigation time, novel polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based procedures for pathogen identification and resistance determination, are currently only an adjunct to routine sepsis diagnostics due to the limited number of studies, high costs and limited availability. In complicated septic courses with multiple anti-infective treatment or recurrent sepsis, PCR-based procedures can be used in addition to therapy monitoring and diagnostics. Novel antibiotics represent potent alternatives in the treatment of MDR infections. Due to the often defined spectrum of pathogens and the practically absent resistance, they are suitable for targeted treatment of severe MDR infections (therapy escalation).

Surviving sepsis campaign: research priorities for sepsis and septic shock

Objective

To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock.

Design

A consensus committee of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations.

Methods

Each committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (ESM 1 - supplemental table 1) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroups: infection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science.

Results

The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions: (1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; (2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; (3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; (4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; (5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and (6) what information identifies organ dysfunction?

Conclusions

While the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-018-5175-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012."

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.

METHODS

The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable.

RESULTS

The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012".

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.

METHODS

The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable.

RESULTS

The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Attributable mortality of ICU-acquired bloodstream infections: Impact of the source, causative micro-organism, resistance profile and antimicrobial therapy

OBJECTIVES

ICU-acquired bloodstream infection (ICUBSI) in Intensive Care unit (ICU) is still associated with a high mortality rate. The increase of antimicrobial drug resistance makes its treatment increasingly challenging.

METHODS

We analyzed 571 ICU-BSI occurring amongst 10,734 patients who were prospectively included in the Outcomerea Database and who stayed at least 4 days in ICU. The hazard ratio of death associated with ICU-BSI was estimated using a multivariate Cox model adjusted on case mix, patient severity and daily SOFA.

RESULTS

ICU-BSI was associated with increased mortality (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.16-1.69; p = 0.0004). The relative increase in the risk of death was 130% (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.8-3.0) when initial antimicrobial agents within a day of ICU-BSI onset were not adequate, versus only 20% (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9-1.5) when an adequate therapy was started within a day. The adjusted hazard ratio of death was significant overall, and even higher when the ICU-BSI source was pneumonia or unknown origin. When treated with appropriate antimicrobial agents, the death risk increase was similar for ICU-BSI due to multidrug resistant pathogens or susceptible ones. Interestingly, combination therapy with a fluoroquinolone was associated with more favorable outcome than monotherapy, whereas combination with aminoglycoside was associated with similar mortality than monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

ICU-BSI was associated with a 40% increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, particularly if the early antimicrobial therapy was not adequate. Adequacy of antimicrobial therapy, but not pathogen resistance pattern, impacted attributable mortality.

Empiric antimicrobial therapy in severe sepsis and septic shock: optimizing pathogen clearance

Mortality and morbidity in severe sepsis and septic shock remain high despite significant advances in critical care. Efforts to improve outcome in septic conditions have focused on targeted, quantitative resuscitation strategies utilizing intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions to correct disease-associated circulatory dysfunction driven by immune-mediated systemic inflammation. This review explores an alternate paradigm of septic shock in which microbial burden is identified as the key driver of mortality and progression to irreversible shock. We propose that clinical outcomes in severe sepsis and septic shock hinge upon the optimized selection, dosing, and delivery of highly potent antimicrobial therapy.

An alternate pathophysiologic paradigm of sepsis and septic shock: implications for optimizing antimicrobial therapy

The advent of modern antimicrobial therapy following the discovery of penicillin during the 1940s yielded remarkable improvements in case fatality rate of serious infections including septic shock. Since then, pathogens have continuously evolved under selective antimicrobial pressure resulting in a lack of significant improvement in clinical effectiveness in the antimicrobial therapy of septic shock despite ever more broad-spectrum and potent drugs. In addition, although substantial effort and money has been expended on the development novel non-antimicrobial therapies of sepsis in the past 30 years, clinical progress in this regard has been limited. This review explores the possibility that the current pathophysiologic paradigm of septic shock fails to appropriately consider the primacy of the microbial burden of infection as the primary driver of septic organ dysfunction. An alternate paradigm is offered that suggests that has substantial implications for optimizing antimicrobial therapy in septic shock. This model of disease progression suggests the key to significant improvement in the outcome of septic shock may lie, in great part, with improvements in delivery of existing antimicrobials and other anti-infectious strategies. Recognition of the role of delays in administration of antimicrobial therapy in the poor outcomes of septic shock is central to this effort. However, therapeutic strategies that improve the degree of antimicrobial cidality likely also have a crucial role.

[Bacteremia and sepsis]

Bacteremia and sepsis are common problems in clinical practice. Bacteremia is the presence of bacteria in the blood, hence a microbiological finding. Sepsis is a clinical diagnosis needing further specification regarding focus of infection and etiologic pathogen, whereupon clinicians, epidemiologists and microbiologists apply different definitions and terminology. Knowing these differences is important when reading and interpreting the literature. Studies show a pan-European increase in the rate of bacteremia, both Gram-negative and Gram-positive. Reasons for this are an increase in invasive diagnostics and therapy, going along with increasing age of patients. Bacteremic infections are frequently healthcare related. This article illustrates recent aspects in diagnosis and therapy of sepsis and bacteremia.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of amikacin in septic patients

INTRODUCTION

Use of higher than standard doses of amikacin (AMK) has been proposed during sepsis, especially to treat less susceptible bacterial strains. However, few data are available on drug concentrations during prolonged therapy and on potential adverse events related to this strategy.

METHODS

Sixty-three critically ill patients who required AMK administration for the treatment of severe infection were included in this study. After a loading dose (LD, 18 to 30 mg/kg), the daily regimen was adapted using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of both peak (Cpeak) and trough (Cmin) concentrations. Target concentrations had to give a ratio of at least 8 between Cpeak and the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the isolated pathogen. A Cmin >5 mg/L was considered as potentially nephrotoxic. We recorded clinical and microbiological responses, the development of acute kidney injury (AKI) during therapy and ICU mortality.

RESULTS

The median AMK LD was 1500 (750 to 2400) mg, which resulted in a Cpeak/MIC ≥8 in 40 (63%) patients. Increasing the dose in the 23 patients with a Cpeak/MIC <8 resulted in optimal Cpeak/MIC in 15 of these patients (79%). In 23 patients (37%), Cmin was >5 mg/L after the LD, notably in the presence of altered renal function at the onset of therapy, needing prolongation of drug administration. Overall, only 11 patients (17%) required no dose or interval adjustment during AMK therapy. Clinical cure (32/37 (86%) vs. 16/23 (70%), P = 0.18)) and microbiological eradication (29/35 (83%) vs. 14/23 (61%), P = 0.07) were higher in patients with an initial optimal Cpeak/MIC than in the other patients. The proportion of patients with clinical cure significantly improved as the Cpeak/MIC increased (P = 0.006). Also, increased time to optimal Cpeak was associated with worse microbiological and clinical results. AKI was identified in 15 patients (24%) during AMK therapy; 12 of these patients already had altered renal function before drug administration. Survivors (n = 47) had similar initial Cpeak/MIC ratios but lower Cmin values compared to nonsurvivors.

CONCLUSIONS

TDM resulted in adjustment of AMK therapy in most of our septic patients. Early achievement of an optimal Cpeak/MIC ratio may have an impact on clinical and microbiological responses, but not on outcome. In patients with impaired renal function prior to treatment, AMK therapy may be associated with a further decline in renal function.