Efficacy of meropenem as monotherapy in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia

Efficacy and safety of antibiotics targeting Gram-negative bacteria in nosocomial pneumonia: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Multiple randomized controlled studies have compared numerous antibiotic regimens, including new, recently commercialized antibiotics in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia (NP). The objective of this Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and the safety of different antibiotic treatments for NP.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases from 2000 through 2021. The study selection included studies comparing antibiotics targeting Gram-negative bacilli in the setting of NP. The primary endpoint was 28 day mortality. Secondary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological cure and adverse events.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies encompassing 4993 patients were included in this analysis comparing 13 antibiotic regimens. The level of evidence for mortality comparisons ranged from very low to moderate. No significant difference in 28 day mortality was found among all beta-lactam regimens. Only the combination of meropenem plus aerosolized colistin was associated with a significant decrease of mortality compared to using intravenous colistin alone (OR = 0.43; 95% credible interval [0.17-0.94]), based on the results of the smallest trial included. The clinical failure rate of ceftazidime was higher than meropenem with (OR = 1.97; 95% CrI [1.19-3.45]) or without aerosolized colistin (OR = 1.40; 95% CrI [1.00-2.01]), imipemen/cilastatin/relebactam (OR = 1.74; 95% CrI [1.03-2.90]) and ceftazidime/avibactam (OR = 1.48; 95% CrI [1.02-2.20]). For microbiological cure, no substantial difference between regimens was found, but ceftolozane/tazobactam had the highest probability of being superior to comparators. In safety analyses, there was no significant difference between treatments for the occurrence of adverse events, but acute kidney failure was more common in patients receiving intravenous colistin.

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis suggests that most antibiotic regimens, including new combinations and cefiderocol, have similar efficacy and safety in treating susceptible Gram-negative bacilli in NP. Further studies are necessary for NP caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria. Registration PROSPERO CRD42021226603.

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.

Methods to appraise available evidence and adequacy of data from a systematic literature review to conduct a robust network meta-analysis of treatment options for patients with hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia

We aimed to determine if available evidence from a previously conducted systematic literature review was sufficient to conduct a robust network meta-analysis (NMA) using the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Practice Task Force NMA study questionnaire to evaluate suitability, relevance, and credibility of available randomized-controlled trials (RCT) of antibacterial therapies for treatment of patients with hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). We assessed feasibility and reliability of an NMA for a connected network of RCTs, and then relevance and credibility of the connected network for informing decision-making. This previously conducted systematic literature review using Cochrane dual-reviewer methodology, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and PICOTS (population, interventions, comparators, outcomes, timing, and setting) criteria identified 25 citations between 2001 and 2018; 18 were unique RCTs. Trial design characteristics, outcome definitions, assessment time points, and analyses populations varied across studies. Using "clinical response," an efficacy end point to health technology assessment agencies, we assessed potential network credibility, which collapsed from the overall data set to four studies and five interventions. This did not include closed loop(s) needed to assess consistency. Of the studies reporting clinical response, >70% of patients were ventilated at baseline with mean Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores from 14.7 to 17.5. Pseudomonas aeruginosa (range, 18.4-64.1%) and Klebsiella spp. (range, 1.6-49%) were the most common causative pathogens. We identified relevant RCTs for most standard-of-care agents approved for HABP/VABP, which provided a comprehensive evidence base. In summary, our appraisal of available evidence for the clinical response outcome among adult patients with HABP/VABP does not support the conduct of a scientifically robust and clinically meaningful NMA. Although this data is vital to registration, there are significant limitations in these trials for health technology assessments, payor decisions, guidelines, and protocol decisions.

Chemical pharmacotherapy for hospital-acquired pneumonia in the elderly

INTRODUCTION

Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is a potentially serious infection that primarily affects older patients. The number of patients affected by multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria is increasing, including infection from strains of Staphylococcus aureus, Enterobacteriaceae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

AREAS COVERED

This article focuses specifically on HAP, excluding patients afflicted by ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). The pathogenesis and clinical features of HAP in the elderly are discussed as well as specific drug pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations in elderly patients. The current recommended guidelines for the management of HAP are also discussed. Finally, the authors provide evidence on the empirical therapy used for the treatment of HAP and widely consider specific-pathogen treatment of HAP in elderly patients.

EXPERT OPINION

In patients not at risk of MDR organism infection, antibiotics including piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, carbapenems or fluorquinolones are recommended. However, the emergence of MDR organisms as causal agents of HAP makes it necessary to accurately assess risk factors to these pathogens and revise our knowledge on specific antimicrobial susceptibility patterns from each institution. The authors believe that broader-spectrum empiric antibiotic therapies that target P. aeruginosa and methicillin-resistant S. aureus are best recommended in elderly patients at risk of HAP infection by MDR strains.

Major publications in the critical care pharmacotherapy literature: January-December 2016

PURPOSE

To summarize select critical care pharmacotherapy guidelines and studies published in 2016.

SUMMARY

The Critical Care Pharmacotherapy Literature Update (CCPLU) Group screened 31 journals monthly for relevant pharmacotherapy articles and selected 107 articles for review over the course of 2016. Of those included in the monthly CCPLU, three guidelines and seven primary literature studies are reviewed here. The guideline updates included are as follows: hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia management, sustained neuromuscular blocking agent use, and reversal of antithrombotics in intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). The primary literature summaries evaluate the following: dexmedetomidine for delirium prevention in post-cardiac surgery, dexmedetomidine for delirium management in mechanically ventilated patients, high-dose epoetin alfa after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, ideal blood pressure targets in ICH, hydrocortisone in severe sepsis, procalcitonin-guided antibiotic de-escalation, and empiric micafungin therapy.

CONCLUSION

The review provides a synopsis of select pharmacotherapy publications in 2016 applicable to clinical practice.

Antibiotics for ventilator-associated pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, complicating the medical course of approximately 10% of mechanically-ventilated patients, with an estimated attributable mortality of 13%. To treat VAP empirically, the American Thoracic Society currently recommends antibiotic therapy based on the patients' risk of colonisation by an organism with multidrug resistance. The selection of initial antibiotic therapy in VAP is important, as inappropriate initial antimicrobial treatment is associated with higher mortality and longer hospital stay in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.While guidelines exist for the antibiotic treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) from the American Thoracic Society and the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, there are many limitations in the quality of available evidence. This systematic review aimed to summarise the results of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compare empirical antibiotic regimens for VAP.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to assess the effect of different empirical antimicrobial therapies on the survival and clinical cure of adult patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Secondary objectives included reporting the incidence of adverse events, new superinfections, length of hospital stay, and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay associated with these therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, CINAHL and Web of Science to December 2015; we searched ClinicalTrials.gov to September 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently assessed RCTs comparing empirical antibiotic treatments of VAP in adult patients, where VAP was defined as new-onset pneumonia that developed more than 48 hours after endotracheal intubation. Physicians and researchers were not required to be blinded for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted study data. We pooled studies and analysed them in two ways. We examined monotherapy, or a single experimental antimicrobial drug, versus combination therapy, or multiple experimental antimicrobial drugs. We also examined carbapenem therapy versus non-carbapenem therapy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies with 3571 participants. All included studies examined the empiric use of one antimicrobial regimen versus another for the treatment of adults with VAP, but the particular drug regimens examined by each study varied. There was potential for bias because some studies did not report outcomes for all participants. All but one study reported sources of funding or author affiliations with pharmaceutical companies.We found no statistical difference in all-cause mortality between monotherapy and combination therapy (N = 4; odds ratio (OR) monotherapy versus combination 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.30), clinical cure (N = 2; OR monotherapy versus combination 0.88, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.36), length of stay in ICU (mean difference (MD) 0.65, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.23) or adverse events (N = 2; OR monotherapy versus combination 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.26). We downgraded the quality of evidence for all-cause mortality, adverse events, and length of ICU stay to moderate for this comparison. We determined clinical cure for this comparison to be of very low-quality evidence.For our second comparison of combination therapy with optional adjunctives only one meta-analysis could be performed due to a lack of trials comparing the same antibiotic regimens. Two studies compared tigecycline versus imipenem-cilastatin for clinical cure in the clinically evaluable population and there was a statistically significant increase in clinical cure for imipenem-cilastatin (N = 2; OR tigecycline versus imipenem-cilastatin 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.84). Of importance, this effect was due to a single study.We found no statistical difference in all-cause mortality between carbapenem and non-carbapenem therapies (N = 1; OR carbapenem versus non-carbapenem 0.59, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.19) or adverse events (N = 3; OR carbapenem versus non-carbapenem 0.78, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.09), but we found that carbapenems are associated with a statistically significant increase in the clinical cure (N = 3; OR carbapenem versus non-carbapenem 1.53, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.12 for intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and N = 2; OR carbapenem versus non-carbapenem 2.29, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.43 for clinically evaluable patients analysis). For this comparison we downgraded the quality of evidence for mortality, and clinical cure (ITT and clinically evaluable populations) to moderate. We determined the quality of evidence for adverse events to be low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find a difference between monotherapy and combination therapy for the treatment of people with VAP. Since studies did not identify patients with increased risk for multidrug-resistant bacteria, these data may not be generalisable to all patient groups. However, this is the largest meta-analysis comparing monotherapy to multiple antibiotic therapies for VAP and contributes further evidence to the safety of using effective monotherapy for the empiric treatment of VAP.Due to lack of studies, we could not evaluate the best antibiotic choice for VAP, but carbapenems as a class may result in better clinical cure than other tested antibiotics.

Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society

It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.These guidelines are intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients at risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), including specialists in infectious diseases, pulmonary diseases, critical care, and surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and any clinicians and healthcare providers caring for hospitalized patients with nosocomial pneumonia. The panel's recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of HAP and VAP are based upon evidence derived from topic-specific systematic literature reviews.

The risk of seizures among the carbapenems: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

A consensus exists among clinicians that imipenem/cilastatin is the most epileptogenic carbapenem, despite inconsistencies in the literature.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing carbapenems with each other or with non-carbapenem antibiotics to assess the risk of seizures for imipenem, meropenem, ertapenem and doripenem.

RESULTS

In the risk difference (RD) analysis, there were increased patients with seizure (2 per 1000 persons, 95% CI 0.001, 0.004) among recipients of carbapenems versus non-carbapenem antibiotics. This difference was largely attributed to imipenem as its use was associated with an additional 4 patients per 1000 with seizure (95% CI 0.002, 0.007) compared with non-carbapenem antibiotics, whereas none of the other carbapenems was associated with increased seizure. Similarly, in the pooled OR analysis, carbapenems were associated with a significant increase in the risk of seizures relative to non-carbapenem comparator antibiotics (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.35, 2.59). The ORs for risk of seizures from imipenem, meropenem, ertapenem and doripenem compared with other antibiotics were 3.50 (95% CI 2.23, 5.49), 1.04 (95% CI 0.61, 1.77), 1.32 (95% CI 0.22, 7.74) and 0.44 (95% CI 0.13, 1.53), respectively. In studies directly comparing imipenem and meropenem, there was no difference in epileptogenicity in either RD or pooled OR analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The absolute risk of seizures with carbapenems was low, albeit higher than with non-carbapenem antibiotics. Although imipenem was more epileptogenic than non-carbapenem antibiotics, there was no statistically significant difference in the imipenem versus meropenem head-to-head comparison.

APPROPRIATE AND TIMELY EMPIRICAL ANTIMICROBIAL TREATMENT OF ICU INFECTIONS - A ROLE FOR CARBAPENEMS

Treatment of serious nosocomial infections in the intensive care unit requires swift, effective, well-tolerated and appropriate therapy from the outset. The consequences of inappropriate treatment, i.e. the use of antibiotics that are ineffective against the causative pathogen(s) or delayed therapy, are numerous and impact negatively upon both the patient and the ever-dwindling healthcare resources in many hospitals. Although antibiotics have revolutionised the treatment of infections, their inappropriate and untimely use within the intensive care setting has led to the emergence and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria worldwide. Consequently, to ensure successful patient outcomes (reduce morbidity and mortality), it is important that any antibiotic treatment employed is right first time. Treatment of serious infections in the intensive care unit requires an empirical stratagem providing broad-spectrum coverage to a wide range of suspected or difficult-to-treat pathogens such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa. However, to prevent the errors of the past, this needs to be tailored as soon as the pathogen has been identified and resistance patterns are known. The carbapenems are potent parenteral antibiotics, with an ultra-broad spectrum of activity that encompasses multi-drug resistant and difficult-to-treat Gram-negative bacteria. Clinical trial data supports the clinical effectiveness of these agents in patients with difficult to treat pathogens.

Beta lactam antibiotic monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside antibiotic combination therapy for sepsis

BACKGROUND

Optimal antibiotic treatment for sepsis is imperative. Combining a beta lactam antibiotic with an aminoglycoside antibiotic may provide certain advantages over beta lactam monotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to compare beta lactam monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in patients with sepsis and to estimate the rate of adverse effects with each treatment regimen, including the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

SEARCH METHODS

In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 11); MEDLINE (1966 to 4 November 2013); EMBASE (1980 to November 2013); LILACS (1982 to November 2013); and conference proceedings of the Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (1995 to 2013). We scanned citations of all identified studies and contacted all corresponding authors. In our previous review, we searched the databases to July 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing any beta lactam monotherapy versus any combination of a beta lactam with an aminoglycoside for sepsis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included treatment failure, superinfections and adverse events. Two review authors independently collected data. We pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the fixed-effect model. We extracted outcomes by intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 69 trials that randomly assigned 7863 participants. Twenty-two trials compared the same beta lactam in both study arms, while the remaining trials compared different beta lactams using a broader-spectrum beta lactam in the monotherapy arm. In trials comparing the same beta lactam, we observed no difference between study groups with regard to all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.30) and clinical failure (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29). In studies comparing different beta lactams, we observed a trend for benefit with monotherapy for all-cause mortality (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01) and a significant advantage for clinical failure (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84). No significant disparities emerged from subgroup and sensitivity analyses, including assessment of participants with Gram-negative infection. The subgroup of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections was underpowered to examine effects. Results for mortality were classified as low quality of evidence mainly as the result of imprecision. Results for failure were classified as very low quality of evidence because of indirectness of the outcome and possible detection bias in non-blinded trials. We detected no differences in the rate of development of resistance. Nephrotoxicity was significantly less frequent with monotherapy (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.39). We found no heterogeneity for all these comparisons.We included a small subset of studies addressing participants with Gram-positive infection, mainly endocarditis. We identified no difference between monotherapy and combination therapy in these studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of an aminoglycoside to beta lactams for sepsis should be discouraged. All-cause mortality rates are unchanged. Combination treatment carries a significant risk of nephrotoxicity.

Combination therapy for treatment of infections with gram-negative bacteria

Combination antibiotic therapy for invasive infections with Gram-negative bacteria is employed in many health care facilities, especially for certain subgroups of patients, including those with neutropenia, those with infections caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa, those with ventilator-associated pneumonia, and the severely ill. An argument can be made for empiric combination therapy, as we are witnessing a rise in infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative organisms. The wisdom of continued combination therapy after an organism is isolated and antimicrobial susceptibility data are known, however, is more controversial. The available evidence suggests that the greatest benefit of combination antibiotic therapy stems from the increased likelihood of choosing an effective agent during empiric therapy, rather than exploitation of in vitro synergy or the prevention of resistance during definitive treatment. In this review, we summarize the available data comparing monotherapy versus combination antimicrobial therapy for the treatment of infections with Gram-negative bacteria.

Ceftazidime for respiratory infections

INTRODUCTION

Ceftazidime is a third-generation cephalosporin that has activity against Gram-negative bacilli, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The increasing prevalence of antimicrobial resistance and the limited number of antimicrobial agents in development have necessitated a review of the current status of treatments involving ceftazidime.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on studies examining the in vitro antibacterial activity of ceftazidime against recent clinical isolates and recent randomized controlled trials studying the clinical efficacy of ceftazidime, and discusses strategies for the optimal use of ceftazidime for treating respiratory tract infections, mainly hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP).

EXPERT OPINION

Although ceftazidime remains an important option for HAP treatment, its role as an effective antimicrobial agent has been compromised by the sharp increase in resistance rates over the last decade, especially in P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii. To maintain or improve the clinical use of ceftazidime in patients with severe HAP, it will be essential to gain a thorough understanding of local resistance patterns, reserve ceftazidime use when pathogens are susceptible to other third-generation cephalosporins, optimize ceftazidime therapy using prolonged or continuous infusion, determine the effectiveness of the combination of ceftazidime with inhibitors of broad-spectrum β-lactamases and role of combination therapy for P. aeruginosa infections, and judiciously use antimicrobial agents through individualization of antimicrobial therapy for HAP.

Surviving the first hours in sepsis: getting the basics right (an intensivist's perspective)

Severe sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, claiming between 36 000 and 64 000 lives annually in the UK, with a mortality rate of 35%. International guidelines for the management of severe sepsis were published in 2004 by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign and condensed into two Care Bundles. In 2010, the Campaign published results from its improvement programme showing that, although an absolute mortality reduction of 5.4% was seen over a 2 year period in line with increasing compliance with the Bundles, reliability was not achieved and Bundle compliance reached only 31%. This article explores current challenges in sepsis care and opportunities for further improvements. Basic care tasks [microbiological sampling and antibiotic delivery within 1 h, fluid resuscitation, and risk stratification using serum lactate (or alternative)] are likely to benefit patients most, yet are unreliably performed. Barriers include lack of awareness and robust process, the lack of supporting controlled trials, and complex diagnostic criteria leading to recognition delays. Reliable, timely delivery of more complex life-saving tasks (such as early goal-directed therapy) demands greater awareness, faster recognition and initiation of basic care, and more effective collaboration between clinicians and nurses on the front line, in critical care and in specialist support services, such as microbiology and infectious diseases. Organizations such as Survive Sepsis, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign and the Global Sepsis Alliance are working to raise awareness and promote further improvement initiatives. Future developments will focus on sepsis biomarkers and microarray techniques to rapidly screen for pathogens, risk stratification using genetic profiling, and the development of novel therapeutic agents targeting immunomodulation.

Efficacy of doripenem in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa experimental pneumonia versus imipenem and meropenem

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare doripenem with imipenem and meropenem in an experimental rabbit model of Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia and then to compare different doripenem doses and methods of intravenous administration.

METHODS

Using a rabbit experimental model of pneumonia, efficacy was assessed following 2 days of treatment by colony counts of different tissues (lung, spleen and blood culture).

RESULTS

Mean pulmonary bacterial loads were 3.17 ± 0.53, 3.42 ± 0.61 and 2.75 ± 0.59 log(10) cfu/g for imipenem, doripenem (0.5 g three times daily) and meropenem, respectively, compared with 7.57 ± 0.99 cfu/g for control animals. At a higher dose (1 g three times daily), doripenem showed significantly better efficacy (2.70 ± 0.65 log(10) cfu/g) than the standard regimen of doripenem. Sterilization of spleen cultures was achieved with standard regimens of imipenem (1 g three times daily) and a higher dose of doripenem.

CONCLUSIONS

In this model of P. aeruginosa pneumonia, doripenem had an efficacy equivalent to that of meropenem and imipenem at a high dose of 1 g three times a day and lower efficacy at a standard dose (0.5 g three times daily) than the other two agents in terms of bacteria cultivated from spleens. Doripenem is a new drug that offers new therapeutic options, especially for difficult-to-treat infections such as pneumonia due to non-fermenting Gram-negative bacteria.

Broad-spectrum antimicrobials and the treatment of serious bacterial infections: getting it right up front

The treatment of serious bacterial infections is complicated by the fact that time to initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is a strong predictor of mortality. Therefore, therapy must be initiated before the causative pathogen is identified. However, inappropriate or inadequate initial empirical therapy is associated with increased mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay. Initial empirical therapy with broad-spectrum antimicrobials attempts to address this dilemma by "getting it right up front." The goal is to provide treatment active against the most likely pathogens until culture/susceptibility test results are obtained. After the causative pathogen is identified, streamlining to more-precise therapy of the shortest acceptable duration is implemented. In this way, the risks of death, morbid complications, increased duration of hospital stay (as a result of ineffective initial treatment), and emergence of resistance (due to extended treatment with broad-spectrum agents) are lowered. Improved clinical and economic outcomes after such an approach have been demonstrated.

Update on the efficacy and tolerability of meropenem in the treatment of serious bacterial infections

Meropenem is a carbapenem antibiotic approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections, complicated intra-abdominal infections, and pediatric bacterial meningitis (in patients >or=3 months of age). In clinical trials, it also has shown efficacy as initial empirical therapy for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. Unlike other beta-lactam antibiotics, including third-generation cephalosporins, carbapenems have shown activity against extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing and AmpC chromosomal beta-lactamase-producing bacteria. Compared with imipenem, meropenem is more active against gram-negative pathogens and somewhat less active against gram-positive pathogens, and it does not require coadministration of a renal dehydropeptidase inhibitor. In most comparative trials, clinical and bacteriological response rates with imipenem and meropenem were similar. Compared with clindamycin/tobramycin, meropenem is associated with a reduced length of hospital stay and a shorter duration of therapy among patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections. Meropenem is well tolerated by children and adults and has an acceptable safety profile. Alternative meropenem dosing strategies for the optimization of outcomes are under investigation.

Comprehensive evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for ventilator-associated pneumonia: diagnosis and treatment

BACKGROUND

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in ventilated critically ill patients. Despite a large amount of research evidence, the optimal diagnostic and treatment strategies for VAP remain controversial.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of VAP. Data sources include Medline, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Register of Controlled Trials.

STUDY SELECTION

The authors systematically searched for all relevant randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on the diagnosis and treatment of VAP in mechanically ventilated adults that were published from 1980 to October 1, 2006.

DATA EXTRACTION

Independently and in duplicate, the panel critically appraised each published trial. The effect size, confidence intervals, and homogeneity of the results were scored using predefined definitions. The full guideline development panel arrived at a consensus for scores on safety, feasibility, and economic issues.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Based on the scores for each topic, the following statements of recommendation were used: recommend, consider, do not recommend, and no recommendation because of insufficient or conflicting evidence.

DATA SYNTHESIS

For the diagnosis of VAP in immunocompetent patients, we recommend that endotracheal aspirates with nonquantitative cultures be used as the initial diagnostic strategy. When there is a suspicion of VAP, we recommend empiric antimicrobial therapy (in contrast to delayed or culture directed therapy) and appropriate single agent antimicrobial therapy for each potential pathogen as empiric therapy for VAP. Choice of antibiotics should be based on patient factors and local resistance patterns. We recommend that an antibiotic discontinuation strategy be used in patients who are treated of suspected VAP. For patients who receive adequate initial antibiotic therapy, we recommend 8 days of antibiotic therapy. We do not recommend nebulized endotracheal tobramycin or intratracheal instillation of tobramycin for the treatment of VAP.

CONCLUSION

We present evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of VAP. Implementation of these recommendations into clinical practice may lessen the morbidity and mortality of patients who develop VAP.

Guidelines for the management of hospital-acquired pneumonia in the UK: report of the working party on hospital-acquired pneumonia of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

These evidence-based guidelines have been produced after a systematic literature review of a range of issues involving prevention, diagnosis and treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP). Prevention is structured into sections addressing general issues, equipment, patient procedures and the environment, whereas in treatment, the structure addresses the use of antimicrobials in prevention and treatment, adjunctive therapies and the application of clinical protocols. The sections dealing with diagnosis are presented against the clinical, radiological and microbiological diagnosis of HAP. Recommendations are also made upon the role of invasive sampling and quantitative microbiology of respiratory secretions in directing antibiotic therapy in HAP/ventilator-associated pneumonia.

The role of carbapenems in the treatment of severe nosocomial respiratory tract infections

The prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria continues to increase, particularly in patients in the intensive care unit with nosocomial pneumonia. The intention of this review is to provide an overview of severe nosocomial pneumonia, carbapenems and the problem of bacterial resistance to antimicrobial agents. Attention was focused on the efficacy, safety and pharmacodynamics of imipenem, meropenem, ertapenem and doripenem. Issues on the impact of appropriate empiric antibiotic therapy for nosocomial pneumonia patients considered at risk for resistant pathogens are discussed. Critical decision making regarding the use of carbapenems for treating severe nosocomial pneumonia requires careful consideration of the four Ds of optimal antimicrobial therapy: right Drug, right Dose, De-escalated to pathogen-directed therapy and right Duration of therapy.

Empiric antibiotic therapy for suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare specific antibiotic regimens, and monotherapy vs. combination therapy, for the empirical treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).

DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCE

Medline, Embase, Cochrane register of controlled trials, study authors, and review articles.

STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated empirical parenteral antibiotic regimens for adult patients with clinically suspected VAP.

DATA SELECTION

Two independent review groups searched the literature, extracted data, and evaluated trial quality. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes included treatment failure. Relative risks were pooled using a random effects model.

RESULTS

We identified 41 trials randomizing 7,015 patients and comparing 29 unique regimens. Methodological quality was low, reflecting low rates of complete follow-up (43.9%), use of a double-blinded interventional strategy (14.6%), and randomization concealment (48.6%). Overall mortality was 20.3%; treatment failure occurred in 37.4% of patients who could be evaluated microbiologically. No mortality differences were observed between any of the regimens compared. Only one of three pooled comparisons yielded a significant difference for treatment failure: The combination of ceftazidime/aminoglycoside was inferior to meropenem (two trials, relative risk 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.53-0.93). Rates of mortality and treatment failure for monotherapy compared with combination therapy were similar (11 trials, relative risk for mortality of monotherapy 0.94, confidence interval 0.76-1.16; and relative risk of treatment failure for monotherapy 0.88, confidence interval 0.72-1.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Monotherapy is not inferior to combination therapy in the empirical treatment of VAP. Available data neither identify a superior empirical regimen nor conclusively conclude that available regimens result in equivalent outcomes. Larger and more rigorous trials evaluating the choice of, and even need for, empirical therapy for VAP are needed.

Meropenem: a review of its use in the treatment of serious bacterial infections

Meropenem (Merrem, Meronem) is a broad-spectrum antibacterial agent of the carbapenem family, indicated as empirical therapy prior to the identification of causative organisms, or for disease caused by single or multiple susceptible bacteria in both adults and children with a broad range of serious infections. Meropenem is approved for use in complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI), complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) and bacterial meningitis (in paediatric patients aged > or = 3 months) in the US, and in most other countries for nosocomial pneumonia, cIAI, septicaemia, febrile neutropenia, cSSSI, bacterial meningitis, complicated urinary tract infection (UTI), obstetric and gynaecological infections, in cystic fibrosis patients with pulmonary exacerbations, and for the treatment of severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Meropenem has a broad spectrum of in vitro activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)- and AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae. It has similar efficacy to comparator antibacterial agents, including: imipenem/cilastatin in cIAI, cSSSI, febrile neutropenia, complicated UTI, obstetric or gynaecological infections and severe CAP; clindamycin plus tobramycin or gentamicin in cIAI or obstetric/gynaecological infections; cefotaxime plus metronidazole in cIAI; cefepime and ceftazidime plus amikacin in septicaemia or febrile neutropenia; and ceftazidime, clarithromycin plus ceftriaxone or amikacin in severe CAP. Meropenem has also shown similar efficacy to cefotaxime in paediatric and adult patients with bacterial meningitis, and to ceftazidime when both agents were administered with or without tobramycin in patients with cystic fibrosis experiencing acute pulmonary exacerbations. Meropenem showed greater efficacy than ceftazidime or piperacillin/tazobactam in febrile neutropenia, and greater efficacy than ceftazidime plus amikacin or tobramycin in patients with nosocomial pneumonia. Meropenem is well tolerated and has the advantage of being suitable for administration as an intravenous bolus or infusion. Its low propensity for inducing seizures means that it is suitable for treating bacterial meningitis and is the only carbapenem approved in this indication. Thus, meropenem continues to be an important option for the empirical treatment of serious bacterial infections in hospitalized patients.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia: monotherapy is optimal if chosen wisely

Traditionally, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) has been treated either with double drug therapy or with monotherapy. Double drug therapy has been used to increase spectrum, for possible synergy, and to decrease the emergence of resistance. VAP therapy should be directed primarily against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which also provides aerobic Gram-negative coverage, the usual pathogens in VAP. The potent anti-P. aeruginosa antibiotics available today have sufficient activity that double drug coverage is unnecessary. Double drug therapy does not decrease resistance if a 'high resistance potential' antibiotic is used in the combination. The study by Damas and colleagues in this issue of Critical Care supports monotherapy for VAP. Optimal therapy for VAP involves selecting a potent anti-P. aeruginosa antibiotic with a 'low resistance potential' that minimizes drug-drug interactions, minimizes resistance, and is cost effective. Monotherapy of VAP should be the standard of care.

Beta lactam antibiotic monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside antibiotic combination therapy for sepsis

BACKGROUND

Optimal antibiotic treatment for sepsis is imperative. Combining a beta-lactam antibiotic with an aminoglycoside antibiotic may have certain advantages over beta-lactam monotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

We compared clinical outcomes for beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy versus beta lactam monotherapy for sepsis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2004); MEDLINE (1966 to July 2004); EMBASE (1980 to March 2003); LILACS (1982 to July 2004); and conference proceedings of the Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (1995 to 2003). We scanned citations of all identified studies and contacted all corresponding authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing any beta-lactam monotherapy to any combination of one beta-lactam and one aminoglycoside for sepsis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was all-cause fatality. Secondary outcomes included treatment failure, superinfections, colonization, and adverse events. Two authors independently collected data. We pooled relative risks (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed effect model. We extracted outcomes by intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 64 trials, randomizing 7586 patients. Twenty trials compared the same beta-lactam in both study arms, while the remaining compared different beta-lactams using a broader spectrum beta-lactam in the monotherapy arm. In studies comparing the same beta-lactam, we observed no difference between study groups with regard to all-cause fatality, RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.75-1.35) and clinical failure, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.95-1.29). In studies comparing different beta-lactams, we observed an advantage to monotherapy: all cause fatality RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.71-1.01), clinical failure RR 0.77 (95% CI 0.69-0.86). No significant disparities emerged from subgroup and sensitivity analyses, including the assessment of patients with Gram-negative and Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. We detected no differences in the rate of resistance development. Adverse events rates did not differ significantly between the study groups overall, although nephrotoxicity was significantly more frequent with combination therapy, RR 0.30 (95% CI 0.23-0.39). We found no heterogeneity for all comparisons. We included a small subset of studies addressing patients with Gram-positive infections, mainly endocarditis. We identified no difference between monotherapy and combination therapy in these studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of an aminoglycoside to beta-lactams for sepsis should be discouraged. All-cause fatality rates are unchanged. Combination treatment carries a significant risk of nephrotoxicity.

Nosocomial pneumonia : rationalizing the approach to empirical therapy

Nosocomial pneumonia or hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) causes considerable morbidity and mortality. It is the second most common nosocomial infection and the leading cause of death from hospital-acquired infections. In 1996 the American Thoracic Society (ATS) published guidelines for empirical therapy of HAP. This review focuses on the literature that has appeared since the ATS statement. Early diagnosis of HAP and its etiology is crucial in guiding empirical therapy. Since 1996, it has become clear that differentiating mere colonization from etiologic pathogens infecting the lower respiratory tract is best achieved by employing bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) or protected specimen brush (PSB) in combination with quantitative culture and detection of intracellular microorganisms. Endotracheal aspirate and non-bronchoscopic BAL/PSB in combination with quantitative culture provide a good alternative in patients suspected of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Since culture results take 2-3 days, initial therapy of HAP is by definition empirical. Epidemiologic studies have identified the most frequently involved pathogens: Enterobacteriaceae, Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus ('core pathogens'). Empirical therapy covering only the 'core pathogens' will suffice in patients without risk factors for resistant microorganisms. Studies that have appeared since the ATS statement issued in 1996, demonstrate several new risk factors for HAP with multiresistant pathogens. In patients with risk factors, empirical therapy should consist of antibacterials with a broader spectrum. The most important risk factors for resistant microorganisms are late onset of HAP (>/=5 days after admission), recent use of antibacterial therapy, and mechanical ventilation. Multiresistant bacteria of specific interest are methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumannii, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Each of these organisms has its specific susceptibility pattern, demanding appropriate antibacterial treatment. To further improve outcomes, specific therapeutic options for multiresistant pathogens and pharmacological factors are discussed. Antibacterials developed since 1996 or antibacterials with renewed interest (linezolid, quinupristin/dalfopristin, teicoplanin, meropenem, new fluoroquinolones, and fourth-generation cephalosporins) are discussed in the light of developing resistance.Since the ATS statement, many reports have shown increasing incidences of resistant microorganisms. Therefore, one of the most important conclusions from this review is that empirical therapy for HAP should not be based on general guidelines alone, but that local epidemiology should be taken into account and used in the formulation of local guidelines.

Antimicrobial therapy for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: an evidence-based review

OBJECTIVE

In 2003, critical care and infectious disease experts representing 11 international organizations developed management guidelines for antimicrobial therapy for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock that would be of practical use for the bedside clinician, under the auspices of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, an international effort to increase awareness and improve outcome in severe sepsis.

DESIGN

The process included a modified Delphi method, a consensus conference, several subsequent smaller meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee.

METHODS

The modified Delphi methodology used for grading recommendations built on a 2001 publication sponsored by the International Sepsis Forum. We undertook a systematic review of the literature graded along five levels to create recommendation grades from A to E, with A being the highest grade. Pediatric considerations to contrast adult and pediatric management are in the article by Parker et al. on p. S591.

CONCLUSION

Since the prompt institution of therapy that is active against the causative pathogen is one of the most important predictors of outcome, clinicians must establish a system for rapid administration of a rationally chosen drug or combination of drugs when sepsis or septic shock is suspected. The expanding number of antibacterial, antifungal, and antiviral agents available provides opportunities for effective empiric and specific therapy. However, to minimize the promotion of antimicrobial resistance and cost and to maximize efficacy, detailed knowledge of the likely pathogens and the properties of the available drugs is necessary for the intensivist.

Penetration of meropenem into pneumonic human lung tissue as measured by in vivo microdialysis

Until recently, information on antibiotic pharmacokinetic properties in infected human lung tissue was limited. We therefore studied a microdialysis-based approach for measurement of the penetration of meropenem into the extracellular space fluid of human pneumonic lung parenchyma. The lung penetration of meropenem was determined for seven patients with pneumonia and metapneumonic pleural empyema treated by decortication. Intraoperatively, two microdialysis probes were inserted into pneumonic lung tissue and one was inserted into healthy skeletal muscle for reference values. Serum and microdialysis samples were collected at 20-min intervals for at least 8 h following a single intravenous dose of 1 g of meropenem. The maximum free interstitial concentration (mean and standard deviation) of meropenem in infected lung tissue was 11.4 +/- 10.9 mg/liter, and that in serum was 47.3 +/- 21.0 mg/liter. The areas under the curve for infected lung tissue (36.2 +/- 17.9 mg. h/liter) and serum (95.4 +/- 46.6 mg. h/liter) revealed a significant difference. This technique enabled quasi-continuous tissue pharmacokinetic measurements of free, unbound antibiotic in pneumonic lung tissue of patients with pneumonia. The present data corroborate the use of meropenem in the treatment of lung infections caused by extracellular bacteria, demonstrating the excellent distribution profile for meropenem in the interstitial space of human pneumonic lung tissue.

Beta lactam monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for sepsis in immunocompetent patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare beta lactam monotherapy with beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for severe infections.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Lilacs, Cochrane Library, and conference proceedings, to 2003; references of included studies; contact with all authors. No restrictions, such as language, year of publication, or publication status.

STUDY SELECTION

All randomised trials of beta lactam monotherapy compared with beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for patients without neutropenia who fulfilled criteria for sepsis.

DATA SELECTION

Two reviewers independently applied selection criteria, performed quality assessment, and extracted the data. The primary outcome assessed was all cause fatality by intention to treat. Relative risks were pooled with the random effect model (relative risk < 1 favours monotherapy).

RESULTS

64 trials with 7586 patients were included. There was no difference in all cause fatality (relative risk 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 1.06). 12 studies compared the same beta lactam (1.02, 0.76 to 1.38), and 31 studies compared different beta lactams (0.85, 0.69 to 1.05). Clinical failure was more common with combination treatment overall (0.87, 0.78 to 0.97) and among studies comparing different beta lactams (0.76, 0.68 to 0.86). There was no advantage to combination therapy among patients with Gram negative infections (1835 patients) or Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections (426 patients). There was no difference in the rate of development of resistance. Nephrotoxicity was significantly more common with combination therapy (0.36, 0.28 to 0.47). Heterogeneity was not significant for these comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of sepsis the addition of an aminoglycoside to beta lactams should be discouraged. Fatality remains unchanged, while the risk for adverse events is increased.

Bacteraemia in Europe—antimicrobial susceptibility data from the MYSTIC surveillance programme

The in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility of organisms isolated from bacteraemic versus non-bacteraemic patients was evaluated using data (1997-2001) from the Meropenem Yearly Susceptibility Test Information Collection (MYSTIC) Programme. Minimum inhibitory concentration values and susceptibility breakpoints of meropenem and other broad-spectrum antimicrobials were determined using standard methodology. Three thousand one hundred and thirty-six blood culture (BC) isolates and 17261 non-BC isolates were obtained from 51 European MYSTIC centres. Gram-positive bacteria appeared to be more prevalent in BC isolates compared with other sources. Escherichia coli, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were isolated most frequently. Antimicrobial susceptibility of isolates from bacteraemic versus non-bacteraemic patients was similar. Meropenem and imipenem were the most active agents against the majority of the Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms. Ceftazidime, gentamicin and ciprofloxacin generally exhibited the lowest activities against the most commonly isolated organisms. Meropenem was most active against P. aeruginosa and showed the highest potency and activity against all extended-spectrum and AmpC beta-lactamase producers. These results are relevant to the choice of initial, empirical therapy for patients with suspected bacteraemia.

Single versus combined antibiotic therapy for gram-negative infections

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the available clinical data regarding single versus combination antimicrobial therapy for treatment of gram-negative infections, focusing on the more recent data in predominantly nonneutropenic hosts. In vitro and in vivo data regarding various antimicrobial combinations are also discussed.

DATA SOURCES

Clinical trials, review articles, and meta-analyses were identified from a MEDLINE search (1960-July 2003). Special attention was given to clinical outcome trials performed since 1989. Search terms included gram-negative infections, drug synergism, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, monotherapy, combination therapy, carbapenems, beta-lactams, cefepime, aminoglycosides, and fluoroquinolones.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Although most of the studies were not randomized, double-blind, or controlled, the most recent literature indicates that monotherapy with agents that are active against isolated organisms, including P. aeruginosa, may be appropriate for most patients. Efficacy outcomes, including mortality, did not significantly differ in most studies comparing single and combination therapies. Some trials suggest that combination therapy may be preferred in neutropenic patients and those with pseudomonal infections.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalized patients with gram-negative infections are often treated with combination antimicrobial agents; however, some of the recently available data, although limited, suggest that administration of monotherapy is a feasible alternative in certain patient populations.

Appropriate antimicrobial treatment in nosocomial infections—the clinical challenges

Resistance to antimicrobial agents is emerging in a wide variety of pathogens, particularly those that cause nosocomial infections. As a consequence of this increasing resistance, morbidity and mortality in nosocomial infections is also increasing. It is therefore critical to treat nosocomial infections appropriately by starting antimicrobial treatment early in the course of infection, using the correct agent, at the most appropriate dose, and for an adequate duration. Indeed, early 'appropriate' antibiotic prescribing has been shown significantly to reduce mortality, length of intensive care unit and hospital stay and overall costs. Early use of the correct antibiotic at the appropriate dose and for an adequate duration are key to initial appropriate antibiotic prescribing. Choosing the right antibiotic depends mainly on the likely pathogen(s) and the expected local susceptibility patterns. Selection of appropriate antimicrobial therapy requires a thorough understanding of the likely microbial cause of the infection, including local susceptibility patterns, as well as the properties of the antimicrobials available for treating these infections, namely spectrum of activity and potency (including activity versus known resistance mechanisms), pharmacokinetic profile and tolerability and safety. This review, based on a series of presentations at the 5th International Conference of the Hospital Infection Society (Edinburgh, 2002) examines the importance of appropriate antimicrobial therapy in nosocomial infections, and provides guidance on how to achieve this.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) continues to complicate the course of 8 to 28% of patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV). In contrast to infections of more frequently involved organs (e.g., urinary tract and skin), for which mortality is low, ranging from 1 to 4%, the mortality rate for VAP ranges from 24 to 50% and can reach 76% in some specific settings or when lung infection is caused by high-risk pathogens. The predominant organisms responsible for infection are Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacteriaceae, but etiologic agents widely differ according to the population of patients in an intensive care unit, duration of hospital stay, and prior antimicrobial therapy. Because appropriate antimicrobial treatment of patients with VAP significantly improves outcome, more rapid identification of infected patients and accurate selection of antimicrobial agents represent important clinical goals. Our personal bias is that using bronchoscopic techniques to obtain protected brush and bronchoalveolar lavage specimens from the affected area in the lung permits physicians to devise a therapeutic strategy that is superior to one based only on clinical evaluation. When fiberoptic bronchoscopy is not available to physicians treating patients clinically suspected of having VAP, we recommend using either a simplified nonbronchoscopic diagnostic procedure or following a strategy in which decisions regarding antibiotic therapy are based on a clinical score constructed from seven variables. Selection of the initial antimicrobial therapy should be based on predominant flora responsible for VAP at each institution, clinical setting, information provided by direct examination of pulmonary secretions, and intrinsic antibacterial activities of antimicrobial agents and their pharmacokinetic characteristics. Further trials will be needed to clarify the optimal duration of treatment and the circumstances in which monotherapy can be safely used.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia

Ventilator-associated pneumonia is the most serious infectious complication in critically ill patients, associated with increased length of intensive care unit treatment and high mortality rates. Investigations focused on outcome variables have improved the database to estimate diagnostic and therapeutic management strategies. This knowledge has diminished the importance of the discussion on how to diagnose the pneumonia. This review summarizes recent data on epidemiology and mortality, risk factors and prevention, diagnosis, microbiology and antimicrobial treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia.

De-escalation antimicrobial chemotherapy in critically III patients: pros and cons

In spite of advances in critical care, nosocomial infections still have a considerable impact on Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, mortality and costs. Several authors suggest that antibiotic therapy should be instituted as soon as sepsis is suspected in critically patients. Over the last two decades the rates of occurrence for pathogens have significantly changed under selective pressure from broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy. Shifts from predominance of gram-negative to gram-positive organisms and outbreaks of resistant pathogens address the need for appropriate empirical regimens. Agents such as ceftazidime, imipenem and, more recently, meropenem and tazobactam have been used successfully as monotherapy. Two different clinical trials have reported that meropenem monotherapy is significantly more effective than ceftazidime-based therapy. Because of the outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis, some investigators suggest adding a glycopeptide to beta-lactamase inhibitor and carbapenem as initial empirical therapy. Such a regimen should be administered before definitive proof of infections and until the results of microbial investigation are available (de-escalation antimicrobial chemotherapy). On the other hand, several authors do not recommend glycopeptide administration in an attempt to limit nosocomial outbreaks of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and staphylococci (VRS) and to avoid secondary drawbacks, such as nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity. De-escalation antimicrobial chemotherapy should be tailored to critically ill patients according to their clinical status, severity of illness and suspicion of sepsis or nosocomial pneumonia.