In vitro activity of apramycin (EBL-1003) in combination with colistin, meropenem, minocycline or sulbactam against XDR/PDR Acinetobacter baumannii isolates from Greece

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the in vitro activity of the combination of apramycin with colistin, meropenem, minocycline or sulbactam, against some well-characterized XDR Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates from Greece, to understand how apramycin can be best incorporated into clinical practice and optimize effectiveness.

METHODS

In vitro interactions of apramycin (0.5×, 1× and 2× the MIC value) with colistin (2 mg/L), meropenem (30 mg/L), minocycline (3.5 mg/L) or sulbactam (24 mg/L) were tested using time-kill methodology. Twenty-one clinical A. baumannii isolates were chosen, exhibiting apramycin MICs of 4-16 mg/L, which were at or below the apramycin preliminary epidemiological cut-off value of 16 mg/L. These isolates were selected for a range of colistin (4-32 mg/L), meropenem (16-256 mg/L), minocycline (8-32 mg/L) and sulbactam (8-32 mg/L) MICs across the resistant range. Synergy was defined as a ≥2 log10 cfu/mL reduction compared with the most active agent.

RESULTS

The combination of apramycin with colistin, meropenem, minocycline or sulbactam was synergistic, at least at one of the concentrations of apramycin (0.5×, 1× or 2× MIC), against 83.3%, 90.5%, 90.9% or 92.3% of the tested isolates, respectively. Apramycin alone was bactericidal at 24 h against 9.5% and 33.3% of the tested isolates at concentrations equal to 1× and 2× MIC, while the combination of apramycin at 2× MIC with colistin, meropenem or sulbactam was bactericidal against all isolates tested (100%). The apramycin 2× MIC/minocycline combination had bactericidal activity against 90.9% of the tested isolates.

CONCLUSIONS

Apramycin combinations may have potential as a treatment option for XDR/pandrug-resistant (PDR) A. baumannii infections and warrant validation in the clinical setting, when this new aminoglycoside is available for clinical use.

Ceftazidime/avibactam in the era of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae: experience from a national registry study

BACKGROUND

Infections caused by KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae (Kp) are associated with high mortality. Therefore, new treatment options are urgently required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the outcomes and predictors of mortality in patients with KPC- or OXA-48-Kp infections treated with ceftazidime/avibactam with an emphasis on KPC-Kp bloodstream infections (BSIs).

METHODS

A multicentre prospective observational study was conducted between January 2018 and March 2019. Patients with KPC- or OXA-48-Kp infections treated with ceftazidime/avibactam were included in the analysis. The subgroup of patients with KPC-Kp BSIs treated with ceftazidime/avibactam was matched by propensity score with a cohort of patients whose KPC-Kp BSIs had been treated with agents other than ceftazidime/avibactam with in vitro activity.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-seven patients were identified; 140 were infected with KPC producers and 7 with OXA-48 producers. For targeted therapy, 68 (46.3%) patients received monotherapy with ceftazidime/avibactam and 79 (53.7%) patients received ceftazidime/avibactam in combination with at least another active agent. The 14 and 28 day mortality rates were 9% and 20%, respectively. The 28 day mortality among the 71 patients with KPC-Kp BSIs treated with ceftazidime/avibactam was significantly lower than that observed in the 71 matched patients, whose KPC-Kp BSIs had been treated with agents other than ceftazidime/avibactam (18.3% versus 40.8%; P = 0.005). In the Cox proportional hazards model, ultimately fatal disease, rapidly fatal disease and Charlson comorbidity index ≥2 were independent predictors of death, whereas treatment with ceftazidime/avibactam-containing regimens was the only independent predictor of survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Ceftazidime/avibactam appears to be an effective treatment against serious infections caused by KPC-Kp.

Topical use of tranexamic acid in primary total knee arthroplasty: a comparative study

INTRODUCTION

Perioperative blood management represents a major issue in knee arthroplasty. The aim of the present observational study is to compare two different methods of topical tranexamic acid (TXA) administration (periarticular and intraarticular) in primary knee arthroplasty.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The present is an observational comparative study. A total of 66 consecutive patients receiving topical injection of TXA after unilateral primary knee arthroplasty due to osteoarthritis were recorded. Patients were divided into two groups: group 1; periarticular injection of TXA and group 2; intraarticular injection.

RESULTS

Transfusion rate in group 1 was found to be 15%, compared to 44% in group 2 (p-value= 0.015). In transfused patients the mean received blood units were 1.2 (SD=0.44) in group 1, compared to 1.06 (SD=0.24; p-value=0.34) in group 2. The mean hospital stay of group 1 patients was 7.94 days (SD=2.79), compared to 9.58 days (SD=3.26; p-value=0.03) in group 2.

DISCUSSION

The main findings of the study are that statically significant higher transfusion rates, as well as longer in-hospital stay were found in the intraarticular group, when compared to the periarticular group. According to these two parameters the present study has shown that the topical periarticular TXA injection is superior to the intraarticular one. Further research is of utmost importance in order to conclude to the optimum combination of knee arthroplasty perioperative blood management.

Predictors of outcome in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock due to extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae

PURPOSE

There are few data in the literature regarding sepsis or septic shock due to extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae (E). The aim of this study was to assess predictors of outcome in septic patients with bloodstream infection (BSI) caused by ESBL-E.

METHODS

Patients with severe sepsis or septic shock and BSI due to ESBL-E were selected from the INCREMENT database. The primary endpoint of the study was the evaluation of predictors of outcome after 30 days from development of severe sepsis or septic shock due to ESBL-E infection. Three cohorts were created for analysis: global, empirical-therapy and targeted-therapy cohorts.

RESULTS

367 septic patients were analysed. Overall mortality was 43.9% at 30 days. Escherichia coli (62.4%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (27.2%) were the most frequent isolates. β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor (BLBLI) combinations were the most empirically used drug (43.6%), followed by carbapenems (29.4%). Empirical therapy was active in vitro in 249 (67.8%) patients, and escalation of antibiotic therapy was reported in 287 (78.2%) patients. Cox regression analysis showed that age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, McCabe classification, Pitt bacteremia score, abdominal source of infection and escalation of antibiotic therapy were independently associated with 30-day mortality. No differences in survival were reported in patients treated with BLBLI combinations or carbapenems in empirical or definitive therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

BSI due to ESBL-E in patients who developed severe sepsis or septic shock was associated with high 30-day mortality. Comorbidities, severity scores, source of infection and antibiotic therapy escalation were important determinants of unfavorable outcome.

Management of KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae infections

BACKGROUND

Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing K. pneumoniae (KPC-KP) has become one of the most important contemporary pathogens, especially in endemic areas.

AIMS

To provide practical suggestion for physicians dealing with the management of KPC-KP infections in critically ill patients, based on expert opinions.

SOURCES

PubMed search for relevant publications related to the management of KPC-KP infections.

CONTENTS

A panel of experts developed a list of 12 questions to be addressed. In view of the current lack of high-level evidence, they were asked to provide answers on the bases of their knowledge and experience in the field. The panel identified several key aspects to be addressed when dealing with KPC-KP in critically ill patients (preventing colonization in the patient, preventing infection in the colonized patient and colonization of his or her contacts, reducing mortality in the infected patient by rapidly diagnosing the causative agent and promptly adopting the best therapeutic strategy) and provided related suggestions that were based on the available observational literature and the experience of panel members.

IMPLICATIONS

Diagnostic technologies could speed up the diagnosis of KPC-KP infections. Combination treatment should be preferred to monotherapy in cases of severe infections. For non-critically ill patients without severe infections, results from randomized clinical trials are needed for ultimately weighing benefits and costs of using combinations rather than monotherapy. Multifaceted infection control interventions are needed to decrease the rates of colonization and cross-transmission of KPC-KP.