Matteo BassettiJan J. De WaelePhilippe EggimannJose Garnacho-MonteroGunnar KahlmeterFrancesco MenichettiDavid P. NicolauJose Arturo PaivaMario TumbarelloTobias WelteMark WilcoxJean Ralph ZaharGaryphallia Poulakou
Preventive and therapeutic strategiesin critically ill patients with highly resistantbacteria
Received: 20 January 2015Accepted: 24 February 2015Published online: 20 March 2015� Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg andESICM 2015
Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article(doi:10.1007/s00134-015-3719-z) containssupplementary material, which is availableto authorized users.
M. BassettiInfectious Diseases Division, Santa MariaMisericordia University Hospital, Udine,Italy
J. J. De WaeleDepartment of Critical Care Medicine,Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
P. EggimannAdult Critical Care Medicine and BurnUnit, Centre Hospitalier UniversitaireVaudois (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland
J. Garnacho-MonteroCritical Care Unit, Virgen del RocioUniversity Hospital, Seville, Spain
G. KahlmeterClinical Microbiology, Central Hopsital,Vaxjo, Sweden
F. MenichettiInfectious Diseases Unit, Nuovo OspedaleS. Chiara, Pisa, Italy
D. P. NicolauCenter for Anti-Infective Research andDevelopment, Hartford Hospital, Hartford,CT, USA
J. A. PaivaCentro Hospitalar Sao Joao, Faculdade deMedicina, University of Porto, Porto,Portugal
M. TumbarelloInstitute of Infectious Diseases, CatholicUniversity of the Sacred Heart, A. GemelliHospital, Rome, Italy
T. WelteDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine,Hannover Medical School, Hannover,Germany
M. WilcoxMicrobiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitalsand University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
J. R. ZaharUnite de prevention et de lutte contre lesinfections nosocomiales, Universited’Angers, Centre hospitalo-universitaired’Angers, Angers, France
G. Poulakou4th Department of Internal Medicine,Athens University School of Medicine,Attikon University General Hospital,Athens, Greece
M. Bassetti ())Clinica Malattie Infettive, AziendaOspedaliera Universitaria Santa Maria dellaMisericordia, Piazzale Santa Maria dellaMisericordia 15, 33100 Udine, Italye-mail: [email protected].: 39 0432 559355
Abstract The antibiotic pipelinecontinues to diminish and the ma-jority of the public remains unaware
of this critical situation. The cause ofthe decline of antibiotic developmentis multifactorial and currently mostICUs are confronted with the chal-lenge of multidrug-resistantorganisms. Antimicrobial multidrugresistance is expanding all over theworld, with extreme and pandrug re-sistance being increasinglyencountered, especially in healthcare-associated infections in large highlyspecialized hospitals. Antibioticstewardship for critically ill patientstranslated into the implementation ofspecific guidelines, largely promotedby the Surviving Sepsis Campaign,targeted at education to optimizechoice, dosage, and duration of an-tibiotics in order to improve outcomesand reduce the development of resis-tance. Inappropriate antimicrobialtherapy, meaning the selection of anantibiotic to which the causativepathogen is resistant, is a consistentpredictor of poor outcomes in septicpatients. Therefore, pharmacoki-netically/pharmacodynamically opti-mized dosing regimens should begiven to all patients empirically and,once the pathogen and susceptibilityare known, local stewardship prac-tices may be employed on the basis ofclinical response to redefine an ap-propriate regimen for the patient. Thisreview will focus on the mostseverely ill patients, for whom sub-stantial progress in organ supportalong with diagnostic and therapeutic
Intensive Care Med (2015) 41:776–795DOI 10.1007/s00134-015-3719-z REVIEW
strategies markedly increased the riskof nosocomial infections.
Keywords Antibiotic � Bacteria �Resistance � MRSA � Stewardship
Abbreviations
AST Antimicrobialsusceptibility testing
BLBLI b-Lactam/b-lactamaseinhibitors
CDI Clostridiumdifficile infection
CRE Carbapenem-resistantEnterobacteriaceae
ECDC European Center forDiseases Control
ESBL Extended-spectrumb-lactamases
ESBL-PE Extended-spectrumb-lactamase-producingEnterobacteriaceae
EUCAST European Committee onAntimicrobialSusceptibility Testing
FDA Food and DrugAdministration
HAP Hospital-acquiredpneumonia
HCW Healthcare workersICU Intensive care unitIDSA Infectious Diseases
Society of AmericaKPC Klebsiella pneumoniae
carbapenemaseMDR Multidrug-resistant
organisms
MIC Minimum inhibitoryconcentration
MITT Modified intentionto treat
MRSA Methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus
PK/PD Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic
SDD Selective digestivedecontamination
VAP Ventilator-associatedpneumonia
VIM Verona integron-mediatedmetallo-b-lactamase
VRE Vancomycin-resistantenterococci
Introduction
The report of successful treatment of life-threatening infec-tions early in the 1940s opened the ‘‘antibiotic era’’.Stimulated by a widespread use during the Second World Warand by an impressive industrial effort to develop and produceantibiotics, this major progress in the history of medicine isnowadays compromised by the universal spread of antibioticresistance which has largely escaped from hospitals to projectthe human race into the post-antibiotic era [1].
Looking back at this incredible 75-year-long saga, weshould emphasize that antibiotic resistance was describedin parallel with the first antibiotic use and that a directlink between exposure and resistance was recognized inthe late 1940s [2].
This review will focus on the most severely ill patientsfor whom significant progress in organ support as well asdiagnostic and therapeutic strategies markedly increasedthe risk of developing hospital-acquired infections (HAI),and currently most ICUs are confronted with the chal-lenge of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDR) [3].
Epidemiology of highly resistant bacteria worldwidewith a focus on Europe
Antimicrobial multidrug resistance (MDR) is now preva-lent all over the world [4, 5], with extreme drug resistance(XDR) and pandrug resistance (PDR) [6] being encoun-tered increasingly often, especially among HAI occurringin large highly specialized hospitals treating patients.Emergence of antimicrobial resistance is largely attributed
to the indiscriminate and abusive use of antimicrobials insociety and particularly in the healthcare setting and by anincreasing spread of resistance genes between bacteria andof resistant bacteria between people and environments.Even in areas hitherto known for having minor resistanceproblems, 5–10 % of hospitalized patients on a given dayharbored extended-spectrum b-lactamase (ESBL)-produc-ing Enterobacteriaceae in their gut flora, as seen in a recentFrench study conducted in ICU [7].
The number of different resistance mechanisms bywhich microorganisms can become resistant to an agent isincreasing, the variety in resistance genes is increasing,the number of clones within a species which carry resis-tance is increasing, and the number of different speciesharboring resistance genes is increasing. All this leads toan accelerating development of resistance, further en-hanced by the fact that the more resistance genes thereare, the higher the probability that one or more of themwill end up as a so-called successful clone, with excep-tional abilities to spread, infect, and cause disease [8].When this happens, the world faces major ‘‘outbreaks(epidemics) of antimicrobial resistance’’. Sometimesthese are local and occur as outbreaks of Staphylococcusaureus, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acine-tobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, orEnterococcus faecalis or E. faecium (the latter speciesbeing very difficult to treat when glycopeptide resistant)in highly specialized healthcare settings such as neonatalwards or other ICUs, hematological wards, and transplantunits. With the aforementioned bacteria, major problemsevolved in the USA where outbreaks occurred in trans-plant units on the east coast and in Israel, Greece, andlater Italy. Today smaller or larger outbreaks with
777
multidrug-resistant E. coli and K. pneumoniae are seen allover the world. Recently several of these clones also showresistance to last resort agents like colistin making thesituation desperate in some areas, in some hospitals, andfor some patients. Since there is no influx of truly newantimicrobial agents and limited evidence of reversibility[9] of antimicrobial resistance, the future looks grim.Another sign of our desperation is the increasing interestin trying to redevelop old antimicrobials [10].
Microbiological issues: breakpoints, epidemiologicalcut-offs, and other susceptibility and identificationproblems
Methods in clinical microbiology for species identifica-tion and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) haverecently improved dramatically. Consequently, it is todaypossible for the clinical microbiology laboratory to dras-tically improve its turnaround time (the time used by thelaboratory to receive, process, and make available areport).
Time of flight mass spectrometry has brought downthe time required for species identification to 1 h from1 day, and sometimes several days, for both bacteria andfungi. Blood cultures are most often positive within8–20 h from the start of incubation [11]. With the noveltechniques, species identification is feasible directly onthe positive blood culture bottle [12] and within 1 h froma positive blood culture signal. Time wasted on trans-portation of blood culture bottles becomes important.Ideally bottles should be under incubation within 1 h frominoculation; if this time exceeds 4 h it constitutesmalpractice.
AST can be performed using traditional methods forphenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing. These arebased on the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ofthe antibiotic and the application of breakpoints tocategorize isolates as susceptible (S), intermediate (I), andresistant (R). AST can also be performed using genotypicmethods, most commonly in the form of direct gene de-tection using polymerase chain reaction methods for thedetection of specific resistance genes, such as the mecAgene encoding for methicillin-resistance in staphylococcior the vanA gene encoding for glycopeptide resistance inenterococci and staphylococci. The research communityis currently exploring the use of whole genome se-quencing for AST. The advantage of phenotypic methodsis that they are quantifiable and can predict both sensi-tivity and resistance. Phenotypic methods, both MICs anddisk diffusion, traditionally need 18 h of incubation—constituting the classical ‘‘overnight’’ incubation. How-ever, the incubation time can, if traditional systems arerecalibrated, be brought down to 6–12 h depending on the
microorganism and the resistance mechanism. The ad-vantage of the genotypic methods is that they are rapidand specific but so far they predict only resistance andthey are not quantitative.
There is now international agreement on a standardmethod for the determination of the MIC, but for break-points there is still more than one system. Europe had formany years seven systems in use, including the Clinicaland Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) system fromthe USA. The European Committee on AntimicrobialSusceptibility Testing (EUCAST) managed in the period2002–2010 to unite the six European national systems andharmonize systems and breakpoints in Europe. Since then,many non-European countries have joined EUCAST.Both EUCAST [13] and CLSI [14] breakpoints areavailable in all internationally used susceptibility testingmethods. EUCAST recommendations are freely availableon the Internet [15], whereas the CLSI recommendationsmust be purchased. As a general rule, clinical breakpointsfrom EUCAST are somewhat lower than CLSI break-points. This is mainly because EUCAST breakpoints weresystematically revised on the basis of recent information,whereas many breakpoints from CLSI were neither re-viewed nor revised for more than 15–25 years.
Antibiotic stewardship
Targeted at education to provide assistance for optimalchoice, dosage, and duration of antibiotics to improveoutcome and reduce the development of resistance, an-tibiotic stewardship programs for critically ill patientstranslated into the implementation of specific guidelines,largely promoted by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign [16,17]. Very early and adequate antibiotic treatment sig-nificantly improved the outcome of critically ill patientssuffering from severe infections [18].
However, the very early start of antibiotics decreasedthe proportion of microbiological documentation which ismandatory for a successful subsequent de-escalation [19].Adequate coverage for potential resistant microorganismsresults in a vicious circle characterized by a progressiveenlargement of the spectrum to be covered (Fig. 1). Theconcept of antibiotic stewardship then progressivelyevolved to individualize prescriptions by the introductionof new concepts such as avoiding unnecessary adminis-tration of broad-spectrum antibiotics and systematic de-escalation [20].
This has been further demonstrated to have a positiveimpact in critically ill settings. A systematic reviewshowed that despite the relative low level of the 24 studiespublished from 1996 to 2010, including only three ran-domized prospective studies and three interrupted timeseries, antibiotic stewardship was in general beneficial
778
[21]. This strategy has shown a reduction of the use ofantimicrobials (from 11 to 38 % of defined daily doses), alower antimicrobial cost (US$5–10 per patient day), ashorter average duration of treatment, less inappropriateuse, and fewer adverse events. Interventions beyond6 months resulted in reductions in the rate of antimicro-bial resistance. Importantly, antibiotic stewardship wasnot associated with increases in nosocomial infectionrates, length of stay, or mortality.
Moreover, in the context of high endemicity for me-thicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), antibioticstewardship combined with improved infection controlmeasures achieved a sustainable reduction in the rate ofhospital-acquired MRSA bacteremia [22].
Accordingly, as strongly recommended by ICU ex-perts and supported by several national and internationalinitiatives, antibiotic stewardship programs should bedeveloped and implemented in every ICU or institution incharge of critically ill patients (Table 1).
Treatment strategies
Adequate, prompt therapy and duration
Inappropriate antimicrobial therapy, meaning the selec-tion of an antibiotic to which the causative pathogen isresistant, is a consistent predictor of poor outcomes inseptic patients [23]. On the other hand, several studieshave shown that prompt appropriate antimicrobial treat-ment is a life-saving approach in the management ofsevere sepsis [24–26]. The concept of ‘‘adequate antimi-crobial therapy’’ was defined as an extension of‘‘appropriate antimicrobial therapy’’, meaning appropriateand early therapy at optimized doses and dose intervals.
The most impressive data probably comes from Ku-mar et al. [27], who showed that inadequate initialantimicrobial therapy for septic shock was associated witha fivefold reduction in survival (52.0 vs. 10.3 %),
Fig. 1 Vicious circle starting from the implementation of earlyand adequate empirical antibiotic treatment. Adequate coverage forpotential resistant microorganisms results in vicious circle charac-terized by the need to enlarge the spectrum to be covered, withfurther continuous increase of the proportion of resistant microor-ganisms resulting in a progressive increase of inadequate empiricaltreatments and death from bloodstream infections (BSI), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and surgical site infections (SSI)
Table 1 Suggested components of ICU-specific antibiotic stewardship programs
Leadership commitmentHead of ICU should endorse the responsibility for implementing specific antibiotic stewardshipDirection of the institution should be supportive and provide resources required to implement and follow the ICU antibiotic stewardshipRegular feedback on the impact of the ICU antibiotic stewardship should be supported by both hospital and ICU directionsImprove communication between laboratory and clinical staffImplement local resistance data for developing local antibiotic guidelines
Multidisciplinary approachA multidisciplinary team including infectious diseases specialists, microbiologists, pharmacists, and ICU physicians and nurses shouldbe in charge of developing a specific ICU antibiotic stewardship
Weekly round for cases discussionImplementation based on specific education and training of ICU physicians (and all new introduced HCWs) about resistance and optimal
prescribing including the following items:Aggressive good quality microbiological sampling to document the microorganism potentially responsible for the infection (bloodcultures; distal airway sampling; urine culture; systematic sampling of wound, drain discharge, and any collection suspected ofinfection)
Selection of empirical antimicrobials according to the clinical documentation of any suspected site of infection (clinical examination,adequate imaging), to the presence of risk factors for resistant microorganisms, and to the local epidemiology of the microorganism
Achievement of adequate pharmacokinetic/pharmakodynamic parameters of the antimicrobial agents usedSystematic de-escalation (see specific paragraph)Systematic reduction of the duration of antimicrobial treatment according to the clinical evolution and the kinetics of biomarkers such asprocalcitonin
Software—implementation of alerts in the prescription software to help clinicians in several issues of antibiotic prescriptionMonitoring and feedback
Monitoring antibiotic prescribing and resistance patternsRegular reporting of information on antibiotic use and resistance to doctors, nurses, and relevant staff
HCWs healthcare workers
779
remaining highly associated with risk of death even afteradjustment for other potential risk factors (odds ratio/OR8.99). Differences in survival were seen in all majorepidemiologic, clinical, and organism subgroups, rangingfrom 2.3-fold for pneumococcal infection to 17.6-fold forprimary bacteremia. This obviously means that, in severeinfections, antimicrobial therapy must almost always beempiric, before isolation and identification of the causa-tive organism and determination of the organism’ssensitivity, to achieve a timely initiation.
Unfortunately, the rising incidence of MDR microor-ganisms leads, at least, to one of two consequences:increased incidence of inappropriate antimicrobial ther-apy or higher consumption of broad-spectrum antibiotics[28]. The way out of this vicious spiral is to assume thatthe best antibiotic selection is the choice of the antibioticwith the best possible combination of high effectivenessfor infection cure and relapse avoidance on the one handand low collateral damage on the other.
In a recent multicenter study on hospital-acquiredbacteremia [25], the incidence of MDR and XDR mi-croorganisms was 48 and 21 %, respectively; in themultivariable model, MDR isolation and timing to ade-quate treatment were independent predictors of 28-daymortality. The same occurs in the community, with risingprevalence of MDR bacteria, for instance, among patientswith community-acquired pneumonia who were admittedto the ICU (7.6 % in Spain and 3.3 % in the UK) [29].Therefore, there is evidence that infection by MDR bac-teria often results in a delay in appropriate antibiotictherapy, resulting in increased patient morbidity andmortality, as well as prolonged hospital stay [30]. Con-versely, there is also proof that appropriate initialantibiotic therapy, early ICU admission, and maximizedmicrobiological documentation are modifiable process-of-care factors that contribute to an improved outcome [31].
To help in reducing the antibiotic treatment duration,the most promising parameters appear to be plasma levelsof procalcitonin (PCT). Besides PCT, no other sepsisbiomarker has achieved universal use throughout differenthealthcare settings in the last decade. High PCT concen-trations are typically found in bacterial infection, incontrast to lower levels in viral infection and levels below0.1 ng/mL in patients without infection. Furthermore,serum PCT concentrations are positively correlated withthe severity of infection. Thus, adequate antibiotic treat-ment leads to a decrease in serum PCT concentrations. Arecent metanalysis showed a significant reduction of thelength of antibiotic therapy in favor of a PCT-guidedtherapy strategy [32].
Monotherapy versus combination therapy
Basically, there are two reasons to favor antibiotic com-bination therapy over monotherapy. Firstly, there is a
potential synergy of combined antibiotics in order tomaximize clinical efficacy or prevent development ofresistance. Synergistic effects, however, were provenin vitro for many combinations of antibiotics, but a clearbenefit has only been demonstrated in vivo in the treat-ment of invasive pneumococcal disease and in toxic shocksyndrome. In these two clinical situations, the combina-tion of b-lactams with macrolides or lincosamides,respectively, was able to inhibit bacterial pathogenicityfactors and was associated with improved survival. Thesecond reason for the selection of a combination therapyis the desired extension of the expected spectrum ofpathogens (so-called gap closing). However, none of therandomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients withsepsis could demonstrate any advantage of combinationtherapies. A meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the com-bination therapy of a b-lactam plus an aminoglycosideversus a monotherapy with a beta-lactam alone did notshow any benefits of the combination therapy in terms ofmorbidity and mortality [33]. Similarly, a subgroup ana-lysis of septic patients in a Canadian ventilator-associatedpneumonia (VAP) study comparing meropenem mono-therapy with meropenem/ciprofloxacin combinationtherapy also found no differences in morbidity, mortality,or adverse reactions between the groups [34]. Finally, theMAXSEPT study of the German Study Group Compe-tence Network Sepsis (SepNet) comparing meropenemwith meropenem/moxifloxacin combination in severesepsis and septic shock could not demonstrate a differencebetween the groups either for changes in SOFA scores orfor 30-day mortality [35].
Results in favor of combination therapy were found incohort studies only, in which benefits of combinationtherapy have been shown in terms of lower mortality,especially in patients with septic shock [36, 37]. Thedrawback of these studies was that various b-lactams andvarious combination partners were chosen.
An important difference between these observationalstudies and RCTs should be mentioned; the former wereconducted in countries with significantly higher rates ofMDR pathogens than the latter. In both the Canadian andthe MAXSEPT studies mentioned above, resistantpathogens were found in less than 10 % of cases. Thissuggests that combination therapy may be rational when,as a result of the anticipated resistance pattern, treatmentfailure of a b-lactam monotherapy is likely. Several ob-servational studies looking at carbapenem-resistant (CR)pathogens demonstrated a survival benefit for a combi-nation therapy using a carbapenem together with colistinand/or tigecycline in comparison to meropenem alone[38, 39]. In addition, intravenous fosfomycin has beenrecently administered as part of combination regimens inpatients with XDR K. pneumoniae infections to improvethe effectiveness and decrease the rate of emergence ofresistance [40]. Also aminoglycosides have been recentlyused in combination regimens in patients with difficult-to-
780
treat infections, including XDR K. pneumoniae infections[41].
In conclusion, combination therapy should be recom-mended only in patients with severe sepsis and when aninfection with a resistant organism is likely. De-escalationto an effective monotherapy should be considered whenan antibiogram is available.
De-escalation
De-escalation of antimicrobial therapy is often advocatedas an integral part of antibiotic stewardship programs [16,17] and has been defined as reducing the number of an-tibiotics to treat an infection as well as narrowing thespectrum of the antimicrobial agent. Essentially this is astrategy that is applicable after starting a broad-spectrumempirical therapy prior to identification of the causativepathogen. Intuitively this would limit the applicability ofde-escalation as a concept in MDR infections as afteridentification of an MDR pathogen, often the opposite—escalation of antimicrobial therapy—is required.Depending on the pathogen involved, even multiple an-tibiotics may be required, even with the same antibioticclass such as combination therapy with ertapenem andanother carbapenem for K. pneumoniae carbapenemase(KPC) producers.
Not surprisingly, several clinical studies found that thepresence of MDR pathogens was a motivation not to de-escalate [42, 43], even in situations where the patient wascolonized with MDR organisms at sites other than the in-fection site. Other studies have reported de-escalation to besafe in MDR-colonized patients [44]. This does, however,not mean that the concept of de-escalation is not applicablein MDR infections. Depending on antibiotic susceptibility,an antimicrobial agent with a narrower spectrum may beavailable, or combination therapy may be stopped afterinitial therapy. If the infection is resolving, de-escalationmay prove a valid option in order to avoid further antibioticpressure [45]. However, the value of de-escalation in thesetting of MDR infections has not been extensively exploredand application should be considered on an individual pa-tient basis [45]. Retrospective analyses have found de-escalation to be a safe approach when applied in selectedpatients [23], but in a recent, non-blinded RCT [19], de-escalated patients had more superinfections and increasedantibiotic use. Although intuitively logical and frequentlysuggested [16, 46, 47], de-escalation of antibiotic therapyhas not been clearly associated with lower rates of antibioticresistance development.
PK/PD optimization
It is known that antimicrobial resistance, as defined in theclinical laboratory, often translates into insufficient
in vivo exposures that result in poor clinical and economicoutcomes [48]. In addition to resistance, it is now becomingincreasingly recognized that the host’s response to in-fection may in and of itself contribute to considerablereductions in antimicrobial exposures due to alterations inthe cardiovascular, renal, hepatic and pulmonary systems[49]. A recent ICU study has highlighted the potentialimpact of adaptations in the renal system as more than65% of these critically ill patients manifested augmentedrenal function, defined by a creatinine clearanceC130 mL/min/1.73 m2, during their initial week of hos-pitalization. This finding is particularly concerningbecause the backbones of most antimicrobial regimens inthe ICU such as penicillins, cephalosporins or carbapen-ems are predominantly cleared via the renal route [50]. Tothis end, Roberts and colleagues have recently reportedthe results of a prospective, multinational pharmacoki-netic study to assess b-lactam exposures in the criticallyill population [51]. In that study, the investigators notedthat among 248 infected patients, 16% did not achieveadequate antimicrobial exposures and that these patientswere 32% less likely to have a satisfactory infectionoutcome. While a personalized approach to dosing that isbased on a given patient’s specific pharmacokinetic pro-file for b-lactams is not yet the standard of practice asmight be expected for the aminoglycosides and van-comycin due to lack of routinely available drug assays,the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PK/PD)profile of b-lactams as well as other agents may be in-corporated into treatment algorithms to optimizeoutcomes. To this end, we developed and implementedpharmacodynamically optimized b-lactam regimenswhich incorporated the use of higher doses as well asprolonged or continuous infusion administration tech-nique to enhance in vivo exposures in patients with VAP[52]. Utilization of these regimens was shown to improvethe clinical, microbiologic and economic outcomes as-sociated with this ICU based infection. Clinicians need torecognize that in the early stages of infection, alterationsin metabolic pathways as well as the reduced suscepti-bility of target pathogens may result in inadequateantimicrobial exposures if conventional dosing regimensare utilized. Therefore, pharmacodynamically optimizeddosing regimens should be given to all patients em-pirically and once the pathogen, susceptibility and clinicalresponse are known, local stewardship practices may beemployed to redefine an appropriate regimen for the pa-tient [53].
Infection control measures
Depending on the ICU setting, one-third to up to half ofpatients may develop a nosocomial infection. Unfortu-nately, host susceptibility to infection can only be slightlymodified; the presence of microorganisms and the high
781
density of care are unavoidable. Consequently, the pre-vention of infection dissemination relies on eliminatingthe means of transmission by the use of infection controlmeasures [54]. The global idea of isolation precautioncombines the systematic use of standard precautions(hand hygiene, gloves, gowns, eye protection) and trans-mission-based precautions (contact, droplet, airborne)[55] (Table 2). Conceptually, the objective is not to iso-late, but to prevent transmission of microorganisms byanticipating the potential route of transmission and themeasures to be applied for each action of care.
Physical contact is the main route of transmission forthe majority of bacteria; however, this seems not to betrue for certain bacteria, namely MRSA, as demonstratedin a recent study [56]. It occurs via the hands of health-care workers (HCWs) from a patient or contaminatedsurfaces/instruments nearby to another patient during theprocess of care. Hand hygiene (hand washing and alcoholhand-rub), patient washing, and surface cleansing effi-ciently reduce transmission [57, 58]. Transmission canoccur via droplet or airborne particles. Specific trans-mission-based precautions required to avoid infection aresummarized in Table 2.
Isolation precautions have been widely diffused andthey are nowadays the cornerstone of preventive measuresused to control outbreaks, to decrease the rate of resistantmicroorganisms (MRSA, ESBL) and the spread ofemergent infectious diseases such as respiratory viruses(SARS, influenza, corona virus) or viral hemorrhagicfevers. In this context, enhanced adherence to appropriateisolation precautions can markedly decrease resistancedissemination and potentially further need for broad-spectrum antibiotics.
Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD)has been proposed to prevent endogenous and exogenousinfections and to reduce mortality in critically ill patients.Although the efficacy of SDD has been confirmed byRCTs and systematic reviews, SDD has been the subjectof intense controversy based mainly on insufficient evi-dence of efficacy and on concerns about resistance. Arecent meta-analysis detected no relation between the useof SDD and the development of antimicrobial resistance,suggesting that the perceived risk of long-term harm re-lated to selective decontamination cannot be justified byavailable data. However, the conclusions of the studyindicated that the effect of decontamination on ICU-levelantimicrobial resistance rates is understudied [59].
Although SDD provides a short-term benefit, neither along-term impact nor a control of emerging resistanceduring outbreaks or in settings with high resistance ratescan be maintained using this approach.
In the era of carbapenem resistance, antimicrobialssuch as colistin and aminoglycosides often represent thelast option in treating multidrug-resistant Gram-negativeinfections. In this setting, the use of colistin should be
carefully considered and possibly avoided during out-breaks due to resistant Gram-negative bacilli [60].
New therapeutic approaches
The antibiotic pipeline continues to diminish and themajority of the public remains unaware of this criticalsituation. The cause of the decline of antibiotic develop-ment is multifactorial. Drug development, in general, isfacing increasing challenges, given the high costs re-quired, which are currently estimated in the range ofUS$400–800 million per approved agent. Furthermore,antibiotics have a lower relative rate of return on invest-ment than do other drugs because they are usually used inshort-course therapies. In contrast, chronic diseases, in-cluding HIV and hepatitis, requiring long-term and maybelifelong treatments that suppress symptoms, representmore rational opportunities for investment for the phar-maceutical industry. Ironically, antibiotics are victims oftheir own success; they are less desirable to drug com-panies because they are more successful than other drugs[61].
Numerous agencies and professional societies havehighlighted the problem of the lack of new antibiotics,especially for MDR Gram-negative pathogens. Since2004 repeated calls for reinvigorating pharmaceuticalinvestments in antibiotic research and development havebeen made by the Infectious Diseases Society of America(IDSA) and several other notable societies, including In-novative Medicines Initiative (Europe’s largest public–private initiative) which funds COMBACTE [62, 63].IDSA supported a program, called ‘‘the 10 9 020 Initia-tive’’, with the aim to develop ten new systemicantibacterial drugs by 2020 through the discovery of newdrug classes or new molecules from already existingclasses of antibiotics [63].
The current assessment of the pipeline (last updatedAugust 2014) shows 45 new antibiotics in development orrecently approved (Table 3). Of those, 14 are in phase 1clinical trials, 20 in phase 2, seven in phase 3 (a new drugapplication has been submitted for one, and three wererecently approved) [64]. Five of the seven antibiotics inphase 3, as well as one drug submitted for review to theUS Food and Drug Administration (FDA), have the po-tential to address infections caused by MDR Gram-negative pathogens, the most pressing unmet need [65].Unfortunately there are very limited new options forGram-negative bacteria such as carbapenemase-produc-ing Enterobacteriaceae, XDR A. baumannii, and P.aeruginosa. Aerosol administration of drugs seems to be apromising new approach for treatment of MDR lung in-fections. Nebulized antibiotics achieve good lungconcentrations and they reduce risk of toxicity compared
782
Table
2P
rin
cip
les
of
iso
lati
on
pre
cau
tio
ns:
stan
dar
dan
dtr
ansm
issi
on
-bas
edp
reca
uti
on
s
Sta
nd
ard
pre
cau
tio
ns
All
mea
sure
ssh
ou
ldb
esy
stem
atic
ally
app
lied
for
the
care
of
all
pat
ien
ts,re
gar
dle
sso
fth
eir
dia
gn
osi
s.R
ou
tin
ead
her
ence
tost
and
ard
pre
cau
tio
ns
dec
reas
esth
eri
sko
fin
fect
ion
tran
smis
sio
nin
ho
spit
als,
irre
spec
tiv
eo
fth
ek
no
wle
dg
eo
fth
eev
entu
alp
rese
nce
of
par
ticu
lar
mic
roo
rgan
ism
sM
easu
reS
cop
eo
fu
se
Han
dh
yg
ien
eB
efo
rean
daf
ter
any
con
tact
wit
hA
ny
bo
dy
par
to
fa
pat
ien
tB
loo
d,
bo
dy
flu
ids,
incl
ud
ing
blo
od
and
any
secr
etio
no
rex
cret
ion
sC
on
tam
inat
edit
ems
inth
en
ear
env
iro
nm
ent
of
the
pat
ien
t(b
ed,
nig
hts
tan
d,
dev
ices
such
asst
eth
osc
op
es,
com
pu
ter
key
bo
ard
s,v
enti
lato
rs,
mo
nit
or
scre
ens,
etc.
)Im
med
iate
lyb
efo
reg
lov
ing
and
afte
rre
mo
vin
gg
lov
esB
etw
een
pat
ien
tco
nta
cts
Glo
ves
Fo
ran
tici
pat
edco
nta
ctw
ith
blo
od
,b
od
yfl
uid
s,se
cret
ion
s,ex
cret
ion
s,co
nta
min
ated
item
sG
lov
esar
ela
rgel
yo
ver
use
din
this
sett
ing
and
may
be
resp
on
sib
lefo
rin
crea
sed
con
tam
inat
ion
of
the
env
iro
nm
ent.
Hen
cem
any
inst
itu
tio
ns
no
wad
ays
rest
rict
the
use
of
glo
ves
for
anti
cip
ated
con
tact
wit
hb
od
yfl
uid
so
rw
ith
mu
cou
sm
emb
ran
es,
or
no
n-i
nta
ctsk
inM
ask
,ey
ep
rote
ctio
nT
op
rote
ctm
uco
us
mem
bra
nes
of
the
eyes
,n
ose
,an
dm
ou
thd
uri
ng
pro
ced
ure
san
dp
atie
nt-
care
acti
vit
ies
lik
ely
tog
ener
ate
spla
shes
or
spra
yo
fb
loo
d,b
od
yfl
uid
s,se
cret
ion
s,an
dex
cret
ion
sG
ow
ns
To
pro
tect
skin
and
pre
ven
tso
ilin
go
fcl
oth
ing
du
rin
gp
roce
du
res
and
pat
ien
t-ca
reac
tiv
itie
sli
kel
yto
gen
erat
esp
lash
eso
rsp
ray
of
blo
od
,b
od
yfl
uid
s,se
cret
ion
s,an
dex
cret
ion
sP
atie
nt
hy
gie
ne
Rep
lace
trad
itio
nal
bo
dy
was
hin
g(w
ater
and
soap
)b
y2
%ch
lorh
exid
ine-
imp
reg
nat
edd
isp
osa
ble
wip
eso
r4
%ch
lorh
exid
ine
bo
dy
was
h
Tra
nsm
issi
on
-bas
edp
reca
uti
on
sT
hes
ead
dit
ion
alp
reca
uti
on
sap
ply
tose
lect
edp
atie
nts
hav
ing
eith
era
susp
ecte
do
rco
nfi
rmed
clin
ical
syn
dro
me
or
asp
ecifi
cd
iag
no
sis
that
pre
dic
tab
lyp
lace
so
ther
sat
incr
ease
dri
sko
fac
qu
irin
gan
infe
ctio
nT
yp
eo
fp
reca
uti
on
Sco
pe
of
use
Co
nta
ctp
reca
uti
on
Ap
ply
for
pat
ien
tsk
no
wn
or
susp
ecte
dto
hav
ed
isea
ses
tran
smit
ted
by
dir
ect
ph
ysi
cal
con
tact
/co
nta
ctw
ith
item
sin
the
pat
ien
t’en
vir
on
men
tIn
fect
ion
/co
lon
izat
ion
wit
hm
ult
idru
g-r
esis
tan
tb
acte
riaa
(MR
SA
,V
RE
,M
DR
Gra
mn
egat
ives
such
asK.pneumonia
,P.
aeruginosa
,Enterobacter
cloacae,
A.baumanni)
En
teri
cin
fect
ion
s(C
.difficile
,E.coli
O1
57
:H7
,Shigella
spp
.,h
epat
itis
Av
iru
s,ro
tav
iru
s)R
esp
irat
ory
infe
ctio
ns
inch
ild
ren
(res
pir
ato
rysy
ncy
tial
vir
us,
par
ain
flu
enza
vir
us,
ente
rov
iral
infe
ctio
ns)
Hig
hly
con
tag
iou
ssk
inin
fect
ion
s(m
uco
cuta
neo
us
her
pes
sim
ple
x,im
pet
igo
,st
aph
ylo
cocc
alfu
run
culo
sis,
ped
icu
losi
s,an
dsc
abie
s)V
iral
hem
orr
hag
icco
nju
nct
ivit
isV
iral
hem
orr
hag
icfe
ver
(Las
sa,
Eb
ola
,M
arb
ug
vir
use
s)D
rop
let
pre
cau
tio
nA
pp
lyfo
rp
atie
nts
kn
ow
no
rsu
spec
ted
toh
ave
dis
ease
str
ansm
itte
db
yla
rge
dro
ple
ts([
5lm
insi
ze).
Indir
ect
tran
smis
sion
can
occ
ur
wh
end
rop
lets
con
tain
ing
mic
roo
rgan
ism
sco
nta
min
ate
surf
aces
or
item
sin
the
pat
ien
t’s
env
iro
nm
ent
wit
hin
ad
ista
nce
of
1m
(co
ug
h,
snee
ze,
and
talk
ing
,o
rd
uri
ng
pro
ced
ure
ssu
chas
bro
nch
osc
op
yan
dsu
ctio
nin
g).
Dir
ect
tran
smis
sio
no
ccu
rsw
hen
dro
ple
tsar
ed
epo
site
do
nm
uco
us
mem
bra
nes
.M
ask
,ey
ep
rote
ctio
n,
and
face
shie
ldar
ere
qu
ired
tosp
ecifi
call
yav
oid
mu
cou
sm
emb
ran
eco
nta
min
atio
nS
yst
emic
syn
dro
mes
(Neisseria
meningitides
infe
ctio
ns,Haem
ophilusinfluenzae
men
ing
itis
,G
rou
pA
Streptococci
infe
ctio
ns,
scar
let
fev
er,
tox
icsh
ock
syn
dro
me)
Res
pir
ato
ryin
fect
ion
s(M
DR
,Mycoplasm
apneumonia
,p
ertu
sis)
Ser
iou
sv
iral
infe
ctio
ns
(ad
eno
vir
us,
infl
uen
za,
mu
mp
s,p
arv
ov
iru
sB
19
,ru
bel
la)
Air
bo
rne
pre
cau
tio
nA
pp
lyfo
rp
atie
nts
kn
ow
no
rsu
spec
ted
toh
ave
dis
ease
str
ansm
itte
db
yai
rbo
rne
par
ticl
es(\
5lm
insi
zeo
rd
ust
par
ticl
es).
Th
ese
par
ticl
esca
nre
mai
nsu
spen
ded
inth
eai
rfo
rlo
ng
per
iod
san
dtr
avel
lon
gd
ista
nce
s.S
pec
ial
air
han
dli
ng
(hig
hef
fici
ency
mas
k:
N-9
5st
and
ard
)an
dv
enti
lati
on
(ro
om
sw
ith
neg
ativ
ep
ress
ure
)ar
ere
qu
ired
top
rev
ent
tran
smis
sio
nR
esp
irat
ory
infe
ctio
ns
(mea
sles
,v
aric
ella
,an
dd
isse
min
ated
zost
er,
tub
ercu
losi
s,p
ulm
on
ary
and
lary
ng
eal)
Vir
alh
emo
rrh
agic
fev
er(L
assa
,E
bo
la,
Mar
bu
gv
iru
ses)
Adap
ted
from
Hea
lthca
reIn
fect
ion
Contr
ol
Pra
ctic
esA
dvis
ory
Com
mit
tee
(HIC
PA
C)
guid
elin
es[4
8],
avai
lab
leo
n-l
ine
ath
ttp
://w
ww
.cd
c.g
ov
/nci
do
d/h
ip/i
sola
t/is
ola
t.h
tma
Fo
rex
ten
ded
-sp
ectr
um
b-l
acta
mas
e-p
rod
uci
ngEnterobacteriaceae,
po
licy
may
dif
fer
bet
wee
nh
osp
ital
sd
epen
din
go
nth
eir
end
emic
ity
783
Table
3A
nti
bio
tics
curr
entl
yin
clin
ical
dev
elopm
ent
[54
]
Dru
gcl
ass
Dru
gnam
eD
evel
opm
ent
phas
eC
om
pan
yP
ote
nti
alac
tivit
y
agai
nst
Gra
m-
neg
ativ
epat
hogen
s
Pote
nti
alin
dic
atio
ns
Cep
hal
osp
ori
nG
SK
-2696266
Phas
e1
Gla
xoS
mit
hK
line
(par
tner
ed
pro
duct
)
No
Bac
teri
alin
fect
ions
Novel
cephal
osp
ori
n?
bet
a-
lact
amas
ein
hib
itor
Cef
tolo
zane?
tazo
bac
tam
New
Dru
gA
ppli
cati
on
(ND
A)
subm
itte
d(f
or
com
pli
cate
duri
nar
y
trac
tin
fect
ion
and
com
pli
cate
din
tra-
abdom
inal
infe
ctio
n
indic
atio
ns)
Cubis
tP
har
mac
euti
cals
Yes
Com
pli
cate
duri
nar
ytr
act
infe
ctio
ns,
com
pli
cate
din
tra-
abdom
inal
infe
ctio
ns,
acute
pyel
onep
hri
tis
(kid
ney
infe
ctio
n),
hosp
ital
-acq
uir
edbac
teri
alpneu
monia
/
ven
tila
tor-
asso
ciat
edpneu
monia
Cef
taro
line?
avib
acta
mP
has
e2
Ast
raZ
enec
a/F
ore
stL
abora
tori
esY
esC
om
pli
cate
duri
nar
ytr
act
infe
ctio
ns
Cef
tazi
dim
e?
avib
acta
m(C
AZ
-AV
I)P
has
e3
Ast
raZ
enec
a/F
ore
stL
abora
tori
esY
esC
om
pli
cate
duri
nar
ytr
act
infe
ctio
ns,
com
pli
cate
din
tra-
abdom
inal
infe
ctio
ns,
acute
pyel
onep
hri
tis
(kid
ney
infe
ctio
n),
hosp
ital
-acq
uir
edbac
teri
alpneu
monia
/
ven
tila
tor-
asso
ciat
edbac
teri
alpneu
monia
Monobac
tam
?novel
bet
a-la
ctam
ase
inhib
itor
Azt
reonam
?av
ibac
tam
(AT
M-A
VI)
Phas
e1
Ast
raZ
enec
a/F
ore
stL
abora
tori
esY
esB
acte
rial
infe
ctio
ns
Car
bap
enem
?novel
bet
a-
lact
amas
ein
hib
itor
Car
bav
ance
Phas
e1
Rem
pex
Phar
mac
euti
cals
/The
Med
icin
esC
om
pan
y
Yes
Com
pli
cate
duri
nar
ytr
act
infe
ctio
ns,
com
pli
cate
din
tra-
abdom
inal
infe
ctio
ns,
hosp
ital
-acq
uir
edbac
teri
alpneu
monia
/
ven
tila
tor-
asso
ciat
edbac
teri
alpneu
monia
,
febri
leneu
tropen
ia
MK
-7655?
imip
enem
/cil
asta
tin
Phas
e2
Car
bap
enem
?novel
bet
a-
lact
amas
ein
hib
itor
Yes
Com
pli
cate
duri
nar
ytr
act
infe
ctio
ns,
acute
pyel
onep
hri
tis,
com
pli
cate
din
tra-
abdom
inal
infe
ctio
ns
Am
inogly
cosi
de
Pla
zom
icin
Phas
e3
Ach
aogen
Yes
Blo
odst
ream
infe
ctio
ns
and
noso
com
ial
pneu
monia
cause
dby
carb
apen
em-r
esis
tant
Enterobacteriaceae
Flu
oro
quin
olo
ne
WK
C771
Phas
e1
Wock
har
dt
Yes
Bac
teri
alin
fect
ions
WK
C2349
(WC
K771
pro
-dru
g)
Phas
e1
Wock
har
dt
Yes
Bac
teri
alin
fect
ions
Avar
ofl
oxac
inP
has
e2
Furi
exP
har
mac
euti
cals
Yes
Com
munit
y-a
cquir
edbac
teri
alpneu
monia
,
acute
bac
teri
alsk
inan
dsk
inst
ruct
ure
infe
ctio
ns
Fin
afloxac
inP
has
e2
Mer
Lio
nP
har
mac
euti
cals
Yes
Com
pli
cate
duri
nar
ytr
act
infe
ctio
ns,
acute
pyel
onep
hri
tis
(kid
ney
infe
ctio
n),
acute
intr
a-ab
dom
inal
infe
ctio
ns,
acute
bac
teri
al
skin
and
skin
stru
cture
infe
ctio
ns
Nem
onoxac
inP
has
e2
Tai
Gen
Bio
tech
nlo
gy
Yes
Com
munit
y-a
cquir
edbac
teri
alpneu
monia
,
dia
bet
icfo
ot
infe
ctio
n,
acute
bac
teri
alsk
in
and
skin
stru
cture
infe
ctio
ns
Zab
ofl
oxac
inP
has
e2
Dong
Wha
Phar
mac
euti
cal
No
Com
munit
y-a
cquir
edbac
teri
alpneu
monia
Del
afloxac
inP
has
e3
Mel
inta
Phar
mac
euti
cals
Yes
Acu
tebac
teri
alsk
inan
dsk
inst
ruct
ure
infe
ctio
ns,
com
munit
y-a
cquir
edbac
teri
al
pneu
monia
,unco
mpli
cate
dgonorr
hea
784
Table
3co
nti
nu
ed
Dru
gcl
ass
Dru
gnam
eD
evel
opm
ent
phas
eC
om
pan
yP
ote
nti
alac
tivit
y
agai
nst
Gra
m-
neg
ativ
epat
hogen
s
Pote
nti
alin
dic
atio
ns
Oxaz
oli
din
one
Ted
izoli
dA
ppro
ved
20
June
2014
Cubis
tP
har
mac
euti
csN
oA
cute
bac
teri
alsk
inan
dsk
inst
ruct
ure
infe
ctio
ns,
hosp
ital
-acq
uir
edbac
teri
al
pneu
monia
/ven
tila
tor
acquir
edbac
teri
al
pneu
monia
Cad
azoli
d(q
uin
olo
nyl-
oxal
idin
one)
Phas
e3
Act
elio
nP
har
mac
euti
cals
No
C.difficile
-ass
oci
ated
dia
rrhea
Rad
ezoli
dP
has
e2
Mel
inta
Phar
mac
euti
csY
esA
cute
bac
teri
alsk
inan
dsk
inst
ruct
ure
infe
ctio
ns,
com
munit
y-a
cquir
edbac
teri
al
pneu
monia
MR
X-I
Phas
e1
Mic
uR
xP
har
mac
euti
cals
No
Bac
teri
alin
fect
ions
incl
udin
gco
mm
unit
y-
acquir
edM
RS
Aan
dvan
com
yci
n-r
esis
tant
ente
roco
cci
infe
ctio
ns
LC
B01-0
371
Phas
e1
Leg
oC
hem
Bio
scie
nce
s(S
.K
ore
a)N
oB
acte
rial
infe
ctio
ns
Lip
opep
tide
and
gly
copep
tide
Ori
tavan
cin
Appro
ved
6A
ugust
2014
The
Med
icin
esC
om
pan
yN
oA
cute
bac
teri
alsk
inan
dsk
inst
ruct
ure
infe
ctio
ns
Gly
copep
tide–
cephal
osp
ori
n
het
erodim
er
TD
-1607
Phas
e1
Ther
avan
ce,
Inc
No
Ser
ious
Gra
m-p
osi
tive
bac
teri
alin
fect
ions
(acu
tebac
teri
alsk
inan
dsk
inst
ruct
ure
infe
ctio
ns,
hosp
ital
-acq
uir
edpneu
monia
/
ven
tila
tor-
asso
ciat
edpneu
monia
,
bac
tere
mia
)
TD
-1792
Phas
e2
Ther
avan
ce,
Inc
No
Acu
tebac
teri
alsk
inan
dsk
inst
ruct
ure
infe
ctio
ns,
oth
erse
rious
infe
ctio
ns
cause
dby
Gra
m-p
osi
tive
bac
teri
ain
cludin
ghosp
ital
-
acquir
edpneu
monia
/ven
tila
tor-
asso
ciat
ed
pneu
monia
and
bac
tere
mia
Lip
o-g
lyco
pep
tide
Dal
bav
anci
nA
ppro
ved
23
May
2014
Dura
taT
her
apeu
tics
No
Acu
tebac
teri
alsk
inan
dsk
inst
ruct
ure
infe
ctio
ns
Ram
opla
nin
Phas
e2
Nan
oth
erap
euti
csN
oC.difficile
-ass
oci
ated
dia
rrhea
Lip
opep
tide
Suro
tom
yci
nP
has
e3
Cubis
tP
har
mac
euti
cals
No
C.difficile
-ass
oci
ated
dia
rrhea
Mac
roli
de
Ket
oli
de
Soli
thro
myci
nP
has
e3
Cem
pra
Phar
mac
euti
cals
Yes
Com
munit
y-a
cquir
edbac
teri
alpneu
monia
,
unco
mpli
cate
duro
gen
ital
gonorr
hea
LptD
inhib
itor
PO
L7080
Phas
e2
Poly
phor
(Roch
eli
cense
e)Y
esV
enti
lato
r-as
soci
ated
bac
teri
alpneu
monia
,
low
erre
spir
atory
trac
tin
fect
ions
Tet
racy
clin
eO
mad
acycl
ine
Phas
e2
Par
atek
Phar
mac
euti
cals
Yes
Com
munit
y-a
cquir
edbac
teri
alpneu
monia
,
acute
bac
teri
alsk
inan
dsk
inst
ruct
ure
infe
ctio
ns,
com
pli
cate
duri
nar
ytr
act
infe
ctio
ns
Era
vac
ycl
ine
Phas
e3
Tet
raphas
eP
har
mac
euti
cals
Yes
Com
pli
cate
din
tra-
abdom
inal
infe
ctio
ns,
com
pli
cate
duri
nar
ytr
act
infe
ctio
ns,
hosp
ital
-acq
uir
edbac
teri
alpneu
monia
Monosu
lfat
amB
AL
30072
Phas
e1
Bas
ilea
Phar
mac
euti
caY
esM
ult
idru
g-r
esis
tant
Gra
m-n
egat
ive
bac
teri
al
infe
ctio
ns
Fab
lin
hib
itor
Deb
io1452
Phas
e2
Deb
iophar
mG
roup
No
Acu
tebac
teri
alsk
inan
dsk
inst
ruct
ure
infe
ctio
ns
Deb
io1450
(Deb
io1452
pro
-dru
g)
Phas
e1
Deb
iophar
mG
roup
No
Bac
teri
alin
fect
ions
CG
-400549
Phas
e2
Cry
stal
Gen
om
ics,
Inc
No
Acu
tebac
teri
alsk
inan
dsk
inst
ruct
ure
infe
ctio
ns;
ost
eom
yel
itis
LpxC
inhib
itor
AC
HN
-975
Phas
e1
Ach
aogen
Yes
Bac
teri
alin
fect
ions
DN
Agyra
sein
hib
itor
AZ
D0914
Phas
e1
Ast
raZ
enec
aY
esU
nco
mpli
cate
dgonorr
hea
785
with intravenous administration. A new vibrating meshnebulizer used to deliver amikacin achieved high con-centrations in the lower respiratory tract. A tenfold higherconcentration than the MIC90 of bacteria that are nor-mally responsible for nosocomial lung infections (8 lg/mL for P. aeruginosa) was documented in epithelial lin-ing fluid for amikacin [66].
Pathogen-based approach
ESBL producers
Infections caused by extended-spectrum b-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-PE) are difficultto treat owing to the resistance of the organisms tomany antibiotics [67]. Since 2010 EUCAST and CLSIrecommended the use of alternatives to carbapenems totreat these organisms. Indeed on the basis of antimi-crobial susceptibility testing, b-lactam/b-lactamaseinhibitors (BLBLIs) and specific fourth-generationcephalosporins (i.e., cefepime) with greater stabilityagainst b-lactamases could be theoretically used to treatESBL-PE infections [68]. As far as we know these‘‘alternatives’’ to carbapenems have not been evaluatedin critically ill patients. Outside the ICU, the data arestill scarce and conflicting [69]. A post hoc analysis ofpatients with bloodstream infections due to ESBL-E. coli from six published prospective cohorts sug-gested that BLBLI (including amoxicillin–clavulanicacid and piperacillin–tazobactam) were suitable alter-natives to carbapenems [70]. A meta-analysis byVardakas et al. [71] compared carbapenems andBLBLIs for bacteremia caused by ESBL-producingorganisms; taking into account the considerableheterogeneity in the trials included, the fact that nonewas powered to detect outcome differences and the factthat most severely ill patients tended to receive car-bapenems, there was no statistically significantdifference in mortality between patients receiving asempirical or definitive therapy BLBLIs or carbapenems.Regarding the use of cefepime in this specific situation,the data available are more confusing but it seems thatthe use of this b-lactam is safe in case of infectionwith isolates with an MIC value of 1 mg/L or less [72–74]. For critically ill patients, dosages of 2 g every12 h or higher are probably preferred. As suggested inrecent studies in this specific situation, practitionersshould be aware of the risk of suboptimal dosage.
According to all the recent data, for critically ill pa-tients carbapenems are still preferable to alternatives asempirical therapy when ESBL-PE is suspected. Alterna-tives as definitive therapy could be possible oncesusceptibilities are known. However, high dosage andsemi-continuous administration of b-lactams should bepreferred.T
able
3co
nti
nu
ed
Dru
gcl
ass
Dru
gnam
eD
evel
opm
ent
phas
eC
om
pan
yP
ote
nti
alac
tivit
y
agai
nst
Gra
m-
neg
ativ
epat
hogen
s
Pote
nti
alin
dic
atio
ns
Met
hio
nyl-
tRN
A
synth
etas
e(M
etR
S)
inhib
itor
CR
S-3
123
Phas
e1
Cre
stone,
Inc
No
C.difficile
infe
ctio
n
Pep
tide
def
orm
yla
se
inhib
itor
GS
K-1
322322
Phas
e2
Gla
xoS
mit
hK
line
No
Acu
tebac
teri
alsk
inan
dsk
inst
ruct
ure
infe
ctio
ns
Type
2to
pois
om
eras
e
inhib
itor
GS
K-2
140944
Phas
e2
Gla
xoS
mit
hK
line
No
Res
pir
atory
trac
tin
fect
ions,
acute
bac
teri
alsk
in
and
skin
stru
cture
infe
ctio
ns
Bic
ycl
oli
de
ED
P-7
88
Phas
e1
Enan
taP
har
mac
euti
cals
Yes
Bac
teri
alin
fect
ions
Ple
uro
muti
lin
Lef
amuli
n(B
C-3
781)
Phas
e2
Nab
riva
Ther
apeu
tics
No
Acu
tebac
teri
alsk
inan
dsk
inst
ruct
ure
infe
ctio
ns,
com
munit
y-a
cquir
edbac
teri
al
pneu
monia
Elo
ngat
ion
fact
or
inhib
itor
LF
F571
Phas
e2
Novar
tis
No
C.difficile
-ass
oci
ated
dia
rrhea
Fusi
dan
eT
akst
a(f
usi
dic
acid
)P
has
e2
Cem
pra
Phar
mac
euti
csN
oP
rost
het
icjo
int
infe
ctio
ns
Def
ensi
n-m
imet
icB
rila
cidin
Phas
e2
Cel
lceu
tix
Corp
No
Acu
tebac
teri
alsk
inan
dsk
inst
ruct
ure
infe
ctio
ns
SM
T19969
Phas
e2
Sum
mit
Corp
ora
tion
Plc
.N
oC.difficile
-ass
oci
ated
dia
rrhea
786
Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE)
The vast majority of CRE isolates are resistant to the mostclinically reliable antibiotic classes leaving colistin,tigecycline, and gentamicin as the main therapeutic ap-proaches, whereas several reports have revealed high riskof mortality associated with these infections [38, 75, 76].Given the lack of data from randomized clinical trials,therapeutic approaches in CRE infections are based on theaccumulating clinical experience and particularly frominfections by K. pneumoniae producing either KPC orVerona integron-mediated metallo-b-lactamase (VIM).Recent evidence supports combination treatment con-taining two or three in vitro active drugs, revealingsignificant advantages over monotherapies in terms ofsurvival [38, 39, 77, 78]. Although paradoxical, sinceKPC enzymes hydrolyse carbapenems, the most sig-nificant improvement seems to be obtained when thecombination includes a carbapenem, providing substantialsurvival benefit in patients who are more severely ill and/or those with septic shock [78, 79]. Carbapenems’ in vivoactivity against CRE was compatible with MICs reaching8–16 mg/L [38, 77, 78], probably attributed to an en-hanced drug exposure with high-dose/prolonged-infusionregimens of carbapenems. Aminoglycoside-containingcombinations, particularly gentamicin, were associatedwith favorable outcomes compared to other combinationsand could serve as a backbone, particularly in view ofincreasing rates of colistin resistance [38, 39, 78]. Colistinand tigecycline represent the remaining agents to be se-lected for the combination, based on the sensitivitypattern. A recently reported clinical success of 55 % inthe treatment of infections by XDR and PDR pathogenswith combinations of fosfomycin make it anothertherapeutic candidate, particularly in the treatment ofEnterobacteriaceae against which susceptibility rates arepromising [80]. High doses (up to 24 g/day) and avoid-ance of monotherapy are strongly recommended in thesetting of critically ill patients with MDR pathogens.
Failing monotherapies with colistin or tigecycline maybe explained by a suboptimal exposure to the drug; recentPK/PD data favor dose escalation compared to the ini-tially recommended dose regimens. A small single-centernon-comparative study employing a loading dose (LD) of9 MIU followed by 4.5 MIU bid and adaptation accord-ing to renal function [81, 82] showed that colistinmonotherapy might be adequate [83]. A concise guide tooptimal use of polymyxins is shown in the ElectronicSupplementary Material. Higher doses up to 200 mg/daymay optimize tigecycline PKs and result in improvedclinical outcomes [84].
Double carbapenem combinations, consisting of er-tapenem as a substrate and doripenem or meropenem asthe active compound, have been recently proven suc-cessful in case series and small studies, even when thepathogen expressed high MIC to carbapenems [85].
Finally, decisions regarding the empiric antibiotic treat-ment of critically ill patients must be based on a soundknowledge of the local distribution of pathogens and onanalysis of presence of risk factors for infection caused byCRE [76, 86].
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
P. aeruginosa, along with E. coli, K. pneumoniae, and A.baumannii, is a leading pathogen in the ICU setting,causing severe infections (VAP, bacteremia) with mor-tality directly related to any delay in starting anappropriate antibiotic therapy [87].
In 2011, high percentages of P. aeruginosa isolatesresistant to aminoglycosides, ceftazidime, fluoro-quinolones, piperacillin/tazobactam, and carbapenemswere reported from several countries especially inSouthern and Eastern Europe. Resistance to carbapenemswas above 10 % in 19 of 29 countries reporting to theEuropean Center for Diseases Control (ECDC); MDR wasalso common, with 15 % of the isolates reported as re-sistant to at least three antimicrobial classes. CR-resistantP. aeruginosa now accounts for about 20 % of the isolatesin Italian ICUs, with few strains (2–3 %) being also re-sistant to colistin [88].
Primary regimens for susceptible isolates, dependingon the site and severity of infection, are summarized inTable 4. A beta-lactam antibiotic with anti-pseudomonasactivity is generally preferred and administered with ex-tended infusion after a LD to rapidly achieve thepharmacodynamic target [89]. Although there is not clearevidence supporting the advantage of combination ther-apy (i.e., a b-lactam plus an aminoglycoside or afluoroquinolone) over monotherapy [90], many cliniciansadopt this regimen for serious infections (bacteremia,VAP) and in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.When a combination therapy with an aminoglycoside(amikacin or gentamicin) is preferred, we recommend amaximum duration of 5 days.
For infection caused by a strain susceptible only tocolistin, a regimen of high-dose colistin (9 MU LD, then4.5 MU bid) is recommended. Nebulized administrationof colistin is also considered for VAP, and intrathecal
Table 4 Primary regimens for treating P. aeruginosa infection
Piperacillin–tazobactam (MIC B 16 mg/L): 4.5 g IV q6ha
Ceftazidime or cefepime (MIC B 8 mg/L): 2 g IV q6/8ha
Meropenem (MIC B 8 mg/L): 1–2 g IV q8ha
Aztreonamb (MIC B 8 mg/L): 2 g IV q6ha (for IgE-mediatedb-lactam allergy)
Levofloxacin 750 mg IV q24h or ciprofloxacin 400 mg IV q8h
a Beta-lactam antibiotics are administered as an extended in-fusion (3–4 h) after a LDb For urinary tract infections or as a partner agent
787
administration is required for meningitis [91]. The ad-vantage of adding a carbapenem (in case of a non-carbapenem-susceptible strain) to colistin is unclear, andseveral experts prefer to use a combination showingsynergistic activity ‘‘in vitro’’ (i.e., colistin plus rifampin).Fosfomycin shows variable in vitro activity against P.aeruginosa MDR/XDR strains and may be administered,mainly as part of a combination regimen, for systemicinfections (4 g every 6 h). New drugs with activityagainst P. aeruginosa include ceftazidime/avibactam, anon-lactam inhibitor of class A and C b-lactamases andAmpC from P. aeruginosa, the new aminoglycosideplazomicin, and the combination of the new cephalos-porin ceftolozane with tazobactam, which shows activityalso against MDR and XDR P. aeruginosa strains andcompleted phase 3 trials for the treatment of complicatedintra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) and complicated uri-nary tract infections (cUTIs) [65, 90].
Acinetobacter baumannii
A. baumannii has gained increasing attention because ofits potential to cause severe infections and its ability indeveloping resistance to practically all available antimi-crobials. Adequate empirical therapy of severe infectionscaused by A. baumannii is crucial in terms of survival[92].
The empirical treatment for A. baumannii infectionsoften represents a challenge and might be consideredin case of severe sepsis/septic shock and in centerswith greater than 25 % prevalence of MDR A. bau-mannii [93]. Traditionally, carbapenems have been thedrug of choice and are still the preferred antimicrobialsfor Acinetobacter infections in areas with high rates ofsusceptibility. Sulbactam is a bactericide against A.
baumannii and represents a suitable alternative for A.baumannii susceptible to this agent. Unfortunately, asteady increase in the resistance to sulbactam in A.baumannii has been observed [94]. Nowadays,polymyxins are the antimicrobials with the greatestlevel of in vitro activity against A. baumannii [95, 96].However, their indiscriminate use may contribute tofurther selection of resistance and may also exposepatients to unnecessary toxicity. Thus, selection ofpatients who should receive empirical treatment cov-ering Acinetobacter is essential. Colistin is the mostwidely used in clinical practice although polymyxin Bseems to be associated with less renal toxicity [97].The recommended doses of these antimicrobials areshown in Table 5. Tigecycline, active in vitro against awide range of Gram-negative bacilli including A.baumannii, is approved in Europe for the treatment ofcomplicated skin structure infections and intra-ab-dominal infections. Nevertheless, although diversemeta-analyses have warned about the increased risk ofdeath in patients receiving tigecycline compared toother antibiotics particularly in HAP and VAP [98–100], a high dose regimen (Table 5), usually in com-bination with another antimicrobial, may be a validalternative for severe infections including A. bauman-nii pneumonia [75, 101].
Although in vitro studies have demonstrated synergyof colistin with rifampin, a recent RCT demonstrated noimproved clinical outcomes with the combination ofcolistin/rifampin while better eradication was achieved[102]. Different in vitro studies have documented theexistence of an unforeseen potent synergism of thecombination of colistin with a glycopeptide against car-bapenem-resistant A. baumannii; however, a combinationof colistin plus a glycopeptide in A. baumannii infectionsis actually discouraged [103, 104].
Table 5 Recommended doses of antimicrobials for A. baumannii severe infections in patients with normal renal function
Antibiotic Loading dose Daily dose Observations
Imipenema Not required 1 g/6–8 h Extended or prolonged infusion is not possible due to druginstability
Meropenema Not required 1–2 g/6 h Extended infusion (3–4 h) is recommended. If extendedinfusion is used, the first dose should be administered in30 min
Sulbactama Not required 9–12 g/6–8 h 4-h infusion is recommendedColistina 9 MU 9 MU/day in 2 or 3 dose LD is necessary including patients with renal dysfunction.
No dose adjustment in patients on CRRTPolymyxin B Not established 1.5–3 mg/kg/day in 2 doses Continuous infusion may be suitable. Same doses in
patients on CRRTTigecycline 100 mg
200 mg50 mg/12 h100 mg/12 h
May be adequate for approved indications (abdominalinfections and SSTI)
For other indications, especially pulmonary infections.Without approval by regulatory agencies
CRRT continuous renal replacement therapy, SST skin and soft tissue infectiona Dose adjustment is necessary in case of renal dysfunction
788
MRSA
The main treatment options for treating MRSA infectionsin critically ill patients include glycopeptides (van-comycin and teicoplanin), linezolid, and daptomycin;daptomycin is contraindicated for the treatment of pneu-monia because of its inactivation by surfactant.Alternative anti-MRSA agents are tigecycline, for whichthere is a regulatory warning concerning possible smallincreased (unexplained) mortality risk [105], telavancin,which has associated warnings contraindicating its usenotably in patients with renal failure [99], and ceftaroline,dalbavancin, and oritavancin, which have limited evi-dence for their efficacy in very severe infection. Therehave been numerous meta-analyses to compare the effi-cacy of the aforementioned agents in MRSA infection.Four meta-analyses are unusual in that they have assessedall possible treatment options [106–109], although onlyone study [107] examined all MRSA infection types (asopposed to MRSA cSSTIs). This latter (network meta-analysis) study identified 24 RCTs (17 for cSSTI and 10for HAP/VAP) comparing one of six antibiotics withvancomycin. In cSSTI, linezolid and ceftaroline werenon-significantly more effective than vancomycin. Line-zolid ORs were 1.15 (0.74–1.71) and 1.01 (0.42–2.14) andceftaroline ORs were 1.12 (0.78–1.64) and 1.59(0.68–3.74) in the modified intention to treat (MITT) andMRSA m-MITT populations, respectively. For HAP/VAP, linezolid was non-significantly better than van-comycin, with ORs of 1.05 (0.72–1.57) and 1.32(0.71–2.48) in the MITT and MRSA m-MITT popula-tions, respectively. The data of the Zephyr trial suggesteda clinical superiority of linezolid compared with van-comycin with higher rates of successful clinical response,acceptable safety and tolerability profile for the treatmentof proven MRSA nosocomial pneumonia. Microbiologicresponses paralleled clinical outcomes, and MRSAclearance was 30 % greater with linezolid than withvancomycin. A difference of at least 20 % persisted untillate follow-up, suggesting that linezolid treatment mayresult in more complete bacterial eradication [110].
Uncertainties surrounding the relative efficacy ofvancomycin have been fuelled by reports of worse out-comes in patients with MRSA infection caused by strainswith elevated MICs. A recent meta-analysis of S. aureusbacteremia studies failed to find an overall increased riskof death when comparing cases caused by S. aureus ex-hibiting high-vancomycin MIC (at least 1.5 mg/L) withthose due to low-vancomycin MIC (less than 1.5 mg/L)strains [111]. Outbreak of MRSA resistant to linezolidmediated by the cfr gene has been reported and was as-sociated with nosocomial transmission and extensiveusage of linezolid [112]. However, the authors cautionedthat they cannot definitely exclude an increased mortalityrisk, and to emphasize this point it remains possible that
specific MRSA strains/clones are associated with worseoutcomes. Attempts to address elevated MICs and soimprove target attainment by increasing vancomycindosages are associated with more nephrotoxicity [113].
Clostridium difficile
Severe C. difficile infection (CDI) is characterized by atleast one of the following: white blood cell count greaterthan 15 9 109/L, an acute rising serum creatinine (i.e.,greater than 50 % increase above baseline), a temperatureof greater than 38.5 �C, or abdominal or radiologicalevidence of severe colitis. There are currently two maintreatment options for severe CDI: either oral vancomycin125 mg qds for 10–14 days, or fidaxomicin, which shouldbe considered for patients with severe CDI at high risk forrecurrence [114]. The latter include elderly patients withmultiple comorbidities who are receiving concomitantantibiotics. Metronidazole monotherapy should beavoided in patients with severe CDI because of increasingevidence that it is inferior to the alternatives discussedhere [115]. In severe CDI cases who are not responding tooral vancomycin 125 mg qds, oral fidaxomicin 200 mgbid is an alternative; or high-dosage oral vancomycin (upto 500 mg qds, if necessary administered via a nasogastrictube), with or without iv metronidazole 500 mg tds. Theaddition of oral rifampicin (300 mg bid) or iv im-munoglobulin (400 mg/kg) may also be considered, butevidence is lacking regarding the efficacy of these ap-proaches. There are case reports of tigecycline being usedto treat severe CDI that has failed to respond to conven-tional treatment options, but this is an unlicensedindication [116, 117].
In life-threatening CDI (i.e., hypotension, partial orcomplete ileus, or toxic megacolon) oral vancomycin upto 500 mg qid for 10–14 days via nasogastric tube (whichis then clamped for 1 h) and/or rectal installation ofvancomycin enemas plus iv metronidazole 500 mg threetimes daily are used [118], but there is a poor evidencebase in such cases. These patients require closemonitoring, with specialist surgical input, and shouldhave their blood lactate measured. Colectomy should beconsidered if caecal dilatation is more than 10 cm, or incase of perforation or septic shock. Colectomy is bestperformed before blood lactate rises above 5 mmol/L,when survival is extremely poor [119]. A recent system-atic review concluded that total colectomy with endileostomy is the preferred surgical procedure; other pro-cedures are associated with high rates of re-operation andmortality. Less extensive surgery may have a role in se-lected patients with earlier-stage disease [120]. Analternative approach, diverting loop ileostomy and colo-nic lavage, has been reported to be associated withreduced morbidity and mortality [121].
789
Conclusions
Current clinical practice relating to critically ill patientshas been extremely challenged by the emergence ofmultidrug resistance among the commonly encounteredpathogens. Treatment options seem to be more optimisticfor Gram-positive pathogens (including C. difficile), forwhich the pipeline is more promising; however, the re-cently launched anti-MRSA agents have not beenextensively investigated in critically ill populations. In thefield of Gram-negative MDR infections there is greatconcern about the therapeutic future, as only a handful ofthe upcoming agents will address the unmet medicalneeds. Associations of beta-lactams with beta-lactamaseinhibitors seem promising against Gram-negative MDRpathogens, but their real clinical utility will be knownonly after results of large clinical trials are available.Currently, the most effective approach is the PK/PD op-timization of the available antibiotics, particularly giventhe increasing awareness of the pharmacokinetic alter-ations that occur in the critically ill patient. Combinationtreatments seem to be important, at least in the empiricalphase of treatment, to ensure adequate coverage of thepatient and improve clinical outcome. However, ran-domized clinical trials are urgently needed to define thepossible benefit from combinations in various settings.Most importantly, infection control measures and promptdiagnostics are the cornerstones to prevent further
transmission of MDR and XDR pathogens in healthcaresettings and to optimize early antimicrobial treatment.
Acknowledgments Research made in collaboration with theCritically Ill Patients Study Group (ESGCIP) of the European So-ciety of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID).
Conflicts of interest MB serves on scientific advisory boards forAstraZeneca, Bayer, Cubist, Pfizer Inc, MSD, Tetraphase, andAstellas Pharma Inc.; has received funding for travel or speakerhonoraria from Algorithm, Angelini, Astellas Pharma Inc., As-traZeneca, Cubist, Pfizer MSD, Gilead Sciences, Novartis,Ranbaxy, and Teva. GP has received funding for travel or speakerhonoraria from Astellas, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer. JGMhas received speaker honoraria from Astellas, Gilead, MSD, No-vartis, and Pfizer and a scientific grant from Astellas. DPN:Consultant, member of the speakers bureau, or has received re-search grant funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cubist, Actavis,GSK, Medicines Co., Merck, Pfizer, and Tetraphase. JDW hasserved on advisory boards for Bayer, Cubist, MSD, and SumitomoPharma. PE has received funding for advisory board or speakerhonoraria from Astellas, MSD, and Pfizer. MHW has receivedconsulting fees from Abbott Laboratories, Actelion, Astellas, Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, Cerexa, Cubist, Durata, The European TissueSymposium, The Medicines Company, MedImmune, Merck, MotifBiosciences, Nabriva, Optimer, Paratek, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Pasteur, Seres, Summit, and Synthetic Biologics; and lecture feesfrom Abbott, Alere, Astellas, Astra-Zeneca, and Pfizer; grant sup-port from Abbott, Actelion, Astellas, bioMerieux, Cubist, DaVolterra, The European Tissue Symposium, Merck, and Summit.The other authors declare no conflict of interests.
References
1. Nathan C, Cars O (2014) Antibioticresistance—problems, progress, andprospects. N Engl J Med371:1761–1763
2. Barber M, Rozwadowska-DowzenkiM (1948) Infection by penicillin-resistant staphylococci. Lancet2:641–644
3. Bassetti M, Nicolau DP, Calandra T(2014) What’s new in antimicrobialuse and resistance in critically illpatients? Intensive Care Med40:422–426
4. WHO (2014) Antimicrobialresistance: global report onsurveillance.http://www.who.int/drugresistance/documents/surveillancereport/en/
5. ECDC (2013) The ECDC EARS-Netreport 2013. http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/antimicrobial-resistance-surveillance-europe-2013.pdf
6. Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, CareyRB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME, GiskeCG, Harbarth S, Hindler JF,Kahlmeter G, Olsson-Liljequist B,Paterson DL, Rice LB, Stelling J,Struelens MJ, Vatopoulos A, WeberJT, Monnet DL (2012) Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistantand pandrug-resistant bacteria: aninternational expert proposal forinterim standard definitions foracquired resistance. Clin MicrobiolInfect 18:268–281
7. Razazi K, Derde LP, Verachten M,Legrand P, Lesprit P, Brun-Buisson C(2012) Clinical impact and risk factorsfor colonization with extended-spectrum b-lactamase-producingbacteria in the intensive care unit.Intensive Care Med 38(11):1769–1778
8. Woodford N (2008) Successful,multiresistant bacterial clones.J Antimicrob Chemother 61:233–234
9. Sundqvist M, Geli P, Andersson DI,Sjolund-Karlsson M, Runehagen A,Cars H, Abelson-Storby K, Cars O,Kahlmeter G (2010) Little evidencefor reversibility of trimethoprimresistance after a drastic reduction intrimethoprim use. J AntimicrobChemother 65(2):350–360
10. ESCMID Conference on Reviving OldAntibiotics (2014) 22–24 October2014, Vienna, Austria. https://www.escmid.org/research_projects/escmid_conferences/reviving_old_antibiotics/scientific_programme/.Accessed 11 Mar 2015
11. Buchan BW, Ledeboer NA (2014)Emerging technologies for the clinicalmicrobiology laboratory. ClinMicrobiol Rev 27(4):783–822
12. La Scola B, Raoult D (2009) Directidentification of bacteria in positiveblood culture bottles by matrix-assisted laser desorption time-of-flightmass spectrometry. PLoS One 4:e8041
790
13. The European Committee onAntimicrobial Susceptibility Testing(EUCAST). http://www.eucast.org.Accessed 11 Mar 2015
14. The Clinical Laboratory StandardsInstitute. http://www.clsi.org.Accessed 11 Mar 2015
15. Clinical breakpoints from theEuropean Committee onAntimicrobial Susceptibility Testing.http://www.eucast.org/clinical_breakpoints/. Accessed 11Mar 2015
16. Dellit TH, Owens RC, McGowan JEJr, Gerding DN, Weinstein RA, BurkeJP, Huskins WC, Paterson DL,Fishman NO, Carpenter CF, BrennanPJ, Billeter M, Hooton TM, InfectiousDiseases Society of America and theSociety for Healthcare Epidemiologyof America (2007) Guidelines fordeveloping an institutional program toenhance antimicrobial stewardship.Clin Infect Dis 44:159–177
17. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A,Annane D, Gerlach H, Opal SM,Sevransky JE, Sprung CL, Douglas IS,Jaeschke R, Osborn TM, NunnallyME, Townsend SR, Reinhart K,Kleinpell RM, Angus DC,Deutschman CS, Machado FR,Rubenfeld GD, Webb S, Beale RJ,Vincent JL, Moreno R, SurvivingSepsis Campaign GuidelinesCommittee including The PediatricSubgroup (2013) Surviving SepsisCampaign: international guidelines formanagement of severe sepsis andseptic shock. Intensive Care Med39:165–228
18. Levy MM, Rhodes A, Phillips GS,Townsend SR, Schorr CA, Beale R,Osborn T, Lemeshow S, Chiche JD,Artigas A, Dellinger RP (2014)Surviving Sepsis Campaign:association between performancemetrics and outcomes in a 7.5-yearstudy. Intensive Care Med40:1623–1633
19. Timsit JF, Harbarth S, Carlet J (2014)De-escalation as a potential way ofreducing antibiotic use andantimicrobial resistance in ICU.Intensive Care Med 40:1580–1582
20. Luyt CE, Brechot N, Trouillet JL,Chastre J (2014) Antibioticstewardship in the intensive care unit.Crit Care 18:480
21. Kaki R, Elligsen M, Walker S, SimorA, Palmay L, Daneman N (2011)Impact of antimicrobial stewardship incritical care: a systematic review.J Antimicrob Chemother66:1223–1230
22. Chalfine A, Kitzis MD, Bezie Y,Benali A, Perniceni L, Nguyen JC,Dumay MF, Gonot J, Rejasse G,Goldstein F, Carlet J, Misset B (2012)Ten-year decrease of acquiredmethicillin-resistant Staphylococcusaureus (MRSA) bacteremia at a singleinstitution: the result of a multifacetedprogram combining cross-transmissionprevention and antimicrobialstewardship. Antimicrob Resist InfectControl 1:18
23. Garnacho-Montero J, Gutierrez-Pizarraya A, Escoresca-Ortega A et al(2013) De-escalation of empiricaltherapy is associated with lowermortality in patients with severe sepsisand septic shock. Intensive Care Med39:2237
24. Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE et al(2006) Duration of hypotension beforeinitiation of effective antimicrobialtherapy is the critical determinant ofsurvival in human septic shock. CritCare Med 34:1589–1596
25. Tabah A, Koulenti D, Laupland K et al(2012) Characteristics anddeterminants of outcome of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections inintensive care units: the EUROBACTInternational Cohort Study. IntensiveCare Med 38:1930–1945
26. Ferrer R, Artigas A, Suarez D,Palencia E, Levy MM, Arenzana A,Perez XL, Sirvent JM (2009)Effectiveness of treatments for severesepsis: a prospective, multicenter,observational study. Am J Respir CritCare Med 180:861–866
27. Kumar A, Ellis P, Arabi Y, Roberts Det al (2009) Initiation of inappropriateantimicrobial therapy results in afivefold reduction of survival inhuman septic shock. Chest136:1237–1248
28. Zilberberg MD, Shorr AF, Micek ST,Vazquez-Guillamet C, Kollef MH(2014) Multi-drug resistance,inappropriate initial antibiotic therapyand mortality in Gram-negative severesepsis and septic shock: a retrospectivecohort study. Crit Care 18(6):596
29. Aliberti S, Cilloniz C, Chalmers JDet al (2013) Multidrug-resistantpathogens in hospitalised patientscoming from the community withpneumonia: a European perspective.Thorax 68:997–999
30. Kollef MH, Sherman G, Ward S et al(1999) Inadequate antimicrobialtreatment of infections: a risk factorfor hospital mortality among criticallyill patients. Chest 115:462–474
31. Goncalves-Pereira J, Pereira JM,Ribeiro O, Baptista JP, Froes F, PaivaJA (2014) Impact of infection onadmission and of process of care onmortality of patients admitted to theintensive care unit: the INFAUCIstudy. Clin Microbiol Infect. doi:10.1111/1469-0691.12738
32. Prkno A, Wacker C, Brunkhorst FM,Schlattmann P (2013) Procalcitonin-guided therapy in intensive care unitpatients with severe sepsis and septicshock—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 17(6):R291
33. Paul M, Benuri-Silbiger I, Soares-Weiser K, Leibovici L (2004) Betalactam monotherapy versus betalactam-aminoglycoside combinationtherapy for sepsis inimmunocompetent patients:systematic review and meta-analysisof randomised trials. BMJ328(7441):668
34. Heyland DK, Dodek P, Muscedere J,Day A, Cook D, Canadian CriticalCare Trials Group (2008) Randomizedtrial of combination versusmonotherapy for the empiric treatmentof suspected ventilator-associatedpneumonia. Crit Care Med36(3):737–744
35. Brunkhorst FM, Oppert M, Marx G,Bloos F, Ludewig K, Putensen C,Nierhaus A, Jaschinski U, Meier-Hellmann A, Weyland A, GrundlingM, Moerer O, Riessen R, Seibel A,Ragaller M, Buchler MW, John S,Bach F, Spies C, Reill L, Fritz H,Kiehntopf M, Kuhnt E, Bogatsch H,Engel C, Loeffler M, Kollef MH,Reinhart K, Welte T, German StudyGroup Competence Network Sepsis(SepNet) (2012) Effect of empiricaltreatment with moxifloxacin andmeropenem vs meropenem on sepsis-related organ dysfunction in patientswith severe sepsis: a randomized trial.JAMA 307(22):2390–2399
36. Micek ST, Welch EC, Khan J, PervezM, Doherty JA, Reichley RM, KollefMH (2010) Empiric combinationantibiotic therapy is associated withimproved outcome against sepsis dueto Gram-negative bacteria: aretrospective analysis. AntimicrobAgents Chemother 54(5):1742–1748
791
37. Kumar A, Zarychanski R, Light B,Parrillo J, Maki D, Simon D, LaportaD, Lapinsky S, Ellis P, Mirzanejad Y,Martinka G, Keenan S, Wood G, ArabiY, Feinstein D, Kumar A, Dodek P,Kravetsky L, Doucette S, CooperativeAntimicrobial Therapy of SepticShock (CATSS) Database ResearchGroup (2010) Early combinationantibiotic therapy yields improvedsurvival compared with monotherapyin septic shock: a propensity-matchedanalysis. Crit Care Med38(9):1773–1785
38. Tumbarello M, Viale P, Viscoli C,Trecarichi EM, Tumietto F, MarcheseA, Spanu T, Ambretti S, Ginocchio F,Cristini F, Losito AR, Tedeschi S,Cauda R, Bassetti M (2012) Predictorsof mortality in bloodstream infectionscaused by Klebsiella pneumoniaecarbapenemase-producing K.pneumoniae: importance ofcombination therapy. Clin Infect Dis55(7):943–950
39. Qureshi ZA, Paterson DL, Potoski BA,Kilayko MC, Sandovsky G, SordilloE, Polsky B, Adams-Haduch JM, DoiY (2012) Treatment outcome ofbacteremia due to KPC-producingKlebsiella pneumoniae: superiority ofcombination antimicrobial regimens.Antimicrob Agents Chemother56(4):2108–2113
40. Samonis G, Maraki S,Karageorgopoulos DE, VouloumanouEK, Falagas ME (2012) Synergy offosfomycin with carbapenems,colistin, netilmicin, and tigecyclineagainst multidrug-resistant Klebsiellapneumoniae, Escherichia coli, andPseudomonas aeruginosa clinicalisolates. Eur J Clin Microbiol InfectDis 31:695–701
41. Durante-Mangoni E, Grammatikos A,Utili R, Falagas ME (2009) Do we stillneed the aminoglycosides? Int JAntimicrob Agents 33:201–205
42. De Waele JJ, Ravyts M, Depuydt P,Blot SI, Decruyenaere J, Vogelaers D(2010) De-escalation after empiricalmeropenem treatment in the intensivecare unit: fiction or reality? J Crit Care25:641–646
43. Gonzalez L, Cravoisy A, Barraud D,Conrad M, Nace L, Lemarie J,Bollaert PE, Gibot S (2013) Factorsinfluencing the implementation ofantibiotic de-escalation and impact ofthis strategy in critically ill patients.Crit Care 17:R140
44. Mokart D, Slehofer G, Lambert J,Sannini A, Chow-Chine L, Brun JP,Berger P, Duran S, Faucher M, BlacheJL, Saillard C, Vey N, Leone M(2014) De-escalation of antimicrobialtreatment in neutropenic patients withsevere sepsis: results from anobservational study. Intensive CareMed 40:41–49
45. De Waele JJ, Bassetti M, Martin-Loeches I (2014) Impact of de-escalation on ICU patients’ prognosis.Intensive Care Med 40:1583–1585
46. Leone M, Bechis C, Baumstarck K,Lefrant JY, Albanese J, Jaber S,Lepape A, Constantin JM, Papazian L,Bruder N, Allaouchiche B, Bezulier K,Antonini F, Textoris J, Martin C(2014) De-escalation versuscontinuation of empiricalantimicrobial treatment in severesepsis: a multicenter non-blindedrandomized noninferiority trial.Intensive Care Med 40:1399–1408
47. Kollef MH (2014) What can beexpected from antimicrobial de-escalation in the critically ill?Intensive Care Med 40:92–95
48. Thabit AK, Crandon JL, Nicolau DP(2015) Antimicrobial resistance:impact on clinical and economicoutcomes and the need for newantimicrobials. Exp OpinPharmacother 16:159–177
49. Roberts JA, Abdul-Aziz MH, LipmanJ, Mouton JW, Vinks AA, Felton TW,Hope WW, Farkas A, Neely MN,Schentag JJ, Drusano G, Frey OR,Theuretzbacher U, Kuti JL,International Society of Anti-InfectivePharmacology and thePharmacokinetics andPharmacodynamics Study Group ofthe European Society of ClinicalMicrobiology and Infectious Diseases(2014) Individualised antibiotic dosingfor patients who are critically ill:challenges and potential solutions.Lancet Infect Dis 14:498–509
50. Udy AA, Baptista JP, Lim NL, JoyntGM, Jarrett P, Wockner L, Boots RJ,Lipman J (2014) Augmented renalclearance in the ICU: results of amulticenter observational study ofrenal function in critically ill patientswith normal plasma creatinineconcentrations. Crit Care Med42:520–527
51. Roberts JA, Paul SK, Akova M,Bassetti M, De Waele JJ, DimopoulosG, Kaukonen KM, Koulenti D, MartinC, Montravers P, Rello J, Rhodes A,Starr T, Wallis SC, Lipman J, DALIStudy (2014) DALI: definingantibiotic levels in intensive care unitpatients: are current b-lactamantibiotic doses sufficient for criticallyill patients? Clin Infect Dis58:1072–1083
52. Nicasio AM, Eagye KJ, Nicolau DP,Shore E, Palter M, Pepe J, Kuti JL(2010) A pharmacodynamic-basedclinical pathway for empiric antibioticchoice in patients infected withventilator-associated pneumonia.J Crit Care 25:69–77
53. MacVane SH, Kuti JL, Nicolau DP(2014) Prolonging b-lactam infusion:a review of the rationale and evidence,and guidance for implementation. Int JAntimicrob Agents 43(2):105–113
54. Eggimann P, Pittet D (2001) Infectioncontrol in the ICU. Chest120:2059–2093
55. Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M,Chiarello L, Health Care InfectionControl Practices Advisory Committee(2007) 2007 guideline for isolationprecautions: preventing transmissionof infectious agents in health caresettings. Am J Infect Control 35:S65–S164
56. Price JR, Golubchik T, Cole K,Wilson DJ, Crook DW, Thwaites GE,Bowden R, Walker AS, Peto TE, PaulJ, Llewelyn MJ (2014) Whole-genomesequencing shows that patient-to-patient transmission rarely accountsfor acquisition of Staphylococcusaureus in an intensive care unit. ClinInfect Dis 58(5):609–618
57. Longtin Y, Sax H, Allegranzi B,Schneider F, Pittet D, Videos inclinical medicine (2011) Handhygiene. N Engl J Med 364:e24
58. Derde LP, Cooper BS, Goossens H,Malhotra-Kumar S, Willems RJ,Gniadkowski M, Hryniewicz W,Empel J, Dautzenberg MJ, Annane D,Aragao I, Chalfine A, Dumpis U,Esteves F, Giamarellou H, Muzlovic I,Nardi G, Petrikkos GL, Tomic V,Martı AT, Stammet P, Brun-BuissonC, Bonten MJ, MOSAR WP3 StudyTeam (2014) Interventions to reducecolonisation and transmission ofantimicrobial-resistant bacteria inintensive care units: an interruptedtime series study and clusterrandomised trial. Lancet Infect Dis14:31–39
792
59. Daneman N, Sarwar S, Fowler RA,Cuthbertson BH, SuDDICU CanadianStudy Group (2013) Effect of selectivedecontamination on antimicrobialresistance in intensive care units: asystematic review and meta-analysis.Lancet Infect Dis 13(4):328–341
60. Bassetti M, Righi E (2014) SDD andcolistin resistance: end of a dream?Intensive Care Med 40(7):1066–1067
61. Spellberg B, Guidos R, Gilbert D,Bradley J, Boucher HW, Scheld WM,Bartlett JG, Edwards J Jr, InfectiousDiseases Society of America (2008)The epidemic of antibiotic-resistantinfections: a call to action for themedical community from theInfectious Diseases Society ofAmerica. Clin Infect Dis 46:155–164
62. Piddock LJ (2012) The crisis of nonew antibiotics—what is the wayforward? Lancet Infect Dis12:249–253
63. Infectious Diseases Society ofAmerica (2010) The 10 9 20initiative: pursuing a globalcommitment to develop 10 newantibacterial drugs by 2020. ClinInfect Dis 50:1081–1083
64. The Pew Charitable Trusts (2014)Tracking the pipeline of antibiotics indevelopment.http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2014/03/12/tracking-the-pipeline-of-antibiotics-in-development. Accessed September2014
65. Poulakou G, Bassetti M, Righi E,Dimopoulos G (2014) Current andfuture treatment options for infectionscaused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens. Future Microb9:1053–1069
66. Luyt CE, Clavel M, Guntupalli K(2009) Pharmacokinetics and lungdelivery of PDDS-aerosolize amikacin(NKTR-061) in intubated andmechanically ventilated patients withnosocomial pneumonia. Crit Care13(6):R200 (iol 9:1053–1069)
67. Zahar JR, Lortholary O, Martin C,Potel G, Plesiat P, Nordmann P (2009)Addressing the challenge of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases. Curr OpinInvestig Drugs 10:172–180
68. Rodrıguez-Bano J, Picon E, NavarroMD, Lopez-Cerero L, Pascual A,ESBL-REIPI Group (2012) Impact ofchanges in CLSI and EUCASTbreakpoints for susceptibility inbloodstream infections due toextended-spectrum b-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli. ClinMicrobiol Infect 18:894–900
69. Shiber S, Yahav D, Avni T, LeiboviciL, Paul M (2015) b-Lactam/b-lactamase inhibitors versuscarbapenems for the treatment ofsepsis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother70:41–47
70. Rodrıguez-Bano J, Picon E, Gijon P,Hernandez JR, Ruız M, Pena C,Almela M, Almirante B, Grill F,Colomina J, Gimenez M, Oliver A,Horcajada JP, Navarro G, Coloma A,Pascual A, Spanish Network forResearch in Infectious Diseases(REIPI) (2010) Community-onsetbacteremia due to extended-spectrumbeta-lactamase-producing Escherichiacoli: risk factors and prognosis. ClinInfect Dis 50:40–48
71. Vardakas KZ, Tansarli GS, RafailidisPI, Falagas ME (2012) Carbapenemsversus alternative antibiotics for thetreatment of bacteraemia due toEnterobacteriaceae producingextended-spectrum b-lactamases: asystematic review meta-analysis ofrandomized controlled trials.J Antimicrob Chemother67:2793–2803
72. Lee NY, Lee CC, Huang WH, TsuiKC, Hsueh PR, Ko WC (2013)Cefepime therapy for monomicrobialbacteremia caused by cefepime-susceptible extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producingEnterobacteriaceae: MIC matters. ClinInfect Dis 56:488–495
73. Goethaert K, Van Looveren M,Lammens C, Jansens H, Baraniak A,Gniadkowski M, Van Herck K, JorensPG, Demey HE, Ieven M, Bossaert L,Goossens H (2006) High-dosecefepime as an alternative treatmentfor infections caused by TEM-24ESBL-producing Enterobacteraerogenes in severely-ill patients. ClinMicrobiol Infect 12:56–62
74. Chopra T, Marchaim D, Veltman J,Johnson P, Zhao JJ, Tansek R, HatahetD, Chaudhry K, Pogue JM, Rahbar H,Chen TY, Truong T, Rodriguez V,Ellsworth J, Bernabela L, Bhargava A,Yousuf A, Alangaden G, Kaye KS(2012) Impact of cefepime therapy onmortality among patients withbloodstream infections caused byextended-spectrum-b-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae andEscherichia coli. Antimicrob AgentsChemother 56:3936–3942
75. Munoz-Price LS, Poirel L, BonomoRA, Schwaber MJ, Daikos GL,Cormican M, Cornaglia G, Garau J,Gniadkowski M, Hayden MK,Kumarasamy K, Livermore DM,Maya JJ, Nordmann P, Patel JB,Paterson DL, Pitout J, Villegas MV,Wang H, Woodford N, Quinn JP(2013) Clinical epidemiology of theglobal expansion of Klebsiellapneumoniae carbapenemases. LancetInfect Dis 13:785–796
76. Tumbarello M, Trecarichi EM,Tumietto F, Del Bono V, De Rosa FG,Bassetti M, Losito AR, Tedeschi S,Saffioti C, Corcione S, Giannella M,Raffaelli F, Pagani N, Bartoletti M,Spanu T, Marchese A, Cauda R,Viscoli C, Viale P (2014) Predictivemodels for identification ofhospitalized patients harboring KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae.Antimicrob Agents Chemother58:3514–3520
77. Tzouvelekis LS, Markogiannakis A,Piperaki E, Souli M, Daikos GL(2014) Treating infections caused bycarbapenemase-producingEnterobacteriaceae. Clin MicrobiolInfect 20:862–872
78. Daikos GL, Tsaousi S, TzouvelekisLS, Anyfantis I, Psichogiou M,Argyropoulou A, Stefanou I, Sypsa V,Miriagou V, Nepka M, Georgiadou S,Markogiannakis A, Goukos D,Skoutelis A (2014) Carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniaebloodstream infections: loweringmortality by antibiotic combinationschemes and the role of carbapenems.Antimicrob Agents Chemother58:2322–2328
79. Dubrovskaya Y, Chen TY, ScipioneMR, Esaian D, Phillips MS,Papadopoulos J, Mehta SA (2013)Risk factors for treatment failure ofpolymyxin B monotherapy forcarbapenem-resistant Klebsiellapneumoniae infections. AntimicrobAgents Chemother 57:5394–5397
80. Pontikis K, Karaiskos I, Bastani S,Dimopoulos G, Kalogirou M, KatsiariM, Oikonomou A, Poulakou G,Roilides E, Giamarellou H (2014)Outcomes of critically ill intensivecare unit patients treated withfosfomycin for infections due topandrug-resistant and extensivelydrug-resistant carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacteria. IntJ Antimicrob Agents 43:52–59
793
81. Plachouras D, Karvanen M, FribergLE, Papadomichelakis E, AntoniadouA, Tsangaris I, Karaiskos I, PoulakouG, Kontopidou F, Armaganidis A,Cars O, Giamarellou H (2009)Population pharmacokinetic analysisof colistin methanesulfonate andcolistin after intravenousadministration in critically ill patientswith infections caused by gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob AgentsChemother 53:3430–3436
82. Garonzik SM, Li J, Thamlikitkul V,Paterson DL, Shoham S, Jacob J,Silveira FP, Forrest A, Nation RL(2011) Population pharmacokineticsof colistin methanesulfonate andformed colistin in critically ill patientsfrom a multicenter study providedosing suggestions for variouscategories of patients. AntimicrobAgents Chemother 55:3284–3294
83. Dalfino L, Puntillo F, Mosca A,Monno R, Spada ML, Coppolecchia S,Miragliotta G, Bruno F, Brienza N(2012) High-dose, extended-intervalcolistin administration in critically illpatients: is this the right dosingstrategy? A preliminary study. ClinInfect Dis 54:1720–1726
84. Ramirez J, Dartois N, Gandjini H, YanJL, Korth-Bradley J, McGovern PC(2013) Randomized phase 2 trial toevaluate the clinical efficacy of twohigh-dosage tigecycline regimensversus imipenem–cilastatin fortreatment of hospital-acquiredpneumonia. Antimicrob AgentsChemother 57:1756–1762
85. Giamarellou H, Galani L, Baziaka F,Karaiskos I (2013) Effectiveness of adouble-carbapenem regimen forinfections in humans due tocarbapenemase-producing pandrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae.Antimicrob Agents Chemother57:2388–2390
86. Giannella M, Trecarichi EM, De RosaFG, Del Bono V, Bassetti M, LewisRE, Losito AR, Corcione S, Saffioti C,Bartoletti M, Maiuro G, CardellinoCS, Tedeschi S, Cauda R, Viscoli C,Viale P, Tumbarello M (2014) Riskfactors for carbapenem-resistantKlebsiella pneumoniae bloodstreaminfection among rectal carriers: aprospective observational multicentrestudy. Clin Microbiol Infect20:1357–1362
87. Tumbarello M, De Pascale G,Trecarichi EM, Spanu T, AntonicelliF, Maviglia R, Pennisi MA, Bello G,Antonelli M (2013) Clinical outcomesof Pseudomonas aeruginosapneumonia in intensive care unitpatients. Intensive Care Med39:682–692
88. Eagye KJ, Banevicius MA, NicolauDP (2012) Pseudomonas aeruginosa isnot just in the intensive care unit anymore: implications for empiricaltherapy. Crit Care Med 40:1329–1332
89. Bliziotis IA, Petrosillo N,Michalopoulos A, Samonis G, FalagasME (2011) Impact of definite therapywith beta-lactam monotherapy orcombination with an aminoglycosideor a quinolone for Pseudomonasaeruginosa Bacteremia. PLOS One6:e2640
90. Zhanel GG, Chung P, Adam H,Zelenitsky S, Denisuik A, SchweizerF, Lagace-Wiens PR, Rubinstein E,Gin AS, Walkty A, Hoban DJ, LynchJP 3rd, Karlowsky JA (2014)Ceftolozane/tazobactam: a novelcephalosporin/b-lactamase inhibitorcombination with activity againstmultidrug-resistant gram-negativebacilli. Drugs 74:31–51
91. Karagoz G, Kadanali A, Dede B,Sahin OT, Comoglu S, Altug SB,Naderi S (2014) Extensively drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosaventriculitis and meningitis treatedwith intrathecal colistin. Int JAntimicrob Agents 43(1):93–94
92. Garnacho-Montero J, Ortiz-Leyba C,Fernandez-Hinojosa E, Aldabo-PallasT, Cayuela A, Marquez-Vacaro JA,Garcia-Curiel A, Jimenez-Jimenez FJ(2005) Acinetobacter baumanniiventilator-associated pneumonia:epidemiological and clinical findings.Intensive Care Med 31:649–655
93. Martin-Loeches I, Deja M, KoulentiD, Dimopoulos G, Marsh B, Torres A,Niederman, Rello J, EU-VAP StudyInvestigators (2013) Potentiallyresistant microorganisms in intubatedpatients with hospital-acquiredpneumonia: the interaction of ecology,shock and risk factors. Intensive CareMed 39(4):672–681
94. Dijkshoorn L, Nemec A, Seifert H(2007) An increasing threat inhospitals: multidrug-resistantAcinetobacter baumannii. Nat RevMicrobiol 5:939–951
95. Gales AC, Jones RN, Sader HS (2011)Contemporary activity of colistin andpolymyxin B against a worldwidecollection of Gram-negativepathogens: results from the SENTRYAntimicrobial Surveillance Program(2006–09). J Antimicrob Chemother66:2070–2074
96. Jones RN, Flonta M, Gurler N,Cepparulo M, Mendes RE,Castanheira M (2014) Resistancesurveillance program report forselected European nations. DiagnMicrobiol Infect Dis 78:429–436
97. Sandri AM, Landersdorfer CB, JacobJ, Boniatti MM, Dalarosa MG, FalciDR, Behle TF, Bordinhao RC, WangJ, Forrest A, Nation RL, Li J, ZavasckiAP (2013) Populationpharmacokinetics of intravenouspolymyxin B in critically ill patients:implications for selection of dosageregimens. Clin Infect Dis 57:524–531
98. Cai Y, Wang R, Liang B, Bai N, Liu Y(2011) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safetyof tigecycline for treatment ofinfectious disease. Antimicrob AgentsChemother 55:1162–1172
99. Prasad P, Sun J, Danner RL, NatansonC (2012) Excess deaths associatedwith tigecycline after approval basedon noninferiority trials. Clin Infect Dis54:1699–1709
100. Medicines and Healthcare ProductsRegulatory Agency (2011)Tigecycline: increased mortality inclinical trials—use only when otherantibiotics are unsuitable.http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Safetyinformation/DrugSafetyUpdate/CON111761. Accessed 23 Dec 2014
101. De Pascale G, Montini L, Pennisi M,Bernini V, Maviglia R, Bello G, SpanuT, Tumbarello M, Antonelli M (2014)High dose tigecycline in critically illpatients with severe infections due tomultidrug-resistant bacteria. Crit Care18:R90
102. Durante-Mangoni E, Signoriello G,Andini R, Mattei A, De Cristoforo M,Murino P, Bassetti M, Malacarne P,Petrosillo N, Galdieri N, Mocavero P,Corcione A, Viscoli C, Zarrilli R,Gallo C, Utili R (2013) Colistin andrifampicin compared with colistinalone for the treatment of seriousinfections due to extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: amulticenter, randomized clinical trial.Clin Infect Dis 57:349–358
103. Lopez-Cortes LE, Cisneros JM,Fernandez-Cuenca F, Bou G, TomasM, Garnacho-Montero J, Pascual A,Martınez-Martınez L, Vila J, Pachon J,Rodrıguez Bano J, On behalf of theGEIH/REIPI-Ab2010 Group (2014)Monotherapy versus combinationtherapy for sepsis due to multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii:analysis of a multicentre prospectivecohort. J Antimicrob Chemother69:3119–3126
794
104. Petrosillo N, Giannella M, AntonelliM, Antonini M, Barsic B, Belancic L,Inkaya AC, De Pascale G, Grilli E,Tumbarello M, Akova M (2014)Clinical experience of colistin-glycopeptide combination in criticallyill patients infected with Gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob AgentsChemother 58:851–858
105. National Institute for Health and CareExcellence (2014) Hospital-acquiredpneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus:telavancin.http://www.nice.org.uk/advice/esnm44. Accessed 23 December 2014
106. Bally M, Dendukuri N, Sinclair A,Ahern SP, Poisson M, Brophy J (2012)A network meta-analysis of antibioticsfor treatment of hospitalised patientswith suspected or proven meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusinfection. Int J Antimicrob Agents40:479–495
107. Gurusamy KS, Koti R, Toon CD,Wilson P, Davidson BR (2013)Antibiotic therapy for the treatment ofmethicillin-resistant Staphylococcusaureus (MRSA) infections in surgicalwounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev8:CD009726
108. Gurusamy KS, Koti R, Toon CD,Wilson P, Davidson BR (2013)Antibiotic therapy for the treatment ofmethicillin-resistant Staphylococcusaureus (MRSA) in non surgicalwounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev11:CD010427
109. Logman JF, Stephens J, Heeg B,Haider S, Cappelleri J, Nathwani D,Tice A, van Hout BA (2010)Comparative effectiveness ofantibiotics for the treatment of MRSAcomplicated skin and soft tissueinfections. Curr Med Res Opin26:1565–1578
110. Wunderink RG, Niederman MS,Kollef MH, Shorr AF, Kunkel MJ,Baruch A, McGee WT, Reisman A,Chastre J (2012) Linezolid inmethicillin-resistant Staphylococcusaureus nosocomial pneumonia: arandomized, controlled study. ClinInfect Dis 54(5):621–629
111. Kalil AC, Van Schooneveld TC, FeyPD, Rupp ME (2014) Associationbetween vancomycin minimuminhibitory concentration and mortalityamong patients with Staphylococcusaureus bloodstream infections: asystematic review and meta-analysis.JAMA 312:1552–1564
112. Sanchez Garcıa M, De la Torre MA,Morales G, Pelaez B, Tolon MJ,Domingo S, Candel FJ, Andrade R,Arribi A, Garcıa N, Martınez SagastiF, Fereres J, Picazo J (2010) Clinicaloutbreak of linezolid-resistantStaphylococcus aureus in an intensivecare unit. JAMA 303(22):2260–2264
113. van Hal SJ, Paterson DL, Lodise TP(2013) Systematic review and meta-analysis of vancomycin-inducednephrotoxicity associated with dosingschedules that maintain troughsbetween 15 and 20 milligrams perliter. Antimicrob Agents Chemother57:734–744
114. Public Health England (2013) Updatedguidance on the management andtreatment of C. difficile infection.https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/clostridium-difficile-infection-guidance-on-management-and-treatment. Accessed 23 December2014
115. Wilcox MH (2014) The trials andtribulations of treating Clostridiumdifficile infection-one step backward,one step forward, but still progress.Clin Infect Dis 59:355–357
116. Britt NS, Steed ME, Potter EM,Clough LA (2014) Tigecycline for thetreatment of severe and severecomplicated Clostridium difficileinfection. Infect Dis Ther 3:321–331
117. Herpers BL, Vlaminckx B, BurkhardtO et al (2009) Intravenous tigecyclineas adjunctive or alternative therapy forsevere refractory Clostridium difficileinfection. Clin Infect Dis48(12):1732–1735
118. Apisarnthanarak A, Razavi B, MundyLM (2002) Adjunctive intracolonicvancomycin for severe Clostridiumdifficile colitis: case series and reviewof the literature. Clin Infect Dis35:690–996
119. Lamontagne F, Labbe AC, Haeck O,Lesur O, Lalancette M, Patino C,Leblanc M, Laverdiere M, Pepin J(2007) Impact of emergencycolectomy on survival of patients withfulminant Clostridium difficile colitisduring an epidemic caused by ahypervirulent strain. Ann Surg245:267–272
120. Bhangu A, Nepogodiev D, Gupta A,Torrance A, Singh P (2012) WestMidlands Research CollaborativeSystematic review and meta-analysisof outcomes following emergencysurgery for Clostridium difficile colitis.Br J Surg 99:1501–1513
121. Neal MD, Alverdy JC, Hall DE,Simmons RL, Zuckerbraun BS (2011)Diverting loop ileostomy and coloniclavage: an alternative to totalabdominal colectomy for the treatmentof severe, complicated Clostridiumdifficile associated disease. Ann Surg254:423–427
795