Penetration of moxifloxacin into the human pancreas following a single intravenous or oral dose

Epidemiology, treatment and outcomes of infected pancreatic necrosis in France: a bicenter study

INTRODUCTION

Acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) mortality increases when pancreatic necrosis is infected (IPN). Current treatment of IPN relies on prolonged antibiotic therapies associated with a step-up strategy of drainage. The objective of this study was to analyze IPN treatment outcomes in two referral centers in France.

METHODS

Data of consecutive patients with documented IPN hospitalized in two expert centers in France between 2014 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The composite primary outcome was the proportion of unsuccessful management outcome, defined as new emergency drainage to treat sepsis with organ failure, an unplanned new antibiotic course, an unplanned prolongation of antibiotic course and/or death by septic shock, within three months following the diagnosis of ANP.

RESULTS

All in all, 187 patients (138 males; 74.0%), with documented IPN were included. The most frequently identified microorganism was Escherichia coli (26.2%). Ninety-eight patients (52.4%) were admitted to an intensive care unit or resuscitation ward within the first two days of ANP care. Overall, 126 patients (67.4%) endured an unsuccessful outcome: new emergency drainage to treat acute sepsis (62.0%), unplanned new antibiotic course (47.1%), unplanned prolongation of antibiotic course (44.9%) and/or death by septic shock complicating IPN (8.0%).

CONCLUSION

The unfavorable evolution in two thirds of patients shows that determination of optimal drainage timing and choice of antibiotic therapy remain major challenges in 2024.

Antibiotic Utilization in Acute Pancreatitis: A Narrative Review

Acute pancreatitis is a complex inflammatory disease with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite advances in its management, the role of antibiotics in the prophylaxis and treatment of acute pancreatitis remains controversial. The aim of this comprehensive review is to analyze current evidence on the use of antibiotics in acute pancreatitis, focusing on prophylactic and therapeutic strategies. Prophylactic use aims to prevent local and systemic infections. However, recent studies have questioned the routine use of antibiotics for prophylaxis and highlighted the potential risks of antibiotic resistance and adverse effects. In selected high-risk cases, such as infected necrotizing pancreatitis, prophylactic antibiotic therapy may still be beneficial. As for therapeutic use, antibiotics are usually used to treat infected pancreatic necrosis and extrapancreatic infections. When selecting an antibiotic, the microbiologic profile and local resistance patterns should be considered. Combination therapy with broad-spectrum antibiotics is often recommended to cover both Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens. Recent research has highlighted the importance of individualized approaches to antibiotic use in acute pancreatitis and underscored the need for a tailored approach based on patient-specific factors. This review also highlights the potential role of new antimicrobial agents and alternative strategies, such as probiotics, in the management of acute pancreatitis.

THE SPACE DIMENSION AT THE MICRO LEVEL: MASS SPECTROMETRY IMAGING OF DRUGS IN TISSUES

Mass spectrometry imaging (MSI) has seen remarkable development in recent years. The possibility of getting quantitative or semiquantitative data, while maintaining the spatial component in the tissues has opened up unique study possibilities. Now with a spatial window of few tens of microns, we can characterize the events occurring in tissue subcompartments in physiological and pathological conditions. For example, in oncology-especially in preclinical models-we can quantitatively measure drug distribution within tumors, correlating it with pharmacological treatments intended to modify it. We can also study the local effects of the drug in the tissue, and their effects in relation to histology. This review focuses on the main results in the field of drug MSI in clinical pharmacology, looking at the literature on the distribution of drugs in human tissues, and also the first preclinical evidence of drug intratissue effects. The main instrumental techniques are discussed, looking at the different instrumentation, sample preparation protocols, and raw data management employed to obtain the sensitivity required for these studies. Finally, we review the applications that describe in situ metabolic events and pathways induced by the drug, in animal models, showing that MSI makes it possible to study effects that go beyond the simple concentration of the drug, maintaining the space dimension. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Mass Spec Rev.

Advances in acute pancreatitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With a potentially life-threatening course, acute pancreatitis (AP) is one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases requiring hospitalization and often necessitating intensive care. Based on recent insights and recommendations, this review provides an overview on clinical management of AP patients with a focus on intensive care unit care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Possible benefits of percutaneous paracentesis and/or drainage on outcome or inflammation have been further explored. Combined opioid and epidural analgesia for pain management might be a valuable alternative for pain management. Very recent international guidelines now agree on a step-up approach for the management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis favoring a minimally invasive approach with either endoscopic or percutaneous drainage first. Studies for the best timing of these interventions are ongoing. In spite of a better understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms mediating AP, specific treatments are still awaited.

SUMMARY

New evidence and recent international consensus direct the current management of AP toward a tailored, multidisciplinary and less invasive therapy with complementary roles for hepatologists, intensivists, radiologists, and surgeons.

Rethinking Carbapenems: A Pharmacokinetic Approach for Antimicrobial Selection in Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of pathophysiological changes to the pancreas during infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP), optimal drug properties needed to penetrate the pancreas, human and animal studies supporting the use of antimicrobials, and carbapenem-sparing strategies in INP.

DATA SOURCES

A literature analysis of PubMed/MEDLINE was performed (from 1960 to September 2020) using the following key terms: infected necrotizing pancreatitis, necrotizing acute pancreatitis, and infected pancreatitis antimicrobial concentration. Individual antimicrobials were investigated with these search terms.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All relevant studies describing the management of INP, and human and animal pharmacokinetic (PK) data supporting antimicrobial use in the pancreas were reviewed for possible inclusion regardless of sample size or study design.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Piperacillin/tazobactam and cefepime achieve adequate pancreatic tissue concentrations in INP studies. A majority of the literature supporting carbapenem use in INP involves imipenem, and meropenem Monte Carlo simulations suggest that standard dosing regimens of meropenem may not achieve PK targets to eradicate Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Carbapenems are often utilized for INP treatment based on guideline recommendations. This review discusses PK data, the history of carbapenem use in INP, and the pathophysiology of pancreatitis to suggest carbapenem-sparing strategies and provides stewardship tactics such as when to start antimicrobials, which empirical antimicrobial to use, and when to discontinue antimicrobials in the INP setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Noncarbapenem antipseudomonals, such as piperacillin/tazobactam and cefepime, are appropriate carbapenem-sparing options in INP, based on PK data, spectrum of activity, and risk of collateral damage.

Use of antibiotics in acute pancreatitis: ten major concerns

Acute pancreatitis is one of the most common gastrointestinal causes for hospitalization. In 15-20% it evolves into severe necrotizing pancreatitis. Recent studies have shown no association between the initiation of antibiotic therapy in acute pancreatitis and severe outcomes such as organ failure, infection of pancreatic necrosis, extrapancreatic infections or mortality. Specific subgroups with predicted severe acute pancreatitis or both extensive sterile necrosis and persistent organ failure may benefit from prophylactic antibiotics. Local infection develops in 30% of patients with pancreatic necrosis and results in morbidity and mortality. Contrast enhanced computed tomography should be performed in all patients with acute pancreatitis who develop sepsis, organ failure or fail to improve. C-reactive protein is an independent predictor of severe acute pancreatitis. Procalcitonin is the most sensitive laboratory test for detection of pancreatic infection. Antibiotics do however play a large role in patients with suspected or confirmed infected pancreatic necrosis and extrapancreatic infections. In clinical practice most clinicians prescribe antibiotics in the first 3 days of acute pancreatitis which in turns lead to excessive, unjustified use of antibiotics. Deep knowledge of the recent guidelines combined with an individualized management based on right clinical judgment is a rationale approach of patients with acute pancreatitis.

Impact of prior antibiotics on infected pancreatic necrosis microbiology in ICU patients: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Recent guidelines advise against prophylactic antibiotics in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis, advocating instead a step-up drainage and necrosectomy strategy with antibiotics as dictated by microbiological findings. However, prompt antibiotic therapy is recommended in patients with sepsis or septic shock, a possible presentation of infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN). Consequently, in many critically ill patients with IPN, pancreatic samples are collected only after broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy initiation. Whether this prior antibiotic exposure alters the microbiological findings is unknown. The main objective was to determine whether prior antibiotic exposure sterilized the samples collected during procedures for suspected IPN in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for acute pancreatitis with suspected IPN. We retrospectively studied 56 consecutive ICU patients admitted with suspected IPN. We collected details on the microbiological samples and antimicrobials used. A definite diagnosis of IPN was given when bacteria were identified in pancreatic samples.

Results

In all, 137 pancreatic samples were collected, including 91 (66.4%) after antibiotic therapy initiation. IPN was confirmed in 48 (86%) patients. The proportion of positive samples was 74 (81.3%) in antibiotic-exposed patients and 32/46 (69.5%) in unexposed patients (p = 0.58). Of the 74 positive samples from exposed patients, 62 (84%) had organisms susceptible to the antibiotics used. One-third of samples contained more than one organism. Among patients with IPN, 37.5% had positive blood cultures. Multidrug- or extensively drug-resistant bacteria were identified at some point in half the patients. Enterobacter cloacae complex was more frequent in the exposed group (p = 0.02), as were Gram-negative anaerobic bacteria (p = 0.03).

Conclusion

Antibiotic exposure before sampling did not seem to affect culture positivity of pancreatic samples to confirm IPN, but may affect microbiological findings. Our results suggest that, in patients with sepsis and suspected IPN, antibiotics should be started immediately and pancreatic samples obtained as soon as possible thereafter. In other situations, antibiotics can be withheld until the microbiological results of pancreatic samples are available, to ensure accurate targeting of the spectrum to bacterial susceptibility patterns.

ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT03253861

2019 WSES guidelines for the management of severe acute pancreatitis

Although most patients with acute pancreatitis have the mild form of the disease, about 20-30% develops a severe form, often associated with single or multiple organ dysfunction requiring intensive care. Identifying the severe form early is one of the major challenges in managing severe acute pancreatitis. Infection of the pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis occurs in about 20-40% of patients with severe acute pancreatitis, and is associated with worsening organ dysfunctions. While most patients with sterile necrosis can be managed nonoperatively, patients with infected necrosis usually require an intervention that can be percutaneous, endoscopic, or open surgical. These guidelines present evidence-based international consensus statements on the management of severe acute pancreatitis from collaboration of a panel of experts meeting during the World Congress of Emergency Surgery in June 27-30, 2018 in Bertinoro, Italy. The main topics of these guidelines fall under the following topics: Diagnosis, Antibiotic treatment, Management in the Intensive Care Unit, Surgical and operative management, and Open abdomen.

Clinical practice guideline: management of acute pancreatitis

ABSTRACT

There has been an increase in the incidence of acute pancreatitis reported worldwide. Despite improvements in access to care, imaging and interventional techniques, acute pancreatitis continues to be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite the availability of clinical practice guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis, recent studies auditing the clinical management of the condition have shown important areas of noncompliance with evidence-based recommendations. This underscores the importance of creating understandable and implementable recommendations for the diagnosis and management of acute pancreatitis. The purpose of the present guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of both mild and severe acute pancreatitis as well as the management of complications of acute pancreatitis and of gall stone-induced pancreatitis.

Dissecting the effect of moxifloxacin in mice with infected necrosis in taurocholate induced necrotizing pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the limited benefit of antibiotics in ameliorating the outcome of acute necrotizing pancreatitis, we analyzed antibiotic therapy in primarily infected necrotizing pancreatitis in mice with respect to the local pancreatic pathology as well as systemic, pancreatitis induced adverse events.

METHODS

Sterile pancreatic necrosis (SN) was induced by retrograde injection of 4% taurocholate in the common bile duct of Balb/c mice. Primarily infected pancreatic necrosis (IN) was induced by co-injecting 10(8) CFU/ml Escherichia coli. 10 mg/kg of moxifloxacin was administered prior to pancreatitis induction (AN). After 24 h, animals were sacrificed to examine serum as well as organs for signs of SIRS.

RESULTS

Moxifloxacin significantly reduced bacterial count in pancreatic lysates of animals with infected pancreatic necrosis (IN 4.1·10(7) ± 2.4·10(7) vs. AN 4.9·10(4) ± 2.6·10(4) CFU/g; p < 0.001). However, it did not alter pancreatic histology or pulmonary damage (Histology score: IN 23.8 ± 2.7 vs. AN 22.6 ± 1.7). Moxifloxacin reduced systemic immunoactivation (Serum IL-6: IN 330.5 ± 336.6 vs. 38.7 ± 25.5 pg/ml; p < 0.001), hypoglycemia (serum glucose: IN 105.8 ± 12.7 vs. AN 155.7 ± 39.5 mg/dl; p < 0.001), and serum aspartate aminotransferase (IN 606 ± 89.7 vs. AN 255 ± 52.1; p < 0.05). These parameters were significantly increased in animals with necrotizing pancreatitis.

CONCLUSION

In the experimental setting, initial antibiotic therapy with moxifloxacin in acute infected necrotizing pancreatitis in mice does not have a beneficial impact on pancreatic pathology or pulmonary damage. However, other systemic complications induced by infected necrosis in acute pancreatitis are reduced by the administration of moxifloxacin.

Gender analysis of moxifloxacin clinical trials

PURPOSE

To determine the inclusion of women and the sex-stratification of results in moxifloxacin Clinical Trials (CTs), and to establish whether these CTs considered issues that specifically affect women, such as pregnancy and use of hormonal therapies. Previous publications about women's inclusion in CTs have not specifically studied therapeutic drugs. Although this type of drug is taken by men and women at a similar rate, adverse effects occur more frequently in the latter.

METHODS

We reviewed 158 published moxifloxacin trials on humans, retrieved from MedLine and the Cochrane Library (1998-2010), to determine whether they complied with the gender recommendations published by U.S. Food and Drug Administration Guideline.

RESULTS

Of a total of 80,417 subjects included in the moxifloxacin CTs, only 33.7% were women in phase I, in contrast to phase II, where women accounted for 45%, phase III, where they represented 38.3% and phase IV, where 51.3% were women. About 40.9% (n=52) of trials were stratified by sex and 15.3% (n=13) and 9% (n=7) provided data by sex on efficacy and adverse effects, respectively. We found little information about the influence of issues that specifically affect women. Only 3 of the 59 journals that published the moxifloxacin CTs stated that authors should stratify their results by sex.

CONCLUSIONS

Women are under-represented in the published moxifloxacin trials, and this trend is more marked in phase I, as they comprise a higher proportion in the other phases. Data by sex on efficacy and adverse effects are scarce in moxifloxacin trials. These facts, together with the lack of data on women-specific issues, suggest that the therapeutic drug moxifloxacin is only a partially evidence-based medicine.

Activity of moxifloxacin, imipenem, and ertapenem against Escherichia coli, Enterobacter cloacae, Enterococcus faecalis, and Bacteroides fragilis in monocultures and mixed cultures in an in vitro pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model simulating concentrations in the human pancreas

The activities of moxifloxacin, imipenem, and ertapenem against pathogens causing severe necrotizing pancreatitis were studied in an in vitro pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) model. Escherichia coli, Enterobacter cloacae, Enterococcus faecalis, and Bacteroides fragilis were exposed in monocultures and mixed cultures to concentrations of the three agents comparable to those in the human pancreas. Moxifloxacin was more active than the two carbapenems in monocultures and mixed cultures, reducing the numbers of CFU more drastically and more rapidly.

Penetration of moxifloxacin into liver tissue

Moxifloxacin is considered for treatment of pyogenic liver abscesses as well as antibiotic prophylaxis in the case of hepatobiliary interventions. The aim of this study was to provide data on the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of moxifloxacin in serum and liver tissue of patients undergoing liver resection due to primary or secondary tumours of the liver. Patients scheduled for liver resection (n=34) received moxifloxacin 400 mg at randomised time intervals prior to surgery. Blood and healthy liver tissue were sampled 1.5-26 h after administration of moxifloxacin. Immediately after centrifugation, plasma was separated, frozen and stored until analysis. In a subgroup of 19 patients, additional plasma specimens were obtained after 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 48 h to assess the PK profile. PK parameters of moxifloxacin were calculated applying a two-compartment model. Median (interquartile range) PK parameters were as follows: peak concentration at the end of moxifloxacin infusion (C(max)), 6.0 mg/L (4.8-7.1 mg/L); area under the concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity (AUC(0-∞)), 51.1 mgh/L (40.3-57.7 mgh/L); elimination half-life, 13.2h (11.0-14.1 h); volume of distribution at steady state (V(ss)), 138.7 L (102.7-168.5 L); and total body clearance (CL), 7.8 L/h (6.9-9.9L/h). Mean tissue concentrations were 9.13 mg/kg after 1.6-2.4 h, 7.62 mg/kg after 2.6-4.9h, 7.48 mg/kg after 5.6-10.0 h and 6.24 mg/kg after 22.9-26.5 h. Mean tissue:serum ratios were 2.9, 3.4, 5.0 and 12.3, respectively. The lowest tissue concentration found in the study at any time point was 2.8 mg/kg. In conclusion, moxifloxacin rapidly penetrates into the liver tissue where its concentration remains high following intravenous administration. Therefore, intravenously applied moxifloxacin might be used for the treatment of bacterial liver infections such as pyogenic liver abscess as well as in pre-operative prophylaxis.

Role of moxifloxacin for the treatment of community-acquired [corrected] complicated intra-abdominal infections in Taiwan

Complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) are common yet serious infections that can potentially lead to substantial morbidity and morbidity. As an essential adjunct to source control, the goals of antimicrobial therapy are to promote patient recovery, reduce recurrence risk, and prevent antimicrobial resistance. The current international guidelines on the empirical treatment of community-acquired complicated IAIs were published by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Surgical Infections Society (SIS) in 2010. These guidelines all recommend the use of a fluoroquinolone (ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin) plus metronidazole for mild-to-moderate- and high-severity cases. Moxifloxacin monotherapy is recommended by the current IDSA/SIS guidelines for the treatment of mild-to-moderate complicated IAIs. Moxifloxacin has demonstrated a broad spectrum coverage of both aerobic and anaerobic pathogens, good tissue penetration into the gastrointestinal tract, and a good tolerability profile. Clinical data have demonstrated that moxifloxacin is at least as effective as other standard therapeutic regimens recommended by current clinical guidelines. Due to the high rates of extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae and fluoroquinolone-resistant Enterobacteriaceae among isolates causing community-acquired IAIs in Asia, any fluoroquinolones (including moxifloxacin) are not recommended as drugs of choice for the empirical treatment of community-acquired IAIs, particularly in countries (China, India, Thailand, and Vietnam) with fluoroquinolone resistance rates among Escherichia coli isolates of >20%. Given the low rates of fluoroquinolone-resistant (<20%) and extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing (<10%) Enterobacteriaceae isolates associated community-acquired IAIs in Taiwan, it appears that moxifloxacin is considered an appropriate first-line therapy for patients with community-acquired complicated IAIs in this country.

Tissue penetration of moxifloxacin into human gallbladder wall in patients with biliary tract infections

OBJECTIVES

Moxifloxacin, the newest fourth-generation fluoroquinolone, has a broad spectrum of antibacterial activity covering both Gram-positive and Gram-negative aerobic and anaerobic bacteria and is therefore very well suited for the treatment of biliary tract infections. The present study aimed to determine the penetration of moxifloxacin into gallbladder tissue to evaluate its antibiotic potential in this indication.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Hospitalized patients with acute cholecystitis received a single, 1 h infusion of 400 mg of moxifloxacin before cholecystectomy. Serum and gallbladder wall tissue samples were collected during surgery, and the moxifloxacin concentrations were measured by HPLC.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients (eight men and eight women) were included between January 2007 and April 2008. The time between start of infusion and gallbladder removal ranged from 50 min to 21 h 10 min. The serum concentration at the time of cholecystectomy was between 0.39 and 4.37 mg/L, and the tissue concentration between 1.73 and 17.08 mg/kg. The tissue-to-serum concentration ratio ranged from 1.72 to 6.33.

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that moxifloxacin penetrates well into gallbladder tissue and is therefore a therapeutic option for biliary tract infection. The highest concentrations in serum and gallbladder tissue were measured shortly after the end of a 1 h infusion. As perioperative prophylaxis, moxifloxacin should therefore be administered 30-60 min before the first surgical incision.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in acute necrotizing pancreatitis revisited

OBJECTIVE

To review studies of antibiotic prophylaxis in acute necrotizing pancreatitis published in the last decade and update recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

A search of PubMed (1998-July 2009) was conducted using the terms necrotizing pancreatitis, antibiotics, prophylaxis, and treatment. Clinical studies, meta-analyses, and review articles published in English were included. Additional references were obtained from article bibliographies. Randomized trials published before 1998 were included if indicated.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant studies or meta-analyses on antibiotic prophylaxis since our previous review in 1998 were evaluated; older data were included if still relevant.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Since our previous review, 4 more randomized trials, including 2 double-blind trials, have been conducted. The blinded studies found no significant difference in mortality with antibiotic prophylaxis compared with placebo, while the unblinded studies found a significant decrease in infections. Given these disparate results, available guidelines and meta-analyses provide different conclusions, usually based on exclusion or inclusion of a single trial. Based on all available data, antibiotic prophylaxis should not be used in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Instead, a more measured, on-demand use of antibiotics is preferred. Antibiotics should be added if signs and symptoms of infection are present (eg, fever, leukocytosis, positive results of cultures). Given improvements in intensive care and nutritional support, recent trials have found a lower incidence of infected necrotizing pancreatitis than before. Therefore, future trials are likely to need higher numbers of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with necrotizing pancreatitis is not indicated, based on 2 blinded trials. Instead, on-demand use of antibiotics appears to be appropriate. Given progress in intensive care and the high crossover rate in studies, the need for antibiotic prophylaxis may continue to be debated for decades.

[Antibiotic therapy in acute pancreatitis]

Infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is one of the main causes of mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). The choice of antibiotic therapy in AP should be based on penetration of the drug in the pancreas and the degree of coverage provided against the typical bacterial flora produced in IPN. Drugs such as imipenem, ciprofloxacin and metronidazole have been widely studied and seem to be ideal in the treatment of INP. Clinical practice guidelines recommend a carbapenem agent as the initial empirical treatment. When Gram-positive pathogens are isolated in pancreatic samples, vancomycin can be used alone or associated with a carbapenem. Currently, prophylactic antibiotic therapy for IPN is not supported by the scientific evidence, since both the best quality studies (double-blind) and the latest meta-analysis published have found no benefit of the use of this strategy.

Prevention of infection following severe acute pancreatitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review highlights recently reported strategies aimed at quantifying severity of illness earlier in the course of acute pancreatitis and at preventing secondary infection in pancreatic necrosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

New and improved scoring models appear to suggest that the optimal interventional window is between 24 and 72 h of the onset of severe acute pancreatitis. Prospective randomized clinical trials in which patients with severe acute pancreatitis were treated with broad-spectrum antimicrobial regimens as prophylaxis, however, have demonstrated no benefit in terms of preventing late infection in pancreatic necrosis. In contrast, early enteral nutrition with various formulas and supplements, including probiotics, may confer a clinical advantage in terms of morbidity and mortality.

SUMMARY

Continuing to advocate antimicrobial prophylaxis in severe acute pancreatitis is not reasonable, in view of the evidence now available from two large clinical trials. Current guidelines should be revised because of the potential harm to gastrointestinal ecology associated with long-term antibiotic treatment. A suitable alternative way to prevent bacterial overgrowth and secondary infection is lacking, however.