Novel Beta-Lactam/Beta-Lactamase Plus Metronidazole vs Carbapenem for Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Source control in emergency general surgery: WSES, GAIS, SIS-E, SIS-A guidelines

Intra-abdominal infections (IAI) are among the most common global healthcare challenges and they are usually precipitated by disruption to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Their successful management typically requires intensive resource utilization, and despite the best therapies, morbidity and mortality remain high. One of the main issues required to appropriately treat IAI that differs from the other etiologies of sepsis is the frequent requirement to provide physical source control. Fortunately, dramatic advances have been made in this aspect of treatment. Historically, source control was left to surgeons only. With new technologies non-surgical less invasive interventional procedures have been introduced. Alternatively, in addition to formal surgery open abdomen techniques have long been proposed as aiding source control in severe intra-abdominal sepsis. It is ironic that while a lack or even delay regarding source control clearly associates with death, it is a concept that remains poorly described. For example, no conclusive definition of source control technique or even adequacy has been universally accepted. Practically, source control involves a complex definition encompassing several factors including the causative event, source of infection bacteria, local bacterial flora, patient condition, and his/her eventual comorbidities. With greater understanding of the systemic pathobiology of sepsis and the profound implications of the human microbiome, adequate source control is no longer only a surgical issue but one that requires a multidisciplinary, multimodality approach. Thus, while any breach in the GI tract must be controlled, source control should also attempt to control the generation and propagation of the systemic biomediators and dysbiotic influences on the microbiome that perpetuate multi-system organ failure and death. Given these increased complexities, the present paper represents the current opinions and recommendations for future research of the World Society of Emergency Surgery, of the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery of Surgical Infection Society Europe and Surgical Infection Society America regarding the concepts and operational adequacy of source control in intra-abdominal infections.

Current and Emerging Treatment Options for Multidrug Resistant Escherichia coli Urosepsis: A Review

Escherichia coli is a versatile commensal and pathogenic member of the human microflora. As the primary causative pathogen in urosepsis, E. coli places an immense burden on healthcare systems worldwide. To further exacerbate the issue, multi drug resistance (MDR) has spread rapidly through E. coli populations, making infections more troublesome and costlier to treat. This paper aimed to review the literature concerning the development of MDR in uropathogenic E. coli (UPEC) and explore the existing evidence of current and emerging treatment strategies. While some MDR strains maybe treated with β-lactam-β-lactamase inhibitor combinations as well as cephalosporins, cephamycin, temocillin and fosfomycin, current treatment strategies for many MDR UPEC strains are reliant on carbapenems. Carbapenem overreliance may contribute to the alarming dissemination of carbapenem-resistance amongst some UPEC communities, which has ushered in a new age of difficult to treat infections. Alternative treatment options for carbapenem resistant UPEC may include novel β-lactam-β-lactamase or carbapenemase inhibitor combinations, cefiderocol, polymyxins, tigecycline, aminoglycosides or fosfomycin. For metallo-β-lactamase producing strains (e.g., NDM, IMP-4), combinations of cefazidime-avibacam with aztreonam have been used. Additionally, the emergence of new antimicrobials brings new hope to the treatment of such infections. However, continued research is required to successfully bring these into the clinic for the treatment of MDR E. coli urosepsis.

Are there differences between ceftolozane/tazobactam and ceftazidime/avibactam in treating patients with complicated abdominal infections? Evidence from clinical trials

Ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) and ceftazidime/avibactam (CZA) are new possibilities of antimicrobial treatment that combined a β-lactam with a β-lactamase inhibitor. The United States (US) and European regulatory agencies approved their clinical use in adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections. This study aims to know if one of the two antibiotics obtain better efficacy in adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections and by specific pathogens such as P. aeruginosa or E. coli. A search of all trials in MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science comparing a C/T or CZA based antimicrobial regimen with other treatments in patients with intraabdominal infections until August 2021 was performed. To make indirect comparisons, we used a frequentist approach using the R package netmeta.The effects have been expressed through the relative risk (RR) with its confidence interval. Considering the clinical cure and failure rates between the different trial populations (mMITT, CE, ME) and the mortality at the end of the study, we have not found significant differences between CZA and C/T. In the case of Pseudomonas, the RR of treatment failure between these two antibiotics is 1 (95% CI 0.55-1.18). In the case of E. Coli, although it seems that CZA would have a worse result than C/T, differences did not reach statistical significance (RR1.06; 95% CI 0.9-1.14). In conclusion, we have not found statistically significant differences between ceftolozane-tazobactam and ceftazidime-avibactam in treating cIAI. In regards to E. Coli, our results do not reach significance, but it would be possible that C/T and meropenem had better results than CZA. Perhaps new trials would allow a better profile of the role in different types of patients or infections caused by specific microorganisms in the future.