Comparing current US and European guidelines for nosocomial pneumonia

Microbiome Profiles of Nebulizers in Hospital Use

Background: Nebulizers are used to provide treatment to respiratory patients. Concerns over nosocomial infection risks from contaminated nebulizers raise the critical need to identify all microbial populations in nebulizers used by patients. However, conventional culture-dependent techniques are inadequate with the ability to identify specific microbial populations only. Therefore, the aims of this study were to acquire complete profiles of microbiomes in nebulizers used by in-patients with culture-independent high-throughput sequencing and identify sources of microbial contaminants for the development of effective practices to reduce microbial contamination in nebulizer devices. Methods: This study was conducted at the University of Tennessee Medical Center in Knoxville, TN. Nebulizers were collected between May 2018 and October 2018 from inpatients admitted to the floors for pneumonia or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations. Nebulizers were sampled for 16S rRNA gene-based amplicon sequencing to profile nebulizer microbiomes and perform phylogenetic analysis. A Bayesian community-wide culture-independent microbial source tracking technique was used to quantify the contribution of human-associated microbiota as potential sources of nebulizer contamination. Results: Culture-independent sequencing detected diverse microbial populations in nebulizers, represented by 18 abundant genera. Stenotrophomonas was identified as the most abundant genus, accounting for 12.4% of the nebulizer microbiome, followed by Rhizobium, Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Ralstonia. Phylogenetic analysis revealed the presence of multiple phylotypes with close relationship to potential pathogens. Contributing up to 15% to nebulizer microbiomes, human-associated microbiota was not identified as the primary sources of nebulizer contamination. Conclusion: Culture-independent sequencing was demonstrated to be capable of acquiring comprehensive profiles of microbiomes in nebulizers used by in-patients. Phylogenetic analysis identified differences in pathogenicity between closely related phylotypes. Microbiome profile-enabled community-wide culture-independent microbial source tracking suggested greater importance of environmental sources than human sources as contributors to nebulizer microbiomes, providing important insight for the development of effective strategies for the monitoring and control of nebulizer devices to mitigate infection risks in the hospital.

Clinical and microbiological outcomes, by causative pathogen, in the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled, Phase 3 trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem for treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia

OBJECTIVES

In the ASPECT-NP trial, ceftolozane/tazobactam was non-inferior to meropenem for treating nosocomial pneumonia; efficacy outcomes by causative pathogen were to be evaluated.

METHODS

Mechanically ventilated participants with hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia were randomized to 3 g ceftolozane/tazobactam (2 g ceftolozane/1 g tazobactam) q8h or 1 g meropenem q8h. Lower respiratory tract (LRT) cultures were obtained ≤36 h before first dose; pathogen identification and susceptibility were confirmed at a central laboratory. Prospective secondary per-pathogen endpoints included 28 day all-cause mortality (ACM), and clinical and microbiological response at test of cure (7-14 days after the end of therapy) in the microbiological ITT (mITT) population.

RESULTS

The mITT population comprised 511 participants (264 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 247 meropenem). Baseline LRT pathogens included Klebsiella pneumoniae (34.6%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (25.0%) and Escherichia coli (18.2%). Among baseline Enterobacterales isolates, 171/456 (37.5%) were ESBL positive. For Gram-negative baseline LRT pathogens, susceptibility rates were 87.0% for ceftolozane/tazobactam and 93.3% for meropenem. For Gram-negative pathogens, 28 day ACM [52/259 (20.1%) and 62/240 (25.8%)], clinical cure rates [157/259 (60.6%) and 137/240 (57.1%)] and microbiological eradication rates [189/259 (73.0%) and 163/240 (67.9%)] were comparable with ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem, respectively. Per-pathogen microbiological eradication for Enterobacterales [145/195 (74.4%) and 129/185 (69.7%); 95% CI: -4.37 to 13.58], ESBL-producing Enterobacterales [56/84 (66.7%) and 52/73 (71.2%); 95% CI: -18.56 to 9.93] and P. aeruginosa [47/63 (74.6%) and 41/65 (63.1%); 95% CI: -4.51 to 19.38], respectively, were also comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

In mechanically ventilated participants with nosocomial pneumonia owing to Gram-negative pathogens, ceftolozane/tazobactam was comparable with meropenem for per-pathogen 28 day ACM and clinical and microbiological response.

Antibiotics for hospital-acquired pneumonia in neonates and children

BACKGROUND

Hospital-acquired pneumonia is one of the most common hospital-acquired infections in children worldwide. Most of our understanding of hospital-acquired pneumonia in children is derived from adult studies. To our knowledge, no systematic review with meta-analysis has assessed the benefits and harms of different antibiotic regimens in neonates and children with hospital-acquired pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens for hospital-acquired pneumonia in neonates and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trial registers to February 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing one antibiotic regimen with any other antibiotic regimen for hospital-acquired pneumonia in neonates and children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events; our secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, pneumonia-related mortality, non-serious adverse events, and treatment failure. Our primary time point of interest was at maximum follow-up.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four randomised clinical trials (84 participants). We assessed all trials as having high risk of bias. We did not conduct any meta-analyses, as the included trials did not compare similar antibiotic regimens. Each of the four trials assessed a different comparison, as follows: cefepime versus ceftazidime; linezolid versus vancomycin; meropenem versus cefotaxime; and ceftobiprole versus cephalosporin. Only one trial reported our primary outcomes of all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Three trials reported our secondary outcome of treatment failure. Two trials primarily included community-acquired pneumonia and hospitalised children with bacterial infections, hence the children with hospital-acquired pneumonia constituted subgroups of the total sample sizes. Where outcomes were reported, the certainty of the evidence was very low for each of the comparisons. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. None of the included trials assessed health-related quality of life, pneumonia-related mortality, or non-serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The relative beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens remain unclear due to the very low certainty of the available evidence. The current evidence is insufficient to support any antibiotic regimen being superior to another. Randomised clinical trials assessing different antibiotic regimens for hospital-acquired pneumonia in children and neonates are warranted.

Predictive Performance of Risk Factors for Multidrug-Resistant Pathogens in Nosocomial Pneumonia

Rationale: In 2017, the International European Respiratory Society/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases/Latin American Thoracic Society (European) guidelines defined new risk factors for multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens in patients with nosocomial pneumonia.Objectives: To assess the predictive performance of these newly defined risk factors for MDR pathogens.Methods: We enrolled 507 adult patients with nosocomial pneumonia who were treated in six intensive care units at the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona in Spain. Of the 503 patients at high MDR pathogen and mortality risk, 275 (54%) had no septic shock and 228 (46%) had septic shock.Results: Admission to hospital settings with high rates of MDR pathogens (n = 421; 83%) and prior antibiotic use (n = 399; 79%) showed the highest prevalence in the overall population, with sensitivities of 92% and 85% and negative predictive values of 85% and 82%, respectively. However, low specificities and low positive predictive values were found. Previous respiratory MDR pathogen isolation was less common (n = 17; 3%) but presented a specificity and positive predictive value of 100%. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was less than 0.6 for all risk factors and combinations.Conclusions: The risk factors proposed by the European Respiratory Society/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases/Latin American Thoracic Society showed low accuracy for predicting MDR pathogens in intensive care unit acquired pneumonia (ICU-AP). Admission to hospital settings with high rates of MDR pathogens and prior antibiotic use were the most prevalent risk factors, with a high sensitivity for predicting these microorganisms; prior positive cultures for MDR pathogens showed high specificity but very low sensitivity. Combinations of risk factors did not show any great accuracy for predicting these microorganisms. Further studies assessing combined strategies of risk stratification and complementary methods are now warranted.

Strategies for implementation of a multidisciplinary approach to the treatment of nosocomial infections in critically ill patients

INTRODUCTION

Intensive Care Units (ICU) are among the hospital wards exhibiting the highest prevalence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and resulting impact on patient outcomes. Antimicrobial resistance surveillance and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs play a pivotal role in promoting interventions tailored to optimize infection diagnosis and treatment in the final attempt to limit unnecessary antimicrobial use and development of resistance.

AREAS COVERED

A narrative review of the literature was carried out to summarize the available evidence and develop a set of actions that should be considered for integration into the ICU stewardship framework. Four questions were addressed: how AMR surveillance can inform antibiotic policy in ICU; whether pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) principles and the use of procalcitonin should be incorporated as a standard practice in ICU AMS programs to optimize antibiotic treatment and to drive antibiotic discontinuation; which criteria should drive treatment duration of ICU-associated infections.

EXPERT OPINION

In this review we aim to highlight that the ICU must be considered in its own right. Each ICU has its own characteristics depending on the country, on the local antibiotic resistance profile, on the patients feature and the severity of infection.

Clustering cases of Chlamydia psittaci pneumonia in COVID-19 screening ward staff

Four medical staff cases of Chlamydia psittaci pneumonia in a COVID-19 screening ward, as well as the experience in dealing with such a nosocomial infection event, were described. It reminds that atypical pneumonia except for COVID-19 should also be considered when clustering cases occurred even during a COVID-19 pneumonia pandemic.

Is ventilated hospital-acquired pneumonia a worse entity than ventilator-associated pneumonia?

Introduction

Nosocomial pneumonia develops after ≥48 h of hospitalisation and is classified as ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP); the latter may require mechanical ventilation (V-HAP) or not (NV-HAP).

Main findings

VAP and HAP affect a significant proportion of hospitalised patients and are characterised by poor clinical outcomes. Among them, V-HAP has the greatest 28-day mortality rate followed by VAP and NV-HAP (27.8% versus 18% versus 14.5%, respectively). However, no differences in terms of pathophysiology, underlying microbiological pathways and subsequent therapy have been identified. International guidelines suggest specific flow charts to help clinicians in the therapeutic management of such diseases; however, there are no specific recommendations beyond VAP and HAP classification. HAP subtypes are scarcely considered as different entities and the lack of data from the clinical scenario limits any final conclusion. Hopefully, recent understanding of the pathophysiology of such diseases, as well as the discovery of new therapies, will improve the outcome associated with such pulmonary infections.

Conclusion

Nosocomial pneumonia is a multifaced disease with features of pivotal interest in critical care medicine. Due to the worrisome data on mortality of patients with nosocomial pneumonia, further prospective studies focused on this topic are urgently needed.

Due to the different mortality of each subtype of nosocomial pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia and hospital-acquired pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation, new prospective studies are urgently neededhttps://bit.ly/3fFoZ6U

An overview of guidelines for the management of hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative pathogens in hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are associated with poor clinical outcomes. These pathogens represent a global threat with few therapeutic options. In this review, we discuss current guidelines for the empiric management of HAP/VAP caused by MDR Gram-negative pathogens.

RECENT FINDINGS

The incidence of MDR Gram-negative bacteria is rising among cases of nosocomial pneumonia, such that it is now becoming a significant challenge for clinicians. Adherence to international guidelines may ensure early and adequate antimicrobial therapy, guided by local microbiological data and awareness of the risk factors for MDR bacteria.

SUMMARY

Due to the increasing prevalence of HAP/VAP caused by MDR Gram-negative pathogens, management should be guided by the local ecology and the patient's risk factors for MDR pathogens. The main risk factors are prior hospitalization for at least 5 days, prior use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, prior colonization with resistant pathogens, admission to hospital settings with high rates of MDR pathogens, and septic shock at the time of diagnosis with nosocomial pneumonia.

A Systematic Review of the Effect of Delayed Appropriate Antibiotic Treatment on the Outcomes of Patients With Severe Bacterial Infections

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe bacterial infections often experience delay in receiving appropriate treatment. Consolidated evidence of the impact of delayed appropriate treatment is needed to guide treatment and improve outcomes.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the impact of delayed appropriate antibacterial therapy on clinical outcomes in patients with severe bacterial infections?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Literature searches of MEDLINE and Embase, conducted on July 24, 2018, identified studies published after 2007 reporting the impact of delayed appropriate therapy on clinical outcomes for hospitalized adult patients with bacterial infections. Where appropriate, results were pooled and analyzed with delayed therapy modeled three ways: delay vs no delay in receiving appropriate therapy; duration of delay; and inappropriate vs appropriate initial therapy. This article reports meta-analyses on the effect of delay and duration of delay.

RESULTS

The eligibility criteria were met by 145 studies, of which 37 contributed data to analyses of effect of delay. Mortality was significantly lower in patients receiving appropriate therapy without delay compared with those experiencing delay (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45-0.72). Mortality was also lower in the no-delay group compared with the delay group in subgroups of studies reporting mortality at 20 to 30 days, during ICU stay, or in patients with bacteremia (OR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.43-0.76]; OR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.27-0.80]; and OR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.40-0.75], respectively). No difference was found in time to appropriate therapy between those who died and those who survived (P = .09), but heterogeneity between studies was high.

INTERPRETATION

Avoiding delayed appropriate therapy is essential to reduce mortality in patients with severe bacterial infections.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO; No.: CRD42018104669; URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.