Treatment of severe nosocomial pneumonia: a prospective randomised comparison of intravenous ciprofloxacin with imipenem/cilastatin

Efficacy and safety of antibiotics targeting Gram-negative bacteria in nosocomial pneumonia: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Multiple randomized controlled studies have compared numerous antibiotic regimens, including new, recently commercialized antibiotics in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia (NP). The objective of this Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and the safety of different antibiotic treatments for NP.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases from 2000 through 2021. The study selection included studies comparing antibiotics targeting Gram-negative bacilli in the setting of NP. The primary endpoint was 28 day mortality. Secondary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological cure and adverse events.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies encompassing 4993 patients were included in this analysis comparing 13 antibiotic regimens. The level of evidence for mortality comparisons ranged from very low to moderate. No significant difference in 28 day mortality was found among all beta-lactam regimens. Only the combination of meropenem plus aerosolized colistin was associated with a significant decrease of mortality compared to using intravenous colistin alone (OR = 0.43; 95% credible interval [0.17-0.94]), based on the results of the smallest trial included. The clinical failure rate of ceftazidime was higher than meropenem with (OR = 1.97; 95% CrI [1.19-3.45]) or without aerosolized colistin (OR = 1.40; 95% CrI [1.00-2.01]), imipemen/cilastatin/relebactam (OR = 1.74; 95% CrI [1.03-2.90]) and ceftazidime/avibactam (OR = 1.48; 95% CrI [1.02-2.20]). For microbiological cure, no substantial difference between regimens was found, but ceftolozane/tazobactam had the highest probability of being superior to comparators. In safety analyses, there was no significant difference between treatments for the occurrence of adverse events, but acute kidney failure was more common in patients receiving intravenous colistin.

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis suggests that most antibiotic regimens, including new combinations and cefiderocol, have similar efficacy and safety in treating susceptible Gram-negative bacilli in NP. Further studies are necessary for NP caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria. Registration PROSPERO CRD42021226603.

Methods to appraise available evidence and adequacy of data from a systematic literature review to conduct a robust network meta-analysis of treatment options for patients with hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia

We aimed to determine if available evidence from a previously conducted systematic literature review was sufficient to conduct a robust network meta-analysis (NMA) using the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Practice Task Force NMA study questionnaire to evaluate suitability, relevance, and credibility of available randomized-controlled trials (RCT) of antibacterial therapies for treatment of patients with hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). We assessed feasibility and reliability of an NMA for a connected network of RCTs, and then relevance and credibility of the connected network for informing decision-making. This previously conducted systematic literature review using Cochrane dual-reviewer methodology, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and PICOTS (population, interventions, comparators, outcomes, timing, and setting) criteria identified 25 citations between 2001 and 2018; 18 were unique RCTs. Trial design characteristics, outcome definitions, assessment time points, and analyses populations varied across studies. Using "clinical response," an efficacy end point to health technology assessment agencies, we assessed potential network credibility, which collapsed from the overall data set to four studies and five interventions. This did not include closed loop(s) needed to assess consistency. Of the studies reporting clinical response, >70% of patients were ventilated at baseline with mean Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores from 14.7 to 17.5. Pseudomonas aeruginosa (range, 18.4-64.1%) and Klebsiella spp. (range, 1.6-49%) were the most common causative pathogens. We identified relevant RCTs for most standard-of-care agents approved for HABP/VABP, which provided a comprehensive evidence base. In summary, our appraisal of available evidence for the clinical response outcome among adult patients with HABP/VABP does not support the conduct of a scientifically robust and clinically meaningful NMA. Although this data is vital to registration, there are significant limitations in these trials for health technology assessments, payor decisions, guidelines, and protocol decisions.

Beta-Lactam vs. Fluoroquinolone Monotherapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) is a leading cause of healthcare-associated infections. A variety of antibiotic classes are used in the treatment of PA infections, including beta-lactams (BLs) and fluoroquinolones (FQs), given either together in combination therapy or alone in monotherapy. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of BL agents versus FQ agents as active, definitive monotherapy in PA infections in adults. Methods: Comprehensive literature searches of the Medline and Scopus electronic databases, alongside hand searches of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, and Google Scholar, were performed without a time restriction to identify studies published in English comparing BL and FQ agents given as monotherapy for PA infection in hospitalized adults for which mortality, bacteriological eradication, or clinical response was evaluated. One reviewer screened search results based on pre-defined selection criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed included studies for methodological quality using NIH assessment tools. Two fixed-effects meta-analyses were performed. Results: A total of 368 articles were screened, and six studies involving 338 total patients were included in the meta-analysis. Upon evaluation of methodological quality, two studies were rated good, three fair, and one poor. A meta-analysis of three studies demonstrates FQ monotherapy is associated with significantly improved survival compared to BL monotherapy for patients with PA bacteremia (OR, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.27–10.44; p = 0.02). A meta-analysis of three studies demonstrates FQ monotherapy is associated with equivalent bacteriological eradication compared to BL monotherapy for PA pneumonia or skin and soft tissue infection (RD, 0.07; 95% CI, −0.09 to 0.24; p = 0.39). Conclusion: The meta-analyses demonstrate FQ monotherapy significantly improves survival in PA bacteremia and is associated with similar rates of bacteriological eradication in pneumonia and skin and soft tissue infection caused by PA compared to BL monotherapy. However, more research is needed to make meaningful clinical recommendations.

Carbapenem Antibiotics for the Empiric Treatment of Nosocomial Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses suggested that treating hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), with empiric carbapenems was associated with lower mortality rates but higher rates of clinical failure for pseudomonal pneumonia. This study was an updated meta-analysis with sensitivity analyses and meta-regression to better understand the impact of carbapenem use in HAP/VAP.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the efficacy of carbapenems for empiric treatment of nosocomial pneumonia?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Databases were searched for randomized controlled studies evaluating empiric treatment for HAP and/or VAP, and studies were included comparing carbapenem- vs non-carbapenem-containing regimens. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included subgroup stratification and resistance development.

RESULTS

Of 9,140 references, 20 trials enrolling 5,489 patients met inclusion criteria. For mortality, carbapenem use had a risk ratio (RR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.74-0.96; P = .01). Stratified according to VAP proportion (< 33%, 33%-66%, and > 66%), RRs were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.77-1.17; P = .66), 0.78 (95% CI, 0.57-1.07; P = .13), and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.65-0.99; P = .04), respectively. Stratified according to severity, only groups with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores < 14 and between 14 and 17 showed mortality benefit (RRs of 0.64 [95% CI, 0.45-0.92; P = .01] and 0.77 [95% CI, 0.61-0.97; P = .03]). Meta-regression did not show an association between Pseudomonas prevalence and mortality (P = .44). Carbapenem use showed a trend toward developing resistance (RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.95-2.06; P = .09) and a 96% probability of resistance emergence.

INTERPRETATION

Carbapenem-based empiric regimens were associated with lower mortality rates compared with non-carbapenems, largely driven by trials of VAP. The mortality effect was not observed in trials with high disease severity and was not associated with Pseudomonas. The mortality difference was observed mainly in studies that used ceftazidime as control. There was a trend toward increasing resistance associated with carbapenems.

TRIAL REGISTRY

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; No. CRD42018093602; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Management of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) caused by resistant gram-negative bacteria: which is the best strategy to treat?

Introduction: Treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a major challenge. The increase in multi-drug resistant bacteria has not been accompanied by the validation of new drugs, or by any new antimicrobial strategies to exploit the available agents. VAP due to Gram-negative bacteria has increased mortality, both due to the resistant pathogens themselves and due to inappropriate treatment. Local epidemiology, patients' characteristics and clinical responses provide the most important information for therapeutic decision-making. Moreover, data on VAP therapy due to resistant bacteria are lacking, and the choice of treatment is often based on clinical practice and individual experience. Areas covered: This review summarizes the strategies available for treating the three most prevalent resistant Gram-negative organisms causing VAP: Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii and Enterobacteriaceae. The review covers the results of a Pubmed search, clinical practice guidelines and reviews, and the authors' experience. Expert opinion: The existing evidence focuses on bloodstream infections or other sites rather than pneumonia and there are no recommendations for the treatment of VAP by multi-drug resistant Gram-negative bacteria, especially for combination regimens. The approval of new drugs is needed to provide effective and safe alternatives for treating carbapenemase-producing strains. Precision medicine and personalized approach are also fundamental in future research.

Antibiotic selection in the treatment of acute invasive infections by Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Guidelines by the Spanish Society of Chemotherapy

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is characterized by a notable intrinsic resistance to antibiotics, mainly mediated by the expression of inducible chromosomic β-lactamases and the production of constitutive or inducible efflux pumps. Apart from this intrinsic resistance, P. aeruginosa possess an extraordinary ability to develop resistance to nearly all available antimicrobials through selection of mutations. The progressive increase in resistance rates in P. aeruginosa has led to the emergence of strains which, based on their degree of resistance to common antibiotics, have been defined as multidrug resistant, extended-resistant and panresistant strains. These strains are increasingly disseminated worldwide, progressively complicating the treatment of P. aeruginosa infections. In this scenario, the objective of the present guidelines was to review and update published evidence for the treatment of patients with acute, invasive and severe infections caused by P. aeruginosa. To this end, mechanisms of intrinsic resistance, factors favoring development of resistance during antibiotic exposure, prevalence of resistance in Spain, classical and recently appeared new antibiotics active against P. aeruginosa, pharmacodynamic principles predicting efficacy, clinical experience with monotherapy and combination therapy, and principles for antibiotic treatment were reviewed to elaborate recommendations by the panel of experts for empirical and directed treatment of P. aeruginosa invasive infections.

Signal Detection of Imipenem Compared to Other Drugs from Korea Adverse Event Reporting System Database

PURPOSE

To detect signals of adverse drug events after imipenem treatment using the Korea Institute of Drug Safety & Risk Management-Korea adverse event reporting system database (KIDS-KD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed data mining using KIDS-KD, which was constructed using spontaneously reported adverse event (AE) reports between December 1988 and June 2014. We detected signals calculated the proportional reporting ratio, reporting odds ratio, and information component of imipenem. We defined a signal as any AE that satisfied all three indices. The signals were compared with drug labels of nine countries.

RESULTS

There were 807582 spontaneous AEs reports in the KIDS-KD. Among those, the number of antibiotics related AEs was 192510; 3382 reports were associated with imipenem. The most common imipenem-associated AE was the drug eruption; 353 times. We calculated the signal by comparing with all other antibiotics and drugs; 58 and 53 signals satisfied the three methods. We compared the drug labelling information of nine countries, including the USA, the UK, Japan, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, France, Canada, and South Korea, and discovered that the following signals were currently not included in drug labels: hypokalemia, cardiac arrest, cardiac failure, Parkinson's syndrome, myocardial infarction, and prostate enlargement. Hypokalemia was an additional signal compared with all other antibiotics, and the other signals were not different compared with all other antibiotics and all other drugs.

CONCLUSION

We detected new signals that were not listed on the drug labels of nine countries. However, further pharmacoepidemiologic research is needed to evaluate the causality of these signals.

Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society

It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.These guidelines are intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients at risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), including specialists in infectious diseases, pulmonary diseases, critical care, and surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and any clinicians and healthcare providers caring for hospitalized patients with nosocomial pneumonia. The panel's recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of HAP and VAP are based upon evidence derived from topic-specific systematic literature reviews.

SeverePseudomonas aeruginosainfections

Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections are a frequent cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Treatment of these infections is complicated by the intrinsic and acquired resistance of this bacterium to many commonly used antimicrobial agents. In this article, Drs Hauser and Sriram argue that careful consideration of the mechanisms by which P. aeruginosa resists the activity of antimicrobial agents is essential for optimal treatment decisions. Although many aspects of treatment of severe P. aeruginosa infections remain controversial, the authors suggest specific treatment options for patients both before and after susceptibilities are known.

APPROPRIATE AND TIMELY EMPIRICAL ANTIMICROBIAL TREATMENT OF ICU INFECTIONS - A ROLE FOR CARBAPENEMS

Treatment of serious nosocomial infections in the intensive care unit requires swift, effective, well-tolerated and appropriate therapy from the outset. The consequences of inappropriate treatment, i.e. the use of antibiotics that are ineffective against the causative pathogen(s) or delayed therapy, are numerous and impact negatively upon both the patient and the ever-dwindling healthcare resources in many hospitals. Although antibiotics have revolutionised the treatment of infections, their inappropriate and untimely use within the intensive care setting has led to the emergence and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria worldwide. Consequently, to ensure successful patient outcomes (reduce morbidity and mortality), it is important that any antibiotic treatment employed is right first time. Treatment of serious infections in the intensive care unit requires an empirical stratagem providing broad-spectrum coverage to a wide range of suspected or difficult-to-treat pathogens such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa. However, to prevent the errors of the past, this needs to be tailored as soon as the pathogen has been identified and resistance patterns are known. The carbapenems are potent parenteral antibiotics, with an ultra-broad spectrum of activity that encompasses multi-drug resistant and difficult-to-treat Gram-negative bacteria. Clinical trial data supports the clinical effectiveness of these agents in patients with difficult to treat pathogens.

Clinical practice guidelines for hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults

Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are important causes of morbidity and mortality, with mortality rates approaching 62%. HAP and VAP are the second most common cause of nosocomial infection overall, but are the most common cause documented in the intensive care unit setting. In addition, HAP and VAP produce the highest mortality associated with nosocomial infection. As a result, evidence-based guidelines were prepared detailing the epidemiology, microbial etiology, risk factors and clinical manifestations of HAP and VAP. Furthermore, an approach based on the available data, expert opinion and current practice for the provision of care within the Canadian health care system was used to determine risk stratification schemas to enable appropriate diagnosis, antimicrobial management and nonantimicrobial management of HAP and VAP. Finally, prevention and risk-reduction strategies to reduce the risk of acquiring these infections were collated. Future initiatives to enhance more rapid diagnosis and to effect better treatment for resistant pathogens are necessary to reduce morbidity and improve survival.

Imipenem resistance of Pseudomonas in pneumonia: a systematic literature review

Background

Pneumonia, and particularly nosocomial (NP) and ventilator-associated pneumonias (VAP), results in high morbidity and costs. NPs in particular are likely to be caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA), ~20% of which in observational studies are resistant to imipenem. We sought to identify the burden of PA imipenem resistance in pneumonia.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of imipenem treatment for pneumonia published in English between 1993 and 2008. We extracted study, population and treatment characteristics, and proportions caused by PA. Endpoints of interest were: PA resistance to initial antimicrobial treatment, clinical success, microbiologic eradication and on-treatment emergence of resistance of PA.

Results

Of the 46 studies identified, 20 (N = 4,310) included patients with pneumonia (imipenem 1,667, PA 251; comparator 1,661, PA 270). Seven were double blind, and 7 included US data. Comparator arms included a β-lactam (17, [penicillin 6, carbapenem 4, cephalosporin 7, monobactam 1]), aminoglycoside 2, vancomycin 1, and a fluoroquinolone 5; 5 employed double coverage. Thirteen focused exclusively on pneumonia and 7 included pneumonia and other diagnoses. Initial resistance was present in 14.6% (range 4.2-24.0%) of PA isolates in imipenem and 2.5% (range 0.0-7.4%) in comparator groups. Pooled clinical success rates for PA were 45.2% (range 0.0-72.0%) for imipenem and 74.9% (range 0.0-100.0%) for comparator regimens. Microbiologic eradication was achieved in 47.6% (range 0.0%-100.0%) of isolates in the imipenem and 52.8% (range 0.0%-100.0%) in the comparator groups. Resistance emerged in 38.7% (range 5.6-77.8%) PA isolates in imipenem and 21.9% (range 4.8-56.5%) in comparator groups.

Conclusions

In the 15 years of RCTs of imipenem for pneumonia, PA imipenem resistance rates are high, and PA clinical success and microbiologic eradication rates are directionally lower for imipenem than for comparators. Conversely, initial and treatment-emergent resistance is more likely with the imipenem than the comparator regimens.

Antibiotic management of sepsis: current concepts

BACKGROUND

The development of guidelines for sepsis management has improved disease survival and reduced treatment costs. Adequate antibiotic therapy is the cornerstone of sepsis treatment. Specific rules should be established in every institution according to its profiles.

OBJECTIVES

To review the current knowledge about the best drugs to be used as empiric treatment for sepsis based on their clinical efficacy and costs.

METHODS

Medline 1950 - 2008 was searched using the following terms: sepsis, organ failure, system failure, SIRS, septic shock, antibiotic, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, urosepsis, catheter-related infection, bloodstream, abdominal infection, and surgical wound.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

For most septic shock patients, monotherapy is adequate and treatment should be initiated in the first hour after first sepsis-induced organ dysfunction. The drug of choice varies in different situations and choosing the right antibiotic enables better survival, fewer complications and shorter stays in intensive care.

Broad-spectrum antimicrobials and the treatment of serious bacterial infections: getting it right up front

The treatment of serious bacterial infections is complicated by the fact that time to initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is a strong predictor of mortality. Therefore, therapy must be initiated before the causative pathogen is identified. However, inappropriate or inadequate initial empirical therapy is associated with increased mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay. Initial empirical therapy with broad-spectrum antimicrobials attempts to address this dilemma by "getting it right up front." The goal is to provide treatment active against the most likely pathogens until culture/susceptibility test results are obtained. After the causative pathogen is identified, streamlining to more-precise therapy of the shortest acceptable duration is implemented. In this way, the risks of death, morbid complications, increased duration of hospital stay (as a result of ineffective initial treatment), and emergence of resistance (due to extended treatment with broad-spectrum agents) are lowered. Improved clinical and economic outcomes after such an approach have been demonstrated.

Comprehensive evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for ventilator-associated pneumonia: diagnosis and treatment

BACKGROUND

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in ventilated critically ill patients. Despite a large amount of research evidence, the optimal diagnostic and treatment strategies for VAP remain controversial.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of VAP. Data sources include Medline, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Register of Controlled Trials.

STUDY SELECTION

The authors systematically searched for all relevant randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on the diagnosis and treatment of VAP in mechanically ventilated adults that were published from 1980 to October 1, 2006.

DATA EXTRACTION

Independently and in duplicate, the panel critically appraised each published trial. The effect size, confidence intervals, and homogeneity of the results were scored using predefined definitions. The full guideline development panel arrived at a consensus for scores on safety, feasibility, and economic issues.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Based on the scores for each topic, the following statements of recommendation were used: recommend, consider, do not recommend, and no recommendation because of insufficient or conflicting evidence.

DATA SYNTHESIS

For the diagnosis of VAP in immunocompetent patients, we recommend that endotracheal aspirates with nonquantitative cultures be used as the initial diagnostic strategy. When there is a suspicion of VAP, we recommend empiric antimicrobial therapy (in contrast to delayed or culture directed therapy) and appropriate single agent antimicrobial therapy for each potential pathogen as empiric therapy for VAP. Choice of antibiotics should be based on patient factors and local resistance patterns. We recommend that an antibiotic discontinuation strategy be used in patients who are treated of suspected VAP. For patients who receive adequate initial antibiotic therapy, we recommend 8 days of antibiotic therapy. We do not recommend nebulized endotracheal tobramycin or intratracheal instillation of tobramycin for the treatment of VAP.

CONCLUSION

We present evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of VAP. Implementation of these recommendations into clinical practice may lessen the morbidity and mortality of patients who develop VAP.

[Summary of the GEIPC-SEIMC and GTEI-SEMICYUC recommendations for the treatment of infections caused by gram positive cocci in critical patients]

OBJECTIVE

In recent years there has been an increase in infections caused by gram-positive cocci in critical patients, together with a rapid development of resistance to the antibiotics which are normally used to treat them. The objective is to prepare an antibiotic treatment guide for the most common infections caused by gram positive cocci in critical patients. This guide will help in the decision-making process regarding the care of such patients.

METHOD

Experts from two scientific societies worked together to prepare a consensus document. They were members of the Study Group on Infections in Critical Patients (GEIPC), which is part of the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC), and the Infectious Diseases Working Group (GTEI), belonging to the Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC). There was a systematic review of the literature published up to September 2006 regarding this type of infections and the antibiotic treatments marketed to that date. An evidence grading system was applied according to the strength of the recommendation (categories A, B or C) and the level of evidence (categories I, II or III). Recommendations were given if there was consensus among the experts from both societies.

RESULTS

The antibiotic regimens recommended for treating infections caused by gram-positive cocci were presented in the form of tables, showing the recommendation grade. Alternatives were given for allergic patients. The scientific basis supporting the aforementioned recommendations is explained within the text and the references upon which they are based are cited.

CONCLUSIONS

A summary of an evidence-based practical guide for the treatment of infections caused by gram-positive cocci in critical patients is presented.

The role of carbapenems in the treatment of severe nosocomial respiratory tract infections

The prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria continues to increase, particularly in patients in the intensive care unit with nosocomial pneumonia. The intention of this review is to provide an overview of severe nosocomial pneumonia, carbapenems and the problem of bacterial resistance to antimicrobial agents. Attention was focused on the efficacy, safety and pharmacodynamics of imipenem, meropenem, ertapenem and doripenem. Issues on the impact of appropriate empiric antibiotic therapy for nosocomial pneumonia patients considered at risk for resistant pathogens are discussed. Critical decision making regarding the use of carbapenems for treating severe nosocomial pneumonia requires careful consideration of the four Ds of optimal antimicrobial therapy: right Drug, right Dose, De-escalated to pathogen-directed therapy and right Duration of therapy.

Empiric antibiotic therapy for suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare specific antibiotic regimens, and monotherapy vs. combination therapy, for the empirical treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).

DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCE

Medline, Embase, Cochrane register of controlled trials, study authors, and review articles.

STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated empirical parenteral antibiotic regimens for adult patients with clinically suspected VAP.

DATA SELECTION

Two independent review groups searched the literature, extracted data, and evaluated trial quality. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes included treatment failure. Relative risks were pooled using a random effects model.

RESULTS

We identified 41 trials randomizing 7,015 patients and comparing 29 unique regimens. Methodological quality was low, reflecting low rates of complete follow-up (43.9%), use of a double-blinded interventional strategy (14.6%), and randomization concealment (48.6%). Overall mortality was 20.3%; treatment failure occurred in 37.4% of patients who could be evaluated microbiologically. No mortality differences were observed between any of the regimens compared. Only one of three pooled comparisons yielded a significant difference for treatment failure: The combination of ceftazidime/aminoglycoside was inferior to meropenem (two trials, relative risk 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.53-0.93). Rates of mortality and treatment failure for monotherapy compared with combination therapy were similar (11 trials, relative risk for mortality of monotherapy 0.94, confidence interval 0.76-1.16; and relative risk of treatment failure for monotherapy 0.88, confidence interval 0.72-1.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Monotherapy is not inferior to combination therapy in the empirical treatment of VAP. Available data neither identify a superior empirical regimen nor conclusively conclude that available regimens result in equivalent outcomes. Larger and more rigorous trials evaluating the choice of, and even need for, empirical therapy for VAP are needed.

[GEIPC-SEIMC (Study Group for Infections in the Critically Ill Patient of the Spanish Society for Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology) and GTEI-SEMICYUC ( Working Group on Infectious Diseases of the Spanish Society of Intensive Medicine, Critical Care, and Coronary Units) recommendations for antibiotic treatment of gram-positive cocci infections in the critical patient]

In recent years, an increment of infections caused by gram-positive cocci has been documented in nosocomial and hospital-acquired-infections. In diverse countries, a rapid development of resistance to common antibiotics against gram-positive cocci has been observed. This situation is exceptional in Spain but our country might be affected in the near future. New antimicrobials active against these multi-drug resistant pathogens are nowadays available. It is essential to improve our current knowledge about pharmacokinetic properties of traditional and new antimicrobials to maximize its effectiveness and to minimize toxicity. These issues are even more important in critically ill patients because inadequate empirical therapy is associated with therapeutic failure and a poor outcome. Experts representing two scientific societies (Grupo de estudio de Infecciones en el Paciente Crítico de la SEIMC and Grupo de trabajo de Enfermedades Infecciosas de la SEMICYUC) have elaborated a consensus document based on the current scientific evidence to summarize recommendations for the treatment of serious infections caused by gram-positive cocci in critically ill patients.

A randomized study of sequential intravenous/oral moxifloxacin in comparison to sequential intravenous ceftriaxone/oral cefuroxime axetil in patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Empiric treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) should be focused on the suspected pathogens. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin vs ceftriaxone in patients with HAP without risk of infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other non-fermentative Gram-negative bacteria.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a prospective, randomized, non-blind, multicentric and multinational study to compare the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin 400 mg IV once daily followed by oral moxifloxacin 400 mg once daily to ceftriaxone 2 g IV once daily followed by oral cefuroxime axetil 500 mg twice daily to treat mild-to-moderate HAP in adult patients requiring initial parenteral therapy. The primary efficacy variable was clinical response 7-10 days after the end of a 7-14-day treatment period, secondary endpoints included clinical and bacteriologic response at different intervals for up to 31 days after treatment. The trial was terminated prematurely due to slow patient recruitment.

RESULTS

A total of 161 subjects (87 men, 74 women) between 18 and 95 years of age were enrolled, 120 of whom were eligible for per protocol efficacy analyses (60 each in the moxifloxacin and the comparator groups). Clinical success rates were 87% for moxifloxacin and 83% for the comparator [95% CI (-9.77 to 15.96%)]. The results for secondary endpoints were comparable between groups. Both treatments were safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Moxifloxacin IV/oral can be considered as a possible alternative for the antibiotic treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate nosocomial pneumonia without risk factors for highly resistant microorganisms.

Recomendaciones GEIPC-SEIMC y GTEI-SEMICYUC para el tratamiento antibiótico de infecciones por cocos grampositivos en el paciente crítico

In recent years, an increment of infections caused by gram-positive cocci has been documented in nosocomial and hospital-acquired infections. In diverse countries, a rapid development of resistance to common antibiotics against gram-positive cocci has been observed. This situation is exceptional in Spain but our country might be affected in the near future. New antimicrobials active against these multi-drug resistant pathogens are nowadays available. It is essential to improve our current knowledge about pharmacokinetic properties of traditional and new antimicrobials to maximize its effectiveness and to minimize toxicity. These issues are even more important in critically ill patients because inadequate empirical therapy is associated with therapeutic failure and a poor outcome. Experts representing two scientific societies (Grupo de estudio de Infecciones en el Paciente Critico de la SEIMC and Grupo de trabajo de Enfermedades Infecciosas de la SEMICYUC) have elaborated a consensus document based on the current scientific evidence to summarize recommendations for the treatment of serious infections caused by gram-positive cocci in critically ill patients.

Intravenous or sequential ciprofloxacin therapy in hospitalised patients with a broad spectrum of infections: a post-marketing surveillance study

OBJECTIVE

This study set out to obtain up-to-date information on the efficacy, safety and tolerability of ciprofloxacin as well as the time to improvement and recovery, and to explore data on drug utilisation in hospitalised patients with a special focus on intravenous therapy with ciprofloxacin. METHODS, DESIGN AND PATIENTS: Hospitalised patients with a broad spectrum of infections were included in this non-interventional multicentre study. In order to be included, the patients had to be treated with intravenous ciprofloxacin for a minimum of 2 days. Physicians were advised to pay attention to the contraindications mentioned in the summary of product characteristics. They documented demographic and anamnestic data, the type and severity of the infection, concomitant diseases and medications, the course of clinical and laboratory symptoms, and the treatment. In addition, they rated the overall efficacy of intravenous ciprofloxacin and recorded the time to improvement and recovery. All adverse events were reported.

RESULTS

1012 hospitalised patients with mild to severe clinical infections were included. Their mean age was 61.5 years (SD 16.7), and 57.4% were males. Intravenous ciprofloxacin was given to 28.7% of patients exclusively and 69.6% started with intravenous ciprofloxacin and were switched later to oral treatment. The majority of patients presented with one defined source of infection (77.9%), mainly located in the respiratory tract (40.2%), the abdomen (21.4%), the urinary tract (14.9%) or the kidney (13.4%). Other infections involved the bones and joints (4.5%) or were classified as sepsis (8.0%); 39.6% of infections were classified as severe. Infection symptoms improved in 86.2% of the patients within 5 days. The overall improvement and recovery rates were 91.9% and 85.8%, respectively. Efficacy of ciprofloxacin was judged as 'very good' or 'good' in 86.5% of patients. Tolerability was judged as 'very good' or 'good' in 98.2% of patients. Adverse events occurred rarely and were reported in 2.17% of patients. Seventeen (1.68%) fulfilled the criteria of serious adverse events. In only 0.4% of patients was a relationship between the adverse event and ciprofloxacin treatment suspected.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous ciprofloxacin is an effective and well tolerated antibacterial treatment in hospitalised patients experiencing a broad spectrum of mild to severe infections.

Risk factors of superinfection following imipenem/cilastatin therapy in hospitalised patients with acute exacerbations of severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Imipenem is often used in treatment of acute exacerbations of severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Superinfection following imipenem therapy is a common cause of treatment failure and high economic burden. This study is aimed to explore any clinical factors which determine the risk of superinfection after imipenem treatment in acute exacerbations of severe COPD. A prospective observational study was conducted in a 5-bed respiratory intensive care unit of a Chinese University hospital. Fifty-one patients with acute exacerbations of severe COPD who were hospitalised and treated with imipenem for more than 3 days were enrolled during 1.5 year. The associations between the risk of superinfection and potential factors were analysed by logistic regression. Forty-seven out of 51 patients (92.2%) had their symptoms and signs improved at the end of imipenem treatment. Superinfections were developed in 12 patients, and the superinfection rate was as high as 30.8% (12 out of 39 patients with definite bacteriologic responses). The frequent superinfecting organisms were Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Among a wide range of potential risk factors, we found that lower blood pH, previous cephalosporines treatment and longer period of imipenem treatment are independently associated with a higher risk of superinfection. The risk of superinfection following imipenem treatment in hospitalised patients with acute exacerbations of COPD was high. Lower blood pH, previous cephalosporines treatment and longer period of imipenem treatment all increased the risk of superinfection.

Levofloxacin in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia

The use of levofloxacin in critically ill patients has progressively increased since commercial marketing of the drug in 1999, despite the fact that few studies have been designed to assess the use of levofloxacin in this population. Pharmacological characteristics, broad spectrum of activity, and tolerability account for the high interest in the drug for the treatment of different infectious diseases, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and the recommendation of levofloxacin in guidelines developed by a number of scientific societies. According to pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic data, it seems reasonable to assume that an increase in activity follows from a larger dose, so that 500 mg/12 h is adequate in patients with VAP. In critically ill patients with VAP, levofloxacin monotherapy is indicated for empirical treatment of patients with early onset pneumonia without risk factors for multiresistant pathogens, and in combination therapy for late onset VAP or for patients at risk for multiresistant pathogens. The use of levofloxacin in combination therapy is supported by multiple reasons, including: increased empirical coverage in infections with suspected intracellular pathogens; substitution for more toxic antimicrobial agents (e.g., aminoglycosides) in patients with renal dysfunction and in those at risk for renal insufficiency; and severity of systemic response to infection (septic shock) that justifies multiple treatment with better tolerated antibiotics. The availability of the oral formulation allows sequential therapy, switching from the intravenous route to the oral route. Levofloxacin is well tolerated by critically ill patients, with few adverse events of mild to moderate severity.

Levofloxacin for treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a subgroup analysis from a randomized trial

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) remains a significant challenge in critical care. We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial comparing levofloxacin (750 mg iv q24h) with imipenem-cilastatin (500-1000 mg iv q6-8h) for treatment of nosocomial pneumonia and focused on the subgroup of patients with VAP. The study cohort included 222 patients, with half (111) of the patients assigned to each treatment group. The patients in both groups were similar with respect to age, severity of illness, and duration of mechanical ventilation before the onset of VAP. Among the intention-to-treat population, clinical success was achieved in 58.6% of patients receiving levofloxacin, compared with 63.1% of patients receiving imipenem-cilastatin (P=.49; 95% confidence interval for the difference, -8.77% to 17.79%). Microbiological success and 28-day mortality rates were also comparable. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that assignment to antibiotic treatment (i.e., levofloxacin vs. imipenem-cilastatin) was not predictive of outcomes, thus suggesting that the treatment regimens were equivalent. Both levofloxacin and imipenem-cilastatin regimens were well tolerated and had similar adverse event profiles.

Quinolones for treatment of nosocomial pneumonia: a meta-analysis

Although quinolones are often used to treat nosocomial pneumonia (NP), there have been few trials documenting their efficacy in treating NP. Given the growing use of quinolones and issues regarding resistance, we conducted a meta-analysis of all trials of quinolones for treatment of NP. We identified 5 randomized trials comparing quinolones with other agents used to treat NP. The studies varied in both quality and sample size and included a total of nearly 1200 subjects. Four of the 5 trials used ciprofloxacin, administered every 8 h, whereas the fifth used levofloxacin administered daily. In 3 trials, the comparator agent was imipenem-cilistatin, whereas, in 2 trials, ceftazadime was the comparator agent. The efficacy of quinolones and comparator antibiotics was similar, with a pooled odds ratio for clinical cure of 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.55). Neither microbiological eradication rates nor mortality rates varied on the basis of antimicrobial selection.

Comparison of piperacillin/tazobactam and imipenem/cilastatin, both in combination with tobramycin, administered every 6 h for treatment of nosocomial pneumonia

This randomized, double-blind, multicenter study compared the efficacy and safety of piperacillin/tazobactam (P/T) and imipenem/cilastatin (IMP), both in combination with an aminoglycoside, in hospitalized patients with acute nosocomial pneumonia (NP). Patients with acute NP, defined as pneumonia with symptoms > or = 48 h after admission or < or =7 days after hospital discharge, received infusions of 4 g/500 mg P/T or 500 mg/500 mg IMP every 6 h. Endpoints were clinical cure and microbiological response rates; pathogen eradication rates; length of hospital stay; hospital readmissions; and adverse events (AEs). Of 437 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 197 were efficacy evaluable. At test-of-cure, response rates were similar between groups. Within the efficacy evaluable population, 68% of P/T patients and 61% of IMP patients were clinically cured (P = 0.256). Microbiological responses for P/T and IMP patients were: eradication, 64% versus 59%; persistence, 29% versus 21%; relapse, 0% versus 5%; and superinfection, 7% versus 15%, respectively. Gram-positive isolates were eradicated in 83% of P/T patients and 75% of IMP patients; Gram-negative pathogens were eradicated in 72% of P/T patients and 77% of IMP patients. Treatment groups had similar number of mean hospital days, readmission rates, and frequency of AEs. This study showed that P/T administered four times per day was as safe and efficacious as IMP in treating hospitalized patients with NP.

Antimicrobial therapy for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: an evidence-based review

OBJECTIVE

In 2003, critical care and infectious disease experts representing 11 international organizations developed management guidelines for antimicrobial therapy for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock that would be of practical use for the bedside clinician, under the auspices of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, an international effort to increase awareness and improve outcome in severe sepsis.

DESIGN

The process included a modified Delphi method, a consensus conference, several subsequent smaller meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee.

METHODS

The modified Delphi methodology used for grading recommendations built on a 2001 publication sponsored by the International Sepsis Forum. We undertook a systematic review of the literature graded along five levels to create recommendation grades from A to E, with A being the highest grade. Pediatric considerations to contrast adult and pediatric management are in the article by Parker et al. on p. S591.

CONCLUSION

Since the prompt institution of therapy that is active against the causative pathogen is one of the most important predictors of outcome, clinicians must establish a system for rapid administration of a rationally chosen drug or combination of drugs when sepsis or septic shock is suspected. The expanding number of antibacterial, antifungal, and antiviral agents available provides opportunities for effective empiric and specific therapy. However, to minimize the promotion of antimicrobial resistance and cost and to maximize efficacy, detailed knowledge of the likely pathogens and the properties of the available drugs is necessary for the intensivist.

Clinical effect of intravenous ciprofloxacin on hospital-acquired pneumonia

The effect of intravenous ciprofloxacin (CPFX) on hospital-acquired pneumonia was examined. The subjects were 32 patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia classified as being in group I, group II, and group III, based on The Japanese Respiratory Society Guidelines for management of hospital-acquired pneumonia. None of the patients had received antibiotic treatment for the pneumonia. CPFX 300 mg was intravenously infused twice daily for 3-14 days, and its clinical effect, bacterological effect, and side effects were examined. Intravenous CPEX was clinically effective in 21 of the 32 patients, with an efficacy rate of 65.6%. With regard to bacteriological efficacy, 4 of 5 strains of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, 2 of 3 strains of Klebsiella pneumoniae, 1 of 2 strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae, 1 of 2 strains of Streptococcus agalactiae, 1 of 2 strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, 1 of 2 strains of Serratia marcescens, and the 1 strain of Klebsiella oxytoca were eradicated, with an eradication rate of 42.3% (11 of 26 strains whose fate was confirmed eradicated). Abnormal laboratory findings (side effects) were observed in 11 of the 32 patients (34.4%), but all side effects were mild. Based on the above data, intravenous CPFX may be the drug which should be recommended as the first choice for hospital-acquired pneumonia.

Recent developments in antibiotic treatment

Antibiotic resistance of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria remains a major challenge for clinicians treating HAP. Since the recent release of linezolid and QD, treatment options for resistant gram-positive bacteria have improved. The development of new substances continues and it is hoped that some of them will be available soon. Investigation has centered on gram-positive bacteria, although multiresistant gram-negative pathogens, such as A haumanii, S maltophilia, and resistant P aeruginosa, are of major clinical relevance. New treatment options are unfortunately not in sight. No antibiotic, however, is a miraculous magic wand against resistant bacteria. The bugs are smart; they have been on this world far longer than humans. Regardless of how innovative the mechanism of action of new substances is, resistance will emerge. The solution is certainly not a nihilistic approach leading to a fearful restriction in the use of new substances. No antibiotic, regardless of its potency, can free the clinician from keeping the difficult balance between individual undertreatment and general overtreatment.

Treatment of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) with intravenous colistin: a comparison with imipenem-susceptible VAP

We prospectively evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of intravenously administered colistin in 35 episodes of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) due to multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Microbiological diagnosis was performed with use of quantitative culture. In 21 patients, the episodes were caused by a strain susceptible exclusively to colistin (the CO group) and were all treated with this antimicrobial intravenously. In 14 patients, the episodes were caused by strains that remained susceptible to imipenem and were treated with imipenem-cilastatin (the IM group). Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores at the time of admission and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores at time of diagnosis were similar in both groups. VAP was considered clinically cured in 57% of cases in both groups. In-hospital mortality rates were 61.9% in the CO group and 64.2% in the IM group, and the VAP-related mortality rates were 38% and 35.7%, respectively. Four patients in the CO group and 6 in the IM group developed renal failure. Neurophysiological evaluation was performed during 12 episodes in the CO group, but it revealed no signs of neuromuscular blockade. Intravenous colistin appears to be a safe and effective alternative to imipenem for the management of VAP due to carbapenem-resistant strains of A. baumannii.

Pulmonary matrix metalloproteinase excess in hospital-acquired pneumonia

In hospital-acquired pneumonia, extracellular matrix destruction is common and may be caused by excessive activity of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs). Thirty patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia and 16 control subjects were studied. We evaluated the concentrations of MMP-8, MMP-9, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 in mini-bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (mini-BALF) and blood using zymography and specific immunoassays. In patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia concentrations of MMP-8 and MMP-9 in mini-BALF were increased 10-fold, whereas their specific inhibitor tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 was not concomitantly increased. In 80% of patients with pneumonia, but in none of the control subjects, the active form of MMP-9 was detected by zymography. Zymography furthermore showed the banding pattern of neutrophil-derived MMP-9, indicating that neutrophils were the main source of MMP-9. Comparison of neutrophils from blood and mini-BALF showed higher basal release of MMPs by pulmonary neutrophils. Stimulation analysis indicated that pulmonary neutrophils were already maximally activated. In patients with detection of potentially pathogenic microorganisms, concentrations of MMPs were fivefold increased compared with patients with negative cultures. Furthermore, MMP-levels were related to clinical severity. These are the first data suggesting that neutrophil-derived MMPs are increased in hospital-acquired pneumonia in association to the detection of causative microorganisms and clinical severity.

Levofloxacin compared with imipenem/cilastatin followed by ciprofloxacin in adult patients with nosocomial pneumonia: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label study

BACKGROUND

Therapy of nosocomial pneumonia is usually empiric and includes > or = 1 broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent. When considering the use of fluoroquinolones in these difficult-to-treat infections--in which drug delivery to the site of infection may be impaired or organisms with higher minimum inhibitory concentrations may be present--an agent should be chosen whose pharmacodynamics ensure maximal drug exposure. Use of the 750-mg dose of levofloxacin should enhance therapeutic benefit in patients with nosocomial pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of levofloxacin 750 mg and imipenem/cilastatin followed by ciprofloxacin in adult patients with nosocomial pneumonia.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label trial conducted in North America. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment arms: levofloxacin 750 mg QD given i.v. and then orally for 7 to 15 days or imipenem/cilastatin 500 mg to 1 g i.v. every 6 to 8 hours, followed by oral ciprofloxacin 750 mg every 12 hours for 7 to 15 days. Adjunctive antibacterial therapy was mandatory in patients with documented or suspected Pseudomonas aeruginosa or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. The primary predefined outcome measure was the clinical response (cure, improvement, failure, or unable to evaluate) in microbiologically evaluable patients 3 to 15 days after the end of therapy.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 438 adult patients (315 men, 123 women; mean [SD] age, 55.7 [20.04] years). Two hundred twenty patients received levofloxacin, and 218 received the comparator regimen. Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics were similar in the intent-to-treat and clinically evaluable populations. In patients evaluable for microbiologic efficacy, clinical success (cure or improvement) was achieved in 58.1% (54/93) of patients who received levofloxacin, compared with 60.6% (57/94) of patients who received the comparator regimen (95% CI, -12.0 to 17.2). Similar clinical results were seen in patients evaluable for clinical efficacy and in the intent-to-treat population. In the 187 patients evaluable for microbiologic efficacy, eradication was achieved in 66.7% (62/93) of patients receiving levofloxacin and 60.6% (57/94) of patients receiving the comparator regimen (95% CI, -20.3 to 8.3).

CONCLUSION

In this study, levofloxacin was at least as effective and was as well tolerated as imipenem/cilastatin followed by ciprofloxacin in adult patients with nosocomial pneumonia, as demonstrated by comparable clinical and microbiologic success rates.

Hospital-acquired pneumonia: challenges and options for diagnosis and treatment

The management of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) presents a major challenge for the clinician. The insensitivity of current diagnostic methods and the increasing prevalence of nosocomial pathogens with multiple antibiotic resistance complicate the issue. Use of mechanical ventilation and broad-spectrum antimicrobials in the intensive care setting predipose patients to acquire HAP more frequently with antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. Controversy exists regarding the patients in which invasive diagnostic testing is indicated; the timing of these procedures is another subject of debate. Proper empirical therapy is fundamental to a favourable outcome, and the selection of inappropriate agents to which pathogens are resistant contributes significantly to morbidity and mortality. In general, there is agreement on the requirement for a thorough knowledge of the local causative organisms and the pathogens' resistance profiles. A wide variety of antimicrobials can be used either as monotherapy or in combinations.

Prevention and management of ventilator-associated pneumonia

Worldwide, the increasing rates of microbial resistance represent a serious public health problem. Therefore, measures to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia gain increasing importance. Because antimicrobial treatment in the ICU is a major source of microbial resistance, prevention should be understood not only as the sum of preventive measures but also as part of any management strategy. In this year of review, several important contributions have been made to a better understanding of the relative role of preventive measures. This is particularly true of noninvasive ventilation, continuous aspiration of subglottic secretions, and closed endotracheal suctioning. Management strategies for ventilator-assisted pneumonia remain highly controversial. Despite two decades of vigorous research, there is still no evidence that invasive bronchoscopic techniques should form part of a routine approach to suspected ventilator-assisted pneumonia. Moreover, an impact in terms of important outcome variables could not be consistently demonstrated. In the authors' view, the controversy regarding the relative validity of diagnostic tools should end, and the focus should shift to strategies that define low-risk patients with suspected ventilator-assisted pneumonia who can safely be treated by short-term monotherapy. Finally, several contributions have refined the established treatment regimen. Several new drugs for the treatment of ventilator-assisted pneumonia caused by Gram-positive multiresistant pathogens have been evaluated with promising results.