Metronidazole in the treatment of anaerobic infections

Antibacterial treatment of aspiration pneumonia in older people: a systematic review

Background

Aspiration pneumonia is a common problem in older people with high mortality and increasing prevalence.

Objective

The aims of this paper were to systematically review the literature on the antibacterial treatment of aspiration pneumonia in elderly patients and identify the microbiology of aspiration pneumonia.

Materials and methods

EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies that examined the clinical efficacy of antibiotic treatment in elderly patients with aspiration pneumonia. Information on study design, antibiotic treatment, study population, participants, microbiology, clinical outcomes, adverse events, and mortality was recorded.

Results

There were no definitive clinical trials, placebo-controlled trials, or meta-analyses. Of the eight studies selected for inclusion in the review, the majority utilized and/or compared broad-spectrum antibiotics. No specific antibacterial agent had evidence of superior efficacy. Broad-spectrum antibiotics resulted in the emergence of multiresistant organisms. Anaerobic bacteria were infrequently isolated, suggesting a less important role in the pathogenesis of aspiration pneumonia.

Conclusion

There is limited evidence with regard to the use of antibiotics in older patients with aspiration pneumonia. Research providing an evidence base for the treatment of aspiration pneumonia in older people is required.

Nosocomial pneumonia : rationalizing the approach to empirical therapy

Nosocomial pneumonia or hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) causes considerable morbidity and mortality. It is the second most common nosocomial infection and the leading cause of death from hospital-acquired infections. In 1996 the American Thoracic Society (ATS) published guidelines for empirical therapy of HAP. This review focuses on the literature that has appeared since the ATS statement. Early diagnosis of HAP and its etiology is crucial in guiding empirical therapy. Since 1996, it has become clear that differentiating mere colonization from etiologic pathogens infecting the lower respiratory tract is best achieved by employing bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) or protected specimen brush (PSB) in combination with quantitative culture and detection of intracellular microorganisms. Endotracheal aspirate and non-bronchoscopic BAL/PSB in combination with quantitative culture provide a good alternative in patients suspected of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Since culture results take 2-3 days, initial therapy of HAP is by definition empirical. Epidemiologic studies have identified the most frequently involved pathogens: Enterobacteriaceae, Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus ('core pathogens'). Empirical therapy covering only the 'core pathogens' will suffice in patients without risk factors for resistant microorganisms. Studies that have appeared since the ATS statement issued in 1996, demonstrate several new risk factors for HAP with multiresistant pathogens. In patients with risk factors, empirical therapy should consist of antibacterials with a broader spectrum. The most important risk factors for resistant microorganisms are late onset of HAP (>/=5 days after admission), recent use of antibacterial therapy, and mechanical ventilation. Multiresistant bacteria of specific interest are methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumannii, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Each of these organisms has its specific susceptibility pattern, demanding appropriate antibacterial treatment. To further improve outcomes, specific therapeutic options for multiresistant pathogens and pharmacological factors are discussed. Antibacterials developed since 1996 or antibacterials with renewed interest (linezolid, quinupristin/dalfopristin, teicoplanin, meropenem, new fluoroquinolones, and fourth-generation cephalosporins) are discussed in the light of developing resistance.Since the ATS statement, many reports have shown increasing incidences of resistant microorganisms. Therefore, one of the most important conclusions from this review is that empirical therapy for HAP should not be based on general guidelines alone, but that local epidemiology should be taken into account and used in the formulation of local guidelines.

Current antimicrobial therapy of anaerobic infections

The treatment of many anaerobic infections involves antimicrobial therapy, appropriate surgical drainage of abscesses, and debridement of devitalized tissue. Most anaerobic infections are polymicrobial and require treatment with agents active against an array of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. Bacterial resistance, especially to penicillins and tetracyclines, but also to newer agents of other classes, continues to increase. As a result, treatment with more than one drug is often required. Combination therapy is often necessary in serious infection, and is indicated for empiric treatment before receiving culture results. In the past combination therapy has been the mainstay of antimicrobial therapy, but more recent studies suggest that monotherapy for anaerobic infections may dominate the future. Selection of an agent requires consideration of the site of infection and the most likely etiologic agents. In vitro susceptibility is important, but it is not the only determinant of antimicrobial effectiveness. The pharmacology of the drug--absorption, distribution, concentrations in body fluids and tissues, excretion and metabolism--also plays an important role. The nature and severity of the underlying illness are important factors in selecting empiric therapy. Although it is a clinical judgement, in patients considered to have mild to moderate infections, several factors in selecting antimicrobial agents may be considered, including cost, whereas in patients judged to have severe or life-threatening infections, the most potent agents should be chosen as initial therapy, regardless of cost. Finally, the toxicities of the agent must also be considered.

Intravenous metronidazole for treatment of infections involving anaerobic bacteria

Intravenous metronidazole was administered, either by continuous or intermittent infusion, to 20 patients with infections involving anaerobic bacteria; 14 of the 20 patients were changed to oral administration of metronidazole for completion of therapy. Six of eight patients with infections derived from oropharyngeal bacterial flora were cured; the addition of ampicillin was required in one patient, however, because of an incomplete response to metronidazole. Eight of eleven evaluable patients with infections derived from bowel flora were also cured by metronidazole or metronidazole plus an aminoglycoside. Of 93 anaerobic bacteria isolated before therapy, 89 were susceptible to 16 micrograms or less of metronidazole per ml. Mean plasma levels of metronidazole were 27.6 +/- 11.4 micrograms/ml in patients receiving continuous infusions of drug and 19.9 +/- 10.7 micrograms/ml (trough) in patients receiving intermittent infusions. Two patients developed peripheral neuropathy during therapy. Metronidazole is an effective agent for the treatment of anaerobic infections. Because metronidazole is not active against facultative and aerobic bacteria, the addition of a second antimicrobial agent may be required for the treatment of mixed anaerobic-aerobic infections.