Levofloxacin inhalation solution for the treatment of chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection among patients with cystic fibrosis

Antibiotic strategies for eradicating Pseudomonas aeruginosa in people with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Respiratory tract infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa occur in most people with cystic fibrosis (CF). Established chronic P aeruginosa infection is virtually impossible to eradicate and is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Early infection may be easier to eradicate. This is an updated review.

OBJECTIVES

Does giving antibiotics for P aeruginosa infection in people with CF at the time of new isolation improve clinical outcomes (e.g. mortality, quality of life and morbidity), eradicate P aeruginosa infection, and delay the onset of chronic infection, but without adverse effects, compared to usual treatment or an alternative antibiotic regimen? We also assessed cost-effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and conference proceedings. Latest search: 24 March 2022. We searched ongoing trials registries. Latest search: 6 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with CF, in whom P aeruginosa had recently been isolated from respiratory secretions. We compared combinations of inhaled, oral or intravenous (IV) antibiotics with placebo, usual treatment or other antibiotic combinations. We excluded non-randomised trials and cross-over trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 trials (1449 participants) lasting between 28 days and 27 months; some had few participants and most had relatively short follow-up periods. Antibiotics in this review are: oral - ciprofloxacin and azithromycin; inhaled - tobramycin nebuliser solution for inhalation (TNS), aztreonam lysine (AZLI) and colistin; IV - ceftazidime and tobramycin. There was generally a low risk of bias from missing data. In most trials it was difficult to blind participants and clinicians to treatment. Two trials were supported by the manufacturers of the antibiotic used. TNS versus placebo TNS may improve eradication; fewer participants were still positive for P aeruginosa at one month (odds ratio (OR) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.18; 3 trials, 89 participants; low-certainty evidence) and two months (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.65; 2 trials, 38 participants). We are uncertain whether the odds of a positive culture decrease at 12 months (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.67; 1 trial, 12 participants). TNS (28 days) versus TNS (56 days) One trial (88 participants) comparing 28 days to 56 days TNS treatment found duration of treatment may make little or no difference in time to next isolation (hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.76; low-certainty evidence). Cycled TNS versus culture-based TNS One trial (304 children, one to 12 years old) compared cycled TNS to culture-based therapy and also ciprofloxacin to placebo. We found moderate-certainty evidence of an effect favouring cycled TNS therapy (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.82), although the trial publication reported age-adjusted OR and no difference between groups. Ciprofloxacin versus placebo added to cycled and culture-based TNS therapy One trial (296 participants) examined the effect of adding ciprofloxacin versus placebo to cycled and culture-based TNS therapy. There is probably no difference between ciprofloxacin and placebo in eradicating P aeruginosa (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.44; moderate-certainty evidence). Ciprofloxacin and colistin versus TNS We are uncertain whether there is any difference between groups in eradication of P aeruginosa at up to six months (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.23; 1 trial, 58 participants) or up to 24 months (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.42; 1 trial, 47 participants); there was a low rate of short-term eradication in both groups. Ciprofloxacin plus colistin versus ciprofloxacin plus TNS One trial (223 participants) found there may be no difference in positive respiratory cultures at 16 months between ciprofloxacin with colistin versus TNS with ciprofloxacin (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.29; low-certainty evidence). TNS plus azithromycin compared to TNS plus oral placebo Adding azithromycin may make no difference to the number of participants eradicating P aeruginosa after a three-month treatment phase (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.35; 1 trial, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence); there was also no evidence of any difference in the time to recurrence. Ciprofloxacin and colistin versus no treatment A single trial only reported one of our planned outcomes; there were no adverse effects in either group. AZLI for 14 days plus placebo for 14 days compared to AZLI for 28 days We are uncertain whether giving 14 or 28 days of AZLI makes any difference to the proportion of participants having a negative respiratory culture at 28 days (mean difference (MD) -7.50, 95% CI -24.80 to 9.80; 1 trial, 139 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ceftazidime with IV tobramycin compared with ciprofloxacin (both regimens in conjunction with three months colistin) IV ceftazidime with tobramycin compared with ciprofloxacin may make little or no difference to eradication of P aeruginosa at three months, sustained to 15 months, provided that inhaled antibiotics are also used (RR 0.84, 95 % CI 0.65 to 1.09; P = 0.18; 1 trial, 255 participants; high-certainty evidence). The results do not support using IV antibiotics over oral therapy to eradicate P aeruginosa, based on both eradication rate and financial cost.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that nebulised antibiotics, alone or with oral antibiotics, were better than no treatment for early infection with P aeruginosa. Eradication may be sustained in the short term. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether these antibiotic strategies decrease mortality or morbidity, improve quality of life, or are associated with adverse effects compared to placebo or standard treatment. Four trials comparing two active treatments have failed to show differences in rates of eradication of P aeruginosa. One large trial showed that intravenous ceftazidime with tobramycin is not superior to oral ciprofloxacin when inhaled antibiotics are also used. There is still insufficient evidence to state which antibiotic strategy should be used for the eradication of early P aeruginosa infection in CF, but there is now evidence that intravenous therapy is not superior to oral antibiotics.

Interventions for the eradication of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in people with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis is an inherited recessive disorder of chloride transport that is characterised by recurrent and persistent pulmonary infections from resistant organisms that result in lung function deterioration and early mortality in sufferers. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has emerged not only as an important infection in people who are hospitalised, but also as a potentially harmful pathogen in cystic fibrosis. Chronic pulmonary infection with MRSA is thought to confer on people with cystic fibrosis a worse clinical outcome and result in an increased rate of lung function decline. Clear guidance for MRSA eradication in cystic fibrosis, supported by robust evidence, is urgently needed. This is an update of a previous review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of treatment regimens designed to eradicate MRSA and to determine whether the eradication of MRSA confers better clinical and microbiological outcomes for people with cystic fibrosis. To ascertain whether attempts at eradicating MRSA can lead to increased acquisition of other resistant organisms (including Pseudomonas aeruginosa), increased adverse effects from drugs, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials by searching the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders (CFGD) Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, PubMed, MEDLINE and three clinical trials registries; by handsearching article reference lists; and through contact with experts in the field. We last searched the CFGD Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register on 4 October 2021, and the ongoing trials registries on 31 January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of any combinations of topical, inhaled, oral or intravenous antimicrobials primarily aimed at eradicating MRSA compared with placebo, standard treatment or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and used the GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes three RCTs with 135 participants with MRSA infection. Two trials compared active treatment versus observation only and one trial compared active treatment with placebo.  Active treatment versus observation In both trials (106 participants), active treatment consisted of oral trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole combined with rifampicin. One trial administered this combination for two weeks alongside nasal, skin and oral decontamination and a three-week environmental decontamination, while the second trial administered this drug combination for 21 days with five days intranasal mupirocin. Both trials reported successful eradication of MRSA in people with cystic fibrosis, but they used different definitions of eradication. One trial (45 participants) defined MRSA eradication as negative MRSA respiratory cultures at day 28, and reported that oral trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole combined with rifampicin may lead to a higher proportion of negative cultures compared to control (odds ratio (OR) 12.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.84 to 55.84; low-certainty evidence). However, by day 168 of follow-up, there was no difference between groups in the proportion of participants who remained MRSA-negative (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.31 to 4.42; low-certainty evidence). The second trial defined successful eradication as the absence of MRSA following treatment in at least three cultures over a period of six months. We are uncertain if the intervention led to results favouring the treatment group as the certainty of the evidence was very low (OR 2.74, 95% CI 0.64 to 11.75). There were no differences between groups in the remaining outcomes for this comparison: quality of life, frequency of exacerbations or adverse effects (all low-certainty evidence) or the change from baseline in lung function or weight (both very low-certainty evidence). The time until next positive MRSA isolate was not reported. The included trials found no differences between groups in terms of nasal colonisation with MRSA. While not a specific outcome of this review, investigators from one study reported that the rate of hospitalisation from screening through day 168 was lower with oral trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole combined with rifampicin compared to control (rate ratio 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.72; P = 0.01). Nebulised vancomycin with oral antibiotics versus nebulised placebo with oral antibiotics The third trial (29 participants) defined eradication as a negative respiratory sample for MRSA at one month following completion of treatment. No differences were reported in MRSA eradication between treatment arms (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.39; low-certainty evidence). No differences between groups were seen in lung function or adverse effects (low-certainty evidence), in quality of life (very low-certainty evidence) or nasal colonisation with MRSA. The trial did not report on the change in weight or frequency of exacerbations.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Early eradication of MRSA is possible in people with cystic fibrosis, with one trial demonstrating superiority of active MRSA treatment compared with observation only in terms of the proportion of MRSA-negative respiratory cultures at day 28. However, follow-up at three or six months showed no difference between treatment and control in the proportion of participants remaining MRSA-negative. Moreover, the longer-term clinical consequences - in terms of lung function, mortality and cost of care - remain unclear. Using GRADE methodology, we judged the certainty of the evidence provided by this review to be very low to low, due to potential biases from the open-label design, high rates of attrition and small sample sizes. Based on the available evidence, we believe that whilst early eradication of respiratory MRSA in people with cystic fibrosis is possible, there is not currently enough evidence regarding the clinical outcomes of eradication to support the use of the interventions studied.

Inhaled anti-pseudomonal antibiotics for long-term therapy in cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Inhaled antibiotics are commonly used to treat persistent airway infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa that contributes to lung damage in people with cystic fibrosis. Current guidelines recommend inhaled tobramycin for individuals with cystic fibrosis and persistent Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection who are aged six years or older. The aim is to reduce bacterial load in the lungs so as to reduce inflammation and deterioration of lung function. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of long-term inhaled antibiotic therapy in people with cystic fibrosis on clinical outcomes (lung function, frequency of exacerbations and nutrition), quality of life and adverse events (including drug-sensitivity reactions and survival).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched ongoing trials registries. Date of last search: 28 June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected trials where people with cystic fibrosis received inhaled anti-pseudomonal antibiotic treatment for at least three months, treatment allocation was randomised or quasi-randomised, and there was a control group (either placebo, no placebo or another inhaled antibiotic).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials, judged the risk of bias, extracted data from these trials and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE system.

MAIN RESULTS

The searches identified 410 citations to 125 trials; 18 trials (3042 participants aged between five and 45 years) met the inclusion criteria. Limited data were available for meta-analyses due to the variability of trial design and reporting of results. A total of 11 trials (1130 participants) compared an inhaled antibiotic to placebo or usual treatment for a duration between three and 33 months. Five trials (1255 participants) compared different antibiotics, two trials (585 participants) compared different regimens of tobramycin and one trial (90 participants) compared intermittent tobramycin with continuous tobramycin alternating with aztreonam. One trial (18 participants) compared an antibiotic to placebo and also to a different antibiotic and so fell into both groups. The most commonly studied antibiotic was tobramycin which was studied in 12 trials. Inhaled antibiotics compared to placebo We found that inhaled antibiotics may improve lung function measured in a variety of ways (4 trials, 814 participants). Compared to placebo, inhaled antibiotics may also reduce the frequency of exacerbations (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.93; 3 trials, 946 participants; low-certainty evidence). Inhaled antibiotics may lead to fewer days off school or work (quality of life measure) (mean difference (MD) -5.30 days, 95% CI -8.59 to -2.01; 1 trial, 245 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data for us to be able to report an effect on nutritional outcomes and there was no effect on survival. There was no effect on antibiotic resistance seen in the two trials that were included in meta-analyses. We are uncertain of the effect of the intervention on adverse events (very low-certainty evidence), but tinnitus and voice alteration were the only events occurring more often in the inhaled antibiotics group. The overall certainty of evidence was deemed to be low for most outcomes due to risk of bias within the trials and imprecision due to low event rates. Different antibiotics or regimens compared Of the eight trials comparing different inhaled antibiotics or different antibiotic regimens, there was only one trial for each unique comparison. We found no differences between groups for any outcomes except for the following. Aztreonam lysine for inhalation probably improved forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1) % predicted compared to tobramycin (MD -3.40%, 95% CI -6.63 to -0.17; 1 trial, 273 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the method of defining the endpoint was different to the remaining trials and the participants were exposed to tobramycin for a long period making interpretation of the results problematic. We found no differences in any measure of lung function in the remaining comparisons. Trials measured pulmonary exacerbations in different ways and showed no differences between groups except for aztreonam lysine probably leading to fewer people needing treatment with additional antibiotics than with tobramycin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.86; 1 trial, 273 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and there were fewer hospitalisations due to respiratory exacerbations with levofloxacin compared to tobramycin (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.98; 1 trial, 282 participants; high-certainty evidence). Important treatment-related adverse events were not very common across comparisons, but were reported less often in the tobramycin group compared to both aztreonam lysine and colistimethate. We found the certainty of evidence for these comparisons to be directly related to the risk of bias within the individual trials and varied from low to high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Long-term treatment with inhaled anti-pseudomonal antibiotics probably improves lung function and reduces exacerbation rates, but pooled estimates of the level of benefit were very limited. The best evidence available is for inhaled tobramycin. More evidence from trials measuring similar outcomes in the same way is needed to determine a better measure of benefit. Longer-term trials are needed to look at the effect of inhaled antibiotics on quality of life, survival and nutritional outcomes.

Inhaled antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbations in cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis is a genetic disorder in which abnormal mucus in the lungs is associated with susceptibility to persistent infection. Pulmonary exacerbations are when symptoms of infection become more severe. Antibiotics are an essential part of treatment for exacerbations and inhaled antibiotics may be used alone or in conjunction with oral antibiotics for milder exacerbations or with intravenous antibiotics for more severe infections. Inhaled antibiotics do not cause the same adverse effects as intravenous antibiotics and may prove an alternative in people with poor access to their veins. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if treatment of pulmonary exacerbations with inhaled antibiotics in people with cystic fibrosis improves their quality of life, reduces time off school or work, and improves their long-term lung function.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register. Date of the last search: 7 March 2022. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry and WHO ICTRP for relevant trials. Date of last search: 3 May 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in people with cystic fibrosis with a pulmonary exacerbation in whom treatment with inhaled antibiotics was compared to placebo, standard treatment or another inhaled antibiotic for between one and four weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected eligible trials, assessed the risk of bias in each trial and extracted data. They assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE criteria. Authors of the included trials were contacted for more information.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials with 183 participants are included in the review. Two trials (77 participants) compared inhaled antibiotics alone to intravenous antibiotics alone and three trials (106 participants) compared a combination of inhaled and intravenous antibiotics to intravenous antibiotics alone. Trials were heterogenous in design and two were only available in abstract form. Risk of bias was difficult to assess in most trials but, for four out of five trials, we judged there to be a high risk from lack of blinding and an unclear risk with regards to randomisation. Results were not fully reported and only limited data were available for analysis. One trial was a cross-over design and we only included data from the first intervention arm. Inhaled antibiotics alone versus intravenous antibiotics alone Only one trial (18 participants) reported a perceived improvement in lifestyle (quality of life) in both groups (very low-certainty evidence). Neither trial reported on time off work or school. Both trials measured lung function, but there was no difference reported between treatment groups (very low-certainty evidence). With regards to our secondary outcomes, one trial (18 participants) reported no difference in the need for additional antibiotics and the second trial (59 participants) reported on the time to next exacerbation. In neither case was a difference between treatments identified (both very low-certainty evidence). The single trial (18 participants) measuring adverse events and sputum microbiology did not observe any in either treatment group for either outcome (very low-certainty  evidence). Inhaled antibiotics plus intravenous antibiotics versus intravenous antibiotics alone Inhaled antibiotics plus intravenous antibiotics may make little or no difference to quality of life compared to intravenous antibiotics alone. None of the trials reported time off work or school. All three trials measured lung function, but found no difference between groups in forced expiratory volume in one second (two trials; 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or vital capacity (one trial; 62 participants). None of the trials reported on the need for additional antibiotics. Inhaled plus intravenous antibiotics may make little difference to the time to next exacerbation; however, one trial (28 participants) reported on hospital admissions and found no difference between groups. There is likely no difference between groups in adverse events (very low-certainty evidence) and one trial (62 participants) reported no difference in the emergence of antibiotic-resistant organisms (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified only low- or very low-certainty evidence to judge the effectiveness of inhaled antibiotics for the treatment of pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis. The included trials were not sufficiently powered to achieve their goals. Hence, we are unable to demonstrate whether one treatment was superior to the other or not. Further research is needed to establish whether inhaled tobramycin may be used as an alternative to intravenous tobramycin for some pulmonary exacerbations.

Drugs for Gram-Negative Bugs From 2010-2019: A Decade in Review

A literature review spanning January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019, was conducted using the PubMed and ISI Web of Science databases to determine the breadth of publication activity in the area of gram-negative bacteria antimicrobial therapy. The number of articles was used as a reflection of scholarly activity. First, PubMed was searched using the following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH): antibacterial agents, Enterobacteriaceae, Acinetobacter, and Pseudomonas. A total of 12 643 articles were identified within PubMed, and 77 862 articles were identified within ISI Web of Science that included these terms. Second, these articles were categorized by antibiotic class to identify relative contributions to the literature by drug category. Third, these studies were used to identify key trends in the treatment of gram-negative bacterial infections from the past decade. This review highlights advances made in the past 10 years in antibacterial pharmacotherapy and some of the challenges that await the next decade of practice.

Antibiotic treatment for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in people with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is one of the most common emerging multi-drug resistant organisms found in the lungs of people with cystic fibrosis and its prevalence is increasing. Chronic infection with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia has recently been shown to be an independent predictor of pulmonary exacerbation requiring hospitalization and antibiotics. However, the role of antibiotic treatment of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection in people with cystic fibrosis is still unclear. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of our review is to assess the effectiveness of antibiotic treatment for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in people with cystic fibrosis. The primary objective is to assess this in relation to lung function and pulmonary exacerbations in the setting of acute pulmonary exacerbations. The secondary objective is to assess this in relation to the eradication of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched a registry of ongoing trials and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of latest search: 03 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia mono-infection or Stenotrophomonas maltophilia co-infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa in either the setting of an acute pulmonary exacerbation or a chronic infection treated with suppressive antibiotic therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently assessed the trials identified by the search for potential inclusion in the review.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified only one trial of antibiotic treatment of pulmonary exacerbations that included people with cystic fibrosis with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. However, this trial had to be excluded because data was not available per pathogen.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review did not identify any evidence regarding the effectiveness of antibiotic treatment for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in people with cystic fibrosis. Until such evidence becomes available, clinicians need to use their clinical judgement as to whether or not to treat Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection in people with cystic fibrosis. Randomized clinical trials are needed to address these unanswered clinical questions.

Eradication therapy for Burkholderia cepacia complex in people with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Chronic infection with Burkholderia cepacia complex species remains a significant problem for clinicians treating people with cystic fibrosis. Colonisation with Burkholderia cepacia complex species is linked to a more rapid decline in lung function and increases morbidity and mortality. There remain no objective guidelines for strategies to eradicate Burkholderia cepacia complex in cystic fibrosis lung disease, as these are inherently resistant to the majority of antibiotics and there has been very little research in this area. This review aims to examine the current treatment options for people with cystic fibrosis with acute infection with Burkholderia cepacia complex and to identify an evidence-based strategy that is both safe and effective. This is an updated version of the review.

OBJECTIVES

To identify whether treatment of Burkholderia cepacia complex infections can achieve eradication, or if treatment can prevent or delay the onset of chronic infection. To establish whether following eradication, clinical outcomes are improved and if there are any adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Last search: 12 March 2019.We also searched electronic clinical trials registers for the USA and Europe.Date of last search: 12 March 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised studies in people with cystic fibrosis of antibiotics or alternative therapeutic agents used alone or in combination, using any method of delivery and any treatment duration, to eradicate Burkholderia cepacia complex infections compared to another antibiotic, placebo or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed for inclusion in the review the eligibility of 52 studies (79 references) identified by the search of the Group's Trial Register and the other electronic searches.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies looking at the eradication of Burkholderia cepacia complex species were identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The authors have concluded that there was an extreme lack of evidence in this area of treatment management for people with cystic fibrosis. Without further comprehensive studies, it is difficult to draw conclusions about a safe and effective management strategy for Burkholderia cepacia complex eradication in cystic fibrosis. Thus, while the review could not offer clinicians evidence of an effective eradication protocol for Burkholderia cepacia complex, it has highlighted an urgent need for exploration and research in this area, specifically the need for well-designed multi-centre randomised controlled studies of a variety of (novel) antibiotic agents.

Inhaled antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbations in cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis is a genetic disorder in which abnormal mucus in the lungs is associated with susceptibility to persistent infection. Pulmonary exacerbations are when symptoms of infection become more severe. Antibiotics are an essential part of treatment for exacerbations and inhaled antibiotics may be used alone or in conjunction with oral antibiotics for milder exacerbations or with intravenous antibiotics for more severe infections. Inhaled antibiotics do not cause the same adverse effects as intravenous antibiotics and may prove an alternative in people with poor access to their veins. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if treatment of pulmonary exacerbations with inhaled antibiotics in people with cystic fibrosis improves their quality of life, reduces time off school or work and improves their long-term survival.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register. Date of the last search: 03 October 2018.We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry and WHO ICTRP for relevant trials. Date of last search: 09 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in people with cystic fibrosis with a pulmonary exacerbation in whom treatment with inhaled antibiotics was compared to placebo, standard treatment or another inhaled antibiotic for between one and four weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected eligible trials, assessed the risk of bias in each trial and extracted data. They assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE criteria. Authors of the included trials were contacted for more information.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials with 167 participants are included in the review. Two trials (77 participants) compared inhaled antibiotics alone to intravenous antibiotics alone and two trials (90 participants) compared a combination of inhaled and intravenous antibiotics to intravenous antibiotics alone. Trials were heterogenous in design and two were only available in abstract form. Risk of bias was difficult to assess in most trials, but for all trials we judged there to be a high risk from lack of blinding and an unclear risk with regards to randomisation. Results were not fully reported and only limited data were available for analysis.Inhaled antibiotics alone versus intravenous antibiotics aloneOnly one trial (n = 18) reported a perceived improvement in lifestyle (quality of life) in both groups (very low-quality of evidence). Neither trial reported on time off work or school. Both trials measured lung function, but there was no difference reported between treatment groups (very low-quality evidence). With regards to our secondary outcomes, one trial (n = 18) reported no difference in the need for additional antibiotics and the second trial (n = 59) reported on the time to next exacerbation. In neither case was a difference between treatments identified (both very low-quality evidence). The single trial (n = 18) measuring adverse events and sputum microbiology did not observe any in either treatment group for either outcome (very low-quality evidence).Inhaled antibiotics plus intravenous antibiotics versus intravenous antibiotics aloneNeither trial reported on quality of life or time off work or school. Both trials measured lung function, but found no difference between groups in forced expiratory volume in one second (one trial, n = 28, very low-quality evidence) or vital capacity (one trial, n = 62). Neither trial reported on the need for additional antibiotics or the time to the next exacerbation; however, one trial (n = 28) reported on hospital admissions and found no difference between groups. Both trials reported no difference between groups in adverse events (very low-quality evidence) and one trial (n = 62) reported no difference in the emergence of antibiotic-resistant organisms (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little useful high-level evidence to judge the effectiveness of inhaled antibiotics for the treatment of pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis. The included trials were not sufficiently powered to achieve their goals. Hence, we are unable to demonstrate whether one treatment was superior to the other or not. Further research is needed to establish whether inhaled tobramycin may be used as an alternative to intravenous tobramycin for some pulmonary exacerbations.

Treatment for chronic methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus pulmonary infection in people with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis is an inherited life-threatening multisystem disorder with lung disease characterized by abnormally thick airway secretions and persistent bacterial infection. Chronic, progressive lung disease is the most important cause of morbidity and mortality in the condition and is therefore the main focus of clinical care and research. Staphylococcus aureus is a major cause of chest infection in people with cystic fibrosis. Early onset, as well as chronic, lung infection with this organism in young children and adults results in worsening lung function, poorer nutrition and increases the airway inflammatory response, thus leading to a poor overall clinical outcome. There are currently no evidence-based guidelines for chronic suppressive therapy for Staphylococcus aureus infection in cystic fibrosis such as those used for Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence regarding the effectiveness of long-term antibiotic treatment regimens for chronic infection with methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infection in people with cystic fibrosis and to determine whether this leads to improved clinical and microbiological outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, MEDLINE, Embase, handsearching article reference lists and through contact with local and international experts in the field. Date of the last search of the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 09 February 2018.We also searched ongoing trials databases. Date of latest search: 20 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any combinations of topical, inhaled, oral or intravenous antimicrobials used as suppressive therapy for chronic infection with methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus compared with placebo or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The authors independently assessed all search results for eligibility. No eligible trials were identified.

MAIN RESULTS

The searches identified 58 trials, but none were eligible for inclusion in the current version of this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No randomised controlled trials were identified which met the inclusion criteria for this review. Although methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus is an important and common cause of lung infection in people with cystic fibrosis, there is no agreement on how best to treat long-term infection. The review highlights the need to organise well-designed trials that can provide evidence to support the best management strategy for chronic methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus infection in people with cystic fibrosis.

Interventions for the eradication of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in people with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis is an inherited recessive disorder of chloride transport that is characterised by recurrent and persistent pulmonary infections from resistant organisms that result in lung function deterioration and early mortality in sufferers.Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has emerged as, not only an important infection in people who are hospitalised, but also as a potentially harmful pathogen in cystic fibrosis. Chronic pulmonary infection with MRSA is thought to confer people with cystic fibrosis with a worse clinical outcome and result in an increased rate of lung function decline. Clear guidance for MRSA eradication in cystic fibrosis, supported by robust evidence, is urgently needed. This is an update of a previous review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of treatment regimens designed to eradicate MRSA and to determine whether the eradication of MRSA confers better clinical and microbiological outcomes for people with cystic fibrosis. To ascertain whether attempts at eradicating MRSA can lead to increased acquisition of other resistant organisms (including P aeruginosa) or increased adverse effects from drugs, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, PubMed, MEDLINE, clinical trial registries (Clinicaltrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, ISRCTN Registry), handsearching article reference lists and through contact with experts in the field.Date of the last search of the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 27 July 2017.Ongoing trials registries were last searched: 07 August 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any combinations of topical, inhaled, oral or intravenous antimicrobials with the primary aim of eradicating MRSA compared with placebo, standard treatment or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The authors independently assessed all search results for eligibility. They used the GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes two trials with a total of 106 participants with MRSA infection. In both trials the active treatment was oral trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole combined with rifampicin; however, one trial administered this combination for two weeks alongside nasal, skin and oral decontamination and a three-week environmental decontamination, while the second trial administered this drug combination for 21 days with five days intranasal mupirocin. In both trials the control arm was observation only.Both trials reported successful eradication of MRSA in people with CF as an outcome; however, the definition used for MRSA eradication differed. The first trial (n = 45) defined MRSA eradication as negative MRSA respiratory cultures at day 28, and reported that, when compared to control, oral trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole combined with rifampicin may lead to a higher proportion of negative cultures, odds ratio (OR) 12.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.84 to 55.84; low-certainty evidence); however, by day 168 of follow-up there was no difference in the proportion of participants who remained MRSA-negative in either treatment arm, OR 1.17 (95% CI 0.31 to 4.42) (low-quality evidence). In the second trial, successful eradication was defined as the absence of MRSA following treatment (oral co-trimoxazole and rifampicin with intranasal mupirocin or observation) in at least three cultures over a period of six months. At the time of reporting, 40 out of 61 participants had completed follow-up, but results showed no difference between groups. Eradication was achieved in 12 out 29 participants (41%) receiving active treatment, and in 9 out of 32 participants (28%) on the observation arm, OR 1.80 (95% CI 0.62 to 5.25) (very low-quality evidence).With regards to this review's secondary outcomes, these were reported in the first trial only. The trial reports that no differences were observed between the two arms in terms of pulmonary exacerbations (from screening to day 28), nasal colonisation, lung function, weight or participant-reported outcomes. While not a specific outcome of this review, investigators reported that the rate of hospitalisation from screening through day 168 was lower with oral trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole combined with rifampicin compared to control, rate ratio 0.22 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.72) (P = 0.0102).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Early eradication of MRSA is possible in people with cystic fibrosis, with one trial demonstrating superiority of active MRSA treatment compared with observation only in terms of the proportion of MRSA-negative respiratory cultures at day 28. However, by six months, the proportion of participants who remained MRSA-negative did not differ between treatment arms in either trial. Moreover, the longer-term clinical consequences in terms of lung function, mortality and cost of care, remain unclear.Using GRADE methodology, we judged the quality of the evidence provided by this review to be very low to low, due to potential biases from the open-label design and unclear detail reported in one trial. Based on the available evidence, it is the opinion of the authors that whilst early eradication of respiratory MRSA in people with cystic fibrosis is possible, there is not currently enough evidence regarding the clinical outcomes of eradication to support the use of the interventions studied.

Inhaled anti-pseudomonal antibiotics for long-term therapy in cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Inhaled antibiotics are commonly used to treat persistent airway infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa that contributes to lung damage in people with cystic fibrosis. Current guidelines recommend inhaled tobramycin for individuals with cystic fibrosis and persistent Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection who are aged six years or older. The aim is to reduce bacterial load in the lungs so as to reduce inflammation and deterioration of lung function. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects long-term inhaled antibiotic therapy in people with cystic fibrosis on clinical outcomes (lung function, frequency of exacerbations and nutrition), quality of life and adverse events (including drug sensitivity reactions and survival).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched ongoing trials registries.Date of last search: 13 February 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected trials if inhaled anti-pseudomonal antibiotic treatment was used for at least three months in people with cystic fibrosis, treatment allocation was randomised or quasi-randomised, and there was a control group (either placebo, no placebo or another inhaled antibiotic).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials, judged the risk of bias, extracted data from these trials and judged the quality of the evidence using the GRADE system.

MAIN RESULTS

The searches identified 333 citations to 98 trials; 18 trials (3042 participants aged between five and 56 years) met the inclusion criteria. Limited data were available for meta-analyses due to the variability of trial design and reporting of results. A total of 11 trials (1130 participants) compared an inhaled antibiotic to placebo or usual treatment for a duration between three and 33 months. Five trials (1255 participants) compared different antibiotics, two trials (585 participants) compared different regimens of tobramycin and one trial (90 participants) compared intermittent tobramycin with continuous tobramycin alternating with aztreonam. One of the trials (18 participants) compared to placebo and a different antibiotic and so fell into both groups. The most commonly studied antibiotic was tobramycin which was studied in 12 trials.We found limited evidence that inhaled antibiotics improved lung function (four of the 11 placebo-controlled trials, n = 814). Compared to placebo, inhaled antibiotics also reduced the frequency of exacerbations (three trials, n = 946), risk ratio 0.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.93). There were insufficient data for us to be able to report an effect on nutritional outcomes or survival and there were insufficient data for us to ascertain the effect on quality of life. There was no significant effect on antibiotic resistance seen in the two trials that were included in meta-analyses. Tinnitus and voice alteration were the only adverse events significantly more common in the inhaled antibiotics group. The overall quality of evidence was deemed to be low for most outcomes due to risk of bias within the trials and imprecision due to low event rates.Of the eight trials that compared different inhaled antibiotics or different antibiotic regimens, there was only one trial in each comparison. Forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV₁) % predicted was only found to be significantly improved with aztreonam lysine for inhalation compared to tobramycin (n = 273), mean difference -3.40% (95% CI -6.63 to -0.17). However, the method of defining the endpoint was different to the remaining trials and the participants were exposed to tobramycin for a long period making interpretation of the results problematic. No significant differences were found in the remaining comparisons with regard to lung function. Pulmonary exacerbations were measured in different ways, but one trial (n = 273) found that the number of people treated with antibiotics was lower in those receiving aztreonam than tobramycin, risk ratio 0.66 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.86). We found the quality of evidence for these comparisons to be directly related to the risk of bias within the individual trials and varied from low to high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled anti-pseudomonal antibiotic treatment probably improves lung function and reduces exacerbation rate, but pooled estimates of the level of benefit were very limited. The best evidence is for inhaled tobramycin. More evidence from trials measuring similar outcomes in the same way is needed to determine a better measure of benefit. Longer-term trials are needed to look at the effect of inhaled antibiotics on quality of life, survival and nutritional outcomes.

Antibiotic strategies for eradicating Pseudomonas aeruginosa in people with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Respiratory tract infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa occurs in most people with cystic fibrosis. Once chronic infection is established, Pseudomonas aeruginosa is virtually impossible to eradicate and is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Early infection may be easier to eradicate.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2006, 2009 and 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether antibiotic treatment of early Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in children and adults with cystic fibrosis eradicates the organism, delays the onset of chronic infection, and results in clinical improvement. To evaluate whether there is evidence that a particular antibiotic strategy is superior to or more cost-effective than other strategies and to compare the adverse effects of different antibiotic strategies (including respiratory infection with other micro-organisms).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Most recent search: 10 October 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of people with cystic fibrosis, in whom Pseudomonas aeruginosa had recently been isolated from respiratory secretions. We compared combinations of inhaled, oral or intravenous antibiotics with placebo, usual treatment or other combinations of inhaled, oral or intravenous antibiotics. We excluded non-randomised trials, cross-over trials, and those utilising historical controls.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 60 trials; seven trials (744 participants) with a duration between 28 days and 27 months were eligible for inclusion. Three of the trials are over 10 years old and their results may be less applicable today given the changes in standard treatment. Some of the trials had low numbers of participants and most had relatively short follow-up periods; however, there was generally a low risk of bias from missing data. In most trials it was difficult to blind participants and clinicians to treatment given the interventions and comparators used. Two trials were supported by the manufacturers of the antibiotic used.Evidence from two trials (38 participants) at the two-month time-point showed treatment of early Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection with inhaled tobramycin results in microbiological eradication of the organism from respiratory secretions more often than placebo, odds ratio 0.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.65) and data from one of these trials, with longer follow up, suggested that this effect may persist for up to 12 months.One randomised controlled trial (26 participants) compared oral ciprofloxacin and nebulised colistin versus usual treatment. Results after two years suggested treatment of early infection results in microbiological eradication of Pseudomonas aeruginosa more often than no anti-pseudomonal treatment, odds ratio 0.12 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.79).One trial comparing 28 days to 56 days treatment with nebulised tobramycin solution for inhalation in 88 participants showed that both treatments were effective and well-tolerated, with no notable additional improvement with longer over shorter duration of therapy. However, this trial was not powered to detect non-inferiority or equivalence .A trial of oral ciprofloxacin with inhaled colistin versus nebulised tobramycin solution for inhalation alone (223 participants) failed to show a difference between the two strategies, although it was underpowered to show this. A further trial of inhaled colistin with oral ciprofloxacin versus nebulised tobramycin solution for inhalation with oral ciprofloxacin also showed no superiority of the former, with increased isolation of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in both groups.A recent, large trial in 306 children aged between one and 12 years compared cycled nebulised tobramycin solution for inhalation to culture-based therapy and also ciprofloxacin to placebo. The primary analysis showed no difference in time to pulmonary exacerbation or proportion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa positive cultures. An analysis performed in this review (not adjusted for age) showed fewer participants in the cycled therapy group with one or more isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, odds ratio 0.51 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.28). Using GRADE, the quality of evidence for outcomes was downgraded to moderate to very low. Downgrading decisions for Pseudomonas aeruginosa eradication and lung function were based on applicability (participants mostly children) and limitations in study design, with imprecision an additional limitation for lung function, growth parameters and adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that nebulised antibiotics, alone or in combination with oral antibiotics, were better than no treatment for early infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Eradication may be sustained for up to two years. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether antibiotic strategies for the eradication of early Pseudomonas aeruginosa decrease mortality or morbidity, improve quality of life, or are associated with adverse effects compared to placebo or standard treatment. Four trials comparing two active treatments have failed to show differences in rates of eradication of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. There have been no published randomised controlled trials that investigate the efficacy of intravenous antibiotics to eradicate Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis. Overall, there is still insufficient evidence from this review to state which antibiotic strategy should be used for the eradication of early Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in cystic fibrosis.

Bacterial infections in patients with primary ciliary dyskinesia: Comparison with cystic fibrosis

Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is an autosomal recessive disorder associated with severely impaired mucociliary clearance caused by defects in ciliary structure and function. Although recurrent bacterial infection of the respiratory tract is one of the major clinical features of this disease, PCD airway microbiology is understudied. Despite the differences in pathophysiology, assumptions about respiratory tract infections in patients with PCD are often extrapolated from cystic fibrosis (CF) airway microbiology. This review aims to summarize the current understanding of bacterial infections in patients with PCD, including infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and Moraxella catarrhalis, as it relates to bacterial infections in patients with CF. Further, we will discuss current and potential future treatment strategies aimed at improving the care of patients with PCD suffering from recurring bacterial infections.

Antibiotic treatment for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in people with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is one of the most common emerging multi-drug resistant organisms found in the lungs of people with cystic fibrosis and its prevalence is increasing. Chronic infection with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia has recently been shown to be an independent predictor of pulmonary exacerbation requiring hospitalization and antibiotics. However, the role of antibiotic treatment of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection in people with cystic fibrosis is still unclear. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of our review is to assess the effectiveness of antibiotic treatment for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in people with cystic fibrosis. The primary objective is to assess this in relation to lung function and pulmonary exacerbations in the setting of acute pulmonary exacerbations. The secondary objective is to assess this in relation to the eradication of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched a registry of ongoing trials and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Date of latest search: 27 May 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any randomized controlled trial of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia mono-infection or Stenotrophomonas maltophilia co-infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa in either the setting of an acute pulmonary exacerbation or a chronic infection treated with suppressive antibiotic therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently assessed the trials identified by the search for potential inclusion in the review.

MAIN RESULTS

The initial search strategy identified only one trial of antibiotic treatment of pulmonary exacerbations that included people with cystic fibrosis with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. However, this trial had to be excluded because data was not available per pathogen.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review did not identify any evidence regarding the effectiveness of antibiotic treatment for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in people with cystic fibrosis. Until such evidence becomes available, clinicians need to use their clinical judgement as to whether or not to treat Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection in people with cystic fibrosis. Randomized clinical trials are needed to address these unanswered clinical questions.

In vitro activity of levofloxacin against planktonic and biofilm Stenotrophomonas maltophilia lifestyles under conditions relevant to pulmonary infection in cystic fibrosis, and relationship with SmeDEF multidrug efflux pump expression

The activity of levofloxacin against planktonic and biofilm Stenotrophomonas maltophilia cells and the role played by the multidrug efflux pump SmeDEF were evaluated under conditions relevant to the cystic fibrosis (CF) lung. MIC, MBC and MBEC of levofloxacin were assessed, against five CF strains, under 'standard' (CLSI-recommended) and 'CF-like' (pH 6.8, 5% CO2, in a synthetic CF sputum) conditions. Levofloxacin was tested against biofilms at concentrations (10, 50 and 100 μg mL(-1)) corresponding to achievable serum levels and sputum levels by aerosolisation. smeD expression was evaluated, under both conditions, in planktonic and biofilm cells by RT-PCR. The bactericidal effect of levofloxacin was decreased, in three out of five strains tested, under 'CF-like' conditions (MBC: 2-4 vs 8-16 μg mL(-1), under 'standard' and 'CF-like' conditions, respectively). Biofilm was intrinsically resistant to levofloxacin, regardless of conditions tested (MBECs ≥ 100 μg mL(-1) for all strains). Only under 'CF-like' conditions, smeD expression increased during planktonic-to-biofilm transition, and in biofilm cells compared to stationary planktonic cells. Our findings confirmed that S. maltophilia biofilm is intrinsically resistant to therapeutic concentrations of levofloxacin. Under conditions relevant to CF, smeD overexpression could contribute to levofloxacin resistance. Further studies are warranted to define the clinical relevance of our findings.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of inhaled antimicrobials

Administration of inhaled antimicrobials affords the ability to achieve targeted drug delivery into the respiratory tract, rapid entry into the systemic circulation, high bioavailability and minimal metabolism. These unique pharmacokinetic characteristics make inhaled antimicrobial delivery attractive for the treatment of many pulmonary diseases. This review examines recent pharmacokinetic trials with inhaled antibacterials, antivirals and antifungals, with an emphasis on the clinical implications of these studies. The majority of these studies revealed evidence of high antimicrobial concentrations in the airway with limited systemic exposure, thereby reducing the risk of toxicity. Sputum pharmacokinetics varied widely, which makes it challenging to interpret the result of sputum pharmacokinetic studies. Many no vel inhaled antimicrobial therapies are currently under investigation that will require detailed pharmacokinetic studies, including combination inhaled antimicrobial therapies, inhaled nanoparticle formulations of several antibacterials, inhaled non-antimicrobial adjuvants, inhaled antiviral recombinant protein therapies and semi-synthetic inhaled antifungal agents. Additionally, the development of new inhaled delivery devices, particularly for mechanically ventilated patients, will result in a pressing need for additional pharmacokinetic studies to identify optimal dosing regimens.

Improving complex medical care while awaiting next-generation CFTR potentiators and correctors: The current pipeline of therapeutics

While a major target in cystic fibrosis (CF) research in recent years has been the development of corrector and potentiator drugs targeting the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein, these therapies have not yet proven robust enough to replace or eliminate other therapies that have demonstrated improved health outcomes and quality of life in patients with CF. Further, ivacaftor is only indicated for approximately 5% of the US CF population, although the FDA has recently approved lumacaftor/ivacaftor, a combination therapy intended for those homozygous for Phe508del, which should reach a much larger number of patients. This review appraises therapeutics currently available or being studied while we await the next generation of CFTR potentiators and correctors.

Cystic fibrosis - a multiorgan protein misfolding disease

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a heterogeneous multiorgan disease caused by mutations in the CFTR gene leading to misfolding (and other defects) and consequent dysfunction of CFTR protein. The majority of mutations cause a severe CF phenotype, and people with this condition will require a wide variety of medical interventions and therapies throughout their lives to address the symptoms of their condition. CF affects many different organ systems, but the most serious consequence of the disease is degeneration of lung function due to chronic respiratory infection and colonization of the airways with opportunistic microbial pathogens. Improvements in therapeutics, particularly the effective use of antibiotics, have led to significant gradual increases in life expectancy. There remains, however, a continuing need for newer, safer and more effective antimicrobials and mucolytic agents to maintain and improve our ability to combat CF lung infections before other curative approaches which target the root cause of the disease become available.