In Vitro Synergy of Colistin in Combination with Meropenem or Tigecycline against Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii

Successful Treatment of Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii Meningitis With Sulbactam-Durlobactam

BACKGROUND

The treatment of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii/calcoaceticus complex (CRAB) presents significant treatment challenges.

METHODS

We report the case of a 42-year-old woman with CRAB meningitis who experienced persistently positive cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cultures for 13 days despite treatment with high-dose ampicillin-sulbactam and cefiderocol. On day 13, she was transitioned to sulbactam-durlobactam and meropenem; 4 subsequent CSF cultures remained negative. After 14 days of sulbactam-durlobactam, she was cured of infection. Whole genome sequencing investigations identified putative mechanisms that contributed to the reduced cefiderocol susceptibility observed during cefiderocol therapy. Blood and CSF samples were collected pre-dose and 3-hours post initiation of a sulbactam-durlobactam infusion.

RESULTS

The CRAB isolate belonged to sequence type 2. An acquired blaOXA-23 and an intrinsic blaOXA-51-like (ie, blaOXA-66) carbapenemase gene were identified. The paradoxical effect (ie, no growth at lower cefiderocol dilutions but growth at higher dilutions) was observed by broth microdilution after 8 days of cefiderocol exposure but not by disk diffusion. Potential markers of resistance to cefiderocol included mutations in the start codon of piuA and piuC iron transport genes and an A515V substitution in PBP3, the primary target of cefiderocol. Sulbactam and durlobactam were detected in CSF at both timepoints, indicating CSF penetration.

CONCLUSIONS

This case describes successful treatment of refractory CRAB meningitis with the administration of sulbactam-durlobactam and meropenem and highlights the need to be cognizant of the paradoxical effect that can be observed with broth microdilution testing of CRAB isolates with cefiderocol.

Sulbactam-Durlobactam in the Treatment of Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii Infections

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of intravenous sulbactam-durlobactam (SUL-DUR) in the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) infections.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed databases and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched using the following terms: Sulbactam Durlobactam, ETX2514, Xacduro, Sulbactam-ETX2514, ETX2514SUL.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Articles published in English between January 1985 and September 13, 2023, related to pharmacology, safety, efficacy, and clinical trials were reviewed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A phase II trial compared SUL-DUR with placebo with imipenem and cilastatin in both groups. Overall treatment success in the microbiological intention-to-treat analysis was reported in 76.6% of patients in the SUL-DUR group compared with 81% patients in the placebo group. A phase III trial compared SUL-DUR with colistin in adults with confirmed CRAB infections. Patients received either SUL-DUR or colistin and background therapy with imipenem-cilastatin. SUL-DUR was noninferior to colistin for 28-day all-cause mortality (19% vs 32.3%, treatment difference -13.2%; 95% CI [-30.0 to 3.5]).

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE IN COMPARISON TO EXISTING DRUGS

Clinicians have limited options to treat CRAB infections. SUL-DUR has demonstrated efficacy against CRAB in patients with pneumonia and may be considered a viable treatment option. Nonetheless, potential impact of concomitant imipenem-cilastatin as background therapy on clinical trial findings is unclear. Further studies are needed to elucidate the role of SUL-DUR alone or in combination with other active antimicrobials for the treatment of CRAB infections.

CONCLUSIONS

SUL-DUR has shown to be predominantly noninferior to alternative antibiotics in the treatment of pneumonias caused by CRAB, making it a viable treatment option. Further postmarketing data is needed to ascertain its role in other infections.

In-vitro evaluation of different antimicrobial combinations with and without colistin against carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates

BACKGROUND

Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) infections are one of the most common causes of nosocomial infections and have high mortality rates due to difficulties in treatment. In this study, the in vitro synergistic interactions of the colistin (CT)-meropenem (MEM) combination and patient clinical outcomes were compared in CRAB-infected patients that receive CT-MEM antimicrobial combination therapy. In addition, in vitro synergistic interactions of MEM-ertapenem (ETP), MEM-fosfomycin (FF) and CT-FF antimicrobial combinations were investigated. Finally, the epsilometer (E) test and checkerboard test results were compared and the compatibility of these two tests was evaluated.

METHODS

Twenty-one patients were included in the study. Bacterial identification was performed with MALDI-TOF, and antimicrobial susceptibility was assessed with an automated system. Synergy studies were performed using the E test and checkerboard method.

RESULTS

For the checkerboard method, the synergy rates for CT-MEM, MEM-FF, MEM-ETP and CT-FF were 100%, 52.3%, 23.8% and 28.5%, respectively. In the E test synergy tests, synergistic effects were detected for two isolates each in the CT-MEM and CT-FF combinations. Microbial eradication was achieved in nine (52.9%) of the 17 patients that received CT-MEM combination therapy. The agreement between the E test and the checkerboard test was 6.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

A synergistic effect was found with the checkerboard method for the CT-MEM combination in all isolates in our study, and approximately 70% of the patients benefited from treatment with this combination. In addition, more than half of the isolates showed a synergistic effect for the MEM-FF combination. Combinations of CT-MEM and MEM-FF may be options for the treatment of CRAB infections. However, a comprehensive understanding of the potential of the microorganism to develop resistant mutants under applied exposures, as well as factors that directly affect antimicrobial activity, such as pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, is essential for providing treatment advice. We found a low rate of agreement between the E test method and the checkerboard test method in our study, in contrast to the literature. Comprehensive studies that compare clinical results with methods are needed to determine the ideal synergy test and interpretation method.

The synergic and addictive activity of biogenic silver nanoparticle associated with meropenem against carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii

AIMS

Antibiotic management of infections caused by Acinetobacter baumannii often fails due to antibiotic resistance (especially to carbapenems) and biofilm-forming strains. Thus, the objective here was to evaluate in vitro the antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of biogenic silver nanoparticle (Bio-AgNP) combined with meropenem, against multidrug-resistant isolates of A. baumannii.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this study, A. baumannii ATCC® 19606™ and four carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii (Ab) strains were used. The antibacterial activity of Bio-AgNP and meropenem was evaluated through broth microdilution. The effect of the Bio-AgNP association with meropenem was determined by the checkboard method. Also, the time-kill assay and the integrity of the bacterial cell membrane were evaluated. Furthermore, the antibiofilm activity of Bio-AgNP and meropenem alone and in combination was determined. Bio-AgNP has antibacterial activity with minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration ranging from 0.46 to 1.87 μg ml-1. The combination of Bio-AgNP and meropenem showed a synergistic and additive effect against Ab strains, and Bio-AgNP was able to reduce the MIC of meropenem from 4- to 8-fold. Considering the time-kill of the cell, meropenem and Bio-AgNP when used in combination reduced bacterial load to undetectable levels within 10 min to 24 h after treatment. Protein leakage was observed in all treatments evaluated. When combined, meropenem/Bio-AgNP presents biofilm inhibition for Ab2 isolate and ATCC® 19606™, with 21% and 19%, and disrupts the biofilm from 22% to 50%, respectively. The increase in nonviable cells in the biofilm can be observed after treatment with Bio-AgNP and meropenem in carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii strains.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of Bio-AgNP with meropenem can be a therapeutic option in the treatment of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii.

Determining Susceptibility and Potential Mediators of Resistance for the Novel Polymyxin Derivative, SPR206, in Acinetobacter baumannii

With the increase in carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii (CRAB) infections, there has been a resurgence in the use of polymyxins, specifically colistin (COL). Since the reintroduction of COL-based regimens in treating CRAB infections, several COL-resistant A. baumannii isolates have been identified, with the mechanism of resistance heavily linked with the loss of the lipopolysaccharide (LPS) layer of the bacterial outer membrane through mutations in lpxACD genes or the pmrCAB operon. SPR206, a novel polymyxin derivative, has exhibited robust activity against multidrug-resistant (MDR) A. baumannii. However, there is a dearth of knowledge regarding its efficacy in comparison with other A. baumannii-active therapeutics and whether traditional polymyxin (COL) mediators of A. baumannii resistance also translate to reduced SPR206 activity. Here, we conducted susceptibility testing using broth microdilution on 30 A. baumannii isolates (17 COL-resistant and 27 CRAB), selected 14 COL-resistant isolates for genomic sequencing analysis, and performed time-kill analyses on four COL-resistant isolates. In susceptibility testing, SPR206 demonstrated a lower range of minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) compared with COL, with a four-fold difference observed in MIC50 values. Mutations in lpxACD and/or pmrA and pmrB genes were detected in each of the 14 COL-resistant isolates; however, SPR206 maintained MICs ≤ 2 mg/L for 9/14 (64%) of the isolates. Finally, SPR206-based combination regimens exhibited increased synergistic and bactericidal activity compared with COL-based combination regimens irrespective of the multiple resistance genes detected. The results of this study highlight the potential utility of SPR206 in the treatment of COL-resistant A. baumannii infections.

How to treat severe Acinetobacter baumannii infections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To update the management of severe Acinetobacter baumannii infections (ABI), particularly those caused by multi-resistant isolates.

RECENT FINDINGS

The in vitro activity of the various antimicrobial agents potentially helpful in treating ABI is highly variable and has progressively decreased for many of them, limiting current therapeutic options. The combination of more than one drug is still advisable in most circumstances. Ideally, two active first-line drugs should be used. Alternatively, a first-line and a second-line drug and, if this is not possible, two or more second-line drugs in combination. The emergence of new agents such as Cefiderocol, the combination of Sulbactam and Durlobactam, and the new Tetracyclines offer therapeutic options that need to be supported by clinical evidence.

SUMMARY

The apparent limitations in treating infections caused by this bacterium, the rapid development of resistance, and the serious underlying situation in most cases invite the search for alternatives to antibiotic treatment, the most promising of which seems to be bacteriophage therapy.

Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment, prevention and control of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacilli

The dissemination of carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (CRGNB) is a global public health issue. CRGNB isolates are usually extensively drug-resistant or pandrug-resistant, resulting in limited antimicrobial treatment options and high mortality. A multidisciplinary guideline development group covering clinical infectious diseases, clinical microbiology, clinical pharmacology, infection control, and guideline methodology experts jointly developed the present clinical practice guidelines based on best available scientific evidence to address the clinical issues regarding laboratory testing, antimicrobial therapy, and prevention of CRGNB infections. This guideline focuses on carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriales (CRE), carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), and carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA). Sixteen clinical questions were proposed from the perspective of current clinical practice and translated into research questions using PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes) format to collect and synthesize relevant evidence to inform corresponding recommendations. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence, benefit and risk profile of corresponding interventions and formulate recommendations or suggestions. Evidence extracted from systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was considered preferentially for treatment-related clinical questions. Observational studies, non-controlled studies, and expert opinions were considered as supplementary evidence in the absence of RCTs. The strength of recommendations was classified as strong or conditional (weak). The evidence informing recommendations derives from studies worldwide, while the implementation suggestions combined the Chinese experience. The target audience of this guideline is clinician and related professionals involved in management of infectious diseases.

Efficacy of Cefoperazone Sulbactam in Patients with Acinetobacter Infections: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Introduction: Acinetobacter baumannii (AB) is a multidrug-resistant pathogen commonly associated with nosocomial infections. The resistance profile and ability to produce biofilm make it a complicated organism to treat effectively. Cefoperazone sulbactam (CS) is commonly used to treat AB, but the associated data are scarce. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of articles downloaded from Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (through June 2022) to study the efficacy of CS in treating AB infections. Our review evaluated patients treated with CS alone and CS in combination with other antibiotics separately. The following outcomes were studied: clinical cure, microbiological cure, and mortality from any cause. Results: We included 16 studies where CS was used for the treatment of AB infections. This included 11 studies where CS was used alone and 10 studies where CS was used in combination. The outcomes were similar in both groups. We found that the pooled clinical cure, microbiological cure, and mortality with CS alone for AB were 70%, 44%, and 20%, respectively. The pooled clinical cure, microbiological cure, and mortality when CS was used in combination with other antibiotics were 72%, 43%, and 21%, respectively. Conclusions: CS alone or in combination needs to be further explored for the treatment of AB infections. There is a need for randomized controlled trials with comparator drugs to evaluate the drug’s effectiveness.

Geographic patterns of carbapenem-resistant, multi-drug-resistant and difficult-to-treat Acinetobacter baumannii in the Asia-Pacific region: results from the Antimicrobial Testing Leadership and Surveillance (ATLAS) program, 2020

This study evaluated the in-vitro activity of multiple classes of antibiotics, including novel β-lactam combination agents, tigecycline and colistin, against carbapenem-resistant (CRAB), multi-drug-resistant (MDRAB) and difficult-to-treat (DTRAB) Acinetobacter baumannii. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined using the broth microdilution method. Susceptibility profiles and the distribution of selected antimicrobials among countries were illustrated and examined based on the breakpoints of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing and the US Food and Drug Administration. In total, 847 A. baumannii isolates were evaluated, and 692 isolates were characterized as CRAB, MDRAB or DTRAB. The prevalence of drug-resistant A. baumannii was >70.0% in South Korea, India and China, while the resistance rate of tigecycline was <5.5%. The MICs of meropenem and meropenem/vaborbactam for drug-resistant A. baumannii were equal (both MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀ were 32 mg/L, range 0.25-32 mg/L). The overall resistance rate remained high for multiple classes of antibiotics, including penicillins, cephalosporins, carbapenems, quinolones and aminoglycosides (>84.0%, >96.0%, >98.0%, >88.0% and >87.0%, respectively), but not colistin or tigecycline (1.1% and 4.3%, respectively). China showed the lowest susceptibility to tigecycline for drug-resistant A. baumannii isolates compared with other countries. In conclusion, the resistance rate of drug-resistant A. baumannii remains high against multiple classes of antimicrobials. Colistin was the most potent agent, followed by tigecycline. The geographic pattern of tigecycline-resistant A. baumannii varied among countries. Therefore, continuous surveillance of A. baumannii resistance profiles in different regions is required.

In Vitro Synergistic Activity of Antimicrobial Combinations against Carbapenem- and Colistin-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii and Klebsiella pneumoniae

Polymyxins are commonly used as the last resort for the treatment of MDR Acinetobacter baumannii and Klebsiella pneumoniae nosocomial infections; however, apart from the already known toxicity issues, resistance to these agents is emerging. In the present study, we assessed the in vitro synergistic activity of antimicrobial combinations against carbapenem-resistant and colistin-resistant A. baumannii and K. pneumoniae in an effort to provide more options for their treatment. Two hundred A. baumannii and one hundred and six K. pneumoniae single clinical isolates with resistance to carbapenems and colistin, recovered between 1 January 2021 and 31 July 2022,were included. A. baumannii were tested by the MIC test strip fixed-ratio method for combinations of colistin with either meropenem or rifampicin or daptomycin. K. pneumoniae were tested for the combinations of colistin with meropenem and ceftazidime/avibactam with aztreonam. Synergy was observed at: 98.99% for colistin and meropenem against A. baumannii; 91.52% for colistin and rifampicin; and 100% for colistin and daptomycin. Synergy was also observed at: 73.56% for colistin and meropenem against K. pneumoniae and; and 93% for ceftazidime/avibactam with aztreonam. The tested antimicrobial combinations presented high synergy rates, rendering them valuable options against A. baumannii and K. pneumoniae infections.

Clinical effectiveness of tigecycline in combination therapy against nosocomial pneumonia caused by CR-GNB in intensive care units: a retrospective multi-centre observational study

BACKGROUND

Tigecycline has in vitro bacteriostatic activity against a broad spectrum of bacteria, including carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (CR-GNB). However, the role of tigecycline in treatment of nosocomial pneumonia caused by CR-GNB remains controversial and clinical evidences are limited. We aimed to investigate the clinical benefits of tigecycline as part of the combination treatment of nosocomial CR-GNB pneumonia in intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

This multi-centre cohort study retrospectively enrolled ICU-admitted patients with nosocomial pneumonia caused by CR-GNB. Patients were categorized based on whether add-on tigecycline was used in combination with at least one anti-CR-GNB antibiotic. Clinical outcomes and all-cause mortality between patients with and without tigecycline were compared in the original and propensity score (PS)-matched cohorts. A subgroup analysis was also performed to explore the differences of clinical efficacies of add-on tigecycline treatment when combined with various anti-CR-GNB agents.

RESULTS

We analysed 395 patients with CR-GNB nosocomial pneumonia, of whom 148 received tigecycline and 247 did not. More than 80% of the enrolled patients were infected by CR-Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB). A trend of lower all-cause mortality on day 28 was noted in tigecycline group in the original cohort (27.7% vs. 36.0%, p = 0.088). In PS-matched cohort (102 patient pairs), patients with tigecycline had significantly lower clinical failure (46.1% vs. 62.7%, p = 0.017) and mortality rates (28.4% vs. 52.9%, p < 0.001) on day 28. In multivariate analysis, tigecycline treatment was a protective factor against clinical failure (PS-matched cohort: aOR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28-0.95) and all-cause mortality (original cohort: aHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47-0.99; PS-matched cohort: aHR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.74) at 28 days. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis in subgroups of patients suggested significant clinical benefits of tigecycline when added to a colistin-included (log rank p value 0.005) and carbapenem-included (log rank p value 0.007) combination regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective observational study that included ICU-admitted patients with nosocomial pneumonia caused by tigecycline-susceptible CR-GNB, mostly CRAB, tigecycline as part of a combination treatment regimen was associated with lower clinical failure and all-cause mortality rates.

Preferential Selection of Low-Frequency, Lipopolysaccharide-Modified, Colistin-Resistant Mutants with a Combination of Antimicrobials in Acinetobacter baumannii

Colistin, which targets lipopolysaccharide (LPS), is used as a last-resort drug against severe infections caused by drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. However, A. baumannii possesses two colistin-resistance mechanisms. LPS modification caused by mutations in pmrAB genes is often observed in clinical isolates of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens. In addition to LPS modification, A. baumannii has a unique colistin resistance mechanism, a complete loss of LPS due to mutations in the lpxACD genes, which are involved in LPS biosynthesis. This study aimed to elucidate the detailed mechanism of the emergence of colistin-resistant A. baumannii using strains with the same genetic background. Various colistin-resistant strains were generated experimentally using colistin alone and in combination with other antimicrobials, such as meropenem and ciprofloxacin, and the mutation spectrum was analyzed. In vitro selection of A. baumannii in the presence of colistin led to the emergence of strains harboring mutations in lpxACD genes, resulting in LPS-deficient colistin-resistant strains. However, combination of colistin with other antimicrobials led to the selection of pmrAB mutant strains, resulting in strains with modified LPS (LPS-modified strains). Further, the LPS-deficient strains showed decreased fitness and increased susceptibility to many antibiotics and disinfectants. As LPS-deficient strains have a higher biological cost than LPS-modified strains, our findings suggested that pmrAB mutants are more likely to be isolated in clinical settings. We provide novel insights into the mechanisms of resistance to colistin and provide substantial solutions along with precautions for facilitating current research and treatment of colistin-resistant A. baumannii infections. IMPORTANCE Acinetobacter baumannii has developed resistance to various antimicrobial drugs, and its drug-resistant strains cause nosocomial infections. Controlling these infections has become a global clinical challenge. Carbapenem antibiotics are the frontline treatment drugs for infectious diseases caused by A. baumannii. For patients with infections caused by carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii, colistin-based therapy is often the only treatment option. However, A. baumannii readily acquires resistance to colistin. Many patients infected with colistin-resistant A. baumannii undergo colistin treatment before isolation of the colistin-resistant strain, and it is hypothesized that colistin resistance predominantly emerges under selective pressure during colistin therapy. Although the concomitant use of colistin and carbapenems has been reported to have a synergistic effect in vitro against carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii strains, our observations strongly suggest the need for attention to the emergence of strains with a modified lipopolysaccharide during treatment.

Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: Colonization, Infection and Current Treatment Options

Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) causes colonization and infection predominantly in hospitalized patients. Distinction between the two is a challenge. When CRAB is isolated from a non-sterile site (soft tissue, respiratory samples, etc.), it probably represents colonization unless clear signs of infection (fever, elevated white blood count, elevated inflammatory markers and abnormal imaging) are present. Treatment is warranted only for true infections. In normally sterile sites (blood, cerebrospinal fluid) the presence of indwelling medical devices (catheters, stents) should be considered when evaluating positive cultures. In the absence of such devices, the isolate represents an infection and should be treated. If an indwelling device is present and there are no signs of active infection, the device should be replaced if possible, and no treatment is required. If there are signs of an active infection the device should be removed or replaced, and treatment should be administered. Current treatments options and clinical data are limited. No agent or combination regimen has been shown to be superior to any other in randomized clinical trials. Ampicillin-sulbactam appears to have the best evidence for initial use. This is probably due to its ability to saturate penicillin-binding proteins 1 and 3 when given in high dose. Tigecycline when used should be given in high dose as well. Polymyxins are a treatment option but are difficult to dose correctly and have significant side effects. Newer treatment options such as eravacycline and cefiderocol have potential; however, currently there are not enough data to support their use as single agents. Combination therapy appears to be the best treatment option and should always include high-dose ampicillin-sulbactam combined with another active agent such as high-dose tigecycline, polymyxins, etc. These infections require a high complexity of skill, and an infectious disease specialist should be involved in the management of these patients.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidance on the Treatment of AmpC β-lactamase-Producing Enterobacterales, Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia Infections

BACKGROUND

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) is committed to providing up-to-date guidance on the treatment of antimicrobial-resistant infections. A previous guidance document focused on infections caused by extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa with difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR-P. aeruginosa). Here, guidance is provided for treating AmpC β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (AmpC-E), carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections.

METHODS

A panel of six infectious diseases specialists with expertise in managing antimicrobial-resistant infections formulated questions about the treatment of AmpC-E, CRAB, and S. maltophilia infections. Answers are presented as suggestions and corresponding rationales. In contrast to guidance in the previous document, published data on optimal treatment of AmpC-E, CRAB, and S. maltophilia infections are limited. As such, guidance in this document is provided as "suggested approaches" based on clinical experience, expert opinion, and a review of the available literature. Because of differences in the epidemiology of resistance and availability of specific anti-infectives internationally, this document focuses on the treatment of infections in the United States.

RESULTS

Preferred and alternative treatment suggestions are provided, assuming the causative organism has been identified and antibiotic susceptibility results are known. Approaches to empiric treatment, duration of therapy, and other management considerations are also discussed briefly. Suggestions apply for both adult and pediatric populations.

CONCLUSIONS

The field of antimicrobial resistance is highly dynamic. Consultation with an infectious diseases specialist is recommended for the treatment of antimicrobial-resistant infections. This document is current as of September 17, 2021 and will be updated annually. The most current versions of IDSA documents, including dates of publication, are available at www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/amr-guidance-2.0/.

Comparison of Bleeding Risk Between Colistin-Tigecycline and Colistin-Carbapenem Treatment Regimens: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Antibiotic combination is commonly used to treat multidrug-resistant pathogens. Reports have indicated that tigecycline use is associated with hypofibrinogenemia. However, whether the bleeding risk of tigecycline is higher than that of other antibiotics remains unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the bleeding risk between colistin–tigecycline and colistin–carbapenem treatment.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study enrolled adult patients treated with colistin along with tigecycline or carbapenems (doripenem, imipenem–cilastatin, or meropenem) for ˃72 hours during hospitalization. The primary outcome was major bleeding events, which were determined by a hemoglobin drop of ≥2 g/d and receipt of blood transfusions with whole blood or packed red blood cells. Multivariate logistic regression was applied to determine risk factors for bleeding events.

Results

In total, 106 and 268 patients in the colistin–tigecycline and colistin–carbapenem groups met the criteria for analysis, respectively. The two groups did not differ significantly in demographic data, except for alanine aminotransferase (ALT), serum creatinine (S_Cr) and ulcer disease. The colistin–tigecycline group had a higher ALT, S_Cr and a lower proportion of ulcer disease. Major bleeding events did not differ significantly between the colistin–tigecycline and colistin–carbapenem groups (12.26% vs 9.33%, P = 0.40). Antibiotic duration [OR = 1.06 (1.02–1.11), P=0.007)] and anticoagulant use [OR = 2.16 (1.05–4.42), P=0.04] were associated with major bleeding events.

Conclusion

Colistin–tigecycline treatment was not associated with a higher bleeding risk. Antibiotic duration and concurrent use of anticoagulant were the risk factors of bleeding events.