Tigecycline Versus Colistin in the Treatment of Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii Complex Osteomyelitis

Efficacy and safety of colistin plus beta-lactams for bone and joint infection caused by fluoroquinolone-resistant gram-negative bacilli: a prospective multicenter study

OBJECTIVES

The prognosis of bone and joint infections (BJI) caused by Gram-negative bacilli (GNB) worsens significantly in the face of fluoroquinolone-resistance. In this setting, scarce pre-clinical and clinical reports suggest that intravenous beta-lactams plus colistin may improve outcome. Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of this treatment in a well-characterized prospective cohort.

METHODS

Observational, prospective, non-comparative, multicenter (14 hospitals) study of adults with BJI caused by fluoroquinolone-resistant GNB treated with surgery and intravenous beta-lactams plus colistin for ≥ 21 days. The primary endpoint was the cure rate.

RESULTS

Of the 44 cases included (median age 72 years [IQR 50-81], 22 [50%] women), 32 (73%) had an orthopedic device-related infection, including 17 (39%) prosthetic joints. Enterobacterales were responsible for 27 (61%) episodes, and Pseudomonas spp for 17 (39%), with an overall rate of MDR/XDR GNB infections of 27/44 (61%). Patients were treated with colistin plus intravenous beta-lactam for 28 days (IQR 22-37), followed by intravenous beta-lactam alone for 19 days (IQR 5-35). The cure rate (intention-to-treat analysis; median follow-up = 24 months, IQR 19-30) was 82% (95% CI 68%-90%) and particularly, 80% (95% CI 55%-93%) among patients managed with implant retention. Adverse events (AEs) leading to antimicrobial withdrawal occurred in 10 (23%) cases, all of which were reversible. Colistin AEs were associated with higher plasma drug concentrations (2.8 mg/L vs. 0.9 mg/L, p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy with intravenous beta-lactams plus colistin is an effective regimen for BJI caused by fluoroquinolone-resistant GNB. AEs were reversible and potentially preventable by close therapeutic drug monitoring.

Treatment of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii

Patients with severe carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) infections currently face significant treatment challenges. When patients display signs of infection and the clinical suspicion of CRAB infections is high, appropriate treatment should be immediately provided. However, current treatment plans and clinical data for CRAB are limited. Inherent and acquired resistance mechanisms, as well as host factors, significantly restrict options for empirical medication. Moreover, inappropriate drug coverage can have detrimental effects on patients. Most existing studies have limitations, such as a restricted sample size, and are predominantly observational or non-randomized, which report significant variability in patient infection severity and comorbidities. Therefore, a gold-standard therapy remains lacking. Current and future treatment options of infections due to CRAB were described in this review. The dose and considerable side effects restrict treatment options for polymyxins, and high doses of ampicillin-sulbactam or tigecycline appear to be the best option at the time of initial treatment. Moreover, new drugs such as durlobactam and cefiderocol have substantial therapeutic capabilities and may be effective salvage treatments. Bacteriophages and antimicrobial peptides may serve as alternative treatment options in the near future. The advantages of a combination antimicrobial regimen appear to predominate those of a single regimen. Despite its significant nephrotoxicity, colistin is considered a primary treatment and is often used in combination with antimicrobials, such as tigecycline, ampicillin-sulbactam, meropenem, or fosfomycin. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) has deemed high-dose ampicillin-sulbactam, which is typically combined with high-dose tigecycline, polymyxin, and other antibacterial agents, the best option for treating serious CRAB infections. A rational combination of drug use and the exploration of new therapeutic drugs can alleviate or prevent the effects of CRAB infections, shorten hospital stays, and reduce patient mortality.

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.

Tigecycline-Containing Regimens and Multi Drug-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: The use of tigecycline (TG) for the treatment of Acinetobacter baumannii is controversial. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to better explore the safety and efficacy of TG for the treatment of multi drug-resistant (MDR) Acinetobacter. Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science to identify studies reporting the clinical and microbiological efficacy and safety of regimens containing TG in patients with drug susceptibility testing (DST)-confirmed MDR A. baumannii, published until December 30, 2022. Observational studies were included if they reported clinical and microbiological efficacy of TG-based regimens. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Joana Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool were used to assess the quality of included studies. Results: There were 30 observational studies, of which 19 studies were cohort and 11 studies were single group studies. Pooled clinical response and failure rates in the TG-containing regimens group were 58.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 49.2-66.6) and 40.2 (95% CI 31.1-50.0), respectively. The pooled microbiological response rate was 32.1 (95% CI 19.8-47.5), and the pooled all-cause mortality rate was 41.1 (95% CI 34.1-48.4). Pooled clinical response and failure rates in the colistin-based regimens group were 52.7 (42.7-62.5) and 43.1 (33.1-53.8), respectively. The pooled microbiological response rate was 42.9 (16.2-74.5), and the pooled all-cause mortality rate was 34.3 (26.1-43.5). Conclusions: According to our results, the efficacy of the TG-based regimen is the same as other antibiotics. However, our study showed a high mortality rate and a lower rate of microbiological eradication for TG compared with colistin-based regimen. Therefore, our study does not recommend it for the treatment of MDR A. baumannii. However, this was a prevalence meta-analysis of observational studies, and for better conclusion experimental studies are required.

Efficacy and Safety of Colistin versus Tigecycline for Multi-Drug-Resistant and Extensively Drug-Resistant Gram-Negative Pathogens-A Meta-Analysis

Background: We intended to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of colistin versus tigecycline as monotherapy or combination therapy against multi-drug resistant (MDR) and extensively drug-resistant (XDR) pathogens. Methods: A search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, and in the grey literature (i.e., ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar) up to May 2021. Outcomes were clinical response, mortality, infection recurrence, and renal and hepatic toxicity. We pooled odd ratios (OR) using heterogeneity-guided random or fixed models at a statistical significance of p < 0.05. Results: Fourteen observational studies involving 1163 MDR/XDR pathogens, receiving tigecycline versus colistin monotherapy or combination, were included. Base-case analyses revealed insignificant differences in the clinical response, reinfection, and hepatic impairment. The 30-day mortality was significantly relatively reduced with tigecycline monotherapy (OR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.16−0.75, p = 0.007). The colistin monotherapy significantly relatively reduced in-hospital mortality (OR = 2.27, 95%CI 1.24−4.16, p = 0.008). Renal impairment rates were lower with tigecycline monotherapy or in combination, and were lower with monotherapy versus colistin-tigecycline combination. Low-risk of bias and moderate/high evidence quality were associated with all studies. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that there were no statistically significant differences in main efficacy outcomes between colistin and tigecycline monotherapies or combinations against MDR/XDR infections, except for lower rates of 30-day mortality with tigecycline and in-hospital mortality with colistin. Tigecycline was associated with favourable renal toxicity outcomes.

Real-World, Multicenter Case Series of Patients Treated with Oral Omadacycline for Resistant Gram-Negative Pathogens

INTRODUCTION

Antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria have been associated with substantial morbidity and mortality and have limited treatment options available. Omadacycline (OMC) is an aminomethylcycline antibiotic that has been shown to exhibit broad in vitro activity against antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Given the lack of real-world data, the primary objective of our report was to describe early experience with OMC for the treatment of resistant Gram-negative infections.

METHODS

This was a real-world, multicenter, observational cases series/pilot study conducted in the USA. Inclusion criteria included any adult patient aged ≥ 18 years who received OMC for ≥ 72 h either in the inpatient and/or outpatient setting. Clinical success was defined as a composite of 90-day survival from initiation of OMC, lack of alteration in treatment/addition of other antibiotic due to concerns of OMC failure, and lack of microbiologic recurrence within 30 days from the end of therapy.

RESULTS

Oral OMC was used in nine cases primarily for multidrug-resistant (MDR)/extensively drug-resistant (XDR) Gram-negative bacterial infections (55.6% XDR and/or carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii [CRAB]). The majority of infections were of bone/joint (55.6%) origin, followed by intra-abdominal (33.3%) origin. Clinical success occurred in 66.7% of cases, with 80.0% success each in infections of bone/joint origin or those caused by CRAB. One patient experienced an adverse effect that was not treatment limiting while on therapy (gastrointestinal).

CONCLUSION

The use of oral OMC in MDR/XDR Gram-negative infections exhibited a relatively high success rate with minimal adverse effects. Real-world studies with larger case numbers are needed to confirm our initial findings.