Search

Background Healthcare-associated infection (HAI) is a major challenge for patient safety worldwide, and is further complicated by antimicrobial resistance (AMR) due to excessive antimicrobial use in both humans and animals. Existing infection prevention and control (IPC) networks must be strengthened and adapted to better address the global challenges presented by emerging AMR. Methods In June 2017, 42 international experts convened in Geneva, Switzerland, to discuss two key areas for strengthening the global IPC network: 1) broadening collaboration in IPC; and 2) how to bring the fields IPC and AMR control together. Results The US Centers for Disease Prevention and Control, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, and the World Health Organization (WHO) convened together with international experts to discuss collaboration and networks, demonstrating the participating organizations’ commitment to close collaboration in IPC. The challenge of emerging AMR can only be addressed by strengthening this collaboration across international organisations and between public health and academia. The WHO SAVE LIVES: Clean Your Hands initiative is an example of a successful collaboration between multiple global stakeholders including academia and international public health organisations; it can be used as a model. IPC-strategies are included within the four pillars to combat AMR: surveillance, IPC, antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship, research and development. The prevention of transmission of multidrug-resistant microorganisms is a patient safety issue, and must be strengthened in the fight against AMR. Conclusions The working group determined that international organisations should take the lead in creating new networks, which will in turn attract academia and other stakeholders to join. At the same time, they should invest in bringing existing IPC and AMR networks under one umbrella. Transmission of multidrug-resistant microorganisms in hospitals and in the community threatens the success of antimicrobial stewardship programmes, and thus, research and development in IPC should be addressed as an enhanced global priority.

Background: Carbapenemase-producing, carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CP-CRPA) is a global challenge. However, detection efforts can be laborious because numerous mechanisms produce carbapenem resistance. A minimum inhibitory concentration-based algorithm (imipenem- or meropenem-resistant plus ceftazidime-nonsusceptible plus cefepime-nonsusceptible) was proposed to identify the isolates most likely to harbor a carbapenemase; however, prospective validation in geographies displaying genotypic diversity and varied carbapenemase prevalence is warranted. Methods: CRPA isolates were collected during the Enhancing Rational Antimicrobials for P. aeruginosa (ERACE-PA) global surveillance program from 17 sites in 12 countries. Isolates underwent susceptibility testing following local standards to ceftazidime, cefepime, and ceftolozane/tazobactam. Isolates underwent initial phenotypic carbapenemase screening followed by molecular testing if positive. The primary algorithm criteria were applied, and results were compared with phenotypic carbapenemase results to assess the performance of the algorithm. A secondary criterion, the algorithm criterion or imipenem- or meropenem-resistant plus ceftolozane/tazobactam-nonsusceptible, was assessed. Results: A total of 807 CRPA were assessed, and 464 isolates met the algorithm criteria described above. Overall, testing was reduced by 43% compared with testing all CRPA. Carbapenemase-positive isolates missed by the algorithm were largely driven by Guiana extended spectrum (GES). Addition of the criterion of imipenem- or meropenem-resistant plus ceftolozane/tazobactam-nonsusceptible decreased the number of CP-CRPA missed by the algorithm (21 vs 40 isolates, respectively), reducing number of isolates tested by 39%. Conclusions: Application of the initial algorithm (imipenem- or meropenem-resistant plus ceftazidime-nonsusceptible plus cefepime-nonsusceptible) performed well in a global cohort, with 33% phenotypically carbapenemase-positive isolates. The addition of imipenem- or meropenem-resistant plus ceftolozane/tazobactam-nonsusceptible reduced the number of phenotypically carbapenemase-positive isolates missed and may be useful in areas with a prominence of GES. © 2021 The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.

The present study evaluated the in vitro potency of ceftazidime and cefepime among carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates collected as part of a global surveillance program and assessed the pharmacodynamic implications using previously published population pharmacokinetics. When susceptible, MICs resulted at the high end of distribution for both ceftazidime and cefepime, thus 6 g/day was required to achieve optimal pharmacodynamic profiles. These findings should be considered in the clinic and for the application of CLSI susceptibility breakpoints.

Background. We evaluated whether carbapenem-colistin combination therapy reduces the emergence of colistin resistance, compared to colistin monotherapy, when given to patients with infections due to carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative organisms. Methods. This is a pre-planned analysis of a secondary outcome from a randomized, controlled trial comparing colistin monotherapy with colistin-meropenem combination for the treatment of severe infections caused by carbapenem-resistant, colistin-susceptible Gram-negative bacteria. We evaluated rectal swabs taken on Day 7 or later for the presence of new colistin-resistant (ColR) isolates. We evaluated the emergence of any ColR isolate and the emergence of ColR Enterobacteriaceae (ColR-E). Results. Data were available for 214 patients for the primary analysis; emergent ColR organisms were detected in 22 (10.3%). No difference was observed between patients randomized to treatment with colistin monotherapy (10/106, 9.4%) versus patients randomized to colistin-meropenem combination therapy (12/108, 11.1%; P = .669). ColR-E organisms were detected in 18/249 (7.2%) patients available for analysis. No difference was observed between the 2 treatment arms (colistin monotherapy 6/128 [4.7%] vs combination therapy 12/121 [9.9%]; P = .111). Enterobacteriaceae, as the index isolate, was found to be associated with development of ColR-E (hazard ratio, 3.875; 95% confidence interval, 1.475–10.184; P = .006). Conclusions. Carbapenem-colistin combination therapy did not reduce the incidence of colistin resistance emergence in patients with infections due to carbapenem-resistant organisms. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the development of colistin resistance and methods for its prevention. © The Author(s) 2019.

The present study evaluated the in vitro potency of ceftazidime and cefepime among carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates collected as part of a global surveillance program and assessed the pharmacodynamic implications using previously published population pharmacokinetics. When susceptible, MICs resulted at the high end of distribution for both ceftazidime and cefepime, thus 6 g/day was required to achieve optimal pharmacodynamic profiles. These findings should be considered in the clinic and for the application of CLSI susceptibility breakpoints. © 2021 American Society for Microbiology.

Background: Population external validity is the extent to which an experimental study results can be generalized from a specific sample to a defined population. In order to apply the results of a study, we should be able to assess its population external validity. We performed an investigator-initiated randomized controlled trial (RCT) (AIDA study), which compared colistin-meropenem combination therapy to colistin monotherapy in the treatment of patients infected with carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. In order to examine the study’s population external validity and to substantiate the use of AIDA study results in clinical practice, we performed a concomitant observational trial. Methods: The study was conducted between October 1st, 2013 and January 31st, 2017 (during the RCTs recruitment period) in Greece, Israel and Italy. Patients included in the observational arm of the study have fulfilled clinical and microbiological inclusion criteria but were excluded from the RCT due to receipt of colistin for > 96 h, refusal to participate, or prior inclusion in the RCT. Non-randomized cases were compared to randomized patients. The primary outcome was clinical failure at 14 days of infection onset. Results: Analysis included 701 patients. Patients were infected mainly with Acinetobacter baumannii [78.2% (548/701)]. The most common reason for exclusion was refusal to participate [62% (183/295)]. Non-randomized and randomized patients were similar in most of the demographic and background parameters, though randomized patients showed minor differences towards a more severe infection. Combination therapy was less common in non-randomized patients [31.9% (53/166) vs. 51.2% (208/406), p = 0.000]. Randomized patients received longer treatment of colistin [13 days (IQR 10–16) vs. 8.5 days (IQR 0–15), p = 0.000]. Univariate analysis showed that non-randomized patients were more inclined to clinical failure on day 14 from infection onset [82% (242/295) vs. 75.5% (307/406), p = 0.042]. After adjusting for other variables, non-inclusion was not an independent risk factor for clinical failure at day 14. Conclusion: The similarity between the observational arm and RCT patients has strengthened our confidence in the population external validity of the AIDA trial. Adding an observational arm to intervention studies can help increase the population external validity and improve implementation of study results in clinical practice. Trial registration: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01732250 on November 22, 2012. © 2021, The Author(s).

Background The high burden of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is partially due to excessive antimicrobial use both in human and animal medicine worldwide. How can technology help to overcome challenges in infection prevention and control (IPC) and to prevent HAI and emerging AMR? Methods In June 2017, 42 international experts convened in Geneva, Switzerland to discuss four potential domains of technology in IPC and AMR: 1) role and potential contribution of microbiome research; 2) whole genome sequencing; 3) effectiveness and benefit of antimicrobial environmental surfaces; and 4) future research in hand hygiene. Results Research on the microbiome could expand understanding of antimicrobial use and also the role of probiotics or even faecal transplantation for therapeutic purposes. Whole genome sequencing will provide new insights in modes of transmission of infectious diseases. Although it is a powerful tool for public health epidemiology, some challenges with interpretation and costs still need to be addressed. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antimicrobially coated or treated environmental high-touch surfaces requires further research before they can be recommended for routine use. Hand hygiene implementation can be advanced, where technological enhancement of surveillance, technique and compliance are coupled with reminders for healthcare professionals. Conclusions The four domains of technological innovation contribute to the prevention of HAI and AMR at different levels. Microbiome research may offer innovative concepts for future prevention, whole genome sequencing could detect new modes of transmission and become an additional tool for effective public health epidemiology, antimicrobial surfaces might help to decrease the environment as source of transmission but continue to raise more questions than answers, and technological innovation may have a role in improving surveillance approaches and supporting best practice in hand hygiene.

Objectives: The aim was to analyse the population pharmacokinetics of colistin and to explore the relationship between colistin exposure and time to death. Methods: Patients included in the AIDA randomized controlled trial were treated with colistin for severe infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. All subjects received a 9 million units (MU) loading dose, followed by a 4.5 MU twice daily maintenance dose, with dose reduction if creatinine clearance (CrCL) < 50 mL/min. Individual colistin exposures were estimated from the developed population pharmacokinetic model and an optimized two-sample per patient sampling design. Time to death was evaluated in a parametric survival analysis. Results: Out of 406 randomized patients, 349 contributed pharmacokinetic data. The median (90% range) colistin plasma concentration was 0.44 (0.14–1.59) mg/L at 15 minutes after the end of first infusion. In samples drawn 10 hr after a maintenance dose, concentrations were >2 mg/L in 94% (195/208) and 44% (38/87) of patients with CrCL ≤120 mL/min, and >120 mL/min, respectively. Colistin methanesulfonate sodium (CMS) and colistin clearances were strongly dependent on CrCL. High colistin exposure to MIC ratio was associated with increased hazard of death in the multivariate analysis (adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI): 1.07 (1.03–1.12)). Other significant predictors included SOFA score at baseline (HR 1.24 (1.19–1.30) per score increase), age and Acinetobacter or Pseudomonas as index pathogen. Discussion: The population pharmacokinetic model predicted that >90% of the patients had colistin concentrations >2 mg/L at steady state, but only 66% at 4 hr after start of treatment. High colistin exposure was associated with poor kidney function, and was not related to a prolonged survival. © 2020 The Authors

Objectives: In vitro models showing synergism between polymyxins and carbapenems support combination treatment for carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative (CRGN) infections. We tested the association between the presence of in vitro synergism and clinical outcomes in patients treated with colistin plus meropenem. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of AIDA, a randomized controlled trial comparing colistin with colistin–meropenem for severe CRGN infections. We tested in vitro synergism using a checkerboard assay. Based on the fractional inhibitory concentration (ΣFIC) index for each colistin–meropenem combination, we categorized results as synergistic, antagonistic or additive/indifferent. The primary outcome was clinical failure at 14 days. Secondary outcomes were 14- and 28-day mortality and microbiological failure. Results: The sample included 171 patients with infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (n = 131), Enterobacteriaceae (n = 37) and Pseudomonas aeuruginosa (n = 3). In vitro testing showed synergism for 73 isolates, antagonism for 20 and additivism/indifference for 78. In patients who received any colistin plus meropenem, clinical failure at 14 days was 59/78 (75.6%) in the additivism/indifference group (reference category), 54/73 (74.0%) in the synergism group (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.31–1.83), and 11/20 (55%) in the antagonism group (aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.22–2.73). There was no significant difference between groups for any secondary outcome. Comparing the synergism group to patients treated with colistin monotherapy, synergism was not protective against 14-day clinical failure (aOR 0.52, 95% CI 0.26–1.04) or 14-day mortality (aOR1.09, 95% CI 0.60–1.96). Discussion: In vitro synergism between colistin and meropenem via checkerboard method did not translate into clinical benefit. © 2020 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases