Reply to Macesic et al

To the Editor—We thank Macesic and colleagues for their interest in our work. The additional data that they present in their letter adds to the growing body of knowledge regarding polymyxin resistance in multidrug-resistant gram- negative bacteria

Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: A review of treatment and outcomes

The emergence of carbapenem resistance in Enterobacteriaceae is an important threat to global health. Reported outcomes of infections with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) are poor. Very few options remain for the treatment of these virulent organisms. Antibiotics which are currently in use to treat CRE infections include aminoglycosides, polymyxins, tigecycline, fosfomycin, and temocillin. In addition, the role of combination therapy, including carbapenem containing regimens, remains to be defined. There are several important concerns regarding all of these treatment options such as limited efficacy, increasing reports of resistance, and specific toxicities. Data from retrospective studies favor combination therapy over single-agent therapy for the treatment of CRE bloodstream infections. In summary, new antibiotics are greatly needed, as is additional prospective research

Infectious Diseases Society of America 2022 Guidance on the Treatment of Extended-Spectrum β-lactamase Producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E), Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa with Difficult-to-Treat Resistance (DTR-P. aeruginosa)

Background: The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) is committed to providing up-to-date guidance on the treatment of antimicrobial-resistant infections. The initial guidance document 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) was published on 17 September 2020. Over the past year, there have been a number of important publications furthering our understanding of the management of ESBL-E, CRE, and DTR-P. aeruginosa infections, prompting a rereview of the literature and this updated guidance document. Methods: A panel of 6 infectious diseases specialists with expertise in managing antimicrobial-resistant infections reviewed, updated, and expanded previously developed questions and recommendations about the treatment of ESBL-E, CRE, and DTR-P. aeruginosa infections. 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 recommendations are provided with accompanying rationales, 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. Recommendations 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 24 October 2021. The most current versions of IDSA documents, including dates of publication, are available at www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/amr-guidance/

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

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. A panel of 6 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 suggested approaches and corresponding rationales. In contrast to guidance in the previous document, published data on the 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. 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. 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 17 September 2021 and will be updated annually. The most current version of this document, including date of publication, is available at www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/amr-guidance-2.0/

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidance on the Treatment of Extended-Spectrum β-lactamase Producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E), Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa with Difficult-to-Treat Resistance (DTR-P. aeruginosa)

Background: Antimicrobial-resistant infections are commonly encountered in US hospitals and result in significant morbidity and mortality. This guidance document provides recommendations for the treatment of 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). Methods: A panel of 6 infectious diseases specialists with expertise in managing antimicrobial-resistant infections formulated common questions regarding the treatment of ESBL-E, CRE, and DTR-P. aeruginosa infections. Based on review of the published literature and clinical experience, the panel provide recommendations and associated rationale for each recommendation. Because of significant differences in the molecular epidemiology of resistance and the availability of specific anti-infective agents globally, this document focuses on treatment of antimicrobial-resistant infections in the United States. Results: Approaches to empiric treatment selection, duration of therapy, and other management considerations are briefly discussed. The majority of guidance focuses on preferred and alternative treatment recommendations for antimicrobial-resistant infections, assuming that the causative organism has been identified and antibiotic susceptibility testing results are known. Treatment recommendations apply to both adults and children. Conclusions: The field of antimicrobial resistance is dynamic and rapidly evolving, and the treatment of antimicrobial-resistant infections will continue to challenge clinicians. This guidance document is current as of 17 September 2020. Updates to this guidance document will occur periodically as new data emerge. Furthermore, the panel will expand recommendations to include other problematic gram-negative pathogens in future versions. The most current version of the guidance including the date of publication can be found at www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/amr-guidance/

Clinical challenges treating Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections: An update

Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is a non-fermenting, Gram-negative bacillus that has emerged as an opportunistic nosocomial pathogen. Its intrinsic multidrug resistance makes treating infections caused by S. maltophilia a great clinical challenge. Clinical management is further complicated by its molecular heterogeneity that is reflected in the uneven distribution of antibiotic resistance and virulence determinants among different strains, the shortcomings of available antimicrobial susceptibility tests and the lack of standardized breakpoints for the handful of antibiotics with in vitro activity against this microorganism. Herein, we provide an update on the most recent literature concerning these issues, emphasizing the impact they have on clinical management of S. maltophilia infections

Treatment and outcomes in carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infections

Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CR-Kp) is an emerging multidrug-resistant nosocomial pathogen. This is a retrospective chart review describing the outcomes and treatment of 60 cases of CR-Kp bloodstream infections. All CR-Kp isolated from blood cultures were identified retrospectively from the microbiology laboratory from January 2007 to May 2009. Clinical information was collected from the electronic medical record. Patients with 14-day hospital mortality were compared to those who survived 14 days. The all-cause in-hospital and 14-day mortality for all 60 CR-Kp bloodstream infections were 58.3% and 41.7%, respectively. In this collection, 98% of tested isolates were susceptible in vitro to tigecycline compared to 86% to colistimethate, 45% to amikacin, and 22% to gentamicin. Nine patients died before cultures were finalized and received no therapy active against CR-Kp. In the remaining 51 patients, those who survived to day 14 (n = 35) were compared to nonsurvivors at day 14 (n = 16). These patients were characterized by both chronic disease and acute illness. The 90-day readmission rate for hospital survivors was 72%. Time to active therapy was not significantly different between survivors and nonsurvivors, and hospital mortality was also similar regardless of therapy chosen. Pitt bacteremia score was the only significant factor associated with mortality in Cox regression analysis. In summary, CR-Kp bloodstream infections occur in patients who are chronically and acutely ill. They are associated with high 14-day mortality and poor outcomes regardless of tigecycline or other treatment regimens selected

The Pitt Bacteremia Score Predicts Mortality in Nonbacteremic Infections

Background. Predicting mortality risk in patients is important in research settings. The Pitt bacteremia score (PBS) is commonly used as a predictor of early mortality risk in patients with bloodstream infections (BSIs). We determined whether the PBS predicts 14-day inpatient mortality in nonbacteremia carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections. Methods. Patients were selected from the Consortium on Resistance Against Carbapenems in Klebsiella and Other Enterobacteriaceae, a prospective, multicenter, observational study. We estimated risk ratios to analyze the predictive ability of the PBS overall and each of its components individually. We analyzed each component of the PBS in the prediction of mortality, assessed the appropriate cutoff value for the dichotomized score, and compared the predictive ability of the qPitt score to that of the PBS. Results. In a cohort of 475 patients with CRE infections, a PBS 4 was associated with mortality in patients with nonbacteremia infections (risk ratio [RR], 21.9 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.0, 68.8) and with BSIs (RR, 6.0 95% CI, 2.5, 14.4). In multivariable analysis, the hypotension, mechanical ventilation, mental status, and cardiac arrest parameters of the PBS were independent risk factors for 14-day all-cause inpatient mortality. The temperature parameter as originally calculated for the PBS was not independently associated with mortality. However, a temperature < 36.0° C vs 36° C was independently associated with mortality. A qPitt score 2 had similar discrimination as a PBS 4 in nonbacteremia infections. Conclusions. Here, we validated that the PBS and qPitt score can be used as reliable predictors of mortality in nonbacteremia CRE infections

Colistin Versus Ceftazidime-Avibactam in the Treatment of Infections Due to Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae

Background The efficacy of ceftazidime-Avibactam-a cephalosporin-β-lactamase inhibitor combination with in vitro activity against Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE)-compared with colistin remains unknown. Methods Patients initially treated with either ceftazidime-Avibactam or colistin for CRE infections were selected from the Consortium on Resistance Against Carbapenems in Klebsiella and other Enterobacteriaceae (CRACKLE), a prospective, multicenter, observational study. Efficacy, safety, and benefit-risk analyses were performed using intent-To-Treat analyses with partial credit and the desirability of outcome ranking approaches. The ordinal efficacy outcome was based on disposition at day 30 after starting treatment (home vs not home but not observed to die in the hospital vs hospital death). All analyses were adjusted for confounding using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Results Thirty-eight patients were treated first with ceftazidime-Avibactam and 99 with colistin. Most patients received additional anti-CRE agents as part of their treatment. Bloodstream (n = 63; 46%) and respiratory (n = 30; 22%) infections were most common. In patients treated with ceftazidime-Avibactam versus colistin, IPTW-Adjusted all-cause hospital mortality 30 days after starting treatment was 9% versus 32%, respectively (difference, 23%; 95% bootstrap confidence interval, 9%-35%; P =.001). In an analysis of disposition at 30 days, patients treated with ceftazidime-Avibactam, compared with those treated within colistin, had an IPTW-Adjusted probability of a better outcome of 64% (95% confidence interval, 57%-71%). Partial credit analyses indicated uniform superiority of ceftazidime-Avibactam to colistin. Conclusions Ceftazidime-Avibactam may be a reasonable alternative to colistin in the treatment of K. pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing CRE infections. These findings require confirmation in a randomized controlled trial

Relebactam is a potent inhibitor of the kpc-2 -lactamase and restores imipenem susceptibility in kpc-producing enterobacteriaceae

The imipenem-relebactam combination is in development as a potential treatment regimen for infections caused by Enterobacteriaceae possessing complex -lactamase backgrounds. Relebactam is a -lactamase inhibitor that possesses the diazabicyclooctane core, as in avibactam; however, the R1 side chain of relebactam also includes a piperidine ring, whereas that of avibactam is a carboxyamide. Here, we investigated the inactivation of the Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase KPC-2, the most widespread class A carbapenemase, by relebactam and performed susceptibility testing with imipenem-relebactam using KPC-producing clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae. MIC measurements using agar dilution methods revealed that all 101 clinical isolates of KPC-producing Enterobacteriaceae (K. pneumoniae, Klebsiella oxytoca, Enterobacter cloacae, Enterobacter aerogenes, Citrobacter freundii, Citrobacter koseri, and Escherichia coli) were highly susceptible to imipenem-relebactam (MICs 2 mg/liter). Relebactam inhibited KPC-2 with a second-order onset of acylation rate constant (k2/K) value of 24,750 M1 s1 and demonstrated a slow off-rate constant (koff) of 0.0002 s1. Biochemical analysis using time-based mass spectrometry to map intermediates revealed that the KPC-2–relebactam acyl-enzyme complex was stable for up to 24 h. Importantly, desulfation of relebactam was not observed using mass spectrometry. Desulfation and subsequent deacylation have been observed during the reaction of KPC-2 with avibactam. Upon molecular dynamics simulations of relebactam in the KPC-2 active site, we found that the positioning of active-site water molecules is less favorable for desulfation in the KPC-2 active site than it is in the KPC-2–avibactam complex. In the acyl complexes, the water molecules are within 2.5 to 3 Å of the avibactam sulfate; however, they are more than 5 to 6 Å from the relebactam sulfate. As a result, we propose that the KPC-2–relebactam acyl complex is more stable than the KPC-2–avibactam complex. The clinical implications of this difference are not currently known