Imipenem resistance of Pseudomonas in pneumonia: a systematic literature review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pneumonia, and particularly nosocomial (NP) and ventilator-associated pneumonias (VAP), results in high morbidity and costs. NPs in particular are likely to be caused by <it>Pseudomonas aeruginosa </it>(PA), ~20% of which in observational studies are resistant to imipenem. We sought to identify the burden of PA imipenem resistance in pneumonia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of imipenem treatment for pneumonia published in English between 1993 and 2008. We extracted study, population and treatment characteristics, and proportions caused by PA. Endpoints of interest were: PA resistance to initial antimicrobial treatment, clinical success, microbiologic eradication and on-treatment emergence of resistance of PA.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 46 studies identified, 20 (N = 4,310) included patients with pneumonia (imipenem 1,667, PA 251; comparator 1,661, PA 270). Seven were double blind, and 7 included US data. Comparator arms included a β-lactam (17, [penicillin 6, carbapenem 4, cephalosporin 7, monobactam 1]), aminoglycoside 2, vancomycin 1, and a fluoroquinolone 5; 5 employed double coverage. Thirteen focused exclusively on pneumonia and 7 included pneumonia and other diagnoses. Initial resistance was present in 14.6% (range 4.2-24.0%) of PA isolates in imipenem and 2.5% (range 0.0-7.4%) in comparator groups. Pooled clinical success rates for PA were 45.2% (range 0.0-72.0%) for imipenem and 74.9% (range 0.0-100.0%) for comparator regimens. Microbiologic eradication was achieved in 47.6% (range 0.0%-100.0%) of isolates in the imipenem and 52.8% (range 0.0%-100.0%) in the comparator groups. Resistance emerged in 38.7% (range 5.6-77.8%) PA isolates in imipenem and 21.9% (range 4.8-56.5%) in comparator groups.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In the 15 years of RCTs of imipenem for pneumonia, PA imipenem resistance rates are high, and PA clinical success and microbiologic eradication rates are directionally lower for imipenem than for comparators. Conversely, initial and treatment-emergent resistance is more likely with the imipenem than the comparator regimens.</p

In vitro activity of various combinations of antimicrobials against carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter species in Singapore

Journal of Antibiotics6212675-67

Management of meningitis due to antibiotic-resistant Acinetobacter species

Acinetobacter meningitis is becoming an increasingly common clinical entity, especially in the postneurosurgical setting, with mortality from this infection exceeding 15%. Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for therapy of postneurosurgical meningitis recommend either ceftazidime or cefepime as empirical coverage against Gram-negative pathogens. However, assessment of the pharmacodynamics of these cephalosporins in cerebrospinal fluid suggests that recommended doses will achieve pharmacodynamic targets against fewer than 10% of contemporary acinetobacter isolates. Thus, these antibiotics are poor options for suspected acinetobacter meningitis. From in vitro and pharmacodynamic perspectives, intravenous meropenem plus intraventricular administration of an aminoglycoside may represent a superior, albeit imperfect, regimen for suspected acinetobacter meningitis. For cases of meningitis due to carbapenem-resistant acinetobacter, use of tigecycline is not recommended on pharmacodynamic grounds. The greatest clinical experience rests with use of polymyxins, although an intravenous polymyxin alone is inadvisable. Combination with an intraventricularly administered antibiotic plus removal of infected neurosurgical hardware appears the therapeutic strategy most likely to succeed in this situation. Unfortunately, limited development of new antibiotics plus the growing threat of multidrug-resistant acinetobacter is likely to increase the problems posed by acinetobacter meningitis in the future