Risk factors for treatment failure and mortality among hospitalized patients with complicated urinary tract infection: A multicenter retrospective cohort study (RESCUING study group)

Background. Complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs) are responsible for a major share of all antibiotic consumption in hospitals. We aim to describe risk factors for treatment failure and mortality among patients with cUTIs. Methods. A multinational, multicentre retrospective cohort study, conducted in 20 countries in Europe and the Middle East. Data were collected from patients' files on hospitalised patients with a diagnosis of cUTI during 2013-2014. Primary outcome was treatment failure, secondary outcomes included 30 days all-cause mortality,among other outcomes. Multivariable analysis using a logistic model and the hospital as a random variable was performed to identify independent predictors for these outcomes. Results. A total of 981 patients with cUTI were included. Treatment failure was observed in 26.6% (261/981), all cause 30-day mortality rate was 8.7% (85/976), most of these in patients with catheter related UTI (CaUTI). Risk factors for treatment failure in multivariable analysis were ICU admission (OR 5.07, 95% CI 3.18-8.07), septic shock (OR 1.92, 95% CI 0.93-3.98), corticosteroid treatment (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.12-3.54), bedridden (OR 2.11, 95%CI 1.4-3.18), older age (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.0071.03-), metastatic cancer (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.46-5.73) and CaUTI (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.04-2.11). Management variables, such as inappropriate empirical antibiotic treatment or days to starting antibiotics were not associated with treatment failure or 30-day mortality. More patients with pyelonephritis were given appropriate empirical antibiotic therapy than other CaUTI [110/171; 64.3% vs. 116/270; 43%, p <0.005], nevertheless, this afforded no advantage in treatment failure rates nor mortality in these patients. Conclusions. In patients with cUTI we found no benefit of early appropriate empirical treatment on survival rates or other outcomes. Physicians might consider supportive treatment and watchful waiting in stable patients until the causative pathogen is defined

Excluded versus included patients in a randomized controlled trial of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: relevance to external validity

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

Treatment Outcomes of Colistin- And Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii Infections: An Exploratory Subgroup Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: We evaluated the association between mortality and colistin resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii infections and the interaction with antibiotic therapy. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of patients with carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections treated with colistin or colistin-meropenem combination. We evaluated patients with infection caused by carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii (CRAB) identified as colistin susceptible (CoS) at the time of treatment and compared patients in which the isolate was confirmed as CoS with those whose isolates were retrospectively identified as colistin resistant (CoR) when tested by broth microdilution (BMD). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Results: Data were available for 266 patients (214 CoS and 52 CoR isolates). Patients with CoR isolates had higher baseline functional capacity and lower rates of mechanical ventilation than patients with CoS isolates. All-cause 28-day mortality was 42.3% (22/52) among patients with CoR strains and 52.8% (113/214) among patients with CoS isolates (P =. 174). After adjusting for variables associated with mortality, the mortality rate was lower among patients with CoR isolates (odds ratio [OR], 0.285 [95% confidence interval {CI},. 118-.686]). This difference was associated with treatment arm: Mortality rates among patients with CoR isolates were higher in those randomized to colistin-meropenem combination therapy compared to colistin monotherapy (OR, 3.065 [95% CI, 1.021-9.202]). Conclusions: Colistin resistance determined by BMD was associated with lower mortality among patients with severe CRAB infections. Among patients with CoR isolates, colistin monotherapy was associated with a better outcome compared to colistin-meropenem combination therapy. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01732250. © 2018 The Author(s) 2018

Colistin plus meropenem for carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative infections: in vitro synergism is not associated with better clinical outcomes

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 Disease

The Association Between Empirical Antibiotic Treatment and Mortality in Severe Infections Caused by Carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative Bacteria: A prospective study

Background. Empirical colistin should be avoided. We aimed to evaluate the association between covering empirical antibiotics (EAT) and mortality for infections caused by carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria (CRGNB). Methods. This was a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, including adults with bloodstream infections, pneumonia, or urosepsis caused by CRGNB. All patients received EAT followed by covering targeted therapy. The exposure variable was covering EAT in the first 48 hours. The outcome was 28-day mortality. We adjusted the analyses by multivariable regression analysis and propensity score matching. Results. The study included 406 inpatients with severe CRGNB infections, mostly Acinetobacter baumannii (312/406 [77%]). Covering EAT was given to 209 (51.5%) patients, mostly colistin (n = 200). Patients receiving noncovering EAT were older, more frequently unconscious and dependent, carrying catheters, and mechanically ventilated with pneumonia. Mortality was 84 of 197 (42.6%) with noncovering vs 96 of 209 (45.9%) with covering EAT (P = .504). Covering EAT was not associated with survival in the adjusted analysis; rather, there was a weak association with mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.84). Results were similar for colistin monotherapy and colistin-carbapenem combination EAT. In the propensity score-matched cohort (n = 338) covering antibiotics were not significantly associated with mortality (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, .91-2.22). Similar results were obtained in an analysis of 14-day mortality. Conclusions. Empirical use of colistin before pathogen identification, with or without a carbapenem, was not associated with survival following severe infections caused by CRGNBs, mainly A. baumannii. © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: [email protected]

Colistin resistance development following colistin-meropenem combination therapy versus colistin monotherapy in patients with infections caused by carbapenem-resistant organisms

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

Colistin plus meropenem for carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative infections: in vitro synergism is not associated with better clinical outcomes

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