Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases (KPCs) were originally identified in the USA in 1996. Since then, these versatile β-lactamases have spread internationally among Gram-negative bacteria, especially K pneumoniae, although their precise epidemiology is diverse across countries and regions. The mortality described among patients infected with organisms positive for KPC is high, perhaps as a result of the limited antibiotic options remaining (often colistin, tigecycline, or aminoglycosides). Triple drug combinations using colistin, tigecycline, and imipenem have recently been associated with improved survival among patients with bacteraemia. In this Review, we summarise the epidemiology of KPCs across continents, and discuss issues around detection, present antibiotic options and those in development, treatment outcome and mortality, and infection control. In view of the limitations of present treatments and the paucity of new drugs in the pipeline, infection control must be our primary defence for now.

SUMMARY The spread of Enterobacteriaceae , primarily Klebsiella pneumoniae , producing KPC, VIM, IMP, and NDM carbapenemases, is causing an unprecedented public health crisis. Carbapenemase-producing enterobacteria (CPE) infect mainly hospitalized patients but also have been spreading in long-term care facilities. Given their multidrug resistance, therapeutic options are limited and, as discussed here, should be reevaluated and optimized. Based on susceptibility data, colistin and tigecycline are commonly used to treat CPE infections. Nevertheless, a review of the literature revealed high failure rates in cases of monotherapy with these drugs, whilst monotherapy with either a carbapenem or an aminoglycoside appeared to be more effective. Combination therapies not including carbapenems were comparable to aminoglycoside and carbapenem monotherapies. Higher success rates have been achieved with carbapenem-containing combinations. Pharmacodynamic simulations and experimental infections indicate that modification of the current patterns of carbapenem use against CPE warrants further attention. Epidemiological data, though fragmentary in many countries, indicate CPE foci and transmission routes, to some extent, whilst also underlining the lack of international collaborative systems that could react promptly and effectively. Fortunately, there are sound studies showing successful containment of CPE by bundles of measures, among which the most important are active surveillance cultures, separation of carriers, and assignment of dedicated nursing staff.

The polymyxin antibiotics colistin (polymyxin E) and polymyxin B became available in the 1950s and thus did not undergo contemporary drug development procedures. Their clinical use has recently resurged, assuming an important role as salvage therapy for otherwise untreatable gram‐negative infections. Since their reintroduction into the clinic, significant confusion remains due to the existence of several different conventions used to describe doses of the polymyxins, differences in their formulations, outdated product information, and uncertainties about susceptibility testing that has led to lack of clarity on how to optimally utilize and dose colistin and polymyxin B. We report consensus therapeutic guidelines for agent selection and dosing of the polymyxin antibiotics for optimal use in adult patients, as endorsed by the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), International Society of Anti‐Infective Pharmacology (ISAP), Society for Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP). The European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) endorses this document as a consensus statement. The overall conclusions in the document are endorsed by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). We established a diverse international expert panel to make therapeutic recommendations regarding the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the drugs and pharmacokinetic targets, polymyxin agent selection, dosing, dosage adjustment and monitoring of colistin and polymyxin B, use of polymyxin‐based combination therapy, intrathecal therapy, inhalation therapy, toxicity, and prevention of renal failure. The treatment guidelines provide the first ever consensus recommendations for colistin and polymyxin B therapy that are intended to guide optimal clinical use.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionTreatment options for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections are limited and CRE infections remain associated with high clinical failure and mortality rates, particularly in vulnerable patient populations. A Phase 3, multinational, open-label, randomized controlled trial (TANGO II) was conducted from 2014 to 2017 to evaluate the efficacy/safety of meropenem–vaborbactam monotherapy versus best available therapy (BAT) for CRE.MethodsA total of 77 patients with confirmed/suspected CRE infection (bacteremia, hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia, complicated intra-abdominal infection, complicated urinary tract infection/acute pyelonephritis) were randomized, and 47 with confirmed CRE infection formed the primary analysis population (microbiologic-CRE-modified intent-to-treat, mCRE-MITT). Eligible patients were randomized 2:1 to meropenem–vaborbactam (2 g/2 g over 3 h, q8h for 7–14 days) or BAT (mono/combination therapy with polymyxins, carbapenems, aminoglycosides, tigecycline; or ceftazidime-avibactam alone). Efficacy endpoints included clinical cure, Day-28 all-cause mortality, microbiologic cure, and overall success (clinical cure + microbiologic eradication). Safety endpoints included adverse events (AEs) and laboratory findings.ResultsWithin the mCRE-MITT population, cure rates were 65.6% (21/32) and 33.3% (5/15) [95% confidence interval (CI) of difference, 3.3% to 61.3%; P = 0.03)] at End of Treatment and 59.4% (19/32) and 26.7% (4/15) (95% CI of difference, 4.6% to 60.8%; P = 0.02) at Test of Cure;.Day-28 all-cause mortality was 15.6% (5/32) and 33.3% (5/15) (95% CI of difference, − 44.7% to 9.3%) for meropenem–vaborbactam versus BAT, respectively. Treatment-related AEs and renal-related AEs were 24.0% (12/50) and 4.0% (2/50) for meropenem–vaborbactam versus 44.0% (11/25) and 24.0% (6/25) for BAT. Exploratory risk–benefit analyses of composite clinical failure or nephrotoxicity favored meropenem–vaborbactam versus BAT (31.3% [10/32] versus 80.0% [12/15]; 95% CI of difference, − 74.6% to − 22.9%; P < 0.001).ConclusionsMonotherapy with meropenem–vaborbactam for CRE infection was associated with increased clinical cure, decreased mortality, and reduced nephrotoxicity compared with BAT.Clinical Trials RegistrationNCT02168946.FundingThe Medicines Company.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40121-018-0214-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.