Abstract:Currently, in vitro synergy with colistin has not translated into improved clinical outcomes. This study aimed to compare colistin combination therapy to colistin monotherapy in critically ill patients with multi-drug resistant gram-negative (MDR-GN) pneumonia. This was a retrospective analysis of critically ill adult patients receiving intravenous colistin for MDR-GN pneumonia comparing colistin combination therapy to colistin monotherapy with a primary endpoint of clinical cure. Combination therapy was defin… Show more
“…However they claimed that such effectiveness should be further explored in vivo to be considered for clinical use (Lagerbäck et al, 2016). Parchem et al (2016) confirmed that colistin combination therapy should be considered in critically ill patients with MDR Gram-negative pneumonia.…”
Section: Clinical Use and Indications Of Colistin In Pig Productionmentioning
Colistin (Polymyxin E) is one of the few cationic antimicrobial peptides commercialized in both human and veterinary medicine. For several years now, colistin has been considered the last line of defense against infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative such as Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Colistin has been extensively used orally since the 1960s in food animals and particularly in swine for the control of Enterobacteriaceae infections. However, with the recent discovery of plasmid-mediated colistin resistance encoded by the mcr-1 gene and the higher prevalence of samples harboring this gene in animal isolates compared to other origins, livestock has been singled out as the principal reservoir for colistin resistance amplification and spread. Co-localization of the mcr-1 gene and Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase genes on a unique plasmid has been also identified in many isolates from animal origin. The use of colistin in pigs as a growth promoter and for prophylaxis purposes should be banned, and the implantation of sustainable measures in pig farms for microbial infection prevention should be actively encouraged and financed. The scientific research should be encouraged in swine medicine to generate data helping to reduce the exacerbation of colistin resistance in pigs and in manure. The establishment of guidelines ensuring a judicious therapeutic use of colistin in pigs, in countries where this drug is approved, is of crucial importance. The implementation of a microbiological withdrawal period that could reduce the potential contamination of consumers with colistin resistant bacteria of porcine origin should be encouraged. Moreover, the management of colistin resistance at the human-pig-environment interface requires the urgent use of the One Health approach for effective control and prevention. This approach needs the collaborative effort of multiple disciplines and close cooperation between physicians, veterinarians, and other scientific health and environmental professionals. This review is an update on the chemistry of colistin, its applications and antibacterial mechanism of action, and on Enterobacteriaceae resistance to colistin in pigs. We also detail and discuss the One Health approach and propose guidelines for colistin resistance management.
“…However they claimed that such effectiveness should be further explored in vivo to be considered for clinical use (Lagerbäck et al, 2016). Parchem et al (2016) confirmed that colistin combination therapy should be considered in critically ill patients with MDR Gram-negative pneumonia.…”
Section: Clinical Use and Indications Of Colistin In Pig Productionmentioning
Colistin (Polymyxin E) is one of the few cationic antimicrobial peptides commercialized in both human and veterinary medicine. For several years now, colistin has been considered the last line of defense against infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative such as Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Colistin has been extensively used orally since the 1960s in food animals and particularly in swine for the control of Enterobacteriaceae infections. However, with the recent discovery of plasmid-mediated colistin resistance encoded by the mcr-1 gene and the higher prevalence of samples harboring this gene in animal isolates compared to other origins, livestock has been singled out as the principal reservoir for colistin resistance amplification and spread. Co-localization of the mcr-1 gene and Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase genes on a unique plasmid has been also identified in many isolates from animal origin. The use of colistin in pigs as a growth promoter and for prophylaxis purposes should be banned, and the implantation of sustainable measures in pig farms for microbial infection prevention should be actively encouraged and financed. The scientific research should be encouraged in swine medicine to generate data helping to reduce the exacerbation of colistin resistance in pigs and in manure. The establishment of guidelines ensuring a judicious therapeutic use of colistin in pigs, in countries where this drug is approved, is of crucial importance. The implementation of a microbiological withdrawal period that could reduce the potential contamination of consumers with colistin resistant bacteria of porcine origin should be encouraged. Moreover, the management of colistin resistance at the human-pig-environment interface requires the urgent use of the One Health approach for effective control and prevention. This approach needs the collaborative effort of multiple disciplines and close cooperation between physicians, veterinarians, and other scientific health and environmental professionals. This review is an update on the chemistry of colistin, its applications and antibacterial mechanism of action, and on Enterobacteriaceae resistance to colistin in pigs. We also detail and discuss the One Health approach and propose guidelines for colistin resistance management.
“…Addressed infections ranged from pneumonia (n = 10 studies) 7–16 , blood stream infections (n = 15 studies) 17–31 , osteoarticular infections (n = 1 study) 32 , and studies comprising mixed forms of infections (n = 27 studies) 33–59 . Two of the included studies were RCTs 36,43 , six case-control studies 7,9,15,17,53,55 and forty-five case series/cohort studies 8,10–14,16,18–35,37–42,44–52,54,56–59 . The studies included a total of 4514 patients: 41% of patients (n = 1848) were treated with monotherapy, 59% (n = 2666) with combination therapy.Figure 1Study selection.…”
Infections caused by carbapenemase-producing, multidrug-resistant (MDR), or extensively drug-resistant (XDR) Gram-negative bacteria constitute a major therapeutic challenge. Whether combination antibiotic therapy is superior to monotherapy remains unknown. In this systematic review and meta-analysis OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published by December 2016 comparing mono- with combination antibiotic therapy for infections with carbapenemase-producing, MDR, or XDR Gram-negative bacteria. Mortality and clinical cure rates served as primary and secondary outcome measures, respectively. Of 8847 initially identified studies, 53 studies – covering pneumonia (n = 10 studies), blood stream (n = 15), osteoarticular (n = 1), and mixed infections (n = 27) - were included. 41% (n = 1848) of patients underwent monotherapy, and 59% (n = 2666) combination therapy. In case series/cohort studies (n = 45) mortality was lower with combination- vs. monotherapy (RR 0.83, CI 0.73–0.93, p = 0.002, I2 = 24%). Subgroup analysis revealed lower mortality with combination therapy with at least two in-vitro active antibiotics, in blood stream infections, and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. No mortality difference was seen in case-control studies (n = 6) and RCTs (n = 2). Cure rates did not differ regardless of study type. The two included RCTs had a high and unknown risk of bias, respectively. 16.7% (1/6) of case-control studies and 37.8% (17/45) of cases series/cohort studies were of good quality, whereas quality was poor in the remaining studies. In conclusion, combination antimicrobial therapy of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria appears to be superior to monotherapy with regard to mortality.
“…Combination antibiotic therapy has been associated with improved clinical and microbiological outcomes when treating KPC Enterobacteriaceae in patients with pneumonia and severe sepsis [85][86][87][88][89]. However, robust prospective clinical trial data have been limited, with recommendations based on retrospective series with significant clinical heterogeneity.…”
Section: Combination Antimicrobial Therapy For Cre Infectionsmentioning
Purpose of Review Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) have emerged as a worldwide problem. Given their degree of immunosuppression and the level of contact with the healthcare system, solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are at a disproportionately higher risk of acquisition, colonization, and infection with CRE, and outcomes from infection tend to be worse compared to non-transplant patients. Therapeutic options are limited for CRE infections although several newer agents have recently been approved for use. How well these agents perform in the setting of immunosuppression and SOT is unclear. We sought to review the epidemiology of CRE in SOT and the management principles. Recent Findings CRE infections are becoming an increasing problem in SOT, and donor-derived infections present a challenge in the peri-transplant period. Newer treatments for CRE are emerging that are less toxic and potentially more effective than prior CRE-active agents, but supportive clinical data are limited. Newer beta-lactamase inhibitors have good activity against KPC carbapenemases, but they lack activity against metallo-beta-lactamases (e.g., NDM). Promising data is emerging with newer agents that have activity against most carbapenemases, but, again, clinical data is needed. Combination therapy in addition to optimal pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics may go some way to improve outcomes against these difficult-to-treat organisms. Other novel therapies that prevent the emergence of resistance (oral beta-lactamase inhibitors) and eradication of resistant Gram-negative colonization (fecal microbiota transplant) may eventually become part of a bundle approach to reduce CRE infections in the future. Summary As in non-transplant patients, CRE infections in the transplant setting are challenging to treat and prevent. Infection prevention and control remains crucial to prevent widespread dissemination, and unique challenges exist with donor-derived CRE and how best to manage recipients in the peri-transplant period. Newer treatments are now in early-phase clinical studies, and in vitro activity data are supportive for several agents providing hope for improved outcomes with these typically difficult-totreat and highly morbid infections in transplant recipients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
