Rationale and evidence for the use of new beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations and cefiderocol in critically ill patients

Abstract

Background Healthcare-associated infections involving Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) with difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR) phenotype are associated with impaired patient-centered outcomes and poses daily therapeutic challenges in most of intensive care units worldwide. Over the recent years, four innovative β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor (BL/BLI) combinations (ceftolozane–tazobactam, ceftazidime–avibactam, imipenem–relebactam and meropenem–vaborbactam) and a new siderophore cephalosporin (cefiderocol) have been approved for the treatment of certain DTR-GNB infections. The literature addressing their microbiological spectrum, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy and safety was exhaustively audited by our group to support the recent guidelines of the French Intensive Care Society on their utilization in critically ill patients. This narrative review summarizes the available evidence and unanswered questions on these issues. Methods A systematic search for English-language publications in PUBMED and the Cochrane Library database from inception to November 15, 2022. Results These drugs have demonstrated relevant clinical success rates and a reduced renal risk in most of severe infections for whom polymyxin- and/or aminoglycoside-based regimen were historically used as last-resort strategies—namely, ceftazidime–avibactam for infections due to Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)- or OXA-48-like-producing Enterobacterales, meropenem–vaborbactam for KPC-producing Enterobacterales, ceftazidime–avibactam/aztreonam combination or cefiderocol for metallo-β-lactamase (MBL)-producing Enterobacterales, and ceftolozane–tazobactam, ceftazidime–avibactam and imipenem–relebactam for non-MBL-producing DTR Pseudomonas aeruginosa. However, limited clinical evidence exists in critically ill patients. Extended-infusion scheme (except for imipenem–relebactam) may be indicated for DTR-GNB with high minimal inhibitory concentrations and/or in case of augmented renal clearance. The potential benefit of combining these agents with other antimicrobials remains under-investigated, notably for the most severe presentations. Other important knowledge gaps include pharmacokinetic information in particular situations (e.g., pneumonia, other deep-seated infections, and renal replacement therapy), the hazard of treatment-emergent resistance and possible preventive measures, the safety of high-dose regimen, the potential usefulness of rapid molecular diagnostic tools to rationalize their empirical utilization, and optimal treatment durations. Comparative clinical, ecological, and medico-economic data are needed for infections in whom two or more of these agents exhibit in vitro activity against the causative pathogen. Conclusions New BL/BLI combinations and cefiderocol represent long-awaited options for improving the management of DTR-GNB infections. Several research axes must be explored to better define the positioning and appropriate administration scheme of these drugs in critically ill patients.

Cefiderocol in Difficult-to-Treat Nf-GNB in ICU Settings

“…However, none of these trials were restricted to ICU patients, and only the CREDIBLE-CR trial focused on carbapenem-resistant pathogen. Some studies suggest that cefiderocol could be a therapeutic alternative to the current treatments available for managing infections caused by multi-drug resistant (MDR) bacteria in the ICU care setting [ 5 , 6 ]. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol compared to Best Available Therapy in the ICU setting for treating difficult-to-treat Nf-GNB.…”

Single-drug versus combination antimicrobial therapy in critically ill patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia due to Gram-negative pathogens: a multicenter retrospective cohort study

“…Along this line, single-drug therapies with an aminoglycoside or colistin were considered as adequate when fully active in vitro though the pulmonary diffusion of these agents may be suboptimal with low-dose regimen. Fourth, the outcome effect of combination therapy in pneumonia involving XDR or PDR Gram-negative bacteria could not be appraised due to the very low number of patients infected with such pathogens—dedicated studies are warranted to solve this question, especially with novel β-lactams [ 35 , 42 , 43 ]. Fifth, we compared the hazard of AKI between patients with combination and single-drug therapy; yet, adding a second agent to an effective pivotal drug may cause other antimicrobial-related side-effects that were not investigated in our work [ 44 , 45 ].…”

Management strategies for severe Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections

“…The doses recommended for different antipseudomonal agents [84,88,128,142,144,145] are listed in Table 2. Dose adjustments in case of renal insufficiency are detailed elsewhere [145].…”

“…The doses recommended for different antipseudomonal agents [84,88,128,142,144,145] are listed in Table 2. Dose adjustments in case of renal insufficiency are detailed elsewhere [145]. In patients with VAP, a post hoc analysis of the iDiapason trial, did not found any advantages of the dual active antibiotic therapy in term of mortality, length of mechanical ventilation.…”