Clinical Microbiology and Infection 24 (2018) 1070e1076
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
journal homepage: www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com
Original article
Antibiotic treatment of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant
Gram-negative bacilli: an international ESCMID cross-sectional survey
among infectious diseases specialists practicing in large hospitals
~ o 7,
L. Papst 1, *, B. Beovi
c 1, 2, C. Pulcini 3, 4, E. Durante-Mangoni 5, 6, J. Rodríguez-Ban
8
9
10, 11
12, 13
, M. Paul
on behalf of ESGAP, ESGBIS, ESGIE
K.S. Kaye , G.L. Daikos , L. Raka
and the CRGNB treatment survey study groupy
1)
Department of Infectious Diseases, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slovenia
Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
3)
Universit
e de Lorraine, EA 4360 APEMAC, Nancy, France
4)
CHRU de Nancy, Service de Maladies Infectieuses et Tropicales, Nancy, France
5)
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Italy
6)
Unit of Infectious and Transplant Medicine, AORN dei Colli-Monaldi Hospital, Naples, Italy
7)
Unidad Clínica de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena/Departamento de Medicina, Universidad de Sevilla/
Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla (IBiS), Seville, Spain
8)
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
9)
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Laikon General Hospital, Athens, Greece
10)
National Institute of Public Health of Kosova, Prishtina, Kosovo
11)
Medical Faculty, University of Prishtina, Kosovo
12)
Infectious Diseases Institute, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
13)
Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
2)
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 25 October 2017
Received in revised form
12 January 2018
Accepted 17 January 2018
Available online 1 February 2018
Objectives: To explore contemporary antibiotic management of infections caused by carbapenemresistant Gram-negative bacteria in hospitals.
Methods: Cross-sectional, internet-based questionnaire survey. We contacted representatives of all
hospitals with more than 800 acute-care hospital beds in France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Kosovo, Slovenia,
Spain and selected hospitals in the USA. We asked respondents to describe the most common actual
practice at their hospital regarding management of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa through close-ended questions.
Results: Between January and June 2017, 115 of 141 eligible hospitals participated (overall response rate
81.6%, country-specific rates 66.7%e100%). Most were tertiary-care (99/114, 86.8%), university-affiliated
(110/115, 89.1%) hospitals and most representatives were infectious disease specialists (99/115, 86.1%).
Combination therapy was prescribed in 114/115 (99.1%) hospitals at least occasionally. Respondents were
more likely to consider combination therapy when treating bacteraemia, pneumonia and central nervous
system infections and for Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii similarly. Combination of a
polymyxin with a carbapenem was used in most cases, whereas combinations of a polymyxin with
tigecycline, an aminoglycoside, fosfomycin or rifampicin were also common. Monotherapy was used for
treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, usually with an aminoglycoside or a polymyxin. The
intended goal of combination therapy was to improve the effectiveness of the treatment and to prevent
development of resistance. In general, respondents shared the misconception that combination therapy
is supported by strong scientific evidence.
Editor: A. Huttner
Keywords:
Acinetobacter baumannii
Carbapenem
Carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli
Combination therapy
Enterobacteriaceae
Polymyxin
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Survey
* Corresponding author. L. Papst, Department of Infectious Diseases, University
Medical Centre Ljubljana, Japljeva 2, 1525 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
E-mail address: lea_papst@yahoo.com (L. Papst).
y
Members are listed in the Acknowledgements section.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2018.01.015
1198-743X/© 2018 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Papst et al. / Clinical Microbiology and Infection 24 (2018) 1070e1076
1071
Conclusions: Combination therapy was the preferred treatment strategy for infections caused by
carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria among hospital representatives, even though high-quality
evidence for carbapenem-based combination therapy is lacking. L. Papst, Clin Microbiol Infect
2018;24:1070
© 2018 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All
rights reserved.
Introduction
Treatment of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gramnegative bacilli (CRGNB) represents a difficult challenge for physicians because of the paucity of antibiotics active against these
bacteria and potential inferior efficacy of the old drugs [1]. Mortality rates are high and despite increasing incidence of these infections worldwide there is no consensus on the most appropriate
treatment strategy due to lack of high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [1,2].
In vitro studies suggest synergistic interactions between several
antibiotic combinations against CRGNBs. Combinations that have
shown synergy include colistin and rifampicin [3e5], carbapenem
and sulbactam [4], polymyxin and a carbapenem [6,7], tigecycline
and colistin [8], carbapenem and an aminoglycoside [9] and double
carbapenem combinations [10,11]. Interactions are dependent on
bacterial species (Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa,
Acinetobacter baumannii), the inoculum and the mechanisms of
resistance [7].
Following these in vitro data, observational studies in the last
decade suggested that combination therapy with two or more
agents was associated with better outcomes compared with monotherapy with an active antibiotic [12e15], at least in patients with
a high risk of death [16]. Unlike the in vitro studies, the observational studies commonly do not address defined antibiotic combinations [13]. Evaluating effectiveness from these studies is
complicated due to difficulties in avoiding selection bias, addressing confounding and assigning the treatment groups, as well as
poor adherence to the assigned regimen in clinical practice [17,18].
The aim of our cross-sectional questionnaire survey was to
explore how hospital infection specialists manage infections
caused by CRGNB in selected European countries, Israel and
selected hospitals in the USA. We wished to record the most
common antibiotic practices along with factors that influenced the
decision on antibiotic choice.
giving advice on antibiotic treatment or the professionals responsible for the antimicrobial stewardship programme. We asked respondents to reply describing the most common actual practice at
their hospital. Only one participant from a particular hospital was
included. In Europe and Israel we included all hospitals with more
than 800 acute-care hospital beds (medicine/surgery/obstetrics) in
countries reporting a high prevalence of CRGNB: France, Greece,
Israel, Italy, Kosovo, Slovenia and Spain. In the USA, we selected
hospitals where at least ten patients per year were treated with
polymyxins, based on surveys performed by KK for clinical studies
(Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina).
Survey administration
One investigator per country provided the list of all eligible
hospitals in the selected European countries, Israel and the USA.
One senior specialist (starting with the head of the infectious diseases/clinical microbiology service or pharmacist specialized in
infectious diseases and antimicrobial stewardship) per hospital was
sent an invitation by the survey coordinator and the national
contact via email. If a response was not obtained we searched for
another contact person. Participants were able to access the questionnaire multiple times to allow for possible changes and
completion at later times.
The survey was voluntary, with no incentives offered to participants (other than being listed as an investigator).
Response rates
The unit measured with regards to the survey responses was the
hospital. Response rates were calculated as number of hospitals
from which an answer was recorded/total number of participating
hospitals, overall and per country. Information on hospital name
and country was used to screen for duplicate entries, but all data
were subsequently anonymized for the analyses.
Materials and methods
Survey design
The study was a cross-sectional internet-based questionnaire
survey on therapy for infections caused by CRGNB. The questionnaire was designed with closed-ended questions and distributed
using the SurveyMonkey® platform [19]. We requested information
on the specialty of the participant, hospital name, and size and type
of hospital. Questions on monotherapy, double combination and
triple combination therapy of infections caused by different
carbapenem-resistant bacteria followed [20]. Finally, the use of
carbapenems, polymyxins and tigecycline was investigated (the full
questionnaire is available in the Supplementary material). The
questionnaire was developed by two primary investigators (LP, MP)
and pre-tested by all authors for clarity and technical functionality.
Our target population comprised infectious diseases (ID), clinical microbiology (CM) physicians or pharmacists treating patients,
Statistical analysis
Both completed and partially completed questionnaires were
analysed using the number of completed responses per item as the
denominator.
Results
The survey was administered between January and June 2017.
A total of 115 of 141 invited hospitals participated in the study
(overall response rate 81.6%, country-specific rates 66.7%e100%)
(see Supplementary material, Table S1). The vast majority of
respondents were ID specialists (99/115, 86.1%). Most participating centres were tertiary care (99/114, 86.8%) and universityaffiliated (110/115, 89.1%) hospitals (see Supplementary material,
Table S2).
1072
L. Papst et al. / Clinical Microbiology and Infection 24 (2018) 1070e1076
Factors influencing antibiotic choice
Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae
Almost half of the respondents (54/111, 48.6%) reported having
no guidelines regarding the treatment of infections caused by
CRGNB, with the remainder having local guidelines (19.8%), national guidelines (18.9%) or both (12.6%). Source of infection,
severity of the disease and the pathogen MIC for the antibiotic were
most frequently regarded as very important factors when choosing
the antibiotic regimen for the treatment of infections caused by
CRGNB (Table 1). The type of isolated microorganism and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile of the antibiotic were also
considered important, whereas a patient's immune status was a
lesser determinant of treatment choice.
Treatment strategies for infections caused by carbapenemresistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) are presented in Table 5. The
mechanisms of carbapenem resistance reported by respondents as
most frequent in their practice were production of Klebsiella
pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC) (64%) and oxacillinase-48 (OXA48) (47.4%) (see Supplementary material, Table S3). Combination
therapy was a common strategy for treatment of CRE. When
monotherapy was considered, aminoglycosides (40/57, 70.2%) or
ceftazidime/avibactam (20/57, 35.1%) were used for complicated
urinary tract infections (cUTIs) and tigecycline was used
especially for intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) (20/57, 35.1%) and
skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs) (20/57, 35.1%). The most
popular choices for double combination therapy were combinations of a polymyxin with a carbapenem (e.g. for treating bacteraemia in 63.9% (67/105) of hospitals) followed by a polymyxin with
tigecycline (e.g. for treating IAIs in 58.1% (61/105) of hospitals). For
treatment of IAIs and SSTIs, combinations of tigecycline with either
a carbapenem or an aminoglycoside were common and the combination of an aminoglycoside with fosfomycin (34/105, 32.4%) was
often used for cUTIs. For triple combination therapy, a regimen
containing a polymyxin, tigecycline and either a carbapenem (e.g.
for treating bacteraemia in 55.6% (40/72) of hospitals) or an aminoglycoside (e.g. for treating bacteraemia in 29.2% (21/72) of hospitals) was often used in participating hospitals.
Antibiotics used
The polymyxin used in almost all participating hospitals was
colistin, most frequently dosed twice daily following a loading dose
of 9 million international units (Table 2). Therapeutic drug monitoring for polymyxins was routinely used in 5/112 (4.5%) hospitals
and was available for specific indications (e.g. renal failure) in 13/
112 (11.6%) hospitals. The use of aerosolized polymyxin was
frequent for ventilator-associated pneumonia (86/112, 76.8%). In
more than half of hospitals, tigecycline was used in higher doses
than approved: 200 mg daily in 54.5% (60/110) and 150 mg daily in
6.4% (7/110) of the hospitals. When included in combination therapy, the most common carbapenem used was meropenem (100/
109, 91.7%) and prolonged infusions of carbapenems were
commonly used (Table 3). When asked about a MIC threshold for
carbapenem use for CRGNB, most respondents considered using a
carbapenem-containing combination when the carbapenem MIC
was 8 mg/L.
Extensively drug-resistant carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa
Antibiotic choices for treatment of infections caused by extensively drug-resistant carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa (XDR
CRPa) are shown in Table 6. Monotherapy was used mostly for cUTIs
and ceftolozane/tazobactam (41/66, 62.1%) was the preferred option, followed by aminoglycosides (32/66, 48.5%) or polymyxins
(23/66, 34.8%). When treating with combination, a polymyxin was
usually used as a backbone with a carbapenem (e.g. for treating
bacteraemia in 54.7% (52/95) of hospitals), with an aminoglycoside
or fosfomycin added to it. For triple combination therapy a polymyxin and a carbapenem were usually combined with either fosfomycin or an aminoglycoside.
Combination therapy
Combination therapy was prescribed at least sometimes in 114/
115 (99.1%) hospitals. Respondents were more likely to consider
combination therapy when treating bacteraemia, pneumonia and
central nervous system infections and for Enterobactericeae,
P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii similarly (Table 4). When asked on
what the decision to use combination rather than monotherapy was
based, 63/110 (57.3%) declared they relied on in vitro studies, 69.1%
relied on observational studies, 55.5% relied on RCTs, 68.2% on systematic reviews and 53.6% on personal experience. The intended
goal of combination therapy was most commonly to improve the
effectiveness of the treatment (103/110, 93.6%) or to prevent development of resistance (73.6%). Less commonly, combination therapy
was used to avoid toxicity through dose reduction (5.5%).
Extensively drug-resistant carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii
Treatment options for infections caused by extensively drugresistant carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii (XDR CRAb) are presented in Table 7. Monotherapy was used in 46/96 (47.9%) hospitals
and mainly for cUTIs. Aminoglycosides (29/46, 63%) and polymyxins (30/46, 65.2%) were the main treatment for cUTIs and
Table 1
Importance of different factors when choosing an antibiotic for treating infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli
Factor
Source of infection (e.g. pneumonia, urinary tract infection etc.)
Severity of the disease
Immune status of the patient
Renal or hepatic impairment
Type of isolated microorganism (e.g. Klebsiella pneumoniae,
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, etc.)
Type of carbapenemase (e.g. Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase,
New Delhi metallo-b-lactamase etc.)
Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for the antibiotic
Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile of the antibiotic
Toxicity profile of the antibiotic
Interactions of the antibiotic with other drugs
n (%), N ¼ 110
Not important
Moderately important
Very important
1
2
0
2
1
15
15
50
53
25
94
93
60
55
84
(0.9)
(1.8)
(0)
(1.8)
(0.9)
(13.6)
(13.6)
(45.5)
(48.2)
(22.7)
(85.5)
(84.5)
(54.5)
(50)
(76.4)
14 (12.7)
38 (34.5)
58 (52.7)
2 (1.8)
1 (0.9)
4 (3.6)
15 (13.6)
17
24
53
56
91
85
53
39
(15.5)
(21.8)
(48.2)
(50.9)
(82.7)
(77.3)
(48.2)
(35.5)
L. Papst et al. / Clinical Microbiology and Infection 24 (2018) 1070e1076
Table 2
Polymyxin use in participating centres
Characteristic
Number of hospitals
Main polymyxin used
Colistin
Polymyxin B
Both polymyxins
Use of a loading dose
Colistin schedule b
Twice daily
Thrice daily
Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)
Routinely
In specific situations
Do not use
No access to TDM for polymyxins
Aerosolized polymyxin with systemic antibiotics
for ventilator-associated pneumonia
N ¼ 112
105 (93.8%)
1 (0.9%)
6 (5.4%)
99/111 (89.2%)
N ¼ 110
75 (68.2%)
35 (31.8%)
N ¼ 112
5 (4.5%)
13 (11.6%)
41 (36.6%)
53 (47.3%)
86/112 (76.8%)
a
b
a
9 million international units in 96 hospitals.
Polymyxin B was given as a 2.5 or 3 mg/kg dose twice daily (n ¼ 6).
Table 3
Carbapenem-containing combination regimens for carbapenem-resistant Gramnegative bacilli
Carbapenem used for combination therapy
Doripenem
Imipenem
Meropenem
Ertapenem
Double-carbapenem combination therapy
(ertapenem combined with another carbapenem)
No carbapenem-containing combinations
Carbapenem MIC at which its use is considered
MIC 4 mg/L
MIC 8 mg/L
MIC 16 mg/L
MIC 32 mg/L
Carbapenem use regardless of the MIC value
Use of prolonged carbapenem infusion in combinations
Yes
No
n (%), N ¼ 109
2 (1.8)
26 (23.9)
100 (91.7)
7 (6.4)
26 (23.9)
8 (7.3)
n (%), N ¼ 106
10 (9.4)
47 (44.3)
20 (18.9)
10 (9.4)
19 (17.9)
n (%), N ¼ 105
76 (72.4)
29 (27.6)
Table 4
Indications for use of combination therapy
Source of infection
Complicated urinary tract infections
Pneumonia
Intra-abdominal infections
Skin and soft-tissue infections
Central nervous system infections
Bacteraemia of any source
Bacteria
Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae
Carbapenem-resistant extensively drug-resistant
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Carbapenem-resistant extensively drug-resistant
Acinetobacter baumannii
n (%), N ¼ 110
41 (37.3)
92 (83.6)
80 (72.7)
42 (38.2)
96 (87.3)
91 (82.7)
n (%), N ¼ 109
98 (89.9)
93 (85.3)
90 (82.5)
polymyxins for various different infections. Most respondents used
double combination therapy for infections caused by CRAb. Combinations of a polymyxin with a carbapenem (e.g. for treating
bacteraemia in 60% (48/80) of hospitals) were most frequently
followed by a polymyxin combined with either tigecycline or
rifampin. Triple combination therapy was as commonly used as
monotherapy; a polymyxin plus tigecycline with a carbapenem or
rifampicin were the preferred choices.
Differences between participating countries
Israel was the only country where monotherapy was the
preferred choice of treatment for infections caused by CRGNB, in
1073
all other countries combination therapy, usually the association of
two antibiotics, was the standard of care. However, monotherapy
for cUTIs was also very common in Kosovo, Slovenia, Spain and the
USA. There were no major differences in the selection of most
commonly used antibiotics, but some distinctions between
countries were noted. Ceftolozane/tazobactam was commonly
used for treatment of cUTIs and pneumonia caused by XDR CRPa in
France, Italy, Spain and the USA, whereas ceftazidime/avibactam
was used often for treatment of infections caused by CRE in the
USA. Polymyxin B was used only in some hospitals in the USA,
all other hospitals used colistin. These differences were dictated
by
availability,
as
ceftolozane/tazobactam,
ceftazidime/
avibactam, polymyxin B and intravenous fosfomycin were not
available in all countries at the time of the survey. Country level
data are presented in detail in the Supplementary material
(Tables S7eS14).
Discussion
The aim of our survey was to explore treatment regimens for
infections caused by CRGNB used by hospital infection specialists in
various countries. Our results show that source of infection,
severity of the disease and the MIC for the antibiotic were the most
important factors influencing the antibiotic choice. Double combination therapy was the preferred strategy for CRGNB infections,
especially when treating bacteraemia, pneumonia and central
nervous system infections. Combination of a polymyxin with a
carbapenem was used in most cases, whereas combinations of a
polymyxin with tigecycline, an aminoglycoside, fosfomycin or
rifampicin were also common. Monotherapy was mainly used for
treatment of cUTIs, usually with an aminoglycoside or a polymyxin.
Ceftazidime/avibactam, approved by the US Food and Drug
Administration at the time of the survey but not yet by the European Medical Association, was often used for monotherapy of infections caused by CRE in USA, whereas ceftolozane/tazobactam
was used for monotherapy of infections caused by XDR CRPa in
all countries except Israel. Among polymyxins, colistin was
almost universally used, mostly dosed twice daily after the initial
9 million international units loading dose. In more than 10% of
the hospitals a loading dose was not used. Participants felt
comfortable adding a carbapenem when the MIC was 8 mg/L,
and carbapenems were commonly administered in prolonged
infusions. Tigecycline was generally used for treating IAIs and
SSTIs, often in higher-than-approved doses.
In general, respondents shared the misconception that combination therapy is supported by strong scientific evidence (i.e. RCTs).
In fact, there were three RCTs published at the time of the survey
that tested only two interventions, only for A. baumanniidcolistin/
rifampicin versus colistin [21,22] and colistin/fosfomycin versus
colistin [23]. There were no published RCTs on carbapenem combination therapy for CRGNBs (two underway at the time of the
survey: NCT01732250, NCT01597973). Many participants relied on
systematic reviews; systematic reviews of observational studies do
not necessarily provide better evidence than the included studies. A
recent systematic review graded the quality of the evidence on
combination therapy for CRGNBs as very low-quality data that
should not be used in guideline development or to support a
recommendation [18].
Clinical studies do not always mirror the results of in vitro
studies [24]. Exact bacterial inoculum and antibiotic doses can be
easily simultaneously assessed on agar plates but this may not be
replicated in an individual with sepsis. Even if combination therapy
were to be timed perfectly, drug penetration to the site of infection
cannot be controlled. Despite many in vitro studies demonstrating
synergistic interactions and prevention of resistant strain
1074
L. Papst et al. / Clinical Microbiology and Infection 24 (2018) 1070e1076
Table 5
Most frequent antibiotic regimens for targeted treatment for infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae
Total N ¼ 114
cUTI
Monotherapy (N ¼ 57, 50%)
POL
20 (35.1)
TIG
5 (8.8)
AMG
40 (70.2)
FOS
19 (33.3)
CAZ/AVI
20 (35.1)
Double combination therapy (N ¼ 105, 92.1%)
POL þ TIG
13 (10)
POL þ CARB
53 (50.5)
TIG þ CARB
6 (5.7)
TIG þ AMG
9 (8.6)
AMG þ FOS
34 (32.4)
Triple combination therapy (N ¼ 72, 63.2%)
POL þ TIG þ CARB
12 (16.7)
POL þ TIG þ AMG
9 (12.5)
POL þ TIG þ FOS
4 (5.6)
POL þ AMG þ FOS
17 (23.6)
Double CARB þ POL
8 (11.1)
a
Pneumonia
IAI
SSTI
CNSI
Bacteraemia
18 (31.6)
9 (15.8)
6 (10.5)
1 (1.8)
16 (28.1)
10 (17.5)
20 (35.1)
8 (14)
1 (1.8)
17 (29.8)
12 (21.2)
20 (35.1)
7 (12.3)
0 (0)
16 (28.1)
7
3
3
3
5
17 (29.8)
8 (14)
14 (24.6)
3 (5.3)
17 (29.8)
43 (41)
63 (60)
24 (22.9)
12 (11.4)
8 (7.6)
61 (58.1)
52 (49.5)
40 (38.1)
32 (30.5)
8 (7.6)
40 (38.1)
35 (33.3)
26 (24.8)
26 (24.8)
8 (7.6)
9 (8.6)
52 (49.5)
9 (8.6)
3 (2.9)
7 (6.7)
34
67
21
18
18
(32.4)
(63.9)
(20)
(17.1)
(17.1)
39 (54.2)
17 (23.6)
14 (19.4)
7 (9.7)
11 (15.3)
36 (50)
17 (23.6)
8 (11.1)
4 (5.6)
7 (9.7)
22 (30.6)
6 (8.3)
6 (8.3)
2 (2.8)
5 (6.9)
21 (29.2)
6 (8.3)
8 (11.1)
4 (5.6)
12 (16.7)
40
21
13
15
13
(55.6)
(29.2)
(18.1)
(20.8)
(18.1)
(12.3)
(5.3)
(5.3)
(5.3)
(8.8)
Abbreviations: cUTI, complicated urinary tract infection; IAI, intra-abdominal infection; SSTI, skin and soft-tissue infection; CNSI, central nervous system infection; POL,
polymyxin; TIG, tigecycline; AMG, aminoglycoside; FOS, fosfomycin; CAZ/AVI, ceftazidime/avibactam; CARB, carbapenem.
a
Respondents could choose more than one treatment regimen. Detailed data on all antibiotic regimens are presented in the Supplementary material (Table S4).
Table 6
Most frequent antibiotic regimens for targeted treatment of infections caused by extensively drug-resistant carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosaa
Total N ¼ 110
cUTI
Monotherapy (N ¼ 66, 60%)
POL
23 (34.8)
AMG
32 (48.5)
FOS
11 (16.7)
TOL/TAZ
41 (62.1)
Double combination therapy (N ¼ 95, 86.4%)
POL þ CARB
41 (43.2)
POL þ RIF
6 (6.3)
POL þ AMG
33 (34.7)
POL þ FOS
30 (31.6)
AMG þ FOS
30 (31.6)
Triple combination therapy (N ¼ 48, 43.6%)
POL þ CARB þ RIF
7 (14.6)
POL þ CARB þ AMG
15 (31.3)
POL þ CARB þ FOS
17 (35.4)
POL þ AMG þ RIF
5 (10.4)
POL þ AMG þ FOS
12 (25)
Pneumonia
IAI
SSTI
CNSI
Bacteraemia
15 (22.7)
4 (6.1)
0 (0)
27 (40.9)
12 (18.2)
6 (9.1)
0 (0)
28 (42.4)
14 (21.2)
5 (7.6)
1 (1.5)
23 (34.8)
7 (10.6)
1 (1.5)
1 (1.5)
10 (15.2)
13 (19.7)
8 (12.1)
1 (1.5)
20 (30.3)
58
15
27
26
12
(61.1)
(15.8)
(28.4)
(27.4)
(12.6)
51 (53.7)
9 (9.5)
32 (33.7)
18 (18.9)
11 (11.6)
40
10
23
19
12
(42.1)
(10.5)
(24.2)
(20)
(12.6)
43 (45.2)
12 (12.6)
9 (9.5)
15 (15.8)
7 (7.4)
52
13
35
22
16
(54.7)
(13.7)
(36.8)
(23.2)
(16.8)
17 (35.4)
16 (33.3)
12 (25)
4 (8.3)
9 (18.8)
14 (29.2)
16 (33.3)
10 (20.8)
7 (14.6)
6 (12.5)
13 (27.1)
13 (27.1)
9 (18.8)
5 (10.4)
5 (10.4)
16 (33.3)
9 (18.8)
14 (29.2)
8 (16.7)
7 (14.6)
15
20
12
11
10
(31.3)
(41.7)
(25)
(22.9)
(20.8)
Abbreviations: cUTI, complicated urinary tract infection; IAI, intra-abdominal infection; SSTI, skin and soft-tissue infection; CNSI, central nervous system infection; POL,
polymyxin; AMG, aminoglycoside; FOS, fosfomycin; TOL/TAZ, ceftolozane/tazobactam; CARB, carbapenem; RIF, rifampicin.
a
Respondents could choose more than one treatment regimen. Detailed data on all antibiotic regimens are presented in the Supplementary material (Table S5).
Table 7
Most frequent antibiotic regimens for targeted treatment of infections caused by extensively drug-resistant carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii
Total N ¼ 96
cUTI
Monotherapy (N ¼ 46, 47.9%)
POL
30 (65.2)
TIG
4 (8.7)
AMG
29 (63)
Double combination therapy (N ¼ 80, 83.3%)
POL þ TIG
18 (22.5)
POL þ CARB
35 (43.8)
POL þ RIF
15 (18.8)
POL þ FOS
20 (25)
TIG þ CARB
4 (5)
Triple combination therapy (N ¼ 43, 44.8%)
POL þ TIG þ CARB
13 (30.2)
POL þ TIG þ RIF
7 (16.3)
POL þ TIG þ AMG
5 (11.6)
POL þ TIG þ FOS
6 (14)
TIG þ RIF þ AMG
5 (11.6)
a
Pneumonia
IAI
SSTI
CNSI
Bacteraemia
21 (45.7)
5 (10.9)
5 (10.9)
16 (34.8)
14 (30.4)
5 (10.9)
18 (39.1)
16 (34.8)
5 (10.9)
13 (28.3)
1 (2.2)
1 (2.2)
19 (41.3)
3 (6.5)
9 (19.6)
37
42
24
16
14
(46.3)
(52.5)
(30)
(20)
(17.5)
39 (48.8)
40 (50)
15 (18.8)
9 (11.3)
19 (23.8)
33
33
15
11
14
(41.3)
(41.3)
(18.8)
(13.8)
(17.5)
8 (10)
35 (43.8)
17 (21.3)
10 (12.5)
7 (8.8)
26
48
19
14
13
24 (55.8)
18 (41.9)
8 (18.6)
7 (16.3)
5 (11.6)
24 (55.8)
13 (30.2)
10 (23.2)
9 (20.9)
7 (16.3)
18 (41.9)
15 (34.9)
7 (16.3)
6 (14)
7 (16.3)
15 (34.9)
11 (25.6)
5 (11.6)
7 (16.3)
2 (4.7)
22 (51.2)
14 (32.6)
15 (34.9)
7 (16.3)
9 (20.9)
(32.5)
(60)
(23.8)
(17.5)
(16.3)
Abbreviations: cUTI, complicated urinary tract infection; IAI, intra-abdominal infection; SSTI, skin and soft-tissue infection; CNSI, central nervous system infection; POL,
polymyxin; TIG, tigecycline; AMG, aminoglycoside; CARB, carbapenem; RIF, rifampicin; FOS, fosfomycin.
a
Respondents could choose more than one treatment regimen. Detailed data on all antibiotic regimens are presented in the Supplementary material (Table S6).
L. Papst et al. / Clinical Microbiology and Infection 24 (2018) 1070e1076
emergence for b-lactam/aminoglycoside combination therapy
against Gram-negative bacteria, clinical studies failed to prove
clinical benefits and there is no clinical demonstration of less
resistance with the combination [25e28]. Indeed, the only RCTs to
date of combination therapy for CRGNBs did not demonstrate
reduced mortality or clinical failure with combination therapy
[21e23].
Carbapenems, mainly meropenem, were the most common
antibiotics added to polymyxins in combination therapy regimens.
Carbapenems are among the antibiotics most commonly associated with Clostridium difficile diarrhoea [29]. An even graver
consequence of carbapenem treatment is induction of carbapenem resistance and selection of carbapenem-resistant strains.
Studies show that carbapenem use is one of the most important
risk factors for colonization and infection with CRGNB [30]. With
carbapenem use as one of the main drivers of carbapenem resistance its routine use as part of the combination therapy for
CRGNB infections in the absence of good-quality data remains
questionable.
The strength of this survey is a high response rate, giving an
insight into everyday practices of infection specialists dealing with
CRGNB infections in participating countries. We restricted inclusion
to large hospitals in Europe, since these hospitals are more likely to
care for patients with severe CRGNB infections. The main limitation
is that we did not access actual antibiotic prescription data, but
relied on a hospital representative. Responses might reflect personal opinion of participants on treatment strategies. However, we
made it clear in the online survey and in correspondence with respondents that the survey intended to reflect actual common
practice at the participating hospital.
In conclusion, combination therapy is the preferred treatment
strategy for infections caused by CRGNB even though high-quality
evidence (supporting or not supporting this approach) are lacking. The absence of good-quality studies, guidelines and recommendations resulted in a myriad of combination antibiotic
regimens recorded in the survey. In the era of ever-growing carbapenem resistance, good-quality studies (especially RCTs) are urgently needed to ascertain the most effective treatment strategies
regarding CRGNB infections. Evidence-based ESCMID guidelines on
the treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gramnegative bacilli are to be published in 2018 and might help to
standardize the management of CRGNBs.
Transparency declaration
EDM received funding by NIH for project HHSN272201000039C.
JRB received funding for research from Plan Nacional de I þ D þ i
n General
2013e2016 and Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Subdireccio
n Cooperativa, Ministerio de
de Redes y Centros de Investigacio
Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Spanish Network for
Research in Infectious Diseases (REIPI RD16/0016/0001)dcofinanced by European Development Regional Fund A way to achieve
Europe, Operative Programme Intelligent Growth 2014e2020.
Other authors report no potential conflict of interest.
Funding
Part of this work was funded by the EU-project AIDA (grant
Health-F3-2011-278348) to MP, EDM, GLD and by an ESCMID
Mentorship Programme (LP).
Acknowledgments
Members and participating centres of the CRGNB survey study
group: Abbo L (Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, FL, USA),
1075
Abgueguen P (CHU Angers, Angers, France), Almirante B (Hospital
n, Barcelona, Spain), Azzini AM (University
Universitari Vall d'Hebro
of Verona, Verona, Italy), Bani-Sadr F (CHU Reims, Reims, France),
Bassetti M (Santa Maria della Misericordia University Hospital,
Udine, Italy), Ben-Ami R (Tel Aviv Medical Centre, Tel Aviv, Israel),
Beovic B (University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia),
raud G (CHU Poitiers, Poitiers, France), Botelho-Nevers E (CHU
Be
Saint-Etienne,
Saint-Etienne,
France), Bou G (Hospital Universitario
~
~
A Coruna, La Coruna, Spain), Boutoille D (CHU Nantes, Nantes,
A (CHU de Martinique, Fort-de-France, France),
France), Cabie
Cacopardo B (AO Garibaldi, Catania, Italy), Cascio A (AOUP "P.
Giaccone", University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy), Cassir N (CHU
Marseille, Marseille, France), Castelli F (ASST Spedali Civili di
Brescia, Brescia, Italy), Cecala M (ARNAS Civico Palermo, Palermo,
Italy), Charmillon A (CHRU Nancy, Nancy, France), Chirouze C
(CHRU Besançon, Besançon, France), Cisneros JM (Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Seville, Spain), Colmenero JD (Hospital
laga, Ma
laga, Spain), Coppola N (UniRegional Universitario de Ma
versity of Campania, Naples, Italy), Corcione S (Department of
Medical Sciences, Infectious Diseases, University of Turin, Italy),
Daikos GL (General University Hospital of Athens "Laiko", Athens,
Greece), Dalla Gasperina D (University of Insubria, Varese, Italy), De
la Calle Cabrera C (Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain),
Delobel P (CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France), Di Caprio D (AORN
Sant'Anna e San Sebastiano, Caserta, Italy), Durante Mangoni E
(AORN dei Colli, Ospedale Monaldi, Naples, Italy), Dupon M (CHU
Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France), Ettahar N (CH Valenciennes, Valenciennes, France), Falagas ME (Henry Dunant Hospital Centre, Athens, Greece), Falcone M (Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy),
~ as MC (Hospital Universitario Marque
s de Valdecilla,
Farin
Santander, Spain), Faure E (CHRU Lille, Lille, France), Forestier E (CH
tropole Savoie, Chambe
ry, France), Foti G (Ospedale di Reggio
Me
Calabria, Reggio Calabria, Italy), Gallagher J (Temple University
Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA), Gattuso G (C. Poma Hospital,
Mantova, Italy), Gendrin V (CH Belfort, Belfort, France), Gentile I
(University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy), Giacobbe DR
(IRCCS AOU San Martino-IST, Genoa, Italy), Gogos CA (University of
Patras, Patras, Greece), Grandiere Perez L (CH Le Mans, Le Mans,
France), Hansmann Y (CHU Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France), Horcajada JP (Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain), Iacobello C (Azienda
Ospedaliera "Cannizzaro", Catania, Italy), Jacob JT (Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA), Justo JA (University of
is S (Ho
^ pital Cochin, Paris,
South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA), Kerne
France), Komnos A (General Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece),
Kotnik Kevorkijan B (University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor,
Slovenia), Lebeaux D (HEGP Paris, Paris, France), Le Berre R (CHRU
Brest, Brest, France), Lechiche C (CHU Nîmes, Nîmes, France), Le
Moing V (CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France), Lescure FX
^ pital Bichat, Paris, France), Libanore M (Department of Infec(Ho
tious Diseases, Sant'Anna Hospital and University, Ferrara, Italy),
Martinot M (CH Colmar, Colmar, France), Merino de Lucas E (Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Alicante, Spain), Mondain V
(CHU Nice, Nice, France), Mondello P (AOU Policlinico "G. Martino",
Messina, Italy), Montejo M (Hospital Universitario de Cruces, Bil~ oz P
bao, Spain), Mootien J (CH Mulhouse, Mulhouse, France), Mun
~o
n, Madrid, Spain),
(Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Maran
Nir-Paz R (Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Centre, Jerusalem,
~ o-Pardo JR
Israel), Pan A (ASST di Cremona, Cremona, Italy), Pan
(Hospital Clínico Universitario “Lozano Blesa", Zaragoza, Spain),
Patel G (Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, USA), Paul M (Ramrez Rodríguez MT
bam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel), Pe
(Hospital de Vigo, Vigo, Spain), Piroth L (CHU Dijon, Dijon, France),
Pogue J (Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, MI, USA), Potoski BA
-Sal(UPMC Presbyterian, Pittsburgh, PA, USA), Pourcher V (Pitie
^trie
re Hospital, Paris, France), Pyrpasopoulou A (Hippokration
pe
1076
L. Papst et al. / Clinical Microbiology and Infection 24 (2018) 1070e1076
Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece), Rahav G (Sheba Medical Centre,
Ramat Gan, Israel), Rizzi M (ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo,
~ o J (Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena,
Italy), Rodríguez-Ban
, Valencia, Spain), Scheetz
Seville, Spain), Salavert M (Hospital La Fe
M (Northwestern Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA), Sims M (Beaumont
Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, USA), Spahija G (University Clinical Centre
of Kosovo, Prishtina, Kosovo), Stefani S (University of Catania, Catania, Italy), Stefos A (University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece),
Tamma PD (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA), Tattevin P (Pontchaillou University Hospital,
Rennes, France), Tedesco A (Hospital of San Bonifacio, Verona,
Italy), Torre-Cisneros J (Maimonides Biomedical Research Institute
of Cordoba (IMIBIC), Reina Sofia University Hospital, University of
Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain), Tripolitsioti P (Agioi Anargiroi Hospital,
Athens, Greece), Tsiodras S (University Hospital Attikon, Athens,
Greece), Uomo G (Cardarelli Hospital, Naples, Italy), Verdon R (CHU
Caen, Caen, France), Viale P (University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy),
Vitrat V (CH Annecy Genevois, Annecy, France), Weinberger M
(Assah Harofeh Medical Centre, Zerifin, Israel), Wiener-Well Y
(Shaare Zedek Medical Centre, Jerusalem, Israel).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2018.01.015.
References
[1] Nabarro LEB, Veeraraghavan B. Combination therapy for carbapenemresistant Enterobacteriaceae: increasing evidence, unanswered questions, potential solutions. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2015;34:2307e11.
[2] Tzouvelekis LS, Markogiannakis A, Piperaki E, Souli M, Daikos GL. Treating
infections caused by carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Clin
Microbiol Infect 2014;20:862e72.
€ck P, Khine WWT, Giske CG, Ta
€ngde
n T. Evaluation of antibacterial
[3] Lagerba
activities of colistin, rifampicin and meropenem combinations against NDM1-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in 24 h in vitro timeekill experiments.
J Antimicrob Chemother 2016;71:2321e5.
[4] Song JY, Kee SY, Hwang IS, Seo YB, Jeong HW, Kim WJ, et al. In vitro activities
of carbapenem/sulbactam combination, colistin, colistin/rifampicin combination and tigecycline against carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii.
J Antimicrob Chemother 2007;60:317e22.
[5] Tascini C, Tagliaferri E, Giani T, Leonildi A, Flammini S, Casini B, et al. Synergistic activity of colistin plus rifampin against colistin-resistant KPC-producing
Klebsiella pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013;57:3990e3.
[6] Deris ZZ, Yu HH, Davis K, Soon RL, Jacob J, Ku CK, et al. The combination of
colistin and doripenem is synergistic against Klebsiella pneumoniae at multiple
inocula and suppresses colistin resistance in an in vitro pharmacokinetic/
pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012;56:5103e12.
[7] Zusman O, Avni T, Leibovici L, Adler A, Friberg L, Stergiopoulou T, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro synergy of polymyxins and carbapenems. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013;57:5104e11.
[8] Pournaras S, Vrioni G, Neou E, Dendrinos J, Dimitroulia E, Poulou A, et al.
Activity of tigecycline alone and in combination with colistin and meropenem
against Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing Enterobacteriaceae strains by time-kill assay. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2011;27:244e7.
[9] Yadav R, Landersdorfer CB, Nation RL, Boyce JD, Bulitta JB. Novel approach to
optimize synergistic carbapenem-aminoglycoside combinations against
carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Antimicrob Agents Chemother
2015;59:2286e98.
[10] Bulik CC, Nicolau DP. Double-carbapenem therapy for carbapenemaseproducing Klebsiella pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011;55:
3002e4.
[11] Oliva A, Gizzi F, Mascellino MT, Cipolla A, D'Abramo A, D'Agostino C, et al.
Bactericidal and synergistic activity of double-carbapenem regimen for infections caused by carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. Clin
Microb Infect 2016;22:147e53.
[12] Petrosillo N, Giannella M, Antonelli M, Antonini M, Barsic B, Belancic L, et al.
Clinical experience of colistineglycopeptide combination in critically ill patients infected with Gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother
2014;58:851e8.
[13] Falagas ME, Rafailidis PI, Ioannidou E, Alexiou VG, Matthaiou DK,
Karageorgopoulos DE, et al. Colistin therapy for microbiologically documented
multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacterial infections: a retrospective cohort
study of 258 patients. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2010;35. 194e4.
[14] Zarkotou O, Pournaras S, Tselioti P, Dragoumanos V, Pitiriga V, Ranellou K,
et al. Predictors of mortality in patients with bloodstream infections caused by
KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae and impact of appropriate antimicrobial
treatment. Clin Microbiol Infect 2011;17:1798e803.
[15] Tumbarello M, Viale P, Viscoli C, Trecarichi EM, Tumietto F, Marchese A, et al.
Predictors of mortality in bloodstream infections caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing K. pneumoniae: importance of combination
therapy. Clin Infect Dis 2012;55:943e50.
rrez-Gutie
rrez B, Salamanca E, de Cueto M, Hsueh PR, Viale P, Pan
~ o[16] Gutie
Pardo JR, et al. Effect of appropriate combination therapy on mortality of
patients with bloodstream infections due to carbapenemase-producing
Enterobacteriaceae (INCREMENT): a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Infect
Dis 2017;17:726e34.
[17] Paul M, Carmeli Y, Durante-Mangoni E, Mouton JW, Tacconelli E,
Theuretzbacher U, et al. Combination therapy for carbapenem-resistant
Gram-negative bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 2014;69:2305e9.
[18] Zusman O, Altunin S, Koppel F, Benattar YD, Gedik H, Paul M. Polymyxin
monotherapy or in combination against carbapenem-resistant bacteria: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2017;72:29e39.
[19] SurveyMonkey. Free online survey & questionnaire tool [Internet]. San Mateo,
California, USA: SurveyMonkey Inc.; 1999e2017 [cited 2017 Aug 12]. Available at: http://www.surveymonkey.com.
[20] Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME, Giske CG, et al.
Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect 2012;18:268e81.
[21] Durante-Mangoni E, Signoriello G, Andini R, Mattei A, De Cristofordo M,
Murino P, et al. Colistin and rifampicin compared with colistin alone for the
treatment of serious infections due to extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter
baumannii: a multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Clin Infect Dis 2013;57:
349e58.
[22] Aydemir H, Akduman D, Piskin N, Comert F, Horuz E, Terzi A, et al. Colistin vs.
the combination of colistin and rifampicin for the treatment of carbapenemresistant Acinetobacter baumannii ventilator-associated pneumonia. Epidemiol Infect 2013;141:1214e22.
[23] Sirijatuphat R, Thamlikitkul V. Preliminary study of colistin versus colistin
plus fosfomycin for treatment of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014;58:5598e601.
[24] Petrosillo N, Ioannidou E, Falagas ME. Colistin monotherapy vs. combination
therapy: evidence from microbiological, animal and clinical studies. Clin
Microbiol Infect 2008;14:816e27.
[25] Paul M, Lador A, Grozinsky-Glasberg S, Leibovici L. b lactam antibiotic monotherapy versus b lactam-aminoglycoside antibiotic combination therapy for
sepsis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2014, CD003344 [cited 2017
Sep 3]. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.
CD003344.pub3/full.
[26] Paul M, Dickstein Y, Schlesinger A, Grozinsky-Glasberg S, Soares-Weiser K,
Leibovici L. b-lactam versus b-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in
cancer patients with neutropenia. Cochrane Database Sys Rev [Internet]. 2013,
CD003038 [cited 2017 Sep 3]. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/
10.1002/14651858.CD003038.pub2/full.
[27] Marcus R, Paul M, Elphick H, Leibovici L. Clinical implications of b-lactamaminoglycoside synergism: systematic review of randomised trials. Int J
Antimicrob Agents 2011;37:491e503.
[28] Bliziotis IA, Samonis G, Vardakas GZ, Chrysanthopoulou S, Falagas ME. Effect
of aminoglycoside and b-lactam combination therapy versus b-lactam monotherapy on the emergence of antimicrobial resistance: a meta-analysis of
randomized, controlled trials. Clin Infect Dis 2005;41:149e58.
[29] Vardakas KZ, Trigkidis KK, Boukouvala E, Falagas ME. Clostridium difficile
infection following systemic antibiotic administration in randomised
controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Antimicrob
Agents 2016;48:1e10.
[30] Schwaber MJ, Klarfeld-Lidji S, Navon-Venezia S, Schwartz D, Leavitt A,
Carmeli Y. Predictors of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae acquisition among hospitalized adults and effect of acquisition on mortality. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008;52:1028e33.