Dataset Information

Standard versus biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing to guide antibiotic therapy in cystic fibrosis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Clinicians typically select the antibiotics used to treat pulmonary infections in people with cystic fibrosis based on the results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing performed on bacteria traditionally grown in a planktonic mode (grown in a liquid). However, there is considerable evidence to suggest that Pseudomonas aeruginosa actually grows in a biofilm (or slime layer) in the airways of people with cystic fibrosis with chronic pulmonary infections. Therefore, choosing antibiotics based on biofilm rather than conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing could potentially improve response to treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in people with cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.

Objectives

To compare biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing-driven therapy to conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing-driven therapy in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in people with cystic fibrosis.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Most recent search: 07 April 2020. We also searched two ongoing trials registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Most recent searches: 07 April 2020 and 05 September 2017.

Selection criteria

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antibiotic therapy based on biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to antibiotic therapy based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa pulmonary infection in people with cystic fibrosis.

Data collection and analysis

Two authors independently selected RCTs, assessed their risk of bias and extracted data from eligible trials. Additionally, the review authors contacted the trial investigators to obtain further information. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria.

Main results

The searches identified two multicentre, double-blind RCTs eligible for inclusion in the review with a total of 78 participants (adults and children); one RCT was undertaken in people who were clinically stable, the second was in people experiencing pulmonary exacerbations. Both RCTs prospectively assessed whether the use of biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing improved microbiological and clinical outcomes in participants with cystic fibrosis who were infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The primary outcome was the change in sputum Pseudomonas aeruginosa density from the beginning to the end of antibiotic therapy. Although the intervention was shown to be safe, the data from these two RCTs did not provide evidence that biofilm susceptibility testing was superior to conventional susceptibility testing either in terms of microbiological or lung function outcomes. One of the trials also measured risk and time to subsequent exacerbation as well as quality of life measures and did not demonstrate any difference between groups in these outcomes. Both RCTs had an overall low risk of bias and the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria was deemed to be moderate to high for the outcomes selected.

Authors' conclusions

The current evidence is insufficient to recommend choosing antibiotics based on biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing rather than conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa pulmonary infections in people with cystic fibrosis. Biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing may be more appropriate in the development of newer, more effective formulations of drugs which can then be tested in clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Smith S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7388933 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe antibiotics used to treat pulmonary infections in people with cystic fibrosis are typically chosen based on the results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing performed on bacteria traditionally grown in a planktonic mode (grown in a liquid). However, there is considerable evidence to suggest that Pseudomonas aeruginosa actually grows in a biofilm (or slime layer) in the airways of people with cystic fibrosis with chronic pulmonary infections. Therefore, choosing antibiotics based on biofilm rather than conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing could potentially improve response to treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in people with cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.ObjectivesTo compare biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing-driven therapy to conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing-driven therapy in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in people with cystic fibrosis.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Most recent search: 19 June 2017.We also searched two ongoing trials registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Most recent searches: 24 August 2017 and 05 September 2017.Selection criteriaRandomized controlled trials of antibiotic therapy based on biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to antibiotic therapy based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa pulmonary infection in people with cystic fibrosis.Data collection and analysisBoth authors independently selected trials, assessed their risk of bias and extracted data from eligible trials. Additionally, the review authors contacted the trial investigators to obtain further information. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria.Main resultsThe searches identified two multicentre, randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trials eligible for inclusion in the review with a total of 78 participants (adults and children); one trial was done in people who were clinically stable, the other in people experiencing pulmonary exacerbations. These trials prospectively assessed whether the use of biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing improved microbiological and clinical outcomes in participants with cystic fibrosis who were infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The primary outcome was the change in sputum Pseudomonas aeruginosa density from the beginning to the end of antibiotic therapy.Although the intervention was shown to be safe, the data from these two trials did not provide evidence that biofilm susceptibility testing was superior to conventional susceptibility testing either in terms of microbiological or lung function outcomes. One of the trials also measured risk and time to subsequent exacerbation as well as quality of life measures and did not demonstrate any difference between groups in these outcomes. Both trials had an overall low risk of bias and the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria was deemed to be moderate to high for the outcomes selected.Authors' conclusionsThe current evidence is insufficient to recommend choosing antibiotics based on biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing rather than conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa pulmonary infections in people with cystic fibrosis. Biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing may be more appropriate in the development of newer, more effective formulations of drugs which can then be tested in clinical trials.

Project description:BackgroundBoth cystic fibrosis (CF) and non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis are characterized by permanent bronchial dilation, impaired mucociliary clearance, and development of chronic colonization and infection. Although the major airway microbiota in both CF and non-CF bronchiectasis may be similar, there are some differences in clinical and microbiologic features. There may also be differences in antibiotic susceptibility patterns between the CF and non-CF populations. Therefore, analysis and comparison of the microbiota and antibiotic susceptibility pattern in CF bronchiectasis versus non-CF bronchiectasis would help to improve the management of both conditions.MethodsTwo authors will independently search the electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and LIVIVO, for studies reporting bacterial colonization of the respiratory tract in adults and children diagnosed with bronchiectasis in either CF or non-CF. We will include studies examining any respiratory tract specimen, using conventional bacterial culture or other specialized techniques such as molecular methods. We will also examine the antimicrobial susceptibility patterns in people with CF bronchiectasis versus non-CF bronchiectasis. The authors will independently assess the risk of bias in each included study using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). We will present the data with descriptive statistics and provide pooled estimates of outcomes, wherever it is feasible to perform meta-analysis. Heterogeneity in studies will be explored by visual inspection of forest plots as well as using the Higgins and Thompson I2 method. We will contact the corresponding authors of studies where data is/are missing and try to obtain the missing data. We will undertake sensitivity analysis to explore the impact of study quality and subgroup analysis based on pre-set criteria. We will prepare a summary of findings' table and assess the confidence in the evidence using the GRADE methodology.DiscussionTo date, there are no locally applicable evidence-based guidelines for antimicrobial treatment of non-CF bronchiectasis patients. In general, treatment is based on extrapolation of evidence in people with CF bronchiectasis. An insight into the microbiota and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns in the two conditions would facilitate appropriate rather than empiric antimicrobial therapy and hopefully reduce the burden of antimicrobial resistance created by rampant usage of antibiotics.Systematic review registrationThe protocol has been registered in PROSPERO on July 26, 2020 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020193859 ).

Project description:The intrinsic antibiotic resistance of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, along with its ability to form biofilm both on abiotic surfaces and host tissues, dramatically affects the efficacy of the antibiotic therapy. In this work, 85 S. maltophilia strains isolated in several hospital of central Italy and from several clinical settings were evaluated for their genetic relatedness (by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, PFGE), biofilm formation (by microtiter plate assay), and planktonic antibiotic resistance (by Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion technique). The S. maltophilia population showed a high genetic heterogeneity: 64 different PFGE types were identified, equally distributed in cystic fibrosis (CF) and non-CF strains, and some consisted of multiple strains. Most of the strains (88.2%) were able to form biofilm, although non-CF strains were significantly more efficient than CF strains. CF strains produced lower biofilm amounts than non-CF strains, both those from respiratory tracts and blood. Non-CF PFGE types 3 and 27 consisted of strong-producers only. Cotrimoxazole and levofloxacin were the most effective antibiotics, being active respectively against 81.2% and 72.9% of strains. CF strains were significantly more resistant to piperacillin/tazobactam compared to non-CF strains (90% versus 53.3%), regardless of sample type. Among respiratory strains, cotrimoxazole was more active against non-CF than CF strains (susceptibility rates: 86.7% versus 75%). The multidrug resistant phenotype was significantly more prevalent in CF than non-CF strains (90% versus 66.7%). Overall, the multidrug-resistance level was negatively associated with efficiency in biofilm formation. Our results showed, for the first time, that in S. maltophilia both classical planktonic drug resistance and the ability of biofilm formation might favor its dissemination in the hospital setting. Biofilm formation might in fact act as a survival mechanism for susceptible bacteria, suggesting that clinical isolates should be routinely assayed for biofilm formation in diagnostic laboratories.