Dataset Information

Tigecycline for the treatment of multidrug-resistant (including carbapenem-resistant) Acinetobacter infections: a review of the scientific evidence.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

New antibacterial agents are required for the treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) Acinetobacter spp. Whether tigecycline constitutes an effective treatment option or not, is not well established. We sought to evaluate the available evidence regarding the microbiological activity and clinical effectiveness of tigecycline for MDR (including the subset of carbapenem-resistant) Acinetobacter spp.

Methods

We searched PubMed for relevant articles and extracted/evaluated the available evidence.

Results

We identified 22 microbiological studies reporting data for 2384 Acinetobacter spp. (1906 Acinetobacter baumannii). Susceptibility of at least 90% of the Acinetobacter isolates to tigecycline (with an MIC breakpoint of susceptibility < or =2 mg/L) was noted in 9/18 studies reporting data on MDR Acinetobacter and in 7/15 studies reporting specific data on carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter. In an additional study reporting data for both resistance categories, adequate susceptibility of Acinetobacter spp. was observed by one (broth microdilution) of the methods employed. The effectiveness of tigecycline for MDR Acinetobacter infections was evaluated in eight identified clinical studies, reporting retrospective data regarding 42 severely ill patients, among whom 31 had respiratory tract infection (in 4 cases with secondary bacteraemia) and 4 had bacteraemia. Tigecycline therapy (in combination with other antibiotics in 28 patients) was effective in 32/42 cases. In three cases, resistance to tigecycline developed during treatment.

Conclusions

Tigecycline showed considerable, though not consistent, antimicrobial activity against MDR (including carbapenem-resistant) Acinetobacter spp. However, data to support its clinical use, particularly for ventilator-associated pneumonia or bacteraemia, caused by these pathogens, are still limited.

SUBMITTER: Karageorgopoulos DE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8057304 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Rates of colonization and infection with carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogens are on the rise, particularly in southeastern European countries, and this is increasingly true in Germany as well. The organisms in question include enterobacteriaceae such as Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli and non-fermenting bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii. As the carbapenems have been the gold standard to date for the systemic treatment of serious infections with Gram-negative bacteria, carbapenem resistance presents new and difficult challenges in therapeutic decision-making, particularly because of the high frequency of coresistance. METHODS:This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed and on other applicable literature. RESULTS:Multiresistant Gram-negative (MRGN) pathogens are classified in Germany according to their resistance to four different classes of antibiotics; fluoroquinolones, piperacillin, third-generation cephalosporins, and carbapenems. Quadruple MRGN pathogens are resistant to all four groups, triple MRGN pathogens to three of them. There are a number of therapeutic alternatives to carbapenems that can be applied with the aid of sensitive microbiological and/or molecular genetic testing. The following antibiotics are often the only ones that can be used to treat quadruple MRGN pathogens: colistin, aminoglycosides, tigecycline, fosfomycin, ceftazidime/avibactam, and ceftolozan/tazobactam. Carbapenems, too, may still be an option in certain situations. There is also evidence that combinations of antibiotics against which the pathogen is resistant individually can some- times be a valid treatment option; these include combinations of colistin with one or two carbapenems. CONCLUSION:The treatment of severe infection with carbapenem-resistant pathogens should be individualized and carried out in an interdisciplinary framework, in consideration of antibiotic pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in each case. The treat- ment options are based on evidence from in vitro studies, retrospective studies, and case series, which must be interpreted with caution. Randomized clinical trials are needed to test each of the various combined approaches.

Project description:Background:We retrospectively analyzed the effect of tigecycline and cefoperazone/sulbactam therapies on the prognosis of patients with carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii bloodstream infection (CRAB-BSI). Methods:CRAB-BSI patients receiving tigecycline therapy or cefoperazone/sulbactam therapy between January 2012 and December 2017 was enrolled, and strict exclusion criteria were followed. The 28-day mortality of patients was analyzed. The impact of cefoperazone/sulbactam therapy on prognosis was evaluated using Cox multivariate regression analysis. The 28-day mortality of patients receiving cefoperazone/sulbactam monotherapy and cefoperazone/sulbactam-based combination therapy was also compared. Results:Three hundred forty eight patients with CRAB-BSI were enrolled in the study. Two hundred ten patients were included after applying the exclusion criteria. Of these, 135 patients received tigecycline therapy and 75 patients received cefoperazone/sulbactam therapy. The 28-day mortality of patients in the latter group was, significantly lower than that of the tigecycline group [29.3% vs. 51.9%; P = 0.001]. Cox multivariate regression analysis revealed that cefoperazone/sulbactam therapy exerted a protective effect on the prognosis of patients [hazard ratio 0.566, 95% confidence interval (0.342-0.940); P = 0.028]. Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis indicated that the 28-day mortality of patients receiving cefoperazone/sulbactam therapy was lower than that of patients receiving cefoperazone/sulbactam monotherapy, but the difference was not significant (22.2% vs. 40%; P = 0.074). However, the mortality of patients receiving cefoperazone/sulbactam with imipenem/cilastatin was significantly lower than that of patients receiving cefoperazone/sulbactam monotherapy (P = 0.048). Conclusions:Patients treated with cefoperazone/sulbactam therapy had a better clinical outcome. The mortality of patients receiving cefoperazone/sulbactam with imipenem/cilastatin seems to be the lowest.

Project description:BackgroundInfections sustained by multidrug-resistant (MDR) and pan-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii have become a challenging problem in Intensive Care Units. Tigecycline provided new hope for the treatment of MDR A. baumannii infections, but isolates showing reduced susceptibility have emerged in many countries, further limiting the therapeutic options. Empirical combination therapy has become a common practice to treat patients infected with MDR A. baumannii, in spite of the limited microbiological and clinical evidence supporting its efficacy. Here, the in vitro interaction of tigecycline with seven commonly used anti-Acinetobacter drugs has been assessed.MethodsTwenty-two MDR A. baumannii isolates from Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients and two reference strains for the European clonal lineages I and II (including 3, 15 and 6 isolates that were resistant, intermediate and susceptible to tigecycline, respectively) were tested. Antimicrobial agents were: tigecycline, levofloxacin, piperacillin-tazobactam, amikacin, imipenem, rifampicin, ampicillin-sulbactam, and colistin. MICs were determined by the broth microdilution method. Antibiotic interactions were determined by chequerboard and time-kill assays. Only antibiotic combinations showing synergism or antagonism in both chequerboard and time-kill assays were accepted as authentic synergistic or antagonistic interactions, respectively.ResultsConsidering all antimicrobials in combination with tigecycline, chequerboard analysis showed 5.9% synergy, 85.7% indifference, and 8.3% antagonism. Tigecycline showed synergism with levofloxacin (4 strains; 16.6%), amikacin (2 strains; 8.3%), imipenem (2 strains; 8.3%) and colistin (2 strains; 8.3%). Antagonism was observed for the tigecycline/piperacillin-tazobactam combination (8 strains; 33.3%). Synergism was detected only among tigecycline non-susceptible strains. Time-kill assays confirmed the synergistic interaction between tigecycline and levofloxacin, amikacin, imipenem and colistin for 5 of 7 selected isolates. No antagonism was confirmed by time-kill assays.ConclusionThis study demonstrates the in vitro synergistic activity of tigecycline in combination with colistin, levofloxacin, amikacin and imipenem against five tigecycline non-susceptible A. baumannii strains, opening the way to a more rationale clinical assessment of novel combination therapies to combat infections caused by MDR and pan-resistant A. baumannii.