Intrapulmonary concentrations of meropenem administered by continuous infusion in critically ill patients with nosocomial pneumonia: a randomized pharmacokinetic trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal antimicrobial drug exposure in the lung is required for successful treatment outcomes for nosocomial pneumonia. Little is known about the intrapulmonary pharmacokinetics (PK) of meropenem when administered by continuous infusion (CI). The aim of this study was to evaluate the PK of two dosages of meropenem (3 g vs 6 g/day by CI) in the plasma and epithelial lining fluid (ELF) in critically ill patients with nosocomial pneumonia. METHODS: Thirty-one patients (81% male, median (IQR) age 72 (22) years) were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, clinical trial. Sixteen patients received 1 g/8 h and 15 2 g/8 h by CI (8 h infusion). Plasma and ELF meropenem concentrations were modeled using a population methodology, and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to estimate the probability of attaining (PTA) a free ELF concentration of 50% of time above MIC (50% fT>MIC), which results in logarithmic killing and the suppression of resistance in experimental models of pneumonia. RESULTS: The median (IQR) of meropenem AUC0-24 h in the plasma and ELF was 287.6 (190.2) and 84.1 (78.8) mg h/L in the 1 g/8 h group vs 448.1 (231.8) and 163.0 (201.8) mg h/L in the 2 g/8 h group, respectively. The penetration ratio was approximately 30% and was comparable between the dosage groups. In the Monte Carlo simulations, only the highest approved dose of meropenem of 2 g/8 h by CI allowed to achieve an optimal PTA for all isolates with a MIC < 4 mg/L. CONCLUSIONS: An increase in the dose of meropenem administered by CI achieved a higher exposure in the plasma and ELF. The use of the highest licensed dose of 6 g/day may be necessary to achieve an optimal coverage in ELF for all susceptible isolates (MIC ≤ 2 mg/L) in patients with conserved renal function. An alternative therapy should be considered when the presence of microorganisms with a MIC greater than 2 mg/L is suspected. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered in the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT-no. 2016-002796-10). Registered on 27 December 2016.

Systemic pharmacokinetics and safety of high doses of nebulized colistimethate sodium in critically ill patients with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the pharmacokinetics of formed colistin in plasma and the safety of two different high doses of colistimethate sodium administered via nebulization in critically ill surgical patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Formed colistin plasma concentrations were measured in critically ill surgical patients with pneumonia treated with two different doses of nebulized colistimethate sodium (3 MIU/8 h versus 5 MIU/8 h). Adverse events possibly related to nebulized colistimethate sodium were recorded. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (15 in the 3 MIU/8 h group and 12 in the 5 MIU/8 h group) were included. Colistin plasma concentrations were unquantifiable (<0.1 mg/L) in eight (53.3%) patients in the 3 MIU/8 h group and in seven patients (58.3%) in the 5 MIU/8 h group. Median (IQR) quantifiable colistin plasma concentrations before nebulization and at 1, 4 and 8 h were 0.17 (0.12-0.33), 0.20 (0.11-0.24), 0.17 (0.12-0.23) and 0.17 (0.11-0.32) mg/L, respectively, in the 3 MIU/8 h group and 0.20 (0.11-0.35), 0.24 (0.12-0.44), 0.24 (0.10-0.49) and 0.23 (0.11-0.44) mg/L, respectively, in the 5 MIU/8 h group, with no differences between the two groups at any time. Renal impairment during nebulized treatment was observed in three patients in each group, but was unlikely to be related to colistimethate sodium treatment. Nebulized colistimethate sodium therapy was well tolerated and no bronchospasms or neurotoxicity events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this limited observational case series of critically ill patients with HAP or VAP treated with high doses of nebulized colistimethate sodium, systemic exposure was minimal and the treatment was well tolerated.

A practice-based observational study on the use of micafungin in Surgical Critical Care Units.

INTRODUCTION: Echinocandins are first-line therapy in critically ill patients with invasive Candida infection (ICI). This study describes our experience with micafungin at Surgical Critical Care Units (SCCUs). METHODS: A multicenter, observational, retrospective study was performed (12 SCCUs) by reviewing all adult patients receiving 100 mg/24h micafungin for ≥72h during ad-mission (April 2011-July 2013). Patients were divided by ICI category (possible, probable + proven), 24h-SOFA (<7, ≥7) and outcome. RESULTS: 72 patients were included (29 possible, 13 probable, 30 proven ICI). Forty patients (55.6%) presented SOFA ≥7. Up to 78.0% patients were admitted after urgent surgery (64.3% with SOFA <7 vs. 90.3% with SOFA ≥7, p=0.016), and 84.7% presented septic shock. In 66.7% the site of infection was intraabdominal. Forty-nine isolates were recovered (51.0% C. albicans). Treatment was empirical (59.7%), microbiologically directed (19.4%), rescue therapy (15.3%), or anticipated therapy and prophylaxis (2.8% each). Empirical treatment was more frequent (p<0.001) in possible versus probable + proven ICI (86.2% vs. 41.9%). Treatment (median) was longer (p=0.002) in probable + proven versus possible ICI (13.0 vs. 8.0 days). Favorable response was 86.1%, without differences by group. Age, blood Candida isolation, rescue therapy, final MELD value and %MELD variation were significantly higher in patients with non-favorable response. In the multivariate analysis (R2=0.246, p<0.001) non-favorable response was associated with positive %MELD variations (OR=15.445, 95%CI= 2.529-94.308, p=0.003) and blood Candida isolation (OR=11.409, 95%CI=1.843-70.634, p=0.009). CONCLUSION: High favorable response was obtained, with blood Candida isolation associated with non-favorable response, in this series with high percentage of patients with intraabdominal ICI, septic shock and microbiological criteria for ICI.

A practice-based observational study on the use of micafungin in Surgical Critical Care Units / Estudio observacional basado en la práctica clínica sobre la utilización de micafungina en Unidades de Cuidados Críticos Quirúrgicos

Introducción. Las equinocandinas son tratamiento de primera línea en pacientes críticos con infección invasiva por Candida (IIC). Este estudio describe nuestra experiencia con micafungina en Unidades de Cuidados Críticos Quirúrgicos (UCCQs). Métodos. Se realizó un estudio multicéntrico, observacional y retrospectivo (12 UCCQs) revisando todos los pacientes adultos que recibieron 100 mg/24h micafungina durante ≥72h tras su admisión en la UCCQ (Abril 2011-Julio 2013). Los pacientes se dividieron según la categoría de IIC (posible, probable + probada), valor de SOFA (<7, >=7) y evolución. Resultados. Se incluyeron 72 pacientes (29 posible, 13 probable y 30 IIC probadas). Cuarenta pacientes (55,6%) presentaron SOFA ≥7. Un total de 78,0% pacientes fueron ingresados tras cirugía urgente (64,3% con SOFA <7 vs. 90,3% con SOFA ≥7, p=0,016) y un 84,7% presentó shock séptico. El 66,7% de pacientes presentaban infección intraabdominal. Se recuperaron 49 aislados (51,0% C. albicans). El tratamiento fue empírico (59,7%), dirigido microbiológicamente (19,4%), terapia de rescate (15,3%), o anticipado y profilaxis (2,8% cada uno). El tratamiento empírico fue más frecuente (p<0,001) en IIC posible versus probable + probada (86,2% vs. 41,9%). La duración del tratamiento (mediana) fue mayor (p=0,002) en IIC probable + probada que en IIC posible (13,0% vs. 8,0%). La respuesta clínica fue favorable en el 86,1% sin diferencias por grupo. La edad, el aislamiento de sangre, la terapia de rescate, el valor de MELD final y la variación de MELD fueron significativamente superiores en pacientes con respuesta clínica no favorable. En el análisis multivariado (R2 =0,246, p<0,001) la respuesta no favorable se asoció con variación positiva del MELD (OR=15,445, 95%IC= 2,529-94,308, p=0,003) y aislamiento de Candida en sangre (OR=11,409, 95%IC=1,843-70,634, p=0,009). Conclusión: Se obtuvo una alta tasa de respuesta favorable, con el aislamiento de Candida en sangre asociado con respuesta no favorable en esta serie de pacientes con alto porcentaje de IIC intraabdominal, shock séptico e IIC con criterios microbiológicos (AU)

Introduction. Echinocandins are first-line therapy in critically ill patients with invasive Candida infection (ICI). This study describes our experience with micafungin at Surgical Critical Care Units (SCCUs). Methods. A multicenter, observational, retrospective study was performed (12 SCCUs) by reviewing all adult patients receiving 100 mg/24h micafungin for ≥72h during admission (April 2011-July 2013). Patients were divided by ICI category (possible, probable + proven), 24h-SOFA (<7, ≥7) and outcome. Results. 72 patients were included (29 possible, 13 probable, 30 proven ICI). Forty patients (55.6%) presented SOFA ≥7. Up to 78.0% patients were admitted after urgent surgery (64.3% with SOFA <7 vs. 90.3% with SOFA ≥7, p=0.016), and 84.7% presented septic shock. In 66.7% the site of infection was intraabdominal. Forty-nine isolates were recovered (51.0% C. albicans). Treatment was empirical (59.7%), microbiologically directed (19.4%), rescue therapy (15.3%), or anticipated therapy and prophylaxis (2.8% each). Empirical treatment was more frequent (p<0.001) in possible versus probable + proven ICI (86.2% vs. 41.9%). Treatment (median) was longer (p=0.002) in probable + proven versus possible ICI (13.0 vs. 8.0 days). Favorable response was 86.1%, without differences by group. Age, blood Candida isolation, rescue therapy, final MELD value and %MELD variation were significantly higher in patients with non-favorable response. In the multivariate analysis (R2 =0.246, p<0.001) non-favorable response was associated with positive %MELD variations (OR=15.445, 95%CI= 2.529-94.308, p=0.003) and blood Candida isolation (OR=11.409, 95%CI=1.843-70.634, p=0.009) (AU)

Bugs, hosts and ICU environment: Countering pan-resistance in nosocomial microbiota and treating bacterial infections in the critical care setting / Gérmenes, huéspedes y el entorno de la Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos: contrarrestando la panresistencia en la microbiota nosocomial para tratar las infecciones bacterianas en cuidados críticos

ICUs are areas where resistance problems are the largest, and these constitute a major problem for the intensivist's clinical practice. Main resistance phenotypes among nosocomial microbiota are (I) vancomycin-resistance/heteroresistance and tolerance in grampositives (MRSA, enterococci) and (II) efflux pumps/enzymatic resistance mechanisms (ESBLs, AmpC, metallo-betalactamases) in gramnegatives. These phenotypes are found at different rates in pathogens causing respiratory (nosocomial pneumonia/ventilator-associated pneumonia), bloodstream (primary bacteremia/catheter-associated bacteremia), urinary, intraabdominal and surgical wound infections and endocarditis in the ICU. New antibiotics are available to overcome non-susceptibility in grampositives; however, accumulation of resistance traits in gramnegatives has led to multidrug resistance, a worrisome problem nowadays. This article reviews microorganism/infection risk factors for multidrug resistance, suggesting adequate empirical treatments. Drugs, patient and environmental factors all play a role in the decision to prescribe/recommend antibiotic regimens in the specific ICU patient, implying that intensivists should be familiar with available drugs, environmental epidemiology and patient factors (AU)

UCIs son las áreas donde los problemas de resistencia son los más grandes, y éstos constituyen un problema importante para la práctica clínica de los intensivistas . Fenotipos de resistencia principales entre la microbiota nosocomial son ( I ) vancomycin-resistance/heteroresistance y tolerancia en grampositives ( MRSA, enterococos ) y ( II ) las bombas de flujo / mecanismos enzimáticos de resistencia ( BLEE , AmpC , metalo- betalactamasas ) en gramnegativos . Estos fenotipos se encuentran en diferentes tipos de patógenos causantes de las vías respiratorias (neumonía / pulmonía nosocomial asociada a ventilación mecánica), el torrente sanguíneo ( bacteremia primaria / bacteriemia asociada a catéter ) , urinario, infecciones de las heridas quirúrgicas intraabdominales y endocarditis y en la UCI. Nuevos antibióticos están disponibles para superar la no - susceptibilidad in grampositives, sin embargo, la acumulación de rasgos de resistencia en gramnegativos ha dado lugar a la resistencia a múltiples fármacos, un problema preocupante en la actualidad. Este artículo revisa los factores de riesgo microorganismo / infección de la resistencia a múltiples fármacos, lo que sugiere tratamientos empíricos adecuados. Las drogas, el paciente y los factores ambientales juegan un papel en la decisión de prescribir / recomendar regímenes de antibióticos en el paciente en la UCI específica, lo que implica que los intensivistas deben familiarizarse con los fármacos disponibles, epidemiología ambiental y los factores del paciente (AU)

Bugs, hosts and ICU environment: countering pan-resistance in nosocomial microbiota and treating bacterial infections in the critical care setting.

ICUs are areas where resistance problems are the largest, and these constitute a major problem for the intensivist's clinical practice. Main resistance phenotypes among nosocomial microbiota are (i) vancomycin-resistance/heteroresistance and tolerance in grampositives (MRSA, enterococci) and (ii) efflux pumps/enzymatic resistance mechanisms (ESBLs, AmpC, metallo-betalactamases) in gramnegatives. These phenotypes are found at different rates in pathogens causing respiratory (nosocomial pneumonia/ventilator-associated pneumonia), bloodstream (primary bacteremia/catheter-associated bacteremia), urinary, intraabdominal and surgical wound infections and endocarditis in the ICU. New antibiotics are available to overcome non-susceptibility in grampositives; however, accumulation of resistance traits in gramnegatives has led to multidrug resistance, a worrisome problem nowadays. This article reviews microorganism/infection risk factors for multidrug resistance, suggesting adequate empirical treatments. Drugs, patient and environmental factors all play a role in the decision to prescribe/recommend antibiotic regimens in the specific ICU patient, implying that intensivists should be familiar with available drugs, environmental epidemiology and patient factors.

Bugs, hosts and ICU environment: countering pan-resistance in nosocomial microbiota and treating bacterial infections in the critical care setting.

ICUs are areas where resistance problems are the largest, and they constitutes a major problem for the intensivist's clinical practice. Main resistance phenotypes among nosocomial microbiota are: i) vancomycin-resistance/heteroresistance and tolerance in grampositives (MRSA, enterococci) and ii) efflux pumps/enzymatic resistance mechanisms (ESBLs, AmpC, metallobetalactamases) in gramnegatives. These phenotypes are found at different rates in pathogens causing respiratory (nosocomial pneumonia/ventilator-associated pneumonia), bloodstream (primary bacteremia/catheter-associated bacteremia), urinary, intraabdominal and surgical wound infections and endocarditis in the ICU. New antibiotics are available to overcome non-susceptibility in grampositives; however, accumulation of resistance traits in gramnegatives has lead to multidrug resistance, a worrisome problem nowadays. This article reviews by microorganism/infection risk factors for multidrug resistance, suggesting adequate empirical treatments. Drugs, patient and environmental factors all play a role in the decision to prescribe/recommend antibiotic regimens in the specific ICU patient, implying that intensivists should be familiar with available drugs, environmental epidemiology and patient factors.