Colistin Resistance Development Following Colistin-Meropenem Combination Therapy Versus Colistin Monotherapy in Patients With Infections Caused by Carbapenem-Resistant Organisms.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether carbapenem-colistin combination therapy reduces the emergence of colistin resistance, compared to colistin monotherapy, when given to patients with infections due to carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative organisms. METHODS: This is a pre-planned analysis of a secondary outcome from a randomized, controlled trial comparing colistin monotherapy with colistin-meropenem combination for the treatment of severe infections caused by carbapenem-resistant, colistin-susceptible Gram-negative bacteria. We evaluated rectal swabs taken on Day 7 or later for the presence of new colistin-resistant (ColR) isolates. We evaluated the emergence of any ColR isolate and the emergence of ColR Enterobacteriaceae (ColR-E). RESULTS: Data were available for 214 patients for the primary analysis; emergent ColR organisms were detected in 22 (10.3%). No difference was observed between patients randomized to treatment with colistin monotherapy (10/106, 9.4%) versus patients randomized to colistin-meropenem combination therapy (12/108, 11.1%; P = .669). ColR-E organisms were detected in 18/249 (7.2%) patients available for analysis. No difference was observed between the 2 treatment arms (colistin monotherapy 6/128 [4.7%] vs combination therapy 12/121 [9.9%]; P = .111). Enterobacteriaceae, as the index isolate, was found to be associated with development of ColR-E (hazard ratio, 3.875; 95% confidence interval, 1.475-10.184; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Carbapenem-colistin combination therapy did not reduce the incidence of colistin resistance emergence in patients with infections due to carbapenem-resistant organisms. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the development of colistin resistance and methods for its prevention.

The clinical effects of the venomous Lessepsian migrant fish Plotosus lineatus (Thunberg, 1787) in the Southeastern Mediterranean Sea.

CONTEXT: Plotosus lineatus is a venomous fish that has migrated from the Indo-Pacific region to the Mediterranean Sea (Lessepsian migrant). Its presence in the Mediterranean Sea was first recorded in 2002 and was observed in growing schools. Its spines contain toxins with lytic, hemolytic and edematous activities. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the injuries caused by Plotosus lineatus in the Southeastern Mediterranean Sea. METHODS: A prospective observational case series of consultations provided by a national Poison Center pertaining to Plotosus lineatus from 2007 to 2016. Demographic and clinical data and method of fish identification were retrieved from the medical toxicological records, and described. RESULTS: Eighty four cases were included; the main findings are: median age 35 (range 3-80) years, 91.7% males, 51.2% fishermen, 78.6% palm injuries, 94% and 4.8% were mildly and moderately injured, respectively. Main local manifestations included pain, puncture wound, swelling, and erythema (90.5%, 70.2%, 33.3%, and 16.7%, respectively). Systemic signs were minor and infrequent (≤7.1%), including hypertension, tachycardia, vomiting, chills, and weakness. Management included wound disinfection, immersion in hot water, tetanus prophylaxis, and analgesics. No patient required hospital admission. The fish was identified mostly by the victim with the aid of the Poison Center (mainly by typical description, and a picture), and some by marine biologists. CONCLUSIONS: Plotosus lineatus is a new fish in the Southeastern Mediterranean Sea. It affects fishermen handling fishing nets, and beach hikers stepping on or holding it. Injuries caused by its spines usually result in minor effects; pain may be intense. Treatment includes disinfection, analgesics, and antitetanus and antibiotics as needed. No lethal cases were recorded, unlike exposure of animals to the venom of the Indo-Pacific species; reason is unclear. Our series illustrates the consequences of manmade disruption of ecosystem resulting in invasion of toxic species to a new environment, affecting human health.

Polymyxin monotherapy or in combination against carbapenem-resistant bacteria: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to summarize available data on polymyxin-based combination therapy or monotherapy for carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. METHODS: This is a systematic review. We included observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing polymyxin monotherapy versus polymyxin-based combination therapy in adult patients with infections caused by carbapenem-resistant or carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacteria. Only named antibiotic regimens were included. The primary outcome was 30 day mortality. Unadjusted OR (uOR) and adjusted OR where available with 95% CI were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies including 28 comparisons were included. Polymyxin monotherapy was associated with a uOR of 1.58 (95% CI = 1.03-2.42) for mortality compared with polymyxin/carbapenem combination therapy (seven observational studies, 537 patients), without heterogeneity. Subgrouping studies to serious and critical risk of bias resulted in uORs of 0.94 (95% CI = 0.42-2.09) and 1.94 (95% CI = 1.17-3.23), respectively. Mortality was significantly higher with polymyxin monotherapy compared with combination therapy with tigecycline, aminoglycosides or fosfomycin (potentially double-coverage regimens): uOR of 1.57 (95% CI = 1.06-2.32) overall (10 observational studies and 1 RCT, 585 patients, no heterogeneity) and uOR of 2.09 (95% CI = 1.21-3.6) for Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteraemia (7 observational studies, 285 patients, no heterogeneity); very low quality evidence. Two RCTs and one observational study assessing rifampicin/colistin combination therapy for Acinetobacter baumannii infections showed no difference in mortality compared with colistin monotherapy; moderate quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The significant association observed in observational studies between polymyxin monotherapy and mortality cannot be taken as proof of combination therapy effects due to the low quality of the evidence. The only three RCTs to date show no effect of rifampicin/colistin or fosfomycin/colistin on mortality for Acinetobacter infections.

The Effectiveness and Safety of High-Dose Colistin: Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing colistin dosing should translate to improved patient outcomes. METHODS: We used data from 2 prospective cohort studies performed between 2006 and 2009 and between 2012 and 2015. In the latter period, a new policy of high-dose colistin (9 million international units [MIU] loading dose followed by 9 MIU daily for normal renal function) was introduced in 2 participating hospitals. We included adult inpatients with invasive infections caused by carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria treated with colistin. Our primary exposure variable was colistin dose, dichotomized to high-dose vs other regimens. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. We generated a propensity score for high-dose colistin and conducted propensity-adjusted multivariable and matched-cohort analyses for mortality. RESULTS: Of 529 consecutive patients fulfilling inclusion criteria, 144 were treated with high-dose colistin and 385 with lower-dose colistin regimens. The median daily dose in the high-dose group was 9 MIU (interquartile range [IQR], 9-9) vs 4 MIU (IQR, 3-6) with other regimens. There were 50 of 144 (34.7%) deaths with high-dose colistin vs 165 of 385 (42.9%) with low-dose colistin (P = .1). The propensity-adjusted odds ratio (OR) for mortality was 1.07 (95% confidence interval [CI], .63-1.83) for high-dose colistin. Similar results were obtained when using the study period as the exposure variable, in the subgroup of bacteremic patients (n = 207) and in the propensity-matched cohort (OR, 1.11 [95% CI, .67-1.82]). Nephrotoxicity (RIFLE injury or higher; OR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.29-3.48]; n = 396) and seizures were significantly more common with high-dose colistin. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort, we found no association between high colistin dosing and all-cause mortality. High dosing was associated with more nephrotoxicity.

Multicentre open-label randomised controlled trial to compare colistin alone with colistin plus meropenem for the treatment of severe infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative infections (AIDA): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria has driven renewed interest in older antibacterials, including colistin. Previous studies have shown that colistin is less effective and more toxic than modern antibiotics. In vitro synergy studies and clinical observational studies suggest a benefit of combining colistin with a carbapenem. A randomised controlled study is necessary for clarification. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, investigator-initiated, open-label, randomised controlled superiority 1:1 study comparing colistin monotherapy with colistin-meropenem combination therapy for infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. The study is being conducted in 6 centres in 3 countries (Italy, Greece and Israel). We include patients with hospital-associated and ventilator-associated pneumonia, bloodstream infections and urosepsis. The primary outcome is treatment success at day 14, defined as survival, haemodynamic stability, stable or improved respiratory status for patients with pneumonia, microbiological cure for patients with bacteraemia and stability or improvement of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. Secondary outcomes include 14-day and 28-day mortality as well as other clinical end points and safety outcomes. A sample size of 360 patients was calculated on the basis of an absolute improvement in clinical success of 15% with combination therapy. Outcomes will be assessed by intention to treat. Serum colistin samples are obtained from all patients to obtain population pharmacokinetic models. Microbiological sampling includes weekly surveillance samples with analysis of resistance mechanisms and synergy. An observational trial is evaluating patients who met eligibility requirements but were not randomised in order to assess generalisability of findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by ethics committees at each centre and informed consent will be obtained for all patients. The trial is being performed under the auspices of an independent data and safety monitoring committee and is included in a broad dissemination strategy regarding revival of old antibiotics. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01732250 and 2012-004819-31; Pre-results.