Tamma, Pranita D.

Abstract Addressing the treatment and prevention of antibacterial-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections is a priority area of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG). The ARLG has conducted a series of observational studies to define the clinical and molecular global epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant and ceftriaxone-resistant Enterobacterales, carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, with the goal of optimizing the design and execution of interventional studies. One ongoing ARLG study aims to better understand the impact of fluoroquinolone-resistant gram-negative gut bacteria in neutropenic patients, which threatens to undermine the effectiveness of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis in these vulnerable patients. The ARLG has conducted pharmacokinetic studies to inform the optimal dosing of antibiotics that are important in the treatment of drug-resistant gram-negative bacteria, including oral fosfomycin, intravenous minocycline, and a combination of intravenous ceftazidime-avibactam and aztreonam. In addition, randomized clinical trials have assessed the safety and efficacy of step-down oral fosfomycin for complicated urinary tract infections and single-dose intravenous phage therapy for adult patients with cystic fibrosis who are chronically colonized with P. aeruginosa in their respiratory tract. Thus, the focus of investigation in the ARLG has evolved from improving understanding of drug-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections to positively affecting clinical care for affected patients through a combination of interventional pharmacokinetic and clinical studies, a focus that will be maintained moving forward.

Abstract Background Ceftriaxone-resistant (CRO-R) Escherichia coli bloodstream infections (BSIs) are common. Methods This is a prospective cohort of patients with E coli BSI at 14 United States hospitals between November 2020 and April 2021. For each patient with a CRO-R E coli BSI enrolled, the next consecutive patient with a ceftriaxone-susceptible (CRO-S) E coli BSI was included. Primary outcome was desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) at day 30, with 50% probability of worse outcomes in the CRO-R group as the null hypothesis. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to reduce confounding. Results Notable differences between patients infected with CRO-R and CRO-S E coli BSI included the proportion with Pitt bacteremia score ≥4 (23% vs 15%, P = .079) and the median time to active antibiotic therapy (12 hours [interquartile range {IQR}, 1–35 hours] vs 1 hour [IQR, 0–6 hours]; P < .001). Unadjusted DOOR analyses indicated a 58% probability (95% confidence interval [CI], 52%–63%) for a worse clinical outcome in CRO-R versus CRO-S BSI. In the IPW-adjusted cohort, no difference was observed (54% [95% CI, 47%–61%]). Secondary outcomes included unadjusted and adjusted differences in the proportion of 30-day mortality between CRO-R and CRO-S BSIs (−5.3% [95% CI, −10.3% to −.4%] and −1.8 [95% CI, −6.7% to 3.2%], respectively), postculture median length of stay (8 days [IQR, 5–13 days] vs 6 days [IQR, 4–9 days]; P < .001), and incident admission to a long-term care facility (22% vs 12%, P = .045). Conclusions Patients with CRO-R E coli BSI generally have poorer outcomes compared to patients infected with CRO-S E coli BSI, even after adjusting for important confounders.

Abstract Background Pseudomonas aeruginosa has the ability to exhibit resistance to a broad range of antibiotics, highlighting the importance of identifying alternative or adjunctive treatment options, such as phages. Patients and methods We report the case of a 25-year-old male who experienced an accidental electrocution resulting in exposed calvarium in the left parieto-temporal region, complicated by a difficult-to-treat P. aeruginosa (DTR-P. aeruginosa) infection. Cefiderocol was the sole antibiotic with consistent activity against six bacterial isolates obtained from the infected region over a 38 day period. Results WGS analysis identified a blaGES-1 gene as well as the MDR efflux pumps MexD and MexX in all six of the patient’s ST235 DTR-P. aeruginosa isolates, when compared with the reference genome P. aeruginosa PA01 and a P. aeruginosa ST235 isolate from an unrelated patient. After debridement of infected scalp and bone, the patient received approximately 6 weeks of cefiderocol in conjunction with IV phage Pa14NPøPASA16. Some improvement was observed after the initiation of cefiderocol; however, sustained local site improvement and haemodynamic stability were not achieved until phage was administered. No medication-related toxicities were observed. The patient remains infection free more than 12 months after completion of therapy. Conclusions This report adds to the growing literature that phage therapy may be a safe and effective approach to augment antibiotic therapy for patients infected with drug-resistant pathogens. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of the GES β-lactamase family in contributing to inactivation of a broad range of β-lactam antibiotics in P. aeruginosa, including ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftazidime/avibactam and imipenem/relebactam.

Increasing antimicrobial resistance and medical device-related infections have led to a renewed interest in phage therapy as an alternative or adjunct to conventional antimicrobials. Expanded access and compassionate use cases have risen exponentially but have varied widely in approach, methodology, clinical situations in which phage therapy might be considered, dosing, route of administration, and outcomes.

Increasing rates of infection by antibiotic resistant bacteria have led to a resurgence of interest in bacteriophage (phage) therapy. Several phage therapy studies in animals and humans have been completed over the last two decades. We conducted a systematic review of safety and toxicity data associated with phage therapy in both animals and humans reported in English language publications from 2008–2021. Overall, 69 publications met our eligibility criteria including 20 animal studies, 35 clinical case reports or case series, and 14 clinical trials. After summarizing safety and toxicity data from these publications, we discuss potential approaches to optimize safety and toxicity monitoring with the therapeutic use of phage moving forward. In our systematic review of the literature, we found some adverse events associated with phage therapy, but serious events were extremely rare. Comprehensive and standardized reporting of potential toxicities associated with phage therapy has generally been lacking in the published literature. Structured safety and tolerability endpoints are necessary when phages are administered as anti-infective therapeutics.

Abstract In December 2019, the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) was awarded funding for another 7-year cycle to support a clinical research network on antibacterial resistance. ARLG 2.0 has 3 overarching research priorities: infections caused by antibiotic-resistant (AR) gram-negative bacteria, infections caused by AR gram-positive bacteria, and diagnostic tests to optimize use of antibiotics. To support the next generation of AR researchers, the ARLG offers 3 mentoring opportunities: the ARLG Fellowship, Early Stage Investigator seed grants, and the Trialists in Training Program. The purpose of this article is to update the scientific community on the progress made in the original funding period and to encourage submission of clinical research that addresses 1 or more of the research priority areas of ARLG 2.0.

AbstractBackgroundAlthough coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a mild infection in most children, a small proportion develop severe or critical illness. Data describing agents with potential antiviral activity continue to expand such that updated guidance is needed regarding use of these agents in children.MethodsA panel of pediatric infectious diseases physicians and pharmacists from 20 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a set of guidance statements was developed and refined based on review of the best available evidence and expert opinion.ResultsGiven the typically mild course of COVID-19 in children, supportive care alone is suggested for most cases. For children with severe illness, defined as a supplemental oxygen requirement without need for noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), remdesivir is suggested, preferably as part of a clinical trial if available. Remdesivir should also be considered for critically ill children requiring invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO. A duration of 5 days is appropriate for most patients. The panel recommends against the use of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir (or other protease inhibitors) for COVID-19 in children.ConclusionsAntiviral therapy for COVID-19 is not necessary for the great majority of pediatric patients. For children with severe or critical disease, this guidance offers an approach for decision-making regarding use of remdesivir.

INTRODUCTIONBeta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combination antimicrobials (BLBLIs) are among the most controversial classes of antibiotic agents available for the treatment of infections caused by extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Gram-negative bacteria (ESBL-GNR). Piperacillin-tazobactam (PTZ) is one of the most frequently utilized antibiotic agents for empirical Gram-negative bacterial coverage and remains active against a large proportion of ESBL-GNR strains. Furthermore, good antimicrobial stewardship practices encourage the use of carbapenem-sparing treatment regimens for infections due to ESBL-GNR. As rapid diagnostics are increasingly used in the clinical microbiology laboratory and have the capability of detecting CTX-M type or other ESBL resistance mechanisms, this issue continues to be pertinent. Some data imply reduced efficacy of PTZ against ESBLs. Several factors may affect a clinician's choice to use BLBLIs, including the isolate's MIC, the site and severity of infection, and the type of resistance mechanism. These factors are explored in this review of the pros and cons of BLBLI treatment of invasive infections due to ESBL-producing bacteria, as well as how laboratories should report results for BLBLIs for these organisms as they relate to antimicrobial stewardship. In this Point-Counterpoint, Audrey Schuetz provides the pro point of view and Sergio Reyes and Pranita Tamma provide the con, counterpoint view.