-
Lancet (London, England) Feb 2022Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a major threat to human health around the world. Previous publications have estimated the effect of AMR on incidence, deaths,...
BACKGROUND
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a major threat to human health around the world. Previous publications have estimated the effect of AMR on incidence, deaths, hospital length of stay, and health-care costs for specific pathogen-drug combinations in select locations. To our knowledge, this study presents the most comprehensive estimates of AMR burden to date.
METHODS
We estimated deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) attributable to and associated with bacterial AMR for 23 pathogens and 88 pathogen-drug combinations in 204 countries and territories in 2019. We obtained data from systematic literature reviews, hospital systems, surveillance systems, and other sources, covering 471 million individual records or isolates and 7585 study-location-years. We used predictive statistical modelling to produce estimates of AMR burden for all locations, including for locations with no data. Our approach can be divided into five broad components: number of deaths where infection played a role, proportion of infectious deaths attributable to a given infectious syndrome, proportion of infectious syndrome deaths attributable to a given pathogen, the percentage of a given pathogen resistant to an antibiotic of interest, and the excess risk of death or duration of an infection associated with this resistance. Using these components, we estimated disease burden based on two counterfactuals: deaths attributable to AMR (based on an alternative scenario in which all drug-resistant infections were replaced by drug-susceptible infections), and deaths associated with AMR (based on an alternative scenario in which all drug-resistant infections were replaced by no infection). We generated 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) for final estimates as the 25th and 975th ordered values across 1000 posterior draws, and models were cross-validated for out-of-sample predictive validity. We present final estimates aggregated to the global and regional level.
FINDINGS
On the basis of our predictive statistical models, there were an estimated 4·95 million (3·62-6·57) deaths associated with bacterial AMR in 2019, including 1·27 million (95% UI 0·911-1·71) deaths attributable to bacterial AMR. At the regional level, we estimated the all-age death rate attributable to resistance to be highest in western sub-Saharan Africa, at 27·3 deaths per 100 000 (20·9-35·3), and lowest in Australasia, at 6·5 deaths (4·3-9·4) per 100 000. Lower respiratory infections accounted for more than 1·5 million deaths associated with resistance in 2019, making it the most burdensome infectious syndrome. The six leading pathogens for deaths associated with resistance (Escherichia coli, followed by Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) were responsible for 929 000 (660 000-1 270 000) deaths attributable to AMR and 3·57 million (2·62-4·78) deaths associated with AMR in 2019. One pathogen-drug combination, meticillin-resistant S aureus, caused more than 100 000 deaths attributable to AMR in 2019, while six more each caused 50 000-100 000 deaths: multidrug-resistant excluding extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, third-generation cephalosporin-resistant E coli, carbapenem-resistant A baumannii, fluoroquinolone-resistant E coli, carbapenem-resistant K pneumoniae, and third-generation cephalosporin-resistant K pneumoniae.
INTERPRETATION
To our knowledge, this study provides the first comprehensive assessment of the global burden of AMR, as well as an evaluation of the availability of data. AMR is a leading cause of death around the world, with the highest burdens in low-resource settings. Understanding the burden of AMR and the leading pathogen-drug combinations contributing to it is crucial to making informed and location-specific policy decisions, particularly about infection prevention and control programmes, access to essential antibiotics, and research and development of new vaccines and antibiotics. There are serious data gaps in many low-income settings, emphasising the need to expand microbiology laboratory capacity and data collection systems to improve our understanding of this important human health threat.
FUNDING
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, and Department of Health and Social Care using UK aid funding managed by the Fleming Fund.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Global Burden of Disease; Global Health; Humans; Models, Statistical
PubMed: 35065702
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02724-0 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Apr 2022These ESCMID guidelines address the targeted antibiotic treatment of third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales (3GCephRE) and carbapenem-resistant...
European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) guidelines for the treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (endorsed by European society of intensive care medicine).
SCOPE
These ESCMID guidelines address the targeted antibiotic treatment of third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales (3GCephRE) and carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, focusing on the effectiveness of individual antibiotics and on combination versus monotherapy.
METHODS
An expert panel was convened by ESCMID. A systematic review was performed including randomized controlled trials and observational studies, examining different antibiotic treatment regimens for the targeted treatment of infections caused by the 3GCephRE, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Treatments were classified as head-to-head comparisons between individual antibiotics and between monotherapy and combination therapy regimens, including defined monotherapy and combination regimens only. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, preferably at 30 days and secondary outcomes included clinical failure, microbiological failure, development of resistance, relapse/recurrence, adverse events and length of hospital stay. The last search of all databases was conducted in December 2019, followed by a focused search for relevant studies up until ECCMID 2021. Data were summarized narratively. The certainty of the evidence for each comparison between antibiotics and between monotherapy and combination therapy regimens was classified by the GRADE recommendations. The strength of the recommendations for or against treatments was classified as strong or conditional (weak).
RECOMMENDATIONS
The guideline panel reviewed the evidence per pathogen, preferably per site of infection, critically appraising the existing studies. Many of the comparisons were addressed in small observational studies at high risk of bias only. Notably, there was very little evidence on the effects of the new, recently approved, β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors on infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Most recommendations are based on very-low- and low-certainty evidence. A high value was placed on antibiotic stewardship considerations in all recommendations, searching for carbapenem-sparing options for 3GCephRE and limiting the recommendations of the new antibiotics for severe infections, as defined by the sepsis-3 criteria. Research needs are addressed.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Carbapenems; Communicable Diseases; Critical Care; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections; Humans
PubMed: 34923128
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.11.025 -
The Journal of Antimicrobial... Feb 2015Antibiotics are commonly classified into bactericidal and bacteriostatic agents based on their antimicrobial action. We aimed to assess whether this distinction is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Antibiotics are commonly classified into bactericidal and bacteriostatic agents based on their antimicrobial action. We aimed to assess whether this distinction is clinically relevant.
METHODS
OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and relevant references and conference proceedings using the Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing bactericidal with bacteriostatic antibiotics for treatment of severe infections. Main outcome measures were clinical cure rates and overall mortality. Abstracts of studies selected in the database search were screened by one reviewer; full-text screening and data extraction were performed by three independent reviewers.
RESULTS
Thirty-three studies were included. Approximately half of patients were treated with bacteriostatic monotherapy. Infections covered were pneumonia (n=13), skin and soft tissue infections (n=8), intra-abdominal infections (n=4) and others (n=8). Neither clinical cure rates [risk ratio (RR), 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.01; P=0.11] nor mortality rates (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76-1.08; P=0.28) were different between patients treated with bactericidal drugs and those treated with bacteriostatic drugs. Subgroup analyses showed a benefit for clinical cure rates associated with linezolid and increased mortality associated with tigecycline. In meta-regression, clinical cure rates remained higher in patients treated with linezolid (P=0.01); tigecycline displayed a close to significant association with increased mortality (P=0.05) if compared with other bacteriostatic agents.
CONCLUSIONS
The categorization of antibiotics into bacteriostatic and bactericidal is unlikely to be relevant in clinical practice if used for abdominal infections, skin and soft tissue infections and pneumonia. Because we were not able to include studies on meningitis, endocarditis or neutropenia, no conclusion regarding these diseases can be drawn.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Humans; Odds Ratio; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25266070
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dku379 -
Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses Sep 2016Coinfecting bacterial pathogens are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in influenza. However, there remains a paucity of literature on the magnitude of coinfection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Coinfecting bacterial pathogens are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in influenza. However, there remains a paucity of literature on the magnitude of coinfection in influenza patients.
METHOD
A systematic search of MeSH, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and PubMed was performed. Studies of humans in which all individuals had laboratory confirmed influenza, and all individuals were tested for an array of common bacterial species, met inclusion criteria.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies including 3215 participants met all inclusion criteria. Common etiologies were defined from a subset of eight articles. There was high heterogeneity in the results (I(2) = 95%), with reported coinfection rates ranging from 2% to 65%. Although only a subset of papers were responsible for observed heterogeneity, subanalyses and meta-regression analysis found no study characteristic that was significantly associated with coinfection. The most common coinfecting species were Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus, which accounted for 35% (95% CI, 14%-56%) and 28% (95% CI, 16%-40%) of infections, respectively; a wide range of other pathogens caused the remaining infections. An assessment of bias suggested that lack of small-study publications may have biased the results.
CONCLUSIONS
The frequency of coinfection in the published studies included in this review suggests that although providers should consider possible bacterial coinfection in all patients hospitalized with influenza, they should not assume all patients are coinfected and be sure to properly treat underlying viral processes. Further, high heterogeneity suggests additional large-scale studies are needed to better understand the etiology of influenza bacterial coinfection.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Coinfection; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Female; Hospitalization; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Influenza, Human; Male; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Middle Aged; Pneumococcal Infections; Staphylococcal Infections; Streptococcus pneumoniae; Young Adult
PubMed: 27232677
DOI: 10.1111/irv.12398 -
Emerging Infectious Diseases Jul 2020A high prevalence rate of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MRMP) has been reported in Asia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A high prevalence rate of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MRMP) has been reported in Asia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of macrolide resistance on the manifestations and clinical judgment during M. pneumoniae infections. We found no difference in clinical severity between MRMP and macrolide-sensitive Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MSMP) infections. However, in the pooled data, patients infected with MRMP had a longer febrile period (1.71 days), length of hospital stay (1.61 day), antibiotic drug courses (2.93 days), and defervescence time after macrolide treatment (2.04 days) compared with patients infected with MSMP. The risk of fever lasting for >48 hours after macrolide treatment was also significantly increased (OR 21.24), and an increased proportion of patients was changed to second-line treatment (OR 4.42). Our findings indicate diagnostic and therapeutic challenges after the emergence of MRMP. More precise diagnostic tools and clearly defined treatment should be appraised in the future.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Asia; Child; Community-Acquired Infections; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Humans; Macrolides; Mycoplasma pneumoniae; Pneumonia, Mycoplasma
PubMed: 32568052
DOI: 10.3201/eid2607.200017 -
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection... 2023Bacterial biofilms are complex microbial communities encased in extracellular polymeric substances. Their formation is a multi-step process. Biofilms are a significant... (Review)
Review
Bacterial biofilms are complex microbial communities encased in extracellular polymeric substances. Their formation is a multi-step process. Biofilms are a significant problem in treating bacterial infections and are one of the main reasons for the persistence of infections. They can exhibit increased resistance to classical antibiotics and cause disease through device-related and non-device (tissue) -associated infections, posing a severe threat to global health issues. Therefore, early detection and search for new and alternative treatments are essential for treating and suppressing biofilm-associated infections. In this paper, we systematically reviewed the formation of bacterial biofilms, associated infections, detection methods, and potential treatment strategies, aiming to provide researchers with the latest progress in the detection and treatment of bacterial biofilms.
Topics: Humans; Biofilms; Bacteria; Bacterial Infections; Extracellular Polymeric Substance Matrix; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 37091673
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1137947 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Dec 2020Bacterial co-pathogens are commonly identified in viral respiratory infections and are important causes of morbidity and mortality. The prevalence of bacterial infection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bacterial co-pathogens are commonly identified in viral respiratory infections and are important causes of morbidity and mortality. The prevalence of bacterial infection in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 is not well understood.
AIMS
To determine the prevalence of bacterial co-infection (at presentation) and secondary infection (after presentation) in patients with COVID-19.
SOURCES
We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, OVID Epub and EMBASE databases for English language literature from 2019 to April 16, 2020. Studies were included if they (a) evaluated patients with confirmed COVID-19 and (b) reported the prevalence of acute bacterial infection.
CONTENT
Data were extracted by a single reviewer and cross-checked by a second reviewer. The main outcome was the proportion of COVID-19 patients with an acute bacterial infection. Any bacteria detected from non-respiratory-tract or non-bloodstream sources were excluded. Of 1308 studies screened, 24 were eligible and included in the rapid review representing 3338 patients with COVID-19 evaluated for acute bacterial infection. In the meta-analysis, bacterial co-infection (estimated on presentation) was identified in 3.5% of patients (95%CI 0.4-6.7%) and secondary bacterial infection in 14.3% of patients (95%CI 9.6-18.9%). The overall proportion of COVID-19 patients with bacterial infection was 6.9% (95%CI 4.3-9.5%). Bacterial infection was more common in critically ill patients (8.1%, 95%CI 2.3-13.8%). The majority of patients with COVID-19 received antibiotics (71.9%, 95%CI 56.1 to 87.7%).
IMPLICATIONS
Bacterial co-infection is relatively infrequent in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The majority of these patients may not require empirical antibacterial treatment.
Topics: Asia; Bacteria; Bacterial Infections; COVID-19; Coinfection; Critical Illness; Data Management; Female; Humans; Male; Pandemics; Prevalence; Respiratory Tract Infections; United States
PubMed: 32711058
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.07.016 -
The Journal of Infection Aug 2020In previous influenza pandemics, bacterial co-infections have been a major cause of mortality. We aimed to evaluate the burden of co-infections in patients with COVID-19. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
In previous influenza pandemics, bacterial co-infections have been a major cause of mortality. We aimed to evaluate the burden of co-infections in patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
We systematically searched Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, LILACS and CINAHL for eligible studies published from 1 January 2020 to 17 April 2020. We included patients of all ages, in all settings. The main outcome was the proportion of patients with a bacterial, fungal or viral co-infection. .
RESULTS
Thirty studies including 3834 patients were included. Overall, 7% of hospitalised COVID-19 patients had a bacterial co-infection (95% CI 3-12%, n=2183, I=92·2%). A higher proportion of ICU patients had bacterial co-infections than patients in mixed ward/ICU settings (14%, 95% CI 5-26, I=74·7% versus 4%, 95% CI 1-9, I= 91·7%). The commonest bacteria were Mycoplasma pneumonia, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Haemophilus influenzae. The pooled proportion with a viral co-infection was 3% (95% CI 1-6, n=1014, I=62·3%), with Respiratory Syncytial Virus and influenza A the commonest. Three studies reported fungal co-infections.
CONCLUSIONS
A low proportion of COVID-19 patients have a bacterial co-infection; less than in previous influenza pandemics. These findings do not support the routine use of antibiotics in the management of confirmed COVID-19 infection.
Topics: Bacterial Infections; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coinfection; Coronavirus Infections; Humans; Mycoses; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Virus Diseases
PubMed: 32473235
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.05.046 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Apr 2021Nocardiosis is a rare infection that is often difficult to treat and may be life-threatening. There is no consensus on its management.
BACKGROUND
Nocardiosis is a rare infection that is often difficult to treat and may be life-threatening. There is no consensus on its management.
OBJECTIVES
Our aim was to provide the current evidence for the diagnosis and management of individuals with nocardiosis, and to propose a management approach for this uncommon infection.
SOURCES
We systematically searched the medical literature on nocardiosis for studies published between 2010 and 2020 and describing ten or more individuals.
CONTENT
Nocardiosis, a primarily opportunistic infection which may occur in immunocompetent persons, most commonly involves the lungs and frequently disseminates to other sites including the central nervous system. The reference standard for Nocardia species identification is molecular biology, and the preferred method for antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) is broth microdilution. Monotherapy seems appropriate for patients with primary skin nocardiosis or non-severe pulmonary disease; we reserve a multidrug regimen for more severe infections. Species identification and AST results are often missing at initiation of antibiotics. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is the preferred agent for initial therapy, because Nocardia is very often susceptible to this agent, and because it has been the keystone of nocardiosis treatment for years. Linezolid, to which Nocardia is almost always susceptible, may be an alternative. When combination therapy is required, the repertoire of companion drugs includes third-generation cephalosporins, amikacin and imipenem. Therapeutic modifications should take into account clinical response to initial therapy and AST results. Treatment duration of 6 months is appropriate for most situations, but longer durations are preferred for disseminated nocardiosis and shorter durations are reasonable in low-risk situations. Secondary prophylaxis may be considered in selected individuals with permanent immunosuppression.
IMPLICATIONS
We hereby provide the clinician with an easy-to-use algorithm for the management of individuals with nocardiosis. We also illuminate gaps in evidence and suggest future research directions.
Topics: Algorithms; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Nocardia; Nocardia Infections
PubMed: 33418019
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.12.019 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Apr 2018We sought to determine if clinical data validate the dogma that bactericidal antibiotics are more clinically effective than bacteriostatic agents. We performed a...
We sought to determine if clinical data validate the dogma that bactericidal antibiotics are more clinically effective than bacteriostatic agents. We performed a systematic literature review of published, randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a bacteriostatic agent to a bactericidal agent in the treatment of clinical, bacterial infections. Of 56 identified trials published since 1985, 49 found no significant difference in efficacy between bacteriostatic and bactericidal agents. In 6 trials it was found that the bacteriostatic agent was superior to the bactericidal agent in efficacy. Only 1 trial found that the bactericidal agent was superior; in that case, the inferiority of the static agent was explainable by underdosing of the drug based on pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis. Thus, virtually all available data from high-quality, RCTs demonstrate no intrinsic superiority of bactericidal compared to bacteriostatic agents. Other drug characteristics such as optimal dosing, pharmacokinetics, and tissue penetration may be more important efficacy drivers.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Bacterial Infections; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29293890
DOI: 10.1093/cid/cix1127