ICU Management & Practice, Volume 16 - Issue 3, 2016

New Antibiotics for Abdominal Infections: What Can We Expect?

share Share

Recently a number of new antibiotics or combinations for complicated ‏intra-abdominal infections have been introduced. Here we ‏review the currently available data of these new drugs and discuss ‏how they can be used in critically ill patients with complicated intraabdominal ‏infections.

 

Complicated intra-abdominal infections ‏(cIAI) remain one of the most challenging ‏infections in the intensive care ‏unit (ICU). Compared to patients with other ‏infections, patients with cIAI typically will ‏develop multiple organ dysfunction syndrome ‏(MODS) more often and have a higher risk of ‏mortality; often they have a protracted stay in ‏the ICU and in the hospital (De Waele et al. ‏2014). The management of these patients can ‏be challenging. This includes evaluating the ‏need for source control as well as effectively ‏getting the source of infection controlled, but ‏also selecting the appropriate antibiotic in times ‏of changing susceptibility patterns and the rise ‏of antimicrobial resistance (AMR).

 

The role of source control is more relevant in ‏cIAI than in most other commonly encountered ‏infections in the ICU. At times difficult choices ‏have to be made (Leppäniemi et al. 2015). The ‏role of surgery in this context is changing, new ‏techniques are being introduced, and, increasingly, ‏percutaneous drainage is being used as ‏a primary strategy. Despite the prominent role ‏of source control, administering appropriate ‏antibiotics is equally important. Although there ‏are fewer limitations in correctly diagnosing ‏abdominal infections compared to e.g. respiratory ‏tract infections, both timing and spectrum ‏of empirical antibiotic therapy are critical. ‏Antibiotics should be administered when the ‏diagnosis is made and not postponed until ‏intraoperative cultures are obtained.

 

Antibiotic resistance is also increasingly ‏described in cIAI. In particular the spread of ‏extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)- ‏producing Enterobacteriaceae in community-acquired ‏cIAI is striking, and may limit the use of many ‏currently available antibiotics. This in turn may ‏put an inappropriate strain on the carbapenem ‏antibiotics with the risk of increasing resistance ‏to this class of antibiotics. The need for new ‏antibiotics in this context is urgent.

 

Options for appropriate empirical therapy ‏are becoming limited in some situations, and ‏every attempt should be made to choose the ‏correct antibiotic for the patient with cIAI. It ‏should also be remembered that cIAI are typically ‏polymicrobial infections with both aerobic ‏and anaerobic bacteria present in most situations, ‏and will typically require antibiotics that ‏cover both Gram-positive and Gram-negative ‏pathogens.

 

See Also: Biomarker Guided Antibiotic Therapy: What’s New?


Rise of Multidrug Resistance in cIAI

 

As in other types of infections, AMR is a pressing ‏issue in cIAI. Patients with cIAI may be ‏at increased risk of AMR as they are often ‏exposed to antibiotics for prolonged periods ‏of time, and source control plays a crucial role. ‏Particularly when source control is inadequate ‏or even impossible, the inoculum persists. As ‏bacteria are exposed to antibiotics during that ‏time, AMR is bound to develop. This has been ‏documented in severe abdominal infections ‏including peritonitis and pancreatitis (De Waele ‏2016; Montravers et al. 2016).

 

As typically more than one pathogen is ‏involved, the risk of encountering antibiotic ‏resistance is also increased. For the same reason ‏the extensive coverage needed to cover all ‏pathogens (often with multiple antibiotics) ‏may fuel AMR, as bacteria are exposed to more ‏than one antibiotic at the same time. Whereas ‏AMR was only relevant in nosocomial infections ‏until recently, it is now also posing problems ‏in community-acquired disease.

 ‏

Overall, AMR is a concern mostly with Gramnegative ‏pathogens. ESBL-producing bacteria ‏are a primary worry worldwide (Sartelli et ‏al. 2015), even more so in some areas, e.g. in ‏Asia. Even then important regional differences ‏are present.

 

The prevalence of ESBL in E. Coli, K. pneumonia, ‏K. oxytoca and P. Mirabilis has increased dramatically ‏from 2002 to 2011 in cIAI in Asia and the ‏Middle East, where up to 40% of these pathogens ‏isolated from cIAI produce ESBLs (Morrissey et ‏al. 2013). It is unclear if this trend has changed ‏in more recent years as epidemiological studies ‏on AMR after 2013-2014 are lacking. Regional ‏differences are important, and extrapolating data ‏from other parts of the world to develop local ‏empirical therapy guidelines should be avoided.

 

Carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumonia ‏(KPC) has been posing particular problems in ‏nosocomial infections in some parts of the ‏world. cIAI have not been exempt from KPC ‏involvement, but this appears to be a regional ‏problem mostly at this point.

 

Although the problem of AMR in cIAI is ‏most relevant for Gram-negative pathogens, ‏trends in Gram-positive infections should not be ‏ignored. Enterococci are considered to be more ‏pathogenic in nosocomial cIAI, and typically are ‏involved in patients who have been exposed to ‏antibiotics that do not cover enterococci, e.g. ‏cephalosporins or fluoroquinolones. Apart from ‏their different appreciation in nosocomial cIAI, resistance in enterococci is increasing as well; E. ‏faecium is typically non-susceptible to penicillin ‏antibiotics, but in E. faecalis ampicillin resistance is ‏also rising. Infection with vancomycin-resistant ‏enterococci is also increasingly described

 

New Antibiotics for cIAI


Recently a number of new antibiotics or antibiotic ‏combinations have been studied in patients ‏with cIAI. Antibiotics recently introduced or ‏coming soon for the treatment of cIAI include ‏ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftazidime/avibactam ‏and eravacycline. Although several other new ‏antibiotics may have activity against pathogens ‏typically associated with cIAI, none of them is ‏currently under investigation for this indication, ‏and will not be discussed.

 

Ceftolozane Plus Tazobactam

 

Ceftolozane is a new fifth-generation cephalosporin ‏antibiotic that has been marketed in ‏combination with a well-known beta-lactamase ‏inhibitor (BLI), tazobactam, in a fixed 2:1 ‏ratio. It is active against a wide range of Gramnegative ‏bacteria, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa ‏and many ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae. It ‏has been approved by the United States Food ‏and Drug Administration for the treatment ‏of complicated urinary tract infections and ‏cIAI (combined with metronidazole for the ‏latter). Dosing for patients with normal renal ‏function is 1000mg ceftolozane plus 500mg ‏tazobactam TID.

 

Three clinical trials have been performed in ‏patients with cIAI. In a phase 2 study, 121 patients ‏with cIAI requiring surgery were randomised ‏to receive either meropenem or ceftolozane/ ‏tazobactam with metronidazole (Lucasti et al. ‏2014). Clinical cure rates were 83.6% and 96% ‏for ceftolozane and meropenem respectively, ‏on the basis of which the noninferiority of ‏the drug was concluded. The Assessment of the ‏Safety Profile and Efficacy of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam in ‏Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections (ASPECT-cIAI) ‏programme, reporting on two identical phase ‏3 studies with a similar setup to the phase 2 ‏study, and using the same comparator, included ‏993 patients, 806 of which were analysed in ‏the modified intention to treat (MITT) group ‏(Solomkin et al. 2015). For the primary endpoint ‏clinical cure rates were 83% with ceftolozane/ ‏tazobactam plus metronidazole vs. 87.3% with ‏meropenem in the MITT population. In both ‏studies the incidence of adverse effects reported ‏was similar in both groups. Based on these ‏studies, ceftolozane/tazobactam was approved ‏for the indication of cIAI at the end of 2014.

 

In a recent substudy investigating the ‏outcomes of patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, ‏the strong in vitro activity of ceftolozane against ‏these pathogens was confirmed, with high ‏clinical cure rates in the subgroup of patients ‏with Pseudomonas infections (Miller et al. 2016). ‏

 

Ceftazidime Plus Avibactam

 

Avibactam is a novel BLI that restores the activity ‏of beta-lactam antibiotics such as ceftazidime ‏against ESBL-producing pathogens. ‏

 

In a phase 2 study the combination of ceftazidime/ ‏avibactam (2000mg/500mg TID) with ‏metronidazole 500mg TID was compared with ‏meropenem in 204 patients with cIAI (Lucasti ‏et al. 2013). Clinical cure was 91.2% and 93.4% ‏for ceftazidime/avibactam co-administered with ‏metronidazole and meropenem respectively. ‏Adverse events were comparable in both groups.

 

In two large phase 3 studies with an identical ‏setup 1066 patients with cIAI requiring surgery ‏of percutaneous drainage were randomised to ‏receive ceftazidime/tazobactam plus metronidazole ‏and the combination was found to ‏be noninferior to meropenem (Mazuski et al. ‏2016). In the microbiologically MITT group, ‏clinical cure at test of cure was statistically ‏not different in the ceftazidime/tazobactam ‏plus metronidazole group (81.6% vs. 85.1% ‏respectively), and at other time points outcome ‏was comparable. Safety evaluation did not ‏demonstrate any differences between the groups.

 

Eravacycline


Eravacycline is a novel antibiotic in the tetracycline ‏class, structurally comparable with tigecycline. ‏It inhibits bacterial protein synthesis through ‏binding to the 30S ribosomal subunit and has ‏broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity against ‏Gram-positive, Gram-negative and anaerobic ‏bacteria with the exception of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, ‏but including MDR pathogens such as ‏methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) ‏and some carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative ‏bacteria. In a phase 2 study the efficacy and ‏safety of two dose regimens of eravacycline ‏was compared with ertapenem in adult hospitalised ‏patients with cIAI requiring surgical or ‏percutaneous intervention: 1.5 mg/kg of body ‏weight every 24 hours (q24h), or 1.0 mg/ ‏kg every 12 h (q12h) (Mazuski et al. 2016). ‏In the microbiologically evaluable population ‏the clinical cure was 92.9% and 100% in the ‏groups receiving eravacycline at 1.5 and 1.0 ‏mg/kg respectively, and 92.3% in the ertapenem group. Another large phase 3 study comparing ‏eravacycline with ertapenem has been finalised ‏but not yet published (IGNITE 1)—the ‏manufacturer has reported that noninferiority ‏was demonstrated but full analysis is not yet ‏available (Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals 2014).

 

Caveats for Critical Care


Shortcomings of Recent cIAI Studies From a Critical ‏Care Perspective ‏

Although these antibiotics represent new therapeutic ‏options in the management of cIAI, there ‏are some things to consider from a critical care ‏perspective. This is primarily related to the ‏type of patients in the studies with these new ‏antibiotics, and with the type of patients not ‏included due to an often long list with exclusion ‏criteria. Overall the patients in these studies ‏are mild to moderately ill only, with a high ‏prevalence of infections that are typically not ‏encountered in the ICU, such as appendicitis.

 

In the studies investigating ceftolozane, ‏it was not reported how many patients were ‏diagnosed with severe sepsis or septic shock, or ‏were admitted to an ICU. In the first study more ‏than half of the patients were treated because ‏of appendicitis, and median Acute Physiology ‏and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE)-II ‏score was 6 and 7 respectively (Lucasti et al. ‏2014). Similarly, in the ASPECT-cIAI programme, ‏APACHE-II scores were 6 and 6.2 in the study ‏groups and degree of organ dysfunction was not ‏reported (Solomkin et al. 2015). Both studies ‏excluded patients with thrombocytopenia or ‏abnormal renal function.

 

The studies investigating avibactam in combination ‏with metronidazole excluded severely ‏ill patients; exclusion criteria in the phase 2 ‏study included APACHE-II score of 26 or higher, ‏abnormal renal function and fluid-unresponsive ‏septic shock (Lucasti et al. 2013). Only 1 out ‏of 6 patients had an APACHE-II score between ‏10 and 25, and the appendix and stomach ‏were the most frequent sites of the primary ‏infection. The phase 3 study included mainly ‏patients with low to moderate disease severity ‏as exemplified by the APACHE-II score that ‏was 10 or lower in about 85% of the patients ‏(Mazuski et al. 2016). That study also excluded ‏patients with septic shock or who were receiving ‏haemodialysis. The fact that patients could ‏not be treated with an antifungal agent may ‏have precluded including patients with more ‏severe disease in the study. ‏

‏One particular finding in the phase 3 study ‏was the worse outcome in patients with moderate renal impairment, defined as a creatinine ‏clearance of 30-50ml/min. This may have been ‏caused by the rapid changes in renal function ‏in the subsequent days when patients still ‏received renal function adjusted doses of the ‏drug, although the effect should be present in ‏both the interventional and comparator group ‏(Mazuski et al. 2016).

 

The study investigating eravacycline excluded ‏more critically ill patients such as patients with ‏septic shock or an APACHE-II score of 25 or ‏higher. Effectively, APACHE-II score was 6 and ‏8.2 in the study groups, and appendicitis was ‏the source of infection in more than 50% of the ‏patients. The use of ertapenem as a comparator ‏can also limit the number of critically ill patients ‏included, as this drug is not recommended ‏for the treatment of severe cIAIs (Solomkin ‏et al. 2010). ‏

 

Implications for Critically Ill Patients With cIAI

 

So how does this translate to the use of these ‏new agents in the critically ill? Although it is ‏clear that the in vitro activity of these drugs ‏against a wide range of pathogens is similar or ‏better than many of the antibiotics that we are ‏using now, the changes in physiology of the ‏critically ill may be profound and lead to lower ‏concentrations than expected. This phenomenon ‏has been demonstrated for many antibiotics ‏(Roberts et al. 2014) and is now an integral ‏part of most drug development programmes.


‏In this context it is remarkable that an ongoing ‏study comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam to ‏meropenem for hospital-acquired pneumonia ‏(Safety and efficacy study of ceftolozane/tazobactam to ‏treat ventilated nosocomial pneumonia (MK-7625A-008) ‏(ASPECT-NP), NCT02070757) uses a dose ‏that is double what was used in the cIAI study ‏(clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757). It is ‏unclear if this is solely because of the different ‏infection focus. Future pharmacokinetic studies ‏of these new antibiotics in more severely ill ‏patients should answer these concerns.

 

The exact place of these new agents in ‏our current armamentarium will need to be ‏discussed primarily considering the local ecology. ‏This is where antibiotic stewardship teams ‏should jointly define the indications as well as ‏consider restriction in the use of these powerful ‏agents. Apart from treating the infections ‏adequately, new agents should be cherished ‏and used only where they have a clearly added ‏value – whether this is in empirical therapy ‏in one country or directed therapy for highly ‏resistant pathogens in another. ‏

 
Conclusions

 

Antibiotic therapy of cIAI is becoming increasingly ‏challenging due to the changes in susceptibility ‏of pathogens involved. Although our ‏current armamentarium may be effective in the ‏treatment of many patients, new therapeutic ‏options are highly desirable. The development ‏of ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftazidime/avibactam ‏and eravacycline offers an opportunity to ‏effectively treat MDR pathogens and avoid more ‏toxic regimens. The exact place of these agents ‏in the treatment of cIAI should be defined by ‏local antibiotic stewardship teams, considering ‏local ecology and other available options.

 

Conflict of Interest

 

Jan De Waele declares Consultancy for AtoxBio, ‏Bayer Healthcare, Cubist, Fresenius, Merck. He is ‏Infection section Chair at the European Society ‏of Intensive Care Medicine, President of the ‏Belgian Society of Intensive Care Medicine, Past ‏President of WSACS - the Abdominal Compartment ‏Society and Senior Clinical Investigator at ‏the Flanders Research Foundation.

 

Abbreviations


AMR antimicrobial resistance

APACHE Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation

ASPECT-cIAI Assessment of the Safety Profile and

Efficacy of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam in Complicated

Intra-abdominal Infections

BLI Beta-lactamase inhibitor

cIAI complicated intra-abdominal infections

ESBL extended spectrum beta-lactamase

ICU intensive care unit

KPC Klebsiella pneumonia

MDR multi-drug resistance

MITT modified intention to treat

MODS multiple organ dysfunction syndrome

References:

De Waele J, Lipman J, Sakr Yet al. (2014) Abdominal infections in the intensive care unit: characteristics, treatment and determinants of outcome. BMC Infect Dis, 14: 420.

PubMed

 

De Waele JJ (2016) Abdominal sepsis. Curr Infect Dis Rep, 18(8); 23.

PubMed

 

Leppäniemi A, Kimball EJ, De Laet I et al. (2015) Management of abdominal sepsis-a paradigm shift? Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther, 47(4): 400-8.

PubMed

 

Lucasti C, Hershberger E, Miller B et al. (2014) Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, phase II trial to assess the safety and efficacy of ceftolozane-tazobactam plus metronidazole compared with meropenem in adult patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 58(9): 5350-7.

PubMed

 

Lucasti C, Popescu I, Ramesh MK et al. (2013) Comparative study of the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime/avibactam plus metronidazole versus meropenem in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections in hospitalized adults: results of a randomized, double-blind, Phase II trial. J Antimicrob Chemother, 68(5): 1183-92. 

PubMed

 

Mazuski JE, Gasink LB, Armstrong J et al. (2016) Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole versus meropenem in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infection - results from a randomized, controlled, double-blind, phase 3 program. Clin Infect Dis, 62(11): 1380-9.

PubMed

 

Miller B, Popejoy MW, Hershberger E et al. (2016) Characteristics and outcomes of complicated intra-abdominal infections involving pseudomonas aeruginosa from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 ceftolozane/tazobactam study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 60(7): 4387-90.

PubMed

 

Montravers P, Blot S, Dimopoulos G et al. (2016) Therapeutic management of peritonitis: a comprehensive guide for intensivists. Intensive Care Med, 42(8): 1234-47.

PubMed

 

Morrissey I, Hackel M, Badal R et al. (2013) A review of ten years of the study for monitoring antimicrobial resistance trends (SMART) from 2002 to 2011. Pharmaceuticals (Basel), 6(11): 1335-46.

PubMed

 

Roberts JA, Abdul-Aziz MH, Lipman J et al. (2014) Individualised antibiotic dosing for patients who are critically ill: challenges and potential solutions. Lancet Infect Dis, 14(6): 498-509.

PubMed

 

Sartelli M, Catena F, di Saverio S et al. (2015) The challenge of antimicrobial resistance in managing intra-abdominal infections. Surg Infect (Larchmt), 16(3): 213-20.

PubMed

 

Solomkin J, Hershberger E, Miller B et al. (2015) Ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole for complicated intra-abdominal infections in an era of multidrug resistance: results from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial (ASPECT-cIAI). Clin Infect Dis, 60(10): 1462-71.

PubMed

 

Solomkin JS, Mazuski JE, Bradley JS et al. (2010) Diagnosis and management of complicated intra-abdominal infection in adults and children: guidelines by the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis, 50(2): 133-64.

PubMed

 

Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals (2014) Tetraphase announces positive top-line results from phase 3 IGNITE 1 clinical trial of eravacyclin in complicated intra-abdominal infections. [press release] 17 December. [Accessed: 14 July 2016] Available from ir.tphase.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=888162



Print as PDF

Related Articles

Treating patients with multidrugresistant (MDR) pathogens is an increasing challenge for intensive care unit (ICU) physicians. In... Read more

  Multidrug resistance (MDR) is increasing worldwide and has been acknowledged as one of the major threats to healthcare by the... Read more

Recent trends in virus detection assays and host response biomarkersThis article provides an overview of the recent advances in... Read more

antibiotics, abdomen, infections New Antibiotics for Abdominal Infections: What Can We Expect?

No comment


Please login to leave a comment...

Highlighted Products