Screening for Antimicrobial-Resistant Gram-negative bacteria in hospitalised patients, and risk of progression from colonisation to infection: Systematic review

Author(s):  
Guglielmo Arzilli ◽  
Giuditta Scardina ◽  
Virginia Casigliani ◽  
Davide Petri ◽  
Andrea Porretta ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
G Arzilli ◽  
G Scardina ◽  
V Casigliani ◽  
M Moi ◽  
E Lucenteforte ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Antimicrobial-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (AMR-GNB) have emerged as important health care-associated pathogens. Infections with AMR-GNB are associated with high patient morbidity and attributable mortality. Colonization is a prerequisite for infection, however the extent to which colonized patients develop infection is unclear. This systematic review explored the risk of developing infection during hospitalisation among AMR-GNB faecal carriers. Also, we investigated the acquisition rate for AMR-GNB colonization among patients not colonized at admission. Methods We searched on PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases for studies published from 2010 up to April 2019. We included studies reporting on hospitalised patients ≥18 years old in high-income countries (excluding long-term care facilities). Results Out of 9496 articles, 55 studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Forty-two studies reported data from EU/EEA, 6 from USA and 7 from other regions. Almost all studies (n = 45) were conducted in university hospitals. Most studies (n = 41;74.5%) were performed in high-risk wards (ICU, haematology, burn units and transplant units). Out of 55 studies, 8 examined AMR-GNB, 27 Enterobacteriaceae, while the others investigated specific pathogens: Klebsiella spp. (n = 11), E. Coli (n = 2), A. Baumannii (n = 3) and P. Aeruginosa (n = 4). The rate of AMR-GNB carriage acquisition was 10.5% (n = 40 studies; 95% CI:8.2-13.1). The risk of progression to infection among patients colonized at hospital admission was 13.9% (n = 15; 5.4-24.9), while the infection rate in patients who acquired carriage during hospitalization was 23.0% (n = 7; 5.9-45.2). Patients with an undefined time of colonization presented an infection rate of 16.9% (n = 13; 11.2-23.4). Considering these three populations as a whole, the risk of developing infection was 16.0% (11.0-21.0). Conclusions Our results suggest that risk of progression to infection in AMR-GNB colonized patients in hospital setting is high. Key messages The aim of our study was to estimate the risk of progression to infection, during hospital stay, in patients colonized by AMR-GNB at hospital admission in high-income countries. Our results suggest that faecal colonization with AMR-GNB poses a 16.0% risk of subsequent AMR-GNB infection. This risk in higher (23.0%) in patients who acquired colonization during hospitalisation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 64-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fatemeh Javanmardi ◽  
Amir Emami ◽  
Neda Pirbonyeh ◽  
Mahrokh Rajaee ◽  
Gholamreza Hatam ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Schmid ◽  
Aline Wolfensberger ◽  
Johannes Nemeth ◽  
Peter W. Schreiber ◽  
Hugo Sax ◽  
...  

Abstract Infections caused by carbapenemase-producing, multidrug-resistant (MDR), or extensively drug-resistant (XDR) Gram-negative bacteria constitute a major therapeutic challenge. Whether combination antibiotic therapy is superior to monotherapy remains unknown. In this systematic review and meta-analysis OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published by December 2016 comparing mono- with combination antibiotic therapy for infections with carbapenemase-producing, MDR, or XDR Gram-negative bacteria. Mortality and clinical cure rates served as primary and secondary outcome measures, respectively. Of 8847 initially identified studies, 53 studies – covering pneumonia (n = 10 studies), blood stream (n = 15), osteoarticular (n = 1), and mixed infections (n = 27) - were included. 41% (n = 1848) of patients underwent monotherapy, and 59% (n = 2666) combination therapy. In case series/cohort studies (n = 45) mortality was lower with combination- vs. monotherapy (RR 0.83, CI 0.73–0.93, p = 0.002, I2 = 24%). Subgroup analysis revealed lower mortality with combination therapy with at least two in-vitro active antibiotics, in blood stream infections, and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. No mortality difference was seen in case-control studies (n = 6) and RCTs (n = 2). Cure rates did not differ regardless of study type. The two included RCTs had a high and unknown risk of bias, respectively. 16.7% (1/6) of case-control studies and 37.8% (17/45) of cases series/cohort studies were of good quality, whereas quality was poor in the remaining studies. In conclusion, combination antimicrobial therapy of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria appears to be superior to monotherapy with regard to mortality.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. e100055
Author(s):  
Elda Righi ◽  
Luigia Scudeller ◽  
Margherita Chiamenti ◽  
Kamilia Abdelraouf ◽  
Thomas Lodise ◽  
...  

ObjectiveThere is poor evidence to determine the superiority of combination regimens versus monotherapy against infections due to carbapenem-resistant (CR) Gram-negative bacteria. In vivo models can simulate the pathophysiology of infections in humans and assess antibiotic efficacy. We aim to investigate in vivo effects of antibiotic combination on mortality and disease burden for infections due to CR Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacteriaceae and provide an unbiased overview of existing knowledge. The results of the study can help prioritising future research on the most promising therapies against CR bacteria.Methods and analysisThis protocol was formulated using the Systematic Review Protocol for Animal Intervention Studies (SYRCLE) Checklist. Publications will be collected from PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science. Quality checklists adapted by Collaborative Approach to Meta-Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies and SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool will be used. If the meta-analysis seems feasible, the ES and the 95% CI will be analysed. The heterogeneity between studies will be assessed by I2 test. Subgroup meta-analysis will be performed when possible to assess the impact of the studies on efficacy of the treatments. Funnel plotting will be used to evaluate the risk of publication bias.DisseminationThis systematic review and meta-analysis is part of a wider research collaboration project, the COmbination tHErapy to treat sepsis due to carbapenem-Resistant bacteria in adult and paediatric population: EvideNCE and common practice (COHERENCE) study that includes also the analyses of in vitro and human studies. Data will be presented at international conferences and the results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019128104(available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019128104).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document