The polymyxin antibiotics colistin (polymyxin E) and polymyxin B became available in the 1950s and thus did not undergo contemporary drug development procedures. Their clinical use has recently resurged, assuming an important role as salvage therapy for otherwise untreatable gram‐negative infections. Since their reintroduction into the clinic, significant confusion remains due to the existence of several different conventions used to describe doses of the polymyxins, differences in their formulations, outdated product information, and uncertainties about susceptibility testing that has led to lack of clarity on how to optimally utilize and dose colistin and polymyxin B. We report consensus therapeutic guidelines for agent selection and dosing of the polymyxin antibiotics for optimal use in adult patients, as endorsed by the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), International Society of Anti‐Infective Pharmacology (ISAP), Society for Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP). The European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) endorses this document as a consensus statement. The overall conclusions in the document are endorsed by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). We established a diverse international expert panel to make therapeutic recommendations regarding the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the drugs and pharmacokinetic targets, polymyxin agent selection, dosing, dosage adjustment and monitoring of colistin and polymyxin B, use of polymyxin‐based combination therapy, intrathecal therapy, inhalation therapy, toxicity, and prevention of renal failure. The treatment guidelines provide the first ever consensus recommendations for colistin and polymyxin B therapy that are intended to guide optimal clinical use.

Introduction Treatment options for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections are limited and CRE infections remain associated with high clinical failure and mortality rates, particularly in vulnerable patient populations. A Phase 3, multinational, open-label, randomized controlled trial (TANGO II) was conducted from 2014 to 2017 to evaluate the efficacy/safety of meropenem–vaborbactam monotherapy versus best available therapy (BAT) for CRE. Methods A total of 77 patients with confirmed/suspected CRE infection (bacteremia, hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia, complicated intra-abdominal infection, complicated urinary tract infection/acute pyelonephritis) were randomized, and 47 with confirmed CRE infection formed the primary analysis population (microbiologic-CRE-modified intent-to-treat, mCRE-MITT). Eligible patients were randomized 2:1 to meropenem–vaborbactam (2 g/2 g over 3 h, q8h for 7–14 days) or BAT (mono/combination therapy with polymyxins, carbapenems, aminoglycosides, tigecycline; or ceftazidime-avibactam alone). Efficacy endpoints included clinical cure, Day-28 all-cause mortality, microbiologic cure, and overall success (clinical cure + microbiologic eradication). Safety endpoints included adverse events (AEs) and laboratory findings. Results Within the mCRE-MITT population, cure rates were 65.6% (21/32) and 33.3% (5/15) [95% confidence interval (CI) of difference, 3.3% to 61.3%; P = 0.03)] at End of Treatment and 59.4% (19/32) and 26.7% (4/15) (95% CI of difference, 4.6% to 60.8%; P = 0.02) at Test of Cure;.Day-28 all-cause mortality was 15.6% (5/32) and 33.3% (5/15) (95% CI of difference, − 44.7% to 9.3%) for meropenem–vaborbactam versus BAT, respectively. Treatment-related AEs and renal-related AEs were 24.0% (12/50) and 4.0% (2/50) for meropenem–vaborbactam versus 44.0% (11/25) and 24.0% (6/25) for BAT. Exploratory risk–benefit analyses of composite clinical failure or nephrotoxicity favored meropenem–vaborbactam versus BAT (31.3% [10/32] versus 80.0% [12/15]; 95% CI of difference, − 74.6% to − 22.9%; P < 0.001). Conclusions Monotherapy with meropenem–vaborbactam for CRE infection was associated with increased clinical cure, decreased mortality, and reduced nephrotoxicity compared with BAT. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02168946. Funding The Medicines Company.

Spread of beta-lactamase enzymes among gram-negative pathogens threatens the usefulness of many beta-lactam antibiotics and has resulted in greater reliance on carbapenems.^1,2 Dissemination of carbapenemases (eg, Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase) in Enterobacteriaceae worldwide is identified as an urgent threat by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization has identified development of new agents as a critical need.^3-5 Quiz Ref ID Infections due to carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae are most often urinary tract infections (UTIs), including acute pyelonephritis,⁶ and are usually health care–associated.^7,8 Mortality attributable to carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections is 20% to 54.3%^6,9-11 and reflects the need for better treatment options.