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existence of several different conventions used to describe doses of the polymyxins, differences in their formulations, outdated product information, and uncertainties about susceptibility testing that has led to lack of clarity on how to optimally utilize and dose colistin and polymyxin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.

Infections caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae (Kp) carbapenemase (KPC)-producing strains of Kp have become a significant threat in recent years. To assess their outcomes and identify risk factors for 14 day mortality, we conducted a 4 year (2010–13) retrospective cohort study in five large Italian teaching hospitals. The cohort included 661 adults with bloodstream infections (BSIs; n = 447) or non-bacteraemic infections (lower respiratory tract, intra-abdominal structure, urinary tract or other sites) caused by a KPC-Kp isolate. All had received ≥48 h of therapy (empirical and/or non-empirical) with at least one drug to which the isolate was susceptible. Most deaths occurred within 2 weeks of infection onset (14 day mortality: 225/661, 34.1%). Logistic regression analysis identified BSI (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.34–3.29), presentation with septic shock (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.47–4.08), inadequate empirical antimicrobial therapy (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.01–2.18), chronic renal failure (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.44–3.58), high APACHE III score (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04–1.07) and colistin-resistant isolates (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.37–3.46) as independent predictors of 14 day mortality. Combination therapy with at least two drugs displaying in vitro activity against the isolate was associated with lower mortality (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35–0.77), in particular in patients with BSIs, lung infections or high APACHE III scores and/or septic shock at infection onset. Combinations that included meropenem were associated with significantly higher survival rates when the KPC-Kp isolate had a meropenem MIC of ≤8 mg/L. KPC-Kp infections are associated with high mortality. Treatment with two or more drugs displaying activity against the isolate improves survival, mainly in patients who are critically ill.

Purpose Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis is increasingly reported in patients with influenza admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Classification of patients with influenza-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (IAPA) using the current definitions for invasive fungal diseases has proven difficult, and our aim was to develop case definitions for IAPA that can facilitate clinical studies. Methods A group of 29 international experts reviewed current insights into the epidemiology, diagnosis and management of IAPA and proposed a case definition of IAPA through a process of informal consensus. Results Since IAPA may develop in a wide range of hosts, an entry criterion was proposed and not host factors. The entry criterion was defined as a patient requiring ICU admission for respiratory distress with a positive influenza test temporally related to ICU admission. In addition, proven IAPA required histological evidence of invasive septate hyphae and mycological evidence for Aspergillus. Probable IAPA required the detection of galactomannan or positive Aspergillus culture in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) or serum with pulmonary infiltrates or a positive culture in upper respiratory samples with bronchoscopic evidence for tracheobronchitis or cavitating pulmonary infiltrates of recent onset. The IAPA case definitions may be useful to classify patients with COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA), while awaiting further studies that provide more insight into the interaction between Aspergillus and the SARS-CoV-2-infected lung. Conclusion A consensus case definition of IAPA is proposed, which will facilitate research into the epidemiology, diagnosis and management of this emerging acute and severe Aspergillus disease, and may be of use to study CAPA.

The EORTC/MSGERC recently revised and updated the consensus definitions of invasive fungal disease (IFD). These definitions primarily focus on patients with cancer and stem cell or solid-organ transplant patients. They may therefore not be suitable for intensive care unit (ICU) patients. More in detail, while the definition of proven IFD applies to a broad range of hosts, the categories of probable and possible IFD were primarily designed for classical immunocompromised hosts and may therefore not be ideal for other populations. Moreover, the scope of the possible category of IFD has been diminished in the recently revised definitions for classically immunocompromised hosts. Diagnosis of IFD in the ICU presents many challenges, which are different for invasive candidiasis and for invasive aspergillosis. The aim of this article is to review progresses made in recent years and difficulties remaining in the development of definitions applicable in the ICU setting.

Ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI) has been approved in Europe for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal and urinary tract infections, as well as hospital-acquired pneumonia, and for gram-negative infections with limited treatment options. CAZ-AVI displays in vitro activity against Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC) enzyme producers, but clinical trial data on its efficacy in this setting are lacking. We retrospectively reviewed 138 cases of infections caused by KPC-producing K. pneumoniae (KPC-Kp) in adults who received CAZ-AVI in compassionate-use programs in Italy. Case features and outcomes were analyzed, and survival was then specifically explored in the large subcohort whose infections were bacteremic. The 138 patients started CAZ-AVI salvage therapy after a first-line treatment (median, 7 days) with other antimicrobials. CAZ-AVI was administered with at least 1 other active antibiotic in 109 (78.9%) cases. Thirty days after infection onset, 47 (34.1%) of the 138 patients had died. Thirty-day mortality among the 104 patients with bacteremic KPC-Kp infections was significantly lower than that of a matched cohort whose KPC-Kp bacteremia had been treated with drugs other than CAZ-AVI (36.5% vs 55.8%, P = .005). Multivariate analysis of the 208 cases of KPC-Kp bacteremia identified septic shock, neutropenia, Charlson comorbidity index ≥3, and recent mechanical ventilation as independent predictors of mortality, whereas receipt of CAZ-AVI was the sole independent predictor of survival. CAZ-AVI appears to be a promising drug for treatment of severe KPC-Kp infections, especially those involving bacteremia.

The treatment of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) infections in critically ill patients presents many challenges. Since an effective treatment should be administered as soon as possible, resistance to many antimicrobial classes almost invariably reduces the probability of adequate empirical coverage, with possible unfavorable consequences. In this light, readily available patient’s medical history and updated information about the local microbiological epidemiology remain critical for defining the baseline risk of MDR-GNB infections and firmly guiding empirical treatment choices, with the aim of avoiding both undertreatment and overtreatment. Rapid diagnostics and efficient laboratory workflows are also of paramount importance both for anticipating diagnosis and for rapidly narrowing the antimicrobial spectrum, with de-escalation purposes and in line with antimicrobial stewardship principles. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter baumannii are being reported with increasing frequencies worldwide, although with important variability across regions, hospitals and even single wards. In the past few years, new treatment options, such as ceftazidime/avibactam, meropenem/vaborbactam, ceftolozane/tazobactam, and plazomicin have become available, and others will become soon, which have provide some much awaited resources for effectively counteracting severe infections due to these organisms. However, their optimal use should be guaranteed in the long term, for delaying as much as possible the emergence and diffusion of resistance to novel agents. Despite important progresses, PK/PD optimization of dosages and treatment duration in critically ill patients has still some areas of uncertainty requiring further study, that should take into account also resistance selection as a major endpoint. Treatment of severe MDR-GNB infections in critically ill patients in the near future will require an expert and complex clinical reasoning, of course taking into account the peculiar characteristics of the target population, but also the need for adequate empirical coverage and the more and more specific enzyme-level activity of novel antimicrobials with respect to the different resistance mechanisms of MDR-GNB.