Institute of Medical Microbiology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011 Aug;17(8):1142-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03549.x. Epub 2011 Jun 14.
Antimicrobial drug resistance remains a leading problem in modern healthcare, impacting on treatment options, mortality, infection control and economic issues. The introduction of new antimicrobial drugs has consistently been followed by the emergence of resistant bacteria. This review aims to answer the question of whether clinical improvement is likely if treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infections is attempted with an antimicrobial drug against which resistance is expressed in vitro (RD). Over time, S. aureus has acquired a broad range of antimicrobial resistance mechanisms, and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) strains have become the most common multidrug-resistant healthcare-related infection-causing bacteria in Europe. As intention-to-treat studies with an RD would be unethical, only observational studies to evaluate the impact of RD therapy have been performed. Most of these studies bolster the assumption that RD therapy offers no benefit to the patient, but some do not show a detrimental effect. Limited antimicrobial treatment options for severe, invasive infections caused by MRSA might tempt physicians to use antimicrobials to which in vitro resistance is reported by the microbiological laboratory. Reasons for this non-evidence-based approach might include better pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters, lower toxicity and better bioavailability in specific compartments, and/or the assumption of increased in vivo susceptibility of those microorganisms reported as resistant in vitro. In vitro resistance of a bacterium to a drug implies that exposing this bacterium to that drug should result in a worse clinical outcome than would be obtained with a drug to which resistance has not been observed (SD). As a counterpoint to in vitro resistance breakpoints, the concept of clinical breakpoints is therefore briefly revisited in this review. In a nutshell, no evidence has been published that S. aureus infections can be reliably treated with RDs, either as a single administration or in combination therapy.
抗菌药物耐药性仍然是现代医疗保健中的一个主要问题,影响治疗选择、死亡率、感染控制和经济问题。新抗菌药物的引入始终伴随着耐药菌的出现。本综述旨在回答一个问题,如果试图用体外表达耐药性(RD)的抗菌药物治疗金黄色葡萄球菌感染,临床是否会有所改善。随着时间的推移,金黄色葡萄球菌已经获得了广泛的抗菌耐药机制,耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)菌株已成为欧洲最常见的多药耐药性与医疗保健相关的感染性细菌。由于意向治疗研究中使用 RD 是不道德的,因此仅进行了观察性研究来评估 RD 治疗的影响。这些研究大多支持 RD 治疗对患者无益的假设,但也有一些研究没有显示出不利影响。由于严重、侵袭性的 MRSA 感染的抗菌治疗选择有限,医生可能会使用实验室报告的体外耐药的抗菌药物。这种基于非证据的方法的原因可能包括更好的药代动力学/药效学参数、更低的毒性和特定部位更好的生物利用度,以及/或假设体外报告耐药的微生物体内敏感性增加。细菌对药物的体外耐药性意味着将这种细菌暴露于该药物应该导致比未观察到耐药性的药物更差的临床结果(SD)。作为体外耐药性折点的对立面,本综述简要回顾了临床折点的概念。简而言之,没有证据表明金黄色葡萄球菌感染可以可靠地用 RD 治疗,无论是单一给药还是联合治疗。