Internal Medicine Unit, Felice Lotti Hospital, Pontedera, Azienda USL Toscana Nord-Ovest, Pisa, Italy.
Department of Anesthesiology, Neuro Intensive Care Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Infection. 2021 Jun;49(3):411-421. doi: 10.1007/s15010-021-01577-x. Epub 2021 Feb 3.
Ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA), meropenem-vaborbactam (MVB) and imipenem-relebactam (I-R) are combinations of old ß-lactams with novel non-ß-lactam ß-lactamase inhibitors (BLBLIs) able to inhibit some carbapenemases, such as the KPC-type, thus are becoming the standard for difficult-to-treat carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE); a practical question is whether these novel BLBLIs should be used as monotherapy or as part of a combination regimen with other antibiotics, and if so, with which ones, to reduce the emergence of resistant strains and to optimize their efficacy. In this short review, we assessed clinical outcomes in patients with CPE-infections treated with the novel BLBLIs as mono- or combo-regimens, and laboratory studies on the synergistic effects with other antimicrobials. Available evidence on combination therapy is scarce and mainly limited to retrospective studies involving 630 patients treated with CZA: aminoglycosides were used in 39.6% of 336 patients treated with combo-regimens, followed by polymyxin B/colistin (24.4%), tigecycline (24.1%), carbapenems (13.4%) and fosfomycin (5.4%). Aminoglycosides could be useful in case of bloodstream and severe urinary infections. Pneumonia is a risk factor for CZA-resistance emergence: fosfomycin, due to favorable lung pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, could represent an interesting partner; fosfomycin could be added also for osteomyelitis. Tigecycline could be preferred for intrabdominal and skin-soft tissue infections. Due to nephrotoxicity and lack of in vitro synergy, the association CZA/colistin seems not optimal. MVB and I-R were mostly used as monotherapies. Currently, there is no definitive evidence whether combinations are more effective than monotherapies; further studies are warranted, and to date only personal opinions can be provided.
头孢他啶-阿维巴坦(CZA)、美罗培南-维巴坦(MVB)和亚胺培南-雷巴坦(I-R)是旧的β-内酰胺与新型非β-内酰胺β-内酰胺酶抑制剂(BLBLIs)的组合,能够抑制一些碳青霉烯酶,如 KPC 型,因此成为治疗困难的产碳青霉烯酶肠杆菌科(CPE)的标准治疗方法;一个实际问题是,这些新型 BLBLIs 是应该作为单药治疗还是作为与其他抗生素联合治疗方案的一部分使用,如果是后者,应该与哪些抗生素联合使用,以减少耐药菌株的出现并优化其疗效。在这篇简短的综述中,我们评估了使用新型 BLBLIs 作为单药或联合治疗方案治疗 CPE 感染患者的临床结局,以及关于与其他抗菌药物协同作用的实验室研究。关于联合治疗的可用证据很少,主要限于涉及 630 名接受 CZA 治疗的患者的回顾性研究:在接受联合治疗方案的 336 名患者中,39.6%使用了氨基糖苷类药物,其次是多粘菌素 B/粘菌素(24.4%)、替加环素(24.1%)、碳青霉烯类(13.4%)和磷霉素(5.4%)。氨基糖苷类药物可用于治疗血流感染和严重尿路感染。肺炎是 CZA 耐药出现的危险因素:由于肺药代动力学/药效学的优势,磷霉素可能成为一种有趣的联合用药;磷霉素也可用于骨髓炎。替加环素可优先用于腹腔内和皮肤软组织感染。由于肾毒性和缺乏体外协同作用,CZA/粘菌素联合似乎不是最佳选择。MVB 和 I-R 主要作为单药使用。目前,尚无明确证据表明联合治疗是否比单药治疗更有效;需要进一步研究,迄今为止,只能提供个人意见。