Can we improve clinical outcomes in patients with pneumonia treated with antibiotics in the intensive care unit?

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Pneumonia in the intensive care unit (ICU) is associated with high morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. However, treatment outcomes with conventional intravenous (IV) antibiotics remain suboptimal, and there is an urgent need for improved therapy options.

Areas covered: We review how clinical outcomes in patients with pneumonia treated in the ICU could be improved; we discuss the importance of choosing appropriate outcome measures in clinical trials, highlight the current suboptimal outcomes in patients with pneumonia, and outline potential solutions. We have included key studies and papers based on our clinical expertise, therefore a systematic literature review was not conducted.

Expert commentary: Reasons for poor outcomes in patients with nosocomial pneumonia in the ICU include inappropriate initial therapy, increasing bacterial resistance and the complexities of IV dosing in critically ill patients. Robust clinical trial endpoints are needed to enable an accurate assessment of the success of new treatment approaches, but progress in this field has been slow. In addition, only very few new antimicrobials are currently in development for nosocomial pneumonia; two potential alternative solutions to improve outcomes could therefore include the optimization of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) and dosing of existing therapies, and the refinement of antimicrobial delivery by inhalation.

KEYWORDS:

• ICU
• outcome measures
• pneumonia
• inhaled antibiotics
• aerosolized antibiotics
• resistance
• amikacin
• Amikacin Inhale

Declaration of interest

DP Nicolau is a consultant, speaker bureau member or has received research funding from: Allergan, AstraZeneca, Bayer Pharma AG, GlaxoSmithKline, Medicines Co., Merck, Pfizer, Shionogi, and Tetraphase. G Dimopoulos is a member of the advisory board, consultant or has received research funding from the following: Astellas, Baxter, Bayer Pharma AG, Clinigen, EU-FP7 Project Cardeas, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer. T Welte is a member of the advisory board of Bayer Pharma AG, Forest Laboratories, Gilead, and Novartis. He has received lecture fees from Astellas, Bayer Pharma AG, Forest Laboratories, Gilead, Novartis, and Pfizer as well as basic research grants from Bayer Pharma AG and Novartis. CE Luyt has received research grants from Bayer Pharma AG, and has received fees for lectures from Astellas, Bayer Pharma AG, Biomérieux, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and ThermoFischer Brahms. He has also served on advisory boards for Bayer Pharma AG. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed. Writing support was provided by highfield:communication and Phase to Phase Strategy, and funded by Bayer Pharma AG.