Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Evidence-based Recommendations for the Treatment of Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, and Carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Critically Ill Patients: A GRADE-guided Approach.

IF 2 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Subhash K Todi, Bharat G Jagiasi, Deven Juneja, Justin A Gopaldas, Kapil D Soni, Sunil Karanth, Ritu Singh, Mohit Kharbanda, Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Tapas K Sahoo, Shilpushp Bhosale, Sharmili Sinha, Manish Bharti, Anuj M Clerk, Amit Kumar, Bram Rochwerg, Vinod K Singh, Pradip K Bhattacharya
{"title":"Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Evidence-based Recommendations for the Treatment of Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, Carbapenem-resistant <i>Acinetobacter baumannii</i>, and Carbapenem-resistant <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i> in Critically Ill Patients: A GRADE-guided Approach.","authors":"Subhash K Todi, Bharat G Jagiasi, Deven Juneja, Justin A Gopaldas, Kapil D Soni, Sunil Karanth, Ritu Singh, Mohit Kharbanda, Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Tapas K Sahoo, Shilpushp Bhosale, Sharmili Sinha, Manish Bharti, Anuj M Clerk, Amit Kumar, Bram Rochwerg, Vinod K Singh, Pradip K Bhattacharya","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10071-25216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), <i>Acinetobacter baumannii</i> (CRAB), and <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i> (CRPA) are major antimicrobial resistance (AMR) threats in Indian intensive care units, with mortality rates often exceeding 40-70%. Despite the clinical burden, there is a lack of standardized treatment guidelines. This study aimed to develop Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)-based recommendations for managing carbapenem-resistant gram-negative (CRGN) infections in critically ill patients.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>A systematic review was conducted following the GRADE framework. PubMed was searched through October 2024 for studies comparing polymyxin B/colistin with alternative regimens for CRE, CRAB, and CRPA, and sulbactam-based therapy vs comparators for CRAB. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan. Evidence of certainty was graded, and recommendations were formulated through structured expert consensus. Outcomes included clinical cure, microbiological eradication, mortality, and adverse events (AEs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-two studies were included: 36 evaluating polymyxin/colistin and 16 evaluating sulbactam. For CRE, β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor (BL/BLI) combinations achieved higher cure rates (58.7 vs 48.9%), fewer AEs (10.3 vs 13.3%), and trends toward reduced mortality compared with polymyxin-based regimens, leading to a strong recommendation for non-polymyxin therapy (very low certainty). For CRAB, sulbactam-based regimens, particularly sulbactam-durlobactam, showed superior cure rates (61.9 vs 39.7%) and reduced nephrotoxicity (13 vs 38%), supporting a strong recommendation (very low certainty). For CRPA, efficacy appeared comparable, but polymyxin therapy caused higher toxicity (42.1 vs 17.9%), resulting in a weak recommendation for non-polymyxin options (very low certainty).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings provide GRADE-based treatment recommendations for carbapenem-resistant infections in Indian ICUs. Non-polymyxin regimens are preferred for CRE and CRPA, while sulbactam-based therapy is favored for CRAB. This shift away from polymyxin use may improve outcomes and reduce toxicity, though robust randomized trials are urgently needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":47664,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine","volume":"30 6","pages":"472-517"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13407482/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-25216","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA) are major antimicrobial resistance (AMR) threats in Indian intensive care units, with mortality rates often exceeding 40-70%. Despite the clinical burden, there is a lack of standardized treatment guidelines. This study aimed to develop Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)-based recommendations for managing carbapenem-resistant gram-negative (CRGN) infections in critically ill patients.

Methodology: A systematic review was conducted following the GRADE framework. PubMed was searched through October 2024 for studies comparing polymyxin B/colistin with alternative regimens for CRE, CRAB, and CRPA, and sulbactam-based therapy vs comparators for CRAB. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan. Evidence of certainty was graded, and recommendations were formulated through structured expert consensus. Outcomes included clinical cure, microbiological eradication, mortality, and adverse events (AEs).

Results: Fifty-two studies were included: 36 evaluating polymyxin/colistin and 16 evaluating sulbactam. For CRE, β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor (BL/BLI) combinations achieved higher cure rates (58.7 vs 48.9%), fewer AEs (10.3 vs 13.3%), and trends toward reduced mortality compared with polymyxin-based regimens, leading to a strong recommendation for non-polymyxin therapy (very low certainty). For CRAB, sulbactam-based regimens, particularly sulbactam-durlobactam, showed superior cure rates (61.9 vs 39.7%) and reduced nephrotoxicity (13 vs 38%), supporting a strong recommendation (very low certainty). For CRPA, efficacy appeared comparable, but polymyxin therapy caused higher toxicity (42.1 vs 17.9%), resulting in a weak recommendation for non-polymyxin options (very low certainty).

Conclusion: These findings provide GRADE-based treatment recommendations for carbapenem-resistant infections in Indian ICUs. Non-polymyxin regimens are preferred for CRE and CRPA, while sulbactam-based therapy is favored for CRAB. This shift away from polymyxin use may improve outcomes and reduce toxicity, though robust randomized trials are urgently needed.

印度重症医学学会关于治疗危重患者耐碳青霉烯肠杆菌、耐碳青霉烯鲍曼不动杆菌和耐碳青霉烯铜绿假单胞菌的循证建议指南:分级指导方法。
背景:耐碳青霉烯肠杆菌(CRE)、鲍曼不动杆菌(CRAB)和铜绿假单胞菌(CRPA)是印度重症监护病房的主要抗菌素耐药性(AMR)威胁,死亡率通常超过40-70%。尽管有临床负担,但缺乏标准化的治疗指南。本研究旨在制定基于分级建议评估、发展和评价(GRADE)的建议,以管理危重患者碳青霉烯耐药革兰氏阴性(CRGN)感染。方法:根据GRADE框架进行系统评价。到2024年10月,PubMed检索了多粘菌素B/粘菌素与CRE、CRAB和CRPA替代方案的比较研究,以及以舒巴坦为基础的治疗与CRAB比较药物的比较研究。meta分析采用RevMan软件。对确定性证据进行分级,并通过结构化的专家共识制定建议。结果包括临床治愈、微生物根除、死亡率和不良事件(ae)。结果:纳入52项研究:36项研究评价多粘菌素/粘菌素,16项研究评价舒巴坦。对于CRE,与基于多粘菌素的方案相比,β-内酰胺/β-内酰胺酶抑制剂(BL/BLI)联合治疗获得了更高的治愈率(58.7% vs 48.9%),更少的ae (10.3 vs 13.3%),并且有降低死亡率的趋势,因此强烈推荐非多粘菌素治疗(非常低的确定性)。对于螃蟹,以舒巴坦为基础的方案,特别是舒巴坦-杜氯巴坦,显示出更高的治愈率(61.9 vs 39.7%)和更低的肾毒性(13 vs 38%),支持强烈推荐(非常低确定性)。对于CRPA,疗效似乎相当,但多粘菌素治疗引起更高的毒性(42.1 vs 17.9%),导致非多粘菌素选择的弱推荐(非常低的确定性)。结论:这些发现为印度icu中碳青霉烯耐药感染提供了基于grade的治疗建议。CRE和CRPA首选非多粘菌素治疗方案,而CRAB首选以舒巴坦为基础的治疗方案。虽然迫切需要强有力的随机试验,但从多粘菌素的使用中转移可能会改善结果并降低毒性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
299
期刊介绍: Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine (ISSN 0972-5229) is specialty periodical published under the auspices of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine. Journal encourages research, education and dissemination of knowledge in the fields of critical and emergency medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书