Skip to main content
Annals of Intensive Care
Download PDF

Low-dose intravenous plus inhaled versus intravenous polymyxin B for the treatment of extensive drug-resistant Gram-negative ventilator-associated pneumonia in the critical illnesses: a multi-center matched case–control study

Annals of Intensive Care volume 12, Article number: 72 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The mortality of extensively drug-resistant Gram-negative (XDR GN) bacilli-induced ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is extremely high. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of inhaled (IH) plus intravenous (IV) polymyxin B versus IV polymyxin B in XDR GN bacilli VAP patients.

Methods

A retrospective multi-center observational cohort study was performed at eight ICUs between January 1st 2018, and January 1st 2020 in China. Data from all patients treated with polymyxin B for a microbiologically confirmed VAP were analyzed. The primary endpoint was the clinical cure of VAP. The favorable clinical outcome, microbiological outcome, VAP-related mortality and all-cause mortality during hospitalization, and side effects related with polymyxin B were secondary endpoints. Favorable clinical outcome included clinical cure or clinical improvement.

Results

151 patients and 46 patients were treated with IV polymyxin B and IH plus IV polymyxin B, respectively. XDR Klebsiella pneumoniae was the main isolated pathogen (n = 83, 42.1%). After matching on age (± 5 years), gender, septic shock, and Apache II score (± 4 points) when polymyxin B was started, 132 patients were included. 44 patients received simultaneous IH plus IV polymyxin B and 88 patients received IV polymyxin B. The rates of clinical cure (43.2% vs 27.3%, p = 0.066), bacterial eradication (36.4% vs 23.9%, p = 0.132) as well as VAP-related mortality (27.3% vs 34.1%, p = 0.428), all-cause mortality (34.1% vs 42.0%, p = 0.378) did not show any significant difference between the two groups. However, IH plus IV polymyxin B therapy was associated with improved favorable clinical outcome (77.3% vs 58.0%, p = 0.029). Patients in the different subgroups (admitted with medical etiology, infected with XDR K. pneumoniae, without bacteremia, with immunosuppressive status) were with odd ratios (ORs) in favor of the combined therapy. No patient required polymyxin B discontinuation due to adverse events. Additional use of IH polymyxin B (aOR 2.63, 95% CI 1.06, 6.66, p = 0.037) was an independent factor associated with favorable clinical outcome.

Conclusions

The addition of low-dose IH polymyxin B to low-dose IV polymyxin B did not provide efficient clinical cure and bacterial eradication in VAP caused by XDR GN bacilli.

Keypoints

Additional use of IH polymyxin B was the sole independent risk factor of favorable clinical outcome. Patients in the different subgroups were with HRs substantially favoring additional use of IH polymyxin B. No patients required polymyxin B discontinuation due to adverse events.

Introduction

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common hospital-acquired infection in intensive care unit (ICU) patients [1]. Potential extensively drug-resistant Gram-negative (XDR-GN) bacilli, such as Escherichia coli (E. coli), Klebsiella pneumoniae (K. pneumoniae), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa), and Acinetobacter baumannii (A. baumannii) are common pathogens that cause VAP in ICU [2]. The VAP mortality caused by XDR-GN pathogens may be higher than 70% [3]. Besides, the incidence of XDR-GN has increased over recent years [2].

Currently, rare effective antimicrobial strategies are available for XDR GN bacteria. Colistimethate sodium and polymyxin sulfate B have been used as a salvage therapy for XDR GN bacilli causing pneumonia [4]. There are also new emerging cephalosporins/ß-lactamase inhibitors (ceftazidime avibactam, ceftolozane tazobactam, cefiderocol and eravacycline), which are active against XDR GNB causing VAP or VAT in critically ill patients. These new cephalosporins are an alternative option to colistin for treating VAP caused by XDR GNB [5]. However, due to high cost of new cephalosporins/ß-lactamase inhibitors, non-availability in middle-income countries, higher antibiotic pressure in the ICU and higher risk of antibiotic resistance, nebulized colistin is considered to be used for treating XDR GN bacilli causing pneumonia. Some studies have reported poor distribution of colistimethate sodium at the site of infection when administered intravenously, which can negatively affect the treatment of pneumonia and tracheobronchitis caused by multidrug-resistant P. aeruginosa [6]. In theory, inhaled route of administration might allow direct access of colistimethate sodium to the site of infection and might limit systemic side effects [7]. Several studies have found that aerosolized colistimethate sodium can improve clinical response and microbiologic eradication rate as adjunctive therapy to intravenous antimicrobials or as monotherapy, but does not affect overall mortality in patients with VAP/ hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) [8, 9]. Colistimethate sodium is a prodrug requiring in vivo hydrolysis to release colistin A and B, the active polymyxins E. Polymyxin B is a mixture of polymyxins 1 and 2, two compounds directly active against GNB [10]. Bacterial killing occurs more rapidly with polymyxin B than with colistimethate sodium. In addition, polymyxin B is less nephrotoxic than colistimethate sodium. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and microbiological efficacy and safety of inhaled (IH) plus intravenous (IV) polymyxin B versus intravenous IV polymyxin B in VAP patients infected with XDR GN bacilli.

Methods

Study design and patient population

This retrospective matching cohort study (1:2) was conducted at eight intensive care units (ICUs) between January 1st 2018, and January 1st 2020. A total of 132 eligible adult patients were included. This study was approved by the Medicine Institutional Review Board of Shanghai Jiaotong University, School of Medicine, Ruijin Hospital. The informed consent was waived.

The inclusion criteria were the following: age 18–80 years old; infected patients were confirmed with monomicrobial VAP caused by XDR E. coli or K. pneumoniae or P. aeruginosa or A. baumannii; at least two consecutive samples on different days (time interval at least 24 h) showed the presence of XDR GN bacilli from bronchial secretions or bronchoalveolar lavage samples; at least 6 doses of inhaled or intravenous polymyxin B usage. Patients who were younger than 18 years or older than 80, had multi-microbial VAP, cystic fibrosis or lung transplantation, were excluded.

Groups and matching criteria

Patients were divided into two groups: IV polymyxin B group and IH + IV polymyxin B group. All eligible patients were given at least 3 days of intravenous polymyxin B therapy. In addition, the IH + IV polymyxin B group received at least 6 doses of inhaled polymyxin B. To avoid the severe side effects caused by inhaled polymyxin B, inhaled glucocorticoid and bronchodilator were given 30 min before treatment. Furthermore, a vibrating mesh nebulizer was chosen to improve the atomization performance of inhaled polymyxin B. The practice of aerosol delivery of polymyxin B in the department of critical care medicine, Ruijin hospital north was according to Ehrmann et al. protocol [11]. Standard atomization process was applied in six centers. Moderate-to-deep sedation was administered before starting nebulization. Vibrate mesh nebulizer was placed in the upstream of inspiratory limb, volume-controlled mode was chosen with constant inspiratory flow. End-inspiratory pause was set of 20% of duty cycle. Humidification system was removed during inhalation and resumed at the end of nebulization. Expiratory filter was changed after each nebulization. Patients in the two treatment groups were matched based on the day of data of initiation of polymyxin B therapy.

Endpoints

The primary endpoint of the present study was clinical cure of VAP. The favorable clinical outcome, microbiological outcome, VAP-related mortality, all-cause in-hospital mortality, VAP-related mortality within 28 days after initiation of polymyxin B, and side effects related to polymyxin B were selected as secondary endpoints. The primary outcome and all-cause in-hospital mortality were also assessed in subgroups (medical vs. surgical; low vs. high sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA)score; different responsible pathogens; with vs. without bacteria, with vs. without immunosuppressive status).

Data collection

The following data were extracted from medical records: age, sex, history of antibiotic and glucocorticoids use within 30 days, complications, etiology, SOFA score, Acute Physiology, and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score, microbiological diagnosis of VAP, antimicrobial susceptibility, dose and duration of polymyxin B therapy, duration of ICU stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, clinical outcomes, microbiological outcomes, and drug-related side effects. Data for VAP-related mortality and all-cause mortality during hospitalization, and VAP-related 28-day mortality were also extracted.

Definition

VAP was confirmed if pneumonia occurred more than 48 h after endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation [12]. Pneumonia was defined based on clinical suspicion (with at least two of the following clinical infectious evidence): new lung infiltration confirmed by chest radiological examination (X-ray or CT scan) the new onset of fever; an oral temperature > 38 °C or < 36 °C; peripheral white blood cell count > 12 × 109/L or < 4 × 109/L, with or without nuclear-left shift; new-onset or aggravation of existing respiratory symptoms, such as purulent sputum, with or without chest pain and confirmed by a positive quantitative results for a respiratory sample (significant threshold ≥ 104 colony-forming units [CFU]/ ml) for bronchoalveolar lavages, ≥ 106 CFU/ml for endotracheal aspirations and ≥ 107 CFU/ml for noninvasive sputum samples). Septic shock was defined based on the Sepsis-3 definition [13].

The microbiological diagnosis was identified using regular biochemical methods. In vitro antimicrobial susceptibility tests were performed based on the criteria adopted at the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. The minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) was used to evaluate drug resistance. XDR Gram-negative bacilli were defined as bacilli that were only susceptible to polymyxins, including E.coli, K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa, and A. baumannii based on laboratory testing [14].

Clinical outcome was classified as clinical cure (i.e., the disappearance of infection-related symptoms and signs by the end of polymyxin B treatment), clinical improvement (i.e., improved infection-related symptoms and signs by the end of polymyxin B treatment compared with before polymyxin B treatment), clinical failure (i.e., persistence or worsening of presenting infection-related symptoms and/or signs during polymyxin B treatment or died). Recurrence of infection was defined as the emergence of infection symptoms (e.g., fever, shortness of breath), laboratory measures indicative of bacterial infection (e.g., C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, white blood cell count) within 72 h after discontinuation of polymyxin B, in the absence of other infection foci. Favorable clinical outcome included clinical cure or clinical improvement, and unfavorable clinical outcome included clinical failure or recurrence [15]. Two physicians, who were blinded to the treatment, independently analyzed clinical outcomes. The reviewers evaluated the data again to achieve a consensus decision if disagreements about clinical outcomes occurred (about 8% of patients).

Bacteriological outcome was defined as elimination of the target XDR GN bacilli (i.e., no growth of the target pathogen in the lower respiratory specimens before discharge), persistence of the target XDR GN bacilli (i.e., persistent existence of the target pathogen with infection-related symptoms and signs), colonization (i.e., persistent existence of the target pathogen without infection-related symptoms and signs), and recurrence of the target XDR GN bacilli (i.e., regrowth of the same pathogen with infection-related symptoms and signs after discontinuation of polymyxin B during hospitalization) [15].

VAP-related mortality was defined as death due to the deterioration of signs of pneumonia and as death due to respiratory failure or septic shock.

Nephrotoxicity is the main side effect caused by the systematic administration of polymyxin B. Diagnosis of nephrotoxicity was based on risk, injury, failure, loss, end-stage kidney disease (RIFLE) criteria [16]. At least over 1.5-fold increase in serum creatinine levels or a 25% decrease in calculated creatinine clearance from baseline and urine output less than 0.5 ml/kg/h over 6 h caused by intravenous polymyxin B was defined as nephrotoxicity. Proteinuria, tubular urine or azotemia caused by intravenous polymyxin B was also considered as nephrotoxicity. Skin hyperpigmentation has been also reported in the patients with polymyxin B treatment [17]. The main adverse event of inhaled polymyxin B is bronchospasm.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS software, version 22.0 (SPSS). Matched analysis was used. The matching criteria were as follows: age (± 5 years), gender, septic shock, and Apache II score (± 4 points) when started using polymyxin B.

Mean ± standard deviation was used to describe a continuous variable with a normal distribution and Student's t test was used for analysis. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) was used to describe continuous variables without normal distribution and rank-sum test was used to analyze. Categorical variables are expressed as frequency or ratio and analyzed using the χ2 test. When appropriate, results were reported as odds ratios (ORs) with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The differences in VAP-related mortality between the IV group and IH plus IV group were assessed using Kaplan–Meier curves. Statistical significance was calculated using the log-rank test of the difference survival curves.

Multivariate logistic regression was used for analyze the effects of polymyxin B usage on the favorable clinical outcomes. The model was generated on the variables with clinical interest and on those with a p value of less than 0.05 in the univariate analysis. The included variables were: age, comorbidities, SOFA score, septic shock, daily dose of IV polymyxin B, treatment with IH + IV polymyxin B and duration of polymyxin B therapy. The effects of polymyxin B usage on the favorable clinical outcomes and on the all-cause of in-hospital mortality were also explored in the following subgroups: SOFA ≥ 8 vs SOFA < 8; surgery admission vs. medical admission; with vs without bacteremia; XDR A. baumannii vs. XDR E. coli vs XDR K. pneumoniae vs XDR P. aeruginosa; with vs. without immunosuppressive status. The cut-off value for SOFA score was determined according to the median value of our patients.

Results

Patient demographic and baseline clinical characteristics

We included 197 patients with confirmed XDR G- infected VAP, who were admitted to eight tertiary hospitals from January 1st 2018 to January 1st 2020. The study flowchart is shown in Fig. 1. The baseline clinical characteristics and outcomes of the overall population are demonstrated in the Additional file 1: Table S1, S5, respectively.

Fig.1
figure 1

Flowchart of the study inclusion process. VAP: ventilator-associated pneumonia; IH + IV, inhaled and intravenous; IV, intravenous

Full size image

After matching, there was a total of 132 patients. Among them, 44 patients received simultaneous IH plus IV polymyxin B, and 88 patients received IV polymyxin B alone. Patient demographic and baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. IH + IV polymyxin B patients were more frequently affected by multiple trauma than IV polymyxin B patients (34% vs 14%, p = 0.006). In addition, IH + IV patients had less frequently acute respiratory failure than IV patients (38% vs 47%) although the difference does not reach statistical difference (p = 0.06). Moreover, higher rate of IH + IV patients were infected by XDR K. pneumoniae than IV patients (70.5% vs 36.4%, p < 0.001). All the infecting pathogens had polymyxins MIC value < 1 mg/L (data not shown). The empirical antibiotic therapy before enrollment is shown in the Additional file 1: Table S2. There was no significant difference in the empirical antibiotic therapy between the two groups (p = 0.84).

Table 1 Demographic and clinical characteristics of study patients after matching
Full size table

Polymyxin B therapy in the matched population

The loading dose of IV polymyxin B was 2.0 (1.7, 2.1) mg/kg. The daily median dose of IV polymyxin B was 2.0 (2.0, 2.5) mg/kg and 2.0 (2.0–3.0) mg/kg in the IH + IV and IV group, respectively. The median daily dose of IH polymyxin B was 1.82 (1.04, 2.0) mg/kg. The IV and IH polymyxin B administered by the center is shown in the Additional file 1: Table S3.

The detailed setting about I/E ratio, respiratory frequency, tidal volume and inspiratory flow by center is shown in Additional file 1: Table S4. In some centers, protective mechanical ventilation strategy was used to treat the severe ARDS patients; to avoid hypercapnia, the respiratory rate was higher than 15/min.

Outcomes and adverse events in the matched population

After matching (n = 132), the difference in clinical cure rate was not significant between the two groups (43.2% for the IH + IV group vs 27.3% for the IV group, p = 0.066). However, a significantly higher rate of favorable clinical outcomes was observed in the IH + IV group compared to the IV group (77.3% vs 58.0%, p = 0.029, Table 2). The drug was well tolerated and was associated with slight adverse events. No severe neurotoxicity was observed in all patients, the median AKI classification was stage Injury (Table 2). Patients in the different subgroups (admitted for medical etiology, infected with XDR K. pneumoniae, without bacteremia, with immunosuppressive status) were with odds ratios (ORs) substantially favoring additional use of IH polymyxin B (Fig. 2). Secondary endpoints, such as the percentage of microbiological eradication were similar in the two groups (36.4% vs 23.9%, p = 0.132). There were no statistically significant differences in all case mortality (p = 0.63) or VAP-related mortality (p = 0.62) using log-rank test in analysis of Kaplan–Meier curves (Fig. 3A, B). Results of all-cause mortality from various predefined subgroups are reported in Fig. 4. Patients in the different subgroups, including SOFA score ≤ 8 or > 8, surgical or medical admission and different responsible pathogens, with or without bacteremia, with or without immunosuppressive status were without ORs substantially favoring increased all-cause mortality.

Table 2 Clinical and bacteriological outcomes, mortality, and adverse events in both treatment groups after matching
Full size table
Fig.2
figure 2

Comparison of clinical cure and improvement in the different subgroups. SOFA, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment; XDR, extensively drug-resistant; A. baumannii, Acinetobacter baumannii; E. coli, Escherichia coli; K. pneumoniae, Klebsiella pneumoniae; P. aeruginosa, Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Full size image
Fig.3
figure 3

Mortality in two treatment groups in the matched population. A All-cause in-hospital mortality; (B) VAP-related in-hospital mortality. IH + IV, inhaled plus intravenous; IV, intravenous. Day 0 represent VAP onset

Full size image
Fig.4
figure 4

Comparison of all-cause in-hospital mortality in the different subgroups. SOFA, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment; XDR, extensively drug-resistant; A. baumannii, Acinetobacter baumannii; E. coli, Escherichia coli; K. pneumoniae, Klebsiella pneumoniae; P. aeruginosa, Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Full size image

Predictors of favorable clinical outcome in the matched patients with VAP

The univariate analysis of the 132 patients with VAP showed that patients with favorable clinical outcome had a lower SOFA score, a higher daily dose of IV polymyxin B, with the additional use of IH polymyxin B treatment. Outcome has not be improved by the specific antibiotic combination (Table 3).

Table 3 Univariate analysis of predictors associated with favorable clinical outcome in 132 patients with VAP
Full size table

The logistic regression analysis showed that additional use of IH polymyxin B, presence of sepsis and septic shock and low SOFA score were independent factors associated with favorable clinical outcome (Table 4).

Table 4 Logistic regression analysis of predictors associated with favorable clinical outcome in 132 patients with VAP
Full size table

Discussion

Our multi-center study demonstrated that adjunctive inhalation of polymyxin B did not improve the clinical cure rate in VAP patients caused by XDR GN bacilli. Other secondary endpoints, including all-cause mortality, VAP-related in-hospital, and 28-day mortality and bacteriological outcomes were not different between the two treatment groups. Nevertheless, the additional IH polymyxin B was associated with a more favorable clinical outcome. This might be due to the control of the continuous bacterial contamination of the respiratory tract issued from the endotracheal tube. Low rates of side effects associated with polymyxin B, such as nephrotoxicity and direct toxicity on airways were observed. However, skin hyperpigmentation was observed in almost all the patients treated with polymyxin B.

The incidence of VAP caused by MDR or XDR GN bacilli is continuously increasing. It has been reported that A. baumannii, K. pneumoniae, and P. aeruginosa were the most commonly detected pathogens causing VAP [18]. Pathogen resistance to antibiotics has been reported in intensive care units [19]. Our result showed that MDR K. pneumoniae was the most common Gram-negative bacilli to cause VAP. The mortality rate of VAP caused by XDR GN bacilli was shown to be high (between 46 and 6%) [20]. In our study, the VAP-related mortality and all-cause mortality rates were consistent with the previous literature [20].

Given that colistimethate sodium have poor penetration into the lung parenchyma but systemic toxicity when administered intravenously, aerosolized and IV colistimethate sodium are commonly combined and administered in the therapy of MDR or XDR GN bacilli VAP [21]. The benefits of aerosolized colistimethate sodium in patients with VAP remain controversial. The retrospective nature of clinical studies, their heterogeneous protocols, the lack of optimization of the technique of nebulization and the variability of dosing restrict the validity of the three meta-analyses published in 2015 and 2018 [10]. There is clinical and experimental evidence that nebulization of high-dose colistimethate sodium may be an efficient treatment of MDR GNB VAP. It is unclear whether nebulized high-dose colistimethate sodium is equivalent or superior to the treatment by intravenous new cephalosporin/ß-lactamase inhibitors. Nebulized polymyxin B was also prescribed to treat MDR bacilli caused HAP or VAP. A single-center retrospective clinical trial aimed at assessing combination of IH and IV polymyxin B treatment on the MDR-K. pneumoniae induced VAP patients, found that complete clearance rate of K. pneumoniae was higher with the combination of IH and IV polymyxin B compared with IV polymyxin B alone. The average duration of intubation and length of ICU stay were shortened with combined IH and IV polymyxin B therapy [22]. In our study, both the clinical cure and bacteriological clearance were not improved by IH + IV polymyxin B. The presence of sepsis and septic shock, as well as a high SOFA score may significantly affect outcome. The discrepancy in the findings from the current study and the previous trial may be related to differences in the doses and in the studied populations. In the current study, the doses of intravenous and nebulized polymyxin B were relatively lower, and the types of the pathogens were multiple. The recommendation of IV polymyxin B dose is 50–100 mg/day in the < Instruction > in China [23]. However, this recommended dose is not based on weight and could be inefficient in the case of high weight. It was found that IV doses of polymyxin B < 200 mg/day cannot achieve bactericidal efficiency [24, 25]. Therefore, to achieve bactericidal efficiency, the international guideline recommended that for patients with severe infections, a polymyxin B dose of 1.25–1.5 mg/kg every 12 h is infused over 1 h preceded by a loading dose of 2.0–2.5 mg/kg over 1 h [26]. However, a recent Chinese study showed that over 0.75 mg/kg/12 h IV polymyxin B achieved a cumulative fraction of response > 90% for MDR A. baumannii, K. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa induced bloodstream infection patients (MICs ranging from 0.125 to > 32 mg/L) [27]. To remedy the poor diffusion of systematic polymyxin B in the pulmonary, the appropriate IH dose was important. It was demonstrated that nebulized dose of polymyxin B was as high as 8.24 mg/kg in the neutropenic mouse model to achieve the AUC/MIC targets associated with bacteriostasis against P. aeruginosa [28]. The optimal nebulized dose of polymyxin B is essentially determined by its bronchial tolerability and the extrapulmonary deposition during the nebulization phase. In the Chinese expert consensus of clinical polymyxin B use, the recommended IH dose is 50 mg, twice a day [29]. A recent study demonstrated that HAP or VAP patient with MDR K. pneumoniae treated with 2.0–2.5 mg/kg/day with or without additional IH polymyxin B at 100 mg/day, a complete clearance of K. pneumoniae was 92.1% in the IH and IV group compared to 70.1% in the IH group [30]. Thus, we found reasonable to get the current result for clinical cure rate of 27%, a bacteriological eradication of 24%. In the present study, the dose of polymyxin B was lower than international recommendation in several centers. With the increasing use of polymyxin B, the reliable PK data of nebulized polymyxin B to optimize the dosage selection in the critical illness are needed in the future.

The favorable clinical outcome rate in the IH + IV polymyxin B group was significantly higher than that in IV polymyxin B group. A previous study from a small size study conducted by Sobieszczyk et al. showed that 19/25 of patients treated with polymyxin B-based therapy had a favorable response [31], which was consistent with findings of our study. A possible hypothesis for improved favorable outcome was related to a partial control of the continuous bacterial contamination of the respiratory tract coming from the endotracheal tube (reduction of the inoculum). Another possible interpretation of the more favorable clinical outcome was that more multiple trauma and less acute respiratory failure patients in the IV + IH polymyxin B group than in the IV polymyxin B group. Since it was well known that outcome of trauma patients is better than medical critically ill patients. In addition, acute respiratory failure was an independent risk factor for mortality of critically ill patients [32].

The common side effect of inhaled antibiotics was bronchospasm. Bronchospasm was found in three patients with IH + IV polymyxin B treatment (6.8%). Bronchospasm caused by polymyxin B inhalation in those three patients was not permanent and was consequently relieved by bronchodilators and glucocorticoids. Moreover, the incidence of nephrotoxicity was 6.1% (8/132), which was similar with that reported in previous studies (6%–10%) [31]. Compared with IV polymyxin B, the combination of IH + IV polymyxin B did not further increase nephrotoxicity. So polymyxin B may be used instead when the lack of colistimethate sodium or patients with severe kidney dysfunction.

Skin hyperpigmentation in the head and neck was observed in almost all the patients treated with polymyxin B. It is possible that skin darkening was associated with the release of histamine caused by polymyxin B, as histamine is known to exert melanogenic effects [33]. We found that skin darkening could be reversed without any treatment within 6 months by the end of polymyxin B treatment.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest matched cohort study reporting the benefit of IH in addition to IV polymyxin B in patients with VAP caused by XDR GN bacilli. However, this study has some limitations. First, the intravenous and nebulization doses of polymyxin B was relatively lower in several centers, which may decrease the bacteria clearance and clinical outcomes. Second, this is a retrospective study with a relatively low sample size. However, it should be considered that polymyxin B has only recently become available in China. Third, our primary outcome was a subjective one. However, we had two blinded investigators who did not know the groups to determine the primary results to avoid inherent bias. Fourth, a large number of patients could not be matched, which is a potential source of bias. Fifth, despite matching on four factors, both groups were different concerning the severity of disease: in patients with more favorable clinical outcome, SOFA score and the incidence of septic shock were significantly lower using multivariate analysis. These results suggest that the more favorable clinical outcome was not related to treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia but to differences in the severity of the underlying disease. Using propensity score, a more accurate statistical method for matching, would have likely concealed this important result that explains the apparent contradiction between the lack of therapeutic effect of low-dose IH + IV polymyxin for treating VAP and a more favorable outcome. Finally, the present study was a multi-center clinical trial, but data were collected retrospectively. The procedure for nebulization was not strictly identical in all the centers.

To summarize, our data indicated that in patients with VAP caused by XDR GN bacilli, the addition of IH polymyxin B to IV polymyxin B did not provide efficient clinical cure and bacterial eradication compared to IV polymyxin B alone. However, it may provide a more favorable clinical outcome, maybe due to the control of the continuous bacterial contamination of the respiratory tract issuing from the endotracheal tube (reduction of the inoculum).

References

  1. Huang Y, Jiao Y, Zhang J, Xu J, Cheng Q, Li Y, et al. Microbial etiology and prognostic factors of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a multicenter retrospective study in Shanghai. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67:S146–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciy686.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gupta R, Malik A, Rizvi M, Ahmed M, Singh A. Epidemiology of multidrug-resistant gram-negative pathogens isolated from ventilator-associated pneumonia in ICU patients. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2017;9:47–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgar.2016.12.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Laessig KA. End points in hospital-acquired pneumonia and/or ventilator-associated pneumonia clinical trials: food and drug administration perspective. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51:S117–9. https://doi.org/10.1086/653059.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Li J, Nation RL, Turnidge JD, Milne RW, Coulthard K, Rayner CR, et al. Colistin: the re-emerging antibiotic for multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacterial infections. Lancet Infect Dis. 2006;6(9):589–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(06)70580-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Monsel A, Torres A, Zhu Y, Pugin J, Rello J, Rouby JJ, et al. Nebulized antibiotics for ventilator-associated pneumonia: methodological framework for future multicenter randomized controlled trials. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2021;34(2):156–68. https://doi.org/10.1097/QCO.0000000000000720.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Naesens R, Vlieghe E, Verbrugghe W, Jorens P, Ieven M. A retrospective observational study on the efficacy of colistin by inhalation as compared to parenteral administration for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia associated with multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. BMC Infect Dis. 2011;11:317. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-11-317.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Livermore DM. The need for new antibiotics. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2004;10:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-0691.2004.1004.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Korkmaz Ekren P, Toreyin N, Sayiner A, Bacakoglu F, Colistin Study G. The role of aerosolized colistin in the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia: experience of multicenter from turkey. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(5):e304. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000001539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Valachis A, Samonis G, Kofteridis DP. The role of aerosolized colistin in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(3):527–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000000771.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhu Y, Monsel A, Roberts J, Pontikis K, Mimoz O, Rello J, et al. Nebulized colistin in ventilator-associated pneumonia and tracheobronchitis: historical background pharmacokinetics and perspectives. Microorganisms. 2021;9(6):1154. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9061154.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Ehrmann S, Luyt CE. Optimizing aerosol delivery of antibiotics in ventilated patients. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2020;33(2):197–204. https://doi.org/10.1097/QCO.0000000000000633.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fernando SM, Tran A, Cheng W, Klompas M, Kyeremanteng K, Mehta S, et al. Diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill adult patients-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(6):1170–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-020-06036-z.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(3):304–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tellapragada C, Hasan B, Antonelli A, Maruri A, de Vogel C, Gijon D, et al. Isothermal microcalorimetry minimal inhibitory concentration testing in extensively drug resistant gram-negative bacilli a multicentre study. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;26(10):1413e1-e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2020.01.026.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kofteridis DP, Alexopoulou C, Valachis A, Maraki S, Dimopoulou D, Georgopoulos D, et al. Aerosolized plus intravenous colistin versus intravenous colistin alone for the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a matched case-control study. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51(11):1238–44. https://doi.org/10.1086/657242.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bellomo R, Ronco C, Kellum JA, Mehta RL, Palevsky P. Acute dialysis quality initiative w acute renal failure - definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: the second international consensus conference of the acute dialysis quality initiative (ADQI) Group. Crit Care. 2004;8(4):R204-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc2872.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Mattos KP, Lloret GR, Cintra ML, Gouvea IR, Betoni TR, Mazzola PG, et al. Acquired skin hyperpigmentation following intravenous polymyxin B treatment: a cohort study. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2016;29(3):388–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/pcmr.12468.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Xie J, Yang Y, Huang Y, Kang Y, Xu Y, Ma X, et al. The current epidemiological landscape of ventilator-associated pneumonia in the intensive care unit: a multicenter prospective observational study in China. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67:S153–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciy692.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Palmer LB. Ventilator-associated infection: the role for inhaled antibiotics. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2015;21(3):239–49. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCP.0000000000000160.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kohlenberg A, Schwab F, Behnke M, Geffers C, Gastmeier P. Pneumonia associated with invasive and noninvasive ventilation: an analysis of the German nosocomial infection surveillance system database. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(6):971–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-010-1863-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Michalopoulos A, Papadakis E. Inhaled anti-infective agents: emphasis on colistin. Infection. 2010;38(2):81–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-009-9148-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hasan MJ, Rabbani R, Anam AM, Santini A, Huq SMR. The susceptibility of MDR-K pneumoniae to polymyxin B plus its nebulised form versus polymyxin B alone in critically Ill South Asian patients. J Crit Care Med. 2021;7(1):28–36. https://doi.org/10.2478/jccm-2020-0044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. D Med. Chinese instruction of polymyxin B, for Injection Shanghai First Biochemical Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd China, 2017.

  24. Avedissian SN, Liu J, Rhodes NJ, Lee A, Pais GM, Hauser AR, et al. A review of the clinical pharmacokinetics of polymyxin B. Antibiotics. 2019;8(1):31. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics8010031.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Wang P, Zhang Q, Zhu Z, Feng M, Sun T, Yang J, et al. Population pharmacokinetics and limited sampling strategy for therapeutic drug monitoring of polymyxin B in Chinese patients with multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:829. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2020.00829.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Tsuji BT, Pogue JM, Zavascki AP, Paul M, Daikos GL, Forrest A, et al. International consensus guidelines for the optimal use of the polymyxins: endorsed by the American college of clinical pharmacy (ACCP), European society of clinical microbiology and infectious diseases (ESCMID), infectious diseases society of America (IDSA), international society for anti-infective pharmacology (ISAP), society of critical care medicine (SCCM), and society of infectious diseases pharmacists (SIDP). Pharmacotherapy. 2019;39(1):10–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.2209.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Bian X, Liu X, Hu F, Feng M, Chen Y, Bergen PJ, et al. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic based breakpoints of polymyxin B for bloodstream infections caused by multidrug-resistant gram-negative pathogens. Front Pharmacol. 2022;12:785893. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.785893.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Lin YW, Zhou Q, Onufrak NJ, Wirth V, Chen K, Wang JP, et al. Aerosolized polymyxin B for treatment of respiratory tract infections: determination of pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic indices for aerosolized polymyxin B against pseudomonas aeruginosa in a mouse lung infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61:e00211-17. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00211-17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Critical Medicine Professional Committee of Chinese Research Hospital Association, Evidence-based and Translational Committee of Infectious Diseases, Chinese Society of Research Hospitals. Chinese expert consen-sus on polymyxins. Chinese Critical Care Medicine. 2019;31(10): 1194–1198. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2019.10.003.

  30. Hasan MJ, Rabbani R, Anam AM, Santini A, Huq SMR. The susceptibility of MDR- K. pneumoniae to polymyxin B Plus Its nebulised form versus polymyxin B alone in critically Ill South Asian patients. J Crit Care Med. 2021;7:28–36. https://doi.org/10.2478/jccm-2020-0044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sobieszczyk ME, Furuya EY, Hay CM, Pancholi P, Della-Latta P, Hammer SM, et al. Combination therapy with polymyxin b for the treatment of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative respiratory tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004;54(2):566–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkh369.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Luo L, Shaver CM, Zhao Z, Koyama T, Calfee CS, Bastarache JA, Ware LB. clinical predictors of hospital mortality differ between direct and indirect ARDS. Chest. 2017;151(4):755–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2016.09.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mattos KPH, Cintra ML, Gouvea IR, Ferreira LA, Velho P, Moriel P. Skin hyperpigmentation following intravenous polymyxin B treatment associated with melanocyte activation and inflammatory process. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2017;42(5):573–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpt.12543.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to all the intensivists who helped us to collect the medical data.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 81971869 and 82172154).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jiao Liu, Min Shao and Qianghong Xu contributed equally to the study

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No.197 Ruijin 2nd Road, Shanghai, 201801, China

    Jiao Liu, Xiaojun Pan, Sisi Huang, Lidi Zhang, Yizhu Chen, Sheng Zhang, Zhenliang Wen, Hangxiang Du,  TaoWang, Yongan Liu, Wenzhe Li, Yan Xu & Dechang Chen

  2. Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, 230022, China

    Min Shao

  3. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhejiang Hospital, No.12 Lingyin Road, HangZhou, 310015, China

    Qianghong Xu

  4. Department of Critical Care Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No.17, YongwaiZheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China

    Fen Liu

  5. Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, No. 58 Zhongshan Er Road, Guangzhou, 510010, China

    Jianfeng Wu

  6. Department of Intensive Care Unit, The Second People’s Hospital of Shenzhen, Futian District, Sungang West Road, Shenzhen, 3002518035, China

    Lihong Xiong

  7. Emergency and Critical Care Center, Lishui People’s Hospital, No. 15 Dazhong Road, Lishui, 323000, China

    Yueming Wu

  8. Department of Intensive Care Unit, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, No. 12 Middle Urumqi Road, Shanghai, 200040, China

    Mi Tian

  9. Department of Intensive Care Unit, The First People’s Hospital of KunShan, No 91, Qianjin Road, KunShan, 215300, China

    Jianying Yao

  10. Service de Médecine-Intensive Réanimation, Hôpital Bicêtre, AP-HP. Université Paris-Saclay, Inserm UMR 999, Université Paris-Saclay, 94270, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France

    Jean-louis Teboul

Authors
  1. Jiao Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Min Shao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qianghong Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fen Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiaojun Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jianfeng Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lihong Xiong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yueming Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mi Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jianying Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Sisi Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Lidi Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Yizhu Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Sheng Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Zhenliang Wen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Hangxiang Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. TaoWang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Yongan Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Wenzhe Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Yan Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Jean-louis Teboul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Dechang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JL, MS and QH X designed the study. FL, XJP, JFW, LHX, YMW, MT and JYYcollected and verified all data. SSH, YZC, SZ analyzed the data. ZLW, HXD,TW,YAL prepared the figures. JL, MS, QHX,WZL and YX wrote the draft ofthe manuscript. DC, JLT and JL made critical revision to reviewer’scomments. All the authors gave final approval of the version to bepublished and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work inensuring 2 that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part ofthe work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dechang Chen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Table S1

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Study Patients. Table S2 Empirical antibiotic therapy before enrolment. Table S3 Intravenous and nebulized doses of polymyxin B by center. Table S4 The information for nebulization of Polymyxin B in each center. Table S5 Clinical and Bacteriological Outcomes, Mortality, and Adverse Events in Both Treatment Groups.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, J., Shao, M., Xu, Q. et al. Low-dose intravenous plus inhaled versus intravenous polymyxin B for the treatment of extensive drug-resistant Gram-negative ventilator-associated pneumonia in the critical illnesses: a multi-center matched case–control study. Ann. Intensive Care 12, 72 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-022-01033-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-022-01033-5

Keywords

  • Polymyxin B
  • Inhalation
  • Extensively drug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli
  • Ventilator-associated pneumonia
  • Critical illnesses