1. Introduction
For critically ill patients in the intensive care unit with severe bacterial infections, the rapid and targeted initiation of adequate antibiotic therapy is of utmost importance for the patient’s outcome. Antibiotic resistance has an increasingly important influence on the effectiveness of therapy and the chances of clinical recovery. The current worldwide increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria has therefore been defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as one of the 10 greatest global health threats to humanity, which requires decisive action through differentiated measures.
Antibiotic resistance is mainly caused by overuse or misuse of antibiotics. The choice of substance used plays the major role here, but dosage aspects and the resulting low antibiotic levels in the blood or the target organ system are also relevant, as this can lead to the selection of resistant subpopulations of pathogens under antibiotic therapy. The appropriate dosage of antibiotics is therefore not only important for patient outcome, but also for the development of resistance itself. In addition to choosing the individual substance for the patient, the physician must therefore keep an eye on the sufficient dosage and also the so-called “resistance pressure” that he/she automatically exerts on the individual patient but also on the entire cohort of the corresponding ward and hospital through the choice of antibiotic.
The representation of the local resistance situation in the form of resistance statistics should therefore also be taken into account when selecting the respective substance. As these dimensions are usually not given sufficient consideration in the medical decision-making process for antibiotic therapy, structured optimization measures against antibiotic resistance are of utmost medical importance. Specifically, in addition to the pharmacological development of new substances/antibiotic classes by the pharmaceutical industry, the rational and responsible use of antibiotics is particularly important. This preventive approach to avoiding resistance is subsumed under the term Antibiotic Stewardship (ABS) and includes the following aspects, among others:
the initially broadly calculated antibiotic therapy for critical illnesses (e.g. sepsis), taking into account local resistance situations,
detection of the (bacterial) pathogen causing the infection by means of suitable microbiological diagnostics,
selection of the appropriate antibiotic based on the antibiogram of the identified pathogen(s) (as well as de-escalation in the case of calculated prior therapy),
the adjustment of the duration of therapy,
and the dosage and form of antibiotic administration.
The aim of ABS is to treat patients in the best possible way and at the same time prevent selection processes and resistance from occurring in the bacteria. To this end, it would be desirable to regularly evaluate and optimize the rational use of antimicrobial substances with an integrative approach that combines routine intensive care and microbiological data from the clinic with mathematical and methodological analyses: a clinical decision support system. To establish such a system, however, the above-mentioned hurdles arising from the complexity of the clinical situation must be overcome. Reflection is now required and the natural next step is to first better understand the given complexity.
Even though Germany still has relatively low incidences of resistant bacterial pathogens compared to other (southern and eastern) European countries, the trend in this country is also increasing alarmingly, particularly with certain Gram-negative pathogens. In contrast to Gram-positive pathogens, this group of multi-resistant Gram-negative bacteria poses the greatest challenge, as several hundred different resistances with a pleiotropic pool of different resistance mechanisms have already been identified. Frequent basic principles of antibiotic resistance are the inactivation of
-lactam antibiotics by means of chemical cleavage by so-called
-lactamases, as well as the reduction of the antibiotic in the bacterial periplasm through the expression of efflux pumps or the loss of porins. In particular, the large number of very different
-lactamases influences the efficacy of the largest antibiotic class of
-lactams. Special
-lactamases (so-called carbapenemases) can give rise to the fact that no
-lactam antibiotic, including the group of carbapenems as reserve substances, still has clinical efficacy against corresponding pathogens [
1]. However, multiresistance also affects structurally and functionally unrelated antimicrobial active substances, as will be discussed again below in the context of cross-resistance.
The number of substances available for multi-resistant Gram-negative pathogens is still limited and newly developed antibiotic classes are the exception rather than the rule. Major innovations in the development of antibiotics for Gram-negative pathogens therefore primarily consist of the combination of a “new”
-lactamase inhibitor with an existing substance.
-lactamase inhibitors are able to inactivate
-lactamases produced by bacteria, allowing the antibiotic that was previously ineffective due to inactivation to become effective again. However, there is already resistance to these “new” antibiotics. On the one hand,
-lactamase inhibitors are only effective against certain
-lactamases. On the other hand, their use can lead to the selection of subpopulations of the treated pathogen that are resistant to this combination of active substances [
2]. The use of new antibiotics is therefore strictly limited to cases in which other substances are no longer effective and will not be able to solve the antibiotic resistance problem in the long term.
Preventive concepts such as ABS are therefore of crucial importance in preventing the development of resistance. In addition to the actual microbiological identification of the pathogen, this includes in particular the selection of the appropriate antibiotic, including pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic aspects. Clinically, the efficacy of a substance is determined by measuring the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC). The MIC is the lowest effective concentration of an antibiotic that still prevents the replication of a pathogen in a culture. Clinical threshold values defined for the respective pathogens (in Europe by the EUCAST - “European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing”) then identify a pathogen as resistant (R) or susceptible (S) to the respective antibiotic tested and support clinicians in selecting the correct substance in the form of the so-called antibiogram [
3].
Regarding resistance development, however, the aspect of the active substance concentration achieved in the target compartment is also of decisive importance. It is currently assumed that a pathogen population that triggers an infection has different subpopulations with different MICs [
4]. It is therefore assumed that an antibiotic tested sensitive
per se leads to the selection of subpopulations of the treated pathogen with a higher MIC if blood or target organ levels are inadequate, resulting in the clinical manifestation of resistance. This development can occur either within a patient (e.g. in the case of recurrent antibiotic episodes during long courses of intensive care), but also across patient boundaries in the entire ward or hospital cohort over a longer period of time, as there is inevitably also an exchange of the microbiome between patients (direct and indirect/iatrogenic) [
5].
As a countermeasure, attempts are made by ensuring sufficiently high antibiotic levels and thus a sufficient dosage. This has recently been done, for example, by determining the blood or tissue levels of a substance as part of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and any resulting dose adjustments [
6,
7]. However, a third category “I” in susceptibility testing (English for “susceptible for increased exposure”) also addresses the requirement for sufficient antibiotic levels, which clinically means that the substance has been tested as sensitive but requires an increased dosage. With regard to the overall cohort, the local resistance situation in the form of ward and/or hospital-specific resistance statistics also plays a relevant role.
Another possible ABS strategy proposed and analyzed by numerous authors is the cyclical allocation of antibiotics or so-called mixing (other terms are in circulation). These are strategies at hospitals with the aim of contributing to a reduction in the prevalence of resistant germs by means of spatial (between departments, mixing) or cyclical (temporal) variations in the proportions of consumption of different antibiotic groups. According to a recent systematic review [
8], there is only one randomized controlled trial (RCT) on the effectiveness of such strategies. However, there are some studies that at least compared systematic cyclical administration strategies and standard administration between clinics or carried out before-and-after comparisons (cross-over) [
8,
9].
Meta-analyses report a small effect (on average), with individual studies reporting a clinically relevant effect [
8,
9]. In the RCT study, cycling performed worse than the control ABS [
8]. In numerous studies, “mixing” was chosen as the control strategy, i.e. an alternating exchange between departments. Cycling, i.e. a temporal periodic change simultaneously across all departments, showed no difference to the mixing procedure, which is not surprising from a theoretical point of view if one assumes sufficiently isolated conditions between the departments. Nevertheless, all studies (RCT and cohort studies) including the cross-over studies were considered together in the meta-analyses, regardless of whether they tested against “mixing” or “without strategy”, which must be viewed very critically and neglects the important separate consideration of mixing and cycling. However, in the meta-analysis by [
9], a distinction was made between the two control strategies as part of a secondary analysis. In Gram-positive bacteria, the cycling strategy showed a slightly stronger effect in terms of avoiding resistance. It appears that there is no general evaluation independent of other biological and medical boundary conditions. It is therefore possible that the cycling concept itself is not well thought out. The question of whether cycling or mixing contributes to the “rational and responsible use of antibiotics” has therefore not been conclusively clarified.
“Scheduled cycling” according to a fixed scheme means that the informed, i.e. rational use of antibiotics is deliberately avoided, so that conceptually a control or zero strategy rather than a verum strategy is defined here. In a seminal cycling study published by [
10], the authors investigated interrupted time series in the administration of aminoclycosides. These irregular antibiotic prescriptions followed an observed pattern in the emergence of resistant germs and by no means a fixed periodic cycling scheme. In retrospect, it appears that the authors intuitively used the method that is now referred to as “clinical cycling” and which is actually superior to scheduled cycling because it is based on clinical evidence for the necessity of a switching strategy. Unsurprisingly, scheduled cycling strategies have not yet found any clinical application in practice. Moreover, cycling is explicitly not recommended in a German S3 guideline [
11]. Noteworthy, the validity already expired on 2024-01-31, so an update has been overdue for more than a year, i.e. the S3 guideline does not currently provide any valid orientation for ABS.
The latest insights into the genesis of cross-resistance and delay phenomena in this genesis make the strictly timed cyclical variation appear particularly naive in retrospect [
12,
13,
14]. Cross-resistance can arise due to genetic changes in the bacterial strain. They can acquire resistance via gene transfer - via conjugation or transformation - from other bacteria. Transmission via bacteriophages (transduction) is also possible (e.g. [
15]). However, it has also been clear for some time that multi-resistance must actually be interpreted as cross-resistance
per se, since multidrug resistance is a term that refers to mechanisms of resistance by chromosomal genes. In this case, as [
12] points out, an exposure to a single drug leads to cross-resistance to many other structurally and functionally unrelated drugs. As mentioned above, an important mechanism identified for multidrug resistance in bacteria is drug efflux by membrane transporters.
Results such as those by [
16] show that current strategies for the use of critical antibiotics are not sufficient to avoid unexpected antibiotic cross-resistance. They found that cross-resistance to daptomycin occurred in vancomycin-resistant
Enterococcus faecium when rifaximin was used. Resulting resistance formation has been shown not only for antibiotic use, but also for antiviral drugs: bacteria exposed in vitro to antiviral drugs with antibacterial properties can develop multiple resistance mutations associated with cross-resistance to antibiotics [
16].
In another cross-correlation study, it was shown that considering the previous consumption as well as the incidence density of strains during the previous quarter proved to be the best model to explain Carbapenem resistance of
P. aeruginosa strains based on meropenem consumption during a given quarter [
17]. Furthermore, a correlation was found between antibiotic consumption and the occurrence of multidrug-resistant organisms [
18]. Also worth mentioning is the meta-analysis on the effect of combination therapies on the development of resistance, which shows mixed results. In some cases, the prognosis is better with combinations, but in others the opposite effect is seen [
19].
Arguably, despite the aforementioned counterarguments, the poor performance of “scheduled cycling” does no speak against cycling per se, but rather against cycling that is not carried out intelligently. One could even say that conceptually, scheduled cycling corresponds more to a “placebo-like” (control) ABS, whereas clinical cycling based on clinical expertise corresponds to the verum group. In the context of this interpretation, the many studies on cycling are in fact rather evaluation procedures for assessing whether the respective “clinical cycling” is viable on the basis of implicit clinical knowledge in comparison to a non-informed cycling strategy. In other words, despite the clinically contra-indicated settings of scheduled cycling programs, these strategies represent a kind of basic model structure whose quantitative explanation is the basis for the description of more complex switching strategies (clinical cycling).
In our own preliminary work [
20], we have created and published a mathematical framework that is suitable for adequately quantifying the effect of clinical cycling and, in borderline cases, scheduled cycling. It is worth mentioning that in most of the studies conducted, no quantification of the degree of mixing or cyclic variation was used. An exception is the study by [
21], in which an antibiotic heterogeneity index (AHI) was used. However, it turns out that AHI is completely unsuitable for the intended task. It is a global measure that is invariant to swapping the antibiotic classes. This means that if the consumption shares of two antibiotics are swapped, AHI remains unchanged.
We therefore developed a mathematical method to correctly calculate temporal and spatial heterogeneities in the consumption of antibiotics and in the prevalence of pathogens. Subsequent correlation analyses revealed a relationship between the heterogeneity of antibiotic consumption and the prevalence of resistant pathogens, indicating a reduction in the prevalence of resistant germs. The heterogeneity changes on the pathogen side follow the changes on the consumption side.
Diversity measures, which are frequently used in ecological studies in particular, were used to calculate “mixing”, i.e. the degree of heterogeneity. These measures are related to entropies, which are used in information theory and especially in statistical physics for the quantitative description of mixing processes (dispersions) and similar phenomena. There is a larger class of such entropies or diversities, whereby the concrete choice depends on the specific problem. However, the Shannon entropy known from information theory is, like AHI, a global entropy, i.e. invariant to permutations of the species. Local heterogeneity measures must therefore be used in order to be able to record changes over time. The Kullback-Leibler entropy is such a local entropy and has proven its worth in our preliminary work in the context of ABS as well as of spatio-temporal epidemic patterns [
20,
22]. However, the concrete choice of the final form of the analysis algorithms depends on specific conditions. The estimated values of some entropies from a larger class of theoretically allowed diversity measures are inaccurate when very small consumption fractions are involved.
It must be mentioned that adaptive model-based optimization in everyday clinical practice is not readily possible on the basis of our preliminary work. Theoretically, it would be conceivable to extrapolate the observed mixing states, i.e. to create possible interaction scenarios, in such a way that an “optimal cycling regime” is achieved, but this extrapolation would take place without any “constraints”, such as those imposed by biological and clinical framework conditions and regulations. However, we note that the foundation for such an optimization has been laid by our preliminary work, also taking into account clinical constraints (antibiogram, pharmacokinetics and microbiological parameters, guidelines) [
6,
7,
20,
22,
23].
As mentioned, the clinical requirements of ABS also include careful and appropriate microbiological diagnostics. A comprehensive prevalence and mortality study recently addressed which pathogens are the biggest problem children [
24]. In summary, in 2019, approximately 14% of all deaths were due to a bacterial infection, based on the 33 most important pathogens. Furthermore, 56% of sepsis-associated deaths died as a result of these 33 infections. It is also noteworthy that 55% of deaths from the 33 bacterial species were due to infections of
Previously, the 6 pathogens from the so-called ESKAPE series
Enterococcus faecium
Staphylococcus aureus
Klebsiella pneumoniae
Acinetobacter baumannii
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Enterobacter
were discussed as particularly critical with the highest clinical relevance [
25]. It almost goes without saying that successful ABS must keep an eye on the prevalence of these pathogens, which are classified as particularly dangerous, especially with regard to the development of resistance. In this context, we also refer to the studies by [
26,
27,
28], that specifically address mortality due to antibiotic resistance in ICUs.
The obvious preparatory step for such a clinical decision support system in form of an adaptive optimization is therefore the precise descriptive representation of the clinical conditions and requirements, i.e. the representation of the local resistance situation in the form of resistance statistics. A first attempt towards such statistics will be made in the present work for the intensive care unit of a German hospital, located in Bochum.