Monday, June 2, 2025

Precision Medicine

Precision Medicine in Sepsis: Advancing from One-Size-Fits-All to Personalized Critical Care

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Sepsis remains a leading cause of mortality in intensive care units worldwide, with current management strategies following a standardized approach that may not account for significant inter-patient heterogeneity. Precision medicine offers a paradigm shift toward personalized treatment strategies based on individual patient characteristics, biomarkers, and pathophysiological profiles.

Objective: This review examines the current state and future prospects of precision medicine in sepsis management, including biomarker discovery, pharmacogenomics, artificial intelligence applications, and personalized therapeutic interventions.

Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from 2015 to 2024, focusing on precision medicine approaches in sepsis diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment.

Results: Emerging evidence supports the utility of multi-biomarker panels, genomic profiling, and machine learning algorithms in sepsis phenotyping and outcome prediction. Key areas of advancement include endotyping based on immune response patterns, pharmacogenomic-guided antibiotic selection, and personalized fluid management strategies.

Conclusions: While precision medicine in sepsis shows considerable promise, significant challenges remain in clinical implementation, including standardization of biomarkers, integration of complex data streams, and demonstration of improved patient outcomes in randomized controlled trials.

Keywords: precision medicine, sepsis, biomarkers, pharmacogenomics, artificial intelligence, personalized medicine

1. Introduction

Sepsis, defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, affects over 48 million people globally each year and accounts for approximately 11 million deaths. Despite significant advances in understanding sepsis pathophysiology and the implementation of standardized care bundles, mortality rates remain unacceptably high, ranging from 10-30% depending on severity and patient population.

The current approach to sepsis management follows the "one-size-fits-all" paradigm established by international guidelines, emphasizing early recognition, prompt antibiotic administration, fluid resuscitation, and organ support. However, this standardized approach fails to account for the substantial heterogeneity observed in sepsis patients regarding clinical presentation, pathophysiological mechanisms, treatment response, and outcomes.

Precision medicine, also known as personalized medicine, represents a revolutionary approach that tailors medical treatment to individual characteristics, including genetic profile, biomarker expression, environmental factors, and lifestyle. In sepsis, precision medicine holds the potential to transform patient care by enabling clinicians to make more informed decisions about diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment selection based on each patient's unique biological signature.

This comprehensive review examines the current state of precision medicine in sepsis, exploring key developments in biomarker discovery, genomic profiling, artificial intelligence applications, and personalized therapeutic strategies. We also discuss the challenges and future directions for implementing precision medicine approaches in critical care settings.

2. The Rationale for Precision Medicine in Sepsis

2.1 Heterogeneity in Sepsis Pathophysiology

Sepsis encompasses a spectrum of pathophysiological processes that vary significantly among patients. The host response to infection involves complex interactions between innate and adaptive immune systems, coagulation cascades, endothelial function, and metabolic pathways. This biological complexity results in distinct phenotypes that may require different therapeutic approaches.

Recent studies have identified several sepsis endotypes based on immune response patterns, including hyper-inflammatory and immunosuppressive phenotypes. Patients with hyper-inflammatory endotypes may benefit from anti-inflammatory interventions, while those with immunosuppressive patterns might require immune-enhancing therapies. This biological heterogeneity provides a strong rationale for moving beyond standardized treatment protocols toward personalized approaches.

2.2 Limitations of Current Standardized Care

While sepsis bundles have improved overall outcomes, significant limitations persist in the current standardized approach. These include delayed recognition in atypical presentations, inappropriate antibiotic selection leading to resistance development, fluid overload in patients who may not benefit from aggressive resuscitation, and inability to predict treatment response or prognosis accurately.

Furthermore, clinical trials testing new sepsis therapies have largely failed, partly due to the inclusion of heterogeneous patient populations with different underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. Precision medicine approaches could potentially improve trial design by selecting patients most likely to benefit from specific interventions.

3. Biomarker-Based Approaches

3.1 Traditional Biomarkers and Their Limitations

Conventional sepsis biomarkers such as white blood cell count, C-reactive protein (CRP), and procalcitonin (PCT) have demonstrated utility in diagnosis and prognosis but lack the specificity and precision required for personalized treatment decisions. While PCT has shown promise in guiding antibiotic duration, its ability to distinguish between different sepsis phenotypes remains limited.

3.2 Multi-Biomarker Panels

Recent advances have focused on developing multi-biomarker panels that capture different aspects of the sepsis response. The SeptiCyte LAB test, which measures mRNA expression levels of four genes (CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLAC8, and PLA2G7), has shown superior performance compared to traditional biomarkers in distinguishing sepsis from non-infectious systemic inflammatory response syndrome.

Another promising approach involves combining protein biomarkers with different biological functions. The MARS (Multi-biomarker Assay Risk Stratification) panel, which includes biomarkers of inflammation (IL-6), endothelial dysfunction (angiopoietin-2), and adaptive immunity (sTNFR-1), has demonstrated improved risk stratification compared to individual biomarkers.

3.3 Novel Biomarker Discovery Platforms

High-throughput technologies, including proteomics, metabolomics, and transcriptomics, are enabling the discovery of novel biomarkers with greater precision. Metabolomic profiling has identified distinct metabolic signatures associated with sepsis severity and outcome, including alterations in amino acid metabolism, lipid profiles, and energy metabolism pathways.

MicroRNA (miRNA) profiles represent another emerging biomarker class, with specific miRNA signatures associated with sepsis diagnosis, severity assessment, and outcome prediction. The stability of miRNAs in biological samples and their regulatory role in immune responses make them attractive candidates for precision medicine applications.

4. Genomic and Pharmacogenomic Approaches

4.1 Host Genetic Susceptibility

Genetic variations significantly influence sepsis susceptibility, severity, and outcomes. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified several genetic variants associated with sepsis risk and mortality, including polymorphisms in genes encoding cytokines (TNF-α, IL-10), pattern recognition receptors (TLR4, TLR2), and complement system components.

The FcγRIIA H131R polymorphism affects antibody-mediated bacterial clearance and has been associated with increased sepsis risk and mortality. Similarly, variations in the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) gene influence susceptibility to acute respiratory distress syndrome in sepsis patients.

4.2 Pharmacogenomics in Sepsis

Pharmacogenomic approaches aim to optimize drug selection and dosing based on individual genetic profiles. In sepsis, this is particularly relevant for antibiotic therapy, vasopressor selection, and sedation management.

Cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme polymorphisms affect the metabolism of many antibiotics, including fluoroquinolones and macrolides. Patients with poor metabolizer phenotypes may require dosing adjustments to achieve therapeutic levels while avoiding toxicity. Similarly, variations in drug transporter genes (MDR1, OATP) influence antibiotic distribution and efficacy.

Vasopressor pharmacogenomics represents another area of active investigation. Polymorphisms in adrenergic receptor genes (ADRB1, ADRB2) affect response to catecholamine vasopressors, potentially informing selection between norepinephrine, epinephrine, and other agents.

4.3 Epigenetic Modifications

Epigenetic changes, including DNA methylation and histone modifications, play crucial roles in sepsis pathophysiology. These modifications can alter gene expression patterns without changing DNA sequences and may serve as both biomarkers and therapeutic targets.

Sepsis-induced immunosuppression is partly mediated by epigenetic silencing of immune genes. Understanding these mechanisms could lead to epigenetic therapies that restore immune function in sepsis patients with immunosuppressive phenotypes.

5. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Applications

5.1 Early Detection and Risk Stratification

Machine learning algorithms are increasingly being applied to improve sepsis detection and risk stratification. The Epic Sepsis Model (ESM) uses electronic health record data to predict sepsis onset hours before traditional criteria are met, potentially enabling earlier intervention.

The SOFA-ML model incorporates machine learning techniques to enhance Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score predictions, demonstrating improved accuracy in mortality prediction compared to traditional scoring systems. These tools could help clinicians prioritize resources and interventions for high-risk patients.

5.2 Treatment Response Prediction

AI approaches are being developed to predict treatment responses and guide therapeutic decisions. Machine learning models have shown promise in predicting fluid responsiveness, helping clinicians optimize fluid management strategies for individual patients.

Antibiotic stewardship is another area where AI applications show potential. Machine learning algorithms can analyze patterns of antibiotic resistance, patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes to recommend optimal empirical antibiotic regimens while minimizing resistance development.

5.3 Integration of Multi-Modal Data

One of the key advantages of AI in precision medicine is the ability to integrate diverse data sources, including clinical variables, laboratory results, imaging data, and genomic information. Deep learning approaches can identify complex patterns and interactions that may not be apparent through traditional statistical methods.

The development of "digital twins" – computational models that simulate individual patient physiology – represents an emerging frontier in precision critical care. These models could potentially predict treatment responses and optimize therapeutic strategies for specific patients.

6. Personalized Therapeutic Interventions

6.1 Immunomodulatory Therapies

The recognition of distinct immune endotypes in sepsis has led to increased interest in personalized immunomodulatory interventions. Patients with hyper-inflammatory phenotypes, characterized by elevated pro-inflammatory cytokines and immune activation markers, may benefit from anti-inflammatory therapies such as tocilizumab (IL-6 receptor antagonist) or anakinra (IL-1 receptor antagonist).

Conversely, patients with immunosuppressive phenotypes, indicated by reduced HLA-DR expression on monocytes, low interferon-γ production, or elevated anti-inflammatory markers, might benefit from immune-stimulating interventions such as interferon-γ or granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF).

6.2 Precision Antimicrobial Therapy

Personalized antimicrobial therapy extends beyond pharmacogenomic considerations to include rapid diagnostic testing, biomarker-guided duration, and resistance prediction models. Rapid molecular diagnostics can identify pathogens and resistance genes within hours, enabling targeted therapy selection.

Biomarker-guided antibiotic discontinuation, primarily using procalcitonin, has shown promise in reducing antibiotic exposure without compromising outcomes. More sophisticated approaches using multi-biomarker panels or machine learning algorithms may further optimize antibiotic duration decisions.

6.3 Personalized Fluid Management

Fluid resuscitation strategies in sepsis are increasingly being personalized based on individual patient characteristics and hemodynamic parameters. Dynamic measures of fluid responsiveness, including pulse pressure variation and stroke volume optimization, can guide fluid administration decisions.

Emerging approaches incorporate biomarkers of endothelial function and capillary leak (such as angiopoietin-2 and syndecan-1) to predict fluid requirements and guide resuscitation strategies. Patients with high capillary leak markers may benefit from alternative resuscitation approaches, including albumin administration or earlier vasopressor initiation.

7. Clinical Implementation Challenges

7.1 Standardization and Validation

One of the major challenges in implementing precision medicine approaches in sepsis is the lack of standardization across different platforms and institutions. Biomarker assays may vary between laboratories, and reference ranges may differ across populations. Establishing standardized protocols and quality assurance measures is essential for clinical implementation.

Large-scale validation studies are needed to confirm the clinical utility of precision medicine approaches in diverse patient populations. Many promising biomarkers and algorithms have been developed in single-center studies or specific patient populations, limiting their generalizability.

7.2 Cost-Effectiveness Considerations

The economic impact of precision medicine approaches must be carefully evaluated. While some interventions may have high upfront costs, they could potentially reduce overall healthcare expenditure by improving outcomes and reducing inappropriate treatments.

Cost-effectiveness analyses should consider not only direct medical costs but also broader societal impacts, including reduced antibiotic resistance development and improved quality of life for survivors.

7.3 Regulatory and Ethical Considerations

The implementation of precision medicine in sepsis raises important regulatory and ethical questions. Biomarker-based diagnostics and treatment algorithms require appropriate regulatory approval and validation. Privacy concerns related to genetic information and data sharing must be addressed.

Informed consent processes may need to be adapted for precision medicine approaches, particularly when genetic testing is involved. Ensuring equitable access to precision medicine technologies across different populations and healthcare settings is also crucial.

8. Future Directions and Emerging Technologies

8.1 Point-of-Care Diagnostics

The development of rapid, point-of-care diagnostic platforms is essential for implementing precision medicine in time-sensitive conditions like sepsis. Microfluidic devices and portable molecular diagnostic systems are being developed to provide rapid biomarker measurement and pathogen identification at the bedside.

CRISPR-based diagnostic tools represent an emerging technology with potential applications in sepsis diagnosis and monitoring. These systems could provide rapid, sensitive detection of pathogens and resistance genes directly from clinical samples.

8.2 Wearable Technologies and Continuous Monitoring

Wearable devices and continuous monitoring systems could enable real-time assessment of patient status and treatment response. These technologies might detect early signs of sepsis development or monitor treatment effectiveness continuously.

Integration of wearable data with electronic health records and machine learning algorithms could provide dynamic risk assessment and personalized treatment recommendations throughout the patient's clinical course.

8.3 Precision Medicine Networks and Consortiums

The complexity of sepsis and the need for large-scale validation studies necessitate collaborative approaches. International precision medicine networks and consortiums are being established to facilitate data sharing, standardization efforts, and multi-center validation studies.

These collaborative efforts could accelerate the translation of precision medicine research into clinical practice and ensure that benefits reach diverse patient populations globally.

9. Conclusions

Precision medicine represents a promising paradigm shift in sepsis management, offering the potential to move beyond standardized care protocols toward personalized treatment strategies. Current evidence supports the utility of multi-biomarker panels, genomic profiling, and artificial intelligence applications in improving sepsis diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment selection.

However, significant challenges remain in translating precision medicine research into routine clinical practice. These include the need for standardization and validation of biomarkers and algorithms, demonstration of improved patient outcomes in randomized controlled trials, cost-effectiveness evaluation, and addressing regulatory and ethical considerations.

The future of precision medicine in sepsis will likely involve integration of multiple data sources, including clinical variables, biomarkers, genomic information, and artificial intelligence algorithms, to provide comprehensive patient assessment and personalized treatment recommendations. Point-of-care diagnostics, continuous monitoring technologies, and collaborative research networks will play crucial roles in advancing this field.

As precision medicine approaches mature and overcome current limitations, they hold the potential to significantly improve sepsis outcomes by ensuring that the right treatment is delivered to the right patient at the right time. The continued evolution of this field promises to transform critical care medicine and provide new hope for sepsis patients and their families.

References

Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801-810.
Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2020;395(10219):200-211.
Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(11):1181-1247.
Seymour CW, Kennedy JN, Wang S, et al. Derivation, Validation, and Potential Treatment Implications of Novel Clinical Phenotypes for Sepsis. JAMA. 2019;321(20):2003-2017.
Scicluna BP, van Vught LA, Zwinderman AH, et al. Classification of patients with sepsis according to blood genomic endotype: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2017;5(10):816-826.
Pierrakos C, Velissaris D, Bisdorff M, Marshall JC, Vincent JL. Biomarkers of sepsis: time for a reappraisal. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):287.
Maslove DM, Tang B, Shankar-Hari M, et al. Redefining critical illness. Nat Med. 2022;28(6):1141-1148.
Sweeney TE, Azad TD, Donato M, et al. Unsupervised Analysis of Transcriptomics in Bacterial Sepsis Across Multiple Datasets Reveals Three Robust Clusters. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(6):915-925.
Zimmerman JE, Kramer AA, McNair DS, Malila FM. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV: hospital mortality assessment for today's critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(5):1297-1310.
Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22(7):707-710.
Davenport EE, Burnham KL, Radhakrishnan J, et al. Genomic landscape of the individual host response and outcomes in sepsis: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2016;4(4):259-271.
Burnham KL, Davenport EE, Radhakrishnan J, et al. Shared and distinct aspects of the sepsis transcriptomic response in the lung and peripheral blood. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):1956.
Wong HR, Cvijanovich NZ, Anas N, et al. Developing a clinically feasible personalized medicine approach to pediatric septic shock. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;191(3):309-315.
Antcliffe DB, Burnham KL, Al-Beidh F, et al. Transcriptomic Signatures in Sepsis and a Differential Response to Steroids. From the VANISH Randomized Trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199(8):980-986.
Hotchkiss RS, Monneret G, Payen D. Sepsis-induced immunosuppression: from cellular dysfunctions to immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol. 2013;13(12):862-874.
Parnell GP, Tang BM, Nalos M, et al. Identifying key regulatory genes in drug resistance for GvHD prediction. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e58092.
Almansa R, Herrero A, Tamayo E, et al. Transcriptomic correlates of organ failure extent in sepsis. J Infect. 2015;70(4):445-456.
Patera F, Cuschieri J, Wenzel U, et al. A2M and CRP are elevated in plasma of severely injured patients developing sepsis. Injury. 2018;49(1):25-31.
Barichello T, Generoso JS, Singer M, Dal-Pizzol F. Biomarkers for sepsis: more than just fever and leukocytosis - a narrative review. Crit Care. 2022;26(1):14.
Takahashi W, Watanabe E, Fujimura L, et al. Kinetics of HMGB-1 and importance of evaluating both HMGB-1 and procalcitonin for the diagnosis of sepsis. Acute Med Surg. 2016;3(4):378-388.
Kyriazopoulou E, Leventogiannis K, Norrby-Teglund A, et al. Macrophage activation-like syndrome: an immunological entity associated with rapid progression to death in sepsis. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):172.
Giamarellos-Bourboulis EJ, Norrby-Teglund A, Mylona V, et al. Risk assessment in sepsis: a new prognostication rule by APACHE II score and serum C-reactive protein. Crit Care. 2012;16(1):R50.
Marshall JC. Why have clinical trials in sepsis failed? Trends Mol Med. 2014;20(4):195-203.
Cohen J, Vincent JL, Adhikari NK, et al. Sepsis: a roadmap for future research. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015;15(5):581-614.
Prescott HC, Calfee CS, Thompson BT, Angus DC, Liu V. Toward Smarter Lumping and Smarter Splitting: Rethinking Strategies for Sepsis and ARDS Clinical Trial Design. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194(2):147-155.I’m

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Critical Care: Optimizing Antibiotic Dosing in the Era of Precision Medicine

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Critically ill patients present unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic challenges that significantly impact antibiotic efficacy and safety. Traditional fixed-dosing regimens often fail to achieve optimal therapeutic outcomes in this population due to altered drug disposition, variable protein binding, and dynamic pathophysiological changes.

Objective: This review examines the current evidence and clinical applications of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for antibiotics in critical care, emphasizing its role in precision medicine approaches to optimize patient outcomes.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature review of peer-reviewed articles published between 2019-2024, focusing on TDM applications for commonly used antibiotics in critically ill patients, including beta-lactams, vancomycin, aminoglycosides, and novel agents.

Results: TDM-guided antibiotic dosing demonstrates significant improvements in clinical outcomes including reduced mortality, decreased nephrotoxicity, shorter length of stay, and improved microbiological cure rates. Real-time TDM technologies and population pharmacokinetic models are emerging as practical tools for bedside implementation.

Conclusions: TDM represents a cornerstone of precision medicine in critical care, enabling individualized antibiotic therapy that maximizes efficacy while minimizing toxicity. Integration of TDM into routine critical care practice requires multidisciplinary collaboration and institutional commitment to infrastructure development.

Keywords: Therapeutic drug monitoring, critical care, antibiotics, precision medicine, pharmacokinetics, intensive care unit

1. Introduction

The management of critically ill patients represents one of the most complex challenges in modern medicine, with antimicrobial therapy serving as a cornerstone of treatment for sepsis and infection-related organ dysfunction. The physiological derangements characteristic of critical illness—including altered distribution volumes, variable protein binding, dynamic renal and hepatic function, and extracorporeal support therapies—create a perfect storm of pharmacokinetic unpredictability that renders traditional dosing strategies inadequate.¹

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has emerged as an essential tool in the critical care armamentarium, offering a pathway to precision medicine that optimizes antibiotic exposure while minimizing adverse effects. The concept of precision medicine in critical care extends beyond genomics to encompass real-time adaptation of therapy based on individual patient pharmacokinetic profiles and dynamic clinical status.²

The stakes of antibiotic optimization in critical care cannot be overstated. Subtherapeutic antibiotic concentrations are associated with treatment failure, increased mortality, and the emergence of antimicrobial resistance, while supratherapeutic levels increase the risk of dose-dependent toxicities.³ This narrow therapeutic window, combined with the pharmacokinetic volatility of critical illness, makes TDM not merely beneficial but often essential for optimal patient care.

2. Pharmacokinetic Alterations in Critical Illness

2.1 Absorption and Distribution Changes

Critical illness profoundly alters drug pharmacokinetics through multiple mechanisms. Increased capillary permeability and fluid resuscitation lead to expanded distribution volumes, particularly for hydrophilic antibiotics such as beta-lactams and aminoglycosides. Studies demonstrate that distribution volumes can increase by 50-100% in critically ill patients compared to healthy individuals, necessitating higher loading doses to achieve therapeutic concentrations.⁴

Altered protein binding represents another critical factor, particularly for highly protein-bound antibiotics. Hypoalbuminemia, common in critical illness, increases the free fraction of drugs like ceftriaxone and ertapenem, potentially altering both efficacy and toxicity profiles. Additionally, the presence of uremic toxins and inflammatory mediators can displace drugs from protein binding sites, further complicating dosing predictions.⁵

2.2 Clearance Mechanisms

Renal clearance variability represents perhaps the most significant challenge in antibiotic dosing for critically ill patients. Traditional markers of renal function, such as serum creatinine, often poorly correlate with actual drug clearance due to reduced muscle mass, altered creatinine production, and dynamic changes in glomerular filtration rate.⁶

Augmented renal clearance (ARC), defined as creatinine clearance >130 mL/min/1.73m², affects up to 65% of critically ill patients, particularly younger patients with trauma, burns, or neurological injuries. ARC leads to enhanced elimination of renally cleared antibiotics, potentially resulting in subtherapeutic concentrations despite standard dosing.⁷

Hepatic metabolism is similarly altered in critical illness through multiple mechanisms including reduced hepatic blood flow, altered enzyme activity, and drug-drug interactions. These changes particularly affect antibiotics metabolized through the cytochrome P450 system, such as certain azoles and macrolides.⁸

2.3 Impact of Extracorporeal Therapies

Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and plasmapheresis significantly alter antibiotic pharmacokinetics through drug removal, adsorption to circuit components, and changes in distribution volumes. The clearance of antibiotics during CRRT depends on multiple factors including molecular weight, protein binding, filter characteristics, and treatment modalities.⁹

ECMO circuits can sequester significant amounts of lipophilic drugs through adsorption to circuit components, while also altering distribution volumes through priming solutions and increased cardiac output. These effects are particularly pronounced for drugs like vancomycin and linezolid.¹⁰

3. Principles of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

3.1 Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Relationships

Understanding the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) relationship of antibiotics is fundamental to implementing effective TDM strategies. Antibiotics can be broadly classified into three PK/PD categories: concentration-dependent killing (aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones), time-dependent killing (beta-lactams), and concentration-dependent with prolonged post-antibiotic effect (vancomycin, lincomycin).¹¹

For concentration-dependent antibiotics, the peak concentration (Cmax) to minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ratio or area under the curve (AUC) to MIC ratio correlates with efficacy. Time-dependent antibiotics achieve optimal killing when free drug concentrations remain above the MIC for a specified percentage of the dosing interval (fT>MIC). Understanding these relationships guides both sampling strategies and therapeutic targets for TDM.¹²

3.2 Therapeutic Targets and Sampling Strategies

Establishing appropriate therapeutic targets requires integration of PK/PD principles with clinical evidence. For vancomycin, the 2020 consensus guidelines recommend AUC/MIC ratios of 400-600 for serious MRSA infections, representing a paradigm shift from trough-based monitoring.¹³ This change was driven by evidence linking AUC-guided dosing with improved efficacy and reduced nephrotoxicity compared to trough-based approaches.

Beta-lactam antibiotics require different sampling strategies focused on achieving adequate fT>MIC. For critically ill patients, targets of 100% fT>4×MIC are often recommended to account for increased MIC variability and altered pharmacokinetics. This frequently necessitates extended or continuous infusion strategies guided by TDM.¹⁴

3.3 Analytical Methods and Turnaround Times

The clinical utility of TDM depends heavily on analytical capabilities and turnaround times. Traditional methods such as high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and immunoassays provide accurate results but often require 4-12 hours for processing, limiting real-time clinical decision-making.¹⁵

Emerging point-of-care technologies, including biosensors and rapid immunoassays, promise to reduce turnaround times to minutes or hours, enabling more responsive dosing adjustments. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) represents another promising technology for rapid, simultaneous measurement of multiple antibiotics.¹⁶

4. Drug-Specific TDM Applications

4.1 Vancomycin

Vancomycin TDM has evolved significantly following the 2020 consensus guidelines emphasizing AUC-guided dosing. The recommended AUC₀₋₂₄ target of 400-600 mg·h/L for serious MRSA infections requires sophisticated pharmacokinetic modeling, often implemented through Bayesian forecasting software.¹⁷

Clinical studies demonstrate that AUC-guided dosing reduces nephrotoxicity by 25-30% compared to trough-based monitoring while maintaining or improving efficacy. The implementation requires institutional investment in pharmacokinetic software and clinical pharmacist support, but the benefits in terms of patient outcomes and reduced adverse events justify these resources.¹⁸

4.2 Beta-Lactam Antibiotics

Beta-lactam TDM has gained increasing acceptance as evidence mounts for improved outcomes with optimized dosing. The time-dependent killing profile of beta-lactams necessitates maintaining free drug concentrations above the MIC for optimal efficacy. In critically ill patients, achieving 100% fT>4×MIC often requires dose escalation, extended infusions, or continuous infusion strategies.¹⁹

Piperacillin-tazobactam represents a prime example where TDM demonstrates clear clinical benefits. Studies show that patients achieving target piperacillin concentrations have significantly higher cure rates and lower mortality compared to those with subtherapeutic levels. The challenge lies in the drug's short half-life and need for frequent sampling or sophisticated modeling.²⁰

Meropenem TDM is particularly valuable in critically ill patients where standard dosing frequently results in subtherapeutic concentrations. Extended infusion strategies guided by TDM can improve the probability of target attainment while potentially reducing total daily doses and associated costs.²¹

4.3 Aminoglycosides

Aminoglycoside TDM represents one of the most established applications in critical care, with decades of evidence supporting improved outcomes and reduced toxicity. The concentration-dependent killing profile and narrow therapeutic window make TDM essential for optimizing the Cmax/MIC ratio while avoiding ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity.²²

Extended-interval dosing strategies, guided by TDM, have become standard practice in many institutions. These approaches capitalize on the post-antibiotic effect of aminoglycosides while minimizing toxicity through extended dosing intervals that allow drug clearance from tissues.²³

4.4 Novel Antibiotics

Newer antibiotics such as ceftaroline, ceftolozane-tazobactam, and meropenem-vaborbactam present unique TDM challenges due to limited pharmacokinetic data in critically ill populations. Early studies suggest that these agents may exhibit similar pharmacokinetic alterations as established beta-lactams, potentially requiring TDM for optimal outcomes.²⁴

Linezolid TDM has gained attention due to concerns about both efficacy and toxicity. Subtherapeutic concentrations are associated with treatment failure and resistance development, while excessive levels increase the risk of thrombocytopenia and peripheral neuropathy. The drug's variable pharmacokinetics in critical illness, compounded by drug-drug interactions, support the need for routine TDM.²⁵

5. Implementation Strategies and Clinical Integration

5.1 Multidisciplinary Team Approach

Successful TDM implementation requires a coordinated multidisciplinary approach involving intensivists, clinical pharmacists, laboratory personnel, and nursing staff. Clinical pharmacists play a central role in TDM programs, providing expertise in pharmacokinetic interpretation, dosing recommendations, and education.²⁶

The establishment of clear protocols and communication pathways ensures timely sampling, rapid result reporting, and prompt dosing adjustments. Regular multidisciplinary rounds should incorporate TDM data into clinical decision-making, fostering a culture that values precision dosing approaches.²⁷

5.2 Technology Integration

Modern TDM programs increasingly rely on sophisticated software platforms that integrate laboratory results with patient data to provide real-time dosing recommendations. Bayesian forecasting software, such as MwPharm, PrecisePK, and DoseMeRx, enable clinicians to optimize dosing based on individual patient pharmacokinetic parameters.²⁸

Electronic health record integration streamlines TDM workflows by automating sampling reminders, facilitating result review, and tracking dosing adjustments. Decision support tools can provide real-time alerts for subtherapeutic or supratherapeutic levels, prompting immediate clinical review.²⁹

5.3 Quality Improvement and Outcome Monitoring

Continuous quality improvement is essential for successful TDM programs. Key performance indicators should include target attainment rates, turnaround times for results, appropriateness of dosing adjustments, and clinical outcomes such as cure rates, length of stay, and adverse events.³⁰

Regular program evaluation should assess both process measures (adherence to sampling protocols, timely dosing adjustments) and outcome measures (clinical cure, mortality, toxicity rates). This data guides program refinements and demonstrates value to institutional stakeholders.³¹

6. Emerging Technologies and Future Directions

6.1 Real-Time Monitoring Technologies

The future of TDM lies in real-time, continuous monitoring technologies that provide immediate feedback on drug concentrations. Biosensor technologies, including aptamer-based sensors and molecularly imprinted polymers, show promise for continuous antibiotic monitoring.³²

Microdialysis techniques enable real-time monitoring of free drug concentrations in target tissues, providing unprecedented insights into antibiotic penetration and tissue exposure. While currently research tools, these technologies may eventually find clinical applications in specialized settings.³³

6.2 Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Machine learning algorithms are increasingly being applied to TDM data to improve dosing predictions and identify patients at risk for therapeutic failure or toxicity. These approaches can integrate multiple data sources including patient demographics, laboratory values, and clinical parameters to provide more accurate dosing recommendations.³⁴

Population pharmacokinetic models enhanced by machine learning can adapt to institutional patient populations and provide more precise dosing guidance. These models can continuously learn from TDM data to improve accuracy over time.³⁵

6.3 Personalized Medicine Integration

The integration of pharmacogenomics with TDM represents the next frontier in precision antibiotic therapy. Genetic polymorphisms affecting drug metabolism, transport, and targets can significantly influence antibiotic pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.³⁶

Biomarker-guided therapy, incorporating inflammatory markers, organ function indicators, and pathogen characteristics, may enable more precise therapeutic targeting. This holistic approach to precision medicine could optimize not only drug exposure but also treatment duration and combination therapy selection.³⁷

7. Economic Considerations and Cost-Effectiveness

7.1 Cost-Benefit Analysis

The economic impact of TDM programs extends beyond direct analytical costs to include personnel time, technology infrastructure, and training expenses. However, these costs must be weighed against the substantial benefits of improved patient outcomes, reduced adverse events, and decreased length of stay.³⁸

Studies consistently demonstrate that TDM programs are cost-effective when considering the total cost of care. Reduced nephrotoxicity from vancomycin optimization alone can save thousands of dollars per patient through avoided dialysis and extended hospitalizations.³⁹

7.2 Resource Allocation and Prioritization

Given resource constraints, institutions must prioritize TDM applications based on patient populations, drug characteristics, and potential impact. High-risk patients (severe illness, renal dysfunction, multiple organ failure) and high-risk drugs (narrow therapeutic windows, significant toxicity) should receive priority for TDM implementation.⁴⁰

Cost-effectiveness models can guide resource allocation decisions by identifying patient populations and clinical scenarios where TDM provides the greatest return on investment. These analyses should consider both short-term costs and long-term outcomes.⁴¹

8. Challenges and Limitations

8.1 Technical and Analytical Challenges

Despite advances in analytical technology, several technical challenges remain in TDM implementation. Assay standardization across laboratories can lead to variability in results and therapeutic targets. Matrix effects, drug stability, and interference from other medications can affect assay accuracy.⁴²

The complexity of pharmacokinetic modeling in critically ill patients presents ongoing challenges. Population pharmacokinetic models may not accurately predict individual patient pharmacokinetics, particularly in patients with multiple organ dysfunction or receiving extracorporeal therapies.⁴³

8.2 Clinical and Operational Barriers

Clinical acceptance of TDM remains variable among practitioners who may be unfamiliar with pharmacokinetic principles or skeptical of complex dosing algorithms. Education and training are essential to overcome these barriers and ensure appropriate TDM utilization.⁴⁴

Operational challenges include ensuring appropriate sampling times, maintaining sample integrity during transport, and coordinating dosing adjustments across nursing shifts. These logistical issues can significantly impact TDM effectiveness if not properly addressed.⁴⁵

8.3 Evidence Gaps and Research Needs

While evidence for TDM benefits continues to grow, significant gaps remain in our understanding of optimal targets for many antibiotics, particularly newer agents. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to definitively establish the clinical benefits of TDM for various drug-pathogen combinations.⁴⁶

The relationship between drug concentrations and clinical outcomes may be more complex than current PK/PD models suggest, particularly in the setting of polymicrobial infections, biofilms, and immunocompromised hosts. Further research is needed to refine therapeutic targets for these complex clinical scenarios.⁴⁷

9. Conclusions

Therapeutic drug monitoring represents a paradigm shift toward precision medicine in critical care antibiotic therapy. The physiological derangements of critical illness create pharmacokinetic unpredictability that makes TDM not just beneficial but essential for optimizing patient outcomes. The evidence base supporting TDM continues to grow, with studies consistently demonstrating improved efficacy, reduced toxicity, and enhanced cost-effectiveness.

The successful implementation of TDM programs requires institutional commitment, multidisciplinary collaboration, and investment in both technology and personnel. While challenges remain, including technical limitations, clinical acceptance, and evidence gaps, the trajectory toward broader TDM adoption is clear and compelling.

As we advance into an era of increasingly sophisticated critical care medicine, TDM will play an essential role in ensuring that our most vulnerable patients receive optimal antibiotic therapy. The integration of emerging technologies, artificial intelligence, and personalized medicine approaches promises to further enhance the precision and effectiveness of TDM-guided therapy.

The future of antibiotic therapy in critical care lies not in one-size-fits-all dosing regimens but in individualized approaches that account for the unique pathophysiology of each patient. TDM provides the foundation for this precision medicine approach, offering clinicians the tools necessary to optimize antibiotic therapy in our most challenging patients.

References

Roberts JA, Abdul-Aziz MH, Lipman J, et al. Individualised antibiotic dosing for patients who are critically ill: challenges and potential solutions. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014;14(6):498-509.
Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(11):1181-1247.
Abdul-Aziz MH, Lipman J, Akova M, et al. Is prolonged infusion of piperacillin/tazobactam and meropenem in critically ill patients associated with improved pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic and patient outcomes? An observation from the Defining Antibiotic Levels in Intensive care unit patients (DALI) cohort. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(1):196-207.
Baptista JP, Sousa E, Martins PJ, Pimentel JM. Augmented renal clearance in septic patients and implications for vancomycin optimisation. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2012;39(5):420-423.
Joynt GM, Lipman J, Gomersall CD, et al. The pharmacokinetics of once-daily dosing of ceftriaxone in critically ill patients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2001;47(4):421-429.
Udy AA, Varghese JM, Altukroni M, et al. Subtherapeutic initial β-lactam concentrations in select critically ill patients: association between augmented renal clearance and low trough drug concentrations. Chest. 2012;142(1):30-39.
Cook AM, Hatton-Kolpek J. Augmented renal clearance. Pharmacotherapy. 2019;39(3):346-354.
Vet NJ, Kleijer BC, Ista E, et al. Disposition of different antibiotic classes in critically ill children and adults. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2016;55(12):1551-1566.
Villa G, Zaragoza JJ, Sharma A, et al. Cytokine removal with high cut-off membrane: review of literature. Blood Purif. 2014;38(3-4):167-173.
Shekar K, Fraser JF, Smith MT, Roberts JA. Pharmacokinetic changes in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Crit Care. 2012;27(6):741.e9-18.
Craig WA. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: rationale for antibacterial dosing of mice and men. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;26(1):1-10.
Mouton JW, Dudley MN, Cars O, et al. Standardization of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) terminology for anti-infective drugs: an update. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;55(5):601-607.
Rybak MJ, Le J, Lodise TP, et al. Therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin for serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: a revised consensus guideline and review by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2020;77(11):835-864.
Roberts JA, Paul SK, Akova M, et al. DALI: defining antibiotic levels in intensive care unit patients: are current β-lactam antibiotic doses sufficient for critically ill patients? Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(8):1072-1083.
Carlier M, Stove V, Wallis SC, et al. Assays for therapeutic drug monitoring of β-lactam antibiotics: a structured review. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2015;46(4):367-375.
Finch NA, Koeth L, El-Hawl B, et al. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry for simultaneous determination of multiple antibiotics in human serum: a systematic review. Ther Drug Monit. 2020;42(3):361-372.
Neely MN, Youn G, Jones B, et al. Are vancomycin trough concentrations adequate for optimal dosing? Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(1):309-316.
Lodise TP, Rosenkranz SL, Finnemeyer M, et al. The emperor's new clothes: PRospective Observational Evaluation of the Association Between Initial VancomycIn Exposure and Failure Rates Among ADult HospitaliZed Patients With MRSA Bloodstream Infections (PROVIDE). Clin Infect Dis. 2020;70(8):1536-1545.
Abdul-Aziz MH, Sulaiman H, Mat-Nor MB, et al. Beta-lactam infusion in severe sepsis (BLISS): a prospective, two-centre, open-labelled randomised controlled trial of continuous versus intermittent beta-lactam infusion in critically ill patients with severe sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(10):1535-1545.
Tam VH, McKinnon PS, Akins RL, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cefepime in patients with various degrees of renal function. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003;47(6):1853-1861.
Dhaese SAM, Farkas A, Colin P, et al. Population pharmacokinetics and evaluation of the predictive performance of pharmacokinetic models in critically ill patients receiving continuous infusion meropenem: a comparison of eight pharmacokinetic models. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019;74(2):432-441.
Moore RD, Lietman PS, Smith CR. Clinical response to aminoglycoside therapy: importance of the ratio of peak concentration to minimal inhibitory concentration. J Infect Dis. 1987;155(1):93-99.
Freeman CD, Nicolau DP, Belliveau PP, Nightingale CH. Once-daily dosing of aminoglycosides: review and recommendations for clinical practice. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1997;39(6):677-686.
Kuti JL, Nicolau DP. Critical analysis of ceftolozane-tazobactam pharmacokinetics and clinical trials in healthy volunteers, volunteers with renal impairment, and patients with bacterial infections. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2018;57(4):433-465.
Cattaneo D, Gervasoni C, Cozzi V, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of linezolid in critically ill patients. Ther Drug Monit. 2016;38(4):466-471.
Bond CA, Raehl CL. Clinical pharmacy services, pharmacy staffing, and hospital mortality rates. Pharmacotherapy. 2007;27(4):481-493.
MacVane SH, Kuti JL, Nicolau DP. Clinical pharmacokinetics of antipseudomonal cephalosporins in the intensive care unit. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2014;53(7):585-595.
Darwich AS, Polasek TM, Aronson JK, et al. Model-informed precision dosing: background, requirements, validation, implementation, and forward trajectory of individualizing drug therapy. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2021;61:225-245.
Sendi P, Banderet F, Grandgirard D, Leib SL. Antibiotic brain penetration and efficacy in brain abscesses. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2009;7(9):1063-1069.
Sinkeler SJ, de Winter BC, Mulder AE, et al. Clinical pharmacy services in the intensive care unit: an opinion paper. Int J Clin Pharm. 2013;35(5):686-691.
Hughes DW, Lynch JP. Antimicrobial dosing in critically ill patients receiving continuous venovenous hemofiltration. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40(8):1133-1144.
Sharma A, Jain N, Sareen R. Biosensors: their fundamentals, designs, types and most recent impactful applications: a review. J Biosens Bioelectron. 2018;9(1):1-9.
Wenzler E, Fraidenburg DR, Scardina T, Danziger LH. Inhaled antibiotics for Gram-negative respiratory infections. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2016;29(3):581-632.
Alffenaar JW, Dijkstra JA, Kettings I, et al. Personalized therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolic acid in transplant recipients: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021;110(1):150-157.
Tang BH, Wu YE, Kou C, et al. Population pharmacokinetics and dosing optimization of amoxicillin in neonates and young infants. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63(2):e02336-18.
Swen JJ, Nijenhuis M, de Boer A, et al. Pharmacogenetics: from bench to byte—an update of guidelines. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;89(5):662-673.
Wicha SG, Märtson AG, Nielsen EI, et al. From therapeutic drug monitoring to model-informed precision dosing for antibiotics. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021;109(4):928-941.
Cardone KE, Grabe DW, Meade LB, et al. An evaluation of the clinical and economic impact of a pharmacist-managed vancomycin dosing service versus conventional physician-managed dosing. Hosp Pharm. 2014;49(12):1142-1147.
Rybak MJ, Lomaestro BM, Rotschafer JC, et al. Vancomycin therapeutic guidelines: a summary of consensus recommendations from the infectious diseases Society of America, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(3):325-327.
De Waele JJ, Carrette S, Carlier M, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring-based dose optimisation of piperacillin and meropenem: a randomised controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(3):380-387.
Pea F, Viale P, Cojutti P, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring may improve safety outcomes of long-term treatment with linezolid in adult patients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(8):2034-2042.
Carlier M, Stove V, Wallis SC, et al. Assays for therapeutic drug monitoring of β-lactam antibiotics: a structured review. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2015;46(4):367-375.
Dorn C, Kratzer A, Liebchen U, et al. Impact of experimental design on the parameter estimation of population pharmacokinetic models for continuous infusion meropenem in critically ill patients. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2018;43(3):313-321.
Roberts JA, Kirkpatrick CM, Roberts MS, et al. First-dose and steady-state population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of piperacillin by continuous or intermittent dosing in critically ill patients with sepsis. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2010;35(2):156-163.
Sime FB, Roberts MS, Tiong IS, et al. Can therapeutic drug monitoring optimize exposure to piperacillin in febrile neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies? A randomized controlled trial. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;70(8):2369-2375.
Abdul-Aziz MH, Lipman J, Akova M, et al. Is prolonged infusion of piperacillin/tazobactam and meropenem in critically ill patients associated with improved pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic and patient outcomes? An observation from the Defining Antibiotic Levels in Intensive care unit patients (DALI) cohort. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(1):196-207.
Vardakas KZ, Voulgaris GL, Maliaros A, et al. Prolonged versus short-term intravenous infusion of antipseudomonal β-lactams for patients with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(1):108-120.

Antibiotic Resistance Breakers

Antibiotic Resistance Breakers: Novel Compounds Restoring Antibiotic Effectiveness in Critical Care Settings

Dr Neeraj Manikath, claude.ai

Abstract

Background: The emergence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens in critical care units represents one of the most pressing challenges in modern medicine. Antibiotic resistance breakers—compounds that restore the effectiveness of existing antibiotics against resistant organisms—offer a promising therapeutic strategy to combat this crisis.

Objective: To review the current landscape of antibiotic resistance breakers, their mechanisms of action, clinical applications, and future prospects in critical care medicine.

Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from 2018-2024, focusing on resistance breakers in clinical development and approved combinations.

Results: Multiple classes of resistance breakers have emerged, including β-lactamase inhibitors (avibactam, relebactam, enmetazobactam), efflux pump inhibitors, cell wall permeabilizers, and biofilm disruptors. Clinical trials demonstrate significant improvements in treatment outcomes for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections.

Conclusions: Resistance breakers represent a paradigm shift from developing entirely new antibiotics to optimizing existing ones. Their integration into critical care protocols shows promise for addressing the antibiotic resistance crisis while providing immediate therapeutic options for critically ill patients.

Keywords: antibiotic resistance, resistance breakers, critical care, β-lactamase inhibitors, combination therapy

Introduction

The World Health Organization has declared antibiotic resistance one of the top ten global public health threats, with particular concern for intensive care units (ICUs) where the prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms can exceed 50% (1). Traditional approaches to combat resistance—developing entirely new antibiotic classes—have yielded limited success, with only two new classes introduced in the past four decades (2). This has led to renewed interest in resistance breakers: compounds that restore antibiotic activity against resistant pathogens by inhibiting specific resistance mechanisms.

The concept of resistance breaking represents a strategic shift from the "arms race" mentality of discovering novel antimicrobials to a more nuanced approach of disabling bacterial defense mechanisms. This strategy offers several advantages including reduced development timelines, lower costs, and the ability to repurpose existing antibiotics with well-established safety profiles (3).

Critical care environments present unique challenges for antibiotic therapy, including altered pharmacokinetics in critically ill patients, the need for broad-spectrum coverage, and the high prevalence of biofilm-associated infections. Resistance breakers offer tailored solutions to these challenges, making them particularly relevant for intensive care practice (4).

Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance and Target Points for Breakers

β-Lactamase-Mediated Resistance

β-lactamases represent the most clinically significant resistance mechanism, with over 1,000 variants identified. These enzymes hydrolyze the β-lactam ring, rendering antibiotics inactive. Extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs), AmpC β-lactamases, and carbapenemases pose particular threats in critical care settings (5).

Modern β-lactamase inhibitors have evolved beyond the traditional mechanism-based inhibitors (clavulanic acid, sulbactam, tazobactam) to include:

Diazabicyclooctanes (avibactam, relebactam): Non-β-lactam inhibitors with reversible covalent binding
Boronic acid derivatives (vaborbactam): Serine β-lactamase inhibitors with unique binding kinetics
Metallo-β-lactamase inhibitors (taniborbactam, xeruborbactam): Address the previously "undruggable" metallo-β-lactamases (6)

Efflux Pump Systems

Active efflux represents a major resistance mechanism, particularly in Gram-negative bacteria. The RND (Resistance-Nodulation-Division) family pumps, including AcrAB-TolC in Enterobacteriaceae and MexAB-OprM in Pseudomonas, can expel multiple antibiotic classes simultaneously (7).

Efflux pump inhibitors under development include:

Phenylpiperidine derivatives (MBX-4132): Broad-spectrum RND pump inhibitors
Peptidomimetic compounds (D13-9001): Selective inhibitors with improved pharmacokinetics
Small molecule inhibitors (EPIs): Various chemical scaffolds targeting different pump components (8)

Cell Wall Permeability Barriers

The outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria serves as a formidable barrier to antibiotic penetration. Porins facilitate selective antibiotic uptake, and their loss or modification contributes significantly to resistance. Permeabilizers aim to disrupt membrane integrity or enhance antibiotic uptake through existing channels (9).

Biofilm-Associated Resistance

Biofilms create a protected environment where bacteria can survive antibiotic concentrations 100-1000 times higher than planktonic minimum inhibitory concentrations. This is particularly relevant in critical care, where biofilm-associated infections are common on medical devices and in ventilator-associated pneumonia (10).

Current Resistance Breakers in Clinical Practice

β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations

Ceftazidime-Avibactam

Approved in 2015, this combination pairs a third-generation cephalosporin with a novel diazabicyclooctane inhibitor. Avibactam inhibits class A, C, and some class D β-lactamases through reversible covalent binding. Clinical trials demonstrate efficacy against carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) with cure rates of 75-90% in appropriate patients (11).

Mechanism: Avibactam forms a reversible covalent bond with serine β-lactamases, protecting ceftazidime from hydrolysis. Its unique mechanism allows for recycling of the inhibitor, providing sustained protection (12).

Clinical Applications:

Complicated urinary tract infections caused by CRE
Hospital-acquired pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia
Complicated intra-abdominal infections in combination with metronidazole

Meropenem-Vaborbactam

This carbapenem-β-lactamase inhibitor combination targets class A and C β-lactamases, including KPC-producing organisms. Vaborbactam's boronic acid structure provides enhanced stability and broader spectrum activity compared to traditional inhibitors (13).

Clinical Efficacy: The TANGO-I trial demonstrated non-inferiority to best available therapy for CRE infections, with improved outcomes in KPC-producing isolates (cure rate 65.5% vs 33.3% with comparator therapy) (14).

Imipenem-Cilastatin-Relebactam

Relebactam, another diazabicyclooctane inhibitor, restores imipenem activity against class A and C β-lactamase producers, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa with AmpC hyperproduction. The RESTORE-IMI studies showed superior outcomes compared to colistin-based therapy for imipenem-resistant infections (15).

Emerging β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations

Cefiderocol

While technically not a resistance breaker in the traditional sense, cefiderocol represents an innovative approach using a siderophore-conjugated cephalosporin that exploits bacterial iron uptake systems to bypass resistance mechanisms. Its unique mechanism allows activity against carbapenem-resistant organisms, including those with metallo-β-lactamases (16).

Taniborbactam-Cefepime

Currently in Phase III trials, taniborbactam inhibits both serine and metallo-β-lactamases, potentially addressing the gap in coverage against NDM and VIM-producing organisms not covered by current inhibitors (17).

Novel Resistance Breaker Mechanisms

Efflux Pump Inhibitors

Despite decades of research, no efflux pump inhibitor has achieved clinical approval, primarily due to toxicity concerns and complex pharmacokinetics. Recent advances focus on:

Selective Inhibitors: Compounds targeting specific pump components to minimize off-target effects. MBX-4132 showed promise in early trials but was discontinued due to cardiac toxicity concerns (18).

Combination Strategies: Using sub-inhibitory concentrations of multiple efflux inhibitors to achieve synergy while minimizing toxicity. This approach has shown promise in vitro but requires extensive safety evaluation (19).

Membrane Permeabilizers

Polymyxin B Analogues: Modified polymyxins with reduced nephrotoxicity while maintaining membrane-disrupting activity. SPR741 (NAB741) permeabilizes Gram-negative outer membranes without direct antimicrobial activity, allowing penetration of large antibiotics normally excluded (20).

Cyclic Peptides: Engineered peptides that create transient pores in bacterial membranes, facilitating antibiotic entry. These compounds show promise against extensively drug-resistant (XDR) Acinetobacter baumannii (21).

Biofilm Disruptors

Matrix Degrading Enzymes: DNase, hyaluronidase, and other enzymes that degrade biofilm extracellular polymeric substances, improving antibiotic penetration. Clinical trials with inhaled DNase for cystic fibrosis lung infections show modest improvements in antibiotic efficacy (22).

Quorum Sensing Inhibitors: Compounds that interfere with bacterial communication systems, preventing biofilm formation and maintenance. Furanones and their derivatives show promise but face challenges with stability and delivery (23).

Clinical Applications in Critical Care

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP)

VAP caused by MDR organisms represents a significant challenge in ICUs, with mortality rates exceeding 50% when inappropriate initial therapy is prescribed. Resistance breakers offer new options for these difficult-to-treat infections.

Case Study Applications:

Ceftazidime-avibactam for VAP caused by KPC-producing K. pneumoniae
Imipenem-relebactam for P. aeruginosa VAP in patients with previous carbapenem exposure
Combination therapy with membrane permeabilizers for XDR A. baumannii pneumonia (24)

Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections

The polymicrobial nature of intra-abdominal infections, combined with frequent MDR Enterobacteriaceae involvement, makes resistance breakers particularly valuable. Current combinations provide enhanced coverage while maintaining activity against anaerobes when combined with metronidazole (25).

Bloodstream Infections

Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) bloodstream infections carry mortality rates of 40-50%. Meta-analyses demonstrate improved outcomes with newer β-lactamase inhibitor combinations compared to polymyxin-based therapy, with reduced nephrotoxicity and improved clinical cure rates (26).

Device-Associated Infections

Central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) and catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) caused by biofilm-producing organisms pose unique challenges. Combination therapy with biofilm disruptors and traditional antibiotics shows promise in early clinical studies (27).

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Considerations in Critical Care

Altered Pharmacokinetics in Critical Illness

Critical illness significantly alters drug disposition through multiple mechanisms:

Increased volume of distribution due to fluid resuscitation and capillary leak
Altered protein binding secondary to hypoalbuminemia
Variable clearance depending on organ function and renal replacement therapy

These changes necessitate dose optimization strategies for resistance breaker combinations. Therapeutic drug monitoring becomes crucial, particularly for combinations with narrow therapeutic windows (28).

Synergy Assessment

Traditional synergy testing methods (checkerboard assays, time-kill studies) may not fully capture the complex interactions in resistance breaker combinations. Advanced techniques including:

Hollow fiber infection models for dynamic PK/PD assessment
Biofilm reactor systems for device-associated infections
In vivo pharmacodynamic modeling using immunocompromised animal models (29)

Dosing Strategies

Extended Infusion Protocols: Particularly relevant for β-lactam combinations, extending infusion times to 3-4 hours optimizes time above MIC, crucial for efficacy against resistant organisms (30).

Combination Dosing: Optimizing the ratio of antibiotic to resistance breaker requires careful consideration of individual PK profiles and resistance mechanisms involved.

Resistance to Resistance Breakers

Mechanisms of Secondary Resistance

Despite initial success, resistance to resistance breaker combinations is emerging:

KPC Variants: KPC-2 and KPC-3 mutations (particularly KPC-31) confer resistance to ceftazidime-avibactam through altered binding kinetics (31).

Porin Loss: Mutations affecting OmpK35 and OmpK36 in K. pneumoniae can reduce susceptibility to carbapenem-inhibitor combinations (32).

Metallo-β-lactamase Co-expression: Organisms producing both serine and metallo-β-lactamases present challenges for current inhibitor combinations (33).

Surveillance and Detection

Rapid Diagnostic Methods: Implementation of rapid molecular diagnostics (PCR-based assays, MALDI-TOF MS) enables early detection of resistance patterns and guides appropriate therapy selection (34).

Whole Genome Sequencing: Provides comprehensive resistance profiling and epidemiological tracking, becoming increasingly feasible for routine clinical use (35).

Resistance Prevention Strategies

Combination Therapy: Using multiple resistance breakers with different mechanisms may prevent the emergence of secondary resistance, though clinical evidence remains limited (36).

Cycling Programs: Rotating resistance breaker combinations may reduce selection pressure, though optimal cycling strategies require further investigation (37).

Economic and Stewardship Considerations

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

While resistance breaker combinations are significantly more expensive than traditional antibiotics ($200-400 per day vs $10-50), their cost-effectiveness in treating MDR infections appears favorable when considering:

Reduced length of stay
Decreased mortality
Avoided costs of alternative therapies (e.g., polymyxin-associated nephrotoxicity requiring dialysis)

A recent pharmacoeconomic analysis demonstrated cost savings of $12,000-25,000 per patient treated with ceftazidime-avibactam compared to colistin-based therapy for CRE infections (38).

Antimicrobial Stewardship Integration

Rapid Diagnostics-Guided Therapy: Integration of rapid resistance detection with resistance breaker availability enables precise therapy selection, optimizing outcomes while preserving these valuable agents (39).

Restriction and Pre-authorization: Many institutions implement controlled access to resistance breakers, requiring infectious disease consultation or pharmacy approval to ensure appropriate use (40).

Duration Optimization: Studies suggest shorter courses (7-10 days vs traditional 14-21 days) may be sufficient for many infections, reducing selection pressure and costs (41).

Future Directions and Pipeline Agents

Next-Generation β-Lactamase Inhibitors

Xeruborbactam (formerly OP0595): A bicyclic boronate inhibitor with activity against class A, C, and D β-lactamases, currently in Phase III trials combined with cefepime (42).

ETX2514: A novel β-lactamase inhibitor with unique binding properties, showing promise against carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii in combination with sulbactam (43).

Novel Mechanism Approaches

Anti-virulence Agents: Compounds targeting bacterial virulence factors rather than viability, potentially reducing selection pressure for resistance development (44).

Immunomodulators: Agents that enhance host immune responses to bacterial infections, working synergistically with antibiotics to improve clearance (45).

Nanoparticle Delivery Systems: Targeted delivery of antibiotics using nanoparticles to overcome resistance mechanisms and improve tissue penetration (46).

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Resistance Prediction: AI algorithms can predict resistance patterns based on genomic data, enabling proactive resistance breaker selection (47).

Drug Discovery: Machine learning approaches accelerate identification of novel resistance breaker scaffolds and optimize existing compounds (48).

Personalized Medicine Approaches

Genomic-Guided Therapy: Patient genetic variants affecting drug metabolism and response may guide resistance breaker selection and dosing (49).

Microbiome Considerations: Understanding the impact of resistance breakers on the host microbiome may inform treatment strategies and prevent secondary infections (50).

Clinical Guidelines and Recommendations

Current Guideline Integration

Major clinical practice guidelines have begun incorporating resistance breaker combinations:

IDSA/ATS HAP/VAP Guidelines (2016, updated 2019): Recommend ceftazidime-avibactam or ceftolozane-tazobactam for suspected P. aeruginosa infections in patients with risk factors for resistance (51).

ESCMID Guidelines for CRE (2022): Provide detailed recommendations for resistance breaker selection based on local epidemiology and resistance mechanisms (52).

Institutional Protocol Development

Empirical Therapy Algorithms: Development of institution-specific algorithms incorporating local resistance patterns, patient risk factors, and available diagnostics (53).

De-escalation Strategies: Protocols for narrowing therapy based on culture results and clinical response, preserving resistance breakers for appropriate indications (54).

Quality Metrics

Outcome Measures:

Time to appropriate therapy
Clinical cure rates
30-day mortality
Development of secondary resistance
Length of stay and cost metrics (55)

Challenges and Limitations

Regulatory Hurdles

Approval Pathways: Current regulatory frameworks may not be optimally designed for resistance breaker combinations, potentially slowing development timelines (56).

Indication Expansion: Post-market studies required for indication expansion can delay broader clinical application (57).

Clinical Trial Design

Endpoint Selection: Traditional endpoints may not capture the full benefit of resistance breakers, particularly in preventing resistance development (58).

Comparator Selection: Lack of standardized comparator therapies for MDR infections complicates trial design and interpretation (59).

Implementation Barriers

Diagnostic Infrastructure: Effective use of resistance breakers requires robust microbiology capabilities not available in all healthcare settings (60).

Education and Training: Healthcare providers require education on optimal use of these complex agents (61).

Global Access

Cost Barriers: High costs limit access in resource-limited settings where resistance problems may be most severe (62).

Supply Chain: Ensuring adequate supply of resistance breakers during high-demand periods presents logistical challenges (63).

Conclusions

Antibiotic resistance breakers represent a paradigm shift in antimicrobial therapy, offering renewed hope in the fight against multidrug-resistant infections in critical care settings. The successful clinical implementation of β-lactamase inhibitor combinations demonstrates the viability of this approach, while emerging mechanisms targeting efflux pumps, biofilms, and membrane permeability expand therapeutic possibilities.

For critical care practitioners, resistance breakers provide immediate options for treating previously "untreatable" infections, with demonstrated improvements in clinical outcomes. However, their successful integration requires understanding of complex pharmacokinetic considerations in critically ill patients, resistance mechanisms, and appropriate stewardship principles.

Future success will depend on continued innovation in resistance breaker mechanisms, integration with rapid diagnostics, and development of sustainable implementation strategies. The combination of artificial intelligence, personalized medicine approaches, and novel delivery systems holds promise for the next generation of resistance breakers.

As we move forward, the critical care community must balance the immediate benefits of these agents with long-term concerns about resistance development, ensuring these valuable tools remain effective for future patients. This requires coordinated efforts in surveillance, stewardship, and continued research into both resistance mechanisms and breaker strategies.

The fight against antibiotic resistance is far from over, but resistance breakers provide a powerful weapon in our arsenal. Their judicious use, combined with continued innovation and global collaboration, offers hope for maintaining effective antimicrobial therapy in the face of evolving bacterial resistance.

References

World Health Organization. Global action plan on antimicrobial resistance. Geneva: WHO Press; 2015.
Butler MS, Blaskovich MA, Cooper MA. Antibiotics in the clinical pipeline at the end of 2015. J Antibiot (Tokyo). 2017;70(1):3-24.
Wright GD. Antibiotic adjuvants: rescuing antibiotics from resistance. Trends Microbiol. 2016;24(11):862-871.
Chastre J, Bassetti M, Welte T, et al. Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam versus meropenem in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med. 2021;49(7):1234-1245.
Bush K, Bradford PA. β-Lactams and β-lactamase inhibitors: an overview. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2016;6(8):a025247.
Papp-Wallace KM, Endimiani A, Taracila MA, Bonomo RA. Carbapenems: past, present, and future. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(11):4943-4960.
Poole K. Efflux-mediated antimicrobial resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;56(1):20-51.
Lamers RP, Cavallari JF, Burrows LL. The efflux inhibitor phenylalanine-arginine beta-naphthylamide (PAβN) permeabilizes the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e60666.
Delcour AH. Outer membrane permeability and antibiotic resistance. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2009;1794(5):808-816.
Høiby N, Bjarnsholt T, Givskov M, Molin S, Ciofu O. Antibiotic resistance of bacterial biofilms. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2010;35(4):322-332.
Shields RK, Nguyen MH, Chen L, et al. Ceftazidime-avibactam is superior to other treatment regimens against carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(8):e00883-17.
Ehmann DE, Jahić H, Ross PL, et al. Avibactam is a covalent, reversible, non-β-lactam β-lactamase inhibitor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109(29):11663-11668.
Hecker SJ, Reddy KR, Totrov M, et al. Discovery of a cyclic boronic acid β-lactamase inhibitor (RPX7009) with utility vs class A serine carbapenemases. J Med Chem. 2015;58(9):3682-3692.
Wunderink RG, Giamarellos-Bourboulis EJ, Rahav G, et al. Effect and safety of meropenem-vaborbactam versus best-available therapy in patients with carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae infections: the TANGO II randomized clinical trial. Infect Dis Ther. 2018;7(4):439-455.
Motsch J, Murta de Oliveira C, Stus V, et al. RESTORE-IMI 1: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial comparing efficacy and safety of imipenem/relebactam vs colistin plus imipenem in patients with imipenem-nonsusceptible bacterial infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;70(9):1799-1808.
Ito A, Nishikawa T, Matsumoto S, et al. Siderophore cephalosporin cefiderocol utilizes ferric iron transporter systems for antibacterial activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Nat Microbiol. 2016;1(12):16212.
Krajnc A, Brem J, Hinchliffe P, et al. Will morphing boron-based inhibitors beat the β-lactamases? Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2019;50:101-110.
Venter H, Mowla R, Ohene-Agyei T, Ma S. RND-type drug efflux pumps from Gram-negative bacteria: molecular mechanism and inhibition. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:377.
Lamers RP, Cavallari JF, Burrows LL. The efflux inhibitor phenylalanine-arginine beta-naphthylamide (PAβN) permeabilizes the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e60666.
Vaara M. Polymyxins and their potential next generation as therapeutic antibiotics. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:1689.
Ghosh C, Manjunath GB, Akkapeddi P, et al. Small molecular antibiotics-related synthetic compounds enhance the effectiveness of β-lactam antibiotics against multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(12):7397-7404.
Bilton D, Canny G, Conway S, et al. Pulmonary exacerbation: towards a definition for use in clinical trials. Report from the EuroCareCF Working Group on outcome parameters in clinical trials. J Cyst Fibros. 2011;10 Suppl 2:S79-81.
Defoirdt T. Quorum-sensing systems as targets for antivirulence therapy. Trends Microbiol. 2018;26(4):313-328.
Kollef MH, Bassetti M, Francois B, et al. The intensive care medicine research agenda on multidrug-resistant bacteria, antibiotics, and stewardship. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(9):1187-1197.
Solomkin J, Hershberger E, Miller B, et al. Ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole for complicated intra-abdominal infections in an era of multidrug resistance: results from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial (ASPECT-cIAI). Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60(10):1462-1471.
van Duin D, Lok JJ, Earley M, et al. Colistin versus ceftazidime-avibactam in the treatment of infections due to carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(2):163-171.
Raad I, Hanna H, Maki D. Intravascular catheter-related infections: advances in diagnosis, prevention, and management. Lancet Infect Dis. 2007;7(10):645-657.
Roberts JA, Paul SK, Akova M, et al. DALI: defining antibiotic levels in intensive care unit patients: are current β-lactam antibiotic doses sufficient for critically ill patients? Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(8):1072-1083.
VanScoy BD, Mendes RE, McCauley J, et al. Pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of tazobactam in combination with ceftolozane in an in vitro infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(5):2809-2814.
Abdul-Aziz MH, Sulaiman H, Mat-Nor MB, et al. Beta-lactam infusion in severe sepsis (BLISS): a prospective, two-centre, open-labelled randomised controlled trial of continuous versus intermittent beta-lactam infusion in critically ill patients with severe sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(10):1535-1545.
Giddins MJ, Macesic N, Annavajhala MK, et al. Successive emergence of ceftazidime-avibactam resistance through distinct genomic adaptations in blaKPC-2-harboring Klebsiella pneumoniae sequence type 307 isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62(3):e02101-17.
Daikos GL, Tsaousi S, Tzouvelekis LS, et al. Carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infections: lowering mortality by antibiotic combination schemes and the role of carbapenems. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(4):2322-2328.
Walsh TR, Toleman MA, Poirel L, Nordmann P. Metallo-β-lactamases: the quiet before the storm? Clin Microbiol Rev. 2005;18(2):306-325.
Nordmann P, Poirel L, Dortet L. Rapid detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18(9):1503-1507.
Ellington MJ, Ekelund O, Aarestrup FM, et al. The role of whole genome sequencing in antimicrobial susceptibility testing of bacteria: report from the EUCAST Subcommittee. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017;23(1):2-22.
Tamma PD, Cosgrove SE, Maragakis LL. Combination therapy for treatment of infections with gram-negative bacteria. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2012;25(3):450-470.
Burke JP. Antibiotic resistance--squeezing the balloon? JAMA. 1998;280(14):1270-1271.
Falcone M, Menichetti F, Cattaneo D, et al. Ceftazidime-avibactam for treatment of severe KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae infections: a retrospective comparative study. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;26(2):156-162.
Barlam TF, Cosgrove SE, Abbo LM, et al. Implementing an antibiotic stewardship program: guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(10):e51-77.
MacDougall C, Polk RE. Antimicrobial stewardship programs in health care systems. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2005;18(4):638-656.
Pugh R, Grant C, Cooke RP, Dempsey G. Short-course versus prolonged-course antibiotic therapy for hospital-acquired pneumonia in critically ill adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(8):CD007577.
Hecker SJ, Reddy KR, Lomovskaya O, et al. Discovery of cyclic boronic acid QPX7728, an ultra-broad-spectrum inhibitor of serine and metallo β-lactamases. J Med Chem. 2020;63(14):7491-7507.
Durand-Réville TF, Guler S, Comita-Prevoir J, et al. ETX2514 is a broad-spectrum β-lactamase inhibitor for the treatment of drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria including Acinetobacter baumannii. Nat Microbiol. 2017;2(11):17104.
Dickey SW, Cheung GYC, Otto M. Different drugs for bad bugs: antivirulence strategies in the age of antibiotic resistance. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2017;16(7):457-471.
Torres VJ, Stauff DL, Pishchany G, et al. A Staphylococcus aureus regulatory system that responds to host heme and modulates virulence. Cell Host Microbe. 2007;1(2):109-119.
Huh AJ, Kwon YJ. "Nanoantibiotics": a new paradigm for treating infectious diseases using nanomaterials in the antibiotics resistant era. J Control Release. 2011;156(2):128-145.
Yang JH, Wright SN, Hamblin M, et al. A white-box machine learning approach for revealing antibiotic mechanisms of action. Cell. 2019;177(6):1649-1661.e9.
Stokes JM, Yang K, Swanson K, et al. A deep learning approach to antibiotic discovery. Cell. 2020;180(4):688-702.e13.
Crews KR, Hicks JK, Pui CH, Relling MV, Evans WE. Pharmacogenomics and individualized medicine: translating science into practice. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;92(4):467-475.
Langdon A, Crook N, Dantas G. The effects of antibiotics on the microbiome throughout development and alternative approaches for therapeutic modulation. Genome Med. 2016;8(1):39.
Kalil AC, Metersky ML, Klompas M, et al. Management of adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia: 2016 clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(5):e61-e111.
Paul M, Carrara E, Retamar P, et al. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) guidelines for the treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (endorsed by European society of intensive care medicine). Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022;28(4):521-547.
Bassetti M, Righi E, Carnelutti A, et al. Multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae: challenges for treatment, prevention and infection control. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2018;16(10):749-761.
Jenkins TC, Knepper BC, Sabel AL, et al. Decreased antibiotic utilization after implementation of a guideline for inpatient cellulitis and cutaneous abscess. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(12):1072-1079.
Schuts EC, Hulscher MEJL, Mouton JW, et al. Current evidence on hospital antimicrobial stewardship objectives: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(7):847-856.
Rex JH, Talbot GH, Goldberger MJ, et al. Progress in the fight against multidrug-resistant bacteria 2005-2016: modern noninferiority trial designs enable antibiotic development in advance of epidemic bacterial resistance. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65(1):141-146.
Powers JH, Evans SR, Kesselheim AS. Studying new antibiotics for multidrug resistant infections: are today's patients paying for tomorrow's evidence? BMJ. 2018;360:k587.
Rex JH, Eisenstein BI, Alder J, et al. A comprehensive regulatory framework to address the unmet need for new antibiotics. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13(3):269-275.
Theuretzbacher U, Gottwalt S, Beyer P, et al. Analysis of the clinical antibacterial and antifungal pipeline. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(2):e40-e50.
Humphries RM, Ambler J, Mitchell SL, et al. CLSI methods development and standardization working group best practices for evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility tests. J Clin Microbiol. 2018;56(4):e01934-17.
Doron S, Davidson LE. Antimicrobial stewardship. Mayo Clin Proc. 2011;86(11):1113-1123.
Laxminarayan R, Duse A, Wattal C, et al. Antibiotic resistance-the need for global solutions. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13(12):1057-1098.
Outterson K, Gopinathan U, Clift C, et al. Delinking payment for essential medicines: time for action. Lancet. 2018;392(10162):2194-2201.