No abstract

Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) have seen limited clinical use as antimicrobial agents, largely due to issues relating to toxicity, short biological half-life, and lack of efficacy against Gram-negative bacteria. However, the development of novel AMP-nanomedicines, i.e. AMPs entrapped in nanoparticles, has the potential to ameliorate these clinical problems. The authors investigated two novel nanomedicines based on AA139, an AMP currently in development for the treatment of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections. AA139 was entrapped in polymeric nanoparticles (PNP) or lipid-core micelles (MCL). The antimicrobial activity of AA139-PNP and AA139-MCL was determined in vitro. The biodistribution and limiting doses of AA139-nanomedicines were determined in uninfected rats via endotracheal aerosolization. The early bacterial killing activity of the AA139-nanomedicines in infected lungs was assessed in a rat model of pneumonia-septicemia caused by an extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. In this model, the therapeutic efficacy was determined by once-daily (q24h) administration over 10 days. Both AA139-nanomedicines showed equivalent in vitro antimicrobial activities (similar to free AA139) and in uninfected rats they exhibited longer residence times in the lungs compared to free AA139 (∼20% longer for AA139-PNP and ∼80% longer for AA139-MCL), as well as reduced toxicity enabling a higher limiting dose. In rats with pneumonia-septicemia, both AA139-nanomedicines showed significantly improved therapeutic efficacy in terms of an extended rat survival time, although survival of all rats was not achieved. These results demonstrate potential advantages that can be achieved using AMP-nanoformulations. AA139-PNP and AA139-MCL may be promising novel therapeutic agents for the treatment of patients suffering from multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pneumonia-septicemia.

Background: Recent scientific reports on the use of high dose tigecycline monotherapy as a “drug of last resort” warrant further research into the use of this regimen for the treatment of severe multidrug-resistant, Gram-negative bacterial infections. In the current study, the therapeutic efficacy of tigecycline monotherapy was investigated and compared to meropenem monotherapy in a newly developed rat model of fatal lobar pneumonia–septicemia. Methods: A Klebsiella pneumoniae producing extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) and an isogenic variant producing K. pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC) were used in the study. Both strains were tested for their in vitro antibiotic susceptibility and used to induce pneumonia–septicemia in rats, which was characterized using disease progression parameters. Therapy with tigecycline or meropenem was initiated at the moment that rats suffered from progressive infection and was administered 12-hourly over 10 days. The pharmacokinetics of meropenem were determined in infected rats. Results: In rats with ESBL pneumonia–septicemia, the minimum dosage of meropenem achieving survival of all rats was 25 mg/kg/day. However, in rats with KPC pneumonia–septicemia, this meropenem dosage was unsuccessful. In contrast, all rats with KPC pneumonia–septicemia were successfully cured by administration of high-dose tigecycline monotherapy of 25 mg/kg/day (i.e., the minimum tigecycline dosage achieving 100% survival of rats with ESBL pneumonia–septicemia in a previous study). Conclusions: The current study supports recent literature recommending high-dose tigecycline as a last resort regimen for the treatment of severe multidrug-resistant bacterial infections. The use of ESBL- and KPC-producing K. pneumoniae strains in the current rat model of pneumonia–septicemia enables further investigation, helping provide supporting data for follow-up clinical trials in patients suffering from severe multidrug-resistant bacterial respiratory infections.

Background and ObjectivesGuillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute immune-mediated polyradiculoneuropathy that may follow a preceding infection inducing a cross-reactive antibody response to glycosphingolipids in peripheral nerves. The immune response in GBS is considered to be short lasting, explaining its monophasic clinical course. However, the disease course varies between patients, and residual deficits frequently occur. The duration of the antibody response has not been defined extensively in GBS, and the persistence of these antibodies may impair clinical recovery. The aim of this study was to determine the titer course of serum antibody titers to the ganglioside GM1 in relation to clinical course and outcome in patients with GBS.MethodsAcute-phase sera from patients with GBS included in previous therapeutic trials were screened for anti-GM1 IgG and IgM antibodies in ELISA. Anti-GM1 antibody titers were determined in sera collected at entry and during a 6-month follow-up. Clinical course and outcomes were compared between groups based on the titer course.ResultsAnti-GM1 antibodies were detected in 78 (20.7%) of 377 included patients. The anti-GM1 IgG and IgM antibody titer course was highly variable between patients. A subset of anti–GM1-positive patients had persistent anti-GM1 antibodies at 3 months (n = 27/43 [62.8%]) and 6 months (n = 19/41 [46.3%]). Patients with a high anti-GM1 IgG and IgM titer at entry recovered more slowly and less complete than anti–GM1-negative patients (IgG:p= 0.015, IgM:p= 0.03). High vs low IgG titers were independently associated with poor outcome after correcting for known prognostic factors (p= 0.046). Among patients with a high anti-GM1 IgG titer at entry, a slow titer decline was associated with poor outcome at 4 weeks (p= 0.003) and 6 months (p= 0.032). Persistent high IgG titers at 3 and 6 months were associated with poor outcome at 6 months (3 months:p= 0.022, 6 months:p= 0.004).DiscussionHigh anti-GM1 IgG and IgM antibody titers at entry and persistent high anti-GM1 IgG antibody titers are associated with poor outcome in patients with GBS. Antibody persistency indicates ongoing antibody production long after the acute disease state in GBS. Further research is required to determine whether antibody persistency interferes with nerve recovery and is a target for treatments.