BackgroundThe spread of carbapenemase-producing K. pneumoniae (CPKP) has become a significant problem worldwide. Combination therapy for CPKP is encouraging, but polymyxin resistance to many antibiotics is hampering effective treatment. Combination therapy with three or more antibiotics is being increasingly reported, therefore we performed a systematic review of triple combination cases in an effort to evaluate their clinical effectiveness for CPKP infections.MethodsThe PubMed database was searched to identify all published clinical outcomes of CPKP infections treated with triple combination therapy. Articles were stratified into two tiers depending on the level of clinical detail provided. A tier 1 study included: antibiotic regimen, regimen-specific outcome, patient status at onset of infection, and source of infection. Articles not reaching these criteria were considered tier 2.ResultsThirty-three studies were eligible, 23 tier 1 and ten tier 2. Among tier 1 studies, 53 cases were included in this analysis. The most common infection was pneumonia (31%) followed by primary or catheter-related bacteremia (21%) and urinary tract infection (17%). Different combinations of antibiotic classes were utilized in triple combinations, the most common being a polymyxin (colistin or polymyxin B, 86.8%), tigecycline (73.6%), aminoglycoside (43.4%), or carbapenem (43.4%). Clinical and microbiological failure occurred in 14/39 patients (35.9%) and 22/42 patients (52.4%), respectively. Overall mortality for patients treated with triple combination therapy was 35.8% (19/53 patients).ConclusionsTriple combination therapy is being considered as a treatment option for CPKP. Polymyxin-based therapy is the backbone antibiotic in these regimens, but its effectiveness needs establishing in prospective clinical trials.

It is often said that the marketplace for new antibiotics is broken. This notion is supported by the observation that many recently-approved antibiotics to treat drug-resistant bacteria have failed commercially in a spectacular fashion. Today, companies with peak market-cap values in excess of USD 500 million to 1 billion prior to product launch regularly sell for pennies on the dollar a few years after market introduction. It is possible, however, that the market is not as broken as we perceive. That is, in the collective mind of the clinician, recently-approved antibiotics may be too-poorly differentiated to justify their broad use and inordinate cost relative to those already existing. Perhaps we in the antibacterial drug development field must change our way of thinking if we are to survive and thrive. Rather than reflexively developing new β-lactam-β-lactamase inhibitor combinations for every new enzyme that evades our current inhibitors, we should focus discovery and development efforts on agents that revolutionize how we potentiate antibiotics. To this end, there has been renewed interest in phage therapies, virulence inhibitors, bacterial growth rate modulators, monoclonal antibodies, and other approaches to augment antibiotic effects. Herein, we suggest that the unmet medical need is less about adding poorly-differentiated antibiotics to our armamentarium and more about the need for innovation in how we augment antibiotic regimen effects.