| Literature DB >> 35625311 |
Md Mominur Rahman1, Mst Afroza Alam Tumpa1, Mehrukh Zehravi2, Md Taslim Sarker1, Md Yamin1, Md Rezaul Islam1, Md Harun-Or-Rashid1, Muniruddin Ahmed1, Sarker Ramproshad3, Banani Mondal3, Abhijit Dey4, Fouad Damiri5, Mohammed Berrada5, Md Habibur Rahman6, Simona Cavalu7.
Abstract
Antimicrobials are a type of agent widely used to prevent various microbial infections in humans and animals. Antimicrobial resistance is a major cause of clinical antimicrobial therapy failure, and it has become a major public health concern around the world. Increasing the development of multiple antimicrobials has become available for humans and animals with no appropriate guidance. As a result, inappropriate use of antimicrobials has significantly produced antimicrobial resistance. However, an increasing number of infections such as sepsis are untreatable due to this antimicrobial resistance. In either case, life-saving drugs are rendered ineffective in most cases. The actual causes of antimicrobial resistance are complex and versatile. A lack of adequate health services, unoptimized use of antimicrobials in humans and animals, poor water and sanitation systems, wide gaps in access and research and development in healthcare technologies, and environmental pollution have vital impacts on antimicrobial resistance. This current review will highlight the natural history and basics of the development of antimicrobials, the relationship between antimicrobial use in humans and antimicrobial use in animals, the simplistic pathways, and mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance, and how to control the spread of this resistance.Entities:
Keywords: antimicrobial resistance; control; human; infection; public health; sanitation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35625311 PMCID: PMC9137991 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11050667
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6382
Antimicrobial groups based on their mode of action [26].
| No. | Mode of Action | Antimicrobial Groups |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cell wall synthesis inhibitor | |
| 2 | Depolarization of cell membrane | Lipopeptide |
| 3 | Protein synthesis inhibitors |
Bind to 30 s ribosomal subunit:
Aminoglycosides Tetracyclines Macrolides Chloramphenicol Lincosamides |
| 4 | Nucleic acid synthesis inhibitor | Quinolones, Fluoroquinolones |
| 5 | Inhibitors of metabolic pathways | Sulfonamides, Trimethoprim |
Figure 1Background of discovery of antibiotics and the subsequent development of resistance to antibiotics.
Figure 2Human gut resistome identification procedure from feces sample that contains resistance gene [28].
Figure 3Intrinsic and acquired antibiotic resistance in bacteria. (A) Barriers to entry include the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria and associated protein pores; (B) efflux pumps; (C) target alteration; (D) antibiotic modification and degradation; (E) antibiotic target mutation.
Antimicrobials and the associated genes that confer resistance to those antimicrobials.
| No. | Name of Antimicrobials | Structure | Genes | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rifampicin |
|
| [ |
|
| [ | |||
| 2 | Benzothiazinones |
|
| [ |
| 3 | Ethambutol |
| [ | |
|
|
| [ | ||
|
| [ | |||
| 4 | Para-aminosalicylic acid (PASA) |
| [ | |
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||
| 5 | D-cycloserine |
|
| [ |
|
| [ | |||
|
| [ | |||
| 6 | Fucidic acid |
|
| [ |
| 7 | Glycylcycline |
|
| [ |
| 8 | Ethionamide |
|
| [ |
| 9 | Tetracycline |
|
| [ |
| 10 | Pyrazinamide |
|
| [ |
| 11 | Penicillin |
|
| [ |
| 12 | Streptomycin |
|
| [ |
| 13 | Chloramphenicol |
|
| [ |
| 14 | Methicillin |
|
| [ |
| 15 | Isoniazid |
|
| [ |
|
| [ | |||
|
| [ |
Figure 4General mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance [62].
The mechanisms of resistance of some common antibiotics [63].
| Antimicrobial Groups | Examples | Mechanism of Resistance |
|---|---|---|
|
| Penicillins, Cephalosporins, Carbapenems, Monobactams | Hydrolysis, efflux, altered target |
| Aminoglycosides | Streptomycin, Gentamycin | Altered target, acetylation, efflux |
| Tetracyclines | Minocycline, Tigecycline | Efflux, altered target, hydrolysis |
| Lincosamides | Clindamycin | Efflux, altered target |
| Macrolides | Erythromycin, azithromycin | Hydrolysis, efflux, altered target |
| Phenols | Chloramphenicol | Acetylation, efflux, altered target |
| Quinolones | Ciprofloxacin | Acetylation, efflux, altered target |
| Pyrimidines | Trimethroprim | Efflux, altered target |
| Sulfonamides | Sulfamethoxazole | Efflux, altered target |
Clinical trials in complicated urinary tract infection (UTI).
| First Author (Ref) | Resistant Microorganisms | Dose New Antibiotic (n Patient) | Comparator, Dose (n Patient) | Definition Outcome | Timing Assessment of Outcomes | Outcomes (New Antibiotics vs. Comparator) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A comparative study with Plazomicin | ||||||
| Wagenlehner [ | ESBL 26.5% | 15 mg/kg IV, QD ( | Meropenem 1 g IV, TID ( | Clinical cure and microbiological response | 15 to 19 days after the start of therapy | 81.7% vs. 70.1% |
| Conolly [ | Ceftazidime non-susceptible 17.6% | 15 mg/kg IV, QD ( | Levofloxacin 750 mg IV, QD ( | Microbiological eradication rate | 12 days after the last dose | 60.8% vs. 58.6% |
| A comparative study with Eravacycline | ||||||
| Clinical trial identifier NCT03032510 | No information | 1.5 mg/kg IV, QD + levofloxacin PO ( | Ertapenem 1 g IV, QD + levofloxacin PO ( | Clinical cure and microbiological response | 14 to 17 days post randomization | 84.8% vs. 94.8% |
| Clinical trial identifier NCT01978938 | No information | 1.5 mg/kg IV, QD ( | Levofloxacin 750 mg IV, QD ( | Clinical cure and microbiological response | Post-treatment visit | 60.4% vs. 66.9% |
| A comparative study with Cefiderocol | ||||||
| Portsmouth [ | No information | 2 g IV, TID ( | Imipenem-cilastatin | Clinical cure and microbiological response | 7 ± 2 days after the end of antibiotic treatment | 73% vs. 55% |
| A comparative study with Ceftazidime/avibactam | ||||||
| Carmeli [ | Ceftazidime non-susceptible Enterobacterales or | 2 g/500 mg IV, TD ( | Best available therapy (97% carbapenems) ( | Clinical response | 7 to 10 days after the last infusion | 91% vs. 91% |
| Wagenlehner [ | Ceftazidime non-susceptible 19.6% | 2 g/500 mg IV, TD ( | Doripenem 500 mg IV, TD ( | Clinical cure and microbiological response | 21 to 25 days post-randomization | 71.2% vs. 64.5% |
| Comparative study with Ceftolozane/tazobactam | ||||||
| Popejoy [ | ESBL 11.1% | 1 g/500 mg IV, TD ( | Levofloxacin 750 mg IV, QD ( | Clinical cure | 5 to 9 days post therapy | 95.8% vs. 82.6% ( |
| Wagenlehner [ | ESBL 14.8% | 1 g/500 mg IV, TD ( | Levofloxacin 750 mg IV, QD ( | Clinical cure and microbiological response | 5 to 9 days post-therapy | 76.9% vs. 68.4% |
| A comparative study with Meropenem/tazobactam | ||||||
| Kaye [ | Piperacillin/tazobactam-resistant | 2 g/2 g IV, TD ( | Piperacillin/tazobactam 4 g/500 mg IV, TD ( | Clinical cure and microbiological response | End of intravenous treatment | 98.4% vs. 94.0% |
| Wunderink [ | Multicenter study (27 CRE 78.7% | 2 g/2 g IV, TD ( | Best available therapy ( | Cure rates | At day 28 | 65.6% vs. 33.3% (95% CI: 3.3. to 61.3) |
| Comparative study with Imipenem+ cilastatin/relebactam | ||||||
| Motsch [ | Imipenem-nonsusceptible microorganisms 100% | 500 mg/250 mg IV, QD ( | Colistimethate Sodium + imipenem + cilastatin loading dose 300 mg colistin base activity, followed by maintenance doses up to 150 mg colistin base activity, IV, BD ( | Clinical and microbiological response | On therapy visit (cUTI) | 71.4% vs. 70.0% Favorable overall response against P. aeruginosa: |
Abbreviation: IV, intravenous; PO, oral; BD, twice daily; TID, three times daily; QD, once a day. CRE, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales; cUTI, complicated urinary tract infection; cIAI, complicated intra-abdominal infection; HAP/VAP, hospital-acquired pneumonia/ventilator-associated pneumonia; ESBL, extended-spectrum beta-lactamases; cUTI, complicated urinary tract infection; cIAI, complicated intra-abdominal infection; HAP/VAP, hospital-acquired pneumonia/just ESBL or CRE data is stated; if entire data is not accessible, only new antibiotic data is included; a Patients with severe intra-abdominal infection (10%) were included; b 34% of cUTI patients had HAP/VAP and 46.8% had bacteremia; c 51.6% of cUTI patients had HAP/VAP and 12.9% had cIAI.
Figure 5Percentages of participants who reported acceptable antibiotic usage in the different circumstances of the illness. HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; UTI, urinary tract infection.