5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      To update or not to update the ESCMID guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of biofilm infections – That is the question! The opinion of the ESGB board

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The work on the ESGB guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of biofilm infections began in 2012 and the result was published in 2014. The guidelines have been and still are frequently cited in the literature proving its usefulness for people working with biofilm infections. At the ESGB Biofilm conference in Mallorca 2022 (Eurobiofilms2022) the board of the ESGB decided to evaluate the 2014-guidelines and relevant publications since 2014 based on a lecture given at the Eurobiofilms2022.

          Guideline methods

          The Delphi method for working on production of guidelines and the current ESCMID rules for guidelines are presented. The criteria for evaluation of relevant literature are very strict and especially for treatment, most clinicians and regulatory authorities require convincing results from Level I (randomized controlled trials) publications to justify changes of treatments. The relevant new biofilm literature and the relevant biofilm presentations from the Eurobiofilms meetings and ECCMID conferences was used for evaluating the contemporary relevance of the ESGB 2014 guidelines.

          Diagnosis of biofilm infections

          Several infectious diseases have been recognized as biofilm infections since 2014, but the diagnostic methods and therapeutic strategies are still the same as recommended in the 2014 ESGB guidelines which are summarized in this opinion paper.

          Treatment of biofilm infections

          Some promising new in vitro and in vivo (animal experiments) observations and reports for therapy of biofilm infections are mentioned, but they still await clinical trials.

          Conclusion

          The interim opinion at the present time (2022) is therefore, that the guidelines do not need revision now, but there is a need for survey articles discussing new methods of diagnosis and treatment of biofilm infections in order - hopefully – to give inspiration to conduct clinical trials which may lead to progress in diagnosis and treatment of patients with biofilm infections.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms in the respiratory tract of cystic fibrosis patients.

          The present study was undertaken to investigate the appearance and location of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the cystic fibrosis (CF) lung and in sputum. Samples include preserved tissues of CF patients who died due to chronic P. aeruginosa lung infection prior to the advent of intensive antibiotic therapy, explanted lungs from 3 intensively treated chronically P. aeruginosa infected CF patients and routine sputum from 77 chronically P. aeruginosa infected CF patients. All samples were investigated microscopically using hematoxylin-eosin (HE), Gram and alcian-blue stain, PNA FISH and immunofluorescence for alginate.Investigation of the preserved tissues revealed that prior to aggressive antibiotic therapy, P. aeruginosa infection and destruction of the CF lung correlated with the occurrence of mucoid (alginate) bacteria present in aggregating structures surrounded by pronounced polymorphonuclear-leukocyte (PMN) inflammation in the respiratory zone (9/9). Non-mucoid bacteria were not observed here, and rarely in the conductive zone (1/9). However, in the explanted lungs, the P. aeruginosa aggregates were also mucoid but in contrast to the autopsies, they were very rare in the respiratory zone but abundant in the sputum of the conductive zone (3/3), which also contained abundances of PMNs (3/3). Non-mucoid and planktonic P. aeruginosa were also observed here (3/3).In conclusion, the present intensive antibiotic therapy of chronic P. aeruginosa infections, at the Copenhagen CF Centre, seems to restrain but not eradicate the bacteria from the conductive zone, whereas the remaining healthy respiratory zone appears to be protected, for a long period, from massive biofilm infection. This strongly suggests that the conductive zone serves as a bacterial reservoir where the bacteria are organized in mucoid biofilms within the mucus, protected against antibiotics and host defenses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Tolerance and resistance of microbial biofilms

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Partial Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotic Treatment of Endocarditis

              Patients with infective endocarditis on the left side of the heart are typically treated with intravenous antibiotic agents for up to 6 weeks. Whether a shift from intravenous to oral antibiotics once the patient is in stable condition would result in efficacy and safety similar to those with continued intravenous treatment is unknown.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Biofilm
                Biofilm
                Biofilm
                Elsevier
                2590-2075
                03 July 2023
                15 December 2023
                03 July 2023
                : 6
                : 100135
                Affiliations
                [a ]European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Study Group for Biofilms (ESGB), Denmark
                [b ]Department of Clinical Microbiology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
                [c ]Institute of Immunology and Microbiology, Panum Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
                [d ]Servicio de Microbiologia, Hospital Universitario San Espases, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de les Illes Balears, Palma, Palma de Mallorca, Spain
                [e ]School of Medicine, Densistry & Nursing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Science, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
                [f ]Department of Health Sciences, Università degli Studi du Milano, Milan, Italy
                [g ]Centro de Engenharia Biológica, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Clinical Microbiology, 9301 Henrik Harpestrengs Vej 4A Rigshospitalet, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. hoiby@ 123456dadlnet.dk
                Article
                S2590-2075(23)00032-1 100135
                10.1016/j.bioflm.2023.100135
                10704329
                38078061
                23fd9c20-e6d3-4a81-838a-071d9bdbe89e
                © 2023 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 2 February 2023
                : 6 June 2023
                : 6 June 2023
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article