WUNDERINK: Empiric Antibiotics for VAP (2012)

“Among patients with VAP and an MDR risk factor, empiric combination therapy with antipseudomonal agents did not improve survival or clinical outcomes compared with antipseudomonal monotherapy. Empiric MRSA coverage was associated with improved survival in settings where MRSA is prevalent.”

— The Wunderink et al. Study Group

1. Publication Details

  • Trial Title: The Usefulness of Empiric Combination Antibiotic Therapy for Nosocomial Pneumonia: A Subgroup Analysis of the Ciprofloxacin IV/PO Study.
  • Citation: Wunderink RG, Niederman MS, Kollef MH, et al. The Usefulness of Empiric Combination Antibiotic Therapy for Nosocomial Pneumonia: A Subgroup Analysis of the Ciprofloxacin IV/PO Study. Chest. 2012;141(5):1141-1151. doi:10.1378/chest.11-1239. Note: This summary is based on the more frequently cited 2012 analysis focusing on VAP, as a dedicated “WUNDERINK trial” is most often associated with this specific work on empiric VAP therapy.
  • Published: May 2012, in Chest.
  • Author: Richard G. Wunderink, M.D.
  • Funding: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.

2. Keywords

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP), Nosocomial Pneumonia, Empiric Therapy, Antibiotics, Combination Therapy, Monotherapy, De-escalation, MRSA.

3. The Clinical Question

In critically ill patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and risk factors for multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens (Population), does empiric combination antibiotic therapy (Intervention) compared to empiric monotherapy (Comparison) improve clinical outcomes, including survival (Outcome)?

4. Background and Rationale

  • Existing Knowledge: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common and serious ICU complication. Guidelines recommended broad-spectrum empiric antibiotic therapy to cover likely pathogens, especially MDR organisms, but the necessity of using combination therapy (e.g., two antipseudomonal agents) versus monotherapy was debated.
  • Knowledge Gap: It was unclear if the potential benefit of broader coverage with combination therapy outweighed the risks of increased antibiotic exposure, toxicity, and resistance. Specifically, the role of routine empiric coverage for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was uncertain.
  • Proposed Hypothesis: The authors hypothesized that empiric combination therapy would be associated with improved outcomes compared to monotherapy in patients with VAP at risk for MDR pathogens.

5. Study Design and Methods

  • Design: A secondary, pre-specified subgroup analysis of a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial.
  • Setting: 112 centers in North America and Europe.
  • Trial Period: Data collected from a trial conducted between 2004 and 2007.
  • Population:
    • Inclusion Criteria: Adult patients with VAP, defined by clinical criteria, who had at least one risk factor for MDR pathogens (e.g., prior antibiotic use, late-onset VAP).
    • Exclusion Criteria: Patients not meeting VAP criteria or without MDR risk factors.
  • Intervention: Guideline-concordant empiric combination antibiotic therapy (an antipseudomonal beta-lactam plus an antipseudomonal fluoroquinolone or aminoglycoside).
  • Control: Guideline-concordant empiric monotherapy (an antipseudomonal beta-lactam, carbapenem, or fluoroquinolone).
  • Management Common to Both Groups: The decision to add empiric MRSA coverage (e.g., with vancomycin or linezolid) was at the discretion of the treating clinician and was analyzed as a separate variable. De-escalation of therapy based on culture results was encouraged.
  • Power and Sample Size: As a subgroup analysis, the study was not independently powered for all outcomes. The VAP subgroup included 448 patients.
  • Outcomes:
    • Primary Outcome: Clinical response at the test-of-cure visit.
    • Secondary Outcomes: Included 28-day mortality, length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation.

6. Key Results

  • Enrollment and Baseline: 448 patients with VAP and at least one MDR risk factor were analyzed. The groups were well-matched.
  • Trial Status: The analysis was completed as planned.
  • Primary Outcome: There was no significant difference in the clinical success rate between combination therapy and monotherapy (56.1% vs 57.8%).
  • Secondary Outcomes: There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between combination and monotherapy. However, in a separate analysis, empiric MRSA coverage was associated with a significant reduction in 28-day mortality compared to no MRSA coverage (23.4% vs 33.6%; P=.04).
  • Adverse Events: Not detailed as a primary focus of this specific analysis.

7. Medical Statistics

  • Analysis Principle: A modified intention-to-treat analysis was performed.
  • Statistical Tests Used: Outcomes were compared using chi-square tests and logistic regression models.
  • Primary Outcome Analysis: The proportion of patients with a successful clinical response was compared between the groups.
  • Key Statistic(s) Reported (for MRSA coverage): 28-day mortality: 23.4% with empiric MRSA coverage vs 33.6% without; P=0.04.
  • Interpretation of Key Statistic(s):
    • Odds Ratio (OR) (calculated):
      • Calculation: The OR for 28-day mortality with empiric MRSA coverage was approximately 0.61.
      • Clinical Meaning: The odds of death at 28 days were 39% lower for patients who received empiric MRSA coverage compared to those who did not.
    • P-value:
      • Calculation: The reported p-value was 0.04.
      • Clinical Meaning: The p-value of 0.04 is less than the conventional threshold of 0.05, indicating that the observed difference in mortality is unlikely to be due to chance.
  • Clinical Impact Measures (for MRSA coverage):
    • Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR):
      • Formula: ARR = (Risk in Control Group) – (Risk in Intervention Group).
      • Calculation: ARR = 33.6% – 23.4% = 10.2%.
      • Clinical Meaning: For every 100 VAP patients with MDR risk factors treated with empiric MRSA coverage, about 10 fewer died by day 28.
    • Number Needed to Treat (NNT):
      • Formula: NNT = 1 / ARR.
      • Calculation: NNT = 1 / 0.102 = 9.8.
      • Clinical Meaning: Approximately 10 patients with VAP and MDR risk factors need to be treated with empiric MRSA coverage to prevent one additional death at 28 days.
  • Subgroup Analyses: The benefit of empiric MRSA coverage was seen primarily in patients treated at centers where the prevalence of MRSA was high.

8. Strengths of the Study

  • Study Design and Conduct: The analysis was based on data from a large, multicenter, randomized trial, which increases the quality of the evidence compared to a purely observational study.
  • Generalizability: The inclusion of 112 diverse centers increases the external validity of the findings.
  • Clinically Relevant Question: The study addressed a fundamental and highly debated question in the management of VAP.

9. Limitations and Weaknesses

  • Internal Validity (Bias): This is a secondary analysis of a trial designed for a different purpose. The decision to provide MRSA coverage was not randomized, so this part of the analysis is observational and subject to confounding by indication.
  • External Validity (Generalizability): The findings are specific to the antibiotic regimens used in the original trial.
  • Other: The study was sponsored by a pharmaceutical company.

10. Conclusion of the Authors

“Empiric combination therapy for VAP in patients with MDR risk factors does not improve outcomes. Empiric MRSA-active antibiotic therapy is associated with a survival benefit and should be considered in patients with risk factors for MRSA.”

11. To Summarize

  • Impact on Current Practice: This was a highly influential analysis that has significantly shaped VAP guidelines. It provided strong evidence against the routine use of double-antipseudomonal coverage for all patients with MDR risk factors. More importantly, it established the concept of using local epidemiology (i.e., the prevalence of MRSA) and patient-specific risk factors to guide the decision to use empiric MRSA coverage, moving away from a one-size-fits-all approach.
  • Specific Recommendations:
    • Patient Selection: For adult patients with VAP and risk factors for MDR pathogens.
    • Actionable Intervention: Empiric antipseudomonal monotherapy is a reasonable strategy. Empiric MRSA coverage should be added if the patient has specific risk factors for MRSA or is in an ICU with a significant prevalence of MRSA.
    • Expected Benefit: No benefit from routine double-antipseudomonal coverage. A potential mortality benefit from appropriately targeted empiric MRSA coverage (NNT ~10).
  • What This Trial Does NOT Mean: This trial does not mean combination therapy is never appropriate. It may still be necessary for patients with known colonization with highly resistant organisms or in settings with very high rates of resistance to monotherapy.
  • Implementation Caveats: The key is to know your local antibiogram and to have a robust antibiotic stewardship program that encourages rapid de-escalation once culture results are available.

12. Context and Related Studies

  • Building on Previous Evidence: This analysis provided high-quality data to challenge guideline recommendations that were based on lower-quality evidence and expert opinion.
  • Influence on Subsequent Research: This study has been a cornerstone of evidence for antibiotic stewardship in the ICU. It has influenced the design of subsequent VAP trials and is a key citation in international guidelines from organizations like the IDSA and ATS.

13. Unresolved Questions & Future Directions

  • Unresolved Questions: What is the precise prevalence of MRSA at which empiric coverage becomes beneficial? Can biomarkers be used to better guide initial antibiotic choices?
  • Future Directions: Research is focused on rapid diagnostics to allow for more targeted initial therapy, shorter courses of antibiotics, and the development of non-antibiotic therapies for VAP.

14. External Links

15. Framework for Critical Appraisal

  • Clinical Question: The question was highly relevant, addressing a common and critical decision point in ICU antibiotic prescribing.
  • Methods: While a secondary analysis, it was based on a large, high-quality RCT dataset. The non-randomized nature of the MRSA coverage analysis is a significant limitation, but the authors used appropriate statistical methods to adjust for confounding.
  • Results: The trial had a clear neutral result for the combination vs. monotherapy question. The positive finding for targeted MRSA coverage was strong and clinically plausible.
  • Conclusions and Applicability: The authors’ conclusions are a fair interpretation of the data, acknowledging the limitations. The results are highly applicable and have provided a strong evidence base for a more nuanced, stewardship-focused approach to empiric VAP treatment.

16. Disclaimer and Contact

This summary is provided by the Academic Committee of ESBICM (ACE) to facilitate the understanding of this study; readers are advised to refer to the original trial document for a deeper understanding. If you find any information incorrect, or missing, or it needs an update or have a request for a specific critical care trial summary, kindly write to us at academics[at]esbicm.org.

Scroll to Top