Share this article on:

The “De-escalation Concept” and Antibiotic De-escalation: A Missed Opportunity?

Camargo, Luis Fernando A.

doi: 10.1097/SHK.0b013e31828faf02
Original Article

ABSTRACT De-escalation therapy” is a term that suggests the need to reduce the spectrum or the number of antibiotics formerly prescribed for critical patients, upon clinical improvement and/or microorganism recovery. The major goal of this concept is the use of broad-spectrum antibiotic agents as initial drugs of choice for severe patients, instead of “reserving” the most potent agents after an inadequate clinical response, or after the microorganism is recovered. Despite possible commercial concerns and an unproven but possible relationship with enhancing global antibiotic use, the concept was correct and in accordance with scientific evidence. However, the “de-escalation” component of the concept is very seldom reported, and no large clinical trial on this issue is available until today. To definitely put in practice this concept, comparative large trials must be designed and sponsored to insert this strategy at the same level of evidence of wide initial empiric antibiotic treatments.

Transplant Infectious Diseases Unit, UNIFESP, and Clinical Research Center, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil

Address reprint requests to Luis Fernando A. Camargo, MD, PhD, Transplant Infectious Disease Unit, UNIFESP, Rua Borges Lagoa, 960-Vl. Clementino, 04038-002 São Paulo, Brazil. E-mail:

Back to Top | Article Outline


De-escalation therapy” is a term that has become popular and suggests the need to reduce the spectrum or the number of antibiotics formerly prescribed for critical patients, upon clinical improvement and/or microorganism recovery. In fact, the major goal behind this concept is the use of broad-spectrum antibiotic agents as agents of choice for severe patients, instead of “reserving” the most potent agents after an inadequate clinical response or after the microorganism was recovered. Despite possible commercial concerns and an unproven but possible relationship with enhancing global antibiotic use, the concept was correct and in accordance with scientific evidence. However, the “de-escalation” component of the concept is very seldom reported, and no large clinical trial is available until today.

The evidences guiding this concept were clearly demonstrated in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) conducted during the late 1990s and early 2000s, where an initial inadequate antibiotic coverage was associated with higher mortality rates using multivariate analysis (1–4). One review showed that, combining several similar studies, a statistically significant association between reduced mortality rate and an adequate initial antibiotic scheme were demonstrated (1). A few studies suggested that even antibiotic modification upon the availability of cultures did not alter the patient prognosis (3).

In fungal infections, some studies have demonstrated that the timing of antifungal prescription could alter mortality rates, with more timely treatments reducing mortality rates (5). In addition, a recent study showed that a correct initial antifungal class improved survival in patients with candidemia (6).

Finally, some studies have “proved the concept” for bloodstream infections, again correlating survival benefits with timely and adequate empiric antibiotic therapy (7, 8).

All the scientific data generated a change in antibiotic prescription all around the world, and this practice, along with other measures such as prompt volume restitution, corticosteroid, and optimal intensive care unit management, has significantly reduced mortality rates associated to septic shock (9).

To counterbalance the undesirable effect (at least for those concerned with it) of excess antibiotic consumption and antibiotic resistance, later strategies fortunately have focused on hospital-acquired infection control, some with considerable reductions in both catheter-related bloodstream infections and VAP (10).

On the other hand, some new problems have arisen in the subsequent years that need to be better understood, such as to renew the concept of broad and effective antibiotic therapy. Almost all of them are related to antibiotic resistance all around the world.

The first and presently most relevant issue for antibiotic therapy is the emergence of pan-resistant or at least multiresistant gram-negative bacteria. The emergence of Klebsiella species strains producing wide-spectrum β-lactamases (KPC) first reported in a New York City outbreak has become a global concern, with several other reports published thereafter (11, 12). A new β-lactamase originally described in New Delhi has rapidly spread and, although did not yet become a global threat, left few therapeutic options for serious infections caused by strains expressing this β-lactamase (13). Finally, pan-resistant or at least carbapenem-resistant strains of Pseudomonas species and Acinetobacter species have emerged and are presently part of the normal hospital flora in several parts of the world. For example, in a recent nationwide study in Brazil, around 50% of all isolates of these two species recovered from the blood of patients with bacteremia were resistant to meropenem/imipenem (14). As a commercial strategy, the “De-escalation” project has certainly granted significant short-term results for the sponsors, but as a lasting strategy it was a complete failure, because the carbapenems are now in many hospitals the target for de-escalation rather than the option for first and “infallible” initial therapy. The consequence of the emergence of the pan-resistant strains is the reemergence of the polymyxins as part of the antimicrobial armamentarium. Although these drugs are considerably more toxic with complete pharmaceutical properties not completely known, they can and must be now included in the treatment guidelines as the first initial treatment for serious infections in critically ill patients, at least in countries with high carbapenem resistance rates. If the polymyxins will become the target of global resistance, this is probably a matter of time, because resistance has already been reported (15).

Second, for gram-positive pathogens, although resistance rates for hospital-recovered agents are stable but in high percentages (mainly for Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus species) (14), the debate over vancomycin failures is still open. Vancomycin susceptibility cutoff values were reduced from 4 µg/mL to 2 µg/mL by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute because of several reports of vancomycin failure (16). This effect in part is due to the presence of heteroresistant subcolonies of S. aureus with reduced susceptibility to vancomycin. The frequency of such colonies has a direct relation with vancomycin MICs (minimal inhibition concentrations) (16). Although the matter still remains debatable, some evidences today make it feasible to consider other drugs as the choice at least for bloodstream infections or other infections with MICs of 2 µg/mL or greater. At least one randomized study could show that telavancin was superior to vancomycin for a subgroup of strains with vancomycin MIC of greater than 1 µg/mL (17).

Third and last, global resistance rates to fluconazole are emerging around the world, with the predominance of non-albicans strains over Candida albicans as causes of serious fungal infections. Moreover, amphotericin toxicity has become a great concern, whereas new (but more expensive) drugs seem more reliable and even superior to fluconazole using a combined improvement index. For this reason, some Society Guidelines now postulate equinocandins or lipid formulations of amphotericin as first-line agents for suspected candidemia in critically ill patients (18).

Finally, what happened to antibiotic de-escalation? Unfortunately, much less effort has been used to prove the concept that spectrum reduction or limitation is safe. In fact, in a recent meta-analysis, the concept could not even be considered because not a single randomized study had taken place during the period considered (19).

On the other hand, evidence absence is not the same as evidence of absence. Small controlled studies and a considerable number of observational data have shown that the concept can be safe, can reduce antibiotic related adverse effects, and can even reduce susceptibility rates and reinfection episodes (20–25). Three points may, however, be the cornerstone of a safe protocol for antibiotic de-escalation: first, de-escalation can take place only when patients’ clinical status shows relevant clinical improvement, or infection is ruled out (this may be true mainly for pneumonia, because the specificity of clinical markers is not as accurate). Second, cultures must be collected and, when clinically relevant, such as blood isolates, should guide antibiotic change when regarded safe. Third, recognize that there are several modalities that can accomplish antibiotic optimization goals: change antibiotic to narrower spectrum (for patients with less severe condition and when toxicity is a concern, such as in patients who receive polymyxins or aminoglycosides as empirical therapy), reduce the number of antibiotics prescribed (the most illustrative example is with suspected bloodstream infections, when both gram-positive and gram-negative and sometimes Candida species are an initial consideration, but only one agent is later disclosed), and shorten antibiotic treatments (for instance, in VAP in nonimmunocompromised host without Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter as agents). All these can be tried, and the general practice believes that these strategies are safe. On the other hand, to definitely put in practice the “de-escalation concept,” comparative large trials must be designed and sponsored to put this practice at the same level of evidence of wide initial empiric antibiotic treatments.

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Bochud PY, Glauser MP, Calandra T: International Sepsis Forum. Antibiotics in sepsis. Intensive Care Med 27 (Suppl 1): S33–S48, 2001.
2. Kollef MH, Sherman G, Ward S, Fraser VJ: Inadequate antimicrobial treatment of infections: a risk factor for hospital mortality among critically ill patients. Chest 115 (2): 462–474, 1999.
3. Luna CM, Vujacich P, Niederman MS, Vay C, Gherardi C, Matera J, Jolly EC: Impact of BAL data on the therapy and outcome of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest 111 (3): 676–685, 1997.
4. Rello J, Gallego M, Mariscal D, Soñora R, Valles J: The value of routine microbial investigation in ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 156 (1): 196–200, 1997.
5. Garey KW, Rege M, Pai MP, Mingo DE, Suda KJ, Turpin RS, Bearden DT: Time to initiation of fluconazole therapy impacts mortality in patients with candidemia: a multi-institutional study. Clin Infect Dis 43 (1): 25–31, 2006.
6. Parkins MD, Sabuda DM, Elsayed S, Laupland KB: Adequacy of empirical antifungal therapy and effect on outcome among patients with invasive Candida species infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 60 (3): 613–618, 2007.
7. Ibrahim EH, Sherman G, Ward S, Fraser VJ, Kollef MH: The influence of inadequate antimicrobial treatment of bloodstream infections on patient outcomes in the ICU setting. Chest 118 (1): 146–155, 2000.
8. Peralta G, Sánchez MB, Garrido JC, De Benito I, Cano ME, Martínez-Martínez L, Roiz MP: Impact of antibiotic resistance and of adequate empirical antibiotic treatment in the prognosis of patients with E. coli bacteremia. J Antimicrob Chemother 60 (4): 855–863, 2007.
9. Levy MM, Dellinger RP, Townsend SR, Linde-Zwirble WT, Marshall JC, Bion J, Schorr C, Artigas A, Ramsay G, Beale R, et al.: Surviving Sepsis Campaign. The Surviving sepsis campaign: results of an international guideline-based performance improvement program targeting severe sepsis. Crit Care Med 38 (2): 367–374, 2010.
10. Bonello RS, Fletcher CE, Becker WK, Clutter KL, Arjes SL, Cook JJ, Petzel RA: An intensive care unit quality improvement collaborative in nine Department of Veterans Affairs Hospitals: reducing ventilator-associated pneumonia and catheter-related bloodstream infection rates. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 34 (11): 639–645, 2008.
11. Woodford N, Tierno PM Jr, Young K, Tysall L, Palepou MF, Ward E, Painter RE, Suber DF, Shungu D, Silver LL, et al.: Outbreak of Klebsiella pneumoniae producing a new carbapenem-hydrolizing class-A beta-lactamase, KPC-3, in a New York Medical Center. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 48 (12): 4793–4799, 2004.
12. Bergamasco MD, Barroso Barbosa M, de Oliveira Garcia D, Cipullo R, Moreira JC, Baia C, Barbosa V, Abboud CS: Infection with Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC) K. pneumoniae in solid organ transplantation. Transpl Infect Dis 14 (2): 198–205, 2012.
13. Rolain JM, Parola P, Cornaglia G: New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase (NDM-1): towards a new pandemia? Clin Microbiol Infect (12): 1699–1701, 2010.
14. Marra AR, Camargo LF, Pignatari AC, Sukiennik T, Behar PR, Medeiros EA, Ribeiro J, Girão E, Correa L, Guerra C, et al.: Brazilian SCOPE Study Group. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in Brazilian hospitals: analysis of 2563 cases from a prospective nationwide surveillance study. J Clin Microbiol 49 (5): 1866–1871, 2011.
15. Gales AC, Jones RN, Sader HS: Contemporary activity of colistin and polymyxin B against a worldwide collection of gram-negative pathogens: results from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (2006–2009). J Antimicrob Chemother 66 (9): 2070–2074, 2011.
16. Tenover FC, Moellering RC Jr: The rationale for revising the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute vancomycin minimal inhibitory concentration interpretative criteria for Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 44 (9): 1208–1215, 2007.
17. Rubinstein E, Lalani T, Corey GR, Kanafani ZA, Nannini EC, Rocha MG, Rahav G, Niederman MS, Kollef MH, Shorr AF, et al.;ATTAIN Study Group: Telavancin versus vancomycin for hospital-acquired pneumonia due to gram-positive pathogens. Clin Infect Dis 52 (1): 31–40, 2011.
18. Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes D, Benjamin DK Jr, Calandra TF, Edards JE Jr, Filler SG, Fisher JF, Kullberg BJ, Ostrosky Zeichner L, et al.: Clinical practice guidelines for the management of candidiasis: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 48 (5): 503–535, 2009.
19. Gomes Silva BN, Andriolo RB, Atallah AN, Salomão R: Descalation of antimicrobial treatment for adult sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (12): CD007934, 2010.
20. Shime N, Satake S, Fujita N: De-escalation of antimicrobials in the treatment of bacteraemia due to antibiotic-sensitive pathogens in immunocompetent patients. Infection 39 (4): 319–325, 2011.
21. Morel J, Casoetto J, Jospé R, Aubert G, Terrana R, Dumont A, Molliex S, Auboyer C: De-escalation as part of a global strategy of empiric antibiotherapy management. A retrospective study in a medico-surgical intensive care unit. C. Crit Care 14 (6): R225, 2010.
22. Hibbard ML, Kopelman TR, O’Neill PJ, Maly TJ, Matthews MR, Cox JC, Vail SJ, Quan AN, Drachman DA: Empiric, broad spectrum antibiotic therapy with an aggressive de-escalation strategy does not induce gram-negative pathogen resistance in ventilator-associated pneumonia. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 11 (5): 427–432, 2010.
23. Schlueter M, James C, Dominguez A, Tsu L, Seymann G: Practice patterns for antibiotic de-escalation in culture negative healthcare-associated pneumonia. Infection 38 (5): 357–362, 2010.
24. De Waele JJ, Ravyts M, Depuydt P, Blot SI, Decruyenaere J, Vogelaers D: De-escalation after empirical meropenem treatment in the intensive care unit: fiction or reality? J Crit Care 25 (4): 641–646, 2010.
25. Eachempati SR, Hydo LJ, Shou J, Barie PS: Does de-escalation of antibiotic therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia affect the likelihood of recurrent pneumonia or mortality in mortality in critically ill surgical patients. J Trauma 66 (5): 1343–1348, 2009.

Antibiotic; de-escalation therapy

©2013The Shock Society