Evidence Hub

Personalized bacteriophage therapy outcomes for 100 consecutive cases: a multicentre, multinational, retrospective observational study

Jean‐Paul Pirnay, Sarah Djebara, Griet Steurs, Johann Griselain, Christel Cochez, Steven De Soir, Téa Glonti, An Spiessens et al.

Nature Microbiology, 2024

16 participants · 455 citations

Abstract

In contrast to the many reports of successful real-world cases of personalized bacteriophage therapy (BT), randomized controlled trials of non-personalized bacteriophage products have not produced the expected results. Here we present the outcomes of a retrospective observational analysis of the first 100 consecutive cases of personalized BT of difficult-to-treat infections facilitated by a Belgian consortium in 35 hospitals, 29 cities and 12 countries during the period from 1 January 2008 to 30 April 2022. We assessed how often personalized BT produced a positive clinical outcome (general efficacy) and performed a regression analysis to identify functional relationships. The most common indications were lower respiratory tract, skin and soft tissue, and bone infections, and involved combinations of 26 bacteriophages and 6 defined bacteriophage cocktails, individually selected and sometimes pre-adapted to target the causative bacterial pathogens. Clinical improvement and eradication of the targeted bacteria were reported for 77.2% and 61.3% of infections, respectively. In our dataset of 100 cases, eradication was 70% less probable when no concomitant antibiotics were used (odds ratio = 0.3; 95% confidence interval = 0.127-0.749). In vivo selection of bacteriophage resistance and in vitro bacteriophage-antibiotic synergy were documented in 43.8% (7/16 patients) and 90% (9/10) of evaluated patients, respectively. We observed a combination of antibiotic re-sensitization and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 16 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free