Empirical Antibiotics in India: The Evidence Behind the Pathway

Two patients, one night. In the outpatient department, a 26-year-old teacher has had burning on passing urine for a day. She is well, with no fever. Upstairs in the intensive care unit, a 61-year-old man on his sixth day on a ventilator after a road accident has a new fever and falling blood pressure. The resident has just read that two in three Klebsiella in India are resistant to carbapenems. She asks, “Should both of them get meropenem, to be safe?” These are illustrative cases, not real patients.

The Empirical Antimicrobial Pathway chooses the first antibiotic for a syndrome, before the culture is back, and labels where each agent and each dose comes from. It keeps the resistance figures it reads its choices against, and what follows from each one. What it no longer carries is that table as one piece, and one sentence on allergy labels. Those are here, with the reasoning around them. By the end you will know why the answer to the resident is “no, and here is why”.

1. Where the figures come from

The figures are from the eighth annual report of the Indian Council of Medical Research Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance and Research Network (ICMR AMRSN), covering January to December 2024. Laboratories in 21 regional centres send their culture results, and the report gives, for each organism, the share of isolates that each antibiotic still kills in the laboratory.

A word first. “Susceptible” means the laboratory found the drug active against that isolate at a dose we can give. “62.9% susceptible” means that of every 100 hospital isolates of that organism tested, about 63 were killed by the drug. The other 37 were not.

“So 62.9 per cent is good?” Not for a first dose in a patient in shock. If you guess the drug before the culture, you are wrong for more than one patient in three. That is why the cultures go before the first dose.

2. The table, whole

Here is the table as the tool carried it, with what each figure means for the choice. Percentages are susceptibility unless the row says resistance.

3. Reading it without over-reading it

Now the most important sentence in the report. It says of itself that the network collects data from tertiary care hospitals, so the figures are not reflective of community levels of resistance in India and should not be extrapolated to community settings.

This is the common mistake, and it is an easy one to make. The figures are frightening, and a frightened prescriber reaches for the broadest drug. But a woman with uncomplicated cystitis from her own home did not acquire an intensive care unit’s organisms. The ICMR guideline gives her nitrofurantoin. Resistance data justifies escalation in the sick and the hospitalised. It does not justify treating everybody as though they were in an intensive care unit.

“Then which figures apply to my patient?” Your own hospital’s, where you have them. National figures are an average across 21 regional centres. Your own antibiogram is better evidence for your own patient. Where your unit’s figures differ from the national table, follow your unit.

For how resistance arises in the first place, read Understanding Antibiotics (Part 3).

4. The allergy label

One more thing changes the first dose more often than resistance does: a note that says “allergic to penicillin”. Around nine in ten people carrying a penicillin allergy label are not allergic when tested. The label is not harmless. It pushes the prescriber to a broader or weaker drug, often for the rest of the patient’s life.

So ask what happened. A mild, delayed rash and anaphylaxis are different, and they leave different drugs available. The tool asks you which one it was for that reason. And when the label has cost a patient a worse antibiotic in this admission, that is the right time to arrange delabelling.

Back to the two patients

The teacher gets nitrofurantoin, as the ICMR guideline gives for uncomplicated cystitis, and a stop date. The man in the intensive care unit gets cultures first, then a regimen built for a ventilator-associated pneumonia in this country: in that setting Acinetobacter is 91.0% resistant to meropenem, so a carbapenem alone would be close to useless if that is the organism. At 48 to 72 hours, when the culture is back, his regimen is narrowed to what grew.

Try this

A 22-year-old student has had fever for eight days, and blood culture grows Salmonella Typhi. His family doctor started ciprofloxacin three days ago, and the fever has not settled. What does the table tell you? Illustrative case.

Answer. Fluoroquinolone resistance in Salmonella Typhi is above 95%. Ciprofloxacin is finished as empirical enteric fever therapy in India, so the lack of response is expected, not surprising. Azithromycin is 99.5% susceptible, and ceftriaxone 98%. Use the tool’s enteric fever line for the agent and the dose.

Take-home points

• The AMRSN figures are tertiary-care figures; use them for the sick and the hospitalised, not for a well outpatient.
• Two in three hospital Klebsiella are carbapenem resistant, and piperacillin-tazobactam covers about one in four.
• Your own hospital’s antibiogram beats the national table for your own patient.
• Ask what the penicillin “allergy” was; most labels are wrong, and the label itself is treatable.
• Send cultures before the first dose, and narrow the regimen when they return.

Declaration: the author built and maintains the tool. It is free to use. The figures in this article are those the tool carried on 4 November 2026, each from the source the tool names. The illustrative cases follow the tool’s rules; check the tool’s result for a real patient.

References

1. Indian Council of Medical Research. Treatment Guidelines for Antimicrobial Use in Common Syndromes. 3rd ed. New Delhi: ICMR; 2022.
2. Indian Council of Medical Research. Annual Report: Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance and Research Network, January 2024 to December 2024. New Delhi: ICMR; 2025.
3. National Centre for Disease Control, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. National Treatment Guidelines for Antimicrobial Use in Infectious Diseases. Version 1.0. New Delhi: NCDC; 2016.
4. Prescott HC, Antonelli M, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2026. Crit Care Med. 2026;54(4):725-812. Co-published Intensive Care Med. 2026;52(5):863-936. [Current edition]
5. Metlay JP, Waterer GW, Long AC, et al. Diagnosis and Treatment of Adults with Community-acquired Pneumonia. An Official Clinical Practice Guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;200(7):e45-e67.
6. Jones BE, Ramirez JA, Oren E, et al. Diagnosis and Management of Community-acquired Pneumonia: An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2026;212(1):24-44. [Online first 18 July 2025. An ATS document, not a joint one. IDSA declined to endorse it, agreeing with 8 of its 10 recommendations and dissenting on two empirical antibiotic recommendations: Klompas M, Al-Hasan M, Al Mohajer M, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2026;82(4):622-624.
7. Kalil AC, Metersky ML, Klompas M, et al. Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the IDSA and ATS. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(5):e61-e111.
8. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, et al. Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: 2014 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(2):e10-e52. Correction: Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60(9):1448.
9. Senneville É, Albalawi Z, van Asten SA, et al., on behalf of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot. IWGDF/IDSA Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes-related foot infections. 2023.
10. Ramakant P, Verma AK, Misra R, et al. Changing microbiological profile of pathogenic bacteria in diabetic foot infections: time for a rethink on which empirical therapy to choose? Diabetologia. 2011;54(1):58-64.
11. Gomi H, Solomkin JS, Schlossberg D, et al. Tokyo Guidelines 2018: antimicrobial therapy for acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018;25(1):3-16.
12. Mermel LA, Allon M, Bouza E, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infection: 2009 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(1):1-45.
13. Berbari EF, Kanj SS, Kowalski TJ, et al. 2015 Infectious Diseases Society of America Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Native Vertebral Osteomyelitis in Adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(6):e26-e46.
14. Department of Health Research and Indian Council of Medical Research. Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Rickettsial Diseases in India. New Delhi: DHR-ICMR; 2015.
15. Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. National Guidelines for Diagnosis, Case Management, Prevention and Control of Leptospirosis. New Delhi: NCDC; 2015.
16. Khan DA, Banerji A, Blumenthal KG, et al. Drug allergy: A 2022 practice parameter update. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022;150(6):1333-1393.
17. Gupta D, Agarwal R, Aggarwal AN, et al. Guidelines for diagnosis and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Joint ICS/NCCP (I) recommendations. Lung India. 2013;30(3):228-241.
18. National AIDS Control Organisation, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. National Technical Guidelines on Sexually Transmitted Infections and Reproductive Tract Infections. New Delhi: NACO; 2024.