scholarly journals Impact of Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Pneumonia on Vancomycin Utilization

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s265-s265
Author(s):  
Matthew Crotty ◽  
Natalie Weltman ◽  
Joslyn Pribble ◽  
Marie Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Nominal Data ◽  
Specific Patient ◽  
Methicillin Resistant ◽  
Process Implementation ◽  
Group Data ◽  
Days Of Therapy ◽  
High Negative Predictive Value ◽  
Utilization Data

Background: Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is frequently targeted with empiric treatment for pneumonia in the hospital. Obtaining quality lower respiratory tract cultures to promote appropriate de-escalation can be difficult or impractical. Nasal screening for MRSA has a high negative predictive value for MRSA pneumonia and can be an effective tool for early de-escalation. Methods: A pharmacist-driven process for nasopharyngeal MRSA screening of patients prescribed intravenous vancomycin was implemented in October 2018. Vancomycin utilization was extracted from the electronic medical record (EMR) and summarized as days of therapy per 1,000 patient days (DOT/1,000 PD). Vancomycin utilization data for the 6 months following process implementation (November 2018–April 2019) were compared to the same period from the previous year (November 2017–April 2018). Specific patient outcomes data were manually collected for patients prescribed vancomycin for pneumonia during the first 2 months following process implementation (November–December 2018; postintervention group) and comparable months (November–December 2017; preintervention group). Data were analyzed using the 2 test (nominal data) and Mann–Whitney U test (continuous data). Results: Total vancomycin utilization decreased from a monthly average of 114 to 95 DOT/1,000 PD (17% reduction) and from 27 to 14 DOT/1,000 PD for pneumonia (48% reduction). In-patient mortality was unchanged following process implementation at 17.2% versus 17.5% in the pre- and postintervention groups, respectively. Other clinical outcomes were also similar between the pre- and postintervention groups (Table 1). Fewer vancomycin levels were obtained following implementation with 34.4% of patients (0.61 levels per patient) having a level obtained in the preintervention group compared to 21.6% (0.30 levels per patient; P .001) in the postintervention group. Conclusions: Nasopharyngeal MRSA screening of patients prescribed vancomycin for pneumonia is an effective antimicrobial stewardship strategy to reduce unnecessary use of anti-MRSA therapy without negatively impacting clinical outcomes.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

scholarly journals Effectiveness of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Nasal Screening for Reduction of Vancomycin Use for Pneumonia

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s470-s471
Author(s):  
Shannon Snellgrove ◽  
Matthew Brown ◽  
Seth Edwards ◽  
Sixto Leal ◽  
Allen Bryan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Nasal Swab ◽  
Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Hemodynamic Instability ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Methicillin Resistant ◽  
Screening Questionnaire ◽  
Days Of Therapy ◽  
Antibiotic Coverage

Background: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal colonization has been a well-established risk for developing MRSA pneumonia. In previous studies, the MRSA nasal screening test has shown an excellent negative predictive value (NPV) for MRSA pneumonia in patients without exclusion criteria such as mechanical ventilation, hemodynamic instability, cavitary lesions, and underlying pulmonary disease. MRSA nasal screening can be used as a stewardship tool to de-escalate broad antibiotic coverage, such as vancomycin. Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine whether implementation of a MRSA nasal screening questionnaire improves de-escalation of vancomycin for patients with pneumonia. Methods: A retrospective review was performed on 250 patients from October 2018 to January 2019 who received MRSA nasal screening due to their prescriber choosing only “respiratory” on the vancomycin dosing consult form. Data obtained included demographics and clinical outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed, and P < .05 was considered significant. Results: Of the 250 patients screened, only 19 patients (8%) were positive for MRSA. Moreover, 40% of patients met exclusion criteria. In 149 patients without exclusion criteria, the MRSA nasal swab had a 98% NPV. Although not statistically significant, vancomycin days of therapy (DOT) based on MRSA nasal swab result was 1 day shorter in those with negative swabs (3.49 days negative vs 4.58 days positive; P = .22). Vancomycin DOT was significantly reduced in pneumonia patients without exclusion criteria (3.17 days “no” vs 4.17 days “yes”; P = .037). Conclusions: The implementation of an electronic MRSA nasal screening questionnaire resulted in reduced vancomycin DOT in pneumonia patients at UAB Hospital. The MRSA nasal swab is an effective screening tool for antibiotic de-escalation based on its 98% NPV for MRSA pneumonia if utilized in the correct patient population.Funding: NoneDisclosures: Rachael Anne Lee reports a speaker honoraria from Prime Education, LLC.

scholarly journals Determining the clinical significance of co-colonization of vancomycin-resistant enterococci and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the intestinal tracts of patients in intensive care units: a case–control study

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Young Kyung Yoon ◽  
Min Jung Lee ◽  
Yongguk Ju ◽  
Sung Eun Lee ◽  
Kyung Sook Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Intensive Care Units ◽  
Case Control Study ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Methicillin Resistant ◽  
Vancomycin Resistant ◽  
Control Study

Abstract Background The emergence of vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA) has become a global concern for public health. The proximity of vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE) and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is considered to be one of the foremost risk factors for the development of VRSA. This study aimed to determine the incidence, risk factors, and clinical outcomes of intestinal co-colonization with VRE and MRSA. Methods A case–control study was conducted in 52-bed intensive care units (ICUs) of a university-affiliated hospital from September 2012 to October 2017. Active surveillance using rectal cultures for VRE were conducted at ICU admission and on a weekly basis. Weekly surveillance cultures for detection of rectal MRSA were also conducted in patients with VRE carriage. Patients with intestinal co-colonization of VRE and MRSA were compared with randomly selected control patients with VRE colonization alone (1:1). Vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for MRSA isolates were determined by the Etest. Results Of the 4679 consecutive patients, 195 cases and 924 controls were detected. The median monthly incidence and duration of intestinal co-colonization with VRE and MRSA were 2.3/1000 patient-days and 7 days, respectively. The frequency of both MRSA infections and mortality attributable to MRSA were higher in the case group than in the control group: 56.9% vs. 44.1% (P = 0.011) and 8.2% vs. 1.0% (P = 0.002), respectively. Independent risk factors for intestinal co-colonization were enteral tube feeding (odds ratio [OR], 2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32–3.32), metabolic diseases (OR, 1.75; 95% CI 1.05–2.93), male gender (OR, 1.62; 95% CI 1.06–2.50), and Charlson comorbidity index < 3 (OR, 3.61; 95% CI 1.88–6.94). All MRSA isolates from case patients were susceptible to vancomycin (MIC ≤ 2 mg/L). Conclusions Our study indicates that intestinal co-colonization of VRE and MRSA occurs commonly among patients in the ICU with MRSA endemicity, which might be associated with poor clinical outcomes.

Clinical Outcomes of Linezolid vs Vancomycin in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 385-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeannie D. Chan ◽  
Tam N. Pham ◽  
Jenny Wong ◽  
Michelle Hessel ◽  
Joseph Cuschieri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Clinical Cure ◽  
Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Ventilator Associated Pneumonia ◽  
Vancomycin Therapy ◽  
Methicillin Resistant ◽  
Treatment Standard ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Days Of Therapy

Background: Vancomycin has been the treatment standard for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections, but clinical efficacy is limited. We report outcomes of a cohort with MRSA ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) treated with vancomycin vs linezolid. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 113 participants with MRSA VAP confirmed by bronchoscopy who have been initiated on therapy with either vancomycin or linezolid within 24 hours after bronchoscopy and completed ≥7 days of therapy during their hospitalization from July 2003 to June 2007. The primary endpoints were hospital survival and clinical cure, defined as resolution of signs and symptoms of VAP or microbiological eradication after completion of therapy along with clinical pulmonary infection score (CPIS) ≤6 at day 7 of therapy. Results: At hospital discharge, 23/27 (85.2%) of linezolid and 72/86 (83.7%) of vancomycin recipients had survived ( P = .672). In comparison to linezolid recipients, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for survival was 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16-3.27) with vancomycin therapy. Clinical cure was achieved in 24/27 (88.9%) of linezolid and 63/86 (73.3%) of vancomycin recipients ( P = .066). Compared to linezolid recipients, the adjusted OR for clinical cure was 0.24 (95% CI: 0.05-1.10) with vancomycin therapy. Survival and clinical cure did not differ significantly between vancomycin recipients with trough level ≥15 and <15 μg/mL, respectively. Conclusions: Our results suggested no survival benefit but a trend toward higher cure rate with linezolid therapy. The optimal treatment of MRSA VAP requires further study through randomized, controlled trials.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Telavancin in a Rabbit Model of Aortic Valve Endocarditis Due to Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus or Vancomycin-Intermediate Staphylococcus aureus

2005 ◽  
Vol 49 (8) ◽  
pp. 3163-3165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andres G. Madrigal ◽  
Li Basuino ◽  
Henry F. Chambers
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
No Reduction ◽  
Rabbit Model ◽  
Daily Regimen ◽  
Methicillin Resistant ◽  
Days Of Therapy ◽  
Time Kill

ABSTRACT The activities of telavancin and vancomycin were compared in vitro and in the rabbit model of aortic valve endocarditis against a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strain, COL, and a vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (VISA) strain, HIP 5836. Telavancin was bactericidal in time-kill studies at a concentration of 5 μg/ml against both COL and HIP5836. Vancomycin was bacteriostatic at 5 μg/ml and bactericidal at 10 μg/ml against COL and was bacteriostatic at 10 μg/ml against VISA strain HIP 5836. Compared to untreated controls, a twice-daily regimen of 30 mg/kg of telavancin reduced mean aortic valve vegetation titers of the COL strain by 4.7 log10 CFU/g after 4 days of therapy and sterilized 6/11 vegetations compared to 3.4 log10 CFU/g with 3/10 vegetations sterilized for a regimen of twice-daily vancomycin, 30 mg/kg; these differences were not statistically significant. Telavancin was significantly more effective than vancomycin in the VISA model, producing a 5.5 log10 CFU/g reduction versus no reduction in CFU with vancomycin. In experiments comparing 2-day regimens of telavancin at 30 mg/kg and 50 mg/kg twice daily, organisms were rapidly eliminated from vegetations, but the effect was not different between the two doses. These results suggest that telavancin may be an effective treatment for endocarditis and other serious staphylococcal infections accompanied by bacteremia, including infections caused by staphylococci not susceptible to vancomycin.

scholarly journals 204. Clinical Outcomes with Ceftaroline Monotherapy versus Daptomycin-Ceftaroline Combination Therapy in the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S209-S210
Author(s):  
Gabriela Andonie ◽  
Elizabeth O Hand ◽  
Kelly R Reveles ◽  
Kristi A Traugott
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Combination Group ◽  
Methicillin Resistant ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia is associated with poor outcomes and increased mortality. Daptomycin (DAP) and ceftaroline (CPT) in combination has been explored as a potential treatment option and showed improved outcomes compared to vancomycin/standard therapy. CPT monotherapy has been evaluated as salvage therapy for MRSA bacteremia but, to our knowledge, not as a comparator to DAP-CPT combination therapy. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of DAP and CPT combination therapy to CPT monotherapy in the setting of MRSA bacteremia. Methods A retrospective chart review of adult patients (≥ 18 years of age) admitted to University Health from January 2017 to December 2020 with a diagnosis of MRSA bacteremia was performed. Patients received either CPT monotherapy or DAP-CPT combination therapy for a minimum of 48 hours during their course of therapy. Results Thirty-two patients met inclusion criteria and were evaluated. Primary source of infection was pulmonary in the CPT monotherapy group (n=7/24; 29.2%) and osteomyelitis in the DAP-CPT combination group (n= 4/8; 50.0%). Median duration of bacteremia was 8 days and 9 days in the CPT monotherapy and DAP-CPT combination group, respectively. Microbiological cure was achieved in 95.8% (n=23/24) of patients in the CPT monotherapy and 100% (n=8/8) of patients in the DAP-CPT combination group. Bacteremia relapse (30 day, p=0.62; 60 day, p=0.63), readmission rates (30 day, p=0.62; 60 day, p=0.63), and mortality rates (30 day, p=0.70; 90 day, p=0.85) were similar in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference in safety parameters, including incidence of acute kidney injury (p=1.00) and creatine kinase elevations (p=1.00). Bone marrow suppression after at least 72 hours of therapy, including anemia, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia, was also not statistically significant between groups. Conclusion This study was unable to find a statistically significant difference in clinical outcomes between patients receiving CPT monotherapy or DAP-CPT combination therapy. A large prospective, randomized controlled trial to assess CPT monotherapy and DAP-CPT combination therapy for the treatment of persistent MRSA bacteremia is warranted. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document