scholarly journals Higher clinical success in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus treated with linezolid compared with vancomycin: results from the IMPACT-HAP study

Critical Care ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. R118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Peyrani ◽  
Timothy L Wiemken ◽  
Robert Kelley ◽  
Marcus J Zervos ◽  
Daniel H Kett ◽  
...  
2014 ◽  
Vol 104 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Warren S. Joseph ◽  
Thomas Quast ◽  
Alberto Cogo ◽  
Monica G. Crompton ◽  
Min Jung Yoon ◽  
...  

Background Diabetic foot infection (DFI) is a serious, difficult-to-treat infection, especially when caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Vancomycin has been the standard treatment for MRSA infection, but lower response rates in MRSA skin infections have been reported. This analysis assessed the outcome and safety of daptomycin therapy in patients with a DFI caused by MRSA. Methods Using the Cubicin Outcomes Registry and Experience and the European Cubicin Outcomes Registry and Experience (2006–2009), 79 patients with MRSA DFI were identified and included in this analysis. Results In the 74 evaluable patients, daptomycin was administered at a median dose of 4.8 mg/kg primarily every 24 hours (85.1%) and for a median of 15.0 days. Overall, 77.0% of the patients (57 of 74) received initial therapy with activity against MRSA; however, of patients receiving daptomycin as second-line therapy (n = 31), only 45.2% were treated with an antibiotic agent active against MRSA. The overall clinical success and treatment failure rates were 89.2% and 10.8%, respectively. Success with daptomycin therapy was higher in patients who had surgery and in those whose initial therapy was daptomycin. Eleven patients had 14 adverse events, two of which were possibly related to daptomycin use and led to discontinuation. Conclusions In a large real-world cohort of patients with MRSA DFI, daptomycin therapy was shown to be generally well tolerated and effective. The use of an anti-MRSA antibiotic agent should be considered when implementing first-line antibiotic drug therapy for DFI in countries where MRSA is common to avoid inappropriate empirical treatment and potential negative effects on outcomes.


Antibiotics ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Lounsbury ◽  
Mary Reeber ◽  
Georges Mina ◽  
Christiane Chbib

Objective: The objective of this review is to describe the outcomes of patients treated with ceftaroline in the non-Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved indication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in both pediatric and adult populations. Data sources: A systematic overview was conducted by searching PubMed, Medline, and The Cochrane Library up to January 2019. Study selection and data extraction: All English-language clinical trials and case reports related to the efficacy of ceftaroline in new, not-yet-approved FDA indications in MRSA infections in pediatric or adult populations. Data synthesis: In the case of MRSA bacteremia (MRSAB) infections, three different randomized studies in pediatric patients showed effectiveness of ceftaroline. When used in the case of adult populations with MRSA bacteremia, a small trial of 16 patients showed 50% clinical success in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections versus 63% clinical success in patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Another case series of six refractory case reports showed 50% clinical success of ceftaroline in patients with MRSA. Conclusions: Although there are few case reports and limited data to date, ceftaroline fosamil should continue to be studied as an alternative therapy in MRSA infections in both pediatric and adult populations. Clinical success rates of ceftaroline were, in most cases, considered high when treating patients with MRSA infection. More clinical trials need to be studied. In the specific case of MRSA bacteremia, the treatment options remain few and ceftaroline should be extensively studied for the salvage treatment of MRSAB.


2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 385-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeannie D. Chan ◽  
Tam N. Pham ◽  
Jenny Wong ◽  
Michelle Hessel ◽  
Joseph Cuschieri ◽  
...  

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document