-
BMC Infectious Diseases Feb 2021This systematic review and meta-analysis explored the relationship between vancomycin (VCM) monitoring strategies and VCM effectiveness and safety. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis explored the relationship between vancomycin (VCM) monitoring strategies and VCM effectiveness and safety.
METHODS
We conducted our analysis using the MEDLINE, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials electronic databases searched on August 9, 2020. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Adult patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteraemia with VCM trough concentrations ≥15 μg/mL had significantly lower treatment failure rates (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47-0.85). The incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) increased with increased trough concentrations and was significantly higher for trough concentrations ≥20 μg/mL compared to those at 15-20 μg/mL (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.78-3.20). Analysis of the target area under the curve/minimum inhibitory concentration ratios (AUC/MIC) showed significantly lower treatment failure rates for high AUC/MIC (cut-off 400 ± 15%) (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.18-0.45). The safety analysis revealed that high AUC value (cut-off 600 ± 15%) significantly increased the risk of AKI (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.13-3.89). Our meta-analysis of differences in monitoring strategies included four studies. The incidence of AKI tended to be lower in AUC-guided monitoring than in trough-guided monitoring (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.28-1.01); however, it was not significant in the analysis of mortality.
CONCLUSIONS
We identified VCM trough concentrations and AUC values that correlated with effectiveness and safety. Furthermore, compared to trough-guided monitoring, AUC-guided monitoring showed potential for decreasing nephrotoxicity.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Area Under Curve; Bacteremia; Drug Monitoring; Humans; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Odds Ratio; Safety; Staphylococcal Infections; Treatment Failure; Vancomycin
PubMed: 33549035
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-05858-6 -
JAMA Surgery Apr 2021Cefazolin is the preoperative antibiotic of choice because it is safer and more efficacious than second-line alternatives. Surgical patients labeled as having penicillin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Cefazolin is the preoperative antibiotic of choice because it is safer and more efficacious than second-line alternatives. Surgical patients labeled as having penicillin allergy are less likely to prophylactically receive cefazolin and more likely to receive clindamycin or vancomycin, which results in higher rates of surgical site infections.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the incidence of dual allergy to cefazolin and natural penicillins.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched without language restrictions for relevant articles published from database inception until July 31, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase was performed for articles published from database inception to July 31, 2020, for studies that included patients who had index allergies to a natural penicillin and were tested for tolerability to cefazolin or that included patients who had index allergies to cefazolin and were tested for tolerability to a natural penicillin. A total of 3228 studies were identified and 2911 were screened for inclusion.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data were independently extracted by 2 authors. Bayesian meta-analysis was used to estimate the frequency of allergic reactions.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Dual allergy to cefazolin and a natural penicillin.
RESULTS
Seventy-seven unique studies met the eligibility criteria, yielding 6147 patients. Cefazolin allergy was identified in 44 participants with a history of penicillin allergy, resulting in a dual allergy meta-analytical frequency of 0.7% (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.1%-1.7%; I2 = 74.9%). Such frequency was lower for participants with unconfirmed (0.6%; 95% CrI, 0.1%-1.3%; I2 = 54.3%) than for those with confirmed penicillin allergy (3.0%; 95% CrI, 0.01%-17.0%; I2 = 88.2%). Thirteen studies exclusively assessed surgical patients (n = 3884), among whom 0.7% (95% CrI, 0%-3.3%; I2 = 85.5%) had confirmed allergy to cefazolin. Low heterogeneity was observed for studies of patients with unconfirmed penicillin allergy who had been exposed to perioperative cefazolin (0.1%; 95% CrI, 0.1%-0.3%; I2 = 13.1%). Penicillin allergy was confirmed in 16 participants with a history of cefazolin allergy, resulting in a meta-analytical frequency of 3.7% (95% CrI, 0.03%-13.3%; I2 = 64.4%). The frequency of penicillin allergy was 4.4% (95% CrI, 0%-23.0%; I2 = 75%) for the 8 studies that exclusively assessed surgical patients allergic to cefazolin.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These findings suggest that most patients with a penicillin allergy history may safely receive cefazolin. The exception is patients with confirmed penicillin allergy in whom additional care is warranted.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Cefazolin; Drug Hypersensitivity; Incidence; Penicillins; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 33729459
DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0021 -
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Feb 2020Pharmacokinetics (PK) are severely altered in critically ill patients due to changes in volume of distribution (Vd) and/or drug clearance (Cl). This affects the target...
BACKGROUND
Pharmacokinetics (PK) are severely altered in critically ill patients due to changes in volume of distribution (Vd) and/or drug clearance (Cl). This affects the target attainment of antibiotics in critically ill children. We aimed to identify gaps in current knowledge and to compare published PK parameters and target attainment of antibiotics in critically ill children to healthy children and critically ill adults.
METHODS
Systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science. Articles were labelled as relevant when they included information on PK of antibiotics in critically ill, non-neonatal, pediatric patients. Extracted PK-parameters included Vd, Cl, (trough) concentrations, AUC, probability of target attainment, and elimination half-life.
RESULTS
50 relevant articles were identified. Studies focusing on vancomycin were most prevalent (17/50). Other studies included data on penicillins, cephalosporins, carbapenems and aminoglycosides, but data on ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, penicillin and metronidazole could not be found. Critically ill children generally show a higher Cl and larger Vd than healthy children and critically ill adults. Reduced target-attainment was described in critically ill children for multiple antibiotics, including amoxicillin, piperacillin, cefotaxime, vancomycin, gentamicin, teicoplanin, amikacin and daptomycin. 38/50 articles included information on both Vd and Cl, but a dosing advice was given in only 22 articles.
CONCLUSION
The majority of studies focus on agents where TDM is applied, while other antibiotics lack data altogether. The larger Vd and higher Cl in critically ill children might warrant a higher dose or extended infusions of antibiotics in this patient population to increase target-attainment. Studies frequently fail to provide a dosing advice for this patient population, even if the necessary information is available. Our study shows gaps in current knowledge and encourages future researchers to provide dosing advice for special populations whenever possible.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Adolescent; Aminoglycosides; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Area Under Curve; Carbapenems; Cephalosporins; Child; Child, Preschool; Critical Illness; Drug Monitoring; Female; Half-Life; Humans; Infant; Infusions, Intravenous; Male; Penicillins; Vancomycin; Young Adult
PubMed: 31432468
DOI: 10.1007/s40262-019-00813-w -
Cureus Nov 2022Since the last century, methicillin-resistant (MRSA) bacteremia has become a major global and public health concern not only in terms of morbidity and mortality but... (Review)
Review
Since the last century, methicillin-resistant (MRSA) bacteremia has become a major global and public health concern not only in terms of morbidity and mortality but also the duration of hospital stay, healthcare cost, and antimicrobial choices. Especially alarming is the growing antimicrobial resistance due to their misuse and overuse, which has led the world to be exhausted of its effective antibiotic resources. In this review article, we sought to figure out the most efficacious antimicrobial agents to treat MRSA-related bloodstream infections. We compared the data from reviewing reports from 2017 to 2022 and summarized their comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Although we focused on vancomycin and daptomycin, which are the current Infectious Disease Society Of America (IDSA)-recommended antibiotics for MRSA bacteremia treatment, a deep dive into the newer agents revealed better efficacy and treatment outcome in the combination of ceftaroline (β-lactam) with daptomycin compared to traditional standard monotherapy (vancomycin/daptomycin monotherapy). Also, the IDSA recommended high-dose daptomycin (8-10 mg/kg) therapy for MRSA bacteremia treatment to be more effective in cases with vancomycin-reduced susceptibility. Moreover, we did not find any trial or study describing the use of ceftaroline as a monotherapy to compare its efficacy in MRSA bacteremia with the current standard therapy. The upshot is that we need more large-scale clinical trials exploring in-depth effectiveness and adverse effects to decide on newer agents like β-lactams to use as routine therapy for MRSA bacteremia.
PubMed: 36523711
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.31486 -
Journal of Infection and Public Health Mar 2023There is paucity of data describing the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial resistance. This review evaluated the changes in the rate of multidrug resistant... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is paucity of data describing the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial resistance. This review evaluated the changes in the rate of multidrug resistant gram negative and gram positive bacteria during the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS
A search was conducted in PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar databases to identify eligible studies. Studies that reported the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), extended-spectrum beta-lactamase inhibitor (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae, vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CPE) were selected. Studies published in English language from the start of COVID-19 pandemic to July 2022 were considered for inclusion.
RESULTS
Thirty eligible studies were selected and most of them were from Italy (n = 8), Turkey (n = 3) and Brazil (n = 3). The results indicated changes in the rate of multidrug resistant bacteria, and the changes varied between the studies. Most studies (54.5%) reported increase in MRSA infection/colonization during the pandemic, and the increase ranged from 4.6 to 170.6%. Five studies (55.6%) reported a 6.8-65.1% increase in VRE infection/colonization during the pandemic. A 2.4-58.2% decrease in ESBL E. coli and a 1.8-13.3% reduction in ESBL Klebsiella pneumoniae was observed during the pandemic. For CRAB, most studies (58.3%) reported 1.5-621.6% increase in infection/colonization during the pandemic. Overall, studies showed increase in the rate of CRE infection/colonization during the pandemic. There was a reduction in carbapenem-resistant E. coli during COVID-19 pandemic, and an increase in carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae. Most studies (55.6%) showed 10.4 - 40.9% reduction in the rate of CRPA infection during the pandemic.
CONCLUSION
There is an increase in the rate of multidrug resistant gram positive and gram negative bacteria during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the rate of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae and CRPA has decrease during the pandemic. Both infection prevention and control strategies and antimicrobial stewardship should be strengthen to address the increasing rate of multidrug resistant gram positive and gram negative bacteria.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Pandemics; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Escherichia coli; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Gram-Positive Bacteria; COVID-19; Enterobacteriaceae; Klebsiella pneumoniae; Carbapenems; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 36657243
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiph.2022.12.022 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Clostridioides difficile (formerly known as Clostridium difficile) is a bacterium that can cause potentially life-threatening diarrheal illness in individuals with an... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Clostridioides difficile (formerly known as Clostridium difficile) is a bacterium that can cause potentially life-threatening diarrheal illness in individuals with an unhealthy mixture of gut bacteria, known as dysbiosis, and can cause recurrent infections in nearly a third of infected individuals. The traditional treatment of recurrent C difficile infection (rCDI) includes antibiotics, which may further exacerbate dysbiosis. There is growing interest in correcting the underlying dysbiosis in rCDI using of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT); and there is a need to establish the benefits and harms of FMT for the treatment of rCDI based on data from randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of donor-based fecal microbiota transplantation for the treatment of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection in immunocompetent people.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 31 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomized trials of adults or children with rCDI for inclusion. Eligible interventions must have met the definition of FMT, which is the administration of fecal material containing distal gut microbiota from a healthy donor to the gastrointestinal tract of a person with rCDI. The comparison group included participants who did not receive FMT and were given placebo, autologous FMT, no intervention, or antibiotics with activity against C difficile.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. proportion of participants with resolution of rCDI and 2. serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 3. treatment failure, 4. all-cause mortality, 5. withdrawal from study, 6. rate of new CDI infection after a successful FMT, 7. any adverse event, 8. quality of life, and 9. colectomy. We used the GRADE criteria to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six studies with 320 participants. Two studies were conducted in Denmark, and one each in the Netherlands, Canada, Italy, and the US. Four were single-center and two were multicenter studies. All studies included only adults. Five studies excluded people who were severely immunocompromised, with only one study including 10 participants who were receiving immunosuppressive therapy out of the 64 enrolled; these were similarly distributed between the FMT arm (4/24 or 17%) and comparison arms (6/40 or 15%). The route of administration was the upper gastrointestinal tract via a nasoduodenal tube in one study, two studies used enema only, two used colonoscopic only delivery, and one used either nasojejunal or colonoscopic delivery, depending on a clinical determination of whether the recipient could tolerate a colonoscopy. Five studies had at least one comparison group that received vancomycin. The risk of bias (RoB 2) assessments did not find an overall high risk of bias for any outcome. All six studies assessed the efficacy and safety of FMT for the treatment of rCDI. Pooled results from six studies showed that the use of FMT in immunocompetent participants with rCDI likely leads to a large increase in resolution of rCDI in the FMT group compared to control (risk ratio (RR) 1.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.71; P = 0.02, I = 63%; 6 studies, 320 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3; moderate-certainty evidence). Fecal microbiota transplantation probably results in a slight reduction in serious adverse events; however, the CIs around the summary estimate were wide (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.41; P = 0.24, I² = 26%; 6 studies, 320 participants; NNTB 12; moderate-certainty evidence). Fecal microbiota transplantation may result in a reduction in all-cause mortality; however, the number of events was small, and the CIs of the summary estimate were wide (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.45; P = 0.48, I = 0%; 6 studies, 320 participants; NNTB 20; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported colectomy rates.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In immunocompetent adults with rCDI, FMT likely leads to a large increase in the resolution of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection compared to alternative treatments such as antibiotics. There was no conclusive evidence regarding the safety of FMT for the treatment of rCDI as the number of events was small for serious adverse events and all-cause mortality. Additional data from large national registry databases might be required to assess any short-term or long-term risks with using FMT for the treatment of rCDI. Elimination of the single study that included some immunocompromised people did not alter these conclusions. Due to the low number of immunocompromised participants enrolled, conclusions cannot be drawn about the risks or benefits of FMT for rCDI in the immunocompromised population.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Fecal Microbiota Transplantation; Clostridioides difficile; Clostridioides; Quality of Life; Dysbiosis; Recurrence; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Clostridium Infections; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37096495
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013871.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively.
MAIN RESULTS
Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Female; Fosfomycin; Humans; Imipenem; Levofloxacin; Male; Penicillins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vancomycin
PubMed: 32407558
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3 -
The Journal of Hospital Infection Nov 2023Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) cause many infections in the healthcare context. Knowledge regarding the epidemiology and burden of VRE infections, however,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) cause many infections in the healthcare context. Knowledge regarding the epidemiology and burden of VRE infections, however, remains fragmented. We aimed to summarize recent studies on VRE epidemiology and outcomes in hospitals, long-term-care facilities (LTCFs) and nursing homes worldwide based on current epidemiological reports. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for observational studies, which reported on VRE faecium and faecalis infections in in-patients published between January 2014 and December 2020. Outcomes were incidence, infection rate, mortality, length of stay (LOS), and healthcare costs. We conducted a meta-analysis on mortality (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020146389). Of 681 identified publications, 57 studies were included in the analysis. Overall quality of evidence was moderate to low. VRE incidence was rarely and heterogeneously reported. VRE infection rate differed highly (1-55%). The meta-analysis showed a higher mortality for VRE faecium bloodstream infections (BSIs) compared with VSE faecium BSIs (risk ratio, RR 1.46; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17-1.82). No difference was observed when comparing VRE faecium vs VRE faecalis BSI (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.52-1.93). LOS was higher in BSIs caused by E. faecium vs E. faecalis. Only three studies reported healthcare costs. In contrast to previous findings, our meta-analysis of included studies indicates that vancomycin resistance independent of VRE species may be associated with a higher mortality. We identified a lack of standardization in reporting outcomes, information regarding healthcare costs, and state-of-the-art microbiological species identification methodology, which may inform the set-up and reporting of future studies.
Topics: Humans; Vancomycin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Enterococcus faecalis; Enterococcus faecium; Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections; Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci; Sepsis
PubMed: 37734679
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2023.09.008 -
European Respiratory Review : An... Dec 2023Methicillin-resistant (MRSA) is responsible for an array of problematic community- and healthcare-acquired infections, including pneumonia, and is frequently associated... (Review)
Review
Methicillin-resistant (MRSA) is responsible for an array of problematic community- and healthcare-acquired infections, including pneumonia, and is frequently associated with severe disease and high mortality rates. Standard recommended treatments for empiric and targeted coverage of suspected MRSA in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), are vancomycin and linezolid. However, adverse events such as acute kidney injury and infection have been associated with these antibiotics. Ceftaroline fosamil is a β-lactam/extended-spectrum cephalosporin approved for the treatment of adults and children with CAP and complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Ceftaroline has activity against a range of common Gram-positive bacteria and is distinct among the β-lactams in retaining activity against MRSA. Due to the design of the pivotal randomised controlled trials of ceftaroline fosamil, outcomes in patients with MRSA CAP were not evaluated. However, various reports of real-world outcomes with ceftaroline fosamil for pneumonia caused by MRSA, including CAP and HAP/VAP, been published since its approval. A systematic literature review and qualitative analysis of relevant publications was undertaken to collate and summarise relevant published data on the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil in patients with MRSA pneumonia. While relatively few real-world outcomes studies are available, the available data suggest that ceftaroline fosamil is a possible alternative to linezolid and vancomycin for MRSA pneumonia. Specific scenarios in which ceftaroline fosamil might be considered include bacteraemia and complicating factors such as empyema.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Linezolid; Vancomycin; Cephalosporins; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Community-Acquired Infections; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Ceftaroline
PubMed: 37852658
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0117-2023 -
Jornal de Pediatria 2024To investigate the effectiveness of linezolid and vancomycin for the treatment of nosocomial infections in children under 12 years old. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effectiveness of linezolid and vancomycin for the treatment of nosocomial infections in children under 12 years old.
DATA SOURCES
This is a systematic review in which five randomized clinical trials about the effectiveness of linezolid and vancomycin, involving a total of 429 children with nosocomial infections, were evaluated. They were searched in scientific databases: PubMed, Bvs, and SciELO.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The main nosocomial infections that affected children were bacteremia, skin, and soft tissue infections followed by nosocomial pneumonia. Most infections were caused by Gram-positive bacteria, which all studies showed infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus, with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci strains being isolated. Both linezolid and vancomycin showed high therapeutic efficacy against different types of nosocomial infections, ranging from 84.4% to 94% for linezolid and 76.9% to 90% for vancomycin. Patients receiving linezolid had lower rates of rash and red man syndrome compared to those receiving vancomycin. However, despite the adverse reactions, antimicrobials can be safely administered to children to treat nosocomial infections caused by resistant Gram-positive bacteria.
CONCLUSION
Both linezolid and vancomycin showed good efficacy in the treatment of bacterial infections caused by resistant Gram-positive bacteria in hospitalized children. However, linezolid stands out regarding its pharmacological safety. Importantly, to strengthen this conclusion, further clinical trials are needed to provide additional evidence.
Topics: Humans; Linezolid; Cross Infection; Vancomycin; Child; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Child, Preschool; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Infant; Staphylococcal Infections; Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections
PubMed: 38145631
DOI: 10.1016/j.jped.2023.08.011