-
Clinical Microbiology Reviews Jun 2023Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are common causes of bloodstream infections (BSIs) with high morbidity and mortality rates. They are pathogens of global concern... (Review)
Review
Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are common causes of bloodstream infections (BSIs) with high morbidity and mortality rates. They are pathogens of global concern with a limited treatment pipeline. Significant challenges exist in the management of VRE BSI, including drug dosing, the emergence of resistance, and the optimal treatment for persistent bacteremia and infective endocarditis. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for antimicrobial therapy is evolving for VRE-active agents; however, there are significant gaps in the literature for predicting antimicrobial efficacy for VRE BSIs. To date, TDM has the greatest evidence for predicting drug toxicity for the three main VRE-active antimicrobial agents daptomycin, linezolid, and teicoplanin. This article presents an overview of the treatment options for VRE BSIs, the role of antimicrobial dose optimization through TDM in supporting clinical infection management, and challenges and perspectives for the future.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Vancomycin; Linezolid; Bacteremia; Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci; Anti-Infective Agents; Sepsis; Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections
PubMed: 37067406
DOI: 10.1128/cmr.00059-22 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2020Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy (CRRT) is more and more widely used in patients for various indications recent years. It is still intricate for clinicians to decide... (Review)
Review
Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy (CRRT) is more and more widely used in patients for various indications recent years. It is still intricate for clinicians to decide a suitable empiric antimicrobial dosing for patients receiving CRRT. Inappropriate doses of antimicrobial agents may lead to treatment failure or drug resistance of pathogens. CRRT factors, patient individual conditions and drug pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics are the main elements effecting the antimicrobial dosing adjustment. With the development of CRRT techniques, some antimicrobial dosing recommendations in earlier studies were no longer appropriate for clinical use now. Here, we reviewed the literatures involving in new progresses of antimicrobial dosages, and complied the updated empirical dosing strategies based on CRRT modalities and effluent flow rates. The following antimicrobial agents were included for review: flucloxacillin, piperacillin/tazobactam, ceftriaxone, ceftazidime/avibactam, cefepime, ceftolozane/tazobactam, sulbactam, meropenem, imipenem, panipenem, biapenem, ertapenem, doripenem, amikacin, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, clindamycin, azithromycin, tigecycline, polymyxin B, colistin, vancomycin, teicoplanin, linezolid, daptomycin, sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, fluconazole, voriconazole, posaconzole, caspofungin, micafungin, amphotericin B, acyclovir, ganciclovir, oseltamivir, and peramivir.
PubMed: 32547394
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.00786 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2022To investigate the microbial spectrum isolated from foot ulcers among diabetic patients in China, which was conducted to help clinicians choose optimal antibiotics... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the microbial spectrum isolated from foot ulcers among diabetic patients in China, which was conducted to help clinicians choose optimal antibiotics empirically.
METHOD
The PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang, and VIP databases were searched for studies published between 2015 to 2019, that report primary data on diabetic foot infection (DFI) and antibiotic susceptibility in China.
RESULT
A total of 63 articles about DFI and antibiotic susceptibility tests among diabetic patients in China were included. There were 11,483 patients with an average age of 60.2 ± 10.1 years and a mean course of 10.6 ± 5.0 years between 2010 and 2019, covering most geographical regions of China. The prevalence of Gram-positive (GP) bacteria (43.4%) was lower than that of Gram-negative (GN) (52.4%). The most prevalent pathogens isolated were Staphylococcus aureus (17.7%), Escherichia coli (10.9%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (10.5%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (6.2%), Staphylococcus epidermidis (5.3%), Enterococcus faecalis (4.9%), and fungus (3.7%). The prevalence of polymicrobial infection was 22.8%. GP bacteria were sensitive to linezolid, vancomycin, and teicoplanin. More than 50% of GN bacteria were resistant to third-generation cephalosporins, while the resistance rates of piperacillin/tazobactam, amikacin, meropenem, and imipenem were relatively low. Among the 6017 strains of the isolated organisms, 20% had multi-drug resistance (MDR). Staphylococcus aureus (30.4%) was the most predominant MDR bacteria, followed by extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) (19.1%).
CONCLUSION
The microbial infection of foot ulcers among diabetic patients in China is diverse. The microbial spectrum is different in different geographic regions and Staphylococcus aureus is the predominant bacteria. Polymicrobial and MDR bacterial infections on the foot ulcers are common. This study could be valuable in guiding the empirical use of antibiotics for diabetic foot infections.
Topics: Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Foot; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Gram-Positive Bacteria; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Middle Aged
PubMed: 35663325
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.881659 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2023Vancomycin (VCM) and daptomycin (DAP) are standard therapies for methicillin-resistant (MRSA) bacteremia, despite concerns regarding clinical utility and growing... (Review)
Review
Vancomycin (VCM) and daptomycin (DAP) are standard therapies for methicillin-resistant (MRSA) bacteremia, despite concerns regarding clinical utility and growing resistance. Linezolid (LZD) affords superior tissue penetration to VCM or DAP and has been successfully used as salvage therapy for persistent MRSA bacteremia, indicating its utility as a first-choice drug against MRSA bacteremia. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the effectiveness and safety of LZD with VCM, teicoplanin (TEIC), or DAP in patients with MRSA bacteremia. We evaluated all-cause mortality as the primary effectiveness outcome, clinical and microbiological cure, hospital length of stay, recurrence, and 90-day readmission rates as secondary effectiveness outcomes, and drug-related adverse effects as primary safety outcomes. We identified 5328 patients across 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 pooled analysis of 5 RCTs, 1 subgroup analysis (1 RCT), and 5 case-control and cohort studies (CSs). Primary and secondary effectiveness outcomes were comparable between patients treated with LZD versus VCM, TEIC, or DAP in RCT-based studies and CSs. There was no difference in adverse event incidence between LZD and comparators. These findings suggest that LZD could be a potential first-line drug against MRSA bacteremia as well as VCM or DAP.
PubMed: 37107059
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12040697 -
Revista Do Instituto de Medicina... 2021The aim of this study was to establish an evidence-based guideline for the antibiotic treatment of Corynebacterium striatum infections. Several electronic databases were...
The aim of this study was to establish an evidence-based guideline for the antibiotic treatment of Corynebacterium striatum infections. Several electronic databases were systematically searched for clinical trials, observational studies or individual cases on patients of any age and gender with systemic inflammatory response syndrome, harboring C. striatum isolated from body fluids or tissues in which it is not normally present. C. striatum had to be identified as the only causative agent of the invasive infection, and its isolation from blood, body fluids or tissues had to be confirmed by one of the more advanced diagnostic methods (biochemical methods, mass spectrometry and/or gene sequencing). This systematic review included 42 studies that analyzed 85 individual cases with various invasive infections caused by C. striatum. More than one isolate of C. striatum exhibited 100% susceptibility to vancomycin, linezolid, teicoplanin, piperacillin-tazobactam, amoxicillin-clavulanate and cefuroxime. On the other hand, some strains of this bacterium showed a high degree of resistance to fluoroquinolones, to the majority majority of β-lactams, aminoglycosides, macrolides, lincosamides and cotrimoxazole. Despite the antibiotic treatment, fatal outcomes were reported in almost 20% of the patients included in this study. Gene sequencing methods should be the gold standard for the identification of C. striatum, while MALDI-TOF and the Vitek system can be used as alternative methods. Vancomycin should be used as the antibiotic of choice for the treatment of C. striatum infections, in monotherapy or in combination with piperacillin-tazobactam. Alternatively, linezolid, teicoplanin or daptomycin may be used in severe infections, while amoxicillin-clavulanate may be used to treat mild infections caused by C. striatum.
Topics: Aminoglycosides; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Corynebacterium; Corynebacterium Infections; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 34161555
DOI: 10.1590/S1678-9946202163049 -
Revista Espanola de Quimioterapia :... Sep 2021Dalbavancin is a long-acting antimicrobial agent with an excellent in vitro activity against Gram-positive pathogens, including staphylococcal biofilms. The unusually... (Review)
Review
Dalbavancin is a long-acting antimicrobial agent with an excellent in vitro activity against Gram-positive pathogens, including staphylococcal biofilms. The unusually long terminal half-life ranging from 149 to 250 hours in human subjects, allows a weekly dose. Currently is indicated in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs), but in real-life clinical practice it has already been used successfully and safely in other infections, especially as consolidation therapy.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections; Humans; Skin Diseases, Infectious; Staphylococcus; Teicoplanin
PubMed: 34598419
DOI: 10.37201/req/s01.07.2021 -
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 -
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jun 2022The long-acting lipoglycopeptides (LGPs) dalbavancin and oritavancin are semisynthetic antimicrobials with broad and potent activity against Gram-positive bacterial... (Review)
Review
The long-acting lipoglycopeptides (LGPs) dalbavancin and oritavancin are semisynthetic antimicrobials with broad and potent activity against Gram-positive bacterial pathogens. While they are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for acute bacterial skin and soft tissue infections, their pharmacological properties suggest a potential role of these agents for the treatment of deep-seated and severe infections, such as bloodstream and bone and joint infections. The use of these antimicrobials is particularly appealing when prolonged therapy, early discharge, and avoidance of long-term intravascular catheter access are desirable or when multidrug-resistant bacteria are suspected. This review describes the current evidence for the use of oritavancin and dalbavancin in the treatment of invasive infections, as well as the hurdles that are preventing their optimal use. Moreover, this review discusses the current knowledge gaps that need to be filled to understand the potential role of LGPs in highly needed clinical scenarios and the ongoing clinical studies that aim to address these voids in the upcoming years.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents; Glycopeptides; Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections; Humans; Lipoglycopeptides; Teicoplanin
PubMed: 35475634
DOI: 10.1128/aac.02614-20 -
Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2020Glycopeptides, such as vancomycin and teicoplanin, are primarily used in the treatment of methicillin-resistant (MRSA) infections, such as cellulitis, endocarditis,... (Review)
Review
Glycopeptides, such as vancomycin and teicoplanin, are primarily used in the treatment of methicillin-resistant (MRSA) infections, such as cellulitis, endocarditis, meningitis, pneumonia, and septicemia, and are some of the most commonly prescribed parenteral antimicrobials. Parenteral glycopeptides are first-line therapy for severe MRSA infections; however, oral vancomycin is used as a first-line treatment of infections Also, we currently have the longer-acting lipoglycopeptides, such as dalbavancin, oritavancin, and telavancin to our armamentarium for the treatment of MRSA infections. Lastly, vancomycin is often used as an alternative treatment for patients with β-lactam hypersensitivity. Common adverse effects associated with glycopeptide use include nephrotoxicity, ototoxicity, and Redman Syndrome (RMS). The RMS is often mistaken for a true allergy; however, it is a histamine-related infusion reaction rather than a true immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated allergic reaction. Although hypersensitivity to glycopeptides is rare, both immune-mediated and delayed reactions have been reported in the literature. We describe the various types of glycopeptide hypersensitivity reactions associated with glycopeptides and lipoglycopeptides, including IgE-mediated reactions, RMS, and linear immunoglobulin A bullous dermatosis, as well as describe cross-reactivity with other glycopeptides.
PubMed: 32326261
DOI: 10.3390/pharmacy8020070