Combination of quinupristin/dalfopristin and glycopeptide in severe methicillin-resistant staphylococcal infections failing previous glycopeptide regimens

The management of infection and colonization due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: A CIDS/CAMM position paper

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is being seen with greater frequency in most hospitals and other health care facilities across Canada. The organism may cause life-threatening infections and has been associated with institutional outbreaks. Several studies have confirmed that MRSA infection is associated with increased morbidity and mortality compared with infections caused by susceptible strains, even when the presence of comorbidities is accounted for. Treatment of MRSA infection is complicated by the fact that these organisms are resistant to multiple antimicrobial agents, so treatment options are limited. The effectiveness of decolonization therapy (attempting to eradicate MRSA carriage) is also uncertain. This paper reviews the medical management of MRSA infections, discusses the potential role of decolonization and provides an overview of evidence to support recommended infection control practices.

Teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection

BACKGROUND

Vancomycin and teicoplanin are commonly used to treat gram-positive infections, particularly those caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). There is uncertainty regarding the effects of teicoplanin compared to vancomycin on kidney function with some previous studies suggesting teicoplanin is less nephrotoxic than vancomycin.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin in patients with proven or suspected infection.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists of nephrology textbooks, review articles with relevant studies and sent letters seeking information about unpublished or incomplete studies to investigators involved in previous studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in any language comparing teicoplanin to vancomycin for patients with proven or suspected infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted data using standardised data extraction forms. Study investigators were contacted for information not available in the original manuscripts. Random effects model was used to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 studies (2,610 patients) in this review. Teicoplanin reduced the risk of nephrotoxicity compared to vancomycin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90).The effects of teicoplanin or vancomycin were similar for clinical cure (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.08), microbiological cure (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03) and mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.79 to1.30). Six studies reported no cases of acute kidney injury (AKI) needing dialysis. Adverse events were less frequent with teicoplanin including cutaneous rash (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.92), red man syndrome (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.59) and total adverse events (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.00). A lower risk of nephrotoxicity with teicoplanin was observed in patients either with (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.88) or without aminoglycosides (RR 0.31, 95% 0.07 to 1.50), and also when vancomycin dosing was guided by serum levels (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.52).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Teicoplanin and vancomycin are both effective in treating those with proven or suspected infection; however the incidence of adverse effects including nephrotoxicity was lower with teicoplanin. There were no cases of AKI needing dialysis. It remains unclear whether the differential effect on kidney function should influence which antibiotic be prescribed, although it may be reasonable to consider teicoplanin for patients at higher risk for AKI needing dialysis.

Limitations of antibiotic options for invasive infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: is combination therapy the answer?

Invasive infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), particularly those involving persistent bacteraemia, necrotizing pneumonia, osteomyelitis and other deep-seated sites of infections, are associated with high mortality and are often difficult to treat. The response to treatment of severe MRSA infection with currently available antibiotics active against MRSA is often unsatisfactory, leading some physicians to resort to combination antibiotic therapy. Now, with the emergence of community-associated MRSA (CA-MRSA) clones that display enhanced virulence potentially related to up-regulated toxin production, the use of adjuvant protein synthesis-inhibiting antibiotics to reduce toxin production also has been advocated by some experts. In this review, we discuss the limitations of antibiotics currently available for the treatment of serious invasive MRSA infections and review the existing literature that examines the potential role of combination therapy in these infections.

Emerging Options for Treatment of Invasive, Multidrug-ResistantStaphylococcus aureusInfections

Limited established treatment options exist for the treatment of serious, invasive infections caused by multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, most notably nosocomially acquired methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Although vancomycin represents the gold standard for therapy of such invasive infections, reports of increasing in vitro resistance to vancomycin, combined with reports of clinical failures (with this and other antistaphylococcal agents), underscore the need for alternative therapies. Older agents with favorable in vitro activity available in both oral and intravenous dose forms include trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and clindamycin. Limited clinical data exist to support their routine use as initial therapy in the treatment of invasive disease. However, these and other options (e.g., tetracyclines) are being reexplored in the setting of increasing concern over MRSA acquired in the community setting. Newer treatment options for MRSA include linezolid, quinupristin-dalfopristin, daptomycin, and tigecycline. With the exception of linezolid, these newer agents require intravenous administration. Combination therapy may be considered in select invasive diseases refractory to standard monotherapies. These diseases include infections such as endocarditis, meningitis, and prosthetic device infections. Additional alternatives to vancomycin are under clinical investigation. Those in later stages of development include oritavancin, dalbavancin, telavancin, and ceftobiprole.

Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Published data confirm that community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections are increasing in incidence in both urban and rural settings. The statistical risk is higher for athletes, military personnel, prison inmates, intravenous drug abusers, the homeless, children in daycare, and certain Native American groups, but the infections are by no means restricted to these populations. Roughly 85% of the infections involve the skin and subcutaneous tissue, with the most common presentations being an abscess or folliculitis. The typical associated gene cassette is quite small and codes only for methicillin resistance. Abscesses generally respond to drainage.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE

At the conclusion of this learning activity, participants should recognize groups at high risk for community-acquired MSRA infections and manage these infections appropriately.

Pathogens resistant to antimicrobial agents: epidemiology, molecular mechanisms, and clinical management

Resistance to antimicrobial drugs is increasing at an alarming rate among both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. Traditionally, bacteria resistant to multiple antimicrobial agents have been restricted to the nosocomial environment. A disturbing trend has been the recent emergence and spread of resistant pathogens and resistance traits in nursing homes, the community, as well as in hospitals. This article reviews the epidemiology, molecular mechanisms of resistance, and treatment options for pathogens resistant to antimicrobial drugs.

Combining Quinupristin/Dalfopristin with Other Agents for Resistant Infections

OBJECTIVE

To review the resistance mechanisms of Enterococcus and Staphylococcus spp. and summarize quinupristin/dalfopristin's (QD's) effects on these resistant organisms when combined with other antibiotics via review of the literature and unpublished data.

DATA SOURCES

Data were identified by a PubMed search (1996—May 2003) using the search terms quinupristin/dalfopristin, synergy, in vitro, in vivo, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VREF), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and individual antibiotic names. Bibliographies of the resultant PubMed searches were reviewed and included if applicable.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All studies reviewed were analyzed; specific drug data were included only if clinically pertinent. In vitro data from studies with adequate design were discussed, whereas all case reports and clinical trials were utilized.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In the treatment of VREF, available information seems conflicting, although some clear differences have become apparent. QD—ampicillin and QD—doxycycline combinations have demonstrated beneficial activity, usually displaying synergistic or additive effects even in macrolide-, lincosamine-, and streptogramin-resistant (MLSB) isolates. Vancomycin and chloramphenicol have shown some efficacy, but antagonistic or null results also have been observed. Regarding MRSA, results from many studies of QD combinations have been ambiguous. More common combinations displayed synergy or additive effects against MRSA, but only QD—rifampin showed consistent beneficial activity against MRSA and MLSB isolates. Most other combinations displayed antagonism when tested in vitro.

CONCLUSIONS

Data supporting the use of various QD—antibiotic combinations against VREF and MRSA are increasing, but further in vitro and in vivo data are needed to confirm the findings.