High-dose cefazolin on consecutive hemodialysis in anuric patients with Staphylococcal bacteremia

Antibiotic therapy and clinical outcomes of penicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (PSSA) bloodstream infection (BSI): a ten-year retrospective cohort study

In recent years, the incidence of penicillin-susceptible S. aureus (PSSA) bloodstream infection (BSI) has increased worldwide. However, the preferred antibiotic remains uncertain due to concerns of inducible resistance to benzylpenicillin. We compared outcomes associated with benzylpenicillin versus other antibiotics and investigated risk factors influencing treatment failure. Patients were grouped into benzylpenicillin and non-benzylpenicillin beta-lactam treatment groups (including anti-staphylococcal penicillins and cephalosporins). The primary outcome was overall treatment failure (30-day all-cause mortality and/or 90-day relapse). Of 335 patients, 74 (22.09%) received benzylpenicillin and 261 (77.91%) received a non-benzylpenicillin beta-lactam. While rates of overall treatment failure (13.51% vs. 17.24%; P = 0.45) and occurrence of adverse drug events (6.76% vs. 7.66%; P = 0.79) were comparable to non-benzylpenicillin beta-lactams, benzylpenicillin showed faster microbiological clearance [3.00 days (IQR, 2.00-4.00 days) vs. 4.00 days (IQR, 3.00-5.00 days); P = 0.03] and fewer persistent infections (22.97% vs. 36.02%; P = 0.04), suggesting potential to improve patient outcomes. We also found that unknown source (aOR 4.63, 95% CI 1.47-14.64; P < 0.01) was associated with treatment failure, while review by Infectious Disease (ID) specialists (aOR 0.30, 95% CI 0.12-0.73; P = 0.01) was protective, stressing the importance of early ID referral and thorough source identification. This study highlights benzylpenicillin as an effective treatment for PSSA BSI.

Cephalotin Versus Dicloxacillin for the Treatment of Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bacteraemia: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

First-line treatments for methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) bacteraemia are nafcillin, oxacillin, or cefazolin. Regional shortages of these antibiotics force clinicians to use other options like dicloxacillin and cephalotin. This study aims to describe and compare the safety and efficacy of cephalotin and dicloxacillin for the treatment of MSSA bacteraemia.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted in a referral centre in Mexico City. We identified MSSA isolates in blood cultures from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2022. Patients ≥ 18 years of age, with a first episode of MSSA bacteraemia, who received cephalotin or dicloxacillin as the definitive antibiotic treatment, were included. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

We included 202 patients, of which 48% (97/202) received cephalotin as the definitive therapy and 52% (105/202) received dicloxacillin. In-hospital all-cause mortality was 20.7% (42/202). There were no differences in all-cause in-hospital mortality between patients receiving cephalotin or dicloxacillin (20% vs. 21%, p = 0.43), nor in 30-day all-cause mortality (14% vs. 18%, p = 0.57) or 90-day all-cause mortality (24% vs. 22%, p = 0.82). No severe adverse reactions were associated with either antibiotic.

CONCLUSIONS

Cephalotin and dicloxacillin were equally effective for treating MSSA bacteraemia, and both showed an adequate safety profile.

Treatment outcomes with benzylpenicillin and non-benzylpenicillin antibiotics, and the performance of the penicillin zone-edge test versus molecular detection of blaZ in penicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (PSSA) bacteraemia

OBJECTIVES

The blaZ gene encodes penicillinase, which inactivates penicillin. As there were reports on suboptimal sensitivity for the penicillin zone-edge test, a phenotypic method for blaZ detection, we investigated treatment outcomes in patients with penicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (PSSA) bacteraemia (phenotypically negative for penicillinase), subjecting isolates to molecular testing for blaZ retrospectively.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 121 patients with a first episode of PSSA bacteraemia from 1 January 2012 to 31 October 2015 at Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH), Singapore. Patients were grouped into IV benzylpenicillin and non-benzylpenicillin groups. The primary outcome was overall treatment failure, defined as either 30 day all-cause mortality and/or 90 day relapse. The penicillin (P10) zone-edge test was repeated on archived PSSA isolates, concurrently with penicillin MIC determination via gradient diffusion and PCR for blaZ.

RESULTS

Among 121 patients, 57 patients (47.1%) received IV benzylpenicillin as the predominant antibiotic. There was no significant difference in overall treatment failure between treatment with the benzylpenicillin [7/57 (12.3%)] versus non-benzylpenicillin groups [12/64 (18.8%)] (P = 0.33) or cloxacillin/cefazolin [6/37 (16.2%)] (P = 0.59). For 112 PSSA isolates available for testing, repeat penicillin zone-edge testing was negative for penicillinase production, corroborating previous results. A single PSSA isolate with a negative penicillin zone-edge test was found to be positive for blaZ.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no differences in overall treatment failure between patients with PSSA bacteraemia treated with benzylpenicillin, anti-staphylococcal β-lactams cefazolin/cloxacillin and other antimicrobials, when using the penicillin zone-edge test as the phenotypic method for blaZ screening.

Antistaphylococcal penicillins vs. cefazolin in the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus infective endocarditis: a quasi-experimental monocentre study

Whether cefazolin is as effective and safer than antistaphylococcal penicillins (ASPs) for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infective endocarditis (IE) is still debated in the absence of a randomized controlled trial. In this quasi-experimental study, we aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of these two treatments in MSSA-IE, using the ASPs nationwide shortage in April 2016 as a unique opportunity to overcome the indication bias associated with observational studies. In this single-centre study, we compared patients with Duke-Li definite MSSA-IE treated with ASPs from January 2015 to March 2016 versus those treated with cefazolin from April 2016 to December 2018, when ASPs were not available. Effectiveness outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes included significant decrease in GFR and significant increase in serum liver enzymes. Logrank test was used to compare survival rates. Of 73 patients with MSSA-IE, 35 and 38 were treated with ASPs and cefazolin, respectively. Baseline patients' characteristics (demography, native or prosthetic valve IE, clinical characteristics, cardiac and septic complications) were similar between groups. Ninety-day all-cause mortality was 28.6% and 21.1%, in patients treated with ASPs and cefazolin, respectively (logrank p = 0.5727). There was no difference between groups for incident renal or liver toxicity events: acute kidney injury 45.7% vs. 44.7% (p = 0.933), increased ALT 5.7% vs. 13.2% (p = 0.432), bilirubin increase 5.7% vs. 10.5% (p = 0.676), in ASPs vs. cefazolin groups, respectively. In this quasi-experimental, effectiveness and safety did not statistically differ between ASPs and cefazolin for MSSA-IE treatment.

Post-Dialysis Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy in Patients Receiving Intermittent High-Flux Hemodialysis

Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) are at increased risk of infection, which represents a leading cause of mortality in this population. The use of additional vascular access devices such as peripherally inserted central catheters to treat such infections should be minimized in patients with ESRD requiring IHD in order to mitigate complications such as infection and thrombosis and to maintain venous patency for hemodialysis access. Intravenous antimicrobial dosing following IHD has the advantages of avoiding additional access devices and providing convenience for patients and providers. Vancomycin, cefazolin, and aminoglycosides have historically been regarded as the primary intravenous antimicrobials administered with IHD given their relatively low cost, convenient dosing, and longevity of clinical use. Despite this, a growing body of literature is evaluating the use of an expanded list of antimicrobials that may be employed using post-dialysis dosing for patients requiring IHD; however, the available data are largely limited to pharmacokinetic studies and small cohorts of infected patients or uninfected subjects. Post-dialytic dosing of intravenous antimicrobials may be considered on a patient-by-patient basis after careful consideration of clinical, microbiological, and logistical factors that may influence the probability of treatment success. This document reviews and evaluates currently available information on the post-dialytic administration of an expanded list of intravenous antimicrobials in the setting of thrice-weekly, high-flux IHD.

Cefazolin Versus Anti-Staphylococcal Penicillins for the Treatment of Patients with Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Infection: A Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) is a common cause of infection in humans. Beta-lactam antibiotics are the preferred agents, with anti-staphylococcal penicillins (ASPs) or the first-generation cephalosporin, cefazolin, favored by clinicians. Recent studies comparing the two strategies suggest similar outcomes between the agents. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to explore differences between cefazolin and ASPs for the treatment of MSSA infections.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) of observational or cohort studies using a random-effects model. Two blinded reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, risk of bias, and data extraction. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included clinical failure, infection recurrence, and antibiotic discontinuation due to adverse events. Subgroup analyses were conducted for the primary outcome by type of ASP, studies with a high percentage of deep-seated infections, and studies of low to moderate risk of bias.

RESULTS

After performing a comprehensive search of the literature, and screening for study inclusion, 19 studies (13,390 patients) were included in the final meta-analysis. Fifteen of the 19 studies (79%) were judged as having a low or moderate risk of bias. Use of cefazolin was associated with lower all-cause mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-0.91, p = 0.006, I2 = 28%], clinical failure (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.74, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%), and antibiotic discontinuation due to adverse events (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.16-0.39, p < 0.001, I2 = 23%). Infection recurrence was higher in the cefazolin patients (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.04-1.93, p = 0.03, I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of cefazolin was associated with significant reductions in all-cause mortality, clinical failure, and discontinuation due to adverse events, but was associated with an increased risk of infection recurrence.

FUNDING

University of Florida Open Access Publishing Fund funded the Rapid Service Fees.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (study ID: CRD42018106442).

Antibiotic Dosing for Critically Ill Adult Patients Receiving Intermittent Hemodialysis, Prolonged Intermittent Renal Replacement Therapy, and Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy: An Update

Objective: To summarize current antibiotic dosing recommendations in critically ill patients receiving intermittent hemodialysis (IHD), prolonged intermittent renal replacement therapy (PIRRT), and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), including considerations for individualizing therapy. Data Sources: A literature search of PubMed from January 2008 to May 2019 was performed to identify English-language literature in which dosing recommendations were proposed for antibiotics commonly used in critically ill patients receiving IHD, PIRRT, or CRRT. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All pertinent reviews, selected studies, and references were evaluated to ensure appropriateness for inclusion. Data Synthesis: Updated empirical dosing considerations are proposed for antibiotics in critically ill patients receiving IHD, PIRRT, and CRRT with recommendations for individualizing therapy. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review defines principles for assessing renal function, identifies RRT system properties affecting drug clearance and drug properties affecting clearance during RRT, outlines pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic dosing considerations, reviews pertinent updates in the literature, develops updated empirical dosing recommendations, and highlights important factors for individualizing therapy in critically ill patients. Conclusions: Appropriate antimicrobial selection and dosing are vital to improve clinical outcomes. Dosing recommendations should be applied cautiously with efforts to consider local epidemiology and resistance patterns, antibiotic dosing and infusion strategies, renal replacement modalities, patient-specific considerations, severity of illness, residual renal function, comorbidities, and patient response to therapy. Recommendations provided herein are intended to serve as a guide in developing and revising therapy plans individualized to meet a patient's needs.

Cefazolin versus anti-staphylococcal penicillins for the treatment of patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia

BACKGROUND

For patients with bacteraemia caused by methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus anti-staphylococcal penicillins (ASPs) or cefazolin are agents of choice. While ASPs are potentially nephrotoxic, cefazolin may be less effective in some S. aureus strains due to an inoculum effect.

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic literature review and meta-analysis assessing current evidence comparing cefazolin with ASPs for patients with S. aureus bacteraemia (SAB).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded) and the Cochrane Database as well as clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 26 June 2018. All studies investigating the effects of cefazolin versus ASP in patients with methicillin-sensitive SAB were eligible for inclusion regardless of study design, publication status or language. Additional information was requested by direct author contact. A meta-analysis to estimate relative risks (RRs) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was performed. Statistical heterogeneity was estimated using I². The primary endpoint was 90-day all-cause mortality. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) were used for study and data quality assessment.

RESULTS

Fourteen non-randomized studies were included. Seven reported the primary endpoint (RR 0.71 (0.50, 1.02), low quality of evidence). Cefazolin treatment may be associated with lower 30-day mortality rates (RR 0.70 (0.54, 0.91), low quality of evidence) and less nephrotoxicity (RR 0.36 (0.21, 0.59), (low quality of evidence)). We are uncertain whether cefazolin and ASP differ regarding treatment failure/relapse as the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low (RR of 0.84 (0.59, 1.18)). For patients with endocarditis (RR 0.71 (0.12, 4.05)) or abscesses (RR 1.17 (0.30, 4.63)), cefazolin treatment may be associated with equal 30-day and 90-day mortality (low quality of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

Cefazolin seemed to be at least equally as effective as ASPs while being associated with less nephrotoxicity.

Efficacy and safety of cefazolin versus antistaphylococcal penicillins for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Antistaphylococcal penicillins (ASPs) and cefazolin have become the most frequent choices for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infections. However, the best therapeutic agent to treat MSSA bacteremia remains to be established.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these two regimens for the treatment of MSSA bacteremia. PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 2018 were searched. The primary outcome was mortality. The secondary outcomes included treatment failure, recurrence of bacteremia, adverse effects (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. Data were extracted and pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

Results

A total of ten observational studies met the inclusion criteria. The results indicate that compared to ASPs, cefazolin was associated with significant reduction in mortality (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.82; I² = 3.4%) and clinical failure (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.85; I² = 44.9%) without increasing the recurrence of bacteremia (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.34; I² = 0%). There were no significant differences for the risk of anaphylaxis (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.36 to 2.99; I² = 0%) or hematotoxicity (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.88; I² = 0%). However, nephrotoxicity (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.81; I² = 0%) and hepatotoxicity (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.41; I² = 0%) were significantly lower in the cefazolin group. Moreover, cefazolin was associated with lower probability of discontinuation due to AEs compared with the ASPs (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.48; I² = 18%).

Conclusion

The results of present study favor the application of cefazolin and should be regarded as important evidence to help make clinical decisions in choosing a treatment option for treating MSSA bacteremia.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12879-018-3418-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Meta-analysis of trials comparing cefazolin to antistaphylococcal penicillins in the treatment of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia

AIMS

The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness and safety of cefazolin vs. antistaphylococcal penicillin (ASP) in the treatment of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteraemia.

METHODS

The databases of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central were used to identify comparative trials of cefazolin vs. ASP in MSSA bacteraemia. Meta-analysis of included trials was performed to assess any differences regarding mortality, clinical cure, recurrence and withdrawal from adverse effects between groups. Data were analysed using fixed effect model. Studies were weighted using Mantel-Haenszel methodology. Heterogeneity was calculated using the I² statistic.

RESULTS

Nine retrospective and one prospective trials were identified involving 4728 patients, 2954 with ASP and 1774 with cefazolin. Meta-analysis showed a lower mortality rate with cefazolin vs. ASP using fixed effect model [risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.88, P < 0.0001] with borderline high heterogeneity (I²  = 51%). Clinical cure was noted more often with cefazolin (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02-1.17, P = 0.02), although no difference was noted with relapse (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96-1.74 P = 0.09). Analysis also showed more withdrawals from adverse events with ASP vs. cefazolin (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.16-0.47, P < 0.00001). A minority of patients enrolled in these trials were admitted to the intensive care unit or had endocarditis (11.4% with ASP and 9% with cefazolin).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis of retrospective data demonstrate that cefazolin is more effective and safer ASP in patients with MSSA bacteraemia from various causes. Low quality of trials, borderline high heterogeneity, and possible publication bias may limit the validity of our findings. Randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Cefazolin versus Nafcillin for Methicillin-Sensitive Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infection in a California Tertiary Medical Center

Recent observational studies have suggested possible reductions in mortality in patients receiving cefazolin versus antistaphylococcal penicillins. We examined 90-day mortality in patients receiving cefazolin compared to nafcillin for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bloodstream infection (BSI). We identified persons with MSSA BSI admitted to San Francisco General Hospital from January 2008 to July 2013 through a hospital-wide infection surveillance system and confirmed 90-day mortality using U.S. national vital registries. We included persons receiving cefazolin or nafcillin as the predominant intravenous antimicrobial agent; all participants received inpatient Infectious Diseases service consultation. We estimated the association between receipt of cefazolin and 90-day risk of death by multivariate logistic regression, including a propensity score for receiving cefazolin as the second predictor. Of 230 MSSA BSI cases, 30 received nafcillin and 70 received cefazolin as the predominant antimicrobial; 10 died within 90 days, 5 from each group. Unadjusted analysis showed substantial but not statistically significant reduced odds of death in those receiving cefazolin (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10 to 1.44). Multivariate analysis with propensity scores found a similar adjusted odds ratio (0.40; 95% CI, 0.09 to 1.74; P = 0.22). We found a large reduction in 90-day mortality in those receiving cefazolin compared to nafcillin for MSSA BSI, but this finding was not statistically significant. The magnitude of effect seen in this and other studies justifies further study.

Post-hemodialysis dosing of 1 vs. 2 g of ceftazidime in anuric end-stage renal disease patients on low-flux dialysis and its pharmacodynamic implications on clinical use

Ceftazidime is a cost-effective antimicrobial against Gram-negative pathogens associated with sepsis in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) hemodialysis patients with potential for wider use with the advent of ceftazidime-avibactam. Dosing ceftazidime post-hemodialysis appears attractive and convenient, but limited in vivo data on pharmacodynamic efficacy (PE) attainment, defined as >70% of the interdialytic period drug concentrations exceed susceptible pathogens minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) (%TMIC), warrants further assessment. We therefore evaluated PE and tolerability of 1 against 2 g regime in anuric ESRD patients on low-flux hemodialysis. Two doses of 1 or 2 g ceftazidime were administered post-hemodialysis prior to 48- and 72-hour interdialytic intervals in ESRD inpatients without active infections. Peak and trough concentrations (mg/L) were assayed using a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method. Proportion of patients achieving PE for known pathogens with MICs ≤ 8 mg/L and adverse effects were assessed. Six (43%) and eight (57%) adult patients received 1 and 2 g dose, respectively. Median (25th-75th percentile), peak, 48- and 72-hour trough ceftazidime concentrations were 78 (60-98) vs. 158 (128-196), 37 (23-37) vs. 49 (39-71), and 13 (12-20) vs. 26 (21-41) mg/L, respectively, resulting in 100% TMIC for both doses. One patient on the 1-g dose experienced mild pruritus. Reliable and safe PE attainment over both 48- and 72-hour interdialytic interval was achievable with 1 g of ceftazidime dosed post-hemodialysis. The 2 g dose was equally effective and well tolerated but may not be necessary. These findings need validation in non-anuric patients, high-flux hemodialysis, and during avibactam co-administration.

Antistaphylococcal penicillins versus cephalosporins for definitive treatment of meticillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The objective of this study was to assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of antistaphylococcal penicillins (ASPs) and cephalosporins for the definitive treatment of patients with meticillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteraemia. PubMed and Scopus electronic databases were searched up to December 2013. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome of interest. A meta-analysis of unadjusted and adjusted data was performed. Seven articles (1643 patients) were included; all but one were retrospective studies, and three of them employed propensity score matching. The studies enrolled primarily adults hospitalised in medical wards for primary or secondary community-acquired, healthcare-associated or nosocomial MSSA bacteraemia. Several ASPs and cephalosporins were compared. Unadjusted 30-day mortality was lower in patients treated with ASPs than in those treated with cephalosporins [risk ratio (RR)=0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40-0.98]. Propensity score-adjusted 30-day mortality was not different in patients receiving ASPs or cephalosporins (RR=0.75, 95% CI 0.41-1.39). Substantial heterogeneity and publication bias were found in these analyses. Both unadjusted (RR=0.85, 95% CI 0.54-1.32) and adjusted (RR=1.42, 95% CI 0.22-9.06) 90-day mortality did not differ between patients receiving ASPs or cephalosporins. Limited data regarding adverse events, development of resistance and recurrence were available. In conclusion, the limited available published data derive from retrospective studies and show that there appears to be no statistically significant difference in mortality between ASPs and cephalosporins for the treatment of MSSA bacteraemia.