Vancomycin and Ciprofloxacin: Systemic Antibiotic Administration for Peritoneal Dialysis-Associated Peritonitis

Objectives

Peritonitis due to peritoneal dialysis (PD) is best treated empirically while waiting for the results of the dialysate culture. Thus, antibiotic therapy must cover both gram-positive and gram-negative micro-organisms. First, over a period of 9 years in a multicenter study we evaluated the efficiency of a vancomycin and ciprofloxacin combination given as the first-line treatment protocol for PD peritonitis. Second, we evaluated whether a systemic route of administration of the antibiotics could be an interesting alternative to the usual cumbersome intraperitoneal drug administration.

Methods

Vancomycin 15 mg/kg body weight, intravenous, and oral ciprofloxacin 250 mg two times per day (500 mg twice per day if residual creatinine clearance was above 3 mL/minute) were prescribed at diagnosis of peritonitis. Vancomycin injections were repeated (when blood trough level was expected to be below 12 μg/mL) in cases of gram-positive organisms for a total duration of 3 weeks. Ciprofloxacin was given for a total of 3 weeks in cases of gram-negative and a total of 10 days for susceptible gram-positive infections.

Results

A total of 129 episodes of peritonitis occurred; 28 of them were not included in the study because of protocol violation ( n = 15) or fungal ( n = 7) or fecal ( n = 6) peritonitis, leaving 101 peritonitis episodes for analysis. 52 (51.5%) gram-positive and 28 (27.7%) gram-negative organisms were grown; 38 gram-positive organisms were coagulase-negative staphylococci. No organism was identified in 8 peritonitis episodes, whereas 13 peritonitis episodes were caused by more than 1 organism. 35% of the coagulase-negative staphylococci were resistant to first-generation cephalosporin and methicillin, whereas all were susceptible to vancomycin. For gram-negative bacilli, the susceptibility rate was 96% and 95% for ciprofloxacin and ceftazidime respectively. The overall treatment success rate was 77.2% (78 of the 101 peritonitis episodes): 61.4% at first intention and 15.8% after optimization of the antibiotic therapy (second intention). The protocol failed in 22.8% of the peritonitis episodes. Hospitalization was required in 52% of the peritonitis episodes; average hospitalization was 11 (range 1 – 45) days.

Conclusion

Systemic vancomycin and ciprofloxacin administration is a simple and efficient first-line protocol antibiotic therapy for PD peritonitis. In our opinion, vancomycin should still be used for gram-positive infections because of its high susceptibility rate compared with first-generation cephalosporins, providing a close monitoring of the local epidemiology. Oral ciprofloxacin provides satisfactory results in gram-negative infections, comparable to those obtained with intraperitoneal ceftazidime or aminoglycosides.

Improved Outcome of Enteric Peritonitis in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients Aged 50 Years and Older with Temporary Discontinuation of Peritoneal Dialysis and Intravenous Meropenem

Background

Peritonitis is a major cause of morbidity, mortality, and technique failure in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients, especially when caused by enteric microorganisms (EM). We have implemented a treatment protocol specifically aimed at improving the outcome in EM peritonitis. The adapted protocol was applied in all PD patients 50 years and older presenting with peritonitis who were considered to be at risk of EM peritonitis and involves 3 interventions: 1) temporary discontinuation of PD without removing the catheter (peritoneal rest), 2) intravenous meropenem, and 3) meropenem intracatheter as lock (Mero-PerRest protocol).

Methods

In this observational study, we compared the outcome of 203 peritonitis episodes in 71 patients treated with the Mero-PerRest protocol, with 217 episodes in 104 patients treated with a more traditional intraperitoneal gentamicin-rifampicin-based regimen.

Results

In EM peritonitis episodes, the Mero-PerRest protocol resulted in a higher primary cure rate (90.0% vs 65.3%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 4.54 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46 – 14.15]) and better technique survival (90.0% vs 69.4%, adjusted OR 3.41 [95% CI 1.07 – 10.87]). This effect was most distinct in patients with polymicrobial EM peritonitis (cure rate 87.5% vs 34.8%, p = 0.0003). Interestingly, primary cure rate (95.6% vs 84.7%, adjusted OR 3.92 [95% CI 1.37 – 11.19]) and technique survival (95.6% vs 85.6%, adjusted OR 3.60 [95% CI 1.25 – 10.32]) were also excellent in non-EM peritonitis episodes. Patient survival did not differ significantly.

Conclusion

The poor outcome of peritonitis caused by EM in PD patients aged 50 years and older could be improved by applying a treatment protocol involving temporary discontinuation of PD without catheter removal and intravenous and intracatheter meropenem.

Efficacy of antibiotic therapy for peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis: a proportional meta-analysis

Background

The choice of antimicrobials for initial treatment of peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related peritonitis is crucial for a favorable outcome. There is no consensus about the best therapy; few prospective controlled studies have been published, and the only published systematic reviews did not report superiority of any class of antimicrobials. The objective of this review was to analyze the results of PD peritonitis treatment in adult patients by employing a new methodology, the proportional meta-analysis.

Methods

A review of the literature was conducted. There was no language restriction. Studies were obtained from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS. The inclusion criteria were: (a) case series and RCTs with the number of reported patients in each study greater than five, (b) use of any antibiotic therapy for initial treatment (e.g., cefazolin plus gentamicin or vancomycin plus gentamicin), for Gram-positive (e.g., vancomycin or a first generation cephalosporin), or for Gram-negative rods (e.g., gentamicin, ceftazidime, and fluoroquinolone), (c) patients with PD-related peritonitis, and (d) studies specifying the rates of resolution. A proportional meta-analysis was performed on outcomes using a random-effects model, and the pooled resolution rates were calculated.

Results

A total of 64 studies (32 for initial treatment and negative culture, 28 reporting treatment for Gram-positive rods and 24 reporting treatment for Gram-negative rods) and 21 RCTs met all inclusion criteria (14 for initial treatment and negative culture, 8 reporting treatment for Gram-positive rods and 8 reporting treatment for Gram-negative rods). The pooled resolution rate of ceftazidime plus glycopeptide as initial treatment (pooled proportion = 86% [95% CI 0.82–0.89]) was significantly higher than first generation cephalosporin plus aminoglycosides (pooled proportion = 66% [95% CI 0.57–0.75]) and significantly higher than glycopeptides plus aminoglycosides (pooled proportion = 75% [95% CI 0.69–0.80]. Other comparisons of regimens used for either initial treatment, treatment for Gram-positive rods or Gram-negative rods did not show statistically significant differences.

Conclusion

We showed that the association of a glycopeptide plus ceftazidime is superior to other regimens for initial treatment of PD peritonitis. This result should be carefully analyzed and does not exclude the necessity of monitoring the local microbiologic profile in each dialysis center to choice the initial therapeutic protocol.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2334-14-445) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Treatment for peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis

BACKGROUND

Peritonitis is a common complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD) that is associated with significant morbidity including death, hospitalisation, and need to change from PD to haemodialysis. Treatment is aimed to reduce morbidity and recurrence. This is an update of a review first published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of treatments for PD-associated peritonitis.

SEARCH METHODS

For this review update we searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to March 2014 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, and handsearching conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the treatment of peritonitis in PD patients (adults and children). We included any study that evaluated: administration of an antibiotic by different routes (e.g. oral, intraperitoneal (IP), intravenous (IV)); dose of an antibiotic agent; different schedules of administration of antimicrobial agents; comparisons of different regimens of antimicrobial agents; any other intervention including fibrinolytic agents, peritoneal lavage and early catheter removal.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Multiple authors independently extracted data on study risk of bias and outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model. We expressed summarised treatment estimates as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 eligible studies in 2433 participants: antimicrobial agents (36 studies); urokinase (4 studies), peritoneal lavage (1 study), and IP immunoglobulin (1 study). We did not identify any optimal antibiotic agent or combination of agents. IP glycopeptides (vancomycin or teicoplanin) had uncertain effects on primary treatment response, relapse rates, and need for catheter removal compared to first generation cephalosporins, although glycopeptide regimens were more likely to achieve a complete cure (3 studies, 370 episodes: RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.72). For relapsing or persistent peritonitis, simultaneous catheter removal and replacement was better than urokinase at reducing treatment failure rates (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.91) although evidence was limited to a single small study. Continuous and intermittent IP antibiotic dosing schedules had similar treatment failure and relapse rates. IP antibiotics were superior to IV antibiotics in reducing treatment failure in one small study (RR 3.52, 95% CI 1.26 to 9.81). Longer duration treatment (21 days of IV vancomycin and IP gentamicin) had uncertain effects on risk of treatment relapse compared with 10 days treatment (1 study, 49 patients: RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.95) although may have increased ototoxicity.In general, review conclusions were based on a small number of studies with few events in which risk of bias was generally high; interventions were heterogeneous, and outcome definitions were often inconsistent. There were no RCTs evaluating optimal timing of catheter removal and data for automated PD were absent.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Many of the studies evaluating treatment of PD-related peritonitis are small, out-dated, of poor quality, and had inconsistent definitions and dosing regimens. IP administration of antibiotics was superior to IV administration for treating PD-associated peritonitis and glycopeptides appear optimal for complete cure of peritonitis, although evidence for this finding was assessed as low quality. PD catheter removal may be the best treatment for relapsing or persistent peritonitis.Evidence was insufficient to identify the optimal agent, route or duration of antibiotics to treat peritonitis. No specific antibiotic appears to have superior efficacy for preventing treatment failure or relapse of peritonitis, but evidence is limited to few trials. The role of routine peritoneal lavage or urokinase is uncertain.

Similar peritonitis outcome in CAPD and APD patients with dialysis modality continuation during peritonitis

BACKGROUND

As few data exist on treatment of peritonitis in patients on automated peritoneal dialysis (APD), and as pharmacokinetics of several antibiotics are reported to be unfavorable in APD, some favor switching to continuous ambulant PD (CAPD) while treating APD-related peritonitis. We explored whether treating peritonitis with patients continuing their usual PD modality had an effect on outcome.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the 508 episodes of PD-associated peritonitis seen in 205 patients in our center from January 1993 to January 2007. During this period, the standard initial therapy for PD-related peritonitis was a combination of intraperitoneal gentamicin and rifampicin.

RESULTS

There was no difference in cure rate between CAPD and APD groups. Likewise, initial and maximal leukocyte counts in the PD fluid (PDF), relapse rates, catheter removal rates, and death during treatment of peritonitis were similar in the CAPD and APD groups. Median (interquartile range) duration of elevated leukocyte count in PDF was longer in APD: 5.0 (3.0 - 9.0) days versus 4.0 (2.5 - 7.0) days in CAPD (p <0.001). APD patients were treated with antibiotics longer than CAPD patients: 16.0 (12.5 - 21.0) versus 15.0 (12.0 - 18.0) days (p = 0.036). Also, after correction for possible confounders, odds ratios for death and for the combined end point death or catheter removal showed no difference when patients treated for peritonitis stayed on their own modality.

CONCLUSION

Regarding rate of relapse, mortality, or the combined end point mortality plus catheter removal, we found no difference between CAPD and APD patients continuing their own PD modality during treatment of PD-related peritonitis. Intermediate end points such as duration of elevated PDF leukocyte count and duration of antibiotic treatment were longer in APD patients.

Treatment of Peritoneal Dialysis-Related Peritonitis with Ciprofloxacin Monotherapy: Clinical Outcomes and Bacterial Susceptibility over Two Decades

Background

There is controversy about the preferred initial antibiotic therapy for peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related peritonitis. Quinolones have been used extensively in this setting, yet their long-term effectiveness is unknown.

Aim

To analyze the results of a protocol of treatment of PD-related peritonitis with ciprofloxacin, maintained over two decades.

Method

We analyzed the clinical outcome of 682 episodes of bacterial peritonitis treated with intraperitoneal ciprofloxacin monotherapy, and the time course of bacterial susceptibility to this antimicrobial, in a historical cohort of 641 PD patients (1988-2007). Main outcome variables included changes to initial therapy and rates of hospital admission, catheter removal, relapse, reinfection, PD dropout, and mortality. For comparisons we divided the study period into phases A (1988-1994), B (1995-2000), and C (2001-2007).

Results

The incidence of Staphylococcus aureus peritonitis decreased, while the incidences of polymicrobial and negative-culture peritonitis increased after phase A. In vitro susceptibility to ciprofloxacin decreased significantly only among coagulase-negative staphylococci (87.0% susceptible strains in phase A vs 70.0% in B and 70.1% in C, p = 0.006). Overall success rates (catheter not removed and ongoing PD after the episode) remained stable, at over 85%. However, the proportion of patients treated solely with ciprofloxacin declined from 75.7% (A) to 47.3% (B) to 32.4% (C) ( p < 0.0005) and admission rates increased from 12.7% to 16.8% to 24.9% respectively ( p = 0.001). These changes affected all the etiologic groups except culture-negative peritonitis. In vitro resistance to ciprofloxacin was a marker of multiresistance and correlated strongly with clinical outcome of peritonitis. Among isolates susceptible to ciprofloxacin, changing initial therapy for any reason also predicted a poor outcome.

Conclusions

Following satisfactory early results, the effectiveness of ciprofloxacin as monotherapy for PD-related peritonitis has declined markedly in the long term. This decline cannot be explained solely by a decrease of in vitro susceptibility to this antimicrobial, which was significant only among coagulase-negative staphylococci. Resistance to ciprofloxacin is a strong marker of in vitro multiresistance and poor clinical outcome of peritonitis.

Intraperitoneal Administration of Drugs in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A Review of Compatibility and Guidance for Clinical Use

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an effective home-based therapy for end-stage renal failure. Intraperitoneal administration of drugs to PD patients is particularly important for the treatment of peritonitis. Clinicians need to know that the administered drug is compatible with both the PD solution and its container. A detailed literature search on drug compatibility and stability was performed and results of all published stability studies are presented for all drugs, PD solutions, and containers studied. These data will aid clinicians managing PD patients and provide a resource to demonstrate which drugs have been shown to be stable in various PD solutions and solution containers. This is important information to assist clinicians in applying effective treatments, in particular, for peritonitis.

Rifamycin lavage in the treatment of experimental intra-abdominal infection

HYPOTHESIS

Peritoneal lavage with rifamycin reduces the number of intraperitoneal bacteria and adhesions and improves the outcome of intra-abdominal infection (IAI).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Experimental IAI was induced in Wistar rats. After 24 h, the animals underwent relaparotomy. A peritoneal fluid sample was obtained and lavage of the abdominal cavity was performed. Animals were randomly assigned to the three following groups: lavage with 0.9% sodium chloride solution (S group); lavage with rifamycin at the dose of 25 mg/kg (R25 group); and lavage with rifamycin at the dose of 12.5 mg/kg (R12.5 group). Mortality was recorded every 8 h for 7 d. All animals that died had a necropsy. Surviving rats were later sacrificed and also underwent a necropsy. At necropsy, intraperitoneal adhesions were noted and a peritoneal fluid sample was obtained for bacterial analysis.

RESULTS

Peritoneal lavage with rifamycin improved survival from 50% in the S group to 91.7 and 100% in the R25 group and R12.5 group, respectively. Adhesion formation was significantly reduced in the R25 group and R12.5 group compared with the S group (P < or = 0.01 and P < 0.01, respectively). There was a greater reduction in bacterial counts in peritoneal fluid in the R25 group compared with the S group (P = 0.003) but there was no significant difference in the reduction of bacterial count between R25 group and R12.5 group.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that peritoneal lavage with rifamycin improves the outcome of IAI.

Treatment for peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis

BACKGROUND

Peritonitis is a common complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and is associated with significant morbidity. Adequate treatment is essential to reduce morbidity and recurrence.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of treatments for PD-associated peritonitis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference lists without language restriction. Date of search: February 2005

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the treatment of peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients (adults and children) evaluating: administration of an antibiotic(s) by different routes (e.g. oral, intraperitoneal, intravenous); dose of an antibiotic agent(s); different schedules of administration of antimicrobial agents; comparisons of different regimens of antimicrobial agents; any other intervention including fibrinolytic agents, peritoneal lavage and early catheter removal were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data on study quality and outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and the dichotomous results were expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 36 studies (2089 patients): antimicrobial agents (30); urokinase (4), peritoneal lavage (1) intraperitoneal (IP) immunoglobulin (1). No superior antibiotic agent or combination of agents were identified. Primary response and relapse rates did not differ between IP glycopeptide-based regimens compared to first generation cephalosporin regimens, although glycopeptide regimens were more likely to achieve a complete cure (3 studies, 370 episodes: RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.58). For relapsing or persistent peritonitis, simultaneous catheter removal/replacement was superior to urokinase at reducing treatment failure rates (1 study, 37 patients: RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.91). Continuous IP and intermittent IP antibiotic dosing had similar treatment failure and relapse rates. IP antibiotics were superior to IV antibiotics in reducing treatment failure (1 study, 75 patients: RR 3.52, 95% CI 1.26 to 9.81). The methodological quality of most included studies was suboptimal and outcome definitions were often inconsistent. There were no RCTs regarding duration of antibiotics or timing of catheter removal.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on one study, IP administration of antibiotics is superior to IV dosing for treating PD peritonitis. Intermittent and continuous dosing of antibiotics are equally efficacious. There is no role shown for routine peritoneal lavage or use of urokinase. No interventions were found to be associated with significant harm.

Treatment of peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Peritonitis frequently complicates peritoneal dialysis. Appropriate treatment is essential to reduce adverse outcomes. Available trial evidence about peritoneal dialysis peritonitis treatment was evaluated.

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES

The Cochrane CENTRAL Registry (2005 issue), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2006), EMBASE (1985 to February 2006), and reference lists were searched to identify randomized trials of treatments for patients with peritoneal dialysis peritonitis.

INTERVENTIONS

Trials of antibiotics (comparisons of routes, agents, and dosing regimens), fibrinolytic agents, peritoneal lavage, and intraperitoneal immunoglobulin.

OUTCOMES

Treatment failure, relapse, catheter removal, microbiological eradication, hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and adverse reactions.

RESULTS

36 eligible trials were identified: 30 trials (1,800 patients) of antibiotics; 4 trials (229 patients) of urokinase; 1 trial of peritoneal lavage (36 patients); and 1 trial of intraperitoneal immunoglobulin (24 patients). No superior antimicrobial class was identified. In particular, glycopeptides and first-generation cephalosporins were equivalent (3 trials, 387 patients; relative risk [RR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 3.58). Simultaneous catheter removal/replacement was superior to urokinase at decreasing treatment failures (1 trial, 37 patients; RR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.13 to 4.91). Continuous and intermittent intraperitoneal antibiotic dosing were equivalent regarding treatment failure (4 trials, 338 patients; RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.37 to 1.30) and relapse (4 trials, 324 patients; RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.39). One trial showed superiority of intraperitoneal antibiotics over intravenous therapy.

LIMITATIONS

The method quality of trials generally was suboptimal and outcome definitions were inconsistent. Small patient numbers led to inadequate power to show an effect. Interventions, such as optimal duration of antibiotic therapy, were not evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Trials did not identify superior antibiotic regimens. Intermittent and continuous antibiotic dosing are equivalent treatment strategies.

Oral rifampin for eradication of Staphylococcus aureus carriage from healthy and sick populations: a systematic review of the evidence from comparative trials

BACKGROUND

Rifampin has been used for the eradication of Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) colonization in various populations of healthy and sick people.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the evidence from randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials that compared the effectiveness and safety of a rifampin-based regimen with another regimen in eradicating S. aureus colonization from healthy and sick people.

RESULTS

Nine comparative trials (6 of which were randomized controlled trials) were included in our analysis. S. aureus was eradicated more commonly in patients receiving rifampin-containing regimens compared to monotherapy with other systemic agents (ciprofloxacin, cloxacillin, minocycline, or vancomycin), both during early and late (>1 month after therapy) post treatment evaluations (odds ratio [OR] 46.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.4-148, and OR 8.8, 95% CI 3.4-22.5 respectively, 4 studies included). There was no statistically significant difference between rifampin monotherapy and combinations of rifampin with other topical (bacitracin) or systemic (cloxacillin and minocycline) antibiotics in eradicating S. aureus both in early and late evaluations (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.5-4.4, and OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.7-3.7, respectively, 3 studies included). Eradication of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) varied according to the type and duration of the rifampin-containing regimen. It ranged from 25% for the combination of rifampin with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole for 5 days to 100% for the combination of oral rifampin and minocycline for 14 days. Discontinuation of rifampin due to drug-related toxicity was necessary in 2% of 282 studied patients. Development of resistance of S. aureus to rifampin during and after treatment with a regimen containing rifampin ranged from 0% to 40% (7 studies) and overall 17% of the 236 patients for whom relevant data was reported.

CONCLUSION

The available evidence suggests that oral rifampin is an effective agent for the eradication of S. aureus carriage. However, development of antimicrobial resistance during and after treatment with rifampin occurs in a considerable proportion of patients; using rifampin in combination with another antimicrobial agent may decrease this resistance.

Oral rifampin for prevention of S. aureus carriage-related infections in patients with renal failure--a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Rifampin has been studied as prophylaxis against Staphylococcus aureus-related infections in patients on dialysis.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness and safety of oral rifampin with another regimen or no therapy in reducing S. aureus-related infections in dialysis patients.

RESULTS

Four RCTs evaluated oral rifampin (administered for 5 days every 3 months, or for 5 days once) as prophylaxis in dialysis patients. Oral rifampin with or without bacitracin was associated with less access-site infections with S. aureus compared with no treatment (odds ratio = 0.16, 95% confidence intervals: 0.06-0.44, 3 RCTs). There was no difference between prophylaxis with oral rifampin and topical mupirocin applied at the catheter site, for all studied outcomes, in the RCT comparing these regimens. Withdrawal from the study due to drug-related toxicity occurred in 7/107 (6.6%) of the studied patients with renal failure. Development of resistance of S. aureus to rifampin ranged from 0 to 18.2% (reported in three out of four included RCTs).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic use of oral rifampin reduces access-site infections with S. aureus in patients with renal failure undergoing dialysis. However, development of toxicity and antimicrobial resistance during the treatment with rifampin occur in considerable proportions of patients, limiting its use and supporting the guidelines that recommend the use of local antibiotics at the exit site, such as mupirocin, for these indications. The available data are rather limited and more studies should be performed to examine this important clinical question.

A Randomized Clinical Trial to Compare Fleroxacin-Rifampicin with Flucloxacillin or Vancomycin for the Treatment of Staphylococcal Infection

BACKGROUND

Oral combination therapy with fluoroquinolones plus rifampicin is a promising alternative to standard parenteral therapy for staphylococcal infections.

METHODS

In a multicenter, randomized trial, we compared the efficacy, safety, and length of hospital stay for patients with staphylococcal infections treated either with an oral combination of a fluoroquinolone (fleroxacin) plus rifampicin or with standard parenteral treatment (flucloxacillin or vancomycin). Patients were included if cultures showed the presence of bacteremia or deep-seated infections with Staphylococcus aureus (104 patients) or catheter-related bacteremia due to drug-susceptible, coagulase-negative staphylococci (23 patients).

RESULTS

The cure rate in the intention-to-treat analysis was 78% for the fleroxacin-rifampicin group (68 patients) and 75% for the standard therapy group (59 patients; 47 received flucloxacillin, and 12 received vancomycin); in the population of clinically evaluable patients (n=119), the cure rate was 82% and 80%, respectively; and in the population of microbiologically evaluable patients (n=103), the cure rate was 86% and 84%, respectively. Clinical and bacteriological failures after S. aureus infections were documented in similar proportions of patients. The median length of hospital stay after study entry was 12 days in the fleroxacin-rifampicin group, compared with 23 days in the standard treatment group (P=.006). More adverse events probably related to the study drug were reported in the fleroxacin-rifampicin group than in the standard therapy group (15 of 68 vs. 5 of 59 patients; P=.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that an oral regimen containing a fluoroquinolone plus rifampicin may be effective for treating staphylococcal infections, allowing earlier discharge from the hospital.

Biofilms and infection in dialysis patients

Biofilm bacterial infections are implicated in most human bacterial infections and are also common in patients undergoing treatment with hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. Skin bacteria, which grow into microcolonies with biofilm formation in dialysis environments, are implicated in most of these infections. Dissemination of bacterial biofilms in hemodialysis patients induces bacteremia and endotoxemia. In peritoneal dialysis patients, biofilm causes peritonitis and catheter-related infections with consequent loss of catheters and technique failure. Effective strategies for the diagnosis, intervention, and prevention of biofilm-related infections in dialysis patients are described in this review.