DOCSLIB.ORG

Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Treatment of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Treatment of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia 1817 Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Treatment of Hospital-acquired Pneumonia (HAP) and ID WEEK 2015 San Diego, CA Ventilator-associated Pneumonia (VAP): CAPTURE Study Experience David J Guervil, PharmD Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center, 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 7–11 October G Udeani, DJ Guervil, LB Johnson, KS Kaye Corpus Christi Medical Center, Corpus Christi, TX; Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center, Houston, TX; St. John Hospital and Medical Center, Detroit, MI; Detroit Medical Center and Wayne State University, Detroit, MI Houston, TX | [email protected] Clinical success Abstract Materials and Methods Table 1. Relevant medical history (N = 44 ) Table 2. Patients with pathogens isolated (N = 44) Clinical success was 77% overall: 83% in patients with HAP and 64% in patients with VAP (Figure 2) Background. Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are serious infections increasingly Data were collected for patients at participating centers in the US by random ordering and sequential review of patient charts Pathogen Number of patients, n (%) Condition Number of patients, n (%) Success rates of 74% and 80% were seen in patients with a history of smoking and structural lung disease associated with resistant pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). CAPTURE is a multicenter registry between September 2013 and February 2015 Any pathogen 28 (63.6) study describing patients (pts) treated with ceftaroline fosamil (CPT-F) in the US. Clinical study experience for the use of CPT-F in treatment Smoking 23 (52.3) Among patients who had any pathogen isolated, clinical success rate was 64% (18/28), and was 62% (13/21) among patients with of pts with HAP/VAP, defined according to ATS/IDSA guidelines, is presented. Inclusion criteria included MRSA MRSA isolated; the one patient with MSSA was also a clinical success Structural lung disease 21 (47.7) Methods. Data were collected from participating sites by randomly ordered chart review between Sep 2013 and Feb 2015, which included • male or female, ≥ 18 years of age 20 (45.5) Figure 3 demographics, disease characteristics, antibiotic use, location of care, pathogens isolated, and clinical response. Evaluable pts were those 1 Escherichia coli 3 (6.8) Clinical success rates by antibiotic therapy and location of care are shown in • final diagnosis of HAP or VAP according to ATS/IDSA criteria Gastroesophageal reflux with a clinical outcome determined. Clinical success was defined as clinical cure or clinical improvement. 11 (25.0) • success rate among patients in the general hospital ward was 100%, and for patients in the ICU, 67% • patient had received ≥ 4 consecutive intravenous (IV) doses of ceftaroline fosamil Pseudomonas aeruginosa 2 (4.5) Results. In the evaluable population 44/1274 (3%) had HAP/VAP, 30 had HAP and 14 had VAP. Demographics: 57% male; mean age 60.5 • in patients who had received prior antibiotic therapy, the success rate was 82% Prior pneumonia 10 (22.7) years (SD ± 17.4, range 18–91); and 43% required mechanical ventilation. The most commonly reported comorbidities were smoking, Exclusion criteria included Klebsiella oxytoca 2 (4.5) • in patients who received ceftaroline fosamil as monotherapy, the success rate was 83% 52%; structural lung disease, 45%; and gastroesophageal reflux (GERD), 25%. Antibiotics were administered prior to CPT-F in 86%, most • missing data: information on the patient’s ceftaroline fosamil dosing or hospital admission or discharge Congestive heart failure 8 (18.2) commonly vancomycin, 68%; piperacillin-tazobactam, 43%; and levofloxacin, 20%. Concurrent antibiotics were administered in 45% of Morganella morganii 1 (2.3) • the success rate was 70% in patients who received concurrent antibiotic treatment pts; most commonly vancomycin, 14%. Most pts were treated in the ICU, 68%. The overall mean (± SD) duration of CPT-F therapy was 6.9 • charts from which data were previously extracted for this study Alcoholism 7 (15.9) ± 3.4 days; 6.8 ± 3.3 days for ICU pts; and 7.2 ± 3.6 days for general hospital ward pts. Ten pts, 23%, all treated in ICU, had associated Haemophilus influenzae Data collection included 1 (2.3) bacteremia. Pathogens were isolated from 64% of pts; most commonly MRSA, 48% and Escherichia coli, 7%. Clinical success rates are Figure 2. Clinical success by diagnosis and by comorbidities Stroke 4 (9.1) MSSA shown in the table. • patient demographics, relevant medical history, disease characteristics 1 (2.3) • location of care and supplemental oxygen use Hemodialysis 100 Conclusions. Clinical success with CPT-F was favorable in pts with HAP/VAP, particularly considering comorbidities, high level of acuity 2 (4.5) Other pathogens 1 (2.3) and ventilator dependence; and the fact that most received CPT-F as 2nd-line therapy. • previous, concurrent, and subsequent use of antibiotics MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; 80 Clinical success rates n/N (%) • duration of ceftaroline fosamil use MSSA, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus • clinical response Overall 34/44 (77) 60 Antibiotic use ICU 20/30 (67) The evaluable population consisted of enrolled patients who had available information on clinical response to determine a clinical GHW 14/14 (100) outcome (clinical success or clinical failure) 40 Before starting treatment with ceftaroline fosamil, 38 (86%) patients had received prior antibiotic treatment, most frequently of patients % ≥ 1 comorbidity 33/43 (77) Clinical success was defined as: • vancomycin (30 patients [68%]) Smoking 20 17/23 (74) • clinical cure with no further need for antibiotics, or • piperacillin/tazobactam (19 patients [43%]) Structural lung disease 16/20 (80) • clinical improvement with switch to oral antibiotic treatment, or • levofloxacin (9 patients [20%]) 34/44 25/30 9/14 33/43 17/23 16/20 8/11 12/19 0 GERD 8/11 (73) • in some cases, review of information that the patient was improving on treatment without evidence of failure or discontinuation • cefepime (7 patients [16%]) Monotherapy 20/24 (83) 2nd-line therapy 31/38 (82) The mean duration of ceftaroline fosamil therapy was 6.9 ± 3.4 days; range, 3–17 days Pathogen isolated 18/28 (64) Results Most patients (93%) received ceftaroline fosamil every 12 h MRSA 13/21 (62) Ceftaroline fosamil was administered as monotherapy in 24 (55%) patients Figure 3. Clinical success by location of care and antibiotic usage Introduction Data records for 1274 patients were collected from participating centers • 20 (45%) patients received concurrent antibiotic treatment 17 centers contributed a total of 44 (3%) patient charts to either the HAP (n = 30) or the VAP (n = 14) data sets 19 (43%) patients continued treatment with other antibiotics after completion of ceftaroline fosamil 100 • 6 (14%) received vancomycin Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is the second most common nosocomial infection in the US and is associated with high mortality Patient and baseline characteristics • no other individual subsequent antibiotic was given to more than three patients 80 and morbidity. It occurs at a rate of 5–10 per 1000 hospital admissions and the rate is increased 6–20-fold in mechanically ventilated Mean age was 60.5 ± 17.4 years; 17 (39%) patients were ≥ 65 years in age and 25 (57%) patients were male 1 patients. Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) occurs in 9%–27% of all intubated patients 60 14 (32%) patients were in the general hospital ward during ceftaroline fosamil treatment, and 30 (68%) were in ICU Figure 1. Clinical signs and symptoms of HAP/VAP HAP and its sub-type VAP are associated with resistant pathogens including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) 33 (75%) patients were receiving supplemental oxygen: 9 (64%) in the general hospital ward and 24 (80%) in ICU 40 of patients % Ceftaroline fosamil is a cephalosporin antibiotic approved by the FDA for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia 100 19 (43%) patients required support with mechanical ventilation: 2 (14%) in the general hospital ward and 17 (57%) in ICU █ Day of diagnosis █ End of treatment █ Day of diagnosis █ End of treatment and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. It has been approved for similar indications in the EU 20 Patients’ relevant medical history are summarized in Table 1 Ceftaroline has broad-spectrum in vitro activity against 80 14/14 20/30 3/6 31/38 20/24 14/20 0 • 98% of patients had at least one comorbidity • Gram-positive bacteria such as S. aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae, including their resistant phenotypes (e.g., MRSA and General ICU First-line Second-line Monotherapy Concurrent • the most commonly reported comorbidities were smoking (52%) and structural lung disease (45%) multidrug-resistant S. pneumoniae [MDRSP]) hospital ward therapy therapy therapy 60 • Gram-negative bacteria such as Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae. Ceftaroline, like other Disease characteristics cephalosporins, is not active against producers of extended-spectrum β-lactamases of patients % At the time of diagnosis, 84% of patients had two or more clinical signs and symptoms 40 • Ceftaroline targets the bacterial penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs) to inhibit synthesis of the bacterial cell wall, producing Overall, the most common signs and symptoms were bactericidal activity Conclusion 20 » PBP2a in MRSA – unlike other β-lactams approved in the US • at the time of diagnosis: abnormal auscultatory findings, in 36 (82%) patients; dyspnea, in 29 (66%); and sputum production, Clinical success rates were favorable when ceftaroline fosamil was used in the treatment of patients in 22 (50%) » PBP2x in MDRSP 11 6 11 6 10 5 8 4 3 1 0 0 19 12 9 8 25 13 14 13 7 1 4 4 with HAP/VAP in general hospital wards or ICUs • at the end of treatment: abnormal auscultatory findings, in 19 (43%) patients; dyspnea, in 17 (39%); and sputum production, 0 » These favorable outcomes were seen despite patients with significant comorbidities, high levels PBPs 1a and 3 in E.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cefoxitin Versus Piperacillin– Tazobactam As Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Pancreatoduodenectomy: Protocol for a Randomised Controlled Trial
    Open access Protocol BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048398 on 4 March 2021. Downloaded from Cefoxitin versus piperacillin– tazobactam as surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy: protocol for a randomised controlled trial Nicole M Nevarez ,1 Brian C Brajcich,2 Jason Liu,2,3 Ryan Ellis,2 Clifford Y Ko,2 Henry A Pitt,4 Michael I D'Angelica,5 Adam C Yopp1 To cite: Nevarez NM, ABSTRACT Strengths and limitations of this study Brajcich BC, Liu J, et al. Introduction Although antibiotic prophylaxis is Cefoxitin versus piperacillin– established in reducing postoperative surgical site tazobactam as surgical ► A major strength of this study is the multi- infections (SSIs), the optimal antibiotic for prophylaxis in antibiotic prophylaxis institutional, double- arm, randomised controlled in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) remains unclear. The study trial design. objective is to evaluate if administration of piperacillin– pancreatoduodenectomy: ► A limitation of this study is that all perioperative care protocol for a randomised tazobactam as antibiotic prophylaxis results in decreased is at the discretion of the operating surgeon and is controlled trial. BMJ Open 30- day SSI rate compared with cefoxitin in patients not standardised. 2021;11:e048398. doi:10.1136/ undergoing elective PD. ► All data will be collected through the American bmjopen-2020-048398 Methods and analysis This study will be a multi- College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality ► Prepublication history for institution, double- arm, non- blinded randomised controlled Improvement Program, which is a strength for its this paper is available online. superiority trial. Adults ≥18 years consented to undergo PD ease of use but a limitation due to the variety of data To view these files, please visit for all indications who present to institutions participating included.
    [Show full text]
  • Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Antibiotic Guide
    Stanford Health Issue Date: 05/2017 Stanford Antimicrobial Safety and Sustainability Program Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Antibiotic Guide Table 1: Antibiotic selection options for healthcare associated and/or immunocompromised patients • Healthcare associated: intravenous therapy, wound care, or intravenous chemotherapy within the prior 30 days, residence in a nursing home or other long-term care facility, hospitalization in an acute care hospital for two or more days within the prior 90 days, attendance at a hospital or hemodialysis clinic within the prior 30 days • Immunocompromised: Receiving chemotherapy, known systemic cancer not in remission, ANC <500, severe cell-mediated immune deficiency Table 2: Antibiotic selection options for community acquired, immunocompetent patients Table 3: Antibiotic selection options for patients with simple sepsis, community acquired, immunocompetent patients requiring hospitalization. Risk Factors for Select Organisms P. aeruginosa MRSA Invasive Candidiasis VRE (and other resistant GNR) Community acquired: • Known colonization with MDROs • Central venous catheter • Liver transplant • Prior IV antibiotics within 90 day • Recent MRSA infection • Broad-spectrum antibiotics • Known colonization • Known colonization with MDROs • Known MRSA colonization • + 1 of the following risk factors: • Prolonged broad antibacterial • Skin & Skin Structure and/or IV access site: ♦ Parenteral nutrition therapy Hospital acquired: ♦ Purulence ♦ Dialysis • Prolonged profound • Prior IV antibiotics within 90 days ♦ Abscess
    [Show full text]
  • Below Are the CLSI Breakpoints for Selected Bacteria. Please Use Your Clinical Judgement When Assessing Breakpoints
    Below are the CLSI breakpoints for selected bacteria. Please use your clinical judgement when assessing breakpoints. The lowest number does NOT equal most potent antimicrobial. Contact Antimicrobial Stewardship for drug selection and dosing questions. Table 1: 2014 MIC Interpretive Standards for Enterobacteriaceae (includes E.coli, Klebsiella, Enterobacter, Citrobacter, Serratia and Proteus spp) Antimicrobial Agent MIC Interpretive Criteria (g/mL) Enterobacteriaceae S I R Ampicillin ≤ 8 16 ≥ 32 Ampicillin-sulbactam ≤ 8/4 16/8 ≥ 32/16 Aztreonam ≤ 4 8 ≥ 16 Cefazolin (blood) ≤ 2 4 ≥ 8 Cefazolin** (uncomplicated UTI only) ≤ 16 ≥ 32 Cefepime* ≤ 2 4-8* ≥ 16 Cefotetan ≤ 16 32 ≥ 64 Ceftaroline ≤ 0.5 1 ≥ 2 Ceftazidime ≤ 4 8 ≥ 16 Ceftriaxone ≤ 1 2 ≥ 4 Cefpodoxime ≤ 2 4 ≥ 8 Ciprofloxacin ≤ 1 2 ≥ 4 Ertapenem ≤ 0.5 1 ≥ 2 Fosfomycin ≤ 64 128 ≥256 Gentamicin ≤ 4 8 ≥ 16 Imipenem ≤ 1 2 ≥ 4 Levofloxacin ≤ 2 4 ≥ 8 Meropenem ≤ 1 2 ≥ 4 Piperacillin-tazobactam ≤ 16/4 32/4 – 64/4 ≥ 128/4 Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole ≤ 2/38 --- ≥ 4/76 *Susceptibile dose-dependent – see chart below **Cefazolin can predict results for cefaclor, cefdinir, cefpodoxime, cefprozil, cefuroxime axetil, cephalexin and loracarbef for uncomplicated UTIs due to E.coli, K.pneumoniae, and P.mirabilis. Cefpodoxime, cefinidir, and cefuroxime axetil may be tested individually because some isolated may be susceptible to these agents while testing resistant to cefazolin. Cefepime dosing for Enterobacteriaceae ( E.coli, Klebsiella, Enterobacter, Citrobacter, Serratia & Proteus spp) Susceptible Susceptible –dose-dependent (SDD) Resistant MIC </= 2 4 8 >/= 16 Based on dose of: 1g q12h 1g every 8h or 2g every 8 h Do not give 2g q12 Total dose 2g 3-4g 6g NA Table 2: 2014 MIC Interpretive Standards for Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp.
    [Show full text]
  • Fosfomycin Resistance in Escherichia Coli Isolates from South Korea and in Vitro Activity of Fosfomycin Alone and in Combination with Other Antibiotics
    antibiotics Article Fosfomycin Resistance in Escherichia coli Isolates from South Korea and in vitro Activity of Fosfomycin Alone and in Combination with Other Antibiotics Hyeri Seok 1 , Ji Young Choi 2, Yu Mi Wi 3, Dae Won Park 1, Kyong Ran Peck 4 and Kwan Soo Ko 2,* 1 Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Ansan 15355, Korea; [email protected] (H.S.); [email protected] (D.W.P.) 2 Department of Microbiology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Suwon 16419, Korea; [email protected] 3 Division of Infectious Diseases, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Changwon 51353, Korea; [email protected] 4 Division of Infectious Diseases, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Korea; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-31-299-6223 Received: 17 February 2020; Accepted: 3 March 2020; Published: 6 March 2020 Abstract: We investigated fosfomycin susceptibility in Escherichia coli clinical isolates from South Korea, including community-onset, hospital-onset, and long-term care facility (LTCF)-onset isolates. The resistance mechanisms and genotypes of fosfomycin-resistant isolates were also identified. Finally, the in vitro efficacy of combinations of fosfomycin with other antibiotics were examined in susceptible or extended spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing E. coli isolates. The fosfomycin resistance rate was 6.7% and was significantly higher in LTCF-onset isolates than community-onset and hospital-onset isolates. Twenty-one sequence types (STs) were identified among 19 fosfomycin-resistant E. coli isolates, showing diverse genotypes. fosA3 was found in only two isolates, and diverse genetic variations were identified in three genes associated with fosfomycin resistance, namely, GlpT, UhpT, and MurA.
    [Show full text]
  • Piperacillin/Tazobactam Drug Class1 Antibiotic – Penicillin with Β-Lactamase Inhibitor
    Monographs for Commonly Administered Intravenous Medications in Home and Community Care Piperacillin/Tazobactam Drug Class1 Antibiotic – penicillin with β-lactamase inhibitor Spectrum1 Refer to product monograph for complete spectrum For β-lactamase producing bacteria strains (e.g., Haemophilus influenza, Escherichia coli, and Staphylococcus aureus). Also to susceptible Acinetobacter species, Klebsiella pneumonia, Pseudomonas aeruginosa often combined with aminoglycoside). Cross Sensitivities / Allergies1 Cross sensitivities with penicillin and possibly cephalosporin and/or beta-lactam inhibitors Indications1,2 Intra-abdominal Respiratory tract Skin and skin structure Septicemia Gynecological Urinary tract Other conditions based on culture and sensitivity results Outpatient Considerations1 For patients with a documented allergy to penicillin, cephalosporin or beta-lactam inhibitor, the first dose should be administered in a hospital or clinic setting. Must be able to access laboratory monitoring (either at outpatient laboratory or by arranging in-home lab) if using an interacting oral medication (see Potential Drug Interactions section) Prescribing Considerations At time of ordering please provide the following to the pharmacist: and Dosage in Adults1,2 Height, weight Most recent serum creatinine with date obtained Indication (infection being treated) Usually dosed every 6 to 8 hours. Available as 2 g/0.25 g, 3 g/0.375 g, 4 g/0.5 g piperacillin/tazobactam (dose selected based on indication) Maximum 18 g/ 2.25 g piperacillin/tazobactam daily Dose and administration interval require adjustment for renal impairment Errors have occurred due to unusual ordering as combined dose of piperacillin and tazobactam. Order may be expressed only as piperacillin component or as a total of piperacillin + tazobactam (8:1 ratio).
    [Show full text]
  • Eml-2017-Antibacterials-Eng.Pdf
    Consideration of antibacterial medicines as part of the revisions to 2017 WHO Model List of Essential Medicines for adults (EML) and Model List of Essential Medicines for children (EMLc) Section 6.2 Antibacterials including Access, Watch and Reserve Lists of antibiotics This summary has been prepared by the Health Technologies and Pharmaceuticals (HTP) programme at the WHO Regional Office for Europe. It is intended to communicate changes to the 2017 WHO Model List of Essential Medicines for adults (EML) and Model List of Essential Medicines for children (EMLc) to national counterparts involved in the evidence-based selection of medicines for inclusion in national essential medicines lists (NEMLs), lists of medicines for inclusion in reimbursement programs, and medicine formularies for use in primary, secondary and tertiary care. This document does not replace the full report of the WHO Expert Committee, 2017 and this summary should be read in conjunction with the full report (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1006; http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/259481/1/9789241210157-eng.pdf?ua=1). The revised lists of essential medicines (in English) are available as follows: 2017 WHO Model List of Essential Medicines for adults (EML) http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/essentialmedicines/20th_EML2017_FINAL_amend edAug2017.pdf?ua=1 2017 Model List of Essential Medicines for children (EMLc) http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/essentialmedicines/6th_EMLc2017_FINAL_amend edAug2017.pdf?ua=1 Summary of changes to Section 6.2 Antibacterials: Section 6 of the EML covers anti-infective medicines. Disease-specific subsections within Section 6, such as those covering medicines for tuberculosis, HIV, hepatitis and malaria, have been regularly reviewed and updated, taking into consideration relevant WHO treatment guidelines.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Guidelines for the Antibiotic Treatment for Community-Acquired
    Special Article Infection & https://doi.org/10.3947/ic.2017.49.4.301 Infect Chemother 2017;49(4):301-325 Chemotherapy ISSN 2093-2340 (Print) · ISSN 2092-6448 (Online) Clinical Guidelines for the Antibiotic Treatment for Community-Acquired Skin and Soft Tissue Infection Yee Gyung Kwak1,2*, Seong-Ho Choi3,4*, Tark Kim1,5*, Seong Yeon Park3,6*, Soo-Hong Seo7,8, Min Bom Kim9,10, Sang-Ho Choi2,11 1The Korean Society of Infectious Diseaes; 2Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Goyang; 3The Korean Society for Chemotherapy; 4Department of Internal Medicine, Chung Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul; 5Department of Internal Medicine, SoonChunHyang University Bucheon Hospital, Bucheon; 6Department of Internal Medicine, Dongguk University College of Medicine, Goyang; 7The Korean Dermatological Association; 8Department of Dermatology, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul; 9The Korean Orthopaedic Association; 10Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul; 11Department of Infectious Diseases, Ulsan University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea Skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) is common and important infectious disease. This work represents an update to 2012 Korean guideline for SSTI. The present guideline was developed by the adaptation method. This clinical guideline provides recommen- dations for the diagnosis and management of SSTI, including impetigo/ecthyma, purulent skin and soft tissue infection, erysipe- las and cellulitis, necrotizing fasciitis, pyomyositis, clostridial myonecrosis, and human/animal bite. This guideline targets com- munity-acquired skin and soft tissue infection occurring among adult patients aged 16 years and older. Diabetic foot infection, surgery-related infection, and infections in immunocompromised patients were not included in this guideline.
    [Show full text]
  • Ceftaroline in Complicated Skin and Skin-Structure Infections
    Infection and Drug Resistance Dovepress open access to scientific and medical research Open Access Full Text Article REVIEW Ceftaroline in complicated skin and skin-structure infections Paul O Hernandez1 Abstract: Ceftaroline is an advanced-generation cephalosporin antibiotic recently approved by Sergio Lema2 the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure Stephen K Tyring3 infections (cSSSIs). This intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotic exerts potent bactericidal activity Natalia Mendoza2,4 by inhibiting bacterial cell wall synthesis. A high affinity for the penicillin-binding protein 2a (PBP2a) of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) makes the drug especially 1University of Texas School of Medicine at San Antonio, beneficial to patients with MRSA cSSSIs. Ceftaroline has proved in multiple well-conducted San Antonio, TX, 2Woodhull clinical trials to have an excellent safety and efficacy profile. In adjusted doses it is also recom- Medical and Mental Health Center, mended for patients with renal or hepatic impairment. Furthermore, the clinical effectiveness Brooklyn, NY, 3Department of Dermatology, University of Texas and high cure rate demonstrated by ceftaroline in cSSSIs, including those caused by MRSA Health Science Center at Houston, and other multidrug-resistant strains, warrants its consideration as a first-line treatment option 4 Houston, TX, USA; Department of for cSSSIs. This article reviews ceftaroline and its pharmacology, efficacy, and safety data to Dermatology, El
    [Show full text]
  • Optimizing Intravenous Fosfomycin Dosing in Combination With
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector International Journal of Infectious Diseases 50 (2016) 23–29 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Infectious Diseases jou rnal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijid Optimizing intravenous fosfomycin dosing in combination with carbapenems for treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections in critically ill patients based on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) simulation a b b c a, O. Asuphon , P. Montakantikul , J. Houngsaitong , P. Kiratisin , P. Sonthisombat * a Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand b Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand c Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Article history: Objective: The purpose of the study was to determine the optimal dosing regimen of intravenous Received 29 March 2016 fosfomycin for the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) based on PK/PD targets. Received in revised form 11 June 2016 Method: A total of 120 PA isolates were recovered from various clinical specimens at university hospital Accepted 15 June 2016 in Thailand. Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations (MICs) of all the isolates were determined by the E-test Corresponding Editor: Eskild Petersen, method. PK parameters were obtained from a published study. Monte Carlo simulation was performed to Aarhus, Denmark calculate the percentage of target attainment (PTA) and cumulative fraction of response (CFR). Results: MIC90 of fosfomycin alone, fosfomycin in combination with carbapenem, carbapenems alone Keywords: and carbapenems in combination with fosfomycin were >1,024, 1,024, >32 and 32 mg/ml, for multidrug fosfomycin resistant (MDR)-PA and 512, 128, 8 and 3 mg/ml respectively, for non-MDR PA.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal Club: “Effect of Piperacillin-Tazobactam Vs
    Infectious Disease Update 02/25/19 Steven T. Park Division of Infectious Diseases Objectives • Zosyn versus Meropenem for ESBL bacteremia • 7 versus 14 days for gram negative bacteremia • Oral versus IV for osteomyelitis “Effect of Piperacillin-Tazobactam vs Meropenem on 30-Day Mortality for Patients With E coli or Klebsiella pneumoniae Bloodstream Infection and Ceftriaxone Resistance” (MERINO trial) Harris PNA et al. JAMA 2018. Sep 11; 320:984. Introduction • Treatment of choice for ESBL organisms are thought to be carbapenems • Reports of failure of non-carbapenems in the past even when microbiologic data showed susceptibility • Most reported before CLSI lowered the breakpoints for Enterobacteriaceae • Recent reviews looking at retrospective data conclude that you can use non-carbapenems (Zosyn, Cefepime) for urine infections • However no randomized controlled trial testing this hypothesis • First randomized controlled trial testing whether Zosyn is equivalent to meropenem for ESBL bacteremia Design, Setting, Participants • Non-inferiority, parallel group, randomized clinical trial • Hospitalized patients enrolled from 26 sites in 9 countries (mostly from Singapore, Australia, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey) from February 2014 to July 2017 • Patients over the age of 21 was eligible if he/she had at least 1 positive blood culture with E coli or Klebsiella spp that was non-susceptible to ceftriaxone but susceptible to pip-tazo and meropenem • Of 1646 patients screened, 391 were included in the study. • Meropenem 1g IV q8h (n = 191) or piperacillin/tazobactam 4.5g IV q6h (not extended infusion, n = 188) was given for a minimum of 4 days and up to 14 days. The duration of therapy was determined by the treating clinician.
    [Show full text]
  • Antimicrobials As Single and Combination Therapy for Colistin-Resistant Pseudomonas Aeruginosa at a University Hospital in Thailand
    antibiotics Article Antimicrobials as Single and Combination Therapy for Colistin-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa at a University Hospital in Thailand Supanun Pungcharoenkijkul 1,2, Jantima Traipattanakul 3, Sudaluck Thunyaharn 4 and Wichai Santimaleeworagun 5,6,* 1 College of Pharmacotherapy Thailand, Nontaburi 11000, Thailand; [email protected] 2 Department of Pharmacist, Nopparat Rajathanee Hospital, Bangkok 10230, Thailand 3 Division of Infectious Disease, Department of Medicine, Phramongkutklao Hospital, Bangkok 10400, Thailand; [email protected] 4 Faculty of Medical Technology, Nakhonratchasima College, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand; [email protected] 5 Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Silpakorn University, Nakorn Pathom 73000, Thailand 6 Pharmaceutical Initiative for Resistant Bacteria and Infectious Disease Working Group (PIRBIG), Nakorn Pathom 73000, Thailand * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +66-3425-580-0 Received: 29 June 2020; Accepted: 31 July 2020; Published: 3 August 2020 Abstract: Global infections with colistin-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CoR-PA) are increasing; there are currently very few studies focused on the antimicrobial susceptibility of CoR-PA isolates, and none from Thailand. Here, we investigated the impact of various antimicrobials, alone and in combination, via the in vitro testing of CoR-PA clinical isolates. Eighteen CoR-PA isolates were obtained from patients treated at Phramongkutklao Hospital from January 2010 through June 2019; these were classified into six different clonal types by using the enterobacterial repetitive intergenic consensus (ERIC)-PCR method, with a high prevalence of Group A (27.8%). The antimicrobial susceptibility was determined as the minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) using the epsilometer-test (E-test) method. The synergistic activities of six antimicrobial combinations were reported via the fractional-inhibitory-concentration index.
    [Show full text]
  • Vancomycin Plus Piperacillin/Tazobactam and Acute Kidney Injury in Adults: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    University of Rhode Island DigitalCommons@URI Pharmacy Practice Faculty Publications Pharmacy Practice 2017 Vancomycin plus piperacillin/tazobactam and acute kidney injury in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis Megan Luther Tristan Timbrook Aisling R. Caffrey University of Rhode Island, [email protected] David Dosa Thomas Lodise FSeeollow next this page and for additional additional works authors at: https:/ /digitalcommons.uri.edu/php_facpubs The University of Rhode Island Faculty have made this article openly available. Please let us know how Open Access to this research benefits you. This is a pre-publication author manuscript of the final, published article. Terms of Use This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable towards Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth in our Terms of Use. Citation/Publisher Attribution Luther MK, Timbrook TT, Caffrey AR, Dosa D, Lodise TP, LaPlante KL. Vancomycin plus piperacillin/ tazobactam and acute kidney injury in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Critical Care Medicine 2018; 46(1):12-20. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002769 Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000002769 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Pharmacy Practice at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pharmacy Practice Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Megan Luther, Tristan Timbrook, Aisling R. Caffrey, David Dosa, Thomas Lodise, and Kerry L. LaPlante This article is available at DigitalCommons@URI: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/php_facpubs/142 1 Vancomycin plus piperacillin-tazobactam and acute kidney injury in adults: A systematic review 2 and meta-analysis 3 4 Date: August 19, 2017 5 6 Megan K.
    [Show full text]