A retrospective study of daptomycin use in a Paris teaching-hospital

Comparison of daptomycin and glycopeptide efficacy and safety for the treatment of Gram-positive infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The indications of daptomycin have been extended to off-label indications including prosthesis-related infection, and bone and joint infection (BJI). However, efficacy and safety have not been thoroughly demonstrated compared with the standard of care. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the treatment effect of daptomycin and glycopeptides for complicated infections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing daptomycin and standard of care for Gram-positive infections, published until 30 June 2021. The primary outcome was defined as all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were clinical and microbiological success. The main safety outcome was any severe adverse event (SAE) (grade  ≥3).

RESULTS

Overall, eight RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, totalling 1095 patients. Six (75%) were in complicated skin and soft-structure infections, one (12.5%) in bacteraemia and one (12.5%) in a BJI setting. Six RCTs used vancomycin as a comparator and two used either vancomycin or teicoplanin. All-cause mortality and clinical cure were not different between groups. The microbiological cure rate was superior in patients who received daptomycin [risk ratio (RR) = 1.17 (95% CI: 1.01-1.35)]. The risk of SAEs [RR = 0.57 (95% CI: 0.36-0.90)] was lower in the daptomycin arm.

CONCLUSIONS

While daptomycin is associated with a significantly lower risk of SAEs and a better microbiological eradication, substantial uncertainty remains about the best treatment strategy in the absence of good-quality evidence, especially in bacteraemia and endocarditis where further RCTs should be conducted.

Daptomycin use in adult inpatients in a Canadian tertiary care setting

BACKGROUND

Daptomycin is approved by Health Canada for the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and complicated skin and soft tissue infections caused by gram-positive organisms, but is often used for other indications. We aimed to understand the indications, dosing, and safety profile of daptomycin use in a Canadian inpatient setting.

METHODS

We included consecutive adult patients who received intravenous daptomycin as inpatients from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016, at two tertiary care teaching hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario.

RESULTS

We identified 86 courses in 77 unique patients. S. aureus was the most common pathogen (n = 38, 44%) of which 87% (n = 33) were methicillin-resistant. The most common indications were bloodstream infections (n = 31, 36%). The average treatment duration was 10 days, at an average dose of 7.4 mg/kg. The infectious diseases service was consulted in all but two courses. Less than half of treatment courses were given for an indication approved by Health Canada (n = 41, 48%). Almost half of the unapproved indications (n = 21, 47%) followed Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recommendations. Creatine kinase elevation of 3 × the upper limit of normal or higher occurred in a small number of courses (n = 7, 8%), with only one instance requiring discontinuation of the drug.

CONCLUSIONS

Daptomycin is being used to treat inpatients for a variety of unapproved indications. Importantly, a sizable portion of these are within IDSA guideline recommendations. Most patients are treated with doses higher than the approved 6 mg/kg without major safety concerns.

Once-Daily Treatments for Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: Are They Good Enough?

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia is a common cause of morbidity and mortality. First-line treatment requires frequent daily doses of an anti-staphylococcal beta-lactam. However, some physicians prescribe simpler once-daily regimens to improve compliance and improve healthcare utilization. We reviewed the literature regarding advantages, pitfalls, and efficacy of once-daily treatment options for MSSA bacteremia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several once-daily antibiotics are effective in vitro against MSSA (ceftriaxone, daptomycin, telavancin, dalbavancin, oritavancin, tedizolid, ertapenem, fluoroquinolones, and others), but there is insufficient evidence to support these agents for MSSA bacteremia. Ceftriaxone may be considered for therapy completion with MSSA bacteremia from osteomyelitis, and daptomycin may be considered in patients who cannot tolerate first-line therapy. However, they have not been compared to traditional second-line agents, and their role remains uncertain. Current evidence does not support the use of once-daily treatment options for MSSA bacteremia.