Outcomes of Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy With Ceftriaxone for Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections-A Single-Center Observational Study

Outcomes of Ceftriaxone Compared With Cefazolin or Nafcillin/Oxacillin for Outpatient Therapy for Methicillin-Sensitive Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections: Results From a Large United States Claims Database

Background

Ceftriaxone is a convenient option for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT), but population-based studies for its effectiveness are lacking.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort, a large insurance claims database was queried from 2010 to 2018 for adults with MSSA bloodstream infection (BSI). Patients discharged on OPAT on cefazolin or oxacillin/nafcillin were compared with ceftriaxone with respect to 90-day hospital readmission with the same infection category and 90-day all-cause readmission using logistic regression models.

Results

Of 1895 patients with MSSA BSI, 1435 (75.7%) patients received cefazolin, oxacillin, or nafcillin and 460 (24.3%) ceftriaxone. Readmission due to the same infection category occurred in 366 (19.3%), and all-cause readmission occurred in 535 (28.3%) within 90 days. Risk factors significantly associated with readmission with the same infection category were the oldest sampled age group (61-64 years: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.47 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.01-2.14]), intensive care unit stay during index admission (aOR, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.81-3.01]), prosthetic joint infection (aOR, 1.96 [95% CI, 1.18-2.23]), central line-associated BSI (aOR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.33-2.94]), and endocarditis (aOR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.18-2.23]). Ceftriaxone was not associated with increased risk of readmission with the same infection category (aOR, 0.89 [95% CI, .67-1.18]), or 90-day all-cause readmission (aOR, 0.86 [95% CI, .66-1.10]) when compared with oxacillin/nafcillin/cefazolin.

Conclusions

In this cohort of MSSA BSI patients discharged on OPAT, there were no differences in outcomes of readmission with the same infection and 90-day all-cause readmission in patients treated with ceftriaxone compared to oxacillin/nafcillin or cefazolin. Patients with complicated BSIs such as endocarditis and epidural abscess were more likely to be prescribed cefazolin or oxacillin/nafcillin.

Heartbreaking Decisions: The Dogma and Uncertainties of Antimicrobial Therapy in Infective Endocarditis

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a rare but increasingly prevalent disease with high morbidity and mortality, requiring antimicrobials and at times surgical intervention. Through the decades of healthcare professionals' experience with managing IE, certain dogmas and uncertainties have arisen around its pharmacotherapy. The introduction of new antimicrobials and novel combinations are exciting developments but also further complicate IE treatment choices. In this review, we provide and evaluate the relevant evidence focused around contemporary debates in IE treatment pharmacotherapy, including beta-lactam choice in MSSA IE, combination therapies (aminoglycosides, ceftaroline), the use of oral antimicrobials, the role of rifamycins, and long-acting lipoglycopeptides.

Safety and Efficacy of Ceftriaxone in the Treatment of Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections: A Noninferiority Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Antistaphylococcal penicillins and cefazolin are the treatments of choice for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infections, requiring multiple doses daily. At Parkland, eligible uninsured patients with MSSA bloodstream infections (BSI) receive self-administered outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (S-OPAT). Ceftriaxone was used in a cohort of S-OPAT patients for ease of once-daily dosing.

OBJECTIVE

A retrospective study was conducted to evaluate clinical outcomes for patients discharged with ceftriaxone versus cefazolin to treat MSSA BSI.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort noninferiority study design was used to assess treatment efficacy of ceftriaxone versus cefazolin among Parkland S-OPAT patients treated from April 2012 to March 2020. Demographic, clinical, and treatment-related adverse events data were collected. Clinical outcomes included treatment failure as defined by repeat positive blood culture or retreatment within 6 months, all-cause 30-day readmission rates, and central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates.

RESULTS

Of 368 S-OPAT patients with MSSA BSI, 286 (77.7%) received cefazolin, and 82 (22.3%) received ceftriaxone. Demographics and comorbidities were similar for both groups. There were no treatment failures in the ceftriaxone group compared with 4 (1%) in the cefazolin group (P = 0.58). No difference in 30-day readmission rate between groups was found. The CLABSI rates were lower in ceftriaxone group (2%) compared with cefazolin (11%; P = 0.02). Limitations include retrospective cohort design.

CONCLUSIONS

Ceftriaxone was found to be noninferior to cefazolin in this study. Our findings suggest that ceftriaxone is a safe and effective treatment of MSSA BSI secondary to osteoarticular or skin and soft tissue infections when used in the S-OPAT setting.

POSTER ABSTRACT

OFID on 2018 Nov; 5(Suppl 1): S316: doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofy210.894.

Post-treatment outcomes of ceftriaxone versus antistaphylococcal penicillins or cefazolin for definitive therapy of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia

Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia is associated with poor outcomes. Ceftriaxone offers logistical advantages over other standard therapies, though in vitro studies have questioned its efficacy and clinical studies of ceftriaxone in MSSA bacteremia are conflicting.We performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of adult patients who received ceftriaxone, cefazolin, or antistaphylococcal penicillins as definitive therapy for MSSA bacteremia from 2018 to 2019. Definitive therapy was defined as the antibiotic used in the outpatient setting. Patients were excluded if they received less than 7 days of outpatient therapy. Follow-up started on the date of definitive therapy completion. The primary outcome was 90-day treatment failure, defined as a composite of mortality and microbiologic recurrence. This was analyzed with multivariable Cox regression. A total of 223 patients were included, 37 (16.6%) of whom received ceftriaxone. The most common ceftriaxone dose was 2 g daily (83.8%). The most common primary site of infection was skin/soft tissue (37.2%), unknown (21.1%), and catheter-related (15.2%). Twenty-six (11.7%) developed infective endocarditis. Median total duration of treatment was 31.0 days, and median outpatient duration was 24.0 days. Twenty-six (11.7%) developed 90-day treatment failure. After adjusting for Charlson comorbidity index, duration of therapy, and use of transesophageal echocardiography, definitive treatment with ceftriaxone was associated with treatment failure (hazard ratio 2.66, 95% confidence interval 1.15-6.12; p=0.022). Among patients with MSSA bacteremia, definitive treatment with ceftriaxone was associated with a higher risk of treatment failure within 90 days as compared to cefazolin or antistaphylococcal penicillins.

Outcomes of Partial Oral Antibiotic Treatment for Complicated Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia in People Who Inject Drugs

BACKGROUND

Staphylococcus aureus represents the leading cause of complicated bloodstream infections among persons who inject drugs (PWID). Standard of care (SOC) intravenous (IV) antibiotics result in high rates of treatment success but are not feasible for some PWID. Transition to oral antibiotics may represent an alternative treatment option.

METHODS

We evaluated all adult patients with a history of injection drug use hospitalized from January 2016 through December 2021 with complicated S. aureus bloodstream infections, including infective endocarditis, epidural abscess, vertebral osteomyelitis, and septic arthritis. Patients were compared by antibiotic treatment (standard of care intravenous [SOC IV] antibiotics, incomplete IV therapy, or transition from initial IV to partial oral) using the primary composite endpoint of death or readmission from microbiologic failure within 90 days of discharge.

RESULTS

Patients who received oral antibiotics after an incomplete IV antibiotic course were significantly less likely to experience microbiologic failure or death than patients discharged without oral antibiotics (P < .001). There was no significant difference in microbiologic failure rates when comparing patients who were discharged on partial oral antibiotics after receiving at least 10 days of IV antibiotics with SOC regimens (P > .9).

CONCLUSIONS

Discharge of PWID with partially treated complicated S. aureus bacteremias without oral antibiotics results in high rates of morbidity and should be avoided. For PWID hospitalized with complicated S. aureus bacteremias who have received at least 10 days of effective IV antibiotic therapy after clearance of bacteremia, transition to oral antibiotics with outpatient support represents a potential alternative if the patient does not desire SOC IV antibiotic therapy.

Conventional Hospitalization versus Sequential Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy for Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: Post-Hoc Analysis of a Multicenter Observational Cohort

It is not known whether sequential outpatient parenteral antimicrobial (OPAT) is as safe and effective as conventional hospitalization in patients with S. aureus bacteremia (SAB). A post-hoc analysis of the comparative effectiveness of conventional hospitalization versus sequential OPAT was performed in two prospective Spanish cohorts of patients with S. aureus bacteremia. The PROBAC cohort is a national, multicenter, prospective observational cohort of patients diagnosed in 22 Spanish hospitals between October 2016 and March 2017. The DOMUS OPAT cohort is a prospective observational cohort including patients from two university hospitals in Seville, Spain from 2012 to 2021. Multivariate regression was performed, including a propensity score (PS) for receiving OPAT, stratified analysis according to PS quartiles, and matched pair analyses based on PS. Four hundred and thirteen patients were included in the analysis: 150 in sequential OPAT and 263 in the full hospitalization therapy group. In multivariate analysis, including PS and center effect as covariates, 60-day treatment failure was lower in the OPAT group than in the full hospitalization group (p < 0.001; OR 0.275, 95%CI 0.129−0.584). In the PS-based matched analyses, sequential treatment under OPAT was not associated with higher 60-day treatment failure (p = 0.253; adjusted OR 0.660; % CI 0.324−1.345). OPAT is a safe and effective alternative to conventional in-patient therapy for completion of treatment in well-selected patients with SAB, mainly those associated with a low-risk source and without end-stage kidney disease.

Ceftriaxone Versus Cefazolin for the Treatment of Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated the use of ceftriaxone (CRO) in the treatment of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infections. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of CRO versus cefazolin (CFZ) for patients with MSSA bacteremia.

METHODS

This was a multi-center, single health-system retrospective study. Adult inpatients were included if they had a primary episode of MSSA bacteremia and received CRO or CFZ as definitive therapy. The primary endpoint was clinical cure at 7, 10, 14, and 28 days, or discharge, whichever came first. Secondary endpoints included treatment failure at 90 days, time to treatment failure, readmission due to recurrent MSSA bacteremia, duration of bacteremia, discontinuation of treatment due to adverse drug events, and Clostridioides difficile infection.

RESULTS

A total of 248 patients were included, of which 87 (35.1%) received CRO and 161 (64.9%) received CFZ. There was no difference in the primary outcome between the CRO group and the CFZ group (75 (86.2%) vs 145 (90.1%); p = 0.359), even after adjusting for Charlson Comorbidity Index and Pitt bacteremia score (aOR=1.35, 95% CI 0.58 -3.12; p = 0.49). There were no differences in time to clinical cure, treatment failure at 90 days, or safety events between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest no clinical difference between CRO and CFZ for the definitive treatment of MSSA bacteremia. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Effectiveness and Safety of Ceftriaxone Compared to Standard of Care for Treatment of Bloodstream Infections Due to Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Ceftriaxone is a potential alternative for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bloodstream infections (BSIs) in acute care and outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) settings. We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of ceftriaxone for the treatment of MSSA BSIs. (2) Method: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from their inception to October 30th 2021. Our outcomes included clinical cure, microbiological cure, 30- and 90-day mortality, 90-day hospital readmission, and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). We compared ceftriaxone against standard of care (SOC) therapy. We used the random-effects model for the meta-analysis, and our estimated effects were reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). (3) Results: Twelve retrospective cohort studies were included, comprising 1037 patients in the ceftriaxone arms and 2088 patients in the SOC arms. The clinical cure rate of the ceftriaxone regimen was not statistically different from SOC: OR 0.65 (95% CI: 0.29–1.45). Ceftriaxone was also not statistically different from SOC in microbiological cure: OR 1.48 (95% CI: 0.29–7.51); 30-day mortality: OR 0.79 (95% CI: 0.14–4.65); 90-day mortality: OR 0.82 (95% CI: 0.38–1.80); 90-day hospital readmission: OR 1.20 (95% CI: 0.92–1.56); and ADRs: OR 0.92 (95% CI: 0.39–2.18). (4) Conclusion: Ceftriaxone could provide an alternative for the treatment of MSSA BSIs in acute care and OPAT settings (except in patients whose BSIs were due to infective endocarditis).

Clindamycin Efficacy in Patients With Methicillin-Sensitive Staphylococcus aureus in a Fourth-Level Hospital in the City of Medellín

Background: The antibiotic of choice for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia is antistaphylococcal penicillins, such as oxacillin, but cefazolin has also risen as an equally effective alternative. Murine models have suggested that clindamycin is a therapeutic alternative for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB).

Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, patients from the Hospital Universitario San Vicente Fundación (HUSVF) in Medellín, Colombia, were recruited from January 2013 and December 2019. Patients with positive blood culture for MSSA, with at least one follow-up blood culture, and those with more than 72 hours of parenteral antibiotic therapy for SAB were selected. The main objective was to determine the efficacy of clindamycin compared to other antibiotics to achieve a microbiologic cure. Secondary results included in-hospital mortality and hospital stay.

Results: A total of 486 patients were included (clindamycin = 50 and other anti-MSSA = 436). The patients in the clindamycin group had a lower rate of microbiological cure (n = 41 [84%]) compared to other antibiotics (n = 367 [84%]) (OR 1.08 IC 95% 0.74-1.58). In secondary outcomes, no statistically significant differences were observed in the in-hospital mortality. The main source of SAB was a central or peripheral catheter (58%).

Conclusions: Our study found no differences in the rate of microbiological cure, in-hospital mortality, and hospital stay on the clindamycin group compared to other anti-MSSA antibiotics. However, in patients with metastatic complications, the rate of microbiological cure is reduced, and the in-hospital mortality is higher in patients with more severe disease.

Ceftriaxone versus antistaphylococcal antibiotics for definitive treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Optimal therapy for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infections is unclear. Current standard of care consists of antistaphylococcal antibiotics (ASAs) such as nafcillin, oxacillin and cefazolin. Ceftriaxone has been evaluated due to its advantage as a once-daily outpatient regimen. However, questions remain regarding its efficacy compared with ASAs. We aimed to conduct a review and synthesis of available literature for outcomes of patients treated with ceftriaxone or ASAs for MSSA infections. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase Ovid, MEDLINE Ovid, Scopus and Web of Science (1990 to June 2021). Risk of bias for cohort studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We pooled risk ratios (RRs) using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model for outcomes of those receiving ceftriaxone versus ASAs. Heterogeneity was assessed by the I² index. From 459 identified studies, 7 were included in the quantitative synthesis totalling 1640 patients. Definitive therapy with ceftriaxone was associated with a lower risk of toxicity requiring therapy alteration (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.88; I² = 0%). There was no difference in terms of 90-day all-cause mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.46-1.88; I² = 9%), hospital readmission (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.57-1.64; I² = 0%) or infection recurrence (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.63-1.72; I² =0%). Current evidence suggests there is no difference in efficacy between ceftriaxone and ASAs for MSSA infection, with a lower risk of toxicity with ceftriaxone. Within the limitations of available retrospective studies, ceftriaxone is a consideration for definitive therapy of MSSA infection. [Trial registration: PROSPERO ID: CRD42021259086].

Recent Updates in Antimicrobial Stewardship in Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy

Purpose of Review

Antimicrobial stewardship within acute care is common and has been expanding to outpatient areas. Some inpatient antimicrobial stewardship tactics apply to outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) and complex outpatient antimicrobial therapy (COpAT) management, but differences do exist.

Recent Findings

OPAT/COpAT is a growing area of practice and research with its own unique considerations for antimicrobial stewardship. Potential ideas for antimicrobial stewardship in the OPAT/COpAT setting include redesigning the regimen to COpAT instead of OPAT, ensuring the use of the shortest effective duration of antimicrobial therapy; using antimicrobials dosed less frequently, such as long-acting glycopeptides; optimizing antimicrobial susceptibility testing reporting for common OPAT/COpAT drugs; and establishing routine laboratory and safety monitoring. Future consensus is needed to determine validated OPAT program metrics and outcomes.

Summary

As more focus is placed on outpatient antimicrobial stewardship, clinicians practicing in OPAT should publish more data regarding OPAT program methods and outcomes as they relate to antimicrobial stewardship. These can involve patient clinical outcomes, OPAT readmission rates, OPAT therapy completion, and central line-related complications.

Length of stay, hospitalisation costs and in-hospital mortality of methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia in Japan

OBJECTIVES

To examine the length of stay, hospitalisation costs and case fatality of methicillin-susceptible and -resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA and MRSA) bacteremia in Japan.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study. Patients with a diagnosis of S. aureus bacteremia who were admitted to a tertiary care hospital (the National Centre for Global Health and Medicine [NCGM]) in Tokyo, Japan, between 1st January 2016 and 31st December 2020 were included in the study.

METHODS

We combined Japan Nosocomial Infections Surveillance data and Diagnosis Procedure Combination data at NCGM from 2016 to 2020. The data were stratified into MSSA and MRSA groups. Length of stay (LoS), LoS after submission of a blood culture specimen (LoS-after), hospitalisation cost, hospitalisation costs per day and clinical outcome were compared after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Median LoS was 46 (interquartile range [IQR] 28.5-64.5) days in the MSSA group and 66 (IQR 40-91) days in the MRSA group (P = 0.020). Median LoS-after was 38 (IQR 25-62.5) days and 45 (IQR 24-63) days (P = 0.691) in the MSSA and MRSA groups, respectively. Median hospitalisation cost was significantly higher in the MRSA group (26,035 [IQR 18,154-47,362] USD) than in the MSSA group (19,823 [IQR 13,764-32,042] USD) (P = 0.036), but cost per day was not (MRSA: 528.9 [IQR 374.9-647.4] USD; MSSA: 455.6 [IQR 359.2-701.7] USD; P = 0.990). Case fatality rate was higher in the MRSA group than in the MSSA group (22/60 vs 9/60, P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with MRSA bacteremia had longer LoS and higher costs than those with MSSA bacteremia. However, LoS-after and hospitalisation costs per day were not different. The longer LoS of patients in Japan compared with other countries might contribute to the higher disease burden of S. aureus bacteremia in Japan.

Ceftriaxone and methicillin-susceptible staphylococcus aureus: a perspective from pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics studies

INTRODUCTION

: Usage of ceftriaxone-based therapy to treat Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infections is a controversial issue, from in vitro to clinical studies.

AREA COVERED

: We conducted a literature review using PubMed of articles with ceftriaxone pharmacokinetics parameters and built a probability of target attainment (PTA) based on PK values from stable conditions (non-critically-ill patients) with goals of fT>55%, fT>75%, and fT>100%. Ceftriaxone's minimal inhibitory concentration from 31 MSSA strains (0.25-64mg/L) was used to build the cumulative fraction response (CFR). The isolates were clinically relevant from blood, bronchoalveolar lavage, and soft tissue biopsy.

EXPERT OPINION

The results from controversies about using ceftriaxone for MSSA infections have been commonly addressed in the literature. However, variables such as (i) pharmacokinetic profile, (ii) pharmacodynamic target, (iii) site of infection, and (iv) MIC distributions may influence divergences. From this pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics perspective, ceftriaxone may be a reasonable option for MSSA infections when the MIC50 and MIC90 were 4mg/L and 8mg/L. CFR analysis demonstrated that ceftriaxone 1g q24h could be used if bacteriostasis is the aim (fT>55%), while 1g q12h should be used for bactericidal effects (fT>75% or fT>100%). Since there is a lack of data from clinical trials, the findings should be interpreted cautiously.

Ceftriaxone as an Alternative Therapy for the Treatment of Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia after Initial Clearance of Bloodstream Infection

Introduction

Staphylococcus spp. represent the leading cause of hospital-acquired infections and second-most frequent pathogen in bloodstream infections. Methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) comprise approximately half of all S. aureus isolates. Standard-of-care therapies (SOCTs) display high treatment success but require frequent dosing, are problematic in penicillin allergic patients, and are nephrotoxic. Ceftriaxone may represent an alternative treatment option.

Methods

Adult patients hospitalized from January 2015 through June 2016 with positive MSSA blood cultures and treated with SOCT or ceftriaxone for ≥48 hours were included. Exclusion criteria were receipt of vancomycin or concomitant systemic antimicrobials with activity against MSSA, polymicrobial infections, and pregnant patients. Additional data collected included demographics, source/site of infection, and treatment. The primary endpoint was clinical cure (normalization of white blood cell count and temperature within 7 days and clearance of bloodstream within 7 days). Readmission within 60 days, length of stay, and discharge disposition were collected.

Results

A total of 43 patients were included: 23 receiving SOCT and 20 receiving ceftriaxone group. Sixteen patients received SOCT prior to ceftriaxone while 4 patients were initiated on ceftriaxone. Clinical cure was observed in 18/23 (78%) and 10/20 (50%), respectively (P=0.052). Clinical failure was driven by leukocytosis despite clearance of their bloodstream infection in 3/23 (13%) SOCT group compared to 8/20 (40%) in the ceftriaxone group (P=0.043). Six patients (SOCT: 2, ceftriaxone: 4; p=0.669) had infection-related readmissions, and 1 death per group was observed.

Conclusion

Ceftriaxone poses a reasonable alternative to consider for MSSA bacteremia when cost and feasibility are concerns for outpatient parenteral therapy after initial clearance of bloodstream infections.