Linezolid for infective endocarditis: A structured approach based on a national database experience

Bactericidal versus bacteriostatic antibacterials: clinical significance, differences and synergistic potential in clinical practice

Antibacterial activity can be classified as either bactericidal or bacteriostatic, using methods such as the MBC/MIC ratio and time-kill curves. However, such categorization has proven challenging in clinical practice, as these definitions only apply under specific laboratory conditions, which may differ from clinical settings. Several factors, such as the specific bacteria or infectious medium, can affect the action of antibiotics, with many antibacterials exerting both activities. These definitions have also led to the belief that bactericidal antibacterials are superior to bacteriostatic, especially in more severe cases, such as endocarditis, neutropenia and bacteraemia. Additionally, current dogma dictates against the combination of bactericidal and bacteriostatic antibacterials in clinical practice, due to potential antagonism. This review aimed to assess the differences in antibacterial activity of bactericidal and bacteriostatic antibacterials based on in vitro and in vivo studies and examine their antagonistic or synergistic effects. Our findings show that specific bacteriostatic agents, such as linezolid and tigecycline, are clinically non-inferior to bactericidals in multiple infections, including pneumonia, intra-abdominal infections, and skin and soft tissue infections. Studies also support using several bacteriostatic agents as salvage therapies in severe infections, such as neutropenic fever and endocarditis. Additionally, not all combinations of bacteriostatic and bactericidal agents appear to be antagonistic, with many combinations, such as linezolid and rifampicin, already being used. The findings should be interpreted with caution, as most evidence is from observational studies and there is a need for randomized controlled trials to assess their effectiveness and combinations, especially within the context of rising antimicrobial resistance.

New advances in management and treatment of cardiac implantable electronic devices infections

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are increasingly used worldwide, and infection of these devices remains one of the most feared complications.CIED infections (CDIs) represent a challenge for physicians and the healthcare system in general as they require prolonged hospitalization and antibiotic treatment and are burdened by high mortality and high costs, so management of CDIs must be multidisciplinary.The exact incidence of CDIs is difficult to define, considering that it is influenced by various factors mainly represented by the implanted device and the type of procedure. Risk factors for CDIs could be divided into three categories: device related, patient related, and procedural related and the etiology is mainly sustained by Gram-positive bacteria; however, other etiologies cannot be underestimated. As a matter of fact, the two cornerstones in the treatment of these infections are device removal and antimicrobial treatment. Finally, therapeutic drug monitoring and PK/PD correlations should be encouraged in all patients with CDIs receiving antibiotic therapy and may result in a better clinical outcome and a reduction in antibiotic resistance and economic costs.In this narrative review, we look at what is new in the management of these difficult-to-treat infections.

Contemporary pharmacologic treatments of MRSA for hospitalized adults: rationale for vancomycin versus non-vancomycin therapies as first line agents

INTRODUCTION

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) remains an important pathogen in the hospital setting and causes significant morbidity and mortality each year. Since the initial discovery over 60 years ago, vancomycin has remained a first-line treatment for many different types of MRSA infections. However, significant concerns related to target attainment and nephrotoxicity have spurred efforts to develop more effective agents in the last two decades.

AREAS COVERED

Newer anti-MRSA antibiotics that have been approved since 2000 include linezolid, daptomycin, and ceftaroline. As clinical evidence has accumulated, these newer agents have become more frequently used, and some are now recommended as co-first-line options (along with vancomycin) in clinical practice guidelines. For this review, a scoping review of the literature was conducted to support our findings and recommendations.

EXPERT OPINION

Vancomycin remains an important standard of care for MRSA infections but is limited with respect to nephrotoxicity and rapid target attainment. Newer agents such as linezolid, daptomycin, and ceftaroline have specific indications for treating different types of MRSA infections; however, newer agents also have unique attributes which require consideration during therapy.

Treatment of Enterococcus faecalis Infective Endocarditis: A Continuing Challenge

Today, Enterococcus faecalis is one of the main causes of infective endocarditis in the world, generally affecting an elderly and fragile population, with a high mortality rate. Enterococci are partially resistant to many commonly used antimicrobial agents such as penicillin and ampicillin, as well as high-level resistance to most cephalosporins and sometimes carbapenems, because of low-affinity penicillin-binding proteins, that lead to an unacceptable number of therapeutic failures with monotherapy. For many years, the synergistic combination of penicillins and aminoglycosides has been the cornerstone of treatment, but the emergence of strains with high resistance to aminoglycosides led to the search for new alternatives, like dual beta-lactam therapy. The development of multi-drug resistant strains of Enterococcus faecium is a matter of considerable concern due to its probable spread to E. faecalis and have necessitated the search of new guidelines with the combination of daptomycin, fosfomycin or tigecycline. Some of them have scarce clinical experience and others are still under investigation and will be analyzed in this review. In addition, the need for prolonged treatment (6–8 weeks) to avoid relapses has forced to the consideration of other viable options as outpatient parenteral strategies, long-acting administrations with the new lipoglycopeptides (dalbavancin or oritavancin), and sequential oral treatments, which will also be discussed.

Endocarditis in the intensive care unit: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The incidence of infective endocarditis (IE) is increasing worldwide, resulting in a higher number of patients with IE being admitted to intensive care units (ICU). Nearly half of patients with IE develop a complication during their clinical course. However, few well conducted studies or reviews are devoted to critically ill IE patients. This review discusses the contemporary perioperative and intensive care literature.

RECENT FINDINGS

IE epidemiology is changing towards elderly and frail patients. ICU patients are at risk of risk of developing IE because they are often in a pro-inflammatory state and many also have several indwelling catheters, which favors infection. Increased performance and recent advances in cardiac imaging allow for easier diagnosis of EI, but the applicability of these techniques to ICU patients is still relatively limited. New developments in antibiotic treatment and adjunctive therapies are explored further in this review.

SUMMARY

The lack of evidence on ICU patients with IE highlights the critical importance of multidisciplinary decision-making and the need for further research.