Vancomycin-resistant enterococci in patients with hematological malignancy: curbing an endemic pathogen

Gut colonization with vancomicyn-resistant enterococci among patients with hematologic malignancies

BACKGROUND

Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are well known agents that colonize the gastrointestinal tract of immunocompromised patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies. The aim of the current study was to determine the incidence of and risk factors for colonization with VRE among patients with hematologic malignancies.

MATERIALS

For a nine-month period, all patients admitted to the Hematology ward at University Hospital in Pleven, Bulgaria who had hematologic malignancy and duration of hospitalization of more than 48 h were screened for colonization with VRE. The data collected from patients and their medical records during the entire hospital stay included: demographic characteristics, clinical information and information about all antimicrobials used. A longitudinal study was used to assesses the risk factors and statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 27.0.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients were enrolled in the study. Colonization with VRE was established in 18 of them. One patient carried two species, resulting in a total of 19 VRE: 12 Enterococcus gallinarum, 4 Enterococcus casseliflavus, 2 Enterococcus faecium and 1 Enterococcus faecalis. VanA phenotype, with high-level resistance of vancomycin (MIC ≥ 256 μg/ml) and teicoplanin (MIC = 96 μg/ml), was demonstrated by one E. faecium, which carried vanA. The other E. faecium and E. faecalis expressed low-level resistance to vancomycin (MICs: 8 μg/ml and 12 μg/ml), susceptibility to teicoplanin (MICs = 0.5 μg/ml) and vanB was detected. All E. gallinarum and E. casseliflavus showed low-level resistance to vancomycin and susceptibility to teicoplanin. E. gallinarum strains were positive for vanC1 and E. casseliflavus for vanC2. Only two patients were colonized with vanA or vanB enterococci and the rest 16 were positive for vanC. The univariate analysis revealed that patient's age (70-79 years; p = 0.025) and multiple myeloma (p = 0.001) are risk factors for VRE acquisition among the investigated patients. In addition, the multivariate analysis confirmed that patient's age (70-79 years) is an independent risk factor for VRE colonization.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that 15.1% of patients with hematologic malignancies were colonized with VRE. There was a distinct prevalence of vanC enterococci. Among the analyzed risk factors, advanced age and multiple myeloma contributed to VRE acquisition.

Where is the difference between an epidemic and a high endemic level with respect to nosocomial infection control measures? An analysis based on the example of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in hematology and oncology departments

Some infection control recommendations distinguish epidemic and endemic levels for infection control. However, it is often difficult to separate long lasting outbreaks from high endemic levels and it remains open, if this distinction is really useful. Aim: To compare infection control measures in endemic and epidemic outbreaks. Methods: The example of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium outbreaks in haematology or oncology departments was used to analyse differences in infection control measures between outbreaks and high endemic levels. The outbreak database and PubMed, including long lasting outbreaks, were used for this analysis. Two time limits were used for separation: 6 and 12 months. In addition, monoclonal and polyclonal outbreaks were distinguished. Findings: A total of 36 outbreaks were included. 13 outbreaks lasted 6 months or less, 9 outbreaks more than 6 months but at maximum 12 months and 9 more than 12 months. For the remaining outbreaks, no information about their duration was available. Altogether, 11 outbreaks were monoclonal and 20 polyclonal. Considering infection control measures, there were almost no differences between the different groups compared. Patient screening was given up in 37.5% of long lasting outbreaks (>12 months) and hand hygiene not reported in the majority of polyclonal outbreaks (77.8%). Conclusion: Despite many institutions trying to add further infection control measures in case of an outbreak, evidence based infection control measures should be implemented in endemic and epidemic situations. The crucial aspect is probably the degree of implementation and its control in both situations.

Can mortality of cancer patients with fever and neutropenia be improved?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neutropenic fever is the most common infective complication in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, and may result in severe sepsis, septic shock and mortality. Advancements in approaches to empiric antimicrobial therapy and prophylaxis have resulted in improved outcomes. Mortality may, however, still be as high as 50% in high-risk cancer populations. The objective of this review is to summarize factors associated with reduced mortality in patients with neutropenic fever, highlighting components of clinical care with potential for inclusion in quality improvement programs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Risks for mortality are multifactorial, and include patient, disease and treatment-related factors. Historically, guidelines for management of neutropenic fever have focused upon antimicrobial therapy. There is, however, a recognized need for early identification of sepsis to enable timely administration of antibiotic therapy and for this to be integrated with a whole of systems approach within healthcare facilities. Use of Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria is beneficial, but validation is required in neutropenic fever populations.

SUMMARY

In the context of emerging and increasing infections because of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in patients with neutropenic fever, quality improvement initiatives to reduce mortality must encompass antimicrobial stewardship, early detection of sepsis, and use of valid tools for clinical assessment. C-reactive protein and procalcitonin hold potential for inclusion into clinical pathways for management of neutropenic fever.

Oral pristinamycin for the treatment of resistant Gram-positive infections in patients with cancer: Evaluation of clinical outcomes

Pristinamycin has been used to treat a range of Gram-positive infections, but reported experience in patients with malignancy is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the use of pristinamycin in patients with cancer at an Australian centre. All patients commenced on oral pristinamycin therapy at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre between January 2005 and December 2014 were identified using the hospital pharmacy dispensing system. Information on demographics, co-morbidities, cancer diagnosis, infection characteristics, pristinamycin regimen, pristinamycin tolerability and outcomes was collected. The median duration of follow-up was 398 days. In total, 26 patients received pristinamycin, with median age of 61 years and a male predominance (65%). Underlying diagnoses were haematological malignancies (50%) and solid tumours (50%). Pathogens included 13 meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, 6 vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium, 4 meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis, 2 meticillin-susceptible S. aureus and 1 vancomycin-susceptible E. faecium. Infection sites were osteomyelitis (6), skin and soft-tissue (4), intra-abdominal/pelvic abscess (4), bloodstream (3), empyema (3), endocarditis/endovascular (3), prosthesis-related infection (2) and epididymo-orchitis (1). One patient ceased pristinamycin due to nausea. Regarding outcome, 13 patients (50%) were cured of infection, 8 (31%) had suppression and 5 (19%) had relapse. Relapses included 1 endovascular infection, 2 episodes of osteomyelitis, 1 pelvic abscess and 1 skin and soft-tissue infection. Overall, 81% of patients achieved cure or suppression of antibiotic-resistant or complex Gram-positive infections, consistent with published experience in non-cancer populations. A favourable tolerability profile makes oral pristinamycin a viable treatment option, particularly in settings where outpatient management of cancer is the objective.