Chloramphenicol and acute esophagitis in the emergency department

Combination Therapy of Chloramphenicol and Daptomycin for the Treatment of Infective Endocarditis Secondary to Multidrug Resistant Enterococcus faecium

A 38-years-old female with an aortic valve replacement presented to an outside hospital (OSH) with fevers and malaise. Blood cultures revealed VRE which was resistant to linezolid, resistant to ampicillin, non-susceptible to daptomycin (MIC of 8 mcg/mL), and exhibited susceptibility to gentamicin. The patient was therefore initiated on intravenous (IV) daptomycin 6 mg/kg q24h and gentamicin IV 1 mg/kg q8h. However, after 14 days of therapy with daptomycin and gentamicin, the patient was transferred to our institution for the management of cardiogenic shock and hypoxemic respiratory failure. Given the concern for treatment failure, her antimicrobial regimen was changed to IV chloramphenicol 12.5 mg/kg every 6 hours with IV daptomycin 10 mg/kg every 48 hours given an estimated creatinine clearance of 30 mL/minutes. In vitro susceptibilities for chloramphenicol were performed which confirmed susceptibility. A transesophageal echocardiogram revealed a possible abscess at the left coronary cusp and aortic valve dehiscence. The patient underwent aortic valve replacement with aortic root reconstruction. The aortic valve culture grew VRE susceptible to linezolid but resistant to ampicillin and doxycycline. The patient was deemed clinically cured after 42 days of combination therapy with daptomycin and chloramphenicol. After 6 years of follow-up, the patient has not had a recurrent VRE infection. To our knowledge, this is the first case of endocarditis secondary to VRE that was successfully managed with the combination of daptomycin and chloramphenicol.

Efficacy and adverse effects of topical chloramphenicol ointment use for surgical wounds: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Chloramphenicol ointment is often used in plastic and dermatologic surgery as a topical antibiotic for surgical wounds, but evidence regarding its efficacy and side effects is lacking. In addition, anecdotal fear of aplastic anaemia exists from the oral use of this drug. We performed a systematic review of the literature to assess the efficacy and side effect profile of topical chloramphenicol ointment on non-ocular surgical wounds.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception until 4 September 2017 was undertaken. Clinical studies of topical chloramphenicol ointment use on surgical wounds were included. Studies looking only at ocular use or those not available in full text or English were excluded. The review was conducted adhering to PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

After full-text review, five articles were included. Two were randomized controlled trials, one was retrospective case control and two were case studies. There was evidence that chloramphenicol ointment use on surgical wounds produced a non-statistically significant reduction in infection rates. Delayed hypersensitivity and acute oesophagitis were noted as potential side effects of non-ocular topical use. Aplastic anaemia was not reported.

CONCLUSION

There is a paucity of clinical data regarding the use of topical chloramphenicol ointment on surgical wounds. Further randomized controlled trials may be beneficial in order to support or refute its use in this setting.