Linezolid vs glycopeptides in the treatment of glycopeptide-susceptible Enterococcus faecium bacteraemia: A propensity score matched comparative study

BACKGROUND

The incidence of ampicillin-resistant Enterococcus faecium bacteraemia is increasing. Vancomycin remains the first-line treatment in areas with a high prevalence of glycopeptide-susceptible isolates, but data comparing its clinical outcomes with other treatments are lacking. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of linezolid and glycopeptides for the treatment of glycopeptide-susceptible E. faecium bloodstream infection (GSEF-BSI).

METHODS

This retrospective observational cohort study was conducted from January 2006 to May 2018 at the Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain, and compared the clinical outcomes and safety of linezolid and glycopeptides in adult patients with GSEF-BSI. The main outcomes included clinical cure at the end of therapy, 30-day mortality, microbiological eradication and attributable length of stay (LOS). Propensity score matching was performed to reduce potential confounders among groups.

RESULTS

In total, 105 patients with GSEF-BSI were included (linezolid, n=38; glycopeptides, n=67). After propensity score matched analysis, 56 (53.3%) patients, 28 in each cohort, entered the final analysis. No differences were observed in any of the main clinical outcomes among patients treated with linezolid or glycopeptides: clinical cure [16/28 (57.1%) vs 13/28 (46.4%), P=0.593], 30-day mortality [8/28 (28.6%) vs 12/28 (42.9%), P=0.403], microbiological eradication [22/28 (78.6%) vs 20/28 (71.4%), P=0.758] and median attributable LOS (18.0 vs 17.0 days, P=0.924). Adverse events were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid and glycopeptides showed similar clinical effectiveness and safety in the treatment of GSEF-BSI. Linezolid could be an alternative to glycopeptides in the treatment of GSEF-BSI.

Enterococcal bloodstream infection. Design and validation of a mortality prediction rule

BACKGROUND

To develop a prediction rule to describe the risk of death as a result of enterococcal bloodstream infection.

METHODS

A prediction rule was developed by analysing data collected from 122 patients diagnosed with enterococcal BSI admitted to the Clínica Universidad de Navarra (Pamplona, Spain); and validated by confirming its accuracy with the data of an external population (Hospital del Mar, Barcelona).

RESULTS

According to this model, independent significant predictors for the risk of death were being diabetic, have received appropriate treatment, severe prognosis of the underlying diseases, have renal failure, received solid organ transplant, malignancy, source of the bloodstream infection and be immunosuppressed. The prediction rule showed a very good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic, P = 0.93) and discrimination for both training and testing sets (area under ROC curve = 0.84 and 0.83 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The predictive rule was able to predict risk of death as a result of enterococcal bloodstream infection as well as to identify patients, who being below the threshold value, will have a low risk of death with a negative predictive value of 96%.

Treatment of anthracycline extravasations using dexrazoxane

Extravasation of cytotoxic agents is a true medical emergency. Dexrazoxane is the only licensed drug for the treatment of anthracycline extravasations. Dexrazoxane proved to be effective and moderately well tolerated. However, alternative approaches for the management of anthracycline extravasations are available such as topical DMSO and cooling. There appears to be general agreement about dexrazoxane usefulness when extravasations involve large volumes of anthracycline and/or central venous access device. Nevertheless, the non-invasive combination of DMSO and cooling is the most commonly described therapy, particularly in small anthracycline extravasations. Further research is still needed to establish unequivocal situations where dexrazoxane must be initiated.

[Update in the management of extravasations of cytocytostatic agent]

OBJECTIVE

To present current developments in the specific management of extravasations of antineoplastic agents after the extravasation.

METHOD

We conducted a search in PubMed, Medline and IDIS-Iowa to identify papers written in English or Spanish that described new specific measures for the management of extravasations. We also reviewed the references given in these papers and recent tertiary sources related to oncology or cytostatic agents. The search covered the period between 1997 and 2010.

RESULTS

There are only specific measures for the treatment of extravasations of 22 cytostatic agents. These measures are presented for each cytostatic agent, according their drug group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although currently there is no general consensus on the specific management of antineoplastic agents after extravasation, this review outlines the information collected and published so far, so that it may be of use to any national health centre where cytostatic drugs are prescribed, handled or administered.

Factors associated with adherence to guidelines for the use of tigecycline in a tertiary care hospital

We assessed the adherence to the prescribing hospital protocol for tigecycline and factors associated with noncompliance. A total of 103 patients were included in the study. In 23 (22.3%) patients, tigecycline was not administered according to the protocol, mostly because of the availability of other therapeutic alternatives and prescription for indications that were not included in the guidelines. factors independently associated with nonadherence to the protocol were community-acquired infection (OR, 14.01; 95% CI, 1.54-127.12; P=0.019), and empirical tigecycline treatment (OR, 6.97; 95% CI, 0.88-55.40; P=0.066). penicillin allergy (OR, 0.004; 95% CI, 0.000-0.071; P=0.001) and previous antibiotic treatment (OR, 0.025; 95% CI, 0.003-0.233; P=0.001) were factors associated with adherence to the hospital protocol. A positive time trend between total number of prescriptions and non-compliant prescriptions with the protocol was observed (Spearman's rho coefficient 0.971; P=0.001). Adherence to tigecycline protocol could be improved by focusing on protocols for community-acquired infections, mainly skin and soft tissue infections.

[Differences in the use of tigecycline between ICU patients and non-ICU patients]

BACKGROUND

Tigecycline is a new broad spectrum antibiotic that is predominantly used for the treatment of severe infections both in critically ill patients admitted to the ICU and in non-ICU patients with less severe clinical conditions.

OBJECTIVE

To assess differences in the use of tigecycline between ICU patients and non-ICU patients treated with this antibiotics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective, cohort, observational study in which cases were defined as patients who received one or more doses of tigecycline over the first 18 months after approval of the drug in a general hospital. Clinical characteristics, indications, route of administration, clinical response, tolerability and outcome were recorded in the groups of ICU and non-ICU patients. Descriptive data and results of the comparison of both cohorts are presented.

RESULTS

A total of 103 were included in the study, 34(33%) of which received tigecycline during their stay in the ICU. ICU patients compared to non-ICU patients had a higher SAPS II score on admission (39.0 +/- 11.8 vs 26.3 +/- 8.0, p < 0.001) and at the time of starting tigecycline treatment (42.2 +/- 12.6 vs 25.6 +/- 8.2, p < 0.001), were treated with antibiotics for more days (21.4 +/- 30.6 vs 13.6 +/- 30.5 days, p < 0.012) and received a greater number of antibiotic agents concomitantly (85.3% vs 47.8%,p < 0.001), presented a higher selection of emerging bacterial flora (41.2% vs 15.9%, p =0.005), particularly Pseudomonas aeruginosa (20.6%vs 2.9%, p =0.006), higher rate of clinical failure (58.8%vs 21.7%, p < 0.001), longer hospitalization (51.2 +/- 39.4 vs 28.7 +/- 26.3 days, p < 0.001) and higher overall mortality rate (50% vs 14.5%, p < 0.001) and infection-attributed mortality (20.6% vs 7.2%, p =0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

The patient that receives tigecycline in the ICU has a higher severity level and worse clinical outcome than the non-ICU patient treated with this antibiotic. It is necessary to optimize the indications of tigecycline in the ICU to improve the clinical results.