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

ABSTRACT: Current data on the frequency and efficacy of linezolid (LNZ) in infective endocarditis (IE) are based on small retrospective series. We used a national database to evaluate the effectiveness of LNZ in IE.This is a retrospective study of IE patients in the Spanish GAMES database who received LNZ. We defined 3 levels of therapeutic impact: LNZ < 7 days, LNZ high-impact (≥ 7 days, > 50% of the total treatment, and > 50% of the LNZ doses prescribed in the first weeks of treatment), and LNZ ≥ 7 days not fulfilling the high-impact criteria (LNZ-NHI). Effectiveness of LNZ was assessed using propensity score matching and multivariate analysis of high-impact cases in comparison to patients not treated with LNZ from the GAMES database matched for age-adjusted comorbidity Charlson index, heart failure, renal failure, prosthetic and intracardiac IE device, left-sided IE, and Staphylococcus aureus. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and one-year mortality. Secondary outcomes included IE complications and relapses.From 3467 patients included in the GAMES database, 295 (8.5%) received LNZ. After excluding 3 patients, 292 were grouped as follows for the analyses: 99 (33.9%) patients in LNZ < 7 days, 11 (3.7%) in LNZ high-impact, and 178 (61%) in LNZ-NHI. In-hospital mortality was 51.5%, 54.4%, and 19.1% respectively. In the propensity analysis, LNZ high-impact group presented with respect to matched controls not treated with LNZ higher in-hospital mortality (54.5% vs 18.2%, P = .04). The multivariate analysis showed an independent relationship of LNZ use with in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 9.06, 95% confidence interval 1.15--71.08, P = .03).Treatment with LNZ is relatively frequent, but most cases do not fulfill our high-impact criteria. Our data suggest that the use of LNZ as definitive treatment in IE may be associated with higher in-hospital mortality.

Ceftaroline fosamil: clinical experience after 23-month prescription in a tertiary hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the indications, success rate and adverse effects of ceftaroline fosamil treatment in a tertiary hospital. METHODS: In total, 84 cases from February 2018 to December 2019 were retrospectively analysed. No exclusion criteria were applied. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients, with a median age of 70 years, of which, 6.7% (56) were male, were treated with ceftaroline fosamil for a median of 14 days. Most indications were off-label, including 29 endocarditis (34.5%), 14 bacteraemia (16.6%), 5 Central nervous system (CNS) infections (6%) and 19 osteoarticular infections (22.6%). Staphylococcus aureus was the most frequently isolated microorganism, including 28 methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA; 33.3%) and 14 methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA; 16.7%), followed by coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (23, 27.4%). The main reason for ceftaroline fosamil prescription was the failure of previous treatment (41.7% of cases). Treatment was successful in 60/84 patients (71.4%) and failed clinically or microbiologically in 14 (16.7%). Eight patients died for a reason not related to the infection and two were found to have a non-infectious condition. Twenty-two of thirty-five (62.8%) patients prescribed ceftaroline because of failure of previous treatment improved, including eight endocarditis and seven bacteraemia. Adverse effects were reported in five patients (5.9%) including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, transaminases elevation and creatinine elevation; all except one were mild and all resolved after discontinuation of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftaroline fosamil is a well-tolerated cephalosporine, effective against multi- resistant gram-positive and many gram-negative microorganisms. Our experience suggests that it is effective as a rescue or first-line therapy in other indications than those currently approved.