Association between treatment duration and mortality or relapse in adult patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to evaluate the effect of duration of therapy (DOT) on mortality and relapse for patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB). METHODS: We performed a retrospective single-centre cohort study including adult patients with SAB. We determined the association between DOT (≤14 days versus >14 days) and mortality by adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals through Cox regression adjusted for immortal-time bias and confounding by indication, stratified by presence of complicated SAB (any of: endocarditis, implant, duration of SAB >2 days, fever >3 days). The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was 90-day relapse. RESULTS: Between January 2010 and December 2015, we included 530 patients, of whom 94 out of 530 (17.7%) had methicillin-resistant SAB and 305 out of 530 (57.6%) had complicated SAB. Ninety-day mortality was 27.0% (143/530), with no significant trend across the study period; median time to death was 17 days (interquartile range (IQR) 8-30) after onset of SAB. Median DOT was 20 days (IQR 13-39). Patients with complicated SAB had significantly reduced mortality with DOT >14 days (aHR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16-0.64). DOT was not associated with mortality in patients with uncomplicated SAB (aHR 0.85; 0.41-1.78). Eighteen (18/530) patients (3.4%) relapsed; on univariate analysis, DOT was not associated with relapse (HR 1.01; 0.97-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: DOT >14 days is associated with higher survival in patients with complicated SAB, but not for patients with uncomplicated SAB. No association was found for relapse, but 90-day relapse was very low in this cohort. Importantly, 90-day mortality remained high across the study period.

Impact of Exposure of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus to Polyhexanide In Vitro and In Vivo.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) resistant to decolonization agents such as mupirocin and chlorhexidine increases the need for development of alternative decolonization molecules. The absence of reported severe adverse reactions and bacterial resistance to polyhexanide makes it an excellent choice as a topical antiseptic. In the present study, we evaluated the in vitro and in vivo capacity to generate strains with reduced polyhexanide susceptibility and cross-resistance with chlorhexidine and/or antibiotics currently used in clinic. Here we report the in vitro emergence of reduced susceptibility to polyhexanide by prolonged stepwise exposure to low concentrations in broth culture. Reduced susceptibility to polyhexanide was associated with genomic changes in the mprF and purR genes and with concomitant decreased susceptibility to daptomycin and other cell wall-active antibiotics. However, the in vitro emergence of reduced susceptibility to polyhexanide did not result in cross-resistance to chlorhexidine. During in vivo polyhexanide clinical decolonization treatment, neither reduced polyhexanide susceptibility nor chlorhexidine cross-resistance was observed. Together, these observations suggest that polyhexanide could be used safely for decolonization of carriers of chlorhexidine-resistant S. aureus strains; they also highlight the need for careful use of polyhexanide at low antiseptic concentrations.

Comparing the cost-effectiveness of linezolid to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection: a healthcare system perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Few industry-independent studies have been conducted to compare the relative costs and benefits of drugs to treat methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. We performed a stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis comparing two treatment strategies-linezolid versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin-for the treatment of MRSA infection. METHODS: We used cost and effectiveness data from a previously conducted clinical trial, complementing with other data from published literature, to compare the two regimens from a healthcare system perspective. Effectiveness was expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Several sensitivity analyses were performed using Monte Carlo simulation, to measure the effect of potential parameter changes on the base-case model results, including potential differences related to type of infection and drug toxicity. RESULTS: Treatment of MRSA infection with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin and linezolid were found to cost on average €146 and €2536, and lead to a gain of 0.916 and 0.881 QALYs, respectively. Treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin was found to be more cost-effective than linezolid in the base case and remained dominant over linezolid in most alternative scenarios, including different types of MRSA infection and potential disadvantages in terms of toxicity. With a willingness-to-pay threshold of €0, €50 000 and €200 000 per QALY gained, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin was dominant in 100%, 96% and 85% of model iterations. A 95% discount on the current purchasing price of linezolid would be needed when it goes off-patent for it to represent better value for money compared with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin. CONCLUSIONS: Combined treatment of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin is more cost-effective than linezolid in the treatment of MRSA infection.

Cefepime plasma concentrations and clinical toxicity: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Cefepime remains an important antibiotic for severe bacterial infections, yet some meta-analyses have shown elevated mortality among patients randomized to it. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of ß-lactam antibiotics is increasing, but optimal plasma concentrations remain unknown. We examined clinical outcomes of patients undergoing cefepime TDM in an initial effort to define the drug's toxicity threshold. METHODS: In this single-centre retrospective cohort study, we enrolled all adult hospitalized patients receiving cefepime and undergoing TDM from January 2013 through July 2016. The primary outcome was the incidence of clinical toxicity; a secondary outcome was clinical failure. Plasma samples were analysed via high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection. RESULTS: A total of 161 cefepime concentrations were drawn from 93 patients. Roughly half (82/161, 51%) and one-third (49/161, 30%) were trough and steady-state levels from patients receiving intermittent and continuous infusions, respectively; median concentrations were 17.6 mg/L (IQR 9.7-35.2) and 29.2 mg/L (IQR 18.9-45.9). Ten patients (11%) experienced a neurologic event considered at least possibly related to cefepime; neurotoxicity was associated with poorer renal function (median creatinine clearance 54 (IQR 39-97) vs. 75 mL/min/1.732 (IQR 44-104)) and longer cefepime durations (mean 8.3 (SD±6.7) vs. 13.3 days (± 14.2), p = 0.071). Patients with trough levels >20 mg/L had a fivefold higher risk for neurologic events (OR 5.05, 95% CI 1.3-19.8). CONCLUSIONS: Neurotoxicity potentially related to cefepime occurred at plasma concentrations >35 mg/L. For those receiving intermittent infusions, trough concentrations >20 mg/L should be avoided until further information is available from prospective studies.

Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of polyhexanide for topical decolonization of MRSA carriers.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of polyhexanide (Prontoderm(®)) in eliminating MRSA carriage. METHODS: In a 1900 bed teaching hospital, MRSA-colonized patients were randomized into a double-blind, placebo-controlled superiority trial between January 2011 and July 2014. Patients were treated with either polyhexanide or placebo applied to the anterior nares (thrice daily) and skin (once daily) for 10 days. The primary outcome was MRSA decolonization at day 28 (D28) after the end of treatment assessed by ITT responder and PP analyses (microbiological follow-up ± 7 days and topical treatment ≥ 5 days). Secondary outcomes included safety, emergence of resistance and MRSA genotype changes. Registered trial number ISRCTN02288276. RESULTS: Of 2590 patients screened, 146 (polyhexanide group, 71; placebo group, 75) were included. ITT analysis showed that 24/71 (33.8%) patients in the polyhexanide group versus 22/75 (29.3%) in the placebo group were MRSA-free at D28 (risk difference, 4.5%; 95% CI, -10.6% to 19.5%; P = 0.56). PP analysis confirmed the results with 19/53 (35.8%) decolonized polyhexanide-treated patients versus 17/56 (30.4%) in the placebo arm (risk difference, 5.5%; 95% CI, -12.2% to 23%; P = 0.54). Nine serious adverse events occurred in the polyhexanide group versus 12 in the placebo group; none was attributable to study medication. Emergence of polyhexanide resistance or cross-resistance between polyhexanide and chlorhexidine was not observed. No case of exogenous recolonization by a genotypically different MRSA strain was documented. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that under real-life conditions, a single polyhexanide decolonization course is not effective in eradicating MRSA carriage.

Randomized non-inferiority trial to compare trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin versus linezolid for the treatment of MRSA infection.

OBJECTIVES: The therapeutic arsenal for MRSA infections is limited. The aim of this study was to assess the non-inferiority of a combination of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin versus linezolid alone for the treatment of MRSA infection. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, single-centre, non-inferiority trial comparing trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (160 mg/800 mg three times daily) plus rifampicin (600 mg once a day) versus linezolid (600 mg twice a day) alone in adult patients with various types of MRSA infection. Patients were allocated 1:1 to either regimen. The primary outcome was clinical cure at 6 weeks after the end of treatment (non-inferiority margin 20%) assessed by both ITT and PP analyses. Secondary outcomes included the microbiologically documented persistence of MRSA in clinical cultures, mortality and adverse events. The study protocol has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00711854). RESULTS: Overall, 150 patients were randomized to one of the two treatment arms between January 2009 and December 2013 and were included in the ITT analysis. Of these 56/75 (74.7%) in the linezolid group and 59/75 (78.7%) in the trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin group experienced clinical success (risk difference 4%, 95% CI -9.7% to 17.6%). The results were confirmed by the PP analysis, with 54/66 (81.8%) cured patients in the linezolid group versus 52/59 (88.1%) in the trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin group (risk difference 6.3%, 95% CI -6.8% to 19.2%). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the secondary outcomes, including microbiologically documented failure. Four adverse drug reactions attributed to the study medication occurred in the linezolid group versus nine in the trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with linezolid, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin seems to be non-inferior in the treatment of MRSA infection.