Comparison of daptomycin and glycopeptide efficacy and safety for the treatment of Gram-positive infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The indications of daptomycin have been extended to off-label indications including prosthesis-related infection, and bone and joint infection (BJI). However, efficacy and safety have not been thoroughly demonstrated compared with the standard of care. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the treatment effect of daptomycin and glycopeptides for complicated infections. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing daptomycin and standard of care for Gram-positive infections, published until 30 June 2021. The primary outcome was defined as all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were clinical and microbiological success. The main safety outcome was any severe adverse event (SAE) (grade  ≥3). RESULTS: Overall, eight RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, totalling 1095 patients. Six (75%) were in complicated skin and soft-structure infections, one (12.5%) in bacteraemia and one (12.5%) in a BJI setting. Six RCTs used vancomycin as a comparator and two used either vancomycin or teicoplanin. All-cause mortality and clinical cure were not different between groups. The microbiological cure rate was superior in patients who received daptomycin [risk ratio (RR) = 1.17 (95% CI: 1.01-1.35)]. The risk of SAEs [RR = 0.57 (95% CI: 0.36-0.90)] was lower in the daptomycin arm. CONCLUSIONS: While daptomycin is associated with a significantly lower risk of SAEs and a better microbiological eradication, substantial uncertainty remains about the best treatment strategy in the absence of good-quality evidence, especially in bacteraemia and endocarditis where further RCTs should be conducted.

Teicoplanin and vancomycin as treatment for glycopeptide-susceptible Enterococcus faecium bacteraemia: a propensity score-adjusted non-inferior comparative study.

OBJECTIVES: Limited evidence is available regarding alternative therapeutic agents to vancomycin in treating glycopeptide-susceptible Enterococcus faecium (GSEF) bacteraemia. This study assessed the effectiveness and safety of teicoplanin compared with vancomycin for treating GSEF bacteraemia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, non-inferiority cohort study. Patients aged ≥18 years who developed GSEF bacteraemia and received either teicoplanin or vancomycin were included. The primary effectiveness outcome was the clinical success at the end of treatment, with a generalized linear model using the propensity score for selecting the agent as a covariate. We used an absolute difference of 20% in clinical success as the non-inferiority margin. Using multivariable logistic regression, the primary safety outcome was the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI). RESULTS: In total, 164 patients (74 and 90 in the teicoplanin and vancomycin groups, respectively) were included. Overall, 64.9% (48/74) and 48.9% (44/90) of patients in the teicoplanin and vancomycin groups, respectively, achieved the primary effectiveness outcome. A generalized linear analysis showed an adjusted effectiveness difference of 9.9% (95% CI, -0.9% to 20.0%; P = 0.07), indicating non-inferiority of teicoplanin versus vancomycin. The incidence of AKI was 8.1% (6/74) and 24.4% (22/90) in the teicoplanin and vancomycin groups, respectively, with an adjusted OR of 0.242 (95% CI, 0.068 to 0.864; P = 0.029), indicating significantly lower AKI risk in the teicoplanin than in the vancomycin group. CONCLUSIONS: Teicoplanin is a safe and useful alternative therapeutic agent for treating GSEF bacteraemia.

Is there still a role for vancomycin in skin and soft-tissue infections?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Skin and soft-tissue infections (SSIs) are among the commonest infections encountered in clinical practice. Spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus SSIs continues to increase in both health care and community settings and presents a challenge for the best treatment choice. Vancomycin has been the mainstay of SSIs treatment, but recently its use has been questioned because of concerns about its efficacy, tolerability, and unfavorable pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile. The purpose of this review is to establish the current role for vancomycin in light of the literature published from January 2007 to September 2017 on comparison with both old and new alternatives. RECENT FINDINGS: Meta-analyses show better clinical and microbiological outcomes for drugs approved for the treatment of SSI, including those sustained by methicillin-resistant S. aureus, in the last 10 years than for vancomycin. The newer glycopeptides and linezolid decrease the total treatment costs compared with vancomycin, by reducing the length of stay or avoiding the hospitalization. SUMMARY: Vancomycin is noninferior in efficacy and safety to all comparator drugs, including the newest on the market. However, the SSI treatment evidence base presents several shortcomings limiting the clinical applicability of the results. High-level clinical trials should be performed to obtain results that can be generalized and applied effectively in clinical practice.

Single-dose oritavancin in the treatment of acute bacterial skin infections.

BACKGROUND: Oritavancin is a lipoglycopeptide with bactericidal activity against gram-positive bacteria. Its concentration-dependent activity and prolonged half-life allow for single-dose treatment. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial in which adults with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections received either a single intravenous dose of 1200 mg of oritavancin or a regimen of intravenous vancomycin twice daily for 7 to 10 days. Three efficacy end points were tested for noninferiority. The primary composite end point was defined as cessation of spreading or reduction in lesion size, absence of fever, and no need for administration of a rescue antibiotic 48 to 72 hours after administration of oritavancin. Secondary end points were clinical cure 7 to 14 days after the end of treatment, as determined by a study investigator, and a reduction in lesion size of 20% or more 48 to 72 hours after administration of oritavancin. RESULTS: The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 475 patients who received oritavancin and 479 patients who received vancomycin. All three efficacy end points met the prespecified noninferiority margin of 10 percentage points for oritavancin versus vancomycin: primary end point, 82.3% versus 78.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] for the difference, -1.6 to 8.4 percentage points); investigator-assessed clinical cure, 79.6% versus 80.0% (95% CI for the difference, -5.5 to 4.7 percentage points); and proportion of patients with a reduction in lesion area of 20% or more, 86.9% versus 82.9% (95% CI for the difference, -0.5 to 8.6 percentage points). Efficacy outcomes measured according to type of pathogen, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, were similar in the two treatment groups. The overall frequency of adverse events was also similar, although nausea was more common among those treated with oritavancin. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of oritavancin was noninferior to twice-daily vancomycin administered for 7 to 10 days for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections caused by gram-positive pathogens. (Funded by the Medicines Company; SOLO I ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252719.).

Empirical antibiotics targeting gram-positive bacteria for the treatment of febrile neutropenic patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: The pattern of infections among neutropenic patients with cancer has shifted in the last decades to a predominance of gram-positive infections. Some of these gram-positive bacteria are increasingly resistant to beta-lactams and necessitate specific antibiotic treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of empirical anti-gram-positive (antiGP) antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenic patients with cancer in terms of mortality and treatment failure. To assess the rate of resistance development, further infections and adverse events associated with additional antiGP treatment. SEARCH METHODS: For the review update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE (May 2012 to 2017), Embase (May 2012 to 2017), LILACS (2012 to 2017), conference proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov trial registry, and the references of the included studies. We contacted the first authors of all included and potentially relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one antibiotic regimen versus the same regimen with the addition of an antiGP antibiotic for the treatment of febrile neutropenic patients with cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted all data. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A random-effects model was used for all comparisons showing substantial heterogeneity (I2 > 50%). Outcomes were extracted by intention-to-treat and the analysis was patient-based whenever possible. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen trials and 2782 patients or episodes were included. Empirical antiGP antibiotics were tested at the onset of treatment in 12 studies, and for persistent fever in two studies. The antiGP treatment was a glycopeptide in nine trials. Eight studies were assessed in the overall mortality comparison and no significant difference was seen between the comparator arms, RR of 0.90 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.25; 8 studies, 1242 patients; moderate-quality data). Eleven trials assessed failure, including modifications as failures, while seven assessed overall failure disregarding treatment modifications. Failure with modifications was reduced, RR of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79; 11 studies, 2169 patients; very low-quality data), while overall failure was the same, RR of 1.00 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.27; 7 studies, 943 patients; low-quality data). Sensitivity analysis for allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data did not change the results. Failure among patients with gram-positive infections was reduced with antiGP treatment, RR of 0.56 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.84, 5 studies, 175 patients), although, mortality among these patients was not changed.Data regarding other patient subgroups likely to benefit from antiGP treatment were not available. Glycopeptides did not increase fungal superinfection rates and were associated with a reduction in documented gram-positive superinfections. Resistant colonisation was not documented in the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low- or low-quality evidence using the GRADE approach and overall low risk of bias, the current evidence shows that the empirical routine addition of antiGP treatment, namely glycopeptides, does not improve the outcomes of febrile neutropenic patients with cancer.

Oritavancin: A Novel Lipoglycopeptide.

OBJECTIVE: To review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, drug interactions, microbiologic profile, dosage and administration, safety, clinical efficacy, and potential place in therapy for the new lipoglycopetide, oritavancin. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and PubMed searches of available literature in English were conducted for oritavancin. Principal supplementary sources include the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) package insert, and FDA/European Medicines Agency guidances on acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Information from all stages of clinical development was evaluated to provide an overview of oritavancin, from in vitro susceptibility, to early human studies, to the latter stages of clinical trials. DATA SYNTHESIS: Oritavancin is a lipoglycopeptide antibiotic that has a mechanism of action and broad-spectrum gram-positive coverage similar to other glycopeptides. Compared with other glycopeptides, oritavancin minimum inhibitory concentrations tend to be lower. Oritavancin also has coverage against glycopeptide-resistant gram-positive organisms. Oritavancin does not require dose adjustment for mild-to-moderate hepatic or renal impairment, and its prolonged half-life of 245 hours allows for a one-time administration in the treatment of ABSSSI. In phase 2 and 3 clinical trials, oritavancin was shown to be well-tolerated in addition to being noninferior to vancomycin for the treatment of ABSSSI. The most common side effects experienced were gastrointestinal in nature. CONCLUSIONS: Oritavancin was approved by FDA for the treatment of ABSSSI in August 2014 and is marketed under the trade name Orbactiv. Its reduced dosing and monitoring requirements and efficacy against resistant gram-positive pathogens provide a unique profile that distinguishes it from current options in the treatment of ABSSSI.

Severe cutaneous adverse reactions related to systemic antibiotics.

BACKGROUND: Systemic antibiotics are a major cause of severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs). The selection of alternative antibiotics and management for SCARs patients with underlying infections can be challenging. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 74 cases of SCARs, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), related to use of systemic antibiotics in Taiwan from January 2006 to January 2012. We analyzed the causative antibiotics, clinical features, organ involvements, and mortality. We also assessed patient tolerability to alternative antibiotics after the development of antibiotic-related SCARs. RESULTS: The most common causes of SCARs were penicillins and cephalosporins for SJS/TEN and AGEP; glycopeptides for DRESS. Fatality was more frequent in the SJS/TEN group. In patients with SJS/TEN, higher mortality was associated with old age and underlying sepsis before the development of SCARs. The majority of patients with penicillin- or cephalosporin-related SCARs were able to tolerate quinolones, glycopeptides, and carbapenems. CONCLUSIONS: Complicated underlying conditions and infections may increase mortality in patients with antibiotic-related SCARs. The selection of structurally different alternative drugs is important to avoid recurrence.

Clinical experience of colistin-glycopeptide combination in critically ill patients infected with Gram-negative bacteria.

A colistin-glycopeptide combination (CGC) has been shown in vitro to be synergistic against multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR GNB), especially Acinetobacter baumannii, and to prevent further resistance. However, clinical data are lacking. We carried out a retrospective multicenter study of patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs) who received colistin for GNB infection over a 1-year period, to assess the rates of nephrotoxicity and 30-day mortality after treatment onset among patients treated with and without CGC for ≥48 h. Of the 184 patients treated with colistin, GNB infection was documented for 166. The main causative agents were MDR A. baumannii (59.6%), MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa (18.7%), and carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (14.5%); in 16.9% of patients, a Gram-positive bacterium (GPB) coinfection was documented. Overall, 68 patients (40.9%) received CGC. Comparison of patients treated with and without CGC showed significant differences for respiratory failure (39.7% versus 58.2%), ventilator-associated pneumonia (54.4% versus 71.4%), MDR A. baumannii infection (70.6% versus 52%), and GPB coinfection (41.2% versus 0%); there were no differences for nephrotoxicity (11.8% versus 13.3%) and 30-day mortality (33.8% versus 29.6%). Cox analysis performed on patients who survived for ≥5 days after treatment onset showed that the Charlson index (hazard ratio [HR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.44; P = 0.001) and MDR A. baumannii infection (HR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.23 to 5.12; P = 0.01) were independent predictors of 30-day mortality, whereas receiving CGC for ≥5 days was a protective factor (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.93; P = 0.03). We found that CGC was not associated with higher nephrotoxicity and was a protective factor for mortality if administered for ≥5 days.

Bacteremia due to Leuconostoc species: A 13-year single-center case series.

INTRODUCTION: Leuconostoc spp. are facultatively anaerobic Gram-positive cocci involved in cases of hospital-acquired bacteremia, mainly in immunocompromised hosts. The available data is scarce due to its uncommon presentation. METHODS: We describe all the episodes of Leuconostoc spp. bacteremia in a third level hospital in a 13-year period (2008-2021). RESULTS: Four cases of clinically relevant bacteremia were detected. All cases were categorized as catheter-related. The following risk factors were found: previous glycopeptide therapy (75%), use of parenteral nutrition (100%) and cancer (75%). All isolates showed susceptibility to beta-lactams. Catheter removal was performed and wide spectrum antimicrobials were administered, with clinical response in all cases except one. DISCUSSION: Apart from cancer and glycopeptide exposure, disruption of skin barrier and gastrointestinal conditions were identified as risk factors, as it was concordantly underlined in other case series. Susceptibility to beta-lactams is usually maintained. Catheter removal and administration of an active antibacterial therapy seem to be the best approach for Leuconostoc spp. catheter-related bacteremia.

Oritavancin - a new semisynthetic lipoglycopeptide agent to tackle the challenge of resistant gram positive pathogens.

Natural glycopeptide antibiotics like vancomycin and teicoplanin have played a significant role in countering the threat posed by Gram-positive bacterial infections. The emergence of resistance to glycopeptides among enterococci and staphylococci has prompted the search for second-generation drugs of this class and semi-synthetic derivatives are currently under clinical trials. Antimicrobial resistance among Gram-positive organisms has been increasing steadily during the past several decades and the current development of antibiotics falls short of meeting the needs. Oritavancin (LY-333328 diphosphate), a promising novel second-generation semisynthetic lipoglycopeptide, has a mechanism of action similar to that of other glycopeptides. It has concentration-dependent activity against a variety of Gram-positive organisms specially methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-intermediate resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VISA), Streptococcus pneumoniae and vancomycin-resistant enterococcus. It is rapidly bactericidal against many species and in particular for enterococci where vancomycin and teicoplanin are only bacteriostatic even against susceptible strains. The pharmacokinetic profile of oritavancin has not been fully described; however, oritavancin has a long half-life of about 195.4 hours and is slowly eliminated by renal means. Oritavancin is not metabolized by the liver in animals. Oritavancin will most probably be prescribed as a once-daily dose and it demonstrates concentration-dependent bactericidal activity. Oritavancin has demonstrated preliminary safety and efficacy in Phase I and II clinical trials. In a Phase III clinical trial, oritavancin has achieved the primary efficacy end point in the treatment of complicated Gram-positive skin and skin-structure infections. To date, adverse events have been mild and limited; the most common being administration site complaints, headache, rhinitis, dry skin, pain, increases in liver transaminases and accumulation of free cholesterol and phospholipids in phagocytic (macrophages) and nonphagocytic (fibroblast) cells. Oritavancin appears to be a promising antimicrobial alternative to vancomycin (with additional activity against Staphylococcus and Enterococcus resistant to vancomycin) for the treatment of complicated Gram-positive skin and skin-structure infections. Additional clinical data are required to fully explore its use.

Evaluation of a New 'Mix-In' Style Glycomacropeptide-Based Protein Substitute for Food and Drinks in Patients with Phenylketonuria and Tyrosinemia.

(1) Background: Poor palatability, large volume, and lack of variety of some liquid and powdered protein substitutes (PSs) for patients with phenylketonuria (PKU) and tyrosinemia (TYR) can result in poor adherence. This study aimed to evaluate a new unflavoured, powdered GMP-based PS designed to be mixed into drinks, foods, or with other PSs, in patients with PKU and TYR. (2) Methods: Paediatric and adult community-based patients were recruited from eight metabolic centres and prescribed ≥1 sachet/day (10 g protein equivalent (PE)) of the Mix-In-style PS over 28 days. Adherence, palatability, GI tolerance, and metabolic control were recorded at baseline and follow-up. Patients who completed at least 7 days of intervention were included in the final analysis. (3) Results: Eighteen patients (3-45 years, nine males) with PKU (n = 12) and TYR (n = 6) used the Mix-In-style PS for ≥7 days (mean 26.4 days (SD 4.6), range 11-28 days) alongside their previous PS, with a mean intake of 16.7 g (SD 7.7) PE/day. Adherence was 86% (SD 25), and GI tolerance was stable, with n = 14 experiencing no/no new symptoms and n = 3 showing improved symptoms compared to baseline. Overall palatability was rated satisfactory by 78% of patients, who successfully used the Mix-In-style PS in various foods and drinks, including smoothies, squash, and milk alternatives, as a top-up to meet their protein needs. There was no concern regarding safety/metabolic control during the intervention. (4) Conclusions: The 'Mix-In'-style PS was well adhered to, accepted, and tolerated. Collectively, these data show that providing a flexible, convenient, and novel format of PS can help with adherence and meet patients' protein needs.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of oritavancin front-loaded dosing regimens to daily dosing: an analysis of the SIMPLIFI trial.

Oritavancin is a novel lipoglycopeptide with demonstrated effectiveness against complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI) caused by Gram-positive pathogens, including those caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of oritavancin is favorable for single or infrequent dosing. A phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel, active-comparator study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00514527) of single and infrequent dosing of intravenous (i.v.) oritavancin for the treatment of cSSSI caused by Gram-positive pathogens (wound infections, major abscess, and cellulitis) was undertaken to evaluate the noninferiority of front-loaded dosing regimens compared to a daily-dosing regimen. A total of 302 patients ≥ 18 years of age were randomized equally to one of three oritavancin treatment groups, receiving either a daily dose (200 mg) administered for 3 to 7 days, a single dose (1,200 mg), or an infrequent dose (800-mg dose, with the option for an additional 400 mg on day 5). The primary efficacy was defined as a clinical response in clinically evaluable (CE) patients assessed at days 21 to 29 (test of cure [TOC]). The cure rates in the CE population were 72.4% (55/76) in the daily-dose group, 81.5% (66/81) in the 1,200-mg-single-dose group, and 77.5% (55/71) in the infrequent-dose group. In patients with MRSA at baseline, the cure rates were 78.3% (18/23), 73.0% (27/37), and 87.0% (20/23) in the daily-, 1,200-mg-single-, and infrequent-dose groups, respectively; however, the study was not powered to assess outcomes in the MRSA subpopulation, and given the heterogeneity of the types of infection and the small sample size, these do not suggest any true differences in efficacy rates for these pathogens. The frequencies of adverse events were similar among treatment groups. The results of this study show that single- and infrequent-dosing schedules of oritavancin were as efficacious as daily administration and had a similar safety profile in treating cSSSI caused by Gram-positive pathogens, including MRSA.

Efficacy and safety of novel glycopeptides versus vancomycin for the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections including methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare between current evidence of novel glycopeptides against vancomycin for the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections. METHODOLOGY: A systematic review and meta-analysis was done. Major databases were searched for eligible randomized control trials that assessed clinical success, microbiological success and safety profile of novel glycopeptides versus vancomycin for infections caused by gram-positive bacteria. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included eleven trials (7289 participants) comparing telavancin, dalbavancin and oritavancin with vancomycin. No differences were detected between novel glycopeptides and vancomycin for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) among modified intent-to-treat patients (OR: 1.04, CI: 0.92-1.17) as well as within the clinically evaluable patients (OR: 1.09, CI: 0.91-1.30). Data analysed from SSTIs, HAP and bacteremia studies on telavancin showed insignificant high clinical response in microbiologically evaluable patients infected with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (OR: 1.57, CI: 0.94-2.62, p: 0.08) and in the eradication of MRSA (OR: 1.39, CI: 0.99-1.96, P:0.06). Dalbavancin was non-inferior to vancomycin for the treatment of osteomyelitis in a phase II trial, while it was superior to vancomycin for the treatment of bacteremia in a phase II trial. Data analysed from all trials showed similar rates of all-cause mortality between compared antibiotics groups (OR: 0.67, CI: 0.11-4.03). Telavancin was significantly related with higher adverse events (OR: 1.24, CI: 1.07-1.44, P: <0.01) while dalbavancin and oritavancin were associated with significant fewer adverse events (OR: 0.73, CI: 0.57-0.94, p: 0.01; OR: 0.72, CI: 0.59-0.89, p: <0.01 respectively). CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety profiles of both dalbavancin and oritavancin were the same as vancomycin in the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections in different clinical settings, while telavancin might be an effective alternative to vancomycin in MRSA infections, but caution is required during its clinical use due to the high risk of adverse events, especially nephrotoxicity.

Relation of Copeptin with Diabetic and Renal Function Markers Among Patients with Diabetes Mellitus Progressing Towards Diabetic Nephropathy.

BACKGROUND: Arginine vasopressin (AVP) plays an important role in the pathophysiology of Diabetes Mellitus (DM) and its related complications like diabetic nephropathy. Copeptin is considered as a reliable surrogate biomarker of AVP. If raised levels of copeptin in diabetic patients are detected earlier, prognosis of DM can be improved by timely modulating the treatment strategy. AIMS OF THE STUDY: The study is therefore planned to assess copeptin levels in different groups of DM and in healthy controls to suggest a better and reliable biomarker for progressive stages of DM. METHODS: Subjects were recruited as controls, pre diabetes, DM without nephropathy and diabetic nephropathy. Serum copeptin levels were measured by ELISA. While, Blood Urea Nitrogen (BUN), creatinine, Glycosylated Hemoglobin (HbA1c) and spot urinary albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) were done using spectrophotometry. Statistical analysis was done using ANOVA and Pearson's correlation tests on SPSS. RESULTS: The average copeptin levels were 215.096 pg/mL. Copeptin levels were significantly elevated in subjects with positive family history of DM (p = 0.025), levels were also raised in pre diabetes kpatients (252.85 pg/mL) as compared to other groups. Copeptin levels were also correlated with HbA1c r = 0.171 (p = 0.101), BUN r = 0.244 (p = 0.007), creatinine r = 0.215 (p = 0.018), UACR r = 0.375 (p = <0.001) and GFR r = 0.215 (p = <0.019). CONCLUSION: The significant correlation of copeptin with diabetic and renal biomarkers, along with its positive association with family history of DM support its' role as an early and reliable biomarker of DM and its associated nephropathy.

Antimicrobial development in the era of emerging resistance.

Antibiotics currently under study by the Food and Drugs Administration include: faropenem (for treatment of sinusitis, bronchitis, and community-acquired pneumonia), dalbavancin (for catheter infections), telavancin (for treatment of nosocomial pneumonia), oritavancin (for bacteremia), ceftobiprole and iclaprim (for pneumonias). Moreover, all of them would be useful for skin and soft tissue infections.

A practical management of children with antibiotic allergy.

About 10% of the parents reported that their children are allergic to one drug and the betalactam antibiotics are the most frequently suspected. Even if most of the adverse events following antibiotic prescriptions to children are considered allergic, after a full allergy work-up only a few of the suspected reactions are confirmed. For this reason, many children are incorrectly labelled as "allergic" and this represents an important challenge for the choice of the antibiotic therapy in these "labelled" children, who are frequently improperly deprived of narrow-spectrum antibiotics because considered as allergic. When an allergic reaction is suspected a precise diagnosis and a choice of a safe and effective alternative is essential for the future antibiotic option. In the light of this, the main aim of this paper is to try to provide a practical approach to managing the individuals who have reported adverse reactions to antibiotics.

A systematic review and economic model of switching from non-glycopeptide to glycopeptide antibiotic prophylaxis for surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether there is a level of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) prevalence at which a switch from non-glycopeptide to glycopeptide antibiotics for routine prophylaxis is indicated in surgical environments with a high risk of MRSA infection. DATA SOURCES: Major electronic databases were searched up to September 2005. REVIEW METHODS: The effectiveness review included controlled clinical trials comparing a glycopeptide with an alternative antibiotic regimen that reported effectiveness and/or adverse events. Controlled observational studies were also included for adverse events. The cost-effectiveness review included economic evaluations comparing glycopeptide prophylaxis with any alternative comparator. Study validity was assessed using standard checklists. The supplementary economic reviews assessed evaluations of non-glycopeptide antibiotic prophylaxis; evaluations where antibiotic resistance is a problem; methods of modelling resistance in infectious diseases; and developing a conceptual framework. An indicative decision analytic model was developed to compare vancomycin with a cephalosporin and with a combination of vancomycin and cephalosporin, using hip arthroplasty as an exemplar. Available data on, for example, surgical site infection (SSI) rates, MRSA rates, effectiveness of the antibiotics, were incorporated into the model. Costs were estimated from the perspective of the NHS. RESULTS: The effectiveness review included 16 randomised controlled trials, with a further three studies included for adverse events only. There was no evidence that glycopeptides were more effective than non-glycopeptides in preventing SSIs. Most of the trials did not report either the baseline prevalence of MRSA at the participating surgical units or MRSA infections as an outcome. The cost-effectiveness review included five economic evaluations of glycopeptide prophylaxis. Only one study incorporated health-related quality of life and undertook a cost-utility analysis. None of the studies was undertaken in the UK and none explicitly modelled antibiotic resistance. The supplementary reviews provided few insights into how to assess cost-effectiveness in the context of resistance. No studies modelled cost-effectiveness alongside epidemiological models of resistance. There was little information regarding the impact of surgical infections on costs post-discharge and patient quality of life. The lack of available clinical evidence limited the development of the cost-effectiveness model and meant that the modelling could only be indicative in nature. The model can be used to show the threshold baseline risk at which the use of vancomycin as prophylaxis might be cost-effective (the model did not include teicoplanin). The indicative model suggests that the baseline risk of MRSA can be fairly modest at below the national average and it would still appear cost-effective to use glycopeptide prophylaxis. The model indicates that the use of glycopeptides as a form of prophylaxis in addition to a treatment for MRSA infections is unlikely to decrease the total usage and hence reduce the risk of future problems with glycopeptide-resistant bacteria. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a threshold prevalence of MRSA at which switching from non-glycopeptide to glycopeptide antibiotic prophylaxis might be clinically effective and cost-effective. Future research needs to address the complexities of decision-making relating to the prevention of MRSA and infection control in general. Research including evidence synthesis and decision modelling comparing a full range of interventions for infection control, which extends to other infections, not just MRSA, is needed. A long-term research programme to predict the pattern of drug resistance and its implications for future costs and health is also needed.