A comparison of safety and outcomes with cefazolin versus nafcillin for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections.

BACKGROUND: Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) is a frequent cause of bloodstream infections (BSI). Treatment with nafcillin (NAF) has been preferred to cefazolin (CFZ). However, comparable outcomes have been found with CFZ with possibly lower risk for side-effects. This study compared safety and effectiveness of NAF versus CFZ for MSSA BSI. METHODS: This single center retrospective study evaluated adults admitted with MSSA BSI who received NAF or CFZ. Patients receiving ≥24 h of antibiotics were included for safety analyses. Patients receiving NAF or CFZ for ≥75% of a 14 day minimum treatment course were assessed for clinical effectiveness. The primary safety outcome was incidence of renal toxicity with multiple secondary safety endpoints. Clinical success was defined as symptom resolution, repeat negative cultures, lack of additional therapy for presumed failure, and lack of recurrence within 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients receiving NAF (n = 79) or CFZ (n = 51) were included for safety analysis. Of those, 90 met criteria for effectiveness assessment (NAF n = 40, CFZ n = 50). Baseline characteristics were well matched. NAF was associated with a higher incidence of nephrotoxicity compared to CFZ (25% vs. 2%, RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.15-1.5, p < 0.001), allergic reactions (p = 0.01) and a trend for hepatotoxicity (p = 0.08). Clinical success was achieved in 82% NAF and 94% CFZ treated patients (p = 0.1). CONCLUSION: CFZ was associated with less nephrotoxicity and no difference in clinical success compared to NAF for MSSA BSI. A prospective study comparing NAF to CFZ for MSSA BSI should be conducted to elucidate differences in therapies.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose range study of dexmedetomidine as adjunctive therapy for alcohol withdrawal.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate dexmedetomidine as adjunctive therapy to lorazepam for severe alcohol withdrawal. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Single center; medical ICU. PATIENTS: Twenty-four adult patients with a Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment score greater than or equal to 15 despite greater than or equal to 16 mg of lorazepam over a 4-hour period. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received a symptom-triggered Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment protocol with lorazepam and were randomized to dexmedetomidine 1.2 µg/kg/hr (high dose), 0.4 µg/kg/hr (low dose), or placebo as adjunctive therapy for up to 5 days or resolution of withdrawal symptoms. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: High-dose and low-dose groups were combined as a single dexmedetomidine group for primary analysis with secondary analysis exploring a dose-response relationship. The difference in 24-hour lorazepam requirements after versus before study drug was greater in the dexmedetomidine group compared with the placebo group (-56 mg vs -8 mg, p = 0.037). Median differences were similar for high dose and low dose. The 7-day cumulative lorazepam requirements were not statistically different between dexmedetomidine and placebo (159 mg vs 181 mg). Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment or Riker sedation-agitation scale scores representing severe agitation (13% vs 25%) or moderate agitation (27% vs 22%) within 24 hours of initiating study drug were similar for dexmedetomidine and placebo groups, respectively. Bradycardia occurred more frequently in the dexmedetomidine group versus placebo group (25% vs 0%, p = not significant), with the majority of bradycardia occurring in the high-dose group (37.5%). Study drug rate adjustments occurred more often in the dexmedetomidine group compared with the placebo group (50% vs 0%, p = 0.02). Neither endotracheal intubation nor seizure occurred in any group while on study drug. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive dexmedetomidine for severe alcohol withdrawal maintains symptom control and reduces lorazepam exposure in the short term, but not long term, when using a symptom-triggered protocol. Monitoring for bradycardia is needed with dexmedetomidine but the occurrence may be lessened with low dose. Further study is needed to evaluate the clinical impact of dexmedetomidine.