RESUMO
Cryptococcal infections, though rare, must be considered in all immunocompromised patients. Patients with HIV/AIDS on antiretrovirals may have a treatment course complicated by immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome. Here we present a case of a 38-year-old woman with HIV/AIDS with knee pain who only began to experience severe pain after induction of antiretroviral therapy. She was found to have cryptococcal osteomyelitis without dissemination to the central nervous system, an unusual presentation for immunocompromised patients. She was treated with oral fluconazole with a resolution of symptoms. This case report suggests conservative management of isolated cryptococcal infection with fluconazole, regardless of immune status.
Conservative treatment of isolated cryptococcus infection in a patient with a weakened immune system Cryptococcus neoformans is a fungus found in the soil which care rarely infect humans, especially those who have a weakened immune system, like those with HIV infection. The treatment of HIV in people with 'secondary infections', like cryptococcal infections, may cause patients to get worse before they get better as the immune system starts to function and attack the secondary infection. In this case report, we look at a patient who had untreated HIV who only began to develop symptoms of a secondary cryptococcal infection once treatment for HIV was started. However, because the cryptococcal infection was only in her bone and not throughout her body and nervous system, we were able to treat her with a conservative, oral regimen. In patients with severe cryptococcal infection or with infection of their nervous system, they often need to be treated with medications that can cause a lot of unwanted side effects. The key takeaway from this article is that conservative treatment of Cryptococcus may be effective, even in people with weakened immune systems, as long as the cryptococcal infection is isolated.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (MRSA-B) may fail to improve with standard monotherapy, particularly in patients with multifocal infection, incomplete source control, or persistent bacteremia. Synergy observed in vitro between ceftaroline (CPT) and daptomycin (DAP) or vancomycin (VAN) may translate into clinical benefit. Here, we describe our experience with DAP/CPT and VAN/CPT for complicated MRSA-B after monotherapy failure. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective review of consecutive patients treated with DAP/CPT or VAN/CPT for MRSA-B after monotherapy failure from 1 January 2016 to 30 November 2018. RESULTS: We identified 11 instances of combination therapy in 10 patients (DAP/CPT = 6, VAN/CPT = 5) with 1 patient receiving VAN/CPT followed by DAP/CPT. Rates of multifocal infection, incomplete source control, persistent bacteremia, and infective endocarditis were high (100%, 80%, 60%, and 60%, respectively). Combination therapy was initiated most commonly for persistent bacteremia (60%). When patients were persistently bacteremic, median preceding duration was 13 days and median time to clearance was 3 days. Total microbiologic cure rate was 100%. There were zero instances of bacteremia relapse at 30 days (30D) or 60 days (60D). All-cause 30D and 60D mortality rates were 11.1% and 33.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy demonstrated success in diverse cases of refractory MRSA-B, including instances of persistent bacteremia paired with incomplete source control. Optimal timing and therapeutic cadence for combination therapy remain unclear. Our findings suggest that DAP/CPT and VAN/CPT can be considered for complicated MRSA bacteremia when other treatment options fail or are unavailable. We propose persistent bacteremia with incomplete source control to be a clinical niche particularly worthy of further investigation.