scholarly journals Ceftaroline for Severe Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections: A Systematic Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Reese A. Cosimi ◽  
Nahal Beik ◽  
David W. Kubiak ◽  
Jennifer A. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Clinical Cure ◽  
Bacterial Pneumonia ◽  
Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Hematological Parameters ◽  
Close Monitoring ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Methicillin Resistant ◽  
Ovid Medline

Abstract Ceftaroline is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, including cases with concurrent bacteremia. Use for serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections has risen for a multitude of reasons. The aim of this article is to review the literature evaluating clinical outcomes and safety of ceftaroline prescribed for serious MRSA infections. We conducted a literature search in Ovid (Medline) and PubMed for reputable case reports, clinical trials, and reviews focusing on the use of ceftaroline for treatment of MRSA infections. Twenty-two manuscripts published between 2010 and 2016 met inclusion criteria. Mean clinical cure was 74% across 379 patients treated with ceftaroline for severe MRSA infections. Toxicities were infrequent. Ceftaroline treatment resulted in clinical and microbiologic cure for severe MRSA infections. Close monitoring of hematological parameters is necessary with prolonged courses of ceftaroline.

Severe Sepsis Attributable to Community-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: An Emerging Fatal Problem

2007 ◽  
Vol 73 (7) ◽  
pp. 684-687 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric T. Castaldo ◽  
Edmund Y. Yang
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Soft Tissues ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Necrotizing Pneumonia ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Methicillin Resistant ◽  
Cardiorespiratory Failure ◽  
Source Of Infection

We observed a number of cases of sepsis from bacteremia in children from community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), which led us to study its patterns of infection and outcome. A retrospective review identifying children admitted to our institution with blood culture-proven community-associated MRSA sepsis over a 2-year period was performed. The inclusion criteria were younger than 19 years old, two or more blood cultures for MRSA within 48 hours of admission, evidence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and no prior hospital admissions within 6 months. Eight patients were included; seven required mechanical ventilation. Vasopressors were required in seven patients. Four patients required extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation. Four patients had culture-proven septic arthritis or thrombophlebitis and three of these patients developed bilateral necrotizing pneumonia. Bilateral necrotizing pneumonia was identified in the other four patients, but the primary source of infection was never identified. The overall intact neurologic survival was 50 per cent. Children with severe community-associated MRSA sepsis can rapidly progress to cardiorespiratory failure. Mortality appears to be high, and children may benefit from a search of their soft tissues and joints to identify the source of infection to prevent embolic dissemination.

scholarly journals A Mini-Review on Ceftaroline in Bacteremia Patients with Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Infections

Antibiotics ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Lounsbury ◽  
Mary Reeber ◽  
Georges Mina ◽  
Christiane Chbib
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Ceftaroline Fosamil ◽  
Methicillin Resistant

Objective: The objective of this review is to describe the outcomes of patients treated with ceftaroline in the non-Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved indication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in both pediatric and adult populations. Data sources: A systematic overview was conducted by searching PubMed, Medline, and The Cochrane Library up to January 2019. Study selection and data extraction: All English-language clinical trials and case reports related to the efficacy of ceftaroline in new, not-yet-approved FDA indications in MRSA infections in pediatric or adult populations. Data synthesis: In the case of MRSA bacteremia (MRSAB) infections, three different randomized studies in pediatric patients showed effectiveness of ceftaroline. When used in the case of adult populations with MRSA bacteremia, a small trial of 16 patients showed 50% clinical success in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections versus 63% clinical success in patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Another case series of six refractory case reports showed 50% clinical success of ceftaroline in patients with MRSA. Conclusions: Although there are few case reports and limited data to date, ceftaroline fosamil should continue to be studied as an alternative therapy in MRSA infections in both pediatric and adult populations. Clinical success rates of ceftaroline were, in most cases, considered high when treating patients with MRSA infection. More clinical trials need to be studied. In the specific case of MRSA bacteremia, the treatment options remain few and ceftaroline should be extensively studied for the salvage treatment of MRSAB.

Correlation Between Patients With Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Nares Colonization and MRSA Diabetic Foot Infections

2020 ◽  
pp. 153473462096357
Author(s):  
Jacquelyn Brondo ◽  
Kathleen Morneau ◽  
Teri Hopkins ◽  
Linda Yang ◽  
Jose Cadena-Zuluaga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Empiric Therapy ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Methicillin Resistant ◽  
Diabetic Foot Infections ◽  
Prior Literature ◽  
Mrsa Infection

Infectious Diseases Society of America diabetic foot infection (DFI) guidelines indicate empiric methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) coverage for patients with a history of MRSA infection, when local prevalence of MRSA is high, or infection is clinically severe. These recommendations may lead to overutilization of empiric MRSA coverage, which can result in serious consequences. A strong negative predictive value (NPV) has been reported in literature for pneumonia, and recently, for all anatomical sites of infection. While these findings are promising, further validation is needed before clinicians may confidently use MRSA nares to guide empiric therapy for DFIs. A retrospective electronic medical record review was completed between October 1, 2013 and October 1, 2019. Patients met inclusion criteria if they were at least 18, admitted with a DFI, had MRSA nares test results, and DFI cultures. Patients were excluded if pregnant or MRSA infection within 1 year prior to index admission for DFI. A total of 200 patients met inclusion criteria. The majority of study participants were male with a mean age of 63. NPV of MRSA nares for MRSA DFIs was determined to be 94% and positive predictive value 58%. Sensitivity and specificity were 56% and 94%, respectively. Results of this study are consistent with prior literature supporting strong correlation of NPV for MRSA nares. The DFIs evaluated suggest a strong NPV of MRSA nares for MRSA DFIs, which may allow for faster de-escalation of empiric anti-MRSA antibiotic therapy and lower risk of adverse events associated with anti-MRSA therapy.

Clinical Outcomes of Linezolid vs Vancomycin in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 385-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeannie D. Chan ◽  
Tam N. Pham ◽  
Jenny Wong ◽  
Michelle Hessel ◽  
Joseph Cuschieri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Clinical Cure ◽  
Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Ventilator Associated Pneumonia ◽  
Vancomycin Therapy ◽  
Methicillin Resistant ◽  
Treatment Standard ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Days Of Therapy

Background: Vancomycin has been the treatment standard for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections, but clinical efficacy is limited. We report outcomes of a cohort with MRSA ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) treated with vancomycin vs linezolid. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 113 participants with MRSA VAP confirmed by bronchoscopy who have been initiated on therapy with either vancomycin or linezolid within 24 hours after bronchoscopy and completed ≥7 days of therapy during their hospitalization from July 2003 to June 2007. The primary endpoints were hospital survival and clinical cure, defined as resolution of signs and symptoms of VAP or microbiological eradication after completion of therapy along with clinical pulmonary infection score (CPIS) ≤6 at day 7 of therapy. Results: At hospital discharge, 23/27 (85.2%) of linezolid and 72/86 (83.7%) of vancomycin recipients had survived ( P = .672). In comparison to linezolid recipients, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for survival was 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16-3.27) with vancomycin therapy. Clinical cure was achieved in 24/27 (88.9%) of linezolid and 63/86 (73.3%) of vancomycin recipients ( P = .066). Compared to linezolid recipients, the adjusted OR for clinical cure was 0.24 (95% CI: 0.05-1.10) with vancomycin therapy. Survival and clinical cure did not differ significantly between vancomycin recipients with trough level ≥15 and <15 μg/mL, respectively. Conclusions: Our results suggested no survival benefit but a trend toward higher cure rate with linezolid therapy. The optimal treatment of MRSA VAP requires further study through randomized, controlled trials.

scholarly journals Pilot Study of Aerosolised Plus Intravenous Vancomycin in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Pneumonia

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Yeun Cho ◽  
Hyung-Sook Kim ◽  
Hye-Joo Yang ◽  
Yeon Joo Lee ◽  
Jong Sun Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Clinical Cure ◽  
Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Treatment Success ◽  
Lavage Fluid ◽  
Methicillin Resistant ◽  
Administration Time ◽  
Staphylococcus Aureus Pneumonia

Treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia in critically ill patients remains unsatisfactory. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of aerosolised vancomycin in addition to intravenous administration in this setting. This was a prospective, noncomparative, phase II trial. Patients receiving mechanical ventilation for >48 h in intensive care units (ICUs) were screened; those receiving intravenous vancomycin for MRSA pneumonia were enrolled. Patients received aerosolised vancomycin (250 mg every 12 h for five days) via a vibrating mesh nebuliser. The primary outcome was treatment success (clinical cure or improvement) at the conclusion of antibiotic treatment. Vancomycin concentrations were measured in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid according to administration time. Twenty patients were enrolled (median age 75 years and 13 (65%) men; 18 (90%) cases with nosocomial pneumonia). Thirteen patients (65%) showed clinical cure or improvement. Microbiological eradication of MRSA was confirmed in 14 patients (70%). ICU and hospital mortality rates were 30% and 35%, respectively. Maximum aerosolised vancomycin concentration was observed 4–5 h after nebulising (98.75 ± 21.79 mcg/mL). No additional systemic adverse effects occurred following aerosol vancomycin treatment. Aerosolised vancomycin combination therapy may be an alternative treatment for patients with severe MRSA pneumonia receiving mechanical ventilation (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01925066).

scholarly journals Transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains between humans and dogs: two case reports

2009 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 660-662 ◽  
Author(s):  
U. Nienhoff ◽  
K. Kadlec ◽  
I. F. Chaberny ◽  
J. Verspohl ◽  
G.-F. Gerlach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Methicillin Resistant
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document