Although there are no clinical trials comparing therapy with vancomycin and β-lactam to vancomycin alone in the empiric treatment of S. aureus bacteremia (SAB), combination therapy has been advocated by some based on reports of reduced morbidity and mortality (1). More recently however, a retrospective study involving 122 hospitals failed to find superiority of vancomycin-β-lactam combination therapy compared to vancomycin alone for empiric therapy of SAB (2).
We do know that despite its activity against methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA), vancomycin is less bactericidal (3), with a higher rate of relapse than anti-staphylococcal β-lactams in the treatment of established SAB (4).
So although it may not be clear if we need to empirically place all of our patients suspected of SAB on a vancomycin-β-lactam from the get go, once MSSA has been confirmed, vancomycin should be dropped in favor of an anti-staphylococcal β-lactam.
- McConeghy KW, Bleasdale SC, Rodvold KA. The empirical combination of vancomycin and a β-lactam for staphylococcal bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 2013;57:1760-5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23985343
- McDaniel JS, Perencevich EN, Diekema DJ, et al. Comparative effectiveness of beta-lactams versus vancomycin for treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections among 122 hospitals. Clin Infect Dis 2015;61:361-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25900170
- Fernandez Guerrero ML, de Gorgolas M. Comparative activity of cloxacillin and vancomycin against methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus experimental endocarditis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006;58:1066-1069. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16931540
- Chang F-Y, Peacock JE, Musher DM, et al. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: recurrence and the impact of antibiotic treatment in a prospective multicenter study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2003;82:333-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14530782
Although OVP is often administered to patients with history of CDI who require SAT, evidence to support this practice has been lacking until recently.
In a 2016 retrospective study of 203 patients with prior history of CDI, those who received OVP (125 mg or 250 mg 2x/daily) during the course of their SAT and for up to 1 week thereafter were significantly less likely to have a recurrence than the non-OVP group (4.2% vs 26.6%, respectively, O.R. 0.12 [C.I. 0.04-0.4]) (1). In this study, the mean interval between prior CDI and initiation of prophylaxis was 6.1 months (1-21 months), and the mean duration of prophylaxis following discontinuation of SAT was 1 day (0-6 days). Similar results have been reported by others (2,3).
Despite their retrospective nature, these studies lend support to the use of OVP in reducing the risk of recurrent CDI in patients who require SAT. It is unclear how long OVP should be continued after SAT is completed, if at all, but common practice is 1-2 weeks.
A randomized-controlled study comparing OVP 125 mg daily for the duration of SAT plus 5 days vs placebo appears to be on the way (4)!
- Van Hise NW, Bryant AM, Hennessey EK, Crannage AJ, Khoury JA, Manian FA. Efficacy of oral vancomycin in preventing recurrent Clostridium difficile infection in patients treated with systemic antimicrobial agents. Clin Infect Dis 2016; Advance Access published June 17, 2016. Doi.10.1093/cid/ciw401.
- Carignan A, Sebastien Poulin, Martin P, et al. Efficacy of secondary prophylaxis with vancomycin for preventing recurrent Clostridium difficile infections. Am J Gastroenterol 2016;111: 1834-40. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27619835
- Granetsky A, Han JH, Hughes ME, et al. Oral vancomycin is highly effective in preventing Clostridium difficile infection in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Blood 2016;128:2225; http://www.bloodjournal.org/content/128/22/2225?sso-checked=true
Disclosure: The author of this post was also a co-investigator of one of the studies cited (ref. 1).
If you like this pearl, sign up under menu and receive future pearls straight into your mailbox!
Acute embolic stroke in the setting of AF without anticoagulation after ECT has been reported in a single case report in the absence of conversion to normal sinus rhythm (1). Several cases of episodic or persistent conversion to normal sinus rhythm (NSR) in patients with AF undergoing ECT have also been reported (in the absence of embolic stroke), leading some to recommend anticoagulation therapy in such patients (2), though no firm data exist.
The mechanism by which ECT promotes cardioversion from AF to NSR is unclear as direct electrical influence of ECT on the heart is thought to be negligible (1). Arrhythmias such as atrial flutter and AF have also been reported after ECT (1). Curiously, ECT is associated with increased 5- hydroxytryptamine (5- HT2)-receptor densities of platelets in patients with depression which may enhance platelet reactivity and increase the risk of embolic stroke (3) even in the absence of cardioversion.
Like this post? Sign up under MENU and catch future pearls right into your inbox!
- Suzuki H, Takano T, Tominaga M, et al. Acute embolic stroke in a patient with atrial fibrillation after electroconvulsive therapy. J Cardiol Cases 2010; e12-e14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878540910000113
- Petrides G, Fink M. Atrial fibrillation, anticoagulation, electroconvulsive therapy. Convulsive Therapy 1996;12:91-98. https://journals.lww.com/ectjournal/Abstract/1996/06000/Atrial_Fibrillation,_Anticoagulation,_and.4.aspx
- Stain-Malmgren R, Tham A, Ǻberg-Wistedt A. Increased platelet 5-HT2 receptor binding after electroconvulsive therapy in depression. J ECT 1998;14:15-24. https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/9661089
Short answer: No!
Although cefpodoxime is also a 3rd generation cephalosporin, its invitro activity against PRSP is not comparable to that of ceftriaxone. In a study of 21,605 strains of S. pneumoniae collected internationally, whereas 89.1% of PRSP isolates were susceptible to ceftriaxone, only 35% were susceptible to cefpodoxime (1). Among isolates resistant to penicillin and erythromycin, the susceptibility to ceftriaxone was 86.9% compared to that of 22.7% for cefpodoxime.
This information is important since 32%, and 17.6% of all S. pneumoniae isolates tested in this study were either penicillin-resistant or penicillin- and erythromycin-resistant, respectively. So, when it comes to the coverage of PRSP, there is no oral cephalosporin “equivalent” to ceftriaxone and that includes cefpodoxime. In fact, the package insert of cefpodoxime states that cefpodoxime is active against S. pneumoniae “excluding penicillin-resistant strains” (2).
If you liked this post, sign up under MENU and catch future pearls right into your mailbox!
- Pottumarthy S. Fritsche TR, Jones RN. Comparative activity of oral and parenteral cephalosporins tested against multidrug-resistant Streptococcus pneumonia: report from SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (1997-2003). Diag Microbiol Infect Dis 2005;51:147-150. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732889304002081
- http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2007/050674s014,050675s017lbl.pdf; accessed June 20, 2016.
In MRSA pneumonia, the sensitivity of nasal swab PCR may vary from as low as 24.2% to 88% (1-3). A 2018 meta-analysis found an overall sensitivity of 70.9% (community-acquired pneumonia/healthcare-associated pneumonia [HCAP] 85%, ventilator-associated pneumonia 40%) with overall negative predictive value of 96.5% (based on an overall MRSA pneumonia prevalence of 10%) (4).
A single center study involving patients with possible HCAP and a low clinical pulmonary infection score (CPIS) — for whom antibiotics may not be necessary anyway (5)—suggested that discontinuation of empiric vancomycin in patients without an adequate respiratory culture and a negative nose and throat culture may be reasonable (6).
However, a prospective study of ICU patients concluded that “clinicians cannot reliably use the results of initial negative MRSA nasal swab results to withhold empirical MRSA coverage from patients who otherwise are at risk for MRSA infection” (3).
The previously cited 2018 meta-analysis study (4) cautions against use of MRSA screening in patients with structural lung disease (eg, cystic fibrosis or bronchiectasis) because colonization may be more frequent in the lower respiratory tract in these patients and screening tests may therefore be discordant (4).
Collectively, the available data suggest that it is reasonable to use a negative MRSA screen to help exclude pneumonia due to this pathogen in patients in whom MRSA infection is not highly suspected or those who are not severely ill.
- Rimawi RH, Ramsey KM, Shah KB, et al. Correlation between methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal sampling, and S. aureus pneumonia in the medical intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35:590-92. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24709733
- Dangerfield B, Chung A, Webb B, et al. Predictive value of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal swab PCR assay for MRSA pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014;58:859-64. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24277023
- Sarikonda KV, Micek ST, Doherty JA, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization is a poor predictor of intensive care unit-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections requiring antibiotic treatment. Crit Care Med 2010;38:1991-1995. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20683260
- Parente DM Cunha CB Mylonakis E et al. The clinical utility of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal screening to rule out MRSA pneumonia: A diagnostic meta-analysis with antimicrobial stewardship implications. Clin Infect Dis 208;67:1-7.
- Napolitano LM. Use of severity scoring and stratification factors in clinical trials of hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis 2010;51:S67-S80. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20597675
- Boyce JM, Pop O-F, Abreu-Lanfranco O, et al. A trial of discontinuation of empiric vancomycin therapy in patients with suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus health care-associated pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013;57:1163-1168. http://aac.asm.org/content/57/3/1163.full.pdf
Behçet’s syndrome may cause life-threatening hemoptysis due to pulmonary artery aneurysms.1 In a cohort of 387 patients with such syndrome followed for over 20 years, massive hemoptysis was the leading cause of death, found most commonly early in the course of the disease among young men.2 Conversely, the one-year mortality of pulmonary artery aneurysm in Behçet’s may be greater than 50%.1 Behçet’s syndrome is the only vasculitic disease with a proclivity for large pulmonary vessels, while its less frequent pulmonary manifestations, such as fibrosis and thrombosis, overlap with other small vessel vasculitides.3 Beware that the initial presentation of pulmonary aneurysm rupture may be confused with that of pulmonary embolism, with potential for fatal complications from anticoagulation.1 CT angiogram should help in distinguishing the two conditions.
- Uzun O, Akpolat T, Erkan L. Pulmonary vasculitis in behcet disease: a cumulative analysis. Chest. 2005;127(6):2243-2253.
- Kural-Seyahi E, Fresko I, Seyahi N, et al. The long-term mortality and morbidity of Behçet syndrome: a 2-decade outcome survey of 387 patients followed at a dedicated center. Medicine (Baltimore). 2003;82(1):60-76.
- Hamuryudan V, Er T, Seyahi E, et al. Pulmonary artery aneurysms in Behçet syndrome. Am J Med. 2004;117(11):867-870.
Contributed by Sam Slavin, Harvard Medical Student