Is treatment of pneumococcal pneumonia with bacteremia any different than pneumococcal pneumonia without bacteremia?

In the absence of disseminated infection such as meningitis or endocarditis, there is no convincing evidence that bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia (BPP) requires either longer course of IV or oral antibiotics.

In fact, although previously thought to have a worse prognosis, recent data have failed to demonstrate any difference in time to clinical stability, duration of hospital stay or community-associated pneumonia (CAP)-related mortality with BPP when other factors such as patient comorbidities and severity of disease are also considered1,2

Although many patients with CAP receive 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy, shorter durations as little as 5 days may also be effective3,4.  Generally, once patients with BPP have stabilized on parenteral therapy, a switch to an appropriate oral antibiotic (eg, a β-lactam or a respiratory quinolone such as levofloxacin) can be made safely5

Although large randomized-controlled studies of treatment of BPP are not available, a cumulative clinical trial experience with levofloxacin for patients with BPP reported a successful clinical response in >90% of patients (median duration of therapy 14 d)6. Resistance to levofloxacin and failure of treatment in pneumococcal pneumonia (with or without bacteremia), however, has been rarely reported7.

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References

  1. Bordon J, Peyrani P, Brock GN. The presence of pneumococcal bacteremia does not influence clinical outcomes in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Chest 2008;133;618-624.
  2. Cilloniz C, Torres A. Understanding mortality in bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia. J Bras Pneumol 2012;38:419-421.
  3. Mandell LA, Wunderink RG, Anzueto A, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society consensus guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis 2007;44:S27-72.
  4. Shorr F, Khashab MM, Xiang JX, et al. Levofloxacin 750-mg for 5 days for the treatment of hospitalized Fine Risk Class III/IV community-acquired pneumonia patients. Resp Med 2006;100:2129-36.
  5. Ramirez JA, Bordon J. Early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics in hospitalized patients with bacteremic community-acquired Streptococcus pneumonia pneumonia. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:848-50.
  6. Kahn JB, Bahal N, Wiesinger BA, et al. Cumulative clinical trial experience with levofloxacin for patients with community-acquired pneumonia-associated pneumococcal bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 2004;38(supp 1):S34-42.
  7. Davidson R, Cavalcanti R, Brunton JL, et al. Resistance to levofloxacin and failure of treatment of pneumococcal pneumonia. N Engl J Med 2002;346:747-50.
Is treatment of pneumococcal pneumonia with bacteremia any different than pneumococcal pneumonia without bacteremia?

How does azithromycin (AZ) benefit patients with severe COPD or cystic fibrosis (CF)?

AZ is a macrolide antibiotic which interferes with bacterial protein synthesis by binding to the 50S ribosomal subunit. It is often used to treat acute respiratory tract infections due to Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, as well as Mycoplasma, Chlamydia, and Legionella sp1. Although it has no in vitro activity against many aerobic gram-negative bacilli such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, its chronic use has often been associated with a significant reduction in the frequency of disease exacerbations in patients with chronic bronchiectasis and colonization due to this organism, including patients with COPD or CF1-3.

Because P. aeruginosa is invariably macrolide-resistant, the beneficial effect of AZ in chronically infected or colonized patients must be due to factors other than its direct effect on bacterial replication.  Several mechanisms have been invoked including: 1. Inhibition of quorum-sensing dependent virulence factor and biofilm production 2.Blunting of host inflammatory response (eg, ↑IL-10, and ↓ IL-1ß, IL-6, IL-8, TNF-α, and ↓ chemotaxis); and 3. Enhanced antiviral response1.

The latter finding is quite unexpected but AZ appears to augment interferon response to rhinovirus in bronchial cells of COPD patients3.  With respiratory viruses (including rhinoviruses) causing 20-55% of all COPD exacerbations, perhaps this is another way AZ may help the host! Who would have thought!!

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References

  1. Vos R, Vanaudenaerde BM, Verleden SE, et al. Anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties of azithromycin involved in treatment and prevention of chronic lung allograft rejection. Transplantation 2012;94:101-109.
  2. Cochrane review. Treatment with macrolide antibiotics for people with cystic fibrosis and chronic chest infection. Nov 14, 2012. http://www.cochrane.org/CD002203/CF_treatment-with-macrolide-antibiotics-for-people-with-cystic-fibrosis-and-chronic-chest-infection
  3. Menzel M, Akbarshahi H, Bjermer L, et al. Azithromycin induces anti-viral effects in cultured bronchial epithelial cells from COPD. Scientific Reports 2016; 6:28698. DOI:10.1038/srep 28698.

 

 

How does azithromycin (AZ) benefit patients with severe COPD or cystic fibrosis (CF)?

Is the combination of piperacillin-tazobactam and vancomycin (PT-V) nephrotoxic?

Despite its widespread use for over 20 years, PT-V has only recently been linked to higher risk of AKI when compared to vancomycin+/- other β-lactams, particularly cefepime1,2

A 2016 meta-analysis of 14 observational studies reported an AKI incidence ranging from 11%-48.8% for PT-V (used for ≥48 h in most studies), with an adjusted O.R. of 3.11 (95% C.I. 1.77-5.47) when compared to other vancomycin treatment groups1.  Of note, nephrotoxicity associated with PT-V appears to occur earlier than the comparative groups (median 3 days vs 5 days of therapy, respectively), with the highest daily incidence observed on days 4 and 52.

Although the exact mechanism(s) of nephrotoxicity in patients receiving PT-V is unknown, both piperacillin and vancomycin have been implicated in acute renal tubular dysfunction/necrosis and acute interstitial nephritis3-5.

Collectively, these findings are only a reminder to be more judicious in the selection and duration of treatment of even “safe” antibiotics.

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References

  1. Hammond DA, Smith MN, Chenghui Li, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of acute kidney injury associated with concomitant vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam. Clin Infect Dis 2016 ciw811.doi:10.1093cid/ciw811.https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/64/5/666/2666529
  2. Navalkele B, Pogue JM, Karino S, et al. Risk of acute kidney injury in patients on concomitant vancomycin an dpiperacillin-tazobactam compared to those on vancomycin and cefepime. Clin Infect Dis 2017;64:116-123. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/64/2/116/2698878
  3. Hayashi T, Watanabe Y, Kumano K, et al. Pharmacokinetic studies on the concomitant administration of piperacillin and cefazolin, and piperacillin and cefoperazone in rabbits. J Antibiotics 1986; 34:699-712. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3733519
  4. Polderman KH, Girbes ARJ. Piperacillin-induced magnesium and potassium loss in intensive care unit patients. Intensive Care Med 2002;28:530-522. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00134-002-1244-3
  5. Htike NL, Santoro J, Gilbert B, et al. Biopsy-proven vancomycin-associated interstitial nephritis and acute tubular necrosis. Clin Exp Nephrol 2012;16:320-324. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10157-011-0559-1

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Mercy Hospital-St. Louis, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, their affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

Is the combination of piperacillin-tazobactam and vancomycin (PT-V) nephrotoxic?

When should I pay attention to the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of an antibiotic despite the lab reporting it to be in the “Susceptible” range?

In most situations, you will most likely choose an antibiotic based on the laboratory reporting of “Susceptible” (vs “Resistant”), not the actual MIC value of the drug and that’s fine.  

However, there may be a few instances when you may need to pay more attention to the actual MICs. Many experts recommend caution when “high” MICs within a susceptible range are observed in the following situations:   

  1. Vancomycin MIC >1 ug/ml in Staphylococcal aureus (methicillin-sensitive or –resistant) infections because of its possible association with clinical failure and, at times, increased mortality1,2.
  2. Ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin MIC>0.25 ug/ml in bacteremia caused by Gram-negative bacilli (including Enterobacteriacae as well as Pseudomonas aeruginosa) because of its association with an adverse outcome (eg, longer average hospital stay post-culture and duration of infection) but not necessarily mortality3-5.
  3. Levofloxacin MIC ≥ 1.0 ug/ml in Streptococcus pneumoniae infections, because of its association with an adverse clinical outcome based on drug pharmacodynamics and anecdotal reports of treatment failure6,7.

 

References

  1. Jacob JT, DiazGranados CA. High vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration and clinical outomces in adults with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: a meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis 2013;17:e93-e100.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780595/
  2. Kalil AC, Van Schooneveld TC, Fey PD, et al. Association between vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration and mortality among patients with Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2014;312:1552-1564. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25321910
  3. DeFife R, Scheetz MH, Feinglass J, et al. Effect of differences in MIC values on clinical outcomes in patients with bloodstream infections caused by Gram-negative organisms treated with levofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009;53:1074-79. http://aac.asm.org/content/53/3/1074.full
  4. Falagas ME, Tansarli GS, Rafailidis PI, et al. Impact of antibiotic MIC on infection outcome in patients with susceptible Gram-negative bacteria a systematic review and meta-analysis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012;56:4214-22. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22615292
  5. Zelenitsky SA, Harding GKM, Sun S, et al. Treatment and outcome of Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia: an antibiotic pharmacodynamics analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003;52:668-674. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12951354
  6. Davidson R, Cavalcanti R, Brunton JL, et al. Resistance to levofloxacin and failure of treatment of pneumococcal pneumonia. N Engl J Med 2002;346:. 2002;346:747-50. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11882730
  7. De Cueto M, Rodriguez JM, Soriano MJ, et al. Fatal levofloxacin failure in treatment of a bacteremic patient infected with Streptococcus pneumoniae with a preexisting parC mutation. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:1558-1560.  http://jcm.asm.org/content/46/4/1558.full

Contributed in part by Nick Van Hise, Pharm.D., BCPS, Infectious Diseases Clinical Pharmacist, Edward-Elmhurst Hospitals, Naperville, Illinois.

If you liked this post, sign up under MENU and get future pearls straight into your mailbox!

When should I pay attention to the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of an antibiotic despite the lab reporting it to be in the “Susceptible” range?

My patient is being treated for a urinary tract infection with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) and has developed hypoglycemia. Can it be related?

Yes! The sulfamethoxazole component of TMP-SMX contains the identical sulfanilamide structural group as sulfonylureas used as oral hypoglycemics1.  It appears to act through mimicking the action of sulfonyureas on the pancreatic islet cells by acting as an insulin secretagogue leading to increased insulin secretion1.   Increased levels of plasma insulin dropping  following interruption of TMP-SMX has been reported,  and is thought to be dose and time dependent1,2.

A major risk factor for this complication is impaired renal function, but poor hepatic function, and concurrent use of drugs that decrease plasma glucose levels have also been implicated (1,2).  Occasionally there are no obvious risk factors.

sulfapiced

 Bonus Pearl: Did you know that sulfonamides were first noted to cause hypoglycemia in 1942, when they were used for treatment of typhoid, paving the way for the development of sulfonylureas as the original oral hypoglycemic agents . The Power of observation strikes again!

References

  1. Forde DG, Aberdein J, Tunbidge A, et al. Hypoglycemia associated with co-trimoxazole use in a 56-year-old caucasian woman with renal impairment. BMJ Case Reports 2012;doi:101136/bcr-2012-007215.
  2. Nunnai G, Celesia BM, Bellissimo F, et al. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole-associated severe hypoglycemia: a sulfonylurea-like effect. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2010;14:1015-18.
My patient is being treated for a urinary tract infection with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) and has developed hypoglycemia. Can it be related?

How should patients with hospital-associated pneumonia (HAP) be empirically treated under the 2016 clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society?

Although empiric selection of antibiotics should be based on the local distribution of pathogens associated with HAP and their antimicrobial susceptibilities, routine coverage of Staphylococcus aureus (not necessarily methicillin-resistant S. aureus [MRSA]) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa or other gram-negative bacilli is recommended1.

In patients not at high risk of mortality (including ventilatory support and septic shock) or risk for MRSA (i.e.prior IV antibiotic use within 90 days, hospitalization in a unit where >20% of S. aureus isolates are MRSA or the prevalence of MRSA is unknown), piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, levofloxacin, imipenem or meropenem alone is suggested.

In patients not at high risk of mortality but with factors that increase the likelihood of MRSA, piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime/ceftazidime, ciprofloxacin/levofloxacin, imipenem/meropenem, or aztreonam, plus vancomycin or linezolid should be considered.

In patients at high risk of mortality or receipt of IV antibiotics during the prior 90 days vancomycin or linezolid plus 2 of the following should be used: piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime/ceftazidime, ciprofloxacin/levofloxacin, imipenem/meropenem, amikacin/gentamicin/tobramycin, or aztreonam are recommended (avoid double β-lactams).

In patients with structural lung disease increasing the risk of gram-negative infections (ie, bronchiectasis or cystic fibrosis), double anti-pseudomonal coverage is recommended.

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Reference

  1. Kalil AC, Metersky ML, Klompas M, et al. Management of adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia: 2016 clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society. Clin Infect Dis, Advance Access published July 14, 2016.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27418577  
How should patients with hospital-associated pneumonia (HAP) be empirically treated under the 2016 clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society?

What are some of the major changes in the 2016 Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society guidelines on pneumonia in hospitalized patients?

The most noticeable change is the elimination of the concept of health-care associated pneumonia (HCAP) altogether1. This action is in part related to the fact that many patients with HCAP were not at high risk for multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs) , and that individual patient risk factors, not mere exposure to healthcare facilities, were better determinant of  the need for broader spectrum antimicrobials.

Other noteworthy points in the guidelines include:

  • Although hospital-associated pneumonia (HAP) is still defined as a pneumonia not incubating at the time of admission and occurring 48 hrs or more following hospitalization, it now only refers to non-VAP cases; VAP cases are considered a separate category.
  • Emphasis is placed on each hospital generating antibiograms to guide providers with respect to the optimal choice of antibiotics.
  • Despite lack of supportive evidence, the guidelines recommend obtaining respiratory samples for culture in patients with HAP.
  • Prior intravenous antibiotic use within 90 days is cited as the only consistent risk factor for MDROs, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Pseudomonas sp.

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Reference

  1. Kalil AC, Metersky ML, Klompas M, et al. Management of adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia: 2016 clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society. Clin Infect Dis 2016 ;63:e61-e111.  Advance Access published July 14, 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27418577
What are some of the major changes in the 2016 Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society guidelines on pneumonia in hospitalized patients?

What is the clinical relevance of “SPICE” organisms?

“SPICE” often stands for the following bacterial species: Serratia spp, Providencia spp, indole-positive Proteae (e.g. Proteus spp. [not mirabilis], Morganella spp., Providencia spp.), Citrobacter spp., and Enterobacter spp.  Some have also included Pseudomonas spp (“P”).

These organisms (as well as Acinetobacter spp., at times “A” in SP”A”CE organisms) often have inducible chromosomal AmpC ß-lactamase genes that may be derepressed during therapy, conferring in vivo ß-lactam resistance despite apparent sensitivity in vitro (1,2). Because AmpC genes in clinical isolates are not routinely screened for in the laboratory, the following treatment approach to these organisms is often adopted (1).

Third generation cephalosporins (e.g. ceftriaxone and ceftazidime) are usually avoided irrespective of in vitro susceptibility. For less serious infections (e.g. urinary tract infections) or severe infections in carefully monitored clinically stable patients, piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime in particular may be used due to their lower risk of induced resistance. For severe infections (e.g. pneumonia and bacteremia) in seriously ill patients, carbapenems (e.g. meropenem, imipenem-cilastatin) are often the drugs of choice. 

A small retrospective study of patients with infection due to SPICE organisms (about 50% with bacteremia) found cefepime to be as effective as meropenem, but cautioned its use when adequate source control has not been achieved (3). Fluroroquinolones and aminoglycosides may also be considered.

References

  1. MacDougall C. Beyond susceptible and resistant, part I: treatment of infections due to Gram-negative organisms with inducible ß-lactamases. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther 2011;16:23-30. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136230/
  2. Jacoby GA. AmpC ß-lactamases. Clin Microbiol Rev 2009;22:161-182. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2620637/
  3. Tamma PD, Girdwood SCT, Gopaul R, et al. The use of cefepime for treating AmpC ß-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Clin Infect Dis 2013;57:781-8. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/57/6/781/330020

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 

Contributed in part by Avi Geller, Medical Student, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

 

What is the clinical relevance of “SPICE” organisms?

Is clindamycin an acceptable empiric monotherapy for Staphylococcus aureus (SA) infections in adults?

Clindamycin is active in-vitro against many strains of SA and is indicated in the treatment of SA mild-to-moderate skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs), including some methicillin-resistant strains 1,2.  However, evidence for its use as monotherapy against SA infections in other body sites is limited or lacking.   For example, in adults with pneumonia, efficacy of clindamycin is based solely on case series that excluded monotherapy3.  For bone and joint infections, clindamycin has limited evidence of efficacy in adults, and is not recommended in the treatment of endovascular or central nervous system infections2.

 Emergence of resistance to clindamycin in previously susceptible SA isolates may also occur during therapy conferred by erythromycin resistance methylase (erm) gene which is typically screened for by the “D-zone” test2 (Figure).  Increasing resistance of SA to clindamycin has led to recommendation against its empiric use for severe or complicated SSTIs (e.g. large abscess or deep infections)4.  

dzoneclindapcrop

Fig. The “E” disk (on left) contains erythromycin; “CC” disk (on right) contains clindamycin. The test detects inducible clindamycin resistance in erythromycin-resistant , clindamycin- susceptible isolates (http://www.cdc.gov/groupbstrep/images/lab-positivegbs-lg.jpg).

References:

  1. Miller LG, Daum RS, Creech CB, Young D, Downing MD, Eells SJ, Pettibone S, Hoagland RJ, Chambers HF. Clindamycin versus trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole for uncomplicated skin infections. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1093-103. 
  2. Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, Daum RS, Fridkin SK, Gorwitz RJ, Kaplan SL, Karchmer AW, Levine DP, Murray BE, Rybak MJ. Clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52:e18-55. 
  3. Lobo LJ, Reed KD, Wunderink RG. Expanded clinical presentation of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. Chest 2010; 138:130-6. 
  4. VanEperen AS, Segreti J. Empirical therapy in Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus infections: An Up-To-Date approach. J Infect Chemother 2016;22:351-9.

Contributed by Nathan T. Georgette, 4th year, Harvard Medical School student

 

Is clindamycin an acceptable empiric monotherapy for Staphylococcus aureus (SA) infections in adults?

Should empiric coverage of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) routinely include an anti-staphyloccal β-lactam?

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.

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References 

  1. 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
  2. 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 
  3. 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
  4. 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
Should empiric coverage of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) routinely include an anti-staphyloccal β-lactam?