Bacteremia;

Should Aerococcus urinae growth from the urine of my elderly patient be considered a pathogen?

FA Manian MD, MPH, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Although for many years Aerococcus urinae was considered a urinary contaminant, increasingly it is recognized as an emerging pathogen capable of causing not only urinary tract infection (UTI) but also secondary bacteremia and endocarditis, among others.1   

The proportion of patients with aerococcal bacteriuria with symptoms suggestive of UTI ranges from 55-98%.1 So A. urinae can no longer be assumed to be a contaminant, particularly in the presence of symptoms suggestive of UTI.

A. urinae UTI often affects the elderly (median age 79 y) and those with pre-existing urinary tract pathologies, such as prostatic hyperplasia, urethral stricture, renal calculi, and prior urinary tract surgery.2,3 Many patients also have underlying comorbidities such as diabetes, heart disease, dementia, and chronic renal failure.3

One clue to the presence of A. urinae in the urine is its particularly pungent odor reminiscent of that of patients with trimethylaminuria (fish odor syndrome).4

Once you decide you should treat A. urinae, keep in mind that it is NOT predictably susceptible to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, fluoroquinolones, or fosfomycin!  Instead, consider penicillin, ampicillin, cephalosporin, or nitrofurantoin to which most strains are susceptible.5,6.

 

References

  1. Rasmussen M. Aerococcus: an increasingly acknowledged human pathogen. Clin Microbiol Infect 2016;22:22-27. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26454061
  2. Tathireddy H, Settypalli S, Farrell JJ. A rare case of aerococcus urinae infective endocarditis. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspectives 2017; 7:126-129. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473194/
  3. Higgins A, Garg T. Aerococcus urinae: An emerging cause of urinary tract infection in older adults with multimordidity and urologic cancer. Urology Case Reports 2017;24-25. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28435789
  4. Lenherr N, Berndt A, Ritz N, et al. Aerococcus urinae: a possible reason for malodorus urine in otherwise healthy children. Eur J Pediatr. 2014;173:1115-7 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24913181
  5. Christensen JJ, Nielsen XC. Aerococcus urinae. Antimicrobe @ http://www.antimicrobe.orgb75.asp , accessed June 14, 2018.
  6. Dimitriadi D, Charitidou C, Pittaras T, et al. A case of urinary tract infection caused by Aerococcus urinae. J Bacteriol Mycol 2016; 2: 00041. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a1cf/048d8444ce054ca9a332f7c2b4a218325ff6.pdf

 

Should Aerococcus urinae growth from the urine of my elderly patient be considered a pathogen?

My patient with cirrhosis and suspected infection has a normal serum C-reactive protein (CRP). Does cirrhosis affect CRP response to infection?

FA Manian MD, MPH, , , , , , , , Leave a comment

CRP is primarily synthesized by the liver mainly as a response to IL-6 production in inflammatory states1.  Lower CRP production may then be expected in cirrhotic patients with significant infections and several studies support this view2. 

In a particularly convincing study involving E. coli-infected patients with bacteremia, the median CRP level in cirrhotic patients was about 40% that of non-cirrhotic patients (62 mg/L vs 146 mg/L)3.  In another study involving bacteremic patients with or without liver dysfunction, median CRP level was about 60% that of  patients with preserved liver function (81 mg/L vs 139 mg/L)4. 

Some investigators have reported a cut-off CRP value of 9.2 mg/L as a possible screening test for bacterial infections in patients with cirrhosis with a sensitivity and specificity of 88% (AUROC 0.93)5.

Collectively, these data suggest that although CRP response may be diminished in patients with advanced liver disease and acute infection, its synthesis is still maintained.

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. Pieri G, Agarwal B, Burroughs AK. C-reactive protein and bacterial infection in cirrhosis. Ann Gastroenterol 2014;27:113-20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3982625/pdf/AnnGastroenterol-27-113.pdf
  2. Ha YE, Kang C-I, Joo E-J, et al. Usefulness of C-reactive protein for evaluating clinical outcomes in cirrhotic patients with bacteremia. Korean J Intern Med 2011;26:195-200. http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC3110852/pdf/kjim-26-195.pdf
  3. Park WB1, Lee KD, Lee CS et al. Production of C-reactive protein in Escherichia coli-infected patients with liver dysfunction due to liver cirrhosis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2005 Apr;51(4):227-30. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15808312
  4. Mackenzie I, Woodhouse J. C-reactive protein concentrations during bacteraemia: a comparison between patients with and without liver dysfunction. Intensive Care Med 2006;32:1344-51. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16799774
  5. Papp M, Vitalis Z, Altorjay I, et al. Acute phase proteins in the diagnosis and prediction of cirrhosis associated bacterial infection. Liver Int 2011;603-11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22145664

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, its 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!

 

My patient with cirrhosis and suspected infection has a normal serum C-reactive protein (CRP). Does cirrhosis affect CRP response to infection?

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

FA Manian MD, MPH, , , Leave a comment

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?

When is the best time to obtain blood cultures (BCs) from my patient admitted with recent fevers?

FA Manian MD, MPH, , Leave a comment

A common medical myth is that the yield of BCs is highest when obtained around the time of a fever spike. In 1989, an abstract reported a non-significant trend toward higher frequency of positive BCs in the period immediately before a fever spike1. In 1994, another study found no significant difference between the yield of simultaneous and serial (separated by a few hrs) BCs2, supporting the current practice of collecting ≥2 sets of BCs simultaneously.

In 2008, a multicenter retrospective study found that the likelihood of detecting bacteremia was not significantly enhanced by collecting BCs at the time of fever3.  Instead, obtaining an adequate blood volume (~40 – 60mL for each episode), and collecting ≥2 sets of BCs under strict aseptic technique were emphasized4. BCs should be obtained prior to antibiotic administration.

So in our patient, BCs should be obtained if sepsis is suspected, irrespective of fever.

 

References

  1. Thomson RB, et al. Timing of blood culture collection from febrile patients. Abstr. C-227. 89th Annual Meeting American Society of  Microbiology, Washington, DC, 1989. 
  2. Li J, et al.  Effects of volume and periodicity on blood cultures. J Clin Microbiol. 1994; 32:2829-2831. 
  3. Riedel S, et al. Timing of specimen collection for blood cultures from febrile patients with bacteremia. J Clin Microbiol. 2008;46:1381-1385.
  4. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Principles and Procedures for Blood Cultures: Approved Guideline. 2007. CLSI document M47-A. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA

 

Contributed by Henrietta Afari, MD, Mass General Hospital, Boston, MA

When is the best time to obtain blood cultures (BCs) from my patient admitted with recent fevers?

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?

FA Manian MD, MPH, , , , , , , , 1 Comment

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?

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

FA Manian MD, MPH, , , Leave a comment

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?

How do I interpret an elevated serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and normal erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) or vice-versa?

FA Manian MD, MPH, , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Discordance between serum CRP and ESR is not uncommon (1,2). This phenomenon may be due to a variety of factors including the fact that the kinetics of these two tests is quite different, as discussed in another P4P Post.

In a study of CRP/ESR discordance (defined as results differing by 2 or 3 quartiles) in adults, a high CRP/low ESR profile was more likely to be associated with  urinary, GI, blood stream, and pulmonary infections, myocardial infarction, and venous thromboembolism and less likely to be associated with bone and joint infections (1).

In the same study, a high ESR/low CRP was associated with connective tissue diseases, such as systemic lupus erythematosus and strokes (1).

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. Feldman M, Aziz B, Kang GN, et al. C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate discordance: frequency and causes in adults. Translational Research 2013;161:37-43. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22921838

2. Colombet I, Pouchot J, Kronz V. Agreement between erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein in hospital practice. Am J Med 2010;123:864.e7-863.e13.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20800157

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 or its affiliate healthcare centers, Mass General Hospital, Harvard Medical School or its affiliated institutions. 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!

How do I interpret an elevated serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and normal erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) or vice-versa?

My patient with foot osteomyelitis due to methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) is ready to go home on IV antibiotic therapy. Is daily ceftriaxone therapy an appropriate option?

FA Manian MD, MPH, , , , Leave a comment

Yes, it appears to be!  Ceftriaxone is active against MSSA and may be an option for treatment of infections due to this organism at least in certain situations.  

In a retrospective study comparing ceftriaxone to oxacillin for osteoarticular infections due to MSSA, there was no difference in treatment success at 3-6 and > 6 months following completion of IV antibiotics; oxacillin had to be discontinued more often due to toxicity, however (1).    

In another retrospective study comparing cefazolin to ceftriaxone for treatment of MSSA infections ( ≥50% of patients with osteomyelitis),  favorable outcomes, adverse events and complications were similar between the 2 groups (2). 

Several other studies have reported no significant difference in treatment failure between cefazolin and ceftriaxone in MSSA infections (3).  A smaller retrospective study, however, reported higher rate of treatment failure (defined to include unplanned extension of parenteral therapy) with ceftriaxone in MSSA bacteremia without finding any difference in time to blood culture clearance, or rates of persistent bacteremia, relapse after treatment, achievement of source control, mortality or readmission (3).

References

1. Wieland BW, Marcantoni JR, Bommarito KM, et al. A retrospective comparison of ceftriaxone versus oxacillin for osteoarticular infections due to methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:585-590. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22144536

2.  Winans SA, Luce Am, Hasbun R. Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: a comparison of cefazolin and ceftriaxone. Infection 2013;41:769-774. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23686435

3. Carr DR, Stiefel U, Bonomo RA, etal. A comparison of cefazolin versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia in a tertiary care VA medical center. Open Forum Infectious Diseases, Volume 5, Issue 5, 1 may 2018, ofy089. https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/5/5/ofy089/4999397

 

If you liked this pearl, sign up under menu and receive future pearls straight into your mailbox!  

My patient with foot osteomyelitis due to methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) is ready to go home on IV antibiotic therapy. Is daily ceftriaxone therapy an appropriate option?