When should I consider a switch to oral antibiotics and discharge from hospital in my recently admitted elderly patient with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)?

A frequently used validated set of clinical stability criteria in patients with CAP and supported by the 2019 ATS/IDSA CAP guidelines consists of a temperature ≤37.8 ᵒC (100.0 ᵒF) AND no more than 1 CAP-related sign of clinical instability as listed below: 1-3

  • Heart rate >100/min
  • Systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg
  • Respiration rate >24 breaths/min
  • Arterial oxygen saturation <90% or Pa02<60 mm Hg (room air)

Using these criteria, the risk of clinical deterioration serious enough to necessitate transfer to an intensive care unit may be 1% or less, 1 while failure to achieve clinical stability within 5 days is associated with higher mortality and worse clinical outcome. 2 The median time to clinical stability (as defined) for CAP treatment is 3 days.1  

A 2016 randomized-controlled trial involving patients hospitalized with CAP found that implementation of above clinical stability criteria was associated with safe discontinuation of antibiotics after a minimum of 5 days of appropriate therapy.

Potential limitations of the above study include heavy use of quinolones (80%), underrepresentation of patients with severe CAP (Pneumonia Risk Index, PSI, V), and exclusion of nursing home residents, immunosuppressed patients, those with chest tube, or infection caused by less common organisms, such as Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Lack of clinical stability after 5 days of CAP treatment should prompt evaluation for complications of pneumonia (eg, empyema, lung abscess), infection due to  organisms resistant to selected antibiotics, or an alternative source of infection/inflammatory/poor response. 2

References

  1. Halm, EA, Fine MJ, Marrie TJ, et al. Time to clinical stability in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia: implications for practice guidelines. JAMA 1998;279:279:1452-57. https://reference.medscape.com/medline/abstract/9600479
  2. Metlay JP, Waterer GW, Long AC, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2019;200:e45-e67. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31573350
  3. Uranga A, Espana PP, Bilbao A, et al. Duration of antibiotic treatment in community-acquired pneumonia. A multicenter randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2016;176:1257-65. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27455166/
When should I consider a switch to oral antibiotics and discharge from hospital in my recently admitted elderly patient with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)?

What’s the connection between lemon juice and disseminated candidiasis in my patient with illicit IV drug use?

Lemon juice is often used by IV drug users to help dissolve poorly water soluble street drugs, such as brown heroin or crack-cocaine, and may serve as a vehicle for Candida albicans infection. 1-3

Contamination of lemon juice (either from wild lemons or from the plastic containers) is thought to occur from either the skin and/or oropharynx of the user.1  Other fruit juices such as orange juice as well as raspberry syrup have been implicated as a source of disseminated candidiasis in IV drug users.4

Experimental inoculation of lemons with small numbers of C. albicans has demonstrated rapid growth of the organism at room temperature resulting in inadvertent injection of a large inoculum size. 2 Once inoculated directly into the blood stream, C. albicans disseminates and can present in many ways, including skin lesions, ocular lesions/endophthalmitis, and osteoarticular infections (eg, costochondral, hip joint, and vertebral infections).1  

So it is advisable to not only ask about what recreational drug is being injected but also what it is injected with!

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that although lemon juice is an excellent growth medium for C. albicans, it has bactericidal properties against Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa? 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. Bisbe J, Miro JM, Latorre X, et al. Disseminated candidiasis in addicts who use brown heroin: report of 83 cases and review. Clin Infect Dis 1992;15:910-23. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1457662
  2. Newton-John HGF, Wise K, Looke DFM. Role of the lemon in disseminated candidiasis of heroin abusers. Med j Aust 1984;140:780-81. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1984.tb132597.x?sid=nlm%3Apubmed
  3. Shankland GS, Richardson MD. Source of infection in candida endophthalmitis in drug addicts. Br J Ophthalmol 1986;292:1106-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1954783/pdf/702.pdf
  4. Scheidegger C, Pietrzak J, Frei R. Methadone diluted with contaminated orange juice or raspberry syrup as a potential source of disseminated candidiasis in drug abusers. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1993;12:229-31. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01967124
What’s the connection between lemon juice and disseminated candidiasis in my patient with illicit IV drug use?

My patient with sepsis and bacteremia has an extremely high serum Creatine kinase (CK) level. Can his infection be causing rhabdomyolysis?

 Absolutely! Although trauma, toxins, exertion, and medications are often listed as common causes of rhabdomyolysis, infectious etiologies should not be overlooked as they may account for 5% to 30% or more of rhabdomyolysis cases (1,2).

Rhabdomyolysis tends to be associated with a variety of infections, often severe, involving the respiratory tract, as well as urinary tract, heart and meninges, and may be caused by a long list of pathogens (1).  Among bacterial causes, Legionella sp. (“classic” pathogen associated with rhabdomyolysis), Streptococcus sp. (including S. pneumoniae), Salmonella sp, Staphylococcus aureus, Francisella tularensis have been cited frequently (3).  Some series have reported a preponderance of aerobic gram-negatives such as Klebsiella sp., Pseudomonas sp. and E. coli  (1,2).   Among viral etiologies, influenza virus, human immunodeficiency virus, and coxsackievirus are commonly cited (2,3).  Fungal and protozoal infections (eg, malaria) may also be associated with rhabdomyolysis (5).

So how might sepsis cause rhabdomyolysis? Several potential mechanisms have been implicated, including tissue hypoxemia due to sepsis, direct muscle invasion by pathogens (eg, S. aureus, streptococci, Salmonella sp.), toxin generation (eg, Legionella), cytokine-mediated muscle cell toxicity (eg, aerobic gram-negatives) as well as muscle ischemia due to shock (1,5).

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that among patients with HIV infection, infections are the most common cause (39%) of rhabdomyolysis (6)? 

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. Kumar AA, Bhaskar E, Shantha GPS, et al. Rhabdomyolysis in community acquired bacterial sepsis—A retrospective cohort study. PLoS ONE 2009;e7182. Doi:10.1371/journa.pone.0007182. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19787056.

2. Blanco JR, Zabaza M, Sacedo J, et al. Rhabdomyolysis of infectious and noninfectious causes. South Med J 2002;95:542-44. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12005014

3. Singh U, Scheld WM. Infectious etiologies of rhabdomyolysis:three case reports and review. Clin Infect Dis 1996;22:642-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8729203

4. Shih CC, Hii HP, Tsao CM, et al. Therapeutic effects of procainamide on endotoxin-induced rhabdomyolysis in rats. PLOS ONE 2016. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150319. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26918767

5. Khan FY. Rhabdomyolysis: a review of the literature. NJM 2009;67:272-83. http://www.njmonline.nl/getpdf.php?id=842

6. Koubar SH, Estrella MM, Warrier R, et al. Rhabdomyolysis in an HIV cohort: epidemiology, causes and outcomes. BMC Nephrology 2017;18:242. DOI 10.1186/s12882-017-0656-9. https://bmcnephrol.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12882-017-0656-9

My patient with sepsis and bacteremia has an extremely high serum Creatine kinase (CK) level. Can his infection be causing rhabdomyolysis?

My patient with pyelonephritis has positive blood cultures for E. coli? Should I order repeat blood cultures to make sure the bacteremia is clearing?

Although a common practice, follow-up blood cultures (FUBCs) may not be necessary in otherwise clinically stable or improving patients with aerobic gram-negative bacteremia. This is probably due to the often-transient nature of gram-negative bloodstream infections  and less propensity of these organisms to cause intravascular infections (eg, endocarditis) compared to gram-positives. 1

A 2017 study addressing the value of FUBCs in gram-negative bacteremia found that repeat positive blood cultures were uncommon with positive results not associated with mortality or higher ICU admissions. 1 Specifically, 17 FUBCs had to be drawn to yield 1 positive result.  Although the numbers of positive FUBCs were too low for in-depth analysis, it was concluded that FUBCs added little value in the management of gram-negative bacteremias.

In contrast, FUBCs are recommended in the following situations: 1-3

  • Staphylocccus aureus bacteremia given the propensity of this organism to cause intravascular (eg, endocarditis) and metastatic infections.
  • Presumed or documented endocarditis or intravascular device infections (eg, intravenous catheters and pacemakers) to document timely clearance of bacteremia
  • Infections involving organisms that may be difficult to clear such as fungemia or multi-drug resistant pathogens.

As with many things in medicine, clinical context is important before ordering tests and blood cultures are no different. The urge to order FUBCs should also be balanced with the possibility of having to deal with  contaminants. 

References

  1. Canzoneri CN, Akhavan BJ, Tosur Z et al. Follow-up blood cultures in gram-negative bacteremia: Are they needed? Clin Infect Dis 2017;65:1776-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29020307
  2. Tabriz MS, Riederer K, Baran J, et al. Repeating blood cultures during hospital stay: Practice pattern at a teaching hospital and a proposal for guidelines. Clin Microbiol Infect 2004;10:624-27. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2004.00893.x
  3. Mylotte JM, Tayara A. Blood cultures: Clinical aspects and controversies. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 200;19:157-63. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10795587

 

 

My patient with pyelonephritis has positive blood cultures for E. coli? Should I order repeat blood cultures to make sure the bacteremia is clearing?

Are two sets of blood cultures adequate for evaluation of bacteremia in my febrile patient?

For great majority of patients, more than 2 sets of blood culture obtained closely apart is not likely to significantly improve the yield of detecting bacteremia. 

Although a 2004 report suggested that 2 sets of blood cultures over 24 h period had a sensitivity of only 80% for bacteremia, several other studies have found much higher sensitivities, ranging from ~90%- 99% 2-3. When broken down by organism, sensitivity of 2 sets of blood cultures may be highest for Staphylococcus aureus (97%), followed by E. coli (91%), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (90%) 2.  The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines recommend paired blood culture sets (each set with 2 bottles, 10 ml of blood in each) to detect about 90-95% of patients with documented bacteremia, and 3 sets for 95-99% detection rate 4.

It seems prudent to strike a balance between drawing more than 2 sets of blood cultures—with its attendant risk of picking up contaminants— and what may be a definite but small incremental increase in the rate of detection of true bacteremia. 

If you are concerned about “continuous” bacteremia (eg, in endocarditis) or a common blood culture contaminant causing true disease (eg, Staphylococcus epidermidis prosthetic valve infection), you may consider a 3rd or 4th set of blood cultures drawn 4-6 hrs after the initial sets.

Whatever you do,  please don’t order only 1 set of blood cultures! Aside from its generally low yield, when positive it may be difficult to distinguish contaminants from true invaders.

 

References

  1. Cockerill FR, Reed GS, Hughes JG, et al. Clinical comparison of BACTEC 9240 Plus Aerobic/F resin bottles and the Isolator aerobic cultures. Clin Infect Dis 2004;38:1724-30. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9163464
  2. Lee A, Mirrett S, Reller LB, et al. Detection of bloodstream infections in adults: how many cultures are needed? J Clin Microbiol 2007; 45:3546-48. http://jcm.asm.org/content/45/11/3546
  3. Towns ML, Jarvis WR, Hsueh PR. Guidelines on blood cultures. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2010;43:347-49. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20688297
  4. Weinstein MP, Reller LB, Murphy JR, et al. The clinical significance of positive blood cultures: a comprehensive analysis of 500 episodes of bacteremia and fungemia in adults. I. Laboratory and eipidemiologic observations. Rev Infect Dis 1982;5:35-53. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6828811
Are two sets of blood cultures adequate for evaluation of bacteremia in my febrile patient?

Do most patients with mycotic aneurysms have endocarditis?

No! In fact, the great majority of patients who develop mycotic aneurysm (MAs) in the postantibiotic era have no evidence of endocarditis1-3.

MAs are thought to be related to microbial arteritis due to blood stream infection of any source with implantation of circulating pathogen (usually bacterial) in atherosclerotic, diseased, or traumatized aortic intima. Plus, MAs may develop due to an adjacent infectious process (eg, vertebral osteomyelitis), either through direct extension or via lymphatic vessels, pathogen seeding of vasa vasorum, or infection of a pre-existing aneurysm1,2.  All these factors may occur in the absence of endocarditis.

Many of your patients may be at risk of MA such as those with advanced age or history of diagnostic or therapeutic arterial catheterization, illicit intravascular drug use, hemodialysis and depressed host immunity1-3..  Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella sp, S. epidermidis and Streptococcus sp are common culprits in descending order1-3.

So think of MA in your patient with recent blood stream infection,  particularly due to S. aureus or Salmonella sp, in the setting of persistent signs of infection  with or without evidence of endocarditis.

Final Fun Fact: Did you know that the term “mycotic aneurysm” is a misnomer, having been first introduced by Sir William Osler to describe aneurysms of the aortic arch in a patient with (you guessed it) bacterial not fungal endocarditis?

References:

  1. Gomes MN, Choyke PL, Wallace RB. Infected aortic aneurysms: A changing entity. Ann Surg 1992;215:435-42. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1616380
  2. Muller BT, Wegener OR, Grabitz K, et al. Mycotic aneurysms of the thoracic and abdominal aorta and iliac arteries: Experience with anatomic and extra-anatomic repair in 33 cases. J Vasc Surg 2001;33:106-13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11137930
  3. Mukherjee JT, Nautiyal A, Labib SB. Mycotic aneurysms of the ascending aorta. Tex Heart Inst J 2012;39:692-5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3461658/
Do most patients with mycotic aneurysms have endocarditis?

When should I suspect spinal epidural abscess in my 55 year old patient with severe back pain?

 It cannot be overemphasized that up 50% of patients with spinal epidural abscess (SEA) have no known risk factors,  one-half may have no fever,  and 20-40% lack leukocytosis1. In fact, the “classic triad” of back pain, fever, and neurological deficits is found only in the minority of patients!  No wonder that up to 75% of patients SEA are misdiagnosed on their initial healthcare encounter1!

Potential “red flags” for infectious causes of low back pain include age >50 y, night pain, unremitting pain even when supine, duration > 6 weeks, fever, chills, night sweats, weight loss, conditions associated with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (eg intravenous drug use), incontinence, saddle anesthesia, and severe or rapidly progressive neurologic deficits1,2.  

ESR and C-reactive protein (CRP) are almost uniformly elevated in SEA1 and can serve as a good starting point in excluding this condition when in doubt.   In patients ≥50 y of age with low back pain, obtaining ESR routinely has been suggested for detection of systemic disease (eg cancer, infection)3.  Similarly, in a recent algorithm of severe back pain, routine measurements of ESR and CRP, even in the absence of any neurological findings, has been recommended1; elevation of either may necessitate consideration of MRI.

 

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

References:

  1. Bond, A, Manian FA. Spinal epidural abscess: a review with special emphasis on earlier diagnosis. BioMed Res International 2016; https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2016/1614328/http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/1614328  
  2. Della-Giustina. Acute low back pain: recognizing the “red flags” in the workup. Consultant 2013;53:436-440. http://www.consultant360.com/article/acute-low-back-pain-recognizing-%E2%80%9Cred-flags%E2%80%9D-workup
  3. Jarvik JG, Deyo RA. Diagnostic evaluation of low back pain with emphasis on imaging. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:586-597. http://annals.org/aim/article/715687/diagnostic-evaluation-low-back-pain-emphasis-imaging

 

Disclosure: The author of this post (FAM) also coauthored reference 1.

When should I suspect spinal epidural abscess in my 55 year old patient with severe back pain?

Why is there a predilection for the tricuspid valve (TV) infection among injection drug users (IDUs) with infective endocarditis (IE)?

Although right-sided IE accounts for only 9% of IE cases among non IDUs, in IDUs it accounts for over three-quarters of IE cases1.  

Several potential mechanisms have been posited to explain susceptibility of TV to infection in IDUs, including endothelial damage due to repeated inoculation of small bacterial loads, specific substances (eg talc) injected with drugs,  cocaine-induced vasospasm and thrombus formation, and drug-induced pulmonary hypertension associated with increased pressure gradients and turbulence.  In addition, facilitation of bacterial adhesion due to the deposition of immune complexes (eg antibody vs antigens in injected drugs) on the TV and coating of the injected particulate matter with bacterial adherence matrix molecules on valve surfaces may also play an important role1,2.

Add to these potential factors a higher risk nasal and cutaneous colonization with Staphylococcus aureus (a common cause of IE) among IDUs, and we have a perfect storm!

References

  1. Frontera JA, Gradon JD. Right-sided endocarditis in injection drug users: review of proposed mechanisms of pathogenesis. Clin Infect Dis 2000;30:374-9.
  2. Chahood J, Yakan AS, Saad H, et al. Right-sided infective endocarditis and pulmonary infiltrates: An update. Cardiol Rev 2016;24:230-37.
Why is there a predilection for the tricuspid valve (TV) infection among injection drug users (IDUs) with infective endocarditis (IE)?

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?

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?