Staphylococcus aureus;

“I go after Streptococcus pneumoniae and many other bacteria causing community-acquired pneumonia with vengeance but lately I have had a hard time keeping up with many gram-negatives, including some E. coli. Who am I?”

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

Additional hint: “The latest FDA warning against the use of my class of drugs has to do with increased risk of ruptures or tears in the aorta in certain patients, including the elderly and those with hypertension, aortic aneurysm or peripheral vascular disease.” 

Editor’s note: This post is part of the P4P “Talking Therapeutics” series designed to make learning about antibiotics fun. Individual antibiotics give a short description of themselves and you are asked to guess their names. Antimicrobial spectrum, common uses and potential adverse effects follow. Enjoy!

And the answer is…… HERE

Selected antimicrobial spectrum

                Gram-positives: Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus                         (some resistance even in MSSA), Enterococcus spp (urine;some resistance)

                Gram-negatives: Enterics (eg, E. coli, Klebsiella spp), Pseudomonas spp,                                 Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, H. influenzae, some ESBLs.

                 AVOID: MRSA, anaerobes

Common clinical uses: community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), healthcare-associated pneumonia (HAP), urinary tract infections (UTIs), legionnaire’s disease, abdominal infection (plus anaerobic coverage)

WATCH OUT! QT prolongation, C. difficile, central nervous system toxicity, seizures, myasthenia gravis, peripheral neuropathy, tendinopathy, drug interactions (eg. warfarin), and most recently aortic aneurysm diagnosis/dissection!

Remember the key features of levofloxacin before you prescribe it!

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.

Selected references

  1. FDA. FDA warns about increased risk of ruptures or tears in the aorta blood vessel with fluoroquinolone antibiotics in certain patients.  https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-warns-about-increased-risk-ruptures-or-tears-aorta-blood-vessel-fluoroquinolone-antibiotics. Accessed Nov 26, 2020,.
  2. Marangon FB, Miller D, Muallem MS, et al. Ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin resistance among methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus isolates from keratitis and conjunctivitis. Am J Ophthal 2004;137:453-58. https://www.ajo.com/article/S0002-9394(03)01287-X/pdf
  3. Yasufuku T, Shigemura K, Shirakawa T, et al. Mechanisms of and risk factors for fluoroquinolone resistance in clinical Enterococcus faecalis from patients with urinary tract infections. J Clin Microbiol 2011;49:3912-16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3209098/
  4.  Rawla P, Helou MLE, Vellipuram AR. Fluoroquinolones and the risk of aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Hematol Agents Med Chem 2019;17:3-10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6865049/

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. 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!

“I go after Streptococcus pneumoniae and many other bacteria causing community-acquired pneumonia with vengeance but lately I have had a hard time keeping up with many gram-negatives, including some E. coli. Who am I?”

What is the utility of nasal screen for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in patients with skin and soft tissue infections?

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

In patients at high risk of MRSA infection (eg, prior history of MRSA colonization or infection, recent hospitalization/antibiotics, intravenous drug use, traumatic injury),1 particularly in the presence of an open wound or purulent drainage, a negative MRSA nasal screen does not rule out MRSA skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI), nor does a positive MRSA nasal screen reliably predict MRSA SSTI. In contrast, in low risk patients without severe disease, a negative MRSA nasal screen may be helpful in deescalating empiric anti-MRSA coverage.

The sensitivity of MRSA nasal screen by culture or PCR for SSTIs may be as low as 40%, higher among those with an ulcer (70%), with negative predictive values of 80% to 98% depending on the prevalence of MRSA in the population; its specificity is better (72% to 96%) with positive predictive values of 7% to 76%. 2

In a retrospective study involving 57 diabetic patients hospitalized with foot wound infection, the sensitivity of MRSA nasal screen was only ~40% with a negative predictive value of 80%. 3 Another study found a negative predictive value of ~90% for MRSA nasal screen among patients with a diabetic foot infection when MRSA isolation from wounds was uncommon (7.5%).4

Several reasons explain why patients with a negative MRSA nasal screen could still have MRSA SSTI, including colonization in other body sites known to harbor MRSA (eg, rectum, axilla, groin, oropharynx) 6-9 or direct wound contamination with MRSA in the absence of carriage, particularly in healthcare facilities.10

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that dogs, particularly those owned by healthcare workers, may also carry MRSA in their nostrils?.11,12

 

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. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers H, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 59:e10-52. https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/skin-and-soft-tissue-infections/
  2. Carr AL, Daley MJ, Merkel KG, et al. Clinical utility of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal screening for antimicrobial stewardship: A review of current literature. Pharmacotherapy 2018;38:1216-1228. https://accpjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/phar.2188
  3. Lavery LA, La Fonatine J, Bhavan K, et al. Risk factors for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in diabetic foot infections. Diabet Foot Ankle 2014;5:10.3402/dfa.v5.23575. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3984406/
  4. Mergenhagen KA, Croix M, Starr KE, et al. Utility of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nares screening for patients with a diabetic foot infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2020;64:e02213-19. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31988097/  
  5. Currie A, Davis L, Odrobina E, et al. Sensitivities of nasal and rectal swabs for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization in an active surveillance program. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:3101-3103. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2546770/
  6. Mermel LA, Cartony JM, Covington P, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization at different body sites: a prospective, quantitative analysis. J Clin Microbiol 2011;49:1119-21. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3067701/#B4
  7. Baker SE, Brecher SM, Robillar E, et al. Extranasal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization at admission to an acute care Veterans Affairs Hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:42-6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19954335/
  8. Manian FA, Senkel D, Zack J et al. Routine screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among patients newly admitted to an acute rehabilitation unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23:516-9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12269449/
  9. Lautenbach E, Nachamkin I, Hu B, et al. Surveillance culture for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: diagnostic yield of anatomic sites and comparison of provider- and patient-collected samples. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009;30:380-82. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2665909/
  10. Boyce JM, Bynoe-Potter G, Chenevert C, et al. Environmental contamination due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: possible infection control implications 1997;18:622-7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9309433/  
  11. Boost MV, O’donaghue MM, James A. Prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus among dogs and their owners. Epidemiol Infect 2008;136:953-64. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870875/#ref017
  12. Manian FA. Asymptomatic carriage of mupirocin-resistant methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in a pet dog associated with MRSA infection in household contacts. Clin Infect Dis 2003;36;e26-28. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/36/2/e26/317343

 

 

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!

What is the utility of nasal screen for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in patients with skin and soft tissue infections?

How does iron overload increase the risk of infection?

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

Iron overload, either primary (eg, hereditary hemochromatosis) or secondary (eg, hemolysis/frequent transfusion states), may increase the risk of infections through at least 2 mechanisms: 1. Enhancement of the virulence of the pathogen; and 2. Interference with the body’s normal defense system.1-7

Excess iron has been reported to enhance the growth of numerous organisms, ranging from bacteria (eg, Yersinia, Shigella, Vibrio, Listeria, Legionella, Ehrlichia, many other Gram-negative bacteria, staphylococci, streptococci), mycobacteria, fungi (eg, Aspergillus, Rhizopus/Mucor, Cryptococcus, Pneumocystis), protozoa (eg, Entamaeba, Plasmodium, Toxoplasma) and viruses (HIV, hepatitis B/C, cytomegalovirus, parvovirus). 1-7

In addition to enhancing the growth of many pathogens, excess iron may also inhibit macrophage and lymphocyte function and neutrophil chemotaxis .1,2 Iron loading of macrophages results in the inhibition of interferon-gamma mediated pathways and loss of their ability to kill intracellular pathogens such as Legionella, Listeria and Ehrlichia. 2

Not surprisingly, there are numerous reports in the literature of infections in hemochromatosis, including Listeria monocytogenes meningitis, E. Coli septic shock, Yersinia enterocolitica sepsis/liver abscess, Vibrio vulnificus shock (attributed to ingestion of raw oysters) and mucormycosis causing periorbital cellulitis. 2

Bonus pearl: Did you know that the ascitic fluid of patients with cirrhosis has low transferrin levels compared to those with malignancy, potentially enhancing bacterial growth and increasing their susceptibility to spontaneous bacterial peritonitis? 8

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. Weinberg ED, Weinberg GA. The role of iron in infection. Curr Opin Infect Dis 1995;8:164-69. https://journals.lww.com/co-infectiousdiseases/abstract/1995/06000/the_role_of_iron_in_infection.4.aspx
  2. Khan FA, Fisher MA, Khakoo RA. Association of hemochromatosis with infectious diseases: expanding spectrum. Intern J Infect Dis 2007;11:482-87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971207000811
  3. Thwaites PA, Woods ML. Sepsis and siderosis, Yersinia enterocolitica and hereditary haemochromatosis. BMJ Case Rep 2017. Doi:10.11336/bvr-206-218185. https://casereports.bmj.com/content/2017/bcr-2016-218185
  4. Weinberg ED. Iron loading and disease surveillance. Emerg Infect Dis 1999;5:346-52. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/5/3/99-0305-t3
  5. Matthaiou EI, Sass G, Stevens DA, et al. Iron: an essential nutrient for Aspergillus fumigatus and a fulcrum for pathogenesis. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2018;31:506-11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6579532/
  6. Alexander J, Limaye AP, Ko CW, et al. Association of hepatic iron overload with invasive fungal infection in liver transplant recipients. Liver Transpl 12:1799-1804. https://aasldpubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/lt.20827
  7. Schmidt SM. The role of iron in viral infections. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed) 2020;25:893-911. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31585922/
  8. Romero A, Perez-Aurellao JL, Gonzalez-Villaron L et al. Effect of transferrin concentration on bacterial growth in human ascetic fluid from cirrhotic and neoplastic patients. J Clin Invest 1993;23:699-705. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1365-2362.1993.tb01289.x

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!

How does iron overload increase the risk of infection?

How often is Covid-19 in hospitalized patients complicated by bacterial infection?

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

Despite frequent use of empiric antibiotics in hospitalized patients with Covid-19,1  current data suggests a low rate of documented bacterial co-infection (BCI) in such patients. In fact, the overall reported rate of BCI in hospitalized patients with Covid-19 is generally no greater than 10%.1-3   It’s quite likely that most patients with Covid-19 and chest radiograph changes solely have a coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) lung infection,4 particularly early in the course of the disease.  

A meta-analysis involving 30 studies (primarily retrospective) found that overall 7% of hospitalized Covid-19 patients had a laboratory-confirmed BCI with higher proportion among ICU patients (14%). 2 Mycoplasma pneumoniae was the most common (42% of BCIs), followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and H. influenzae.  Notably, diagnosis of M. pneumoniae infection was based on antibody testing for IgM, which has been associated with false-positive results. Other caveats include lack of a uniform definition of respiratory tract infection among studies and potential impact of concurrent or prior antibiotic therapy on the yield of bacteriologic cultures. 5,6

A low prevalence of BCI was also found in a UK study involving 836 hospitalized Covid-19 patients: 3.2% for early BCI (0-5 days after admission) and 6.1% throughout hospitalization, including hospital-acquired infections.7  Staphylococcus aureus was the most common respiratory isolate among community-acquired cases, while Pseudomonas spp. was the predominant healthcare associated respiratory isolate.  Similarly, S. aureus. and Streptococcus pneumoniae were the most commonly isolated organisms from blind bronchoalveolar lavage of critically ill patients with Covid-19 during their first 5 days of admission, while gram-negative bacilli became dominant later during the hospitalization.8

The discordance between high rates of antibiotic treatment and confirmed bacterial co-infection in Covid-19 patients is likely a reflection of the difficulty in distinguishing Covid-19 pneumonia from bacterial pneumonia based on clinical or radiographic findings alone.

We need better tests to help distinguish bacterial vs Covid-19 pneumonia. Some have suggested using a low serum procalcitonin to help guide the withholding of or early discontinuation of antibiotics, especially in less severe Covid-19 cases. 1  Formal studies of the accuracy of procalcitonin in Covid-19 are needed to test this hypothesis, given its suboptimal sensitivity in bacterial community-acquired pneumonia. 

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. Stevens RW, Jensen K, O’Horo JC, et al. Antimicrobial prescribing practices at a tertiary-care center in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 across the continuum of care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiology 2020. https://reference.medscape.com/medline/abstract/32703323
  2. Lansbury L, Lim B, Baskaran V, et al. Co-infections in people with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Infect 2020;81:266-75. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32473235/
  3. Rawson TM, Moore LSP, Zhu N. Bacterial and fungal co-infection in individuals with coronavirus: A rapid review to support COVID-19 antimicrobial prescribing. Clin Infect Dis 2020 (Manuscrpit published online ahead of print 2 June ). Doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa530.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32358954/
  4. Metlay JP, Waterer GW. Treatment of community-acquired pneumonia during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Ann Intern Med 2020; 173:304-305. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32379883/
  5. Chang CY, Chan KG. Underestimation of co-infections in COVID-19 due to non-discriminatory use of antibiotics. J Infect 2020;81:e29-30. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32628960/
  6. Rawson TM, Moore LSP, Zhu N, et al. Bacterial pneumonia in COVID-19 critically ill patients: A case series. Reply letter. Clin Infect Dis 2020. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-
  7. Hughes S, Troise O, Donaldson H, et al. Bacterial and fungal coinfection among hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study in a UK secondary-care setting. Clin Microbiol Infect 2020. https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(20)30369-4/fulltext
  8. Dudoignon E, Camelena F, Deniau B, et al. Bacterial pneumonia in COVID-19 critically ill patients: A case series. Clin Infect Dis 2020. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7337703/

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!

How often is Covid-19 in hospitalized patients complicated by bacterial infection?

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

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

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. 3 

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?

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

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?

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

 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?

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

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?

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

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?

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

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?