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 under MENU to catch future pearls right into your inbox!

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?

When should I consider Pseudomonas aeruginosa as a cause of respiratory tract infection in my hospitalized patient with COPD exacerbation?

The most consistent risk factor for isolation of P. aeruginosa from sputum of adults with COPD is the presence of more advanced pulmonary disease (eg, FEV-1 <35%-50% of predicted value) or functional impairment (1-5).

 

Chronic corticosteroid use is also frequently cited as an important predictor of respiratory tract colonization/infection due to P. aeruginosa in patients with COPD, while the data on antibiotic use during the previous months have been conflicting (2,4). Other risk factors may include prior isolation of P. aeruginosa and hospital admission during the previous year (1).

 
A prospective study of patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation found P. aeruginosa to be the most frequently isolated organism, growing from 26% of validated sputum samples at initial admission, followed by Streptococcus pneumoniae and Hemophilus influenzae. In the same study, bronchiectasis (present in up to 50% of patients with COPD) was not shown to be independently associated with the isolation of P. aeruginosa (1).

 
Of interest, compared to the patients without P. aeruginosa, patients hospitalized for acute exacerbation of COPD and isolation of P. aeruginosa from sputum have significantly higher mortality: 33% at 1 year, 48% at 2 years and 59% at 3 years (5).

 

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up under Menu to catch future pearls straight into your inbox!
References
1. Garcia-Vidal C, Almagro P, Romani V, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa in patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation: a prospective study. Eur Respir J 2009;34:1072-78. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19386694
2. Murphy TF. Pseudomonas aeruginosa in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2009;15:138-42. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19532029
3. Miravitlles M, Espinosa C, Fernandez-Laso E, et al. Relationship between bacterial flora in sputum and functional impairment in patients with acute exacerbations of COPD. Chest 1999;116:40-6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10424501
4. Murphy TF, Brauer AL, Eschberger K, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008;177:853-60. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18202344
5. Almagro P, Silvado M, Garcia-Vidal C, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and mortality after hospital admission for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respiration 2012;84:36-43. https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/331224

 

 

When should I consider Pseudomonas aeruginosa as a cause of respiratory tract infection in my hospitalized patient with COPD exacerbation?

How should I interpret the growth of “normal respiratory flora” from sputum of my patient with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)?

Since the primary reason for obtaining a sputum culture in a patient with pneumonia is to sample the lower respiratory tract, you should first verify that the sputum was “adequate” by reviewing the gram stain. Absence of neutrophils (unless the patient is neutropenic) with or without epithelial cells on gram stain of sputum suggests that it may not be an adequate sample (ie, likely saliva)1, and therefore growth of normal respiratory flora (NRF) should not be surprising in this setting.  

Other potential explanations for NRF on sputum culture in patients with CAP include:2-5

  • Delay in sputum processing with possible overgrowth of oropharyngeal flora.
  • Pneumonia caused by pathogens that do not grow on standard sputum culture media (eg, atypical organisms, viruses, anaerobes).
  • Pneumonia caused by potential pathogens such as as Streptococcus mitis and Streptococcus anginosus group that may be part of the NRF.
  • Initiation of antibiotics prior to cultures (eg, in pneumococcal pneumonia).

Of note, since 2010, several studies have shown that over 50% of patients with CAP do not have an identifiable cause.3 So, growing NRF from sputum of patients with CAP appears to be common.

References

  1. Wong LK, Barry AL, Horgan SM. Comparison of six different criteria for judging the acceptability of sputum specimens. J Clin Microbiol 1982;16:627-631. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7153311
  2. Donowitz GR. Acute pneumonia. In Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases (2010). Churchill Livingstone, pp 891-916.
  3. Musher DM, Abers MS, Bartlett JG. Evolving understanding of the causes of pneumonia in adults, with special attention to the role of pneumococcus. Clin Infect Dis 2017;65: 1736-44. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29028977
  4. Abers MS, Musher DM. The yield of sputum culture in bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia after initiation of antibiotics. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 58:1782. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24604901
  5. Bartlett JG, Gorbach SL, Finegold SM. The bacteriology of aspiration pneumonia. Bartlett JG, Gorbach SL, Finegold SM. Am J Med 1974;56:202-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4812076
How should I interpret the growth of “normal respiratory flora” from sputum of my patient with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)?

In my patient with a serious infection, when should I worry about a primary immunodeficiency disorder?

You may consider a primary immunodeficiency disorder (PID) when 2 or more of the following “warning signs” are present: 1

  • ≥ 4 ear infections in 1 year
  • ≥ 2 serious sinus infections in 1 year
  • ≥ 2 pneumonias in 1 year
  • Recurrent, deep skin or organ abscesses
  • Persistent thrush in mouth or persistent fungal infection on the skin
  • ≥ 2 deep-seated infections, including septicemia
  • ≥ 2 months on antibiotics with little effect
  • Need for IV antibiotics to clear infections
  • Failure of an infant to gain weight or grow normally
  • Family history of primary immunodeficiency

Other infectious conditions that may be a clue to PID include those in unusual locations (eg, pneumococcal arthritis) or caused by unusual pathogens (eg, Pneumocystis jirovecii).

Among non-infectious conditions, history of granulomas in multiple organs, early-onset eczema refractory to therapy, and autoimmunity (eg, autoimmune cytopenias, autoimmune thyroiditis, celiac disease, vitiligo, type I diabetes mellitus) may also be potential clues.2

But before you embark on searching for PID,  rule out local barrier disorders of the skin or mucosa (eg, foreign body, bronchiectasis, cystic fibrosis) and secondary causes of immunodeficiency (eg, HIV), syndromes of protein loss/deficiency (eg, cirrhosis, nephrotic syndrome, malnutrition), splenectomy, malignancy, and medications (eg, steroids, chemotherapy, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors).2

Final Fun Fact: Did you know that PID affects 1 in 1,200 people in the US? 3

References:

  1. Arkwright PD, Gennery AR. Ten warning signs of primary immunodeficiency: a new paradigm is needed for the 21st century. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2011; 1238:7-14 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06206.x/abstract
  2. Hausmann O, Warnatz K. Immunodeficiency in adults a practical guide for the allergist. Allergo J Int. 2014; 23: 261–268 https://link-springer-com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/article/10.1007/s40629-014-0030-4
  3. Boyle JM, Buckley RH. Population prevalence of diagnosed primary immunodeficiency diseases in the United States. J Clin Immunol 2007; 27:497  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10875-007-9103-1

 

Contributed by Yousef Badran, MD, Mass General Hospital, Boston, MA.

In my patient with a serious infection, when should I worry about a primary immunodeficiency disorder?

How well does procalcitonin distinguish bacterial from viral causes of community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized patients?

Not extremely well! Although a recent multicenter prospective study in adult hospitalized patients reported that the median procalcitonin (PCT) concentration was significantly lower for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) caused by viral pathogens ( 0.09 u/ml vs atypical bacteria [0.2 ug/ml] and typical bacteria [2.5 ug/ml]),  PCT was <0.1 ug/ml and <0.25 ug/ml  in 12.4% and 23.1% of typical bacterial cases, respectively1

This means that we could potentially miss about a quarter of CAP cases due to typical bacterial causes if we use the <0.25 ug/ml threshold (<0.20 is ug/ml has been used to exclude sepsis2). For these reasons and based on the results from another study3, no threshold for PCT can reliably distinguish bacterial from viral etiologies of CAP4.  Clinical context is essential in interpreting PCT levels! Also go to a related pearl on this site5.

Can PCT distinguish Legionella from other atypical bacterial causes of CAP (eg, caused by Mycoplasma or Chlamydophila)? The answer is “maybe”! Legionella was associated with higher PCT levels compared to  Mycoplasma and Chlamydophila in one study1, but not in another3.

References

  1. Self WH, Balk RA, Grijalva CG, et al. Procalcitonin as a marker of etiology in adults hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis 2017;65:183-90. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28407054
  2. Meisner M. Update on procalcitonin measurements. Ann Lab Med 2014;34:263-73.
  3. Krüger S, Ewig S, Papassotiriou J, et al. Inflammatory parameters predict etiologic patterns but do not allow for individual prediction of etiology in patients with CAP-Results from the German competence network CAPNETZ. Resp Res 2009;10:65. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2714042/pdf/1465-9921-10-65.pdf
  4. Bergin SP, Tsalik EL. Procalcitonin: the right answer but to which question? Clin Infect Dis 2017; 65:191-93. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article-abstract/65/2/191/3605416/Procalcitonin-The-Right-Answer-but-to-Which?redirectedFrom=fulltext
  5. https://pearls4peers.com/2017/07/01/should-i-order-serum-procalcitonin-on-my-patient-with-suspected-infection    
How well does procalcitonin distinguish bacterial from viral causes of community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized patients?

How should I interpret a positive urine pneumococcal antigen when my suspicion for pneumococcal disease is very low?

The popular urine pneumococcal antigen (UPA) (based on the C-polysaccharide of Streptococcus pneumoniae cell wall) has been a valuable diagnostic tool in diagnosing invasive pneumococcal infections, but may be associated with up to nearly 10% rate of false-positivity in hospitalized patients1.  Three factors have often been cited as the  cause of false-positive UPA results: a. Nasopharyngeal carriage; b.Prior invasive pneumococcal infection and;  c. Pneumococcal vaccination.

Among adults with nasopharyngeal carriage of S. pneumoniae, particularly those with HIV infection, 12-17% of positive UPA tests may be false-positive1. In patients with recent invasive pneumococcal disease, UAP may remain positive in over 50% of patient at 1 month and about 5% at 6 months1,2.

Among persons receiving the 23-valent polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine (PPV), over 20% may have a positive UPA up to 30 hours following immunization, some potentially longer1.  In fact, the manufacturer of UPA assay recommends that UPA not be obtained within 5 days of receiving PPV. There is reason to believe that conjugated pneumococcal vaccine may be associated with the same phenomenon3.

So in a hospitalized patient with low suspicion for pneumococcal disease but a positive UAP, it would be wise to first exclude the possibility of PPV administration earlier during hospitalization before the sample was obtained1,4.

 

References

  1. Ryscavage PA, Noskin GA, Bobb A, et al. Incidence and impact of false-positive urine pneumococcal antigen testing in hospitalized patients. S Med J 2011;104:293-97.
  2. Andre F, Prat C, Ruiz-Manzano J, et al. Persistence of Streptococcus pneumoniae urinary antigen excretion after pneumococcal pneumonia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2009;28:197-201.
  3. Navarro D, Garcia-Maset Leonor, Gimeno C, et al. Performance of the Binax NOW Streptococcus pneumoniae urinary assay for diagnosis of pneumonia in children with underlying pulmonary diseases in the absence of acute pneumococcal infection. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42: 4853-55.
  4. Song JY, Eun BW, Nahm MH. Diagnosis of pneumococcal pneumonia: current pitfalls and the way forward. Infect Chemother 2013;45:351-66.

 

How should I interpret a positive urine pneumococcal antigen when my suspicion for pneumococcal disease is very low?

My patient with acute onset headache, photophobia, and neck stiffness does not have CSF pleocytosis. Could she still have meningitis?

Although the clinical diagnosis of meningitis is often supported by the presence of abnormal number of WBCs in the CSF (AKA pleocytosis), meningitis may be present despite its absence.

Among viral causes of meningitis in adults, enteroviruses are associated with lower CSF WBC count compared to herpes simplex and varicella zoster, with some patients (~10%) having 0-2 WBC’s/mm31,2.  Of interest, among children, parechovirus (formerly echovirus 22 and 23) meningitis is characterized by normal CSF findings3.

Though uncommon, bacterial meningitis without CSF pleocytosis has been reported among non-neutropenic adults,  including Neisseria meningitidis, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Hemophilus influenzae, Listeria monocytogenes, E. coli, and Proteus mirabilis4A European study also reported normal CSF WBC in nearly 10% of patients with Lyme neuroborreliosis (including meningitis) caused primarily by Borrelia garinii5.

Cryptococcal meninigitis may also be associated with normal CSF profile in 25% of patients with HIV infection6.

 

References

  1. Ihekwaba UK, Kudesia G, McKendrick MW. Clinical features of viral meningitis in adult:significant differences in cerebrospinal fluid findings among herpes simplex virus, varicella zoster virus, and enterovirus infections. Clin Infect Dis 2008;47:783-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18680414
  2. Dawood N, Desjobert E, Lumley J et al. Confirmed viral meningitis with normal CSF findings. BMJ Case Rep 2014. Doi:10.1136/bcr-2014-203733. http://casereports.bmj.com/content/2014/bcr-2014-203733.abstract
  3. Wolthers KC, Benschop KSM, Schinkel J, et al. Human parechovirus as an important viral cause of sepsis like illness and meningitis in young children. Clin Infect Dis 2008;47:358-63. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18558876
  4. Hase R, Hosokawa N, Yaegashi M, et al. Bacterial meningitis in the absence of cerebrospinal fluid pleocytosis: A case report and review of the literature. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 2014;25:249:51. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4211346/pdf/idmm-25-249.pdf
  5. Ogrinc K, Lotric-Furlan S, Maraspin  V, et al. Suspected early Lyme neuroborreliosis in patients with erythema migrans. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 57:501-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=23667259
  6. Darras-Joly C, Chevret S, Wolff M, et al. Cryptococcus neoformans infection in France: epidemiologic features of and early prognostic parameters for 76 patients who were infected with human immunodeficiency virus. Clin Infect Dis 1996;23:369-76. https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/cid/23/2/10.1093/clinids/23.2.369/2/23-2-369.pdf?Expires=1501035620&Signature=FhHMHUHAMmT3rz4ld8QAMet-weu-BWgm5YR6nA4jjSGVGIeaVlMNPgeOkW2fniiel54HQhIs1Kkp3PpzT1glxhJeZvQiGXQCSOoF-jS1SK7S~kBb-oHs4qsIJzN0OJxNAXfoJi4bl7OeKaLTyIE3P8~slwH0BBi7RncSYVgVR4NkOnFpYgn27~wY7pDSUNWvzGFKoSeYGeM0TsAqna-QmXzodITB5bgr1mO6Q6OGUxCsqRwhr6xNb~4G93oqRcsO19gyUluCE0xYt0KbKWuQxJeh8AbtJkNrS08~XInMR50bQZOUb80j0~dtg9jRTGzXQaDllVByoX2Alr48hlhogw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q
My patient with acute onset headache, photophobia, and neck stiffness does not have CSF pleocytosis. Could she still have meningitis?

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.

 

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 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?

What is the significance of Howell-Jolly bodies in the peripheral smear of my patient with a spleen who presents with pneumonia?

Howell-Jolly bodies (HJBs, Figure) are often indicative of asplenia (either post-splenectomy or congenital absence) or hyposplenism associated with a variety of conditions, including  sickle cell disease, autoimmune disorders, celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease (particularly ulcerative colitis), HIV, cirrhosis, primary pulmonary hypertension, splenic irradiation, amyloidosis, sarcoidosis, bone marrow transplantation, and high-dose corticosteroid therapy1-4.

Patients with pneumonia and HJBs on peripheral smear may be hyposplenic and at risk of potentially serious infections, predominantly caused by encapsulated bacteria eg, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae and Neisseria meningitidis3.  Such patients should be immunized against these organisms, including sequential receipt of both conjugated and polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccines3,5.

HJBs are nuclear remnants in circulating mature red blood cells which are usually pitted by the spleen under normal physiological conditions. 

Final Fun Pearl:  Did you know that  HJBs were named after Henry Howell, an American physiologist who pioneered the use of heparin as an anti-coagulant and Justin Jolly, a French hematologist who was among the first to film mitotic activity in cells?

howelljollymgh

Figure. Howell-Jolly body in an RBC. Photo courtesy of Michael S. Abers, MD

If you liked this post sign up under MENU and catch future pearls right into your mailbox!

References

  1. Di Sabatino, A, Carsetti R, Corazza G. Post-splenectomy and hyposplenic states. Lancet 2011;378:86–97. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21474172
  2. Brousse, V, Buffet P, Rees D. The spleen and sickle cell disease: the sick(led) spleen. Br J Haematol 2014;166: 165–176. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24862308
  3. Mathew H, Dittus C, Malek A, Negroiu A. Howell-Jolly bodies on peripheral smear leading to the diagnosis of congenital hyposplenism in a patient with septic shock. Clin Case Rep 2015;3:714-717. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4551333
  4. Ryan FP, Smart RC, Holdsworth CD, et al. Hyposplenism in inflammatory bowel disease 1978;19:50-55. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/624506
  5. Kuchar E, Miśkiewicz K , Karlikowska M. A review of guidance on immunization in persons with defective or deficient splenic function. Br J Haematol 2015; 171:683-94.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjh.13660/full

Contributed by Katarzyna Orlewska, Medical Student, Warszawski Uniwersytet Medyczny, Poland

What is the significance of Howell-Jolly bodies in the peripheral smear of my patient with a spleen who presents with pneumonia?