Should I be concerned about piperacillin-tazobactam nephrotoxicity in the absence of vancomycin?

Nephrotoxicity associated with piperacillin-tazobactam (PT) combined with vancomycin (V) has been increasingly reported1,2,  with  some recommending that an alternative to V be used when PT is also on board 2. However, there are several reasons why the nephrotoxic potential of PT either alone or with antibiotics other than V also deserves further study before such recommendations can be widely embraced3.

First, most studies of VPT combination do not include comparative V or PT alone arms making it difficult to assess the relative contribution of these 2 antibiotics to kidney injury when used in combination. A small study that did include a PT-only  arm reported a similar rate of acute kidney injury (AKI) in PT and VPT arms ( 15.4% and 18.8% , respectively), both significantly higher that than of  V-only group (4%).4

 Other reasons not to readily dismiss PT as a cause of nephrototoxicity include the  lack of association between higher V trough levels and AKI in patients receiving VPT2, the association of PT with lower rates of renal function recovery in critically ill patients when compared to other selected β-lactams5,  and higher magnesium and potassium renal tubular loss with the use of PT compared to selected cephalosporins and ciprofloxacin6.  As with other penicillins, PT-associated acute interstitial nephritis may also occur7-8.

In short, even in the absence of V, nephrotoxic potential of PT should not be automatically dismissed.

 

Disclosure: Ref 3 was also authored by the creator of this pearl.

References

  1. Hammond DA, Smith MN, Chenghui Li, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of acute kidney injury associated with concomitant vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam. Clin Infect Dis 2017;64:666-74.
  2. Navalkele B, Pogue JM, Karino S, et al. Risk of acute kidney injury in patients on concomitant vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam compared to those on vancomycin and cefepime. Clin Infect Dis 2017;64:116-123.
  3. Manian FA. Should we revisit the nephrotoxic potential of piperacillin-tazobactam as well? Clin Infect Dis 2017; https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix321
  4. Kim T, Kandiah S, Patel M, et al. Risk factors for kidney injury during vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam administration, including increased odds of injury with combination therapy. BMC Res Notes 2015;8:579.
  5. Jensen J-U S, Hein L, Lundgren B, et al. Kidney failure related to broad-spectrum antibiotics in critically ill patients: secondary end point results from a 1200 patient randomized trial. BMJ Open 2012;2:e000635. http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/2/e000635
  6. Polderman KH, Girbes ARJ. Piperacillin-induced magnesium and potassium loss in intensive care unit patients. Intensive Care Med 2002;28:530-522.
  7. Muriithi AK, Leung N, Valeri AM, et al. Clinical characteristics, causes and outcomes of acute interstitial nephritis in the elderly. Kidney International 2015;87:458-464.
  8. Soto J, Bosch JM, Alsar Ortiz MJ, et al. Piperacillin-induced acute interstitial nephritis. Nephron 1993;65:154-155. 
Should I be concerned about piperacillin-tazobactam nephrotoxicity in the absence of vancomycin?

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

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

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

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

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

Liked this post? Get the app for your smart phone and sign up under MENU and catch future pearls right into your mailbox!

 

References

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

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

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

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

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

 

References

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

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

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

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

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

Although there are no clinical trials comparing  therapy with vancomycin and β-lactam to vancomycin alone in the empiric treatment of S. aureus bacteremia (SAB), combination therapy has been advocated by some based on reports of reduced morbidity and mortality (1). More recently however, a retrospective study involving 122 hospitals failed to find superiority of vancomycin-β-lactam combination therapy compared to vancomycin alone for empiric therapy of SAB (2).

We do know that despite its activity against methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA), vancomycin is less bactericidal (3), with a higher rate of relapse than anti-staphylococcal β-lactams in the treatment of established SAB (4).

So although it may not be clear if we need to empirically place all of our patients suspected of SAB on a vancomycin-β-lactam from the get go,  once MSSA has been confirmed, vancomycin should be dropped in favor of an anti-staphylococcal β-lactam.

 

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?

Is oral vancomycin prophylaxis (OVP) effective in preventing recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in patients requiring systemic antimicrobial therapy (SAT)?

Although OVP is often administered to patients with history of CDI who require SAT, evidence to support this practice has been lacking until recently.

In a 2016 retrospective study of 203 patients with prior history of CDI, those who received OVP (125 mg or 250 mg 2x/daily) during the course of their SAT and for up to 1 week thereafter were significantly less likely to have a recurrence than the non-OVP group (4.2% vs 26.6%, respectively, O.R. 0.12 [C.I. 0.04-0.4]) (1). In this study, the mean interval between prior CDI and initiation of prophylaxis was 6.1 months (1-21 months), and the mean duration of prophylaxis following discontinuation of SAT was 1 day (0-6 days). Similar results have been reported by others (2,3).

Despite their retrospective nature, these studies lend support to the use of OVP in reducing the risk of recurrent CDI in patients who require SAT. It is unclear how long OVP should be continued after SAT is completed, if at all, but common practice is 1-2 weeks.

A randomized-controlled study comparing OVP 125 mg daily for the duration of SAT plus 5 days vs placebo appears to be on the way (4)!

References

  1. Van Hise NW, Bryant AM, Hennessey EK, Crannage AJ, Khoury JA, Manian FA. Efficacy of oral vancomycin in preventing recurrent Clostridium difficile infection in patients treated with systemic antimicrobial agents. Clin Infect Dis 2016; Advance Access published June 17, 2016. Doi.10.1093/cid/ciw401.
  2. Carignan A, Sebastien Poulin, Martin P, et al. Efficacy of secondary prophylaxis with vancomycin for preventing recurrent Clostridium difficile infections. Am J Gastroenterol 2016;111: 1834-40. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27619835
  3. Granetsky A, Han JH, Hughes ME, et al. Oral vancomycin is highly effective in preventing Clostridium difficile infection in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Blood 2016;128:2225; http://www.bloodjournal.org/content/128/22/2225?sso-checked=true
  4. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03462459

Disclosure: The author of this post was also a co-investigator of one of the studies cited (ref. 1).

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

Is oral vancomycin prophylaxis (OVP) effective in preventing recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in patients requiring systemic antimicrobial therapy (SAT)?

What is the sensitivity of nose swabs in detecting methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia?

In MRSA pneumonia, the sensitivity of nasal swab PCR may vary from as low as 24.2% to 88% (1-3). A 2018 meta-analysis found an overall sensitivity of 70.9% (community-acquired pneumonia/healthcare-associated pneumonia [HCAP] 85%, ventilator-associated pneumonia 40%) with overall negative predictive value of 96.5% (based on an overall MRSA pneumonia prevalence of 10%) (4). 

A single center  study involving  patients with possible HCAP and a low clinical pulmonary infection score (CPIS) — for whom antibiotics may not be necessary anyway (5)—suggested that discontinuation of empiric vancomycin in patients without an adequate respiratory culture and a negative nose and throat culture may be reasonable (6).

However, a prospective study of ICU patients concluded that “clinicians cannot reliably use the results of initial negative MRSA nasal swab results to withhold empirical MRSA coverage from patients who otherwise are at risk for MRSA infection” (3).

The previously cited 2018 meta-analysis study (4) cautions against use of MRSA screening in patients with structural lung disease (eg, cystic fibrosis or bronchiectasis) because colonization may be more frequent in the lower respiratory tract in these patients and screening tests may therefore be discordant (4).

Collectively, the available data suggest that it is reasonable to use a negative MRSA screen to help exclude pneumonia due to this pathogen in patients in whom MRSA infection is not highly suspected or those who are not severely ill.

 

References

  1. Rimawi RH, Ramsey KM, Shah KB, et al. Correlation between methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal sampling, and S. aureus pneumonia in the medical intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35:590-92. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24709733
  2. Dangerfield B, Chung A, Webb B, et al. Predictive value of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal swab PCR assay for MRSA pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014;58:859-64. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24277023
  3. Sarikonda KV, Micek ST, Doherty JA, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization is a poor predictor of intensive care unit-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections requiring antibiotic treatment. Crit Care Med 2010;38:1991-1995. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20683260
  4. Parente DM Cunha CB Mylonakis E et al. The clinical utility of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal screening to rule out MRSA pneumonia: A diagnostic meta-analysis with antimicrobial stewardship implications. Clin Infect Dis 208;67:1-7.
  5. Napolitano LM. Use of severity scoring and stratification factors in clinical trials of hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis 2010;51:S67-S80. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20597675
  6. Boyce JM, Pop O-F, Abreu-Lanfranco O, et al. A trial of discontinuation of empiric vancomycin therapy in patients with suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus health care-associated pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013;57:1163-1168. http://aac.asm.org/content/57/3/1163.full.pdf
What is the sensitivity of nose swabs in detecting methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia?