Empiric Antibiotic Therapy for Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia May Not Reduce In-Hospital Mortality: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Appropriate empiric therapy, antibiotic therapy with in vitro activity to the infecting organism given prior to confirmed culture results, may improve Staphylococcus aureus outcomes. We aimed to measure the clinical impact of appropriate empiric antibiotic therapy on mortality, while statistically adjusting for comorbidities, severity of illness and presence of virulence factors in the infecting strain.We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to a tertiary-care facility from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2007, who had S. aureus bacteremia. Time to appropriate therapy was measured from blood culture collection to the receipt of antibiotics with in vitro activity to the infecting organism. Cox proportional hazard models were used to measure the association between receipt of appropriate empiric therapy and in-hospital mortality, statistically adjusting for patient and pathogen characteristics.Among 814 admissions, 537 (66%) received appropriate empiric therapy. Those who received appropriate empiric therapy had a higher hazard of 30-day in-hospital mortality (Hazard Ratio (HR): 1.52; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99, 2.34). A longer time to appropriate therapy was protective against mortality (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.60, 1.03) except among the healthiest quartile of patients (HR: 1.44; 95% CI: 0.66, 3.15).Appropriate empiric therapy was not associated with decreased mortality in patients with S. aureus bacteremia except in the least ill patients. Initial broad antibiotic selection may not be widely beneficial

Research approvals iceberg: how a 'low-key' study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better.

BACKGROUND: The red tape and delays around research ethics and governance approvals frequently frustrate researchers yet, as the lesser of two evils, are largely accepted as unavoidable. Here we quantify aspects of the research ethics and governance approvals for one interview- and questionnaire-based study conducted in England which used the National Health Service (NHS) procedures and the electronic Integrated Research Application System (IRAS). We demonstrate the enormous impact of existing approvals processes on costs of studies, including opportunity costs to focus on the substantive research, and suggest directions for radical system change. MAIN TEXT: We have recorded 491 exchanges with 89 individuals involved in research ethics and governance approvals, generating 193 pages of email text excluding attachments. These are conservative estimates (e.g. only records of the research associate were used). The exchanges were conducted outside IRAS, expected to be the platform where all necessary documents are provided and questions addressed. Importantly, the figures exclude the actual work of preparing the ethics documentation (such as the ethics application, information sheets and consent forms). We propose six areas of work to enable system change: 1. Support the development of a broad range of customised research ethics and governance templates to complement generic, typically clinical trials orientated, ones; 2. Develop more sophisticated and flexible frameworks for study classification; 3. Link with associated processes for assessment, feedback, monitoring and reporting, such as ones involving funders and patient and public involvement groups; 4. Invest in a new generation IT infrastructure; 5. Enhance system capacity through increasing online reviewer participation and training; and 6. Encourage researchers to quantify the approvals processes for their studies. CONCLUSION: Ethics and governance approvals are burdensome for historical reasons and not because of the nature of the task. There are many opportunities to improve their efficiency and analytic depth in an age of innovation, increased connectivity and distributed working. If we continue to work under current systems, we are perpetuating, paradoxically, an unethical system of research approvals by virtue of its wastefulness and impoverished ethical debate

Lipoglycopeptide Antibacterial Agents in Gram-Positive Infections: A Comparative Review.

Oritavancin, telavancin, and dalbavancin are recently marketed lipoglycopeptides that exhibit remarkable differences to conventional molecules. While dalbavancin inhibits the late stages of peptidoglycan synthesis by mainly impairing transglycosylase activity, oritavancin and telavancin anchor in the bacterial membrane by the lipophilic side chain linked to their disaccharidic moiety, disrupting membrane integrity and causing bacteriolysis. Oritavancin keeps activity against vancomycin-resistant enterocococci, being a stronger inhibitor of transpeptidase than of transglycosylase activity. These molecules have potent activity against Gram-positive organisms, most notably staphylococci (including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and to some extent vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus), streptococci (including multidrug-resistant pneumococci), and Clostridia. All agents are indicated for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, and telavancin, for hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. While telavancin is administered daily at 10 mg/kg, the remarkably long half-lives of oritavancin and dalbavancin allow for infrequent dosing (single dose of 1200 mg for oritavancin and 1000 mg at day 1 followed by 500 mg at day 8 for dalbavancin), which could be exploited in the future for outpatient therapy. Among possible safety issues evidenced during clinical development were an increased risk of developing osteomyelitis with oritavancin; taste disturbance, nephrotoxicity, and risk of corrected QT interval prolongation (especially in the presence of at-risk co-medications) with telavancin; and elevation of hepatic enzymes with dalbavancin. Interference with coagulation tests has been reported with oritavancin and telavancin. These drugs proved non-inferior to conventional treatments in clinical trials but their advantages may be better evidenced upon future evaluation in more severe infections

Comparative effectiveness of nafcillin or cefazolin versus vancomycin in methicillin-susceptible <it>Staphylococcus aureus </it>bacteremia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The high prevalence of methicillin-resistant <it>S. aureus </it>(MRSA) has led clinicians to select antibiotics that have coverage against MRSA, usually vancomycin, for empiric therapy for suspected staphylococcal infections. Clinicians often continue vancomycin started empirically even when methicillin-susceptible <it>S. aureus </it>(MSSA) strains are identified by culture. However, vancomycin has been associated with poor outcomes such as nephrotoxicity, persistent bacteremia and treatment failure. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of vancomycin versus the beta-lactam antibiotics nafcillin and cefazolin among patients with MSSA bacteremia. The outcome of interest for this study was 30-day in-hospital mortality.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This retrospective cohort study included all adult in-patients admitted to a tertiary-care facility between January 1, 2003 and June 30, 2007 who had a positive blood culture for MSSA and received nafcillin, cefazolin or vancomycin. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess independent mortality hazards comparing nafcillin or cefazolin versus vancomycin. Similar methods were used to estimate the survival benefits of switching from vancomycin to nafcillin or cefazolin versus leaving patients on vancomycin. Each model included statistical adjustment using propensity scores which contained variables associated with an increased propensity to receive vancomycin.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>267 patients were included; 14% (38/267) received nafcillin or cefazolin, 51% (135/267) received both vancomycin and either nafcillin or cefazolin, and 35% (94/267) received vancomycin. Thirty (11%) died within 30 days. Those receiving nafcillin or cefazolin had 79% lower mortality hazards compared with those who received vancomycin alone (adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.21; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.09, 0.47). Among the 122 patients who initially received vancomycin empirically, those who were switched to nafcillin or cefazolin (66/122) had 69% lower mortality hazards (adjusted HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.10, 0.95) compared to those who remained on vancomycin.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Receipt of nafcillin or cefazolin was protective against mortality compared to vancomycin even when therapy was altered after culture results identified MSSA. Convenience of vancomycin dosing may not outweigh the potential benefits of nafcillin or cefazolin in the treatment of MSSA bacteremia.</p