The use of combination antibiotic therapy for severe pseudomonal infections is a standard practice in many hospitals; however, the data supporting its use are somewhat unclear. Possible benefits of combination therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections include in vitro antibiotic synergy, prevention of the emergence of bacterial resistance while receiving therapy, and improved adequacy of empiric therapy. Unfortunately, the potential disadvantages are also considerable, the most worrisome of which are drug toxicity and creation of multidrug-resistant organisms in the environment. Many in vitro and animal studies have attempted to shed light on this clinically challenging issue; however, these studies have often yielded conflicting results and used different study methods, which limits the clinical utility of the results. Clinical studies have also attempted to clarify this issue, particularly in patients with serious pseudomonal infections such as bacteremia and ventilator-associated pneumonia, but again, often resulted in conflicting conclusions. Thus, we performed a MEDLINE search (1950-May 2010) of clinical and in vitro studies evaluating the use of antibiotic combination therapy and monotherapy for bacteremia and pneumonia due to P. aeruginosa. Although a clear answer still eludes this controversy, combination therapy for seriously ill patients suspected of having pseudomonal infection has been shown, with considerable evidence, to improve the likelihood of an active agent being included in the initial antibiotic regimen of these patients. The clinical status of the patient and true likelihood of encountering a multidrug-resistant organism should be evaluated before deciding on empiric combination therapy. Future research may be able to better identify which patient populations might receive the most benefit from combination therapy rather than using combination therapy for everyone at risk for these infections.
A significant increase in the number of appropriately ordered and drawn serum vancomycin levels occurred after implementation of TDM criteria in the hospital's CPOE system. The majority of orders that were deemed inappropriate were due to improper timing of laboratory collection.
Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Traditionally, antistaphylococcal penicillins (ASPs) have been considered the agents of choice for the treatment of MSSA bacteremia. Vancomycin has been demonstrated to have poorer outcomes in several studies and is only recommended for patients with severe penicillin allergies. Although cefazolin is considered as an alternative to the ASPs for patients with nonsevere penicillin allergies, cefazolin offers several pharmacologic advantages over ASPs, such as more convenient dosing regimens, and antimicrobial stewardship programs are increasingly using cefazolin as the preferential agent for MSSA infections as part of cost-saving initiatives. Concerns about susceptibility to hydrolysis by type A β-lactamases, particularly at high inocula seen in deep-seated infections such as endocarditis; selective pressures from unnecessary gram-negative coverage; and lack of comparative clinical data have precluded recommending cefazolin as a first-line therapy for MSSA bacteremia. Recent clinical studies, however, have suggested similar clinical efficacy but better tolerability, with lower rates of discontinuation due to adverse drug reactions, of cefazolin compared with ASPs. Other variables, such as adequate source control (e.g., intravascular catheter removal, debridement, or drainage) and enhanced pharmacodynamics through aggressive cefazolin dosing, may mitigate the role of cefazolin inoculum effect and factor into determining improved clinical outcomes. In this review, we highlight the utility of cefazolin versus ASPs in the treatment of MSSA bacteremia with a focus on clinical efficacy and safety.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.