The Empirical Combination of Vancomycin and a β-Lactam for Staphylococcal Bacteremia

Clinical Infectious Diseases, Dec 2013

The high prevalence of methicillin resistance among Staphylococcus aureus bacteremias leads to common use of vancomycin as empirical therapy. However, investigators have reported poor outcomes with vancomycin treatment for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. We review the evidence supporting empirical combination of both vancomycin and a β-lactam agent for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Vancomycin therapy for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia is associated with 2–3 times the risk of morbidity and mortality compared to an antistaphylococcal penicillin (oxacillin and nafcillin) or first-generation cephalosporin (cefazolin). De-escalation of empirical vancomycin to definitive β-lactam therapy still appears inferior to initial β-lactam therapy. Although there is no clinical trial supporting combination therapy, a scientific rationale for benefit exists and should be weighed against the risks (adverse events, antibiotic resistance, and cost) of additional pharmacotherapy. The empirical combination of vancomycin and a β-lactam (either nafcillin, oxacillin, or cefazolin) for staphylococcal bacteremia may improve infection-related clinical outcomes.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

The Empirical Combination of Vancomycin and a β-Lactam for Staphylococcal Bacteremia

CID The Empirical Combination of Vancomycin and a β-Lactam for Staphylococcal Bacteremia Kevin W. McConeghy 1 2 Susan C. Bleasdale 0 1 Keith A. Rodvold 0 1 2 0 Department of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago 1 Received 26 June 2013; accepted 16 August 2013; electronically published 28 August 2013. Chicago, College of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy Practice , M/C 886, 833 S Wood St, Office 164, Chicago IL 60612 2 Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy The high prevalence of methicillin resistance among Staphylococcus aureus bacteremias leads to common use of vancomycin as empirical therapy. However, investigators have reported poor outcomes with vancomycin treatment for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. We review the evidence supporting empirical combination of both vancomycin and a β-lactam agent for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Vancomycin therapy for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia is associated with 2-3 times the risk of morbidity and mortality compared to an antistaphylococcal penicillin (oxacillin and nafcillin) or first-generation cephalosporin (cefazolin). De-escalation of empirical vancomycin to definitive β-lactam therapy still appears inferior to initial β-lactam therapy. Although there is no clinical trial supporting combination therapy, a scientific rationale for benefit exists and should be weighed against the risks (adverse events, antibiotic resistance, and cost) of additional pharmacotherapy. The empirical combination of vancomycin and a β-lactam (either nafcillin, oxacillin, or cefazolin) for staphylococcal bacteremia may improve infection-related clinical outcomes. - The pharmacotherapy for serious infections is guided by key principles that include (1) empirical therapy with broad-spectrum antimicrobials, dose-adjusted to achieve pharmacodynamic targets and effectively treat potential drug-resistant organisms; (2) broad-spectrum therapy, subsequently de-escalated to treat the causative pathogen; (3) a hospital-wide system of infection control measures and antimicrobial stewardship to decrease the spread of antimicrobial resistance and improve clinical outcomes; (4) source control, a critical component of treatment that includes removal of infected catheters, abscess drainage, and surgical intervention; and (5) timely initiation of appropriate therapy, which can be life-saving [1, 2]. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia remains a significant healthcare burden, with an estimated 10.3 episodes per 1000 hospital discharges, and a life-threatening infection with an estimated 30-day mortality of 21% in the United States [3, 4]. In the patient with positive blood cultures, Gram stain, or a high clinical suspicion of serious staphylococcal bacteremia, initial therapy includes either an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin or oxacillin), first-generation cephalosporin (cefazolin), or vancomycin depending on clinical suspicion for methicillin-susceptible or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA and MRSA, respectively). Delays in initiation of appropriate empirical antibiotics for staphylococcal bacteremia are a critical determinant of outcome. A treatment delay of 44 hours is associated with a nearly 4-fold increase in the odds of infectionrelated mortality (odds ratio [OR], 3.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3–11.0) [5]. Investigators have suggested that the empirical combination of both a β-lactam and anti-MRSA agent to cover both potential staphylococcal pathogens (MSSA and MRSA) may improve clinical outcomes [6, 7]. The purpose of this manuscript is to review the clinical evidence supporting combination therapy with vancomycin and an antistaphylococcal penicillin or firstgeneration cephalosporin for empirical treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, and provide recommendations as to where combination therapy would be of greatest benefit. Studies were obtained by a search of Medline ( January 1962– May 2013); Medical Subject Heading terms included Staphylococcus aureus, bacteremia, vancomycin, nafcillin, cefazolin, and empirical therapy, limited to English-language literature and screened for topical relevance. USE OF EMPIRICAL VANCOMYCIN MONOTHERAPY FOR STAPHYLOCOCCAL BACTEREMIA MRSA in the United States is endemic in the community and hospital setting. In one study, approximately 50% of emergency department visits for skin and soft tissue infections were positive for MRSA [8]. Risk factors for community-acquired MRSA (USA300 strain) bloodstream infections include age 59 or younger, intravenous drug use, homelessness or marginal housing, hepatitis C infection, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, and prior skin and soft tissue infection [9]. Hospital-acquired staphylococcal isolates were reported to be 54% methicillin resistant during 2009–2010 [10]. Risk factors for nosocomial MRSA bacteremia include admission for surgery, prolonged length of stay, age 65 or older, mechanical ventilation, and central venous catheter [11]. Other important risk factors to be considered include colonization with MRSA, severity of illness, immunosuppression, and prior healthcare exposure [12]. Vancomycin is the standard treatment for MRSA [13]. Delays in starting appropriate antimicrobial therapy for MRSA bacteremia are associated with increased morbidity and mortality [14–18]. A meta-analysis of 9 studies demonstrated that the odds of mortality are nearly doubled with inappropriate empirical therapy for MRSA bacteremia compared to appropriate initial therapy ( pooled OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.6–2.4) [18]. Because of the prevalence of MRSA, any patients with suspected staphylococcal bacteremia should be empirically treated with an anti-MRSA agent (most commonly vancomycin) until MRSA infection is excluded, because delays in antibiotic therapy can increase mortality. VANCOMYCIN MONOTHERAPY COMPARED TO β-LACTAMS FOR MSSA BACTEREMIA MSSA bacteremia should be treated with an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin or oxacillin) or first-generation cephalosporin (cefazolin) as several cohort studies have reported poor clinical outcomes with vancomycin-treated MSSA bacteremias. These results are summarized in Table 1 [19–24]. Stryjewski Outcome Infection-related mortality 30-day in-hospital mortality 33% vs 41% 20% vs 7% Persistent bacteremia Infection-related mortality 56% vs 37% 41% vs 11% Resulta OR, 6.5 (1.0–53) HR, 2.3 (1.1–4.9) OR, 3.5 (1.2–13) OR, 6.5 (1.4–29) OR, 3.3 (1.2–9.5) HR, 4.8 (2.1–11)f HR, 1.6 (1.2–2.2)f et al reported a prospective analysis of treatment failure among patients with MSSA bacteremia (N = 240) treated with vancomycin or cefazolin [21]. Failures were reported with 31.2% of vancomycin-treated and 13% of cefazolin-treated patients (P = .02). This occurred despite the cefazolin group having a higher proportion of patients with metastatic cancer (36.7% vs 11.7%) and infective endocarditis (17.4% vs 5.2%). Kim et al performed a propensity score–matched case-control analysis (n = 27) of vancomycin-treated cases compared to β-lactam– treated cases and demonstrated an increased odds of infectionrelated mortality with vancomycin (37% vs 11%; adjusted OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.2–9.5) [22]. Schweizer et al reported a retrospective cohort (N = 267) of MSSA bacteremia and demonstrated that patients treated with cefazolin or nafcillin had a lower 30day mortality risk than vancomycin-treated patients (3% vs 20%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.21; 95% CI, .09–.47) [23]. A prospective, observational study of MSSA bacteremia by Chang et al demonstrated that odds of persistent bacteremia (blood cultures positive >7 days) or relapse were 6.5 times higher with vancomycin compared to nafcillin (OR, 6.5; 95% CI, 1.0–53) [19]. Khatib et al reported on 120 cases of hospitalized patients with MSSA bacteremia and demonstrated a higher mortality risk in vancomycin-treated versus β-lactam–treated patients (27.5% vs 12.1%; HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1–4.9; P = .03) [20]. A large (N = 293 094) retrospective cohort of hemodialysis outpatients also demonstrated that treatment of MSSA bacteremia with cefazolin versus vancomycin was associated with a significantly lower combined risk of hospitalization or death (HR, 0.6; 95% CI, .5–.8) [24]. Whether outcomes differ between β-lactams (nafcillin vs cefazolin) has not been widely evaluated. One propensity score– matched case-control study evaluated nafcillin versus cefazolin for MSSA bacteremia and demonstrated equivalent rates of treatment failure (15% vs 15%) [26]. A retrospective cohort study of MSSA bacteremia also found similar 90-day mortality rates for oxacillin versus cefazolin (32% vs 40%, respectively; adjusted OR, 0.9; 95% CI, .5–1.8) [27]. Although these studies differ in underlying severity of illness, source of bacteremia, definitions of outcome, and method of analysis, there is a consistent conclusion that nafcillin or cefazolin improved treatment-related outcomes compared to vancomycin for MSSA bacteremia. The risk of treatment failure (recurrent infection or death) is 2- to 3-fold higher with vancomycin than nafcillin or cefazolin across these reports. As current evidence suggests that nafcillin and cefazolin are more clinically effective, de-escalation from empirical vancomycin is common practice. The study by Schweizer et al demonstrated a 30-day lower mortality risk in patients who were de-escalated from vancomycin compared to continuing therapy (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, .1–.95) [23]. The median time to de-escalation in the Schweizer report was 3.0 days (interquartile range, 2.4–3.9) and among those who died, time to nafcillin or cefazolin de-escalation was 4.0 days versus 2.5 days among those who lived. DE-ESCALATION FROM VANCOMYCIN IS INFERIOR TO INITIAL THERAPY WITH NAFCILLIN OR CEFAZOLIN Evidence suggests that the practice of vancomycin monotherapy with de-escalation to a β-lactam still results in worse outcomes than initiating empirical β-lactam therapy for MSSA. Lodise et al studied a cohort of 72 MSSA infective endocarditis patients and demonstrated an increased risk of infectionrelated mortality in vancomycin compared to β-lactam–treated controls (39.3% vs 11.4%; P = .005) [6]. Additionally, those initially treated with vancomycin and de-escalated to a β-lactam had 4-fold increased mortality risk than those initially treated with a β-lactam (9/22 [40.9%] vs 5/44 [11.4%]). The median time to de-escalation was 3.0 days. Khatib et al also reported that persistent rates of MSSA bacteremia (blood cultures positive for >3 days) were similar between patients continued on vancomycin or de-escalated to β-lactams (47% vs 56%, respectively), whereas those initially treated with either a β-lactam or both vancomycin and β-lactam were lower (37% and 0%, respectively) [25]. The reported mean time to vancomycin deescalation was 75 hours. Addition of β-lactam therapy to even the short window of empirical therapy (eg, 3 days) for MSSA is associated with improved clinical outcomes compared to initial vancomycin monotherapy. To achieve adequate coverage of both MSSA and MRSA, empirical coverage should include both a β-lactam and vancomycin. IMPACT OF RAPID DIAGNOSTIC TESTING ON EMPIRICAL THERAPY Modern polymerase chain reaction testing methods are improving time to identification of infectious pathogens including Staphylococcus aureus. There are several MRSA tests currently available in the United States [28]. Of these, the Xpert MRSA/ SA BC test has demonstrated improvements in time to initiation of antistaphylococcal therapy for MSSA (mean, 5.5 hours vs 49 hours) and reduced empirical initiation of vancomycin therapy [29]. An alternative approach is matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry, which has the ability to rapidly identify Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant organisms [30]. Limitations compared to rapid MRSA testing include its use is pending Food and Drug Administration approval, the methodology typically requires bacterial culture of the organism, and acquisition of the testing equipment is expensive. Although these tests reduce time to identification of Staphylococcus aureus, they have not been widely implemented in US hospitals. Also, to effectively reduce the empirical therapy window, the results must be promptly communicated to and acted upon by the clinician. However, the impact of rapidly available microbiology results on prescriber practice has not been widely evaluated. Rapid testing is a promising solution but until widespread implementation, determining the most appropriate empirical therapy regimen is critical. RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH COMBINATION THERAPY Empirical addition of nafcillin or cefazolin to vancomycin monotherapy for Staphylococcus aureus is a novel regimen, albeit with well-characterized agents; therefore, the risks should be carefully considered. Bactericidal activity has been evaluated in vitro for the combination of oxacillin and vancomycin for 10 clinical MSSA isolates, and antagonism was not observed [31]. Addition of a β-lactam to vancomycin monotherapy carries a risk of allergic reaction, but serious reactions including anaphylaxis are relatively uncommon with penicillin (0.04%) and cephalosporins (0.02%) and can be screened for with a careful history [32, 33]. Nafcillin may cause interstitial nephritis and induces liver cytochrome enzymes that could interfere with concomitant drug therapies (eg, warfarin), and both medications may rarely cause leukopenia or thrombocytopenia. However, the relatively short duration of empirical therapy (3 days) until susceptibilities are determined would limit these risks. Increasing β-lactam use could potentially lead to increased MRSA rates; this risk would appear greater if broadspectrum cephalosporins and β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors were used instead of nafcillin and cefazolin [34, 35]. Broadspectrum β-lactams would also provide unnecessary gramnegative activity. Additionally, experimental evidence suggests that methicillin and vancomycin resistance have an inverse relationship and that the combination of β-lactams and vancomycin may improve killing effect and limit resistance development [36–38]. The high risk of morbidity and mortality in staphylococcal bacteremia should be weighed against the risks of empirically adding nafcillin or cefazolin to vancomycin monotherapy. ALTERNATIVES TO COMBINATION THERAPY: DAPTOMYCIN AND LINEZOLID A possible alternative to discussing empirically combining vancomycin with nafcillin or cefazolin would be recommending linezolid or daptomycin for bacteremia. However, neither agent has definitively improved outcomes with staphylococcal bacteremia. Daptomycin was compared to vancomycin in a randomized controlled noninferiority trial of S. aureus (both MRSA and MSSA) bacteremia and endocarditis with similar treatment success (41.7% vs 44.2%, respectively; risk difference [RD], 2.4%; 95% CI, −10.2% to 15.1%) [39]. Linezolid was compared to vancomycin in a noninferiority trial for catheter-related bloodstream infections and demonstrated similar microbiologic cure rates for MSSA and MRSA bacteremia and mortality (82.1% vs 83.3%, respectively; RD, 1.2; 95% CI, −16.3 to 13.9) [40]. In both studies, vancomycin was de-escalated to an antistaphylococcal penicillin for MSSA. However, similar outcomes were reported for MSSA and MRSA, suggesting that daptomycin and linezolid therapy are not superior to de-escalation to a β-lactam but may be an alternative therapy if β-lactams are contraindicated (ie, allergy). In contrast, observational data suggest that combination therapy with a β-lactam and vancomycin results in improved bacteremia outcomes compared to de-escalation [6, 25]. The acquisition cost of daptomycin (80-kg patient, 6 mg/kg, US$362/day) and linezolid (600 mg intravenous twice daily, US $288/day) alone is also higher than vancomycin (1 g twice daily, US$10/day) and oxacillin (2 g every 4 hours, US$169/ day) combined, although drug monitoring increases vancomycin costs [41]. Daptomycin and linezolid are noninferior compared to vancomycin therapy but do not appear to have superior clinical outcomes in Staphylococcus aureus infective endocarditis or catheter-related bloodstream infections. A clinical trial for ceftaroline (cephalosporin with anti-MRSA activity) and MRSA bacteremia is ongoing (www.clinicaltrials. gov: NCT01701219) [42, 43]. Serial passages in subinhibitory concentrations of ceftobiprole, another cephalosporin with antiMRSA activity, for 28 days did lead to resistance development in MRSA [44]. Ceftaroline may be an acceptable alternative but is not approved for bacteremia. APPROPRIATE SETTING FOR USE OF COMBINATION THERAPY WITH VANCOMYCIN AND NAFCILLIN OR CEFAZOLIN As a guiding principle, initiation of appropriate antimicrobial therapy is a critical predictor of outcome, especially in serious infections. In those institutions with a high prevalence of MRSA requiring empirical vancomycin therapy, combination of both vancomycin and nafcillin or cefazolin empirically could improve MSSA clinical outcomes. After susceptibility results are known, therapy can be de-escalated to the appropriate antibiotics to limit risk of toxicity. Patients at the highest risk of morbidity and mortality from S. aureus infection would gain the greatest benefit from receipt of initial combination therapy. The cohort studies demonstrating a benefit included patients with severe sepsis (signs of end-organ dysfunction or decreased tissue perfusion), complicated bacteremias (such as probable or proven infective endocarditis), or presence of a prosthetic device, intravascular device, or nonremovable foci of infection [6, 21]. One might argue that bacteremia with S. aureus, independent of host risk factors, carries sufficient risk of morbidity and mortality to support initial combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS Use of combination therapy in infectious disease practice has been used for life-threatening gram-negative infections with the rationale that improved treatment outcomes outweigh the risks of toxicity, promoting further antibiotic resistance and increased cost [45]. Similarly, treatment success rates can be <50% in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (both MSSA and MRSA), demonstrating a need for alternative treatment options [39]. Newer therapies such as daptomycin, linezolid, and ceftaroline have not yet demonstrated superiority to vancomycin alone for empirical treatment of bacteremia. A potential alternative to combination therapy is adoption of a rapid diagnostic test capable of discriminating MRSA and MSSA from positive blood cultures. Additional research focusing on early antimicrobial initiation (ie, time to antibiotic initiation with vancomycin vs other agents) in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and more adequately controlling for underlying risk factors for treatment failure would help solidify the current evidence. Although randomized trials are the highest level of evidence-based research, none are currently available. Current observational data provide evidence that empirical vancomycin therapy carries an increased risk of mortality in MSSA bacteremia even if therapy is de-escalated to nafcillin or cefazolin. A shift in focus to combining vancomycin and an antistaphylococcal penicillin or first-generation cephalosporin in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia could potentially improve overall morbidity and mortality with this serious infection. Acknowledgments. We thank Larry H. Danziger for providing assistance with the manuscript. Potential conflicts of interest. K. A. R. has served as a consultant to Cubist Pharmaceuticals and Durata Therapeutics, provided expert testimony for Johnson & Johnson, is on the speakers’ bureaus of Forest Laboratories and Pfizer Inc, and has an investigator-initiated grant with Forest Laboratories. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed. 1. Deresinski S. Principles of antibiotic therapy in severe infections: optimizing the therapuetic approach by use of laboratory and clinical data . Clin Infect Dis 2007 ; 45 : S177 - 83 . 2. Bartlett JG . A call to arms: the imperative for antimicrobial stewardship . Clin Infect Dis 2011 ; 53 (S1): S4 - 7 . 3. Wisplinghoff H , Bischoff T , Tallent SM , Seifert H , Wenzel RP , Edmond MB . Nosocomial bloodstream infections in US hospitals: analysis of 24,179 cases from a prospective nationwide surveillance study . Clin Infect Dis 2004 ; 39 : 309 - 17 . 4. Chang FY , MacDonald BB , Peacock JE Jr, et al. A prospective multicenter study of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: incidence of endocarditis, risk factors for mortality, and clinical impact of methicillin resistance . Medicine (Baltimore) 2003 ; 82 : 322 - 32 . 5. Lodise TP , McKinnon PS , Swiderski L , Rybak MJ . Outcomes analysis of delayed antibiotic treatment for hospital-acquired Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia . Clin Infect Dis 2003 ; 36 : 1418 - 23 . 6. Lodise TP Jr, McKinnon PS , Levine DP , Rybak MJ . Impact of empirical-therapy selection on outcomes of intravenous drug users with infective endocarditis caused by methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus . Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2007 ; 51 : 3731 - 3 . 7. Mongkolrattanothai K , Aldag JC , Mankin P , Gray BM . Epidemiology of community-onset Staphylococcus aureus infections in pediatric patients: an experience at a children's hospital in central Illinois . BMC Infect Dis 2009 ; 9 : 112 . 8. Frazee BW , Lynn J , Charlebois ED , Lambert L , Lowery D , PerdreauRemington F. High prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in emergency department skin and soft tissue infections . Ann Emerg Med 2005 ; 45 : 311 - 20 . 9. Tattevin P , Schwartz BS , Graber CJ , et al. Concurrent epidemics of skin and soft tissue infection and bloodstream infection due to communityassociated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus . Clin Infect Dis 2012 ; 55 : 781 - 8 . 10. Sievert DM , Ricks P , Edwards JR , et al. Antimicrobial-resistant pathogens associated with healthcare-associated infections: summary of data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009 - 2010 . Infect Control Hosp Epid 2013 ; 34 : 1 - 14 . 11. Wang FD , Chen YY , Chen TL , Liu CY . Risk factors and mortality in patients with nosocomial Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia . Am J Infect Control 2008 ; 36 : 118 - 22 . 12. Safdar N , Bradley EA . The risk of infection after nasal colonization with Staphylococcus aureus . Am J Med 2008 ; 121 : 310 - 5 . 13. Liu C , Bayer A , Cosgrove SE , et al. Clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America for the treatment of methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children . Clin Infect Dis 2011 ; 52 : 1 - 38 . 14. Gómez J , García-Vázquez E , Baños R , et al. Predictors of mortality in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteraemia: the role of empiric antibiotic therapy . Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2007 ; 26 : 239 - 45 . 15. Marchaim D , Kaye KS , Fowler VG , et al. Case-control study to identify factors associated with mortality among patients with methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia . Clin Microbiol Infect 2010 ; 16 : 747 - 52 . 16. Rodríguez-Baño J , Millán AB , Domínguez MA , et al. Impact of inappropriate empirical therapy for sepsis due to health care-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus . J Infect 2009 ; 58 : 131 - 7 . 17. Schramm GE , Johnson JA , Doherty JA , Micek ST , Kollef MH . Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus sterile-site infection: the importance of appropriate initial antimicrobial treatment . Crit Care Med 2006 ; 34 : 2069 - 74 . 18. Paul M , Kariv G , Goldberg E , et al. Importance of appropriate empirical antibiotic therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia . J Antimicrob Chemother 2010 ; 65 : 2658 - 65 . 19. Chang FY , Peacock JE Jr, 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 . 20. Khatib R , Johnson LB , Fakih MG , et al. Persistence in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: incidence, characteristics of patients and outcome . Scand J Infect Dis 2006 ; 38 : 7 - 14 . 21. Stryjewski ME , Szczech LA , Benjamin DK Jr, et al. Use of vancomycin or first-generation cephalosporins for the treatment of hemodialysisdependent patients with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia . Clin Infect Dis 2007 ; 44 : 190 - 6 . 22. Kim SH , Kim KH , Kim HB , et al. Outcome of vancomycin treatment in patients with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia . Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008 ; 52 : 192 - 7 . 23. Schweizer ML , Furuno JP , Harris AD , et al. Comparative effectiveness of nafcillin or cefazolin versus vancomycin in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia . BMC Infect Dis 2011 ; 11 : 279 - 86 . 24. Chan KE , Warren HS , Thadhani RI , et al. Prevalence and outcomes of antimicrobial treatment for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia in outpatients with ESRD . J Am Soc Nephrol 2012 ; 23 : 1551 - 9 . 25. Khatib R , Saeed S , Sharma M , Riederer K , Fakih MG , Johnson LB . Impact of initial antibiotic choice and delayed appropriate treatment on the outcome of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia . Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2006 ; 25 : 181 - 5 . 26. Lee S , Choe PG , Song KH , et al. Is cefazolin inferior to nafcillin for treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia? Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011 ; 55 : 5122 - 6 . 27. Paul M , Zemer-Wassercug N , Talker O , et al. Are all beta-lactams similarly effective in the treatment of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia? Clin Microbiol Infect 2011 ; 17 : 1581 - 6 . 28. Geiger K , Brown J. Rapid testing for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: implications for antimicrobial stewardship . Am J Health Syst Pharm 2013 ; 70 : 335 - 42 . 29. Parta M , Goebel M , Thomas J , Matloobi M , Stager C , Musher DM . Impact of an assay that enables rapid determination of Staphylococcus species and their drug susceptibility on the treatment of patients with positive blood culture results . Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010 ; 31 : 1043 - 8 . 30. Bernardo K , Pakulat N , Macht M , et al. Identification and discrimination of Staphylococcus aureus strains using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry . Proteomics 2002 ; 2 : 747 - 53 . 31. Joukhadar C , Pillai S , Wennersten C , Moellering RC Jr, Eliopoulos GM. Lack of bactericidal antagonism or synergism in vitro between oxacillin and vancomycin against methicillin-susceptible strains of Staphylococcus aureus . Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2010 ; 54 : 773 - 7 . 32. Rudolf AH , Price EV . Penicillin reactions among patients in venereal disease clinics: a national survey . JAMA 1973 ; 223 : 499 - 501 . 33. Petz LD . Immunologic reactions of humans to cephalosporins . Postgrad Med J 1971 ; 47 (suppl): 64 - 9 . 34. Aldeyab MA , Monnet DL , López-Lozano JM , et al. Modelling the impact of antibiotic use and infection control practices on the incidence of hospital-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a time-series analysis . J Antimicrob Chemother 2008 ; 62 : 593 - 600 . 35. Kaier K , Hagist C , Frank U , Conrad A , Meyer E. Two time-series analyses of the impact of antibiotic consumption and alcohol-based hand disinfection on the incidences of nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection and Clostridium difficile infection . Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009 ; 30 : 346 - 53 . 36. Sieradzki K , Wu SW , Tomasz A. Inactivation of the methicillin resistance gene mecA in vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus . Microb Drug Resist 1999 ; 5 : 253 - 7 . 37. Adhikari RP , Scales GC , Kobayashi K , Smith JM , Berger-Bächi B , Cook GM . Vancomycin-induced deletion of the methicillin resistance gene mecA in Staphylococcus aureus . J Antimicrob Chemother 2004 ; 54 : 360 - 3 . 38. Werth BJ , Steed ME , Kaatz GW , Rybak MJ . Evaluation of ceftaroline activity against heteroresistant vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-intermediate methicillin-resistant S. aureus strains in an in vitro pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model: exploring the “seesaw effect .” Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013 ; 57 : 2664 - 8 . 39. Fowler VG , Boucher HW , Corey R , et al. Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus . N Engl J Med 2006 ; 355 : 653 - 65 . 40. Wilcox MH , Tack KJ , Bouza E , et al. Complicated skin and skin-structure infections and catheter-related bloodstream infections: noninferiority of linezolid in a phase 3 study . Clin Infect Dis 2009 ; 48 : 203 - 12 . 41. Bounthavong M , Zargarzadeh A , Hsu DI , Vanness DJ . Cost-effectiveness analysis of linezolid, daptomycin, and vancomycin in methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus: complicated skin and skin structure infection using Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis . Value Health 2011 ; 14 : 631 - 9 . 42. Villegas-Estrada A , Lee M , Hesek D , Vakulenko SB , Mobashery S. Coopting the cell wall in fighting methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: potent inhibition of PBP 2a by two anti-MRSA beta-lactam antibiotics . J Am Chem Soc 2008 ; 130 : 9212 - 3 . 43. Corey GR , Wilcox M , Talbot GH , et al. Integrated analysis of CANVAS 1 and 2: phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ceftaroline versus vancomycin plus aztreonam in complicated skin and skin-structure infection . Clin Infect Dis 2010 ; 51 : 641 - 50 . 44. Banerjee R , Gretes M , Basuino L , Strynadka N , Chambers HF . In vitro selection and characterization of ceftobiprole-resistant methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus . Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008 ; 52 : 2089 - 96 . 45. Boyd N , Nailor MD . Combination antibiotic therapy for empiric and definitive treatment of gram-negative infections: insights from the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists . Pharmacotherapy 2011 ; 31 : 1073 - 84 .

This is a preview of a remote PDF:

Robert A. Weinstein, Kevin W. McConeghy, Susan C. Bleasdale, Keith A. Rodvold. The Empirical Combination of Vancomycin and a β-Lactam for Staphylococcal Bacteremia, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2013, 1760-1765, DOI: 10.1093/cid/cit560