Use of ceftaroline after glycopeptide failure to eradicate meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia with elevated vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations.

Elevated minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of vancomycin against meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and the emergence of heteroresistant S. aureus strains have led to increased use of anti-MRSA antibiotics other than vancomycin. Ceftaroline fosamil is a novel cephalosporin with activity against MRSA, but there are limited clinical data on its use for MRSA bacteraemia (MRSAB) and against strains exhibiting high vancomycin MICs (2-4 µg/mL). This multicentre, retrospective, case-control study compared the microbiological and clinical effectiveness of ceftaroline used after vancomycin failure with that of vancomycin-treated controls for the treatment of MRSA with vancomycin MICs ≥ 2 µg/mL. In total, 32 patients were matched 1:1 with respect to vancomycin MIC, age and origin of bacteraemia. In the ceftaroline group, patients received prior MRSA therapy for a median of 5 days [interquartile range (IQR), 3-15.8 days] prior to switching to ceftaroline. Median time to eradication of MRSA was significantly less after treatment with ceftaroline compared with vancomycin [4 days (IQR, 3-7.5 days) vs. 8 days (IQR, 5.8-19.5 days); P=0.02]. Both clinical success at the end of treatment and recurrence of MRSA at Day 7 were trending towards being inferior in the vancomycin group, although the results did not attain statistical significance [81% vs. 44% (P=0.06) and 6% vs. 38% (P=0.08), respectively]. Ceftaroline added at the point of vancomycin failure resolves MRSAB more rapidly and with a higher rate of clinical success, therefore ceftaroline should be considered as an alternative for these difficult-to-treat infections.

Glucose supply and insulin demand dynamics of antidiabetic agents.

BACKGROUND: For microvascular outcomes, there is compelling historical and contemporary evidence for intensive blood glucose reduction in patients with either type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). There is also strong evidence to support macrovascular benefit with intensive blood glucose reduction in T1DM. Similar evidence remains elusive for T2DM. Because cardiovascular outcome trials utilizing conventional algorithms to attain intensive blood glucose reduction have not demonstrated superiority to less aggressive blood glucose reduction (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes; Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation; and Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial), it should be considered that the means by which the blood glucose is reduced may be as important as the actual blood glucose. METHODS: By identifying quantitative differences between antidiabetic agents on carbohydrate exposure (CE), hepatic glucose uptake (HGU), hepatic gluconeogenesis (GNG), insulin resistance (IR), peripheral glucose uptake (PGU), and peripheral insulin exposure (PIE), we created a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model to characterize the effect of the agents on the glucose supply and insulin demand dynamic. Glucose supply was defined as the cumulative percentage decrease in CE, increase in HGU, decrease in GNG, and decrease in IR, while insulin demand was defined as the cumulative percentage increase in PIE and PGU. With the glucose supply and insulin demand effects of each antidiabetic agent summated, the glucose supply (numerator) was divided by the insulin demand (denominator) to create a value representative of the glucose supply and insulin demand dynamic (SD ratio). RESULTS: Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (1.25), metformin (2.20), and thiazolidinediones (TZDs; 1.25-1.32) demonstrate a greater effect on glucose supply (SD ratio >1), while secretagogues (0.69-0.81), basal insulins (0.77-0.79), and bolus insulins (0.62-0.67) demonstrate a greater effect on insulin demand (SD ratio <1). CONCLUSION: Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, metformin, and TZDs demonstrate a greater effect on glucose supply, while secretagogues, basal insulin, and bolus insulin demonstrate a greater effect on insulin demand. Because T2DM cardiovascular outcome trials have not demonstrated macrovascular benefit with more aggressive blood glucose reduction when using conventional algorithms that predominantly focus on insulin demand, it would appear logical to consider a model that incorporates both the extent of blood glucose lowering (hemoglobin A1c) and the means by which the blood glucose was reduced (SD ratio) when considering macrovascular outcomes.

Characterization of cardiovascular outcomes in a type 2 diabetes glucose supply and insulin demand model.

BACKGROUND: The nonsignificant reduction in macrovascular outcomes observed in Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes; Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation; and the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial have collectively created uncertainty with respect toward the proper extent of blood glucose reduction and also the optimal therapeutic choice to attain the reduction. In the article entitled "Glucose Supply and Insulin Demand Dynamics of Antidiabetic Agents" in this issue of Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, we presented data for a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model that characterizes the effect of conventional antidiabetic therapies on the glucose supply and insulin demand dynamic. Here, it is our objective to test the hypothesis that, in conjunction with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), patients managed on the glucose supply side of the model would have fewer cardiovascular events versus those managed on the insulin demand side. METHODS: To test this hypothesis, the electronic medical records of a group model health maintenance organization were queried to compile a population of patients meeting the following inclusion criteria: (1) type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), (2) known date of T2DM diagnosis; (3) ICD-9 or CPT code identification and chart review confirmation of a first major cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft, or angioplasty),(4) five years of continuous eligibility, and (5) on antidiabetic therapy at the beginning of the 5-year observation period. These patients were subsequently matched (1:1) to T2DM patients meeting the same criteria who had not experienced an event and were analyzed for differences in glucose control (HbA1C), the glucose supply:insulin demand dynamic (SD ratio), and categorical combinations of both parameters. RESULTS: Fifty cardiovascular event patients met inclusion criteria and were matched to controls. No difference was observed for the average HbA1c or SD ratio between patients experiencing an event and controls (7.5 +/- 1.0% versus 7.3 +/- 0.9%, p = .275, and 1.2 +/- 0.3 versus 1.3 +/- 0.3, p = .205, respectively). Likewise, for categorical representations, there were no differences in event rate at the pre-identified breakpoints (HbA1c >or=7% versus <7%; 72% versus 64%, p = .391, and SD ratio >or=1 versus <1; 68% versus 76%, p = .373, >or=1.25 versus <1.25; 42% versus 56%, p = .161, >or=1.5 versus <1.5; 22% versus 30%, p = .362, respectively). Analyzing the combined effect of glucose control and the SD dynamic, patients managed at higher glucose values and on the insulin demand side of the model (HbA1c >or=7% and SD ratio <1.25) tended to have greater cardiovascular risk than those managed at an HbA1c <7%, or HbA1c >or=7% with an SD ratio >or=1.25 (61% versus 39%; p = .096). CONCLUSION: Independently, more aggressive HbA1c reduction and higher SD ratio values were not independently associated with a reduction in cardiovascular outcomes. Combining the parameters, it would appear that patients managed at higher glucose values and on the insulin demand side of the model may have increased cardiovascular risk. Based on these findings, it is pertinent to conduct subsequent works to refine SD ratio estimates and apply the model to larger, long-term T2DM cardiovascular outcome trials. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2010;4(2):382-390.

A disease model descriptive of progression between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations and community-acquired pneumonia: roles for underlying lung disease and the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of the antibiotic.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may progress to community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), but there has been no formal study of the factors responsible. We studied the influence of severity of underlying lung disease, pathogen characteristics and the ratio of the area under the concentration-time curve from 0-24h to minimum inhibitory concentration (AUC24/MIC), i.e. the area under the inhibitory curve (AUIC), during the progression from acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis (AECB) in COPD to CAP. The model parameters were derived from a multinational database of 3885 patients with AECB or CAP (April 1996 to July 2006). Patients with underlying COPD were evaluated in two separate analyses: infection progression between COPD and CAP within Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD)-like grouping (GLG); and distribution of pathogen by GLG, CAP and AECB. Secondary analyses examined the impact of target AUIC attainment on progression to CAP for Streptococcus pneumoniae. The relative impact of GLG and AUIC were modelled in multivariate logistic regression for S. pneumoniae. Progression to CAP linked directly with GLG I/II, III and IV (18.3%, 31.7% and 48.9%, respectively; P < 0.001). Progression to CAP was strongly associated with S. pneumoniae (57.3%), whilst other pathogens were predominant in AECB that did not progress to CAP (61.7%) (P = 0.002). AUIC > or = 100 was associated with AECB (65.1%) and AUIC < 100 with CAP (91.7%) (P < 0.001). In conclusion, the frequency of progression to CAP increases directly with GLG. For S. pneumoniae, achieving an AUIC > or =100 can attenuate progression, regardless of GLG. Thus, AUIC > or = 100 appears to be a viable antibiotic selection strategy to protect patients with S. pneumoniae from developing CAP.

Influence of extended-spectrum beta-lactams on gram-negative bacterial resistance.

PURPOSE: The influence of extended- spectrum beta-lactams on gram-negative bacterial resistance was studied. METHODS: Hospital pharmacists were asked to provide data on antimicrobial use and bacterial susceptibilities. Defined daily doses per 1000 patient-days of cefepime, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, and piperacillin-tazobactam were assessed for significant associations with gram-negative susceptibility. To account for midyear changes in usage patterns and the lag between changes in usage and resistance, susceptibility over two-year periods was evaluated. RESULTS: Susceptibility data of more than 300,000 gram-negative isolates, representing 10 species of interest, were provided by 82 U.S. hospitals. Two-year periods (n = 45) were evaluable for 25 hospitals, containing 159 hospital-years of data and 204,513 clinical isolates. Use of cefepime increased, while use of ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, and piperacillin-tazobactam decreased. Excluding Pseudomonas aeruginosa, bacteria were most susceptible to cefepime, followed by piperacillin-tazobactam, ceftriaxone, and ceftazidime. Significantly decreased susceptibilities of gram-negative bacteria to the antibiotics themselves were observed with ceftazidime (Enterobacter aerogenes) and ceftriaxone (Escherichia coli). Extended-spectrum beta-lactams associated with significantly decreased susceptibilities of gram-negative bacteria to other beta-lactams included cefepime (E. aerogenes and E. coli susceptibility to ceftazidime), ceftazidime (Enterobacter cloacae susceptibility to cefepime), ceftriaxone (E. cloacae susceptibility to cefepime), piperacillin-tazobactam (E. cloacae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and P. aeruginosa susceptibility to cefepime). There were insufficient susceptibility data to allow for impact analysis for piperacillin-tazobactam. CONCLUSION: Use of cefepime, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, and piperacillin-tazobactam was associated with variably changing susceptibilities of several key gram-negative bacteria, either to themselves or to each other. Despite the increased use of cefepime, gram-negative bacterial susceptibility to cefepime remained high.

Pharmacoeconomics of ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole vs. piperacillin-tazobactam for complicated intra-abdominal infections.

BACKGROUND: A series of 459 hospitalized adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections participated in a randomized, double-blind, multicenter clinical trial. The present study was conducted to add a pharmacoeconomic analysis to the results. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the hospital provider was carried out. Decision analysis was used to illustrate outcomes and to provide a basis on which to conduct a sensitivity analysis. Cost-effectiveness ratios, representing the cost per expected successfully treated patient, were calculated to determine the most cost-effective alternative. RESULTS: Among 244 economically evaluable patients, enrolled from 34 centers in the U.S. and Canada, 131 patients received ciprofloxacin-metronidazole (75% clinical success rate), and 113 received piperacillin-tazobactam (65% clinical success rate; p = 0.06). Switch to oral antibiotics was possible for 81 patients who received ciprofloxacin-metronidazole (85% clinical success rate) and 67 piperacillin-tazobactam patients (70% clinical success rate; p = 0.027). The mean hospital cost was US$10,662 +/- 7,793 for patients in the ciprofloxacin-metronidazole group and $10,009 +/- 7,023 for patients in the piperacillin-tazobactam group (p = 0.492). Significantly lower costs were documented for patients who could be switched to oral antibiotics than for those continued on intravenous antibiotic orders ($8,684 +/- 4,120 vs. $12,945 +/- 10,204, respectively; p < 0.001). Patients with appendicitis had lower mean hospital costs than those with other infections ($7,169 +/- 3,705 vs. $12,097 +/- 8,342, respectively; p < 0.001). The cost-effectiveness ratios were $14,216:1 for patients in the ciprofloxacin-metronidazole group and $15,398:1 for patients in the piperacillin-tazobactam group. CONCLUSIONS: The mean hospital costs associated with ciprofloxacin-metronidazole were similar to those of piperacillin-tazobactam for the treatment of adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections. Lower costs were documented for patients able to be switched to oral antibiotics and for patients with appendicitis.

Direct costs in patients hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia after non-response to outpatient treatment with macrolide antibacterials in the US.

INTRODUCTION: Antibacterial cost-containment programmes emphasise the use of narrow-spectrum generic agents whenever possible. The use of these agents is driven by their lower purchase prices; the consequences of treatment failure are rarely considered. This study was conducted to identify the costs of treating patients hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) associated with Streptococcus pneumoniae following failure to respond to outpatient treatment with macrolide antibacterials. METHODS: A multicentre, retrospective, observational study was performed in patients with CAP due to S. pneumoniae who were admitted to 31 North American hospitals following a lack of response to >or=2 days of outpatient treatment with a macrolide antibacterial. Direct medical costs (year 2004 values) of infection-related hospital resources, including antibacterials (purchase, preparation, dispensing, administration and monitoring), diagnostic tests, therapeutic procedures, treatment of adverse events and therapeutic failures, and hospitalisation per diem (ward, critical care and ventilator days), were analysed. Total hospital costs were then compared with standard diagnosis-related group (DRG) reimbursement. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients were enrolled. Patients were frequently bacteraemic (52%) and infected with macrolide-resistant strains of S. pneumoniae (71%). Initial inpatient antibacterial treatment was not successful in 17 patients (14%) and seven patients (5.7%) died. The mean length of stay was 8.7 days (SD 7) including 1.3 days (SD 2.9) in a critical care unit and 1.4 days (SD 4.4) of mechanical ventilation. The mean cost of hospitalisation was US dollars 12,678 (SD 13 346) but standard DRG reimbursement averaged only US dollars 8,634. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who do not respond to outpatient treatment with a macrolide antibacterial and who are subsequently hospitalised with CAP caused by S. pneumoniae are likely to be infected with a non-susceptible strain, are frequently bacteraemic, are at an increased risk for mortality compared with previously published estimates in patients with CAP due to S. pneumoniae, and incur hospital costs that far exceed standard DRG reimbursement for CAP.

Observations on vancomycin use in U.S. hospitals.

PURPOSE: Current knowledge and policies regarding vancomycin use and the clinical performance of vancomycin in U.S. hospitals were assessed. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to interested hospital pharmacists. An observational study of hospitalized adults who received at least 72 hours of i.v. vancomycin for a culture-confirmed gram-positive infection followed. Hospital antibiograms were obtained for gram-positive susceptibility data. RESULTS: A total of 59 respondents completed the survey. Survey results revealed that vancomycin is rarely restricted. Investigators from 24 hospitals, 16 (67%) of which were teaching facilities, collected retrospective data from the records of 200 patients. Infection sites included blood, lower respiratory tract, and skin and soft tissue. Staphylococcus aureus was isolated from 52% of positive cultures; 75% of these were methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Serum vancomycin concentrations were monitored in 95% of patients; results from 22 hospitals were evaluable. Trough serum vancomycin concentrations were higher in teaching versus nonteaching hospitals (p < 0.001). Peak serum vancomycin concentrations were also higher in teaching versus nonteaching hospitals (p < 0.05). Clinical responses from 22 hospitals were evaluable; the mean success rate of 82% did not significantly differ between teaching and nonteaching hospitals. Vancomycin- associated adverse events occurred in 13 patients (6.5%) and were reported more frequently for patients in teaching versus nonteaching hospitals (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Observational data suggest that vancomycin remains an effective antibiotic with infrequent discontinuations due to adverse events, and trough serum vancomycin concentrations are monitored routinely. Antibiogram data revealed that the prevalence of MRSA continues to increase.

Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteraemia: pharmacodynamic correlations with outcome and macrolide resistance--a controlled study.

There are few data on macrolide pharmacodynamics in pneumococcal infections. We evaluated pneumococcal area under the inhibitory concentration-time curve (AUIC) values at the point of hospital admission in 59 bacteraemic patients failing in the community and in 98 bacteraemic controls without macrolide exposure. The area under the 24-h concentration-time curve (AUC24) was calculated for each patient using age, weight and daily dose; using minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs), the values of AUIC (i.e. AUC24/MIC) were then computed. Clinical and outcome information was also collected in hospital. Five of six patients who died of pneumococcal bacteraemia in hospital received azithromycin, with a mean AUIC of 8.1 prior to hospital admission. Resistant isolates were recovered in 35 (59%) macrolide failures and in only 28 (29%) controls (P=0.001). Azithromycin AUICs averaged 10 in failure patients and 17 in controls. For clarithromycin and erythromycin, the mean AUIC values in failures were 31 and 53, respectively, and the AUIC in controls was >100. Low AUIC values against Streptococcus pneumoniae precede macrolide failures in the community. Patient factors do not predict these outcomes and thus the most likely explanation for macrolide failure in the community is inadequate macrolide activity in patients who receive these antibiotics for treatment of organisms that are not sufficiently susceptible.

Once-daily cefepime versus ceftriaxone for nursing home-acquired pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES: To compare once-daily intramuscular cefepime with ceftriaxone controls. DESIGN: Double-blind study. SETTING: Six skilled nursing facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Residents aged 60 and older with nursing home-acquired pneumonia. INTERVENTION: Cultures were obtained, and patients were randomized to cefepime or ceftriaxone 1 g intramuscularly every 24 hours. MEASUREMENTS: Clinical success: cure or improvement. Cure was defined as complete resolution of all symptoms and signs of pneumonia or a return to the patient's baseline state. Improvement was defined as clear improvement but incomplete resolution of all pretherapy symptoms or signs or incomplete return to the patient's usual baseline status. Safety and pharmacoeconomics were also assessed. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were randomized; 61 were evaluable: (32 to cefepime, 29 ceftriaxone). Patients were predominately female (76%). They had a mean age+/-standard deviation of 85+/-6, with a mean 5.8+/-1.9 comorbidities; they had age-appropriate renal dysfunction, with a mean estimated creatinine clearance of 35+/-7 mL/min. Clinical success occurred in 78% of cefepime- and 66% of ceftriaxone-treated patients (P=.39). Fifty-seven patients (93%) were switched to oral antibiotics after 3 days. Antibiotic-related adverse events occurred in 5% of patients. Seven patients (11.5%) were hospitalized. The overall mortality rate was 8%. Mean antibiotic costs were 117+/-40 dollars for cefepime- and 215+/-68 dollars for ceftriaxone-treated patients (P<.001). Cost-effectiveness analysis of total costs showed that cefepime would cost 597 dollars and ceftriaxone 1,709 dollars per expected successfully treated patient. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses using a generic price for ceftriaxone and improving its comparative efficacy revealed that the results were robust. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily cefepime was a cost-effective alternative to ceftriaxone for the treatment of elderly nursing home residents who developed pneumonia and did not require hospitalization.