Article Type
Article
Changed
Fri, 06/15/2018 - 06:44
Display Headline
Staphylococcus aureus: The new adventures of a legendary pathogen
Author(s)
Susan J. Rehm, MD

Staphylococcus aureus is rearing its ugly head in new and interesting ways, both in the hospital and in the community.

Rates of invasive infections with methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA) have been increasing both in the hospital and in the community, a trend that has attracted considerable interest in the lay media. Curiously, the most common community-associated MRSA strain, which up to now has been distinct from hospital-associated MRSA strains, is invading our hospitals. Alarmingly, vancomycin (Vancocin), the drug of last resort for MRSA infections for the past 40 years, does not seem to be as effective as it used to be.

This paper summarizes the changing epidemiology of S aureus, particularly the emergence of MRSA outside of the hospital; reviews the difficulties associated with S aureus bacteremia and its treatment in view of; some changes in vancomycin susceptibility; and appraises the old and new treatment options.

MRSA IS ON THE RISE IN THE HOSPITAL

S aureus, a gram-positive, coagulase-positive bacterium, is one of the leading nosocomial bloodstream pathogens, second only to coagulase-negative staphylococci.1 And the incidence of S aureus infections is increasing. MRSA in particular is increasingly causing infections throughout hospitals, including intensive care units. As of 2004, nearly two-thirds of isolates of S aureus from intensive care units were MRSA.2

MRSA infections are worse than methicillin-susceptible S aureus (MSSA) infections in terms of the rates of death and other undesirable outcomes.3 Several factors may be responsible: MRSA infection may be a marker of severity of illness (sicker patients may be more likely to have MRSA), our treatment for MRSA may not be as effective as it is for MSSA, and the organism may be inherently more virulent.

METHICILLIN RESISTANCE IS ALSO ON THE RISE IN THE COMMUNITY

Community-associated MRSA began emerging clinically about 10 years ago. It was first described in a cohort of children with necrotizing pneumonia in Minnesota, but soon other populations at risk began to emerge, such as residents of correctional facilities, men who had sex with men, competitive athletes (eg, fencers, wrestlers, and football players), and Alaskan natives and other native populations. A common factor in all these groups was close proximity of the members to each other. Later, it began to spread beyond these traditional risk groups into the community at large.

Community-associated MRSA strains have a characteristic pattern of antimicrobial susceptibility (see below). In the laboratory, they grow somewhat faster than health-care-associated MRSA strains, but not as fast as MSSA. They have a strong association with skin and soft-tissue infections: when you see a skin or soft-tissue infection, be it in an outpatient or an inpatient, think about MRSA. Their virulence varies, but rapid onset and progression of illness are quite common. Their most common strain in the United States at present is USA 300.

Case 1: A young woman with necrotizing fasciitis

A 21-year-old college student presented to our service in May 2004 with high fever and severe arm pain, which had been worsening for several days. She had been previously healthy, had not had any contact with the health care system, and had not received any antibiotics.

Figure 1. Necrotizing fasciitis due to community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
Her arm was red and extremely painful (Figure 1). Pain out of proportion to findings is a cardinal sign of necrotizing fasciitis, and this is indeed what she had.

Her blood cultures were positive for MRSA, as were cultures of the deep tissue of the deltoid muscle and fascia when she underwent emergency surgical debridement. The infection required several additional surgical debridements and removal of one head of her deltoid muscle, but she was fortunate: in the past, some patients with this problem might have undergone radical amputation of the arm or even more extensive surgery. This patient continued to have positive blood cultures 4 days postoperatively, but she ultimately recovered, completing 28 days of daptomycin (Cubicin) therapy at a dose of 6 mg/kg every 24 hours. The last 10 days of daptomycin therapy were given at home via a percutaneous intravenous central catheter.

Comment. The epidemiology of MRSA infections is changing. More patients who have no traditional risk factors, specifically health care contact, are getting MRSA infections. A recent report from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicates that the proportion of patients with invasive disease due to MRSA has doubled since 2001–2002.4 Part of the reason undoubtedly is that MRSA, particularly community-associated MRSA, often carries specific virulence factors that make it more invasive. The CDC estimated that in 2005 there were nearly 100,000 cases of invasive MRSA infection in the United States, and nearly a fifth of these infections resulted in death.

 

 

Resistance and virulence factors in community-associated MRSA

Most community-associated MRSA strains carry a mobile genetic element called type IV SCCmec (staphylococcal chromosomal cassettemec) that enhances its antimicrobial resistance. This genetic component was probably borrowed from coagulase-negative staphylococci, in which it is quite common but does not cause as much of a problem. It is now present in a wide range of S aureus strains. Most of the S aureus strains that carry type IV SCCmec are MRSA, but a few MSSA strains do carry it as well.

The potent toxin Panton-Valentine leukocidin is an extracellular product that is detected in fewer than 5% of hospital strains but is more common in community-associated strains. It kills leukocytes by forming pores in the cell membrane and causing skin necrosis in cutaneous infections. It is associated with skin abscesses and rapidly progressive necrotizing pneumonia in MSSA or MRSA.

Epidemiologic differences between community- and health-care-associated MRSA

Patients with community-associated MRSA infections tend to be younger than those who traditionally get health-care-associated MRSA infections: in a study from Naimi et al in 2003, the mean ages were 23 vs 68 years.5 A greater proportion of patients with community-associated MRSA strains are nonwhite.4,5

Most community-associated MRSA infections are of the skin and soft tissue (75% in the series from Naimi et al5), but this pathogen causes other infections as well. Bacteremia of unknown origin has been seen, as has necrotizing pneumonia. Most of the skin and soft-tissue infections are relatively superficial, such as folliculitis or furunculosis, but deeper tissue infections such as necrotizing fasciitis and pyomyositis have also been seen.6

The incidence of community-associated MRSA infections varies greatly by geographic region.7 The northeastern United States has so far been relatively spared, but in Atlanta, Houston, and Los Angeles up to 80% of cases of characteristic skin or soft-tissue infections seen in emergency or outpatient departments are due to community-associated MRSA. Physicians at the Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston assume that all skin or soft-tissue infections are due to community-associated MRSA unless proven otherwise.8

Differences in antibiotic susceptibility

Community-associated MRSA is more susceptible to various antibiotics than health-care-associated MRSA,5 but not by much. Strains are usually susceptible to vancomycin, tetracyclines, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim, Septra), and rifampin (Rifadin). Unlike hospital strains, a fair number of community-acquired strains are susceptible to clindamycin (Cleocin) in the laboratory, but with a caveat: some of these clindamycin-susceptible strains actually may harbor the tools for inducible resistance. In fact, they can become resistant to clindamycin even without being exposed to it.

The laboratory test for inducible clindamycin resistance is called the D test. After coating an agar plate with S aureus, the technician places erythromycin and clindamycin disks. If the erythromycin induces clindamycin resistance, the plate is clear of growth around the clindamycin disk except for the portion nearest the erythromycin disk, leaving a characteristic D-shaped area of lucency.

Risk factors for MRSA

Moran et al7 analyzed the risk factors for community-associated MRSA in patients with skin or soft-tissue infections seen in the emergency department. The infection was more likely to be due to community-associated MRSA if the patient was black, had used any antibiotic in the past month, had a history of MRSA infection, or had close contact with a person with a similar infection. Many patients interpreted the infections as spider bites because the lesions tended to have a dark center surrounded by a tender area. These infections were not associated with underlying illness. In some cases, community-associated MRSA skin infections have been associated with tattooing and even manicuring.

However, it is very difficult to distinguish between community-associated MRSA and MSSA skin and soft-tissue infections on the basis of clinical and epidemiologic characteristics. Miller et al9 studied a large group of patients in Los Angeles who were hospitalized with community-associated skin and soft-tissue S aureus infections. All the patients were followed up for 30 days after hospital discharge. Regardless of whether they had MRSA or MSSA, they had similar outcomes. Close contacts of the patients also tended to develop infection.

A key point from this and many other studies: patients were more likely to remain infected if they did not undergo incision and drainage. This key intervention is indicated for any patient who has a skin and soft-tissue infection with an undrained focus of infection.

 

 

COMMUNITY-ASSOCIATED MRSA IS INVADING THE HOSPITAL

In a new development, community-associated MRSA strains are now appearing in the hospital. This is not only because patients are bacteremic when they come in: patients in the hospital are getting nosocomial infections due to community-associated MRSA strains.

Seybold et al10 analyzed 116 cases of MRSA bloodstream infections in Atlanta, GA. In 9 (8%) of the cases the patient had not had any contact with the health care system within the past year, and these cases were classified as truly community-associated. Of the remaining 107 cases, 49 (42%) were nosocomial, and the USA 300 strain—the predominant community-associated MRSA strain—accounted for 10 (20%) of the nosocomial cases.

In the recent CDC study of invasive MRSA infections, Klevens et al4 reported that nearly a third of cases of bacteremia were due to community-associated MRSA, and these strains accounted for a greater proportion of cases of cellulitis and endocarditis than did health-care-associated strains.

In a study of hospital-associated MRSA, Maree et al11 found that the percentage of cases in which the bacteria carried the SCCmec type IV marker had increased from less than 20% in 1999 to more than 50% in 2004.

Comment. Suffice it to say that we are surrounded by MRSA. Community-associated MRSA is here to stay. It is even invading our hospitals, and we need to consider this very carefully when choosing antimicrobial therapy.

NAGGING QUESTIONS ABOUT VANCOMYCIN

Case 2: Vancomycin-intermediate S aureus (VISA) bacteremia and endocarditis

In December 2006 we saw a very ill 60-year-old woman who was hospitalized with MRSA bacteremia, pacemaker endocarditis, and superior vena cava thrombosis. Although she was treated with vancomycin and rifampin, her condition worsened, she had a stroke, and she developed renal failure. In a difficult operation, the pacemaker was removed, but the bacteremia persisted. In early February 2007 she underwent another difficult operation in which the superior vena cava clot was debrided, a right atrial clot was removed, and her mitral valve was replaced. Less than 2 weeks later, and despite ongoing vancomycin and rifampin therapy, the MRSA bacteremia recurred.

During the approximately 6 weeks that the patient had been receiving these antibiotics, the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of rifampin against the S aureus isolate increased from less than 1 μg/mL (susceptible) to 2 μg/mL (resistant). The MIC of vancomycin went from 2 μg/mL (susceptible) to 4 μg/mL (intermediately susceptible). Vancomycin and rifampin were discontinued, and daptomycin and gentamicin (Garamycin) therapy were started. (Her daptomycin MIC was 0.5 μg/mL). The patient’s condition stabilized, and she was discharged to a long-term nursing facility. She had no relapse of MRSA bacteremia, but she died in early April of that year.

Is vancomycin becoming less effective? Degrees of vancomycin resistance

Vancomycin has been our stalwart for treating MRSA infections for more than 40 years but it is not working as well as it used to, at least in certain situations.

Liu C, Chambers HF. Staphylococcus aureus with heterogeneous resistance to vancomycin: epidemiology, clinical significance, and critical assessment of diagnostic methods. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47:3040–3045
Figure 2. Population analysis of vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA), vancomycin-intermediate S aureus (VISA), heteroresistant VISA (hVISA), and vancomycin-susceptible S aureus (VSSA). The population analysis shows how many cells in a fixed number of cells (usually about 107 colony-forming units [CFU]) of each strain are resistant to various concentrations of vancomycin. VRSA is a highly resistant and homogeneously resistant strain, with 100% of the population growing at each of the vancomycin concentrations tested. VISA is intermediately resistant, with 100% of the population growing at 4 μg of vancomycin per mL and also with significant subpopulations growing at 8 μg/mL. hVISA demonstrates heterogeneous resistance, having subpopulations of cells with various levels of resistance to vancomycin and including small populations of vancomycin-intermediate resistant cells with growth at 8 μg of vancomycin per mL.
Various terms describe the degrees of susceptibility or resistance to vancomycin (Figure 2).12

VRSA (vancomycin-resistant S aureus) is rare. These fully resistant strains probably acquired a resistance mechanism (the vanA operon) from vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Infections tend to occur in patients simultaneously infected with both S aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci, giving the bacteria an opportunity to exchange genetic material.

VISA (vancomycin-intermediate S aureus) infections tend to occur in patients like the one described above who have had long-term vancomycin therapy. VISA strains appear to overproduce a matrix that captures vancomycin and keeps it from entering the cell. On electron microscopy, these bacteria have a very thick cell wall.13

Vancomycin tolerance is a state in which the bacteria are “stunned” or kept in check but not killed by vancomycin. That is manifested in the laboratory by a ratio of minimum bactericidal concentration to MIC greater than 32.

hVISA (heteroresistant VISA) is new and worrisome. These organisms have an overall MIC in the susceptible range, but within that population are individual isolates with an MIC that is much higher—in the intermediate or perhaps even in the resistant range.14

Reported rates of hVISA vary from less than 2% to as high as 76%, because the methods for detecting it are still very poorly standardized. The usual automated laboratory tests do not detect hVISA.

hVISA is probably clinically relevant, as evidence is emerging both in vitro and in vivo that the higher the MIC for vancomycin, the worse the clinical outcome.15 hVISA has been associated with failures of therapy in several situations, usually in cases of severe invasive or deep infection, endocarditis, and bacteremia with vertebral osteomyelitis where vancomycin concentrations at the site of infection may be suboptimal.16–19 While most hVISA strains that have been described were resistant to methicillin, some were susceptible.

The E test is emerging as the standard test for hVISA. This test uses a plastic strip that contains gradually increasing concentrations of vancomycin along its length. Placed in the culture dish, the strip inhibits growth of the organism at its high-concentration end but not at its low-concentration end. If the sample contains hVISA, the cutoff is not well defined, with a few colonies growing at higher concentrations.

 

 

New definition of vancomycin susceptibility

Recognizing that the MICs for vancomycin have been rising in the last few years, the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute last year changed the break points between susceptibility and resistance. The new definitions are:

  • Susceptible—an MIC of 2.0 μg/mL or less (formerly 4.0 μg/mL or less)
  • Intermediate—4.0 to 8.0 μg/mL (formerly 8.0 to 16 μg/mL)
  • Resistant—16 μg/mL or greater (formerly 32 μg/mL or greater).

One should pay attention to the MIC numbers on the laboratory reports, not just to the words “susceptible” or “not susceptible.” If the number is, say, 0.5 μg/mL or less, the organism should really be susceptible. If the number is 1 or 2, it is still in the susceptible range, but those are the organisms that may cause problems later on.

Further, even if the vancomycin MIC is in the susceptible range, higher MICs may affect outcomes. The average duration of MRSA bacteremia on therapy is 8 to 9 days, vs 3 to 4 days with MSSA bacteremia.20,21 But Sakoulas et al15 found that, in MRSA bacteremia, the success rate with vancomycin therapy was 56% if the MIC was 0.5 or lower, compared with 10% if the MIC was 1.0 to 2.0 μg/mL. Examined in another way, the success rate was 50% if the logarithm of killing was 6.27 colony-forming units per mL or greater, 23% if 4.71 to 6.26, and zero if less than 4.71.

Case 3: Prolonged MRSA bacteremia

In the summer of 2006, a 66-year-old woman with a history of gastric bypass and cirrhosis underwent a long stay in the surgical intensive care unit because of a recurrent enterocutaneous fistula and chronic renal insufficiency. On November 5th, she had a positive blood culture for MRSA, which was treated appropriately with vancomycin for 4 weeks. She was discharged to subacute care but came back 2 days later, again with MRSA bacteremia. At that time her Hickman catheter, which had been inserted for total parenteral nutrition because of the enterocutaneous fistula, was removed.

Transthoracic echocardiography revealed no vegetations, but her bacteremia persisted. Her mental status was poor this entire time: she was mute and could barely be awakened. We looked for clots and infected clots; duplex ultrasonographic examinations of all four extremities were negative. Finally, magnetic resonance imaging of her back—performed empirically because of the persistent bacteremia—revealed vertebral osteomyelitis at level T12-L1. We also noticed on serial evaluations that the vancomycin MIC for her organism increased from 0.5 to 2.0 μg/mL, so therapy was changed from vancomycin to daptomycin.

Her bacteremia cleared. Follow-up echocardiography was negative, but she had two subsequent relapses of MRSA bacteremia, one in April 2007 and one before she died in the summer of 2007.

Prolonged bacteremia: Is it vancomycin resistance, or something else?

The MRSA isolates that cause prolonged bacteremia seem to have certain characteristics.22 Higher MICs are probably associated with longer periods of bacteremia. But some genetic components within some strains of S aureus give them a survival advantage. They have less susceptibility to the body’s thrombin-induced platelet microbicidal protein. These isolates are not only associated with prolonged bacteremia: they are also associated with osteomyelitis, deep abscesses, endocarditis, recurrent infection, and increased death rate.22 Clinical laboratories do not test for these genetic components. One wonders whether our patient may have had an isolate with these mutations that gave it a survival advantage.

Do not use vancomycin for MSSA

Avoid using vancomycin for MSSA infections. It has been shown time and time again that MSSA infections do not respond as well to vancomycin as they do to beta-lactam antibiotics, specifically to the semisynthetic penicillins such as oxacillin and nafcillin, and even some of the first-generation cephalosporins. Chang et al23 found that patients with MSSA bacteremia had higher rates of persistent infections, relapse, and bacteriologic failure if they received vancomycin than if they received nafcillin.

Do vancomycin trough levels affect toxicity?

The vancomycin trough levels that we aimed for in the past (5 to 10 μg/mL) were probably too low. Today, we aim for trough levels of 15 to 20 μg/mL, and many physicians are aiming for 20 to 25 μg/mL. Part of the reason is that vancomycin MICs are higher than they used to be: in order to keep the vancomycin level above the MIC for a longer period of time, the vancomycin trough level needs to be higher. In theory, keeping the vancomycin levels above the MIC for longer periods should improve outcomes. Yet Fowler et al22 found that vancomycin trough levels among patients who had persistent MRSA bacteremia were actually higher than trough levels among those in whom the bacteremia resolved, although the difference was not statistically significant.

We measure the vancomycin trough level to make sure it is high enough (and give larger doses if it is not); among adults, peak levels need not be monitored on a routine basis because of the predictable pharmacokinetics of vancomycin.

Vancomycin toxicity can be either idiosyncratic or synergistic. Idiosyncratic toxicity occurs when a patient who has been on vancomycin for a long time develops a fixed rash, not associated with infusion. This is an immunologic phenomenon. It is a rare and very serious situation and may require steroid therapy.

Synergistic toxicity occurs when vancomycin is given with other nephrotoxic agents, notably gentamicin. Vancomycin plus gentamicin equals nephrotoxicity. Vancomycin alone is usually not nephrotoxic, but close monitoring of renal function parameters is warranted with the use of higher doses.24

 

 

IN UNEXPLAINED BACTEREMIA, LOOK FOR ENDOCARDITIS

In blood cultures from patients with bacteremia, S aureus is never a contaminant. Even if just one blood culture is positive for S aureus, believe that S aureus is the culprit.

Reports in the 1950s suggested that at least half of patients who had S aureus bacteremia had endocarditis,25 leading to recommendations that all patients with S aureus bacteremia without an obvious primary source of infection should be evaluated for endocarditis. Subsequent estimates were lower, in the range of 15% to 25%.26,27 However, throughout the world S aureus endocarditis continues to have a very high mortality rate: at least a third of patients die.28

Clinical criteria (community acquisition, no primary focus, and metastatic sequelae) were developed to try to predict the risk of endocarditis in bacteremic patients.26 However, these criteria did not work very well. The clinical definition of endocarditis has evolved. The criteria of von Reyn et al29 from 1981 did not use echocardiography as part of the definition, but the 1994 Duke criteria,30 which were refined31 in 2000, use both clinical and echocardiographic parameters.

Stratton et al32 performed transthoracic echocardiography in 14 patients with bacteremia and found 1 patient with cryptic tricuspid infective endocarditis. Bayer et al33 subsequently reported that of 72 patients with bacteremia, 6 (18%) of those who had no clinical findings suggestive of infectious endocarditis had findings on echocardiography that led to changes in their regimen. Adding echocardiography to three clinical risk factors increased the sensitivity of diagnosing endocarditis from 70% to 85% with a specificity of 100% and predictive value of 96%.

The Duke criteria call for transesophageal echocardiography, which is not feasible in some patients, eg, those with cirrhosis and esophageal varices.

S aureus endocarditis has changed over the years as our patient population has changed, and MRSA endocarditis tends to hit some of our most vulnerable patients. In a study by Miro et al34 in 2005, MRSA was the leading pathogen in patients who were diagnosed with S aureus endocarditis in 1990 or later. We will only see these numbers go up. Patients with diabetes tend to have more MRSA, and of diabetic patients with MRSA endocarditis, 30% to 40% die in the hospital.

Indications for surgery

Certain conditions are indications for surgery among patients with endocarditis, and no antibiotic will cure the endocarditis if the patient has one of these conditions, eg:

  • Persistent bacteremia during antibiotic therapy
  • Recurrent emboli
  • Heart failure that cannot be controlled
  • Perivalvular or myocardial abscesses
  • Large vegetations
  • Early prosthetic valve infection
  • Certain arrhythmias.

How long should S aureus bacteremia be treated?

In cases of bacteremia in which endocarditis has been ruled out and removable foci of infection (eg, intravascular catheters) have been removed, some evidence indicates that treatment for 2 weeks would be as effective as the 4 to 6 weeks that we would use for endocarditis or other severe or invasive infections.35 The issue is controversial. If the patient has had frequent hospitalizations or a chronic medical condition I would hesitate to treat for less than 4 weeks, even if the infection appears to be associated with a removable focus.

Treatment of endocarditis

In the guidelines for treatment of endocarditis from the American Heart Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America,36 all the recommendations are relatively old and many of them are somewhat empiric—they are not based on evidence from randomized clinical trials. Rather, they are best opinions based on clinical experience and some observational studies over the years.

For MSSA. In cases of native-valve endocarditis, oxacillin (Bactocill), nafcillin (Unipen), or another semisynthetic beta-lactam antibiotic is recommended. For penicillin-allergic patients, we have other options, such as cefazolin (Ancef, Kefzol).

Combination therapy is frequently recommended for native valve endocarditis as well as for prosthetic valve endocarditis, with either rifampin or gentamicin along with a primary agent. There is some evidence that one can clear staphylococcal bacteremia a day or two more quickly by use of combination therapy with nafcillin plus an aminoglycoside than with nafcillin alone.37,38 For MSSA-associated endocarditis, vancomycin does not work as well as beta-lactam antibiotics.39,40

Korzeniowski and Sande37 and Chambers et al38 reported that the mean duration of bacteremia was 3.4 days for patients treated with nafcillin alone and 2.9 days for those treated with nafcillin plus an aminoglycoside. These studies led to consideration of a short course of gentamicin to clear the bacteremia quickly.

With MRSA, bacteremia often requires a week or more to clear. Levine et al21 reported a study in 42 patients, mostly injection-drug users, with right-sided native-valve endocarditis. The median duration of bacteremia was 7 days in patients who received vancomycin alone vs 9 days in those who received vancomycin plus rifampin; however, some patients were bacteremic for up to 27 days. Fever persisted for a median of 7 days, probably partly due to septic pulmonary emboli. Three patients died, and three required valve replacement.

 

 

NEW ANTIBIOTICS

Several new antibiotics are active against gram-positive cocci.41–44 However, the majority of them have not been prospectively studied for treating bacteremia or endocarditis.

Quinupristin/dalfopristin (Synercid) has not been formally studied for treatment of MRSA bacteremia or endocarditis. There are a few case reports of its use in these conditions.45 Quinupristin/dalfopristin is bacteriostatic, and its use may be associated with phlebitis, myalgias, and arthralgias.46

Linezolid (Zyvox) is approved for treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections and for hospital-acquired pneumonia. There have been no specific studies of linezolid in the treatment of S aureus bacteremia or endocarditis. However, Shorr et al47 retrospectively looked at the bacteremic patients in five previous studies of linezolid vs vancomycin and found 144 cases of S aureus bacteremia, half of which were due to MRSA. Of 53 assessable patients with MRSA bacteremia, the primary infection was cured in 14 (56%) of the linezolid patients and 13 (46%) of the vancomycin patients.

The oral form is 100% bioavailable. One should avoid concomitant use of serotonin-reuptake inhibitors because of the risk of serotonin syndrome. Adverse effects include altered taste sensation and peripheral neuropathy. There are other potential toxicities, including hematologic changes (thrombocytopenia, leukopenia) and metabolic effects (lactic acidosis), so clinical and laboratory monitoring is important.48 The role of linezolid in the treatment of patients with S aureus bacteremia or endocarditis remains to be defined.

Daptomycin is indicated for complicated skin and soft-tissue infections, bacteremia, and right-sided endocarditis due to S aureus. Fowler et al20 found that daptomycin was not inferior to beta-lactam antibiotics for treatment of MSSA bacteremia and right-sided endocarditis, and for MRSA infections it outperformed vancomycin, but the difference was not statistically significant.

The dosing interval should be increased from once every 24 hours to every 48 hours if the creatinine clearance is 30 mL/minute or less. Adverse effects include myalgia, rhabdomyolysis (rare), and elevations in creatine phosphokinase. Reports of rising MICs during daptomycin therapy, in some cases associated with persistent infection,49 suggest that careful attention be paid to dosing and clinical monitoring.

Tigecycline (Tygacil) is indicated for complicated skin and soft-tissue infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections due to susceptible organisms. It is active against both MSSA and MRSA, but clinical experience with its use in invasive infections is somewhat limited.50 The dose of tigecycline should be reduced in advanced cirrhosis. Adverse effects include nausea and vomiting.

Telavancin, dalbavancin, and oritavancin, investigational parenteral antibiotics that are derivatives of vancomycin, are in clinical trials. The pharmacokinetic activity of these agents is of interest: telavancin is being studied with a once-daily dosing interval and dalbavancin’s half-life allows once-weekly dosing. In a limited trial, dalbavancin was found to be safe and effective in the treatment of catheter-related bloodstream infections.51 None of the antibiotics in this group has been studied for treatment of S aureus endocarditis. Telavancin therapy has been associated with rash, hypokalemia, QT prolongation, and creatinine elevations. Gastrointestinal symptoms have been reported with the use of dalbavancin.

Ceftobiprole, another investigational agent, is the only cephalosporin antibiotic that is active against MRSA. It is given every 12 hours. Adverse effects include nausea and taste disturbance.

Iclaprim is a novel diaminopyrimidine and a dihydrofolate reductase inhibitor. In vitro, it is active against gram-positive bacteria, including MRSA, VISA, and VRSA; clinical investigations at this point are limited to the treatment of skin and soft-tissue infections.

References
  1. 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; 39:309–371. Erratum in: Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39:1093.
  2. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System. Campaign to prevent antimicrobial resistance. www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/healthcare/ha/HASlideSet.ppt.
  3. Blot SI, Vandewoude KH, Hoste EA, Colardyn FA. Outcome and attributable mortality in critically ill patients with bacteremia involving methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162:2229–2235.
  4. Klevens RM, Morrison MA, Nadle J, et al; Active Bacterial Core surveillance (ABCs) MRSA Investigators. Invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in the United States. JAMA 2007; 298:1763–1771.
  5. Naimi TS, LeDell KH, Como-Sabetti K, et al. Comparison of community- and health care-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. JAMA 2003; 290:2976–2984.
  6. Miller LG, Perdreau-Remington F, Rieg G, et al. Necrotizing fasciitis caused by community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Los Angeles. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:1445–1453.
  7. Moran GJ, Krishnadasan A, Gorwitz RJ, et al EMERGEncy ID Net Study Group. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections among patients in the emergency department. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:666–674.
  8. Mishaan AM, Mason EO, Martinez-Aquilar G, et al. Emergence of a predominant clone of community-acquired Staphylococcus aureus among children in Houston, Texas. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005; 24:201–206.
  9. Miller LG, Perdreau-Remington F, Bayer AS, et al. Clinical and epidemiologic characteristics cannot distinguish community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection from methicillin-susceptible S. aureus infection: a prospective investigation. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44:471–482.
  10. Seybold U, Kourbatova EV, Johnson JG, et al. Emergence of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus USA300 genotype as a major cause of health care-associated blood stream infections. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42:647–656.
  11. Maree CL, Daum RS, Boyle-Vavra S, Matayoshi K, Miller LG. Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates causing healthcare-associated infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2007; 13:236–242.
  12. Liu C, Chambers HF. Staphylococcus aureus with heterogeneous resistance to vancomycin: epidemiology, clinical significance, and critical assessment of diagnostic methods. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47:3040–3045.
  13. Sieradzki K, Roberts RB, Haber SW, Tomasz A. The development of vancomycin resistance in a patient with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. N Engl J Med 1999; 340:517–523.
  14. Schwaber MJ, Wright SB, Carmeli Y, et al. Clinical implications of varying degrees of vancomycin susceptibility in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Emerg Infect Dis 2003; 9:657–664. Erratum in: Emerg Infect Dis 2004; 10:160.
  15. Sakoulas G, Moise-Broder PA, Schentag J, Forrest A, Moellering RC, Eliopoulos GM. Relationship of MIC and bactericidal activity to efficacy of vancomycin for treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42:2398–2402.
  16. Naimi TS, Anderson D, O’Boyle C, et al. Vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus with phenotypic susceptibility to methicillin in a patient with recurrent bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36:1609–1612.
  17. Moore MR, Perdreau-Remington F, Chambers HF. Vancomycin treatment failure associated with heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus in a patient with endocarditis and in the rabbit model of endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47:1262–1266.
  18. Charles PG, Ward PB, Johnson PD, Howden BP, Grayson ML. Clinical features associated with bacteremia due to heterogenous vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38:448–451.
  19. Howden BP, Ward PB, Charles PG, et al. Treatment outcomes for serious infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with reduced vancomycin susceptibility. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38:521–528.
  20. Fowler VG, Boucher HW, Corey GR, et al. S. aureus Endocarditis and Bacteremia Study Group. Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:653–665.
  21. Levine DP, Fromm BS, Reddy BR. Slow response to vancomycin or vancomycin plus rifampin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Ann Intern Med 1991; 115:674–680.
  22. Fowler VG, Sakoulas G, McIntyre LM, et al. Persistent bacteremia due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection is associated with agr dysfunction and low-level in vitro resistance to thrombin-induced platelet microbicidal protein. J Infect Dis 2004; 190:1140–1149.
  23. Chang FY, Peacock JE, Musher DM, et al. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: recurrence and the impact of antibiotic treatment in a prospective multicenter study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2003; 82:333–339.
  24. Hidayat LK, Hsu DI, Quist R, Shriner KA, Wong-Beringer A. High-dose vancomycin therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: efficacy and toxicity. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:2138–2144.
  25. Wilson R, Hamburger M. Fifteen years’ experience with staphylococcus septicemia in a large city hospital; analysis of fifty-five cases in the Cincinnati General Hospital 1940 to 1954. Am J Med 1957; 22:437–457.
  26. Nolan CM, Beaty HN. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Current clinical patterns. Am J Med 1976; 60:495–500.
  27. Shah M, Watanakunakorn C. Changing patterns of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Am J Med Sci 1979; 278:115–121.
  28. Fowler VG, Miro JM, Hoen B, et al ICE Investigators. Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis: a consequence of medical progress. JAMA 2005; 293:3012–3021. Erratum in: JAMA 2005; 294:900.
  29. Von Reyn CF, Levy BS, Arbeit RD, Friedland G, Crumpacker CS. Infective endocarditis: an analysis based on strict case definition. Ann Intern Med 1981; 94:505–518.
  30. Durack DT, Lukes AS, Bright DK. New criteria for diagnosis of infective endocarditis: utilization of specific echocardiographic findings. Duke Endocarditis Service. Am J Med 1994; 96:200–209.
  31. Li JS, Sexton DJ, Mick N, et al. Proposed modifications to the Duke criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 30:633–638.
  32. Stratton JR, Werner JA, Pearlman AS, Janko CL, Kliman S, Jackson MC. Bacteremia and the heart. Serial echocardiographic findings in 80 patients with documented or suspected bacteremia. Am J Med 1982; 73:851–858.
  33. Bayer AS, Lam K, Ginzton L, Normal DC, Chiu CY, Ward JI. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clinical, serologic, and echocardiographic findings in patients with and without endocarditis. Arch Intern Med 1987; 147:457–462.
  34. Miro JM, Anguera I, Cabell CH, et al International Collaboration on Endocarditis Merged Database Study Group. Staphylococcus aureus native valve infective endocarditis: report of 566 episodes from the International Collaboration on Endocarditis Merged Database. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41:507–514. Erratum in: Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41:1075–1077.
  35. Jernigan JA, Farr BM. Short-course therapy of catheter-related Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 1993; 119:304–311.
  36. Baddour LM, Wilson WR, Bayer AS, et al. Infective endocarditis: diagnosis, antimicrobial therapy, and management of complications: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Committee on Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology, Stroke, and Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, American Heart Association: endorsed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Circulation 2005; 111:e394–e434. Erratum in: Circulation 2005; 112:2373. Circulation 2007; 115:e408.
  37. Korzeniowski O, Sande MA. Combination antimicrobial therapy for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in patients addicted to parenteral drugs and in nonaddicts: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med 1982; 97:496–503.
  38. Chambers HF, Korzeniowski OM, Sande MA. Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis: clinical manifestations in addicts and nonaddicts. Medicine (Baltimore) 1983; 62:170–177.
  39. Gentry CA, Rodvold KA, Novak RM, Hershow RC, Naderer OJ. Retrospective evaluation of therapies for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Pharmacotherapy 1997; 17:990–997.
  40. Small PM, Chambers HF. Vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in intravenous drug users. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34:1227–1231.
  41. Eliopoulos GM. Quinupristin-dalfopristin and linezolid: evidence and opinion. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36:473–481.
  42. Rybak MJ. Therapeutic options for Gram-positive infections. J Hosp Infect 2001; 49 suppl A:S25–S32.
  43. Micek ST. Alternatives to vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 45 suppl 3:S184–S190.
  44. Appelbaum PC, Jacobs MR. Recently approved and investigational antibiotics for treatment of severe infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria. Curr Opin Microbiol 2005; 8:510–517.
  45. Drew RH, Perfect JR, Srinath L, Kirkimilis E, Dowzicky M, Talbot GH for the Synercid Emergency-Use Study Group. Treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections with quinupristin-dalfopristin in patients intolerant of or failing prior therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother 2000; 46:775–784.
  46. Lamb HM, Figgitt DP, Faulds D. Quinupristin/dalfopristin: a review of its use in the management of serious gram-positive infections. Drugs 1999; 58:1061–1097.
  47. Shorr AF, Kunkel MJ, Kollef M. Linezolid versus vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: pooled analysis of randomized studies. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005; 56:923–929.
  48. Bishop E, Melvani S, Howden BP, Charles PG, Grayson ML. Good clinical outcomes but high rates of adverse reactions during linezolid therapy for serious infections: a proposed protocol for monitoring therapy in complex patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50:1599–1602.
  49. Boucher HW, Sakoulas G. Perspectives on daptomycin resistance, with emphasis on resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 45:601–608.
  50. Munoz-Price LS, Lolans K, Quinn JP. Four cases of invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections treated with tigecycline. Scand J Infect Dis 2006; 38:1081–1084.
  51. Raad I, Darouiche R, Vazquez J, et al. Efficacy and safety of weekly dalbavancin therapy for catheter-related bloodstream infection caused by gram-positive pathogens. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 40:374–80.
Article PDF
media_8bb7346_177.pdf
Author and Disclosure Information

Susan J. Rehm, MD
Vice Chair Department of Infectious Disease; Executive Director, Physician Health, Cleveland Clinic

Address: Susan J. Rehm, MD, Department of Infectious Diseases, S32, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195. email rehms@ccf.org

Dr. Rehm has disclosed that she has served on the speaker’s bureaus of Cubist and Wyeth, has served on advisory boards for Cubist and Pfizer, and has received research support from Cubist.

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 75(3)
Publications
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
Topics
Dermatology
Infectious Diseases
Hospital Medicine
Drug Therapy
Page Number
177-180, 183-186, 190-192
Sections
Medical Grand Rounds
Author(s)
Susan J. Rehm, MD
Author(s)
Susan J. Rehm, MD
Author and Disclosure Information

Susan J. Rehm, MD
Vice Chair Department of Infectious Disease; Executive Director, Physician Health, Cleveland Clinic

Address: Susan J. Rehm, MD, Department of Infectious Diseases, S32, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195. email rehms@ccf.org

Dr. Rehm has disclosed that she has served on the speaker’s bureaus of Cubist and Wyeth, has served on advisory boards for Cubist and Pfizer, and has received research support from Cubist.

Author and Disclosure Information

Susan J. Rehm, MD
Vice Chair Department of Infectious Disease; Executive Director, Physician Health, Cleveland Clinic

Address: Susan J. Rehm, MD, Department of Infectious Diseases, S32, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195. email rehms@ccf.org

Dr. Rehm has disclosed that she has served on the speaker’s bureaus of Cubist and Wyeth, has served on advisory boards for Cubist and Pfizer, and has received research support from Cubist.

Article PDF
media_8bb7346_177.pdf
Article PDF
media_8bb7346_177.pdf

Staphylococcus aureus is rearing its ugly head in new and interesting ways, both in the hospital and in the community.

Rates of invasive infections with methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA) have been increasing both in the hospital and in the community, a trend that has attracted considerable interest in the lay media. Curiously, the most common community-associated MRSA strain, which up to now has been distinct from hospital-associated MRSA strains, is invading our hospitals. Alarmingly, vancomycin (Vancocin), the drug of last resort for MRSA infections for the past 40 years, does not seem to be as effective as it used to be.

This paper summarizes the changing epidemiology of S aureus, particularly the emergence of MRSA outside of the hospital; reviews the difficulties associated with S aureus bacteremia and its treatment in view of; some changes in vancomycin susceptibility; and appraises the old and new treatment options.

MRSA IS ON THE RISE IN THE HOSPITAL

S aureus, a gram-positive, coagulase-positive bacterium, is one of the leading nosocomial bloodstream pathogens, second only to coagulase-negative staphylococci.1 And the incidence of S aureus infections is increasing. MRSA in particular is increasingly causing infections throughout hospitals, including intensive care units. As of 2004, nearly two-thirds of isolates of S aureus from intensive care units were MRSA.2

MRSA infections are worse than methicillin-susceptible S aureus (MSSA) infections in terms of the rates of death and other undesirable outcomes.3 Several factors may be responsible: MRSA infection may be a marker of severity of illness (sicker patients may be more likely to have MRSA), our treatment for MRSA may not be as effective as it is for MSSA, and the organism may be inherently more virulent.

METHICILLIN RESISTANCE IS ALSO ON THE RISE IN THE COMMUNITY

Community-associated MRSA began emerging clinically about 10 years ago. It was first described in a cohort of children with necrotizing pneumonia in Minnesota, but soon other populations at risk began to emerge, such as residents of correctional facilities, men who had sex with men, competitive athletes (eg, fencers, wrestlers, and football players), and Alaskan natives and other native populations. A common factor in all these groups was close proximity of the members to each other. Later, it began to spread beyond these traditional risk groups into the community at large.

Community-associated MRSA strains have a characteristic pattern of antimicrobial susceptibility (see below). In the laboratory, they grow somewhat faster than health-care-associated MRSA strains, but not as fast as MSSA. They have a strong association with skin and soft-tissue infections: when you see a skin or soft-tissue infection, be it in an outpatient or an inpatient, think about MRSA. Their virulence varies, but rapid onset and progression of illness are quite common. Their most common strain in the United States at present is USA 300.

Case 1: A young woman with necrotizing fasciitis

A 21-year-old college student presented to our service in May 2004 with high fever and severe arm pain, which had been worsening for several days. She had been previously healthy, had not had any contact with the health care system, and had not received any antibiotics.

Figure 1. Necrotizing fasciitis due to community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
Her arm was red and extremely painful (Figure 1). Pain out of proportion to findings is a cardinal sign of necrotizing fasciitis, and this is indeed what she had.

Her blood cultures were positive for MRSA, as were cultures of the deep tissue of the deltoid muscle and fascia when she underwent emergency surgical debridement. The infection required several additional surgical debridements and removal of one head of her deltoid muscle, but she was fortunate: in the past, some patients with this problem might have undergone radical amputation of the arm or even more extensive surgery. This patient continued to have positive blood cultures 4 days postoperatively, but she ultimately recovered, completing 28 days of daptomycin (Cubicin) therapy at a dose of 6 mg/kg every 24 hours. The last 10 days of daptomycin therapy were given at home via a percutaneous intravenous central catheter.

Comment. The epidemiology of MRSA infections is changing. More patients who have no traditional risk factors, specifically health care contact, are getting MRSA infections. A recent report from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicates that the proportion of patients with invasive disease due to MRSA has doubled since 2001–2002.4 Part of the reason undoubtedly is that MRSA, particularly community-associated MRSA, often carries specific virulence factors that make it more invasive. The CDC estimated that in 2005 there were nearly 100,000 cases of invasive MRSA infection in the United States, and nearly a fifth of these infections resulted in death.

 

 

Resistance and virulence factors in community-associated MRSA

Most community-associated MRSA strains carry a mobile genetic element called type IV SCCmec (staphylococcal chromosomal cassettemec) that enhances its antimicrobial resistance. This genetic component was probably borrowed from coagulase-negative staphylococci, in which it is quite common but does not cause as much of a problem. It is now present in a wide range of S aureus strains. Most of the S aureus strains that carry type IV SCCmec are MRSA, but a few MSSA strains do carry it as well.

The potent toxin Panton-Valentine leukocidin is an extracellular product that is detected in fewer than 5% of hospital strains but is more common in community-associated strains. It kills leukocytes by forming pores in the cell membrane and causing skin necrosis in cutaneous infections. It is associated with skin abscesses and rapidly progressive necrotizing pneumonia in MSSA or MRSA.

Epidemiologic differences between community- and health-care-associated MRSA

Patients with community-associated MRSA infections tend to be younger than those who traditionally get health-care-associated MRSA infections: in a study from Naimi et al in 2003, the mean ages were 23 vs 68 years.5 A greater proportion of patients with community-associated MRSA strains are nonwhite.4,5

Most community-associated MRSA infections are of the skin and soft tissue (75% in the series from Naimi et al5), but this pathogen causes other infections as well. Bacteremia of unknown origin has been seen, as has necrotizing pneumonia. Most of the skin and soft-tissue infections are relatively superficial, such as folliculitis or furunculosis, but deeper tissue infections such as necrotizing fasciitis and pyomyositis have also been seen.6

The incidence of community-associated MRSA infections varies greatly by geographic region.7 The northeastern United States has so far been relatively spared, but in Atlanta, Houston, and Los Angeles up to 80% of cases of characteristic skin or soft-tissue infections seen in emergency or outpatient departments are due to community-associated MRSA. Physicians at the Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston assume that all skin or soft-tissue infections are due to community-associated MRSA unless proven otherwise.8

Differences in antibiotic susceptibility

Community-associated MRSA is more susceptible to various antibiotics than health-care-associated MRSA,5 but not by much. Strains are usually susceptible to vancomycin, tetracyclines, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim, Septra), and rifampin (Rifadin). Unlike hospital strains, a fair number of community-acquired strains are susceptible to clindamycin (Cleocin) in the laboratory, but with a caveat: some of these clindamycin-susceptible strains actually may harbor the tools for inducible resistance. In fact, they can become resistant to clindamycin even without being exposed to it.

The laboratory test for inducible clindamycin resistance is called the D test. After coating an agar plate with S aureus, the technician places erythromycin and clindamycin disks. If the erythromycin induces clindamycin resistance, the plate is clear of growth around the clindamycin disk except for the portion nearest the erythromycin disk, leaving a characteristic D-shaped area of lucency.

Risk factors for MRSA

Moran et al7 analyzed the risk factors for community-associated MRSA in patients with skin or soft-tissue infections seen in the emergency department. The infection was more likely to be due to community-associated MRSA if the patient was black, had used any antibiotic in the past month, had a history of MRSA infection, or had close contact with a person with a similar infection. Many patients interpreted the infections as spider bites because the lesions tended to have a dark center surrounded by a tender area. These infections were not associated with underlying illness. In some cases, community-associated MRSA skin infections have been associated with tattooing and even manicuring.

However, it is very difficult to distinguish between community-associated MRSA and MSSA skin and soft-tissue infections on the basis of clinical and epidemiologic characteristics. Miller et al9 studied a large group of patients in Los Angeles who were hospitalized with community-associated skin and soft-tissue S aureus infections. All the patients were followed up for 30 days after hospital discharge. Regardless of whether they had MRSA or MSSA, they had similar outcomes. Close contacts of the patients also tended to develop infection.

A key point from this and many other studies: patients were more likely to remain infected if they did not undergo incision and drainage. This key intervention is indicated for any patient who has a skin and soft-tissue infection with an undrained focus of infection.

 

 

COMMUNITY-ASSOCIATED MRSA IS INVADING THE HOSPITAL

In a new development, community-associated MRSA strains are now appearing in the hospital. This is not only because patients are bacteremic when they come in: patients in the hospital are getting nosocomial infections due to community-associated MRSA strains.

Seybold et al10 analyzed 116 cases of MRSA bloodstream infections in Atlanta, GA. In 9 (8%) of the cases the patient had not had any contact with the health care system within the past year, and these cases were classified as truly community-associated. Of the remaining 107 cases, 49 (42%) were nosocomial, and the USA 300 strain—the predominant community-associated MRSA strain—accounted for 10 (20%) of the nosocomial cases.

In the recent CDC study of invasive MRSA infections, Klevens et al4 reported that nearly a third of cases of bacteremia were due to community-associated MRSA, and these strains accounted for a greater proportion of cases of cellulitis and endocarditis than did health-care-associated strains.

In a study of hospital-associated MRSA, Maree et al11 found that the percentage of cases in which the bacteria carried the SCCmec type IV marker had increased from less than 20% in 1999 to more than 50% in 2004.

Comment. Suffice it to say that we are surrounded by MRSA. Community-associated MRSA is here to stay. It is even invading our hospitals, and we need to consider this very carefully when choosing antimicrobial therapy.

NAGGING QUESTIONS ABOUT VANCOMYCIN

Case 2: Vancomycin-intermediate S aureus (VISA) bacteremia and endocarditis

In December 2006 we saw a very ill 60-year-old woman who was hospitalized with MRSA bacteremia, pacemaker endocarditis, and superior vena cava thrombosis. Although she was treated with vancomycin and rifampin, her condition worsened, she had a stroke, and she developed renal failure. In a difficult operation, the pacemaker was removed, but the bacteremia persisted. In early February 2007 she underwent another difficult operation in which the superior vena cava clot was debrided, a right atrial clot was removed, and her mitral valve was replaced. Less than 2 weeks later, and despite ongoing vancomycin and rifampin therapy, the MRSA bacteremia recurred.

During the approximately 6 weeks that the patient had been receiving these antibiotics, the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of rifampin against the S aureus isolate increased from less than 1 μg/mL (susceptible) to 2 μg/mL (resistant). The MIC of vancomycin went from 2 μg/mL (susceptible) to 4 μg/mL (intermediately susceptible). Vancomycin and rifampin were discontinued, and daptomycin and gentamicin (Garamycin) therapy were started. (Her daptomycin MIC was 0.5 μg/mL). The patient’s condition stabilized, and she was discharged to a long-term nursing facility. She had no relapse of MRSA bacteremia, but she died in early April of that year.

Is vancomycin becoming less effective? Degrees of vancomycin resistance

Vancomycin has been our stalwart for treating MRSA infections for more than 40 years but it is not working as well as it used to, at least in certain situations.

Liu C, Chambers HF. Staphylococcus aureus with heterogeneous resistance to vancomycin: epidemiology, clinical significance, and critical assessment of diagnostic methods. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47:3040–3045
Figure 2. Population analysis of vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA), vancomycin-intermediate S aureus (VISA), heteroresistant VISA (hVISA), and vancomycin-susceptible S aureus (VSSA). The population analysis shows how many cells in a fixed number of cells (usually about 107 colony-forming units [CFU]) of each strain are resistant to various concentrations of vancomycin. VRSA is a highly resistant and homogeneously resistant strain, with 100% of the population growing at each of the vancomycin concentrations tested. VISA is intermediately resistant, with 100% of the population growing at 4 μg of vancomycin per mL and also with significant subpopulations growing at 8 μg/mL. hVISA demonstrates heterogeneous resistance, having subpopulations of cells with various levels of resistance to vancomycin and including small populations of vancomycin-intermediate resistant cells with growth at 8 μg of vancomycin per mL.
Various terms describe the degrees of susceptibility or resistance to vancomycin (Figure 2).12

VRSA (vancomycin-resistant S aureus) is rare. These fully resistant strains probably acquired a resistance mechanism (the vanA operon) from vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Infections tend to occur in patients simultaneously infected with both S aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci, giving the bacteria an opportunity to exchange genetic material.

VISA (vancomycin-intermediate S aureus) infections tend to occur in patients like the one described above who have had long-term vancomycin therapy. VISA strains appear to overproduce a matrix that captures vancomycin and keeps it from entering the cell. On electron microscopy, these bacteria have a very thick cell wall.13

Vancomycin tolerance is a state in which the bacteria are “stunned” or kept in check but not killed by vancomycin. That is manifested in the laboratory by a ratio of minimum bactericidal concentration to MIC greater than 32.

hVISA (heteroresistant VISA) is new and worrisome. These organisms have an overall MIC in the susceptible range, but within that population are individual isolates with an MIC that is much higher—in the intermediate or perhaps even in the resistant range.14

Reported rates of hVISA vary from less than 2% to as high as 76%, because the methods for detecting it are still very poorly standardized. The usual automated laboratory tests do not detect hVISA.

hVISA is probably clinically relevant, as evidence is emerging both in vitro and in vivo that the higher the MIC for vancomycin, the worse the clinical outcome.15 hVISA has been associated with failures of therapy in several situations, usually in cases of severe invasive or deep infection, endocarditis, and bacteremia with vertebral osteomyelitis where vancomycin concentrations at the site of infection may be suboptimal.16–19 While most hVISA strains that have been described were resistant to methicillin, some were susceptible.

The E test is emerging as the standard test for hVISA. This test uses a plastic strip that contains gradually increasing concentrations of vancomycin along its length. Placed in the culture dish, the strip inhibits growth of the organism at its high-concentration end but not at its low-concentration end. If the sample contains hVISA, the cutoff is not well defined, with a few colonies growing at higher concentrations.

 

 

New definition of vancomycin susceptibility

Recognizing that the MICs for vancomycin have been rising in the last few years, the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute last year changed the break points between susceptibility and resistance. The new definitions are:

  • Susceptible—an MIC of 2.0 μg/mL or less (formerly 4.0 μg/mL or less)
  • Intermediate—4.0 to 8.0 μg/mL (formerly 8.0 to 16 μg/mL)
  • Resistant—16 μg/mL or greater (formerly 32 μg/mL or greater).

One should pay attention to the MIC numbers on the laboratory reports, not just to the words “susceptible” or “not susceptible.” If the number is, say, 0.5 μg/mL or less, the organism should really be susceptible. If the number is 1 or 2, it is still in the susceptible range, but those are the organisms that may cause problems later on.

Further, even if the vancomycin MIC is in the susceptible range, higher MICs may affect outcomes. The average duration of MRSA bacteremia on therapy is 8 to 9 days, vs 3 to 4 days with MSSA bacteremia.20,21 But Sakoulas et al15 found that, in MRSA bacteremia, the success rate with vancomycin therapy was 56% if the MIC was 0.5 or lower, compared with 10% if the MIC was 1.0 to 2.0 μg/mL. Examined in another way, the success rate was 50% if the logarithm of killing was 6.27 colony-forming units per mL or greater, 23% if 4.71 to 6.26, and zero if less than 4.71.

Case 3: Prolonged MRSA bacteremia

In the summer of 2006, a 66-year-old woman with a history of gastric bypass and cirrhosis underwent a long stay in the surgical intensive care unit because of a recurrent enterocutaneous fistula and chronic renal insufficiency. On November 5th, she had a positive blood culture for MRSA, which was treated appropriately with vancomycin for 4 weeks. She was discharged to subacute care but came back 2 days later, again with MRSA bacteremia. At that time her Hickman catheter, which had been inserted for total parenteral nutrition because of the enterocutaneous fistula, was removed.

Transthoracic echocardiography revealed no vegetations, but her bacteremia persisted. Her mental status was poor this entire time: she was mute and could barely be awakened. We looked for clots and infected clots; duplex ultrasonographic examinations of all four extremities were negative. Finally, magnetic resonance imaging of her back—performed empirically because of the persistent bacteremia—revealed vertebral osteomyelitis at level T12-L1. We also noticed on serial evaluations that the vancomycin MIC for her organism increased from 0.5 to 2.0 μg/mL, so therapy was changed from vancomycin to daptomycin.

Her bacteremia cleared. Follow-up echocardiography was negative, but she had two subsequent relapses of MRSA bacteremia, one in April 2007 and one before she died in the summer of 2007.

Prolonged bacteremia: Is it vancomycin resistance, or something else?

The MRSA isolates that cause prolonged bacteremia seem to have certain characteristics.22 Higher MICs are probably associated with longer periods of bacteremia. But some genetic components within some strains of S aureus give them a survival advantage. They have less susceptibility to the body’s thrombin-induced platelet microbicidal protein. These isolates are not only associated with prolonged bacteremia: they are also associated with osteomyelitis, deep abscesses, endocarditis, recurrent infection, and increased death rate.22 Clinical laboratories do not test for these genetic components. One wonders whether our patient may have had an isolate with these mutations that gave it a survival advantage.

Do not use vancomycin for MSSA

Avoid using vancomycin for MSSA infections. It has been shown time and time again that MSSA infections do not respond as well to vancomycin as they do to beta-lactam antibiotics, specifically to the semisynthetic penicillins such as oxacillin and nafcillin, and even some of the first-generation cephalosporins. Chang et al23 found that patients with MSSA bacteremia had higher rates of persistent infections, relapse, and bacteriologic failure if they received vancomycin than if they received nafcillin.

Do vancomycin trough levels affect toxicity?

The vancomycin trough levels that we aimed for in the past (5 to 10 μg/mL) were probably too low. Today, we aim for trough levels of 15 to 20 μg/mL, and many physicians are aiming for 20 to 25 μg/mL. Part of the reason is that vancomycin MICs are higher than they used to be: in order to keep the vancomycin level above the MIC for a longer period of time, the vancomycin trough level needs to be higher. In theory, keeping the vancomycin levels above the MIC for longer periods should improve outcomes. Yet Fowler et al22 found that vancomycin trough levels among patients who had persistent MRSA bacteremia were actually higher than trough levels among those in whom the bacteremia resolved, although the difference was not statistically significant.

We measure the vancomycin trough level to make sure it is high enough (and give larger doses if it is not); among adults, peak levels need not be monitored on a routine basis because of the predictable pharmacokinetics of vancomycin.

Vancomycin toxicity can be either idiosyncratic or synergistic. Idiosyncratic toxicity occurs when a patient who has been on vancomycin for a long time develops a fixed rash, not associated with infusion. This is an immunologic phenomenon. It is a rare and very serious situation and may require steroid therapy.

Synergistic toxicity occurs when vancomycin is given with other nephrotoxic agents, notably gentamicin. Vancomycin plus gentamicin equals nephrotoxicity. Vancomycin alone is usually not nephrotoxic, but close monitoring of renal function parameters is warranted with the use of higher doses.24

 

 

IN UNEXPLAINED BACTEREMIA, LOOK FOR ENDOCARDITIS

In blood cultures from patients with bacteremia, S aureus is never a contaminant. Even if just one blood culture is positive for S aureus, believe that S aureus is the culprit.

Reports in the 1950s suggested that at least half of patients who had S aureus bacteremia had endocarditis,25 leading to recommendations that all patients with S aureus bacteremia without an obvious primary source of infection should be evaluated for endocarditis. Subsequent estimates were lower, in the range of 15% to 25%.26,27 However, throughout the world S aureus endocarditis continues to have a very high mortality rate: at least a third of patients die.28

Clinical criteria (community acquisition, no primary focus, and metastatic sequelae) were developed to try to predict the risk of endocarditis in bacteremic patients.26 However, these criteria did not work very well. The clinical definition of endocarditis has evolved. The criteria of von Reyn et al29 from 1981 did not use echocardiography as part of the definition, but the 1994 Duke criteria,30 which were refined31 in 2000, use both clinical and echocardiographic parameters.

Stratton et al32 performed transthoracic echocardiography in 14 patients with bacteremia and found 1 patient with cryptic tricuspid infective endocarditis. Bayer et al33 subsequently reported that of 72 patients with bacteremia, 6 (18%) of those who had no clinical findings suggestive of infectious endocarditis had findings on echocardiography that led to changes in their regimen. Adding echocardiography to three clinical risk factors increased the sensitivity of diagnosing endocarditis from 70% to 85% with a specificity of 100% and predictive value of 96%.

The Duke criteria call for transesophageal echocardiography, which is not feasible in some patients, eg, those with cirrhosis and esophageal varices.

S aureus endocarditis has changed over the years as our patient population has changed, and MRSA endocarditis tends to hit some of our most vulnerable patients. In a study by Miro et al34 in 2005, MRSA was the leading pathogen in patients who were diagnosed with S aureus endocarditis in 1990 or later. We will only see these numbers go up. Patients with diabetes tend to have more MRSA, and of diabetic patients with MRSA endocarditis, 30% to 40% die in the hospital.

Indications for surgery

Certain conditions are indications for surgery among patients with endocarditis, and no antibiotic will cure the endocarditis if the patient has one of these conditions, eg:

  • Persistent bacteremia during antibiotic therapy
  • Recurrent emboli
  • Heart failure that cannot be controlled
  • Perivalvular or myocardial abscesses
  • Large vegetations
  • Early prosthetic valve infection
  • Certain arrhythmias.

How long should S aureus bacteremia be treated?

In cases of bacteremia in which endocarditis has been ruled out and removable foci of infection (eg, intravascular catheters) have been removed, some evidence indicates that treatment for 2 weeks would be as effective as the 4 to 6 weeks that we would use for endocarditis or other severe or invasive infections.35 The issue is controversial. If the patient has had frequent hospitalizations or a chronic medical condition I would hesitate to treat for less than 4 weeks, even if the infection appears to be associated with a removable focus.

Treatment of endocarditis

In the guidelines for treatment of endocarditis from the American Heart Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America,36 all the recommendations are relatively old and many of them are somewhat empiric—they are not based on evidence from randomized clinical trials. Rather, they are best opinions based on clinical experience and some observational studies over the years.

For MSSA. In cases of native-valve endocarditis, oxacillin (Bactocill), nafcillin (Unipen), or another semisynthetic beta-lactam antibiotic is recommended. For penicillin-allergic patients, we have other options, such as cefazolin (Ancef, Kefzol).

Combination therapy is frequently recommended for native valve endocarditis as well as for prosthetic valve endocarditis, with either rifampin or gentamicin along with a primary agent. There is some evidence that one can clear staphylococcal bacteremia a day or two more quickly by use of combination therapy with nafcillin plus an aminoglycoside than with nafcillin alone.37,38 For MSSA-associated endocarditis, vancomycin does not work as well as beta-lactam antibiotics.39,40

Korzeniowski and Sande37 and Chambers et al38 reported that the mean duration of bacteremia was 3.4 days for patients treated with nafcillin alone and 2.9 days for those treated with nafcillin plus an aminoglycoside. These studies led to consideration of a short course of gentamicin to clear the bacteremia quickly.

With MRSA, bacteremia often requires a week or more to clear. Levine et al21 reported a study in 42 patients, mostly injection-drug users, with right-sided native-valve endocarditis. The median duration of bacteremia was 7 days in patients who received vancomycin alone vs 9 days in those who received vancomycin plus rifampin; however, some patients were bacteremic for up to 27 days. Fever persisted for a median of 7 days, probably partly due to septic pulmonary emboli. Three patients died, and three required valve replacement.

 

 

NEW ANTIBIOTICS

Several new antibiotics are active against gram-positive cocci.41–44 However, the majority of them have not been prospectively studied for treating bacteremia or endocarditis.

Quinupristin/dalfopristin (Synercid) has not been formally studied for treatment of MRSA bacteremia or endocarditis. There are a few case reports of its use in these conditions.45 Quinupristin/dalfopristin is bacteriostatic, and its use may be associated with phlebitis, myalgias, and arthralgias.46

Linezolid (Zyvox) is approved for treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections and for hospital-acquired pneumonia. There have been no specific studies of linezolid in the treatment of S aureus bacteremia or endocarditis. However, Shorr et al47 retrospectively looked at the bacteremic patients in five previous studies of linezolid vs vancomycin and found 144 cases of S aureus bacteremia, half of which were due to MRSA. Of 53 assessable patients with MRSA bacteremia, the primary infection was cured in 14 (56%) of the linezolid patients and 13 (46%) of the vancomycin patients.

The oral form is 100% bioavailable. One should avoid concomitant use of serotonin-reuptake inhibitors because of the risk of serotonin syndrome. Adverse effects include altered taste sensation and peripheral neuropathy. There are other potential toxicities, including hematologic changes (thrombocytopenia, leukopenia) and metabolic effects (lactic acidosis), so clinical and laboratory monitoring is important.48 The role of linezolid in the treatment of patients with S aureus bacteremia or endocarditis remains to be defined.

Daptomycin is indicated for complicated skin and soft-tissue infections, bacteremia, and right-sided endocarditis due to S aureus. Fowler et al20 found that daptomycin was not inferior to beta-lactam antibiotics for treatment of MSSA bacteremia and right-sided endocarditis, and for MRSA infections it outperformed vancomycin, but the difference was not statistically significant.

The dosing interval should be increased from once every 24 hours to every 48 hours if the creatinine clearance is 30 mL/minute or less. Adverse effects include myalgia, rhabdomyolysis (rare), and elevations in creatine phosphokinase. Reports of rising MICs during daptomycin therapy, in some cases associated with persistent infection,49 suggest that careful attention be paid to dosing and clinical monitoring.

Tigecycline (Tygacil) is indicated for complicated skin and soft-tissue infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections due to susceptible organisms. It is active against both MSSA and MRSA, but clinical experience with its use in invasive infections is somewhat limited.50 The dose of tigecycline should be reduced in advanced cirrhosis. Adverse effects include nausea and vomiting.

Telavancin, dalbavancin, and oritavancin, investigational parenteral antibiotics that are derivatives of vancomycin, are in clinical trials. The pharmacokinetic activity of these agents is of interest: telavancin is being studied with a once-daily dosing interval and dalbavancin’s half-life allows once-weekly dosing. In a limited trial, dalbavancin was found to be safe and effective in the treatment of catheter-related bloodstream infections.51 None of the antibiotics in this group has been studied for treatment of S aureus endocarditis. Telavancin therapy has been associated with rash, hypokalemia, QT prolongation, and creatinine elevations. Gastrointestinal symptoms have been reported with the use of dalbavancin.

Ceftobiprole, another investigational agent, is the only cephalosporin antibiotic that is active against MRSA. It is given every 12 hours. Adverse effects include nausea and taste disturbance.

Iclaprim is a novel diaminopyrimidine and a dihydrofolate reductase inhibitor. In vitro, it is active against gram-positive bacteria, including MRSA, VISA, and VRSA; clinical investigations at this point are limited to the treatment of skin and soft-tissue infections.

Staphylococcus aureus is rearing its ugly head in new and interesting ways, both in the hospital and in the community.

Rates of invasive infections with methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA) have been increasing both in the hospital and in the community, a trend that has attracted considerable interest in the lay media. Curiously, the most common community-associated MRSA strain, which up to now has been distinct from hospital-associated MRSA strains, is invading our hospitals. Alarmingly, vancomycin (Vancocin), the drug of last resort for MRSA infections for the past 40 years, does not seem to be as effective as it used to be.

This paper summarizes the changing epidemiology of S aureus, particularly the emergence of MRSA outside of the hospital; reviews the difficulties associated with S aureus bacteremia and its treatment in view of; some changes in vancomycin susceptibility; and appraises the old and new treatment options.

MRSA IS ON THE RISE IN THE HOSPITAL

S aureus, a gram-positive, coagulase-positive bacterium, is one of the leading nosocomial bloodstream pathogens, second only to coagulase-negative staphylococci.1 And the incidence of S aureus infections is increasing. MRSA in particular is increasingly causing infections throughout hospitals, including intensive care units. As of 2004, nearly two-thirds of isolates of S aureus from intensive care units were MRSA.2

MRSA infections are worse than methicillin-susceptible S aureus (MSSA) infections in terms of the rates of death and other undesirable outcomes.3 Several factors may be responsible: MRSA infection may be a marker of severity of illness (sicker patients may be more likely to have MRSA), our treatment for MRSA may not be as effective as it is for MSSA, and the organism may be inherently more virulent.

METHICILLIN RESISTANCE IS ALSO ON THE RISE IN THE COMMUNITY

Community-associated MRSA began emerging clinically about 10 years ago. It was first described in a cohort of children with necrotizing pneumonia in Minnesota, but soon other populations at risk began to emerge, such as residents of correctional facilities, men who had sex with men, competitive athletes (eg, fencers, wrestlers, and football players), and Alaskan natives and other native populations. A common factor in all these groups was close proximity of the members to each other. Later, it began to spread beyond these traditional risk groups into the community at large.

Community-associated MRSA strains have a characteristic pattern of antimicrobial susceptibility (see below). In the laboratory, they grow somewhat faster than health-care-associated MRSA strains, but not as fast as MSSA. They have a strong association with skin and soft-tissue infections: when you see a skin or soft-tissue infection, be it in an outpatient or an inpatient, think about MRSA. Their virulence varies, but rapid onset and progression of illness are quite common. Their most common strain in the United States at present is USA 300.

Case 1: A young woman with necrotizing fasciitis

A 21-year-old college student presented to our service in May 2004 with high fever and severe arm pain, which had been worsening for several days. She had been previously healthy, had not had any contact with the health care system, and had not received any antibiotics.

Figure 1. Necrotizing fasciitis due to community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
Her arm was red and extremely painful (Figure 1). Pain out of proportion to findings is a cardinal sign of necrotizing fasciitis, and this is indeed what she had.

Her blood cultures were positive for MRSA, as were cultures of the deep tissue of the deltoid muscle and fascia when she underwent emergency surgical debridement. The infection required several additional surgical debridements and removal of one head of her deltoid muscle, but she was fortunate: in the past, some patients with this problem might have undergone radical amputation of the arm or even more extensive surgery. This patient continued to have positive blood cultures 4 days postoperatively, but she ultimately recovered, completing 28 days of daptomycin (Cubicin) therapy at a dose of 6 mg/kg every 24 hours. The last 10 days of daptomycin therapy were given at home via a percutaneous intravenous central catheter.

Comment. The epidemiology of MRSA infections is changing. More patients who have no traditional risk factors, specifically health care contact, are getting MRSA infections. A recent report from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicates that the proportion of patients with invasive disease due to MRSA has doubled since 2001–2002.4 Part of the reason undoubtedly is that MRSA, particularly community-associated MRSA, often carries specific virulence factors that make it more invasive. The CDC estimated that in 2005 there were nearly 100,000 cases of invasive MRSA infection in the United States, and nearly a fifth of these infections resulted in death.

 

 

Resistance and virulence factors in community-associated MRSA

Most community-associated MRSA strains carry a mobile genetic element called type IV SCCmec (staphylococcal chromosomal cassettemec) that enhances its antimicrobial resistance. This genetic component was probably borrowed from coagulase-negative staphylococci, in which it is quite common but does not cause as much of a problem. It is now present in a wide range of S aureus strains. Most of the S aureus strains that carry type IV SCCmec are MRSA, but a few MSSA strains do carry it as well.

The potent toxin Panton-Valentine leukocidin is an extracellular product that is detected in fewer than 5% of hospital strains but is more common in community-associated strains. It kills leukocytes by forming pores in the cell membrane and causing skin necrosis in cutaneous infections. It is associated with skin abscesses and rapidly progressive necrotizing pneumonia in MSSA or MRSA.

Epidemiologic differences between community- and health-care-associated MRSA

Patients with community-associated MRSA infections tend to be younger than those who traditionally get health-care-associated MRSA infections: in a study from Naimi et al in 2003, the mean ages were 23 vs 68 years.5 A greater proportion of patients with community-associated MRSA strains are nonwhite.4,5

Most community-associated MRSA infections are of the skin and soft tissue (75% in the series from Naimi et al5), but this pathogen causes other infections as well. Bacteremia of unknown origin has been seen, as has necrotizing pneumonia. Most of the skin and soft-tissue infections are relatively superficial, such as folliculitis or furunculosis, but deeper tissue infections such as necrotizing fasciitis and pyomyositis have also been seen.6

The incidence of community-associated MRSA infections varies greatly by geographic region.7 The northeastern United States has so far been relatively spared, but in Atlanta, Houston, and Los Angeles up to 80% of cases of characteristic skin or soft-tissue infections seen in emergency or outpatient departments are due to community-associated MRSA. Physicians at the Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston assume that all skin or soft-tissue infections are due to community-associated MRSA unless proven otherwise.8

Differences in antibiotic susceptibility

Community-associated MRSA is more susceptible to various antibiotics than health-care-associated MRSA,5 but not by much. Strains are usually susceptible to vancomycin, tetracyclines, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim, Septra), and rifampin (Rifadin). Unlike hospital strains, a fair number of community-acquired strains are susceptible to clindamycin (Cleocin) in the laboratory, but with a caveat: some of these clindamycin-susceptible strains actually may harbor the tools for inducible resistance. In fact, they can become resistant to clindamycin even without being exposed to it.

The laboratory test for inducible clindamycin resistance is called the D test. After coating an agar plate with S aureus, the technician places erythromycin and clindamycin disks. If the erythromycin induces clindamycin resistance, the plate is clear of growth around the clindamycin disk except for the portion nearest the erythromycin disk, leaving a characteristic D-shaped area of lucency.

Risk factors for MRSA

Moran et al7 analyzed the risk factors for community-associated MRSA in patients with skin or soft-tissue infections seen in the emergency department. The infection was more likely to be due to community-associated MRSA if the patient was black, had used any antibiotic in the past month, had a history of MRSA infection, or had close contact with a person with a similar infection. Many patients interpreted the infections as spider bites because the lesions tended to have a dark center surrounded by a tender area. These infections were not associated with underlying illness. In some cases, community-associated MRSA skin infections have been associated with tattooing and even manicuring.

However, it is very difficult to distinguish between community-associated MRSA and MSSA skin and soft-tissue infections on the basis of clinical and epidemiologic characteristics. Miller et al9 studied a large group of patients in Los Angeles who were hospitalized with community-associated skin and soft-tissue S aureus infections. All the patients were followed up for 30 days after hospital discharge. Regardless of whether they had MRSA or MSSA, they had similar outcomes. Close contacts of the patients also tended to develop infection.

A key point from this and many other studies: patients were more likely to remain infected if they did not undergo incision and drainage. This key intervention is indicated for any patient who has a skin and soft-tissue infection with an undrained focus of infection.

 

 

COMMUNITY-ASSOCIATED MRSA IS INVADING THE HOSPITAL

In a new development, community-associated MRSA strains are now appearing in the hospital. This is not only because patients are bacteremic when they come in: patients in the hospital are getting nosocomial infections due to community-associated MRSA strains.

Seybold et al10 analyzed 116 cases of MRSA bloodstream infections in Atlanta, GA. In 9 (8%) of the cases the patient had not had any contact with the health care system within the past year, and these cases were classified as truly community-associated. Of the remaining 107 cases, 49 (42%) were nosocomial, and the USA 300 strain—the predominant community-associated MRSA strain—accounted for 10 (20%) of the nosocomial cases.

In the recent CDC study of invasive MRSA infections, Klevens et al4 reported that nearly a third of cases of bacteremia were due to community-associated MRSA, and these strains accounted for a greater proportion of cases of cellulitis and endocarditis than did health-care-associated strains.

In a study of hospital-associated MRSA, Maree et al11 found that the percentage of cases in which the bacteria carried the SCCmec type IV marker had increased from less than 20% in 1999 to more than 50% in 2004.

Comment. Suffice it to say that we are surrounded by MRSA. Community-associated MRSA is here to stay. It is even invading our hospitals, and we need to consider this very carefully when choosing antimicrobial therapy.

NAGGING QUESTIONS ABOUT VANCOMYCIN

Case 2: Vancomycin-intermediate S aureus (VISA) bacteremia and endocarditis

In December 2006 we saw a very ill 60-year-old woman who was hospitalized with MRSA bacteremia, pacemaker endocarditis, and superior vena cava thrombosis. Although she was treated with vancomycin and rifampin, her condition worsened, she had a stroke, and she developed renal failure. In a difficult operation, the pacemaker was removed, but the bacteremia persisted. In early February 2007 she underwent another difficult operation in which the superior vena cava clot was debrided, a right atrial clot was removed, and her mitral valve was replaced. Less than 2 weeks later, and despite ongoing vancomycin and rifampin therapy, the MRSA bacteremia recurred.

During the approximately 6 weeks that the patient had been receiving these antibiotics, the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of rifampin against the S aureus isolate increased from less than 1 μg/mL (susceptible) to 2 μg/mL (resistant). The MIC of vancomycin went from 2 μg/mL (susceptible) to 4 μg/mL (intermediately susceptible). Vancomycin and rifampin were discontinued, and daptomycin and gentamicin (Garamycin) therapy were started. (Her daptomycin MIC was 0.5 μg/mL). The patient’s condition stabilized, and she was discharged to a long-term nursing facility. She had no relapse of MRSA bacteremia, but she died in early April of that year.

Is vancomycin becoming less effective? Degrees of vancomycin resistance

Vancomycin has been our stalwart for treating MRSA infections for more than 40 years but it is not working as well as it used to, at least in certain situations.

Liu C, Chambers HF. Staphylococcus aureus with heterogeneous resistance to vancomycin: epidemiology, clinical significance, and critical assessment of diagnostic methods. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47:3040–3045
Figure 2. Population analysis of vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA), vancomycin-intermediate S aureus (VISA), heteroresistant VISA (hVISA), and vancomycin-susceptible S aureus (VSSA). The population analysis shows how many cells in a fixed number of cells (usually about 107 colony-forming units [CFU]) of each strain are resistant to various concentrations of vancomycin. VRSA is a highly resistant and homogeneously resistant strain, with 100% of the population growing at each of the vancomycin concentrations tested. VISA is intermediately resistant, with 100% of the population growing at 4 μg of vancomycin per mL and also with significant subpopulations growing at 8 μg/mL. hVISA demonstrates heterogeneous resistance, having subpopulations of cells with various levels of resistance to vancomycin and including small populations of vancomycin-intermediate resistant cells with growth at 8 μg of vancomycin per mL.
Various terms describe the degrees of susceptibility or resistance to vancomycin (Figure 2).12

VRSA (vancomycin-resistant S aureus) is rare. These fully resistant strains probably acquired a resistance mechanism (the vanA operon) from vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Infections tend to occur in patients simultaneously infected with both S aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci, giving the bacteria an opportunity to exchange genetic material.

VISA (vancomycin-intermediate S aureus) infections tend to occur in patients like the one described above who have had long-term vancomycin therapy. VISA strains appear to overproduce a matrix that captures vancomycin and keeps it from entering the cell. On electron microscopy, these bacteria have a very thick cell wall.13

Vancomycin tolerance is a state in which the bacteria are “stunned” or kept in check but not killed by vancomycin. That is manifested in the laboratory by a ratio of minimum bactericidal concentration to MIC greater than 32.

hVISA (heteroresistant VISA) is new and worrisome. These organisms have an overall MIC in the susceptible range, but within that population are individual isolates with an MIC that is much higher—in the intermediate or perhaps even in the resistant range.14

Reported rates of hVISA vary from less than 2% to as high as 76%, because the methods for detecting it are still very poorly standardized. The usual automated laboratory tests do not detect hVISA.

hVISA is probably clinically relevant, as evidence is emerging both in vitro and in vivo that the higher the MIC for vancomycin, the worse the clinical outcome.15 hVISA has been associated with failures of therapy in several situations, usually in cases of severe invasive or deep infection, endocarditis, and bacteremia with vertebral osteomyelitis where vancomycin concentrations at the site of infection may be suboptimal.16–19 While most hVISA strains that have been described were resistant to methicillin, some were susceptible.

The E test is emerging as the standard test for hVISA. This test uses a plastic strip that contains gradually increasing concentrations of vancomycin along its length. Placed in the culture dish, the strip inhibits growth of the organism at its high-concentration end but not at its low-concentration end. If the sample contains hVISA, the cutoff is not well defined, with a few colonies growing at higher concentrations.

 

 

New definition of vancomycin susceptibility

Recognizing that the MICs for vancomycin have been rising in the last few years, the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute last year changed the break points between susceptibility and resistance. The new definitions are:

  • Susceptible—an MIC of 2.0 μg/mL or less (formerly 4.0 μg/mL or less)
  • Intermediate—4.0 to 8.0 μg/mL (formerly 8.0 to 16 μg/mL)
  • Resistant—16 μg/mL or greater (formerly 32 μg/mL or greater).

One should pay attention to the MIC numbers on the laboratory reports, not just to the words “susceptible” or “not susceptible.” If the number is, say, 0.5 μg/mL or less, the organism should really be susceptible. If the number is 1 or 2, it is still in the susceptible range, but those are the organisms that may cause problems later on.

Further, even if the vancomycin MIC is in the susceptible range, higher MICs may affect outcomes. The average duration of MRSA bacteremia on therapy is 8 to 9 days, vs 3 to 4 days with MSSA bacteremia.20,21 But Sakoulas et al15 found that, in MRSA bacteremia, the success rate with vancomycin therapy was 56% if the MIC was 0.5 or lower, compared with 10% if the MIC was 1.0 to 2.0 μg/mL. Examined in another way, the success rate was 50% if the logarithm of killing was 6.27 colony-forming units per mL or greater, 23% if 4.71 to 6.26, and zero if less than 4.71.

Case 3: Prolonged MRSA bacteremia

In the summer of 2006, a 66-year-old woman with a history of gastric bypass and cirrhosis underwent a long stay in the surgical intensive care unit because of a recurrent enterocutaneous fistula and chronic renal insufficiency. On November 5th, she had a positive blood culture for MRSA, which was treated appropriately with vancomycin for 4 weeks. She was discharged to subacute care but came back 2 days later, again with MRSA bacteremia. At that time her Hickman catheter, which had been inserted for total parenteral nutrition because of the enterocutaneous fistula, was removed.

Transthoracic echocardiography revealed no vegetations, but her bacteremia persisted. Her mental status was poor this entire time: she was mute and could barely be awakened. We looked for clots and infected clots; duplex ultrasonographic examinations of all four extremities were negative. Finally, magnetic resonance imaging of her back—performed empirically because of the persistent bacteremia—revealed vertebral osteomyelitis at level T12-L1. We also noticed on serial evaluations that the vancomycin MIC for her organism increased from 0.5 to 2.0 μg/mL, so therapy was changed from vancomycin to daptomycin.

Her bacteremia cleared. Follow-up echocardiography was negative, but she had two subsequent relapses of MRSA bacteremia, one in April 2007 and one before she died in the summer of 2007.

Prolonged bacteremia: Is it vancomycin resistance, or something else?

The MRSA isolates that cause prolonged bacteremia seem to have certain characteristics.22 Higher MICs are probably associated with longer periods of bacteremia. But some genetic components within some strains of S aureus give them a survival advantage. They have less susceptibility to the body’s thrombin-induced platelet microbicidal protein. These isolates are not only associated with prolonged bacteremia: they are also associated with osteomyelitis, deep abscesses, endocarditis, recurrent infection, and increased death rate.22 Clinical laboratories do not test for these genetic components. One wonders whether our patient may have had an isolate with these mutations that gave it a survival advantage.

Do not use vancomycin for MSSA

Avoid using vancomycin for MSSA infections. It has been shown time and time again that MSSA infections do not respond as well to vancomycin as they do to beta-lactam antibiotics, specifically to the semisynthetic penicillins such as oxacillin and nafcillin, and even some of the first-generation cephalosporins. Chang et al23 found that patients with MSSA bacteremia had higher rates of persistent infections, relapse, and bacteriologic failure if they received vancomycin than if they received nafcillin.

Do vancomycin trough levels affect toxicity?

The vancomycin trough levels that we aimed for in the past (5 to 10 μg/mL) were probably too low. Today, we aim for trough levels of 15 to 20 μg/mL, and many physicians are aiming for 20 to 25 μg/mL. Part of the reason is that vancomycin MICs are higher than they used to be: in order to keep the vancomycin level above the MIC for a longer period of time, the vancomycin trough level needs to be higher. In theory, keeping the vancomycin levels above the MIC for longer periods should improve outcomes. Yet Fowler et al22 found that vancomycin trough levels among patients who had persistent MRSA bacteremia were actually higher than trough levels among those in whom the bacteremia resolved, although the difference was not statistically significant.

We measure the vancomycin trough level to make sure it is high enough (and give larger doses if it is not); among adults, peak levels need not be monitored on a routine basis because of the predictable pharmacokinetics of vancomycin.

Vancomycin toxicity can be either idiosyncratic or synergistic. Idiosyncratic toxicity occurs when a patient who has been on vancomycin for a long time develops a fixed rash, not associated with infusion. This is an immunologic phenomenon. It is a rare and very serious situation and may require steroid therapy.

Synergistic toxicity occurs when vancomycin is given with other nephrotoxic agents, notably gentamicin. Vancomycin plus gentamicin equals nephrotoxicity. Vancomycin alone is usually not nephrotoxic, but close monitoring of renal function parameters is warranted with the use of higher doses.24

 

 

IN UNEXPLAINED BACTEREMIA, LOOK FOR ENDOCARDITIS

In blood cultures from patients with bacteremia, S aureus is never a contaminant. Even if just one blood culture is positive for S aureus, believe that S aureus is the culprit.

Reports in the 1950s suggested that at least half of patients who had S aureus bacteremia had endocarditis,25 leading to recommendations that all patients with S aureus bacteremia without an obvious primary source of infection should be evaluated for endocarditis. Subsequent estimates were lower, in the range of 15% to 25%.26,27 However, throughout the world S aureus endocarditis continues to have a very high mortality rate: at least a third of patients die.28

Clinical criteria (community acquisition, no primary focus, and metastatic sequelae) were developed to try to predict the risk of endocarditis in bacteremic patients.26 However, these criteria did not work very well. The clinical definition of endocarditis has evolved. The criteria of von Reyn et al29 from 1981 did not use echocardiography as part of the definition, but the 1994 Duke criteria,30 which were refined31 in 2000, use both clinical and echocardiographic parameters.

Stratton et al32 performed transthoracic echocardiography in 14 patients with bacteremia and found 1 patient with cryptic tricuspid infective endocarditis. Bayer et al33 subsequently reported that of 72 patients with bacteremia, 6 (18%) of those who had no clinical findings suggestive of infectious endocarditis had findings on echocardiography that led to changes in their regimen. Adding echocardiography to three clinical risk factors increased the sensitivity of diagnosing endocarditis from 70% to 85% with a specificity of 100% and predictive value of 96%.

The Duke criteria call for transesophageal echocardiography, which is not feasible in some patients, eg, those with cirrhosis and esophageal varices.

S aureus endocarditis has changed over the years as our patient population has changed, and MRSA endocarditis tends to hit some of our most vulnerable patients. In a study by Miro et al34 in 2005, MRSA was the leading pathogen in patients who were diagnosed with S aureus endocarditis in 1990 or later. We will only see these numbers go up. Patients with diabetes tend to have more MRSA, and of diabetic patients with MRSA endocarditis, 30% to 40% die in the hospital.

Indications for surgery

Certain conditions are indications for surgery among patients with endocarditis, and no antibiotic will cure the endocarditis if the patient has one of these conditions, eg:

  • Persistent bacteremia during antibiotic therapy
  • Recurrent emboli
  • Heart failure that cannot be controlled
  • Perivalvular or myocardial abscesses
  • Large vegetations
  • Early prosthetic valve infection
  • Certain arrhythmias.

How long should S aureus bacteremia be treated?

In cases of bacteremia in which endocarditis has been ruled out and removable foci of infection (eg, intravascular catheters) have been removed, some evidence indicates that treatment for 2 weeks would be as effective as the 4 to 6 weeks that we would use for endocarditis or other severe or invasive infections.35 The issue is controversial. If the patient has had frequent hospitalizations or a chronic medical condition I would hesitate to treat for less than 4 weeks, even if the infection appears to be associated with a removable focus.

Treatment of endocarditis

In the guidelines for treatment of endocarditis from the American Heart Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America,36 all the recommendations are relatively old and many of them are somewhat empiric—they are not based on evidence from randomized clinical trials. Rather, they are best opinions based on clinical experience and some observational studies over the years.

For MSSA. In cases of native-valve endocarditis, oxacillin (Bactocill), nafcillin (Unipen), or another semisynthetic beta-lactam antibiotic is recommended. For penicillin-allergic patients, we have other options, such as cefazolin (Ancef, Kefzol).

Combination therapy is frequently recommended for native valve endocarditis as well as for prosthetic valve endocarditis, with either rifampin or gentamicin along with a primary agent. There is some evidence that one can clear staphylococcal bacteremia a day or two more quickly by use of combination therapy with nafcillin plus an aminoglycoside than with nafcillin alone.37,38 For MSSA-associated endocarditis, vancomycin does not work as well as beta-lactam antibiotics.39,40

Korzeniowski and Sande37 and Chambers et al38 reported that the mean duration of bacteremia was 3.4 days for patients treated with nafcillin alone and 2.9 days for those treated with nafcillin plus an aminoglycoside. These studies led to consideration of a short course of gentamicin to clear the bacteremia quickly.

With MRSA, bacteremia often requires a week or more to clear. Levine et al21 reported a study in 42 patients, mostly injection-drug users, with right-sided native-valve endocarditis. The median duration of bacteremia was 7 days in patients who received vancomycin alone vs 9 days in those who received vancomycin plus rifampin; however, some patients were bacteremic for up to 27 days. Fever persisted for a median of 7 days, probably partly due to septic pulmonary emboli. Three patients died, and three required valve replacement.

 

 

NEW ANTIBIOTICS

Several new antibiotics are active against gram-positive cocci.41–44 However, the majority of them have not been prospectively studied for treating bacteremia or endocarditis.

Quinupristin/dalfopristin (Synercid) has not been formally studied for treatment of MRSA bacteremia or endocarditis. There are a few case reports of its use in these conditions.45 Quinupristin/dalfopristin is bacteriostatic, and its use may be associated with phlebitis, myalgias, and arthralgias.46

Linezolid (Zyvox) is approved for treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections and for hospital-acquired pneumonia. There have been no specific studies of linezolid in the treatment of S aureus bacteremia or endocarditis. However, Shorr et al47 retrospectively looked at the bacteremic patients in five previous studies of linezolid vs vancomycin and found 144 cases of S aureus bacteremia, half of which were due to MRSA. Of 53 assessable patients with MRSA bacteremia, the primary infection was cured in 14 (56%) of the linezolid patients and 13 (46%) of the vancomycin patients.

The oral form is 100% bioavailable. One should avoid concomitant use of serotonin-reuptake inhibitors because of the risk of serotonin syndrome. Adverse effects include altered taste sensation and peripheral neuropathy. There are other potential toxicities, including hematologic changes (thrombocytopenia, leukopenia) and metabolic effects (lactic acidosis), so clinical and laboratory monitoring is important.48 The role of linezolid in the treatment of patients with S aureus bacteremia or endocarditis remains to be defined.

Daptomycin is indicated for complicated skin and soft-tissue infections, bacteremia, and right-sided endocarditis due to S aureus. Fowler et al20 found that daptomycin was not inferior to beta-lactam antibiotics for treatment of MSSA bacteremia and right-sided endocarditis, and for MRSA infections it outperformed vancomycin, but the difference was not statistically significant.

The dosing interval should be increased from once every 24 hours to every 48 hours if the creatinine clearance is 30 mL/minute or less. Adverse effects include myalgia, rhabdomyolysis (rare), and elevations in creatine phosphokinase. Reports of rising MICs during daptomycin therapy, in some cases associated with persistent infection,49 suggest that careful attention be paid to dosing and clinical monitoring.

Tigecycline (Tygacil) is indicated for complicated skin and soft-tissue infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections due to susceptible organisms. It is active against both MSSA and MRSA, but clinical experience with its use in invasive infections is somewhat limited.50 The dose of tigecycline should be reduced in advanced cirrhosis. Adverse effects include nausea and vomiting.

Telavancin, dalbavancin, and oritavancin, investigational parenteral antibiotics that are derivatives of vancomycin, are in clinical trials. The pharmacokinetic activity of these agents is of interest: telavancin is being studied with a once-daily dosing interval and dalbavancin’s half-life allows once-weekly dosing. In a limited trial, dalbavancin was found to be safe and effective in the treatment of catheter-related bloodstream infections.51 None of the antibiotics in this group has been studied for treatment of S aureus endocarditis. Telavancin therapy has been associated with rash, hypokalemia, QT prolongation, and creatinine elevations. Gastrointestinal symptoms have been reported with the use of dalbavancin.

Ceftobiprole, another investigational agent, is the only cephalosporin antibiotic that is active against MRSA. It is given every 12 hours. Adverse effects include nausea and taste disturbance.

Iclaprim is a novel diaminopyrimidine and a dihydrofolate reductase inhibitor. In vitro, it is active against gram-positive bacteria, including MRSA, VISA, and VRSA; clinical investigations at this point are limited to the treatment of skin and soft-tissue infections.

References
  1. 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; 39:309–371. Erratum in: Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39:1093.
  2. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System. Campaign to prevent antimicrobial resistance. www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/healthcare/ha/HASlideSet.ppt.
  3. Blot SI, Vandewoude KH, Hoste EA, Colardyn FA. Outcome and attributable mortality in critically ill patients with bacteremia involving methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162:2229–2235.
  4. Klevens RM, Morrison MA, Nadle J, et al; Active Bacterial Core surveillance (ABCs) MRSA Investigators. Invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in the United States. JAMA 2007; 298:1763–1771.
  5. Naimi TS, LeDell KH, Como-Sabetti K, et al. Comparison of community- and health care-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. JAMA 2003; 290:2976–2984.
  6. Miller LG, Perdreau-Remington F, Rieg G, et al. Necrotizing fasciitis caused by community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Los Angeles. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:1445–1453.
  7. Moran GJ, Krishnadasan A, Gorwitz RJ, et al EMERGEncy ID Net Study Group. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections among patients in the emergency department. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:666–674.
  8. Mishaan AM, Mason EO, Martinez-Aquilar G, et al. Emergence of a predominant clone of community-acquired Staphylococcus aureus among children in Houston, Texas. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005; 24:201–206.
  9. Miller LG, Perdreau-Remington F, Bayer AS, et al. Clinical and epidemiologic characteristics cannot distinguish community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection from methicillin-susceptible S. aureus infection: a prospective investigation. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44:471–482.
  10. Seybold U, Kourbatova EV, Johnson JG, et al. Emergence of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus USA300 genotype as a major cause of health care-associated blood stream infections. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42:647–656.
  11. Maree CL, Daum RS, Boyle-Vavra S, Matayoshi K, Miller LG. Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates causing healthcare-associated infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2007; 13:236–242.
  12. Liu C, Chambers HF. Staphylococcus aureus with heterogeneous resistance to vancomycin: epidemiology, clinical significance, and critical assessment of diagnostic methods. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47:3040–3045.
  13. Sieradzki K, Roberts RB, Haber SW, Tomasz A. The development of vancomycin resistance in a patient with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. N Engl J Med 1999; 340:517–523.
  14. Schwaber MJ, Wright SB, Carmeli Y, et al. Clinical implications of varying degrees of vancomycin susceptibility in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Emerg Infect Dis 2003; 9:657–664. Erratum in: Emerg Infect Dis 2004; 10:160.
  15. Sakoulas G, Moise-Broder PA, Schentag J, Forrest A, Moellering RC, Eliopoulos GM. Relationship of MIC and bactericidal activity to efficacy of vancomycin for treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42:2398–2402.
  16. Naimi TS, Anderson D, O’Boyle C, et al. Vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus with phenotypic susceptibility to methicillin in a patient with recurrent bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36:1609–1612.
  17. Moore MR, Perdreau-Remington F, Chambers HF. Vancomycin treatment failure associated with heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus in a patient with endocarditis and in the rabbit model of endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47:1262–1266.
  18. Charles PG, Ward PB, Johnson PD, Howden BP, Grayson ML. Clinical features associated with bacteremia due to heterogenous vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38:448–451.
  19. Howden BP, Ward PB, Charles PG, et al. Treatment outcomes for serious infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with reduced vancomycin susceptibility. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38:521–528.
  20. Fowler VG, Boucher HW, Corey GR, et al. S. aureus Endocarditis and Bacteremia Study Group. Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:653–665.
  21. Levine DP, Fromm BS, Reddy BR. Slow response to vancomycin or vancomycin plus rifampin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Ann Intern Med 1991; 115:674–680.
  22. Fowler VG, Sakoulas G, McIntyre LM, et al. Persistent bacteremia due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection is associated with agr dysfunction and low-level in vitro resistance to thrombin-induced platelet microbicidal protein. J Infect Dis 2004; 190:1140–1149.
  23. Chang FY, Peacock JE, Musher DM, et al. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: recurrence and the impact of antibiotic treatment in a prospective multicenter study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2003; 82:333–339.
  24. Hidayat LK, Hsu DI, Quist R, Shriner KA, Wong-Beringer A. High-dose vancomycin therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: efficacy and toxicity. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:2138–2144.
  25. Wilson R, Hamburger M. Fifteen years’ experience with staphylococcus septicemia in a large city hospital; analysis of fifty-five cases in the Cincinnati General Hospital 1940 to 1954. Am J Med 1957; 22:437–457.
  26. Nolan CM, Beaty HN. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Current clinical patterns. Am J Med 1976; 60:495–500.
  27. Shah M, Watanakunakorn C. Changing patterns of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Am J Med Sci 1979; 278:115–121.
  28. Fowler VG, Miro JM, Hoen B, et al ICE Investigators. Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis: a consequence of medical progress. JAMA 2005; 293:3012–3021. Erratum in: JAMA 2005; 294:900.
  29. Von Reyn CF, Levy BS, Arbeit RD, Friedland G, Crumpacker CS. Infective endocarditis: an analysis based on strict case definition. Ann Intern Med 1981; 94:505–518.
  30. Durack DT, Lukes AS, Bright DK. New criteria for diagnosis of infective endocarditis: utilization of specific echocardiographic findings. Duke Endocarditis Service. Am J Med 1994; 96:200–209.
  31. Li JS, Sexton DJ, Mick N, et al. Proposed modifications to the Duke criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 30:633–638.
  32. Stratton JR, Werner JA, Pearlman AS, Janko CL, Kliman S, Jackson MC. Bacteremia and the heart. Serial echocardiographic findings in 80 patients with documented or suspected bacteremia. Am J Med 1982; 73:851–858.
  33. Bayer AS, Lam K, Ginzton L, Normal DC, Chiu CY, Ward JI. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clinical, serologic, and echocardiographic findings in patients with and without endocarditis. Arch Intern Med 1987; 147:457–462.
  34. Miro JM, Anguera I, Cabell CH, et al International Collaboration on Endocarditis Merged Database Study Group. Staphylococcus aureus native valve infective endocarditis: report of 566 episodes from the International Collaboration on Endocarditis Merged Database. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41:507–514. Erratum in: Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41:1075–1077.
  35. Jernigan JA, Farr BM. Short-course therapy of catheter-related Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 1993; 119:304–311.
  36. Baddour LM, Wilson WR, Bayer AS, et al. Infective endocarditis: diagnosis, antimicrobial therapy, and management of complications: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Committee on Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology, Stroke, and Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, American Heart Association: endorsed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Circulation 2005; 111:e394–e434. Erratum in: Circulation 2005; 112:2373. Circulation 2007; 115:e408.
  37. Korzeniowski O, Sande MA. Combination antimicrobial therapy for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in patients addicted to parenteral drugs and in nonaddicts: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med 1982; 97:496–503.
  38. Chambers HF, Korzeniowski OM, Sande MA. Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis: clinical manifestations in addicts and nonaddicts. Medicine (Baltimore) 1983; 62:170–177.
  39. Gentry CA, Rodvold KA, Novak RM, Hershow RC, Naderer OJ. Retrospective evaluation of therapies for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Pharmacotherapy 1997; 17:990–997.
  40. Small PM, Chambers HF. Vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in intravenous drug users. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34:1227–1231.
  41. Eliopoulos GM. Quinupristin-dalfopristin and linezolid: evidence and opinion. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36:473–481.
  42. Rybak MJ. Therapeutic options for Gram-positive infections. J Hosp Infect 2001; 49 suppl A:S25–S32.
  43. Micek ST. Alternatives to vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 45 suppl 3:S184–S190.
  44. Appelbaum PC, Jacobs MR. Recently approved and investigational antibiotics for treatment of severe infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria. Curr Opin Microbiol 2005; 8:510–517.
  45. Drew RH, Perfect JR, Srinath L, Kirkimilis E, Dowzicky M, Talbot GH for the Synercid Emergency-Use Study Group. Treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections with quinupristin-dalfopristin in patients intolerant of or failing prior therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother 2000; 46:775–784.
  46. Lamb HM, Figgitt DP, Faulds D. Quinupristin/dalfopristin: a review of its use in the management of serious gram-positive infections. Drugs 1999; 58:1061–1097.
  47. Shorr AF, Kunkel MJ, Kollef M. Linezolid versus vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: pooled analysis of randomized studies. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005; 56:923–929.
  48. Bishop E, Melvani S, Howden BP, Charles PG, Grayson ML. Good clinical outcomes but high rates of adverse reactions during linezolid therapy for serious infections: a proposed protocol for monitoring therapy in complex patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50:1599–1602.
  49. Boucher HW, Sakoulas G. Perspectives on daptomycin resistance, with emphasis on resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 45:601–608.
  50. Munoz-Price LS, Lolans K, Quinn JP. Four cases of invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections treated with tigecycline. Scand J Infect Dis 2006; 38:1081–1084.
  51. Raad I, Darouiche R, Vazquez J, et al. Efficacy and safety of weekly dalbavancin therapy for catheter-related bloodstream infection caused by gram-positive pathogens. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 40:374–80.
References
  1. 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; 39:309–371. Erratum in: Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39:1093.
  2. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System. Campaign to prevent antimicrobial resistance. www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/healthcare/ha/HASlideSet.ppt.
  3. Blot SI, Vandewoude KH, Hoste EA, Colardyn FA. Outcome and attributable mortality in critically ill patients with bacteremia involving methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162:2229–2235.
  4. Klevens RM, Morrison MA, Nadle J, et al; Active Bacterial Core surveillance (ABCs) MRSA Investigators. Invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in the United States. JAMA 2007; 298:1763–1771.
  5. Naimi TS, LeDell KH, Como-Sabetti K, et al. Comparison of community- and health care-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. JAMA 2003; 290:2976–2984.
  6. Miller LG, Perdreau-Remington F, Rieg G, et al. Necrotizing fasciitis caused by community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Los Angeles. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:1445–1453.
  7. Moran GJ, Krishnadasan A, Gorwitz RJ, et al EMERGEncy ID Net Study Group. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections among patients in the emergency department. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:666–674.
  8. Mishaan AM, Mason EO, Martinez-Aquilar G, et al. Emergence of a predominant clone of community-acquired Staphylococcus aureus among children in Houston, Texas. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005; 24:201–206.
  9. Miller LG, Perdreau-Remington F, Bayer AS, et al. Clinical and epidemiologic characteristics cannot distinguish community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection from methicillin-susceptible S. aureus infection: a prospective investigation. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44:471–482.
  10. Seybold U, Kourbatova EV, Johnson JG, et al. Emergence of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus USA300 genotype as a major cause of health care-associated blood stream infections. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42:647–656.
  11. Maree CL, Daum RS, Boyle-Vavra S, Matayoshi K, Miller LG. Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates causing healthcare-associated infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2007; 13:236–242.
  12. Liu C, Chambers HF. Staphylococcus aureus with heterogeneous resistance to vancomycin: epidemiology, clinical significance, and critical assessment of diagnostic methods. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47:3040–3045.
  13. Sieradzki K, Roberts RB, Haber SW, Tomasz A. The development of vancomycin resistance in a patient with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. N Engl J Med 1999; 340:517–523.
  14. Schwaber MJ, Wright SB, Carmeli Y, et al. Clinical implications of varying degrees of vancomycin susceptibility in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Emerg Infect Dis 2003; 9:657–664. Erratum in: Emerg Infect Dis 2004; 10:160.
  15. Sakoulas G, Moise-Broder PA, Schentag J, Forrest A, Moellering RC, Eliopoulos GM. Relationship of MIC and bactericidal activity to efficacy of vancomycin for treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42:2398–2402.
  16. Naimi TS, Anderson D, O’Boyle C, et al. Vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus with phenotypic susceptibility to methicillin in a patient with recurrent bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36:1609–1612.
  17. Moore MR, Perdreau-Remington F, Chambers HF. Vancomycin treatment failure associated with heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus in a patient with endocarditis and in the rabbit model of endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47:1262–1266.
  18. Charles PG, Ward PB, Johnson PD, Howden BP, Grayson ML. Clinical features associated with bacteremia due to heterogenous vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38:448–451.
  19. Howden BP, Ward PB, Charles PG, et al. Treatment outcomes for serious infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with reduced vancomycin susceptibility. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38:521–528.
  20. Fowler VG, Boucher HW, Corey GR, et al. S. aureus Endocarditis and Bacteremia Study Group. Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:653–665.
  21. Levine DP, Fromm BS, Reddy BR. Slow response to vancomycin or vancomycin plus rifampin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Ann Intern Med 1991; 115:674–680.
  22. Fowler VG, Sakoulas G, McIntyre LM, et al. Persistent bacteremia due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection is associated with agr dysfunction and low-level in vitro resistance to thrombin-induced platelet microbicidal protein. J Infect Dis 2004; 190:1140–1149.
  23. Chang FY, Peacock JE, Musher DM, et al. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: recurrence and the impact of antibiotic treatment in a prospective multicenter study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2003; 82:333–339.
  24. Hidayat LK, Hsu DI, Quist R, Shriner KA, Wong-Beringer A. High-dose vancomycin therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: efficacy and toxicity. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:2138–2144.
  25. Wilson R, Hamburger M. Fifteen years’ experience with staphylococcus septicemia in a large city hospital; analysis of fifty-five cases in the Cincinnati General Hospital 1940 to 1954. Am J Med 1957; 22:437–457.
  26. Nolan CM, Beaty HN. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Current clinical patterns. Am J Med 1976; 60:495–500.
  27. Shah M, Watanakunakorn C. Changing patterns of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Am J Med Sci 1979; 278:115–121.
  28. Fowler VG, Miro JM, Hoen B, et al ICE Investigators. Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis: a consequence of medical progress. JAMA 2005; 293:3012–3021. Erratum in: JAMA 2005; 294:900.
  29. Von Reyn CF, Levy BS, Arbeit RD, Friedland G, Crumpacker CS. Infective endocarditis: an analysis based on strict case definition. Ann Intern Med 1981; 94:505–518.
  30. Durack DT, Lukes AS, Bright DK. New criteria for diagnosis of infective endocarditis: utilization of specific echocardiographic findings. Duke Endocarditis Service. Am J Med 1994; 96:200–209.
  31. Li JS, Sexton DJ, Mick N, et al. Proposed modifications to the Duke criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 30:633–638.
  32. Stratton JR, Werner JA, Pearlman AS, Janko CL, Kliman S, Jackson MC. Bacteremia and the heart. Serial echocardiographic findings in 80 patients with documented or suspected bacteremia. Am J Med 1982; 73:851–858.
  33. Bayer AS, Lam K, Ginzton L, Normal DC, Chiu CY, Ward JI. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clinical, serologic, and echocardiographic findings in patients with and without endocarditis. Arch Intern Med 1987; 147:457–462.
  34. Miro JM, Anguera I, Cabell CH, et al International Collaboration on Endocarditis Merged Database Study Group. Staphylococcus aureus native valve infective endocarditis: report of 566 episodes from the International Collaboration on Endocarditis Merged Database. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41:507–514. Erratum in: Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41:1075–1077.
  35. Jernigan JA, Farr BM. Short-course therapy of catheter-related Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 1993; 119:304–311.
  36. Baddour LM, Wilson WR, Bayer AS, et al. Infective endocarditis: diagnosis, antimicrobial therapy, and management of complications: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Committee on Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology, Stroke, and Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, American Heart Association: endorsed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Circulation 2005; 111:e394–e434. Erratum in: Circulation 2005; 112:2373. Circulation 2007; 115:e408.
  37. Korzeniowski O, Sande MA. Combination antimicrobial therapy for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in patients addicted to parenteral drugs and in nonaddicts: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med 1982; 97:496–503.
  38. Chambers HF, Korzeniowski OM, Sande MA. Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis: clinical manifestations in addicts and nonaddicts. Medicine (Baltimore) 1983; 62:170–177.
  39. Gentry CA, Rodvold KA, Novak RM, Hershow RC, Naderer OJ. Retrospective evaluation of therapies for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Pharmacotherapy 1997; 17:990–997.
  40. Small PM, Chambers HF. Vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in intravenous drug users. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34:1227–1231.
  41. Eliopoulos GM. Quinupristin-dalfopristin and linezolid: evidence and opinion. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36:473–481.
  42. Rybak MJ. Therapeutic options for Gram-positive infections. J Hosp Infect 2001; 49 suppl A:S25–S32.
  43. Micek ST. Alternatives to vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 45 suppl 3:S184–S190.
  44. Appelbaum PC, Jacobs MR. Recently approved and investigational antibiotics for treatment of severe infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria. Curr Opin Microbiol 2005; 8:510–517.
  45. Drew RH, Perfect JR, Srinath L, Kirkimilis E, Dowzicky M, Talbot GH for the Synercid Emergency-Use Study Group. Treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections with quinupristin-dalfopristin in patients intolerant of or failing prior therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother 2000; 46:775–784.
  46. Lamb HM, Figgitt DP, Faulds D. Quinupristin/dalfopristin: a review of its use in the management of serious gram-positive infections. Drugs 1999; 58:1061–1097.
  47. Shorr AF, Kunkel MJ, Kollef M. Linezolid versus vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: pooled analysis of randomized studies. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005; 56:923–929.
  48. Bishop E, Melvani S, Howden BP, Charles PG, Grayson ML. Good clinical outcomes but high rates of adverse reactions during linezolid therapy for serious infections: a proposed protocol for monitoring therapy in complex patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50:1599–1602.
  49. Boucher HW, Sakoulas G. Perspectives on daptomycin resistance, with emphasis on resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 45:601–608.
  50. Munoz-Price LS, Lolans K, Quinn JP. Four cases of invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections treated with tigecycline. Scand J Infect Dis 2006; 38:1081–1084.
  51. Raad I, Darouiche R, Vazquez J, et al. Efficacy and safety of weekly dalbavancin therapy for catheter-related bloodstream infection caused by gram-positive pathogens. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 40:374–80.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 75(3)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 75(3)
Page Number
177-180, 183-186, 190-192
Page Number
177-180, 183-186, 190-192
Publications
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
Publications
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
Topics
Dermatology
Infectious Diseases
Hospital Medicine
Drug Therapy
Article Type
Article
Display Headline
Staphylococcus aureus: The new adventures of a legendary pathogen
Display Headline
Staphylococcus aureus: The new adventures of a legendary pathogen
Sections
Medical Grand Rounds
Inside the Article

KEY POINTS

  • Community-associated MRSA infections tend to affect patients younger than those who traditionally get hospital-associated MRSA infections. Most of these infections are of the skin and soft tissues, but this pathogen can also affect deeper tissues, and bacteremia and necrotizing pneumonia have been reported.
  • For patients with skin and soft-tissue infections due to MRSA, incision and drainage rather than antibiotic therapy is often the key intervention.
  • Vancomycin has been our stalwart for treating MRSA infections for more than 40 years, but it is not working as well as it used to, at least in certain situations. Vancomycin should not be used to treat infections due to methicillin-susceptible S aureus.
  • Needed are better understanding of the factors that influence persistent S aureus bacteremia, well-controlled, prospective studies, and continued antibiotic development.
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media