Glycopeptides, such as vancomycin and teicoplanin, are primarily used in the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections, such as cellulitis, endocarditis, meningitis, pneumonia, and septicemia, and are some of the most commonly prescribed parenteral antimicrobials. Parenteral glycopeptides are first-line therapy for severe MRSA infections; however, oral vancomycin is used as a first-line treatment of Clostridioides difficile infections. Also, we currently have the longer-acting lipoglycopeptides, such as dalbavancin, oritavancin, and telavancin to our armamentarium for the treatment of MRSA infections. Lastly, vancomycin is often used as an alternative treatment for patients with β-lactam hypersensitivity. Common adverse effects associated with glycopeptide use include nephrotoxicity, ototoxicity, and Redman Syndrome (RMS). The RMS is often mistaken for a true allergy; however, it is a histamine-related infusion reaction rather than a true immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated allergic reaction. Although hypersensitivity to glycopeptides is rare, both immune-mediated and delayed reactions have been reported in the literature. We describe the various types of glycopeptide hypersensitivity reactions associated with glycopeptides and lipoglycopeptides, including IgE-mediated reactions, RMS, and linear immunoglobulin A bullous dermatosis, as well as describe cross-reactivity with other glycopeptides.
Background At both of our institutions in 2018, the average vancomycin days of therapy per 1,000 patient days was 112. The purpose of this study was to examine a 72-hour time-out as an effective de-escalation tool by evaluating the indication and clinical appropriateness of the continuation of empiric vancomycin therapy. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed from January 2018 to October 2018 at two community hospitals. Patients > 18 years who received at least 3 days of empiric vancomycin therapy were included. Patients were excluded if immunocompromised, pregnant, on hemodialysis, received vancomycin for surgical prophylaxis, or expired within 72 hours of vancomycin initiation. Criteria for appropriate continuation of vancomycin at 3 days: positive culture for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), presence of infection with or without defined sources with systemic signs of infection (i.e. white blood cells >12,000 cells/L or < 5,000 cells/L and/or elevated temperature ≥ 37.5°C), or pending wound/sputum cultures after vancomycin initiation. Results A total of 160 adult patients initiated on vancomycin were analyzed; 118 of 160 (74%) met appropriate criteria. The most common indications for vancomycin were: skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) 82 patients (51%); pneumonia 37 patients (23%); and positive blood culture 20 patients (13%). Risk factors for MRSA were similar between both groups. Forty-four (28%) patients had cultures pending and 23 patients (14%) had a known non-MRSA pathogen at time of assessment. American Indian race (OR 3.01 (1.21, 7.53) p-value= 0.0174) and SSTI indication (OR 2.87 (1.24, 6.80) p-value= 0.0147) were associated with not meeting appropriate criteria. Conclusion Approximately 25% of patients receiving empiric vancomycin therapy did not meet clinical criteria for continuation beyond 72 hours. The indication most commonly associated with continued vancomycin utilization was SSTI. These results identified indications in which empiric vancomycin prescribing can be optimized, and a 72-hour antibiotic time-out may be warranted as a stewardship intervention. Timely culture obtainment and intervention when another pathogen is identified are possible strategies to ensure success of 72-hour time-out. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures
Background Carbapenem restriction criteria (CRC) were developed by our health system to conserve the prescribing of these broad-spectrum agents. The purpose of this study was to compare pre and post EMR implementation of adherence to the system-approved CRC and if there was an association with decreased utilization of carbapenems. Methods A retrospective cohort review from January 2018 to June 2020 was performed via the Cerner EMR at 3 community hospitals in Arizona (AZ) and California (CA) to determine if CRC was appropriate at time of carbapenem initiation. Admitted patients > 18 years prescribed meropenem or ertapenem and received at least one dose were included. Health System approved CRC are shown in Table 2. Results A total of 160 patients were analyzed, including 60 pre-EMR CRC intervention and 100 post intervention. Forty-five patients (28%) had a documented history of ESBL infection as shown in Table 1. Figure 1 shows carbapenem utilization over the study period. An interrupted time series analysis was performed for both AZ and CA. After correcting for pre-intervention trends, AZ days of therapy (DOT) decreased by 6.2 DOT per 1000 patient days within 1 month post intervention (23%, p< 0.0001); the model predicted a further drop of 0.6 DOT per 1000 patient days per month over the 6 months post intervention. The CA DOT decreased by 1.2 DOT per 1000 patient days 1 month post intervention (17%, p= 0.28), with a predicted further drop of 0.28 DOT per 1000 patient days per month over the 6-month period post intervention. Post implementation retrospective review as described in Table 2 aligned with EMR restriction criteria selection for 68% of patients; interfacility differences occurred with 96% of CA reviews supported by criteria and 59% of AZ reviews supported by criteria (p= 0.0025). Conclusion This analysis supports that implementation of an EMR tool is an effective intervention to decrease unnecessary carbapenem use at the time of prescribing. The ESBL rate was similar pre and post intervention which may indicate that decreases in DOT were not due to a difference in MDRO rate. This study also highlights the different baseline antibiotic prescribing practices that may exist between facilities. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.