The Efficacy and Safety of Arbekacin and Vancomycin for the Treatment in Skin and Soft Tissue MRSA Infection: Preliminary Study
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Background: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has become a one of the most important causes of nosocomial infections, and use of vancomycin for the treatment of MRSA infection has increased. Unfortunately, vancomycin-resistant enterococcus have been reported, as well as vancomycin-resistant S. aureus . Arbekacin is an antibacterial agent and belongs to the aminoglycoside family of antibiotics. It was introduced to treat MRSA infection. We studied the clinical and bacteriological efficacy and safety of arbekacin compared to vancomycin in the treatment of infections caused by MRSA. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective case-control study of patients who were admitted to tertiary Hospital from January 1st, 2009 to December 31st, 2010, and received the antibiotics arbekacin or vancomycin. All the skin and soft tissue MRSA infected patients who received arbekacin or vancomycin were enrolled during the study period. The bacteriological efficacy response (BER) was classified with improved and failure. The improved BER was defined as no growth of MRSA, where failure was defined as growth of MRSA, culture at the end of therapy or during treatment. Clinical efficacy response (CER) was classified as improved and failure. Improved CER was defined as resolution or reduction of the majority of signs and symptoms related to the original infection. Failure was defined as no resolution and no reduction of majority of the signs and symptoms, or worsening of one or more signs and symptoms, or new symptoms or signs associated with the original infection or a new infection Results: Totally, 122 patients (63/99 in arbekacin, 59/168 in vancomycin group) with skin and soft tissue infection who recieved arbekacin or vancomcyin at least 4 days were enrolled and analysed. The bacteriological efficacy response [improved, arbekacin vs vancomycin; 73.0% (46/63), 95% confidence interval (CI) 60.3 to 83.4% vs 83.1% (49/59), 95% CI 71.0 to 91.6%] and clinical efficacy response [improved, arbekacin vs vancomycin; 67.2% (41/61), 95% CI 52.0 to 76.7 % vs 78.0% (46/59), 95%CI 65.3 to 87.7%] were similar between the two groups (P=0.264, 0.265). The complication rate was significantly higher in the vancomycin group [29/59(49.2%), 95% CI 35.9 to 62.5%] than arbekacin [10/63(15.9%), 95% CI 8.4 to 29.0%] (P <0.001). Conclusions: Arbekacin could be considered as an alternative antibiotics for vancomycin in skin and soft tissue infection with MRSA. However, further prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm this finding.
Abstract
Background: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has become a one of the most important causes of nosocomial infections, and use of vancomycin for the treatment of MRSA infection has increased. Unfortunately, vancomycin-resistant enterococcus have been reported, as well as vancomycin-resistant S. aureus . Arbekacin is an antibacterial agent and belongs to the aminoglycoside family of antibiotics. It was introduced to treat MRSA infection. We studied the clinical and bacteriological efficacy and safety of arbekacin compared to vancomycin in the treatment of infections caused by MRSA. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective case-control study of patients who were admitted to tertiary Hospital from January 1st, 2009 to December 31st, 2010, and received the antibiotics arbekacin or vancomycin. All the skin and soft tissue MRSA infected patients who received arbekacin or vancomycin were enrolled during the study period. The bacteriological efficacy response (BER) was classified with improved and failure. The improved BER was defined as no growth of MRSA, where failure was defined as growth of MRSA, culture at the end of therapy or during treatment. Clinical efficacy response (CER) was classified as improved and failure. Improved CER was defined as resolution or reduction of the majority of signs and symptoms related to the original infection. Failure was defined as no resolution and no reduction of majority of the signs and symptoms, or worsening of one or more signs and symptoms, or new symptoms or signs associated with the original infection or a new infection Results: Totally, 122 patients (63/99 in arbekacin, 59/168 in vancomycin group) with skin and soft tissue infection who recieved arbekacin or vancomcyin at least 4 days were enrolled and analysed. The bacteriological efficacy response [improved, arbekacin vs vancomycin; 73.0% (46/63), 95% confidence interval (CI) 60.3 to 83.4% vs 83.1% (49/59), 95% CI 71.0 to 91.6%] and clinical efficacy response [improved, arbekacin vs vancomycin; 67.2% (41/61), 95% CI 52.0 to 76.7 % vs 78.0% (46/59), 95%CI 65.3 to 87.7%] were similar between the two groups (P=0.264, 0.265). The complication rate was significantly higher in the vancomycin group [29/59(49.2%), 95% CI 35.9 to 62.5%] than arbekacin [10/63(15.9%), 95% CI 8.4 to 29.0%] (P <0.001). Conclusions: Arbekacin could be considered as an alternative antibiotics for vancomycin in skin and soft tissue infection with MRSA. However, further prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm this finding.
참고문헌 (26)
- Nichols RL, "Clinical presentations of softtissueinfections and surgical site infections", Clin Infect Dis, 33(2), pp.84~93 (2001)
- Wilson SE, "Clinical trial results with linezolid, an oxazolidinone,in the treatment of soft tissue and postoperativegram-positive infections", Surg Infect, 2, pp.25~35 (2001)
- Nichols RL, "Optimal treatment of complicated skin andskin structure infections", J Antimicrob Chemother, 44(A), pp.19~23 (1999)
- Kirby JT, "Geographic variations in garenoxacin (BMS284756) activitytested against pathogens associated with skin and softtissue infections: report from the SENTRY AntimicrobialSurveillance Program (2000)", Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis, 43, pp.303~309 (2000)
- Moet GJ, "Contemporary causes of skin and soft tissue infections inNorth America, Latin America, and Europe: report from theSENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (1998-2004)", Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis, 57, pp.7~13 (2007)
- 정경태, "Nationwide Surveillance Study of Vancomycin-Intermediate Staphylococcus aureus Strains in Korean Hospitals from 2001 to 2006", Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 20(3), pp.637~642 (2010), 한국미생물·생명공학회
- 이경원, "Increase of Ceftazidime- and Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae and Imipenem-Resistant Acinetobacter spp. in Korea: Analysis of KONSAR Study Data from 2005 and 2007", Yonsei Medical Journal, 51(6), pp.901~911 (2010), 연세대학교의과대학
- Hiramatsu K, "Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus clinicalstrain with reduced vancomycin susceptibility", J AntimicrobChemother, 40, pp.135~136 (1997)
- Walsh TR, "prevalence and mechanisms ofvancomycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus", AnnuRev Microbiol, 56, pp.657~675 (2002)
- Watanabe T, "Comparativestudies of the bactericidal, morphological and post-antibioticeffects of arbekacin and vancomycin against methicillinresistantStaphylococcus aureus", J Antimicrob Chemother, 39, pp.471~476 (1997)
- 이종한, "Staphylococcus 균종과 그람음성 간균에 대한 Arbekacin의 시험관내 항균력", Annals of Laboratory Medicine, 27(4), pp.292~297 (2007), 대한진단검사의학회
- Wie SH, "Antimicrobialactivities of arbekacin against clinical isolates of Staphylococcusaureus and coagulase-negative Staphylococcusspecies", Korean J Infect Dis, 33, pp.254~260 (2001)
- 김태형, "메티실린 내성 포도구균(MRSA) 감염에 대한 Arbekacin의임상적 효과 및 안전성", 대한내과학회지, 65(2), pp.239~244 (2003), 대한내과학회
- Manjunath G, "Prediction equationsto estimate glomerular filtration rate: an update", Curr OpinNephrol Hypertens, 10, pp.785~792 (2001)
- Hwang JH, "Theusefulness of arbekacin compared to vancomycin", Eur JClin Microbiol Infect Dis, 31, pp.1663~1666 (2012)
- Holmberg SD, "Health and economicimpacts of antimicrobial resistance", Rev Infect Dis, 9, pp.1065~1078 (1987)
- Wang G, "Increased vancomycinMICs for Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolatesfrom a university hospital during a 5-year period", J Clin Microbiol, 44, pp.3883~3886 (2006)
- Sievert DM, "Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the United States, 2002-2006", Clin Infect Dis, 46, pp.668~674 (2008)
- Sato R, "Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship of arbekacinfor treatment of patients infected with methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus", Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 50, pp.3763~3769 (2006)
- Lee DG, "Efficacies of vancomycin, arbekacin, andgentamicin alone or in combination against methicillinresistantStaphylococcus aureus in an in vitro infectiveendocarditis model", Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 47, pp.3768~3773 (2003)
- Hamilton-Miller JM, "Activity of the semi-synthetickanamycin B derivative, arbekacin against methicillinresistantStaphylococcus aureus", J Antimicrob Chemother, 35, pp.865~868 (1995)
- Suzuki K, "Efficacy and safety of arbekacin for staphylococcal infection in the NICU", Pediatr Int, 45, pp.301~306 (2003)
- Kobayashi Y, "Arbekacin", Int J AntimicrobAgents, 5, pp.227~230 (1995)
- Lodise TP, "Relationship between initial vancomycin concentration-time profile and nephrotoxicity among hospitalizedpatients", Clin Infect Dis, 49, pp.507~514 (2009)
- Ryu JS, "Efficacy of teicoplaninin gram-positive bacterial infection", Korean J InfectDis, 24, pp.183~189 (1992)
- Liu C, "Clinical practice guidelines bythe infectious diseases society of america for the treatmentof methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infectionsin adults and children: executive summary", Clin Infect Dis, 52, pp.285~292 (2011)