Translate

lunes, 14 de junio de 2010

Una bacteria que nos hace inteligentes?


26 de mayo de 2010, 04:10 PM
Los animales que tuvieron contacto con la bacteria Mycobacterium vaccae mejoraron su capacidad para aprender nuevas tareas y mejoraron su estado de ánimo, afirmaron científicos estadounidenses.
Esta bacteria es terrestre y "es probable que la gente la ingiera o respire cuando pasa algún tiempo conviviendo con la naturaleza”, afirma la doctora Dorothy Matthews, profesora de The Sage Colleges en Troy, Nueva York, quien dirigió el estudio.
EXPERIMENTOS
Según información de BBC Mundo, la bacteria M. vaccae logra estimular el crecimiento de algunas neuronas provocando una mejora en los niveles de serotonina y una reducción de la ansiedad. La serotonina podría tener un papel en el aprendizaje y por consiguiente, mejoras en la inteligencia.
Los científicos decidieron realizar experimentos con ratones para comprobar estas hipótesis. El primero consistía en separar dos grupos de ratones, uno había ingerido la bacteria viva y el otro no. Luego los hacían pasar por el laberinto. “Encontramos que los ratones alimentados con M. vaccae viva navegaron por el laberinto dos veces más rápido y con menos ansiedad que los ratones del otro grupo”, dice la investigadora.
En el segundo experimento, se retiró la bacteria de su dieta. Cuando pasaron por el laberinto, se desenvolvieron de forma más lenta que cuando la habían ingerido, pero mucho más rápido que el grupo de ratones que no habían tenido contacto con el microbio.
EN CONVIVENCIA CON LAS BACTERIAS
“Los humanos somos un “hotel microbiano” ya que contamos con unos 10 microbios por cada célula que tenemos en nuestro cuerpo, o sea compartimos nuestro organismo con trillones de microbios”, dice la científica.
La investigadora cree que aunque el nuevo estudio fue llevado a cabo en ratones, podría especularse que pasar tiempo en el exterior donde está presente la M. vaccae podría tener también un impacto positivo en humanos.
“Así que el mensaje para la gente es salga al exterior, interactúe con la tierra, porque quizás esto lo podrá beneficiar de formas que nunca se imaginó”, afirma la científica.

miércoles, 12 de mayo de 2010

Proton Pump Inhibitor Use Linked to Clostridium Difficile Infection

Laurie Barclay, MD

May 11, 2010 — Use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is linked to Clostridium difficile infection, according to the results of 2 studies reported in the May 10 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine. The articles describing this prospective analysis are part of a series about PPIs in the Archives of Internal Medicine entitled "Less Is More."
First Study: Howell and Colleagues
"The incidence and severity of Clostridium difficile infections are increasing," write Michael D. Howell, MD, MPH, and colleagues from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts. "Acid-suppressive therapy has been suggested as a risk factor for C difficile, but this remains controversial."
In this pharmacoepidemiologic cohort study, the investigators conducted a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from 101,796 patients who were discharged from a tertiary care medical center during a 5-year period. Acid suppression treatment was the primary exposure of interest, classified by intensity (no acid suppression, histamine2-receptor antagonist [H2RA] treatment, daily PPI use, and PPI use more often than daily).
The risk for nosocomial C difficile infection increased with increasing level of acid suppression. This risk was 0.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21% - 0.31%) in patients not receiving acid suppressive treatment, 0.6% (95% CI, 0.49% - 0.79%) in those receiving H2RA treatment, 0.9% (95% CI, 0.80% - 0.98%) in those using PPIs daily, and 1.4% (95% CI, 1.15% - 1.71%) in patients using PPIs more often than daily.
The association persisted after adjustment for comorbid conditions, age, antibiotics, and propensity score–based likelihood of receiving no acid suppression treatment. The odds ratio was 1 for no acid suppression (reference), 1.53 for H2RA treatment (95% CI, 1.12 - 2.10), 1.74 for daily PPI use (95% CI, 1.39 - 2.18), and 2.36 for more frequent PPI use (95% CI, 1.79 - 3.11). A matched cohort analysis and nested case-control techniques resulted in similar estimates.
"Increasing levels of pharmacologic acid suppression are associated with increased risks of nosocomial C difficile infection," the study authors write. "This evidence of a dose-response effect provides further support for the potentially causal nature of iatrogenic acid suppression in the development of nosocomial C difficile infection."
Limitations of this study include observational design, possible residual confounding or selection bias, and lack of data about use of acid suppressive medications or antibiotics before admission.
Second Study: Linsky and Colleagues
The second study, by Amy Linsky, MD, from Boston Medical Center in Massachusetts, and colleagues, was a retrospective cohort study using administrative databases of the New England Veterans Healthcare System. From October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2008, there were 1166 inpatients and outpatients treated with metronidazole or vancomycin hydrochloride for incident C difficile infection.
Of these patients, 527 (45.2%) were given oral PPIs within 14 days of diagnosis, and 639 (54.8%) were not. The investigators measured the hazard ratio (HR) for recurrent C difficile infection, which was defined as a positive toxin result in the 15- to 90-day period after incident C difficile infection.
Compared with patients not using PPIs, those using them were more likely to have recurrent C difficile infection (25.2% vs 18.5%), with an adjusted HR of recurrent C difficile infection of 1.42 (95% CI, 1.11 - 1.82), based on Cox proportional survival methods.
Among patients exposed to PPIs, risks for recurrent C difficile infection were highest among those older than 80 years (HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.15 - 3.01) and among those given antibiotics not targeting C difficile during follow-up (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.11 - 1.64).
"...PPI use during incident CDI [C difficile infection] treatment was associated with a 42% increased risk of recurrence," the study authors write. "Our findings warrant further studies to examine this association and careful consideration of the indications for prescribing PPIs during treatment of CDI."
Limitations of this study include use of observational databases, possible misclassification of exposure, and potential misclassifications of a positive test result for C difficile toxin alone as a clinically relevant recurrence.
Editorial: Risk Increase Not Modest
In an accompanying editorial, Mitchell H. Katz, MD, from the San Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco, California, describes these studies as well as the others described in the series, "Less Is More."
"The increases in the risk of Clostridium difficile infection with PPIs are not at all modest, reflecting the likely importance of gastric acid in protecting against infection from this pathogen," Dr. Katz writes.
"A pharmacoepidemiologic study of more than 1,000,000 hospital discharges in this issue of the Archives demonstrates a dose-response curve between level of acid suppression and C difficile infection.... Another article in this issue extends this association by demonstrating that the use of PPIs during treatment for C difficile infection was associated with a 42% increase in the rate of C difficile recurrence."
The authors of the study by Howell and colleagues have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study by Linsky and colleagues was supported by the resources of the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program and using the facilities of the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System. The authors of the study by Linsky and colleagues have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Dr. Katz is an independent consultant for Health Management Associates.
Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:747-748, 772-778, 784

lunes, 10 de mayo de 2010

Carbapenemases: A Brief Review for Pediatric Infectious Disease Specialists

Overturf, Gary D. MD
Authors and Disclosures
Posted: 01/28/2010; Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010;29(1):68-70. © 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins


Abstract and Introduction
Introduction
Carbapenems are increasingly utilized against a variety of infections because of the emergence of bacteria producing extended spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBL) in the Enterobacteriaceae, particularly Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and other enteric bacteria[1,2] Carbapenems (imipenem, meropenem, ertapenem, and doripenem) are often the drugs of last resort for ESBL producing organisms which are increasingly also resistant to quinolones, aminoglycosides, trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole and other antibiotics, thereby meeting the definition of multiply drug resistant organisms.[3] In addition, the carbapenems are often relied upon for uniquely resistant isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. However, the emergence and proliferation of bacteria producing carbapenemases are increasingly being seen in clinical practice, jeopardizing the effective use of carbapenems generating a whole new class of Gram negative "superbugs."
Resistance to carbapenems may not always due to the production of carbapenemases[4] Some resistance among Enterobacteriaceae are caused by the expression of AmpC type enzymes when combined with a limitation to cellular penetration via a porin loss, then carbapenem resistance can occur. In addition, other "conventional" beta-lactamases such as the SHV class of ESBLs with porin loss can also produce a phenotype of carbapenem resistance.[5] However, this discussion will focus on the emerging issue of carbapenemases in clinical isolates and the hazards they pose in laboratory detection and effective clinical treatment of infections.

Carbapenemases
Table 1 outlines the common carbapenemases produced by pathogenic bacteria. These enzymes fall into 3 of the Ambler classes of beta-lactamases, A, B, and D classes and include the Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases (KPC), 4 serine carbapenemases (SME, NMC-A, IMI, and rare GES) and several metallo-beta-lactamases (IMI, VIM).[6,7] A last group of enzymes, OXA, are only weakly active against carbapenems and are largely confined to Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter species, and only rarely in Enterobacteriaceae.[8] It is unknown whether OXA carbapenemases, which are confined to bacterial chromosomes and not present on mobile elements, will emerge as significant causes of resistance in bacteria other than Acinetobacter.
KPC Carbapenemases
These agents are the most commonly occurring class A carbapenemases and yet have been found only recently.[9] Although KPC 1–8 have been described, types 1 and 2 have been subsequently been found to be identical; the rest are variants of the bla KPC genes on conjugative plasmids that often carry other resistance markers such as fluoroquinolone and aminoglycoside resistance. Interspecies transfers of these enzymes have been suggested in studies in some health care facilities. KPC enzymes when present are generally broadly active against all beta-lactams despite the fact that they may test susceptible to some carbapenems (particularly imipenem and meropenem) as well as to cefepime and cephamycins, particularly when using agar dilution methods such as disk testing and Etest.[7] Some automated systems have been associated with this difficulty as well. However, ertapenem resistance generally has been found to be the single most sensitive indicator of carbapenem resistance with KPCs, but when dilution tests are performed, the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of imipenem and meropenem will be found to be elevated, to at least the "intermediate" range of MIC.
KPC enzymes have been most often in K. pneumoniae, but like ESBLs these enzymes are no longer confined to this organism, and KPCs have been found in Klebsiella oxytoca, Salmonella enterica, Citrobacter freundii, Enterobacter aerogenes, Enterobacter Cloacae, and Serratia marcescens.[7] In addition, they have been found in rare isolates of Ps. aeruginosa in Puerto Rico and Colombia. The first KPC isolates (K. pneumoniae) occurred in the United States in North Carolina and are now concentrated in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, but now rarely in Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, and California, as well as Missouri, Arkansas, Virginia, and Alabama.[7,10] However, KPCs are now widely distributed worldwide with reports in Israel, China, Greece, South America and India.[6,7]
Serine Carbapenemases
Class A serine carbapenemases are chromosomal enzymes including SME, IMI and NMC-A and plasmid borne enzymes, the GES beta-lactamases.[6,11] Imipenem and cefoxitin induce chromosomal carbapenemases; confering a unique susceptibility profile with resistance to carbapenems, penicillins, and aztreonam but susceptibility to extended spectrum cephalosporins. The activity of these enzymes is susceptible to inhibition by clavulanate, but not sulbactam. The presence of these genetic elements on chromosomes and not on mobile genetic elements, is cited as the reason that intraspecies spread has been rare. These SME group are confined in S. marcescens and the GES enzymes are also rare, but are found as cassettes within integrons on plasmids mostly in Ps. aeruginosa.
Class B Metallo-β-lactamases
Class B Metallo-β-lactamases (MBL) carbapenemases are of the Ambler class B and have a wide spectrum of activity against carbapenems, penicillins and extended spectrum cephalosporins but not aztreonam.[6,7] These enzymes require zinc as a cofactor and they are inhibited by EDTA, a chelator of divalent cations. These enzymes occur in multiple genera of Gram negative bacteria including Enterobacteriaceae as well as non-fermenters. The enzymes are found world wide and like KPCs have spread rapidly, presenting a serious threat because of the their prolific dissemination.[12] The VIM and IMP type of MBLs are the most common. The VIM MBL consist of a family of 14 enzymes, but VIM-2 predominates in most outbreaks
Laboratory Detection of Carbapenemases
Detection of carbapenemase activity in Enterobacteriaceae is a challenge particularly for the most frequent enzymes of the MBL and KPC type (Table 2). These enzymes do not always produce resistant breakpoints for carbapenems, using standardized susceptibility testing methods. Effective treatment and infection control depend upon the rapid and efficient identification of these isolates. Unfortunately, carbapenem susceptibility by reference MIC methods, such as the broth microdilution and agar dilution, are more sensitive than disk diffusion, Etest, and many automated systems.[7] However, although Enterobacteriaceae with KPC generally have higher MICs they may not test into the defined resistant range. MICs of ≥1.0 to 2.0 μ/mL against ertapenem, meropenem, or imipenem has been found to be an effective screen of the likely presence of KPCs, whereas MBLs produce MICs ≥2.0 μg/mL against imipenem or meropenem. Therefore recommendations for testing have suggested that most MBL producers will have MIC for imipenem and meropenem greater than 2.0 μg/mL and have suggested using this as a cutoff or cutoff ranging from 1 to 4 μg/mL as a "screening" dilution for possible carbapenemase production.[13] As mentioned previously still others suggest ertapenem resistance as the most sensitive screen with MICs of >1 to 2 μg/mL as the most accurate way to detect KPC and MBL carbapenemases.
Once a screen criteria, such as a resistant MIC cutoff for ertapenem or imipenem has been selected, there are a number of phenotypic tests which have been developed to detect carbapenemases in Gram negative bacteria. The Modified Hodge Test is a relatively easily performed test on a single agar plate to detect both KPC and MBL enzymes, but it cannot differentiate between them.[14] A standardized inoculum of a lawn of a reference E. coli is utilized against carbapenem disks on the isolates to be tested. Mutiple isolates can be tested on a single agar and multiple antibiotics and it relatively easy to read, but is somewhat subjective. Several versions of an EDTA disk test[7] have been used for detections for MBL carbapenemases including one which utilizes a double sided Etest with imipenem vs. imipenem with EDTA,[15] a ratio of ≥8 between the MIC of the non-EDTA enhanced versus the EDTA enhanced imipenem MIC indicates the presence of a MBL beta-lactamase.
Summary
Carbapenem resistance constitutes a serious threat to the antibiotics available to deal with increasing resistance in Gram negative pathogens infecting neonates, infants, and compromised children with nosocomial infection caused by carbapenemase and ESBL producing bacteria. The dissemination in hospitals and the location of these enzymes on highly mobile genetic elements has contributed to their rapid spread and the frequent cotransfer of multiple other antibiotic resistance factors. The ability to limit the spread of these pathogens will require effective laboratory screening methods to rapidly identify patients infected with these organisms. Although current criteria to screen for these enzymes and methods for confirmation are useful, laboratories will need new tools, perhaps molecular techniques, to make the process rapid and accurate.

¿Promover la resistencia?

JOEL LEXCHIN*

* El Dr. Joel Lexchin es médico de urgencia en Toronto, Canadá, y secretario-tesorero del Grupo Médico de Presión para una Comercialización Apropiada. Es también coautor de Drugs of Choice: A Formulary for General Practice.

El número de otoño de 1996 de Health Horizons, revista de la Federación Internacional de la Industria del Medicamento, publicaba un artículo de fondo de dos páginas titulado International Mobilization Against New and Resistant Diseases (Movilización internacional contra las enfermedades nuevas y resistentes). En este artículo se destacaban los esfuerzos realizados por las organizaciones internacionales y la industria farmacéutica para afrontar la amenaza de la creciente resistencia a los antibióticos. El artículo no mencionaba que una parte de la industria puede también intervenir en la promoción de la resistencia bacteriana a los medicamentos actualmente disponibles.
Según una empresa, la ciprofloxacina es una «opción apropiada para sus pacientes [de los médicos] expuestos». Éste era el mensaje de un anuncio que apareció en el número del 3 de octubre de 2000 del Canadian Medical Association Journal. ¿«Apropiada» para quién? Para responder a esa pregunta, los lectores tenían que observar un pequeño asterisco después de la palabra «riesgo» y después mirar en el pie de la página, en donde en letras pequeñas se hallaba la definición. ¿«Apropiada» para qué? Una vez más la respuesta se hallaba en letras pequeñas; la ciprofloxacina debe utilizarse en infecciones de las vías respiratorias «amenazantes». Nunca se definía la palabra amenazante. En el mismo anuncio, la empresa afirmaba que apoyaba el uso apropiado de los antibióticos.
Los anuncios que no dan una información clara o que la dan en letra tan pequeña que requiere el empleo de una lupa, no apoyan el uso apropiado de los medicamentos. El mensaje contenido en el anuncio de la ciprofloxacina es que los médicos deben sentirse libres de utilizar este medicamento como agente de primera línea siempre que estén preocupados por sus pacientes o piensen que sucede algo extraño. La ciprofloxacina es una primera opción apropiada para un número limitado de problemas, pero no para la mayoría de las infecciones de las vías respiratorias. El Programa australiano de prestaciones farmacéuticas limita el uso de este antibiótico en esas situaciones y lo mismo es cierto en algunas provincias canadienses.
Otro reciente anuncio aparecido en una revista canadiense, esta vez de la azitromicina, presentaba un joven lanzador de béisbol, con su cara resuelta, dispuesto a tirar la pelota con el mensaje «fuerte contra la otitis aguda del oído medio, fácil en los niños». En este caso, el mensaje era que los médicos y sus pequeños pacientes necesitan un medicamento potente para tratar la otitis del oído medio y que la azitromicina cubre esa necesidad. Sin embargo, esto no refleja el creciente consenso en el sentido de que la otitis del oído medio, por lo menos en los niños mayores de dos años, no debe tratarse con antibióticos a no ser que el niño no mejore en 48 horas.
Lo que hacen estos anuncios es promover, como opciones de primera línea, el empleo de antibióticos que deben guardarse en reserva y fomentar el uso de antibióticos para enfermedades que probablemente se resolverán sin ninguna intervención. Ambas situaciones constituyen un uso inadecuado de los antibióticos y tienen claramente la posibilidad de conducir a mayor resistencia.
La otra característica común de estos anuncios es que se refieren a antibióticos nuevos y costosos; son los medicamentos que pueden producir altos beneficios para las empresas si se obtiene un elevado volumen de ventas. Lo que los médicos no ven es la publicidad a favor de antibióticos más antiguos y menos costosos, aunque estos medicamentos son los más adecuados. ¿Cuándo fue la última vez en que apareció un anuncio a favor de la penicilina para la faringitis estreptocócica o de la trimetoprima para una infección de las vías urinarias?
Esa situación no está limitada al Canadá e incluso es peor en otras partes del mundo. El Grupo Médico de Presión para una Comercialización Apropiada (MaLAM) ha recibido varios ejemplares de promoción inadecuada de antibióticos en países en desarrollo. Los anuncios aparecidos en 1994 y 1995 en las Filipinas defendían el uso de la lincomicina para las amigdalitis/faringitis y de la clindamicina en las infecciones de las vías respiratorias altas. La causa más probable de tales enfermedades es una infección vírica, en la que los antibióticos son inútiles. Una vez más se anuncian los antibióticos para trastornos que no lo requieren.
En 1997, la publicidad aparecida en la India a favor de la claritromicina utilizaba las palabras «suspensión pediátrica... rapidez,... fuerza,...espectro,...inocuidad» sin ninguna matización. En opinión de MaLAM, habría sido razonable que los lectores de este anuncio interpretaran esas palabras en el sentido de que la claritromicina tiene ventajas clínicamente importantes sobre otros antimicrobianos y que es así el antibiótico de primera opción para las infecciones corrientes de la infancia. Como señala MaLAM, fuentes autorizadas no recomiendan la claritromicina como tratamiento de elección para la otitis media, la faringitis o la sinusitis en los niños. Los paralelos con el ejemplo canadiense de publicidad de la ciprofloxacina son evidentes; los anuncios fomentan el uso excesivo de medicamentos de segunda línea.
Un par de estudios estadounidenses, separados por casi un cuarto de siglo, señalan que la preocupación por la promoción que conduce al mal uso de los antibióticos no es un simple problema teórico. El primero de ellos, publicado a principios del decenio de 1970, mostró que el uso más apropiado del antibiótico cloranfenicol guardaba relación con el uso infrecuente de anuncios de revistas para conocer la utilidad de nuevos medicamentos, y con la desaprobación de los detallistas como fuentes de información de prescripción para los nuevos medicamentos.1 El segundo estudio apareció en 1996. En este caso, los investigadores presentaron un grupo de médicos de atención primaria en tres situaciones, dos de las cuales se referían a enfermedades infecciosas, pidiéndoles que eligieran entre cuatro opciones terapéuticas de igual eficacia, pero de costos muy distintos. Cuanto mayor credibilidad otorgaban los médicos a la información procedente de representantes de ventas, mayor era el costo de la prescripción del médico.2
En muchos casos, los médicos de países en desarrollo carecen de fuentes de información objetivas sobre los antibióticos. Esos médicos confían totalmente en el material de promoción de las empresas, con todos los sesgos que ello supone. A mediados del decenio de 1980, los médicos en ejercicio en un centro de salud periférico en Sri Lanka, en donde eran corrientes la politerapéutica, el tratamiento con múltiples antibióticos y el uso de mezclas de eficacia sin demostrar, dependían totalmente de la información procedente de las empresas farmacéuticas, que veían de modo positivo.3
Las empresas farmacéuticas se están apresurando ahora para obtener antibióticos nuevos y más potentes que combatan la farmacorresistencia, y debemos ver con agrado esos medicamentos. Ahora bien, si la industria es sincera en el deseo de hacer algo acerca de la resistencia, debe comenzar a vigilar más estrechamente sus prácticas de promoción.
Referencias
1. Becker MH, Stolley PD, Lasagna L, McEvilla JD, Sloane LM. Differential education concerning therapeutics and resultant physician prescribing patterns. Journal of Medical Education 1972; 47:118-27.
2. Caudill TS, Johnson MS, Rich EC, McKinney WP. Physicians, pharmaceutical sales representatives, and the cost of prescribing. Archives of Family Medicine 1996; 5:201-6.
3. Tomson G, Angunawela I. Patients, doctors and their drugs: a study at four levels of health care in an area of Sri Lanka. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1990; 39:463-7.

Characterization of Small ColE-Like Plasmids Mediating Widespread Dissemination of the qnrB19 Gene in Commensal Enterobacteria

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, February 2010, p. 678-682, Vol. 54, No. 2
Copyright © 2010, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Lucia Pallecchi,1 Eleonora Riccobono,1 Samanta Sennati,1 Antonia Mantella,2 Filippo Bartalesi,2 Christian Trigoso,3 Eduardo Gotuzzo,4 Alessandro Bartoloni,2 and Gian Maria Rossolini1,5*

Dipartimento di Biologia Molecolare, Sezione di Microbiologia, Università di Siena,1 Dipartimento dei Servizi, U. O. Microbiologia e Virologia, Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Senese, Siena, Italy,5 Dipartimento Area Critica Medico Chirurgica, Clinica Malattie Infettive, Università di Firenze, Florence, Italy,2 Instituto Nacional de Laboratorios de Salud INLASA, La Paz, Bolivia,3 Instituto de Medicina Tropical Alexander von Humboldt, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru4

Received 16 August 2009/ Returned for modification 9 November 2009/ Accepted 1 December 2009

In this work, we have characterized two small ColE-like plasmids (pECY6-7, 2.7 kb in size, and pECC14-9, of 3.0 kb), encoding the QnrB19 quinolone resistance determinant, that were carried by several clonally unrelated quinolone-resistant commensal Escherichia coli strains isolated from healthy children living in different urban areas of Peru and Bolivia. The two plasmids are closely related to each other and carry the qnrB19 gene as the sole resistance determinant, located in a conserved genetic context between the plasmid RNAII sequence (which controls plasmid replication) and the plasmid Xer site (involved in plasmid dimer resolution). ISEcp1-like or other putative insertion sequences are not present in the qnrB19-flanking regions or elsewhere on the plasmids. Since we previously observed a high prevalence (54%) of qnrB genes in the metagenomes of commensal enterobacteria from the same population of healthy children, the presence of pECY6-7- and pECC14-9-like plasmids in those qnrB-positive metagenomes was investigated by PCR mapping. Both plasmids were found to be highly prevalent (67% and 16%, respectively) in the qnrB-positive metagenomes, suggesting that dissemination of these small plasmids played a major role in the widespread dissemination of qnrB genes observed in commensal enterobacteria from healthy children living in those areas.
________________________________________
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Dipartimento di Biologia Molecolare, Sezione di Microbiologia, Università di Siena, Policlinico Santa Maria alle Scotte, 53100 Siena, Italy. Phone: 39 0577 233455. Fax: 39 0577 233870. E-mail: rossolini@unisi.it
Published ahead of print on 14 December 2009.

lunes, 26 de abril de 2010

Antibiotics - A Review of ED Use

Author: Katherine M Hiller, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of ArizonaCoauthor(s): James Li, MD, Former Assistant Professor, Division of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Board of Directors, Remote Medicine

Golden Rules of ED Antibiotic Use
Antibiotic therapy ideally is determined by isolation of the offending organism and determination of its antibiotic susceptibility pattern. This information is usually not available in the acute setting of the emergency department (ED), and it is often necessary to make treatment decisions without precise knowledge of infectious source or microbial species. In certain cases (eg, suspected meningitis, gram-negative sepsis, bacterial peritonitis, pneumonia), early empiric therapy may be lifesaving.
The choice of an antimicrobial agent should always be based on the most likely involved organism. Guides, such as the Sanford Guide to Antimicrobial Therapy, are useful in suggesting initial therapy and may be supplemented by knowledge of a certain hospital's susceptibility patterns. Frequently, more than one antibiotic regimen is appropriate for the disease process.
The authors recommend that emergency physicians familiarize themselves with a short list of inexpensive and established antibiotics. These should be considered the main arsenal against microbial disease and, except in unusual circumstances, should be used before other treatments.
Antibiotics prescribed but not taken are worth little to a sick patient. Compliance can be optimized by optimizing drug formulation and minimizing frequency of dosing, duration of treatment, unpleasant side effects, and cost.
For these reasons, single-dose courses administered in the ED (eg, benzathine penicillin, cefixime, ciprofloxacin, fluconazole, metronidazole) greatly improve compliance over traditional multiday multidose regimens.1,2
Throughout this article, antibiotics appearing in boldface are favored by the authors because of their availability, cost, dosing schedule, and spectrum of coverage.
Finally, where possible, pricing for medications has been included as an educational resource for both healthcare workers and patients. Injectable drug prices are current as of 2009 and are taken from the national "Average Wholesale Price" database used by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. International price comparisons are taken from the International drug price guide. Oral drug prices are taken from national prescription vendors, and include, where applicable, the $4/course formularies adopted in 2008 by WalMart, Hannaford Grocers, KMart, and Rite Aid Pharmacies.Note: A one-page reference table with key therapy recommendations taken from this article can be downloaded in Adobe Acrobat format by clicking the Antibiotics Guidelines Summary.
Recent Updates From the Medical Literature
A late influenza season in 2008-09 and the first influenza pandemic in 40 years in 2009-10 prompted a closer look at the use of antivirals for influenza. In general, antivirals for influenza are only effective if begun within 24-48 hours of onset of symptoms and even then confer at most 3-5 days fewer symptoms. Most healthy persons with illness consistent with influenza do not need antiviral medication. The CDC recommends treating all patients hospitalized for influenza, all patients with lower tract infection or clinical deterioration, all patients younger than 2 years old or older than 65 years old, pregnant and postpartum women, and patients with chronic medical or immunosuppressive conditions.3 An IV neuraminidase inhibitor, peramivir, is now available for inpatient influenza treatment. Current recommendations are detailed later in this article.In 2007, the CDC updated treatment guidelines for gonococcal infection and associated conditions. Fluoroquinolones are no longer recommended to treat gonorrhea in the United States. The recommendation was based on analysis of new data from the CDC’s Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP). The data from GISP showed the proportion of gonorrhea cases in heterosexual men that were fluoroquinolone-resistant (QRNG) reached 6.7%, an 11-fold increase from 0.6% in 2001. This limits treatment of gonorrhea to drugs in the cephalosporin class (ceftriaxone 125 mg IM once as a single dose). Fluoroquinolones may be an alternative treatment option for disseminated gonococcal infection if antimicrobial susceptibility can be documented. For more information, see CDC Updated Gonococcal treatment recommendations.In 2006, the CDC also updated guidelines for tetanus immunization. Adults should receive Tdap instead of Td when receiving boosters during treatment of wounds. Click to jump to details.Penicillin allergy cross-reactivity with cephalosporins is significantly overstated. Cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins is much less than the 10-15% commonly cited. No cross reactivity exists between penicillins and third-generation cephalosporins. However, if a patient has known anaphylaxis to penicillin, caution with cephalosporin use still is warranted.4,5,6,7
Classically, quinolone antibiotics have been contraindicated in pediatric and pregnant populations due to the joint and cartilage destruction observed in multiple different animal models. Recent reviews of compassionate quinolone use both in the United States and abroad have proposed that this complication is probably not as common in the pediatric population. Approximately 1.5% of patients with cystic fibrosis given ciprofloxacin experienced self-limited arthralgias (also a complication of their disease process). None had joint or cartilage destruction.8 Currently, anthrax is the only FDA-approved indication for quinolones in the pediatric population.
Neisseria meningitidis has become a leading cause of bacterial meningitis in the United States after dramatic reductions in the incidence of Streptococcus pneumoniae that have been achieved using conjugate vaccines.9 A new tetravalent meningococcal vaccine may further alter the pattern of disease and change treatment recommendations during epidemics.
Resistant organisms continue to increase the need for innovative and effective treatments during severe infections. Some of the newer antibiotics on the horizon that may improve our treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) include linezolid, quinupristin, dalfopristin, and daptomycin.10 Additionally, older antibiotics, such as sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim and doxycycline, may play a role in treatment of MRSA.11 Treatment of simple cellulitis with intravenous (IV) antibiotics administered on a daily basis through the ED or through home health visits is as effective as inpatient treatment.12
Finally, the time of mandated blood cultures prior to administration of antibiotics may be ending. An increasing body of evidence demonstrates lack of clinical usefulness for such infections as pyelonephritis13 , cellulitis14 , and pneumonia15 . However, in the setting of undifferentiated bacteremia, blood should be cultured prior to starting treatment, unless this would cause undue delay. Increasing incidence of community-acquired MRSA may have impact on the value of cultures for certain infections.
Empiric Antibiotic Therapy
Broad-spectrum antibiotics
These agents are generally chosen for empiric treatment of potentially life-threatening infections of unknown bacterial origin. Single agents mostly are related to penicillin (eg, second- or third-generation cephalosporins, imipenem, beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitors [BL/BLI]), with the exception of the newer generation fluoroquinolones and chloramphenicol. This last agent is used widely outside the United States because of its low cost and availability as an inexpensive oral treatment (<$0.01/250 mg tablet).
In the United States, chloramphenicol may be considered an alternative for cases of penicillin-resistant bacteria or for penicillin-allergic patients with sepsis or meningitis. Within the United States, large differences in cost exist between commonly used broad-spectrum antibiotics, as demonstrated by these prices: ceftriaxone ($11/2 g, $15/250 mg), cefotaxime ($23/2 g), imipenem ($82/1 g), ticarcillin/clavulanate ($17/3.1 g), piperacillin/tazobactam ($2/3.375 g), and ampicillin/sulbactam ($13/3 g).
Several new-generation fluoroquinolones have been introduced as powerful broad-spectrum antibiotics. Moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin are marketed and FDA approved for a wide variety of inpatient and ambulatory indications including chronic bronchitis, nosocomial and community-acquired pneumonia, diabetic foot infection, osteomyelitis, and uncomplicated urinary tract infection. These new agents distinguish themselves from older fluoroquinolones by their activity against gram-positive bacteria (eg, penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus); gram-negative bacteria, and anaerobes. Under most conditions, they achieve equal serum levels whether dosed orally or IV and are given in single daily doses.
Broad-spectrum agents should not be used empirically and indiscriminately for all infections. The major argument against such use is the development of resistant organisms. Routine use of broad-spectrum antibiotics for minor infections significantly adds to infection and colonization of the general population with increasingly hardy microbes that are difficult to treat. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sources, indiscriminate use of broad-spectrum antibiotics more than doubles an individual's chance of acquiring future infection with a resistant organism. The relative risk increases from 3.1 to 5.6.16 For fluoroquinolones, this argument is even more important because resistance is mediated by a single plasmid, which confers resistance to the entire class of agents. Major resistance thus may rapidly be acquired, unless strict controls against widespread use are put into place.
For these reasons, the newer broad-spectrum fluoroquinolones should be reserved as second-line agents for use when traditional broad-spectrum antibiotics are contraindicated or have failed. This approach is similar to some hospital policies reserving use of antimicrobials such as vancomycin, ceftriaxone, and imipenem for special situations.17,18 From a patient-based perspective, such a policy will protect individuals from the more-than-doubled risk of future superinfection with a highly resistant organism. From a population-based perspective, this also will protect communities from multidrug-resistant endemics. Multidrug-resistant S aureus, Enterococcus species, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, malaria, and tuberculosis are current examples of endemics resulting from indiscriminate utilization of antimicrobial therapy.
Cephalosporins
When in doubt, second- or third-generation cephalosporins are a good choice for many bacterial infections. Antimicrobial coverage is largely similar within this class and includes gram-positive, gram-negative, and strict anaerobic species. Coverage differences are minor and are primarily relevant if P aeruginosa is suspected (see Pseudomonal infection section). Examples of this class include cefmetazole, cefuroxime, cefoxitin, cefotetan, and cefamandole.
In certain hospitals, one second- or third-generation cephalosporin may be less expensive than others due to special agreements with the supplier. Use the least expensive one if there is significant cost savings. However, relative to the cost of IV setup (>$100), cost differences between cephalosporins may be small. Published average market prices to pharmacies for typical unit doses of these drugs are as follows: cefuroxime ($13/1.5 g), cefepime ($45/2 g), cefoxitin ($23/2 g), cefotaxime ($23/2 g), ceftazidime ($36/2 g), and ceftriaxone ($11/2 g).
Anaerobic coverage
Antibiotics with good anaerobic coverage include metronidazole (<$1/500 mg PO, $3/500 mg IV), clindamycin ($4/600 mg IV), and any BL/BLI (amoxicillin/clavulanate [$5/850 mg PO]; ampicillin/sulbactam [$13/3 g], piperacillin/tazobactam [$2/3.375 g]). For surgical and gynecologic cases in which soiled peritoneum is possible, metronidazole must be used because it is the only agent that covers Bacteroides fragilis, the most common colonic microbe. Although practically all antibiotics have been associated with Clostridium difficile colitis, clindamycin bears the dubious distinction of causing the most cases of this potentially fatal adverse effect. For this reason, metronidazole is the preferred agent for anaerobic coverage.

Pseudomonal coverage
If serious pseudomonal infection is suspected, double coverage is recommended. Antibiotics with activity against P aeruginosa include ceftazidime, ticarcillin, aminoglycosides, imipenem, meropenem, levofloxacin, and ciprofloxacin. As for other antimicrobial regimens, the two agents chosen should be from different classes. For example, the combination of ticarcillin/ tobramycin is good, whereas a combination of ceftazidime and imipenem is not. Piperacillin/tazobactam is a poor choice for treating pseudomonal infections unless used in higher-than-normal doses and combined with an aminoglycoside. Deaths have been reported from pseudomonal infections when using manufacturer-recommended doses of this drug, even when combined with a second agent.
Antibiotic-resistant gram-positive cocci
Several species of resistant gram-positive cocci warrant special consideration. Many are sufficiently virulent that an incorrect choice of initial antibiotic may rapidly be fatal to the patient. Recent reports hallmark the increasing incidence of community-acquired MRSA. Such cases actually represent infection by one of two subspecies of S aureus that are genotypically and phenotypically distinct.
The more traditional nosocomially-acquired MRSA has also been identified in the community in increasing numbers. This strain of MRSA is multidrug resistant, making treatment a challenge. True community-acquired MRSA is a different strain of S aureus and (while resistant to methicillin) is susceptible to many common treatment regimens.
Vancomycin ($8/2 g) should be used initially for any suspected severe infection, including line sepsis, endocarditis, and meningitis. In special cases of severe infection, other newer agents may be used instead of vancomycin. These cases include patients who have been hospitalized within the past 24 months, have had outpatient visits within the past 12 months, have been admitted to a nursing home within the past 12 months, have been on antibiotics within the past 12 months, have undergone hemodialysis, have chronic illnesses, are intravenous drug users, or are in close contact with other persons with MRSA. Such patients may receive linezolid ($119/600 mg), or daptomycin ($248/500 mg) instead of vancomycin.If the patient has no risk factors for the nosocomial-type MRSA, antibiotics with historical effectiveness against S aureus may be used. These include nafcillin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMZ), and clindamycin. However, if any form of nosocomial-type MRSA is possible, treatment with vancomycin or newer agents should be continued until cultures exclude MRSA or, in the presence of MRSA, prove its sensitivity to other agents.
Minor infections with non-nosocomial-type community-acquired MRSA may be treated with a penicillinase-resistant penicillins (oxacillin, dicloxacillin), first-generation cephalosporins, TMP-SMZ, or tetracyclines.10 Coverage should be tailored by reviewing the local antibiogram for MRSA and should include streptococcal coverage when appropriate.
HIV-infected patients
Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia is the most common cause of pneumonia among all HIV-infected individuals. However, other pathogens must be considered because of the relative immunocompromise in these patients, particularly in those with diminished CD4+ cell counts. Pulmonary tuberculosis (TB), coccidioidomycosis, and other diseases present atypically in HIV-infected patients. In HIV-infected patients with cough, the presence of prior TB exposure, hemoptysis, nocturnal sweats, weight loss, or a previously positive purified protein derivative (PPD) skin test result should prompt rapid patient isolation in a negative-pressure room and initiation of a TB workup (ie, TB-specific blood cultures, sputum staining, and culture). For further information, see Tuberculosis.If suspicion is high, isolating such patients even without overt symptoms is sometimes appropriate. Chest radiographic findings can be normal in 20% of cases of HIV-associated pulmonary TB.
In patients with CD4+ counts less than 200/mm3 who are not receiving prophylaxis, IV TMP-SMZ should be used to cover Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP). Additionally, a 1990 report by the National Institutes of Health/University of California concluded that prednisone 40 mg by mouth twice daily has been shown to reduce mortality in patients with PCP when the PO2 is <70>35. Note that the mortality rate is high even with therapy: 10-20% in patients without hypoxia and 20-40% in patients with hypoxia.19
Gram-negative sepsis
Gram-negative sepsis is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality due to production of bacterial endotoxin. For presumptive treatment of life-threatening sepsis in adults, coverage for possible gram-negative bacteremia is recommended using two antibiotics with good gram-negative activity.20 Good choices include a third-generation cephalosporin or BL/BLI, plus a fluoroquinolone or an aminoglycoside. Examples of such coverage include ceftriaxone and gentamicin, or cefmetazole and ciprofloxacin. Many possible drug combinations are acceptable as long as the antibiotics are not of the same class.
Bacterial meningitis
In the setting of suspected meningitis, antibiotics should be initiated immediately, preferably before or at the same time cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is drawn for analysis.21 Antibiotics will not affect CSF cell counts for several hours, and more importantly, the patient will receive early treatment for a possibly rapidly progressive disease. For immune-competent adults, use a third-generation cephalosporin alone (ceftriaxone, $11/2g). For infants, elderly, or immunocompromised patients (eg, alcoholics, patients with renal failure), add ampicillin to cover Listeria monocytogenes. In regions with documented highly resistant pneumococcus, the CDC recommends adding vancomycin until culture results are available. In suspected herpes simplex encephalitis, especially in neonates, addition of acyclovir should be included empirically.22
Pneumonia
The American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) have both published guidelines for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).23,24 For outpatient treatment of pneumonia, both recommend either a macrolide (clarithromycin or azithromycin) or doxycycline. For outpatient treatment, the IDSA guidelines also suggest single-agent treatment with a respiratory fluoroquinolone. However, the ATS guidelines reserve single- and double-agent fluoroquinolone treatment (the latter with an added beta-lactam drug) for outpatient treatment of patients with pulmonary or cardiac comorbidities. The beta-lactam agent is suggested due to the greater prevalence and morbidity of gram-negative infection in this population. Ciprofloxacin is generally a poor choice for CAP due to its poor coverage of Streptococcus pneumoniae.25,26
Inpatient treatment regimens for pneumonia include monotherapy with a respiratory fluoroquinolone or combination therapy with both IV beta-lactam and macrolide agents together. For patients with no comorbidity and no risk factors for gram-negative organisms or drug-resistant Pneumococcus, ATS endorses monotherapy with IV azithromycin alone. The IDSA recommends that all treatment regimens for ICU-admitted patients include a beta-lactam. Patients with acute necrotizing pneumonia should receive vancomycin to cover MRSA. Both organizations' recommendations cover the 7 most likely pathogens causing pneumonia: S pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, S aureus, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Legionella pneumoniae, and Chlamydia pneumoniae.
Institutionalized patients and patients with structural lung disease are at risk for pseudomonal pneumonia. For these and other patients at risk for such infection, at least two antipseudomonal antibiotics with activity against drug-resistant Pneumococcus and Legionella are warranted (eg, BL/BLI plus ciprofloxacin).
Other Respiratory Infections
Bronchitis
Unless the patient has COPD or another compelling reason, do not prescribe antibiotics for acute bronchitis.27,28 Acute bronchitis appears clinically similar to pneumonia (eg, fever, productive cough). However, examination and radiographic findings of pneumonia are lacking. Most of these cases are viral.29 Over-prescription of antibiotics in this population is a major source of resistance. It also doubles an individual patient's chance of later contracting a resistant infection.30 Consider making exceptions for patients with severe underlying disease (eg, congestive heart failure) who would be unable to tolerate the small risk of bacterial infection or for patients who are symptomatic for more than 10 days, in whom Mycoplasma infection becomes a greater possibility.
In contrast to the general guideline of withholding antibiotics for acute bronchitis, antibiotics are indicated for patients with COPD with an acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis.31 Chronic bronchitis is defined as a productive cough for 3 or more months per year for 2 or more years. Acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis is defined as an increase in cough, sputum production, dyspnea, or wheezing. Fever is not usually present, and examination or radiographic findings of pneumonia are lacking. Recommendations include TMP-SMZ ($4/10-d course), azithromycin ($26/course), or doxycycline ($4/10-d course).
Except in streptococcal pharyngitis, doxycycline ($4/10-d course) or TMP-SMZ ($4/10-d course) are as effective for respiratory tract infections as any extended-spectrum oral cephalosporin (eg, cefuroxime, cefadroxil, cefpodoxime, and cefaclor), which are all prohibitively expensive ($97, $140, $114, and $114/10-d course, respectively). However, a generic version of cefaclor is available in some areas ($42/10-d course). Consequently, for pricing reasons, doxycycline or TMP-SMZ are recommended in any situation in which such cephalosporins are considered.32
Influenza
The majority of influenza cases are due to influenza A. Amantadine and rimantadine have been approved for many years for use against influenza A. However, since 2005, neither are recommended by the CDC because significant resistance has evolved for both drugs. Neuraminidase inhibitors, such as oseltamivir and zanamivir, have variable resistance patterns to seasonal influenza, and each are associated with significant gastrointestinal (oseltamivir) and respiratory (zanamivir) side effects.For the 2009-10 influenza season, the CDC recommends treating all patients hospitalized for influenza, all patients with lower tract infection or clinical deterioration, all patients younger than 2 years or older than 65 years, pregnant and postpartum women, and patients with chronic medical or immunosuppressive conditions.3 An IV neuraminidase inhibitor, peramivir, is now available for inpatient influenza treatment.Antivirals for influenza are only effective if begun within 24-48 hours of onset of symptoms, and even then confer at most 3-5 days of fewer symptoms. Most healthy persons with illness consistent with influenza do not need antiviral medication.Prophylaxis for influenza with antiviral medication may decrease disease and may be considered when the patient is at high risk for influenza-related complications and has had close contact with someone likely to have had influenza. However, the CDC recommends education on the signs and symptoms of influenza with instructions to initiate early treatment as a preferred strategy for control.
Common Outpatient Infections: Above the Belt
In late 1997, the CDC launched a major campaign to educate physicians and patients about the dangers of inappropriately using antibiotics for coughs, colds, and sore throats. New guidelines and patient brochures are being developed so physicians will be able to advise their patients while being supported by federal recommendations (see Images 1-3). Educational materials are available free of charge from the CDC at (404) 639-2215.

Sinusitis
Both physicians and patients over-diagnose acute sinusitis. Distinguishing it from chronic sinusitis, which has a different treatment and prognosis, is important. Acute sinusitis typically presents with nasal congestion, purulent nasal discharge, and facial pain. In the immunocompetent host, antibiotics are initially unnecessary.33 Initial treatment should consist of topical decongestants used every 4 hours, steam inhalations, saline flushes and advice to sleep in a semi-upright position to facilitate drainage if the maxillary sinus is involved. Antibiotics should be used in toxic-appearing patients, those in whom initial therapy fails, and patients with comorbid conditions.34 TMP-SMZ for 3 days is as effective as a traditional 10-day course ($4/course).35
Otitis media
Ironically, no type I scientific evidence exists for empiric treatment of otitis media, despite the fact that antibiotics are almost universally used in the United States for such infection. Standard of care in Europe is initial observation. However, antibiotic therapy in the United States has huge financial implications, accounting for $4 billion in annual costs and some 25% of all medical prescriptions.36
In a large review (n=5,400), 81% of patients with otitis media had spontaneous clinical resolution.37 Four studies found no difference in cure rate between traditionally prescribed oral antibiotic regimens and single-dose IM ceftriaxone, dosed 50 mg/kg.38,39,40 In the fourth study (RCT, n=648), investigators found that parents uniformly preferred IM dosing to the traditional course of oral antibiotics.41 Consider a single dose of ceftriaxone IM if antibiotics are to be used.
Pharyngitis
Acute pharyngitis is most commonly caused by viruses. However, in order to prevent rheumatic fever and its complications, group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal (GABHS) pharyngitis should be recognized and treated. For compliance reasons, single-dose benzathine penicillin ($56/1.2 mU) is recommended for GABHS pharyngitis or tonsillitis. The recommended dosage is 600,000 units intramuscularly for patients weighing 27 kg or less, and 1,200,000 units for patients weighing more than 27 kg. If oral penicillin must be used, twice-daily dosing has been found as effective as 4-time daily dosing ($8/500 mg bid for 10 d). A full 10-day course is necessary for eradication.42,43,44 Suitable alternatives for cases of penicillin allergy are oral erythromycin for 10 days ($10/course) or azithromycin 500 mg PO for one dose then 250 mg PO daily for 4 days ($26/course).
In some hospitals, rapid streptococcal antigen detection kits are available. They are highly specific but lack sensitivity. Therefore, a throat culture should always be sent when 48-hour follow-up is possible. Because throat cultures are often impractical for ED use, various criteria correlating clinical findings with positive cultures have been developed.45 According to one authority, patients should be treated in the emergency department for presumed GABHS when the incidence of GABHS pharyngitis and its complications are high, when patients are contacts of others with documented GABHS, in patients with scarlet fever, and in areas without adequate laboratory facilities to perform a rapid strep test.46 Another authority adds lack of cough to the list of accompanied findings but recommends empiric treatment if 2 or more of these 4 findings are present.47
Several trials have demonstrated shortened clinical courses of pharyngitis when steroids (dexamethasone, betamethasone, and prednisone) were coadministered with antibiotics.48,49,50 Antibiotics should always be administered with steroids in this setting to prevent overwhelming bacteremia. Death in a previously healthy adolescent has been reported from disseminated infection associated with adjunctive steroid treatment for pharyngitis.51 Steroids are not recommended in patients who are pregnant or have HIV, thrush, or ulcerative pharyngitis.
Common Outpatient Infections: Below the Belt
Urinary tract infections
A single dose or 3-day course TMP-SMZ is recommended for simple cases of cystitis ($1/single dose, $4/3-d course). In areas where resistance of Escherichia coli to TMP/SMX is greater than 10-20%, ciprofloxacin should be used instead.52 Use a 10-14-day course in patients who are male, preteen, older than 65 years, use a diaphragm, have diabetes, have recent recurrences of UTI, or have symptoms lasting more than a week. Pyelonephritis should be treated for 14 days.
Pelvic/vaginal infections
Treating vaginal candidiasis with a single dose of oral fluconazole (150 mg, $12/dose) is cheaper and more effective than topical preparations. Trichomoniasis and bacterial vaginosis can both be treated with a single oral dose of metronidazole ($3/2 g).
Distinguish pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) from simple cervicitis. Although the causative bacterial species are similar, outpatient PID should not be treated with single-dose oral agents but with IM ceftriaxone ($15/250 mg) plus doxycycline for 14 days ($4/course). If parenteral cephalosporin therapy is not feasible, use of fluoroquinolones (eg, levofloxacin 500 mg PO qd for 14 d [$195/course] or ofloxacin 400 mg PO bid for 14 d [$175/course]) with or without metronidazole (500 mg PO bid for 14 d [$4/course]) may be considered if the community prevalence and individual risk of gonorrhea is low. Increasing fluoroquinolone resistance in gonococcal isolates necessitates treatment regimens that do not rely on fluoroquinolones for gonococcal coverage. Tests for gonorrhea must be performed prior to instituting therapy and if positive, the patient managed without fluoroquinolone therapy.For more information see, Recent Updates From the Medical Literature.
Patients with suspected cervicitis must be treated for both gonococcal and chlamydial infection because co-infection exists in up to 40% of cases. Use cefixime 400 mg orally once plus azithromycin 1 g orally once ($39/1 g). Although the manufacturer of cefixime discontinued the drug in 2002, Lupin Limited began to re-manufacture cefixime in 2004. Supplies are still limited. As an alternative to the above regimen, 2 g of azithromycin in a single dose covers both gonococcal and chlamydial cervicitis; however, an increased incidence of gastrointestinal side effects exists. The single-dose regimens for chlamydia are recommended over the traditional 10-day doxycycline treatment because overall compliance with a 10-day regimen is dismal. In one survey, of 386 women given 10-day prescriptions of doxycycline for PID, only a third reported compliance. Of the rest, 41% stopped their medication after 4 days, and the remainder never filled their prescriptions.
Note that none of these therapies except for an extended course of doxycycline (14-d bid) adequately covers syphilis. Although the incidence of syphilis has diminished greatly in the United States, it has reemerged in recent years. A quarter of these cases occur in HIV-positive patients. In patients diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease, consider obtaining syphilis serologic tests (eg, rapid plasma reagin [RPR], venereal disease research laboratory [VDRL]). Patients should have adequate follow-up in the event serologic testing demonstrates the disease. In 1998, the CDC changed its recommended treatment of primary syphilis from a single dose to 3 weekly doses of benzathine penicillin ($112/2.4 mU IM). In cases of neurosyphilis, recommended treatment is 2 weeks of inpatient IV penicillin (4 mU IV q4h).
Sexual assault
Give cefixime (400 mg single dose), plus azithromycin (1 g oral sachet once; $39), plus HBIG (0.06 mL/kg IM) if not vaccinated, plus Plan B or Ovral (2 tablets immediately and 2 tablets in 12 h). Consider promethazine for nausea.
Wounds, Bites, and High-Risk Exposures
The most important aspect of wound management in overall reduction of infection rate is mechanical cleansing. When possible, perform this using high-pressure irrigation (eg, 35 mL syringe and <19-gauge href="javascript:showcontent(">53,54 Soap and water may be equally effective in out-of-hospital settings. Noncontaminated facial and scalp lacerations do not need irrigation.55 Use a minimum of 200 mL; higher volumes are more effective. Avoid peroxide, Betadine, and chlorhexidine, which damage viable tissue.56 Half-strength peroxide swabbed on sutured wounds every 6 hours will reduce scarring from blood clot.57 Antibiotic ointment (eg, bacitracin) has been shown to reduce incidence of wound infections.58
Classify wounds as tetanus prone or not. Tetanus-prone wounds are deep, dirty, devitalized, or older than 6 hours. About 60 cases of tetanus occur in the United States per year, mostly in elderly patients whose immunity has waned. For tetanus-prone wounds, if the patient is not immunized (ie, <3>3 doses but last dose given >5 y prior), give active immunization only. For non–tetanus-prone wounds, give active immunization only, using 10 years as a cutoff. Active immunization is a combination tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap, 0.5 mL IM). This represents an updated recommendation by the CDC in 2006, and should be given to patients aged 11-64.59 In children younger than 8 years, give diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) instead. Passive immunization is tetanus immune globulin (TIG) 500 units deep IM.
The literature provides 5 indications for prophylactic antibiotics in wounds. These include intraoral lacerations, complicated human or dog bites, cat bites, and foot puncture wounds. Although commonly used, little evidence exists that prophylactic antibiotics are useful for patients with significant comorbidities (eg, diabetes mellitus [DM]), cirrhosis, advanced age, immunosuppression).57 Prophylactic antibiotics are not indicated for missile wounds.60 When indicated, use an antibiotic with coverage for staphylococci as well as one that covers those species unique to the type of wound.
In high-risk wounds (eg, hand wound, those in immunocompromised patients, cat bite, wound in areas of reduced vascularity), give the initial dose of prophylactic antibiotic intravenously within 3 hours of injury for best efficacy. For bites, use a BL/BLI antibiotic for the initial IV dose (eg, ticarcillin/clavulanate 3.1 g or piperacillin/tazobactam 3.375 g).
A common wound encountered in the emergency department is the through-the-shoe puncture wound. This presents a 10% risk for infection, 90% from pseudomonads in wounds involving rubber-soled shoes. These infections can progress to osteomyelitis.46 Antibiotic prophylaxis is controversial.61 Ciprofloxacin has been suggested; however, it is too expensive for universal use and is contraindicated in children. An alternative is TMP-SMZ, which has mild activity against pseudomonads and other skin flora, and is inexpensive. All patients need instructions on self-wound checks and follow-up.
Prophylactic antibiotics are used to prevent, not treat, an infection, so therapy duration can be shortened. However, no consensus exists as to exact duration needed. The Sanford Guide to Antimicrobial Therapy suggests 3 days if no wound inflammation exists, or 3 days past the clearance of wound inflammation. Alternatively, give a 2-day course ending with a formal wound check. If the wound is infected at the time of reexamination, antibiotics can be continued.
Skin infections
Cephalexin is recommended by many (500 mg qid, $4/10-d course). For convenience, it may also be dosed 2 or 3 times daily, instead of the traditional 4 times daily (manufacturer's insert). Alternatives to cephalexin include dicloxacillin (250 mg qid, $22/10-d course), TMP-SMZ ($4/10 d), and doxycycline ($4/10d). The latter two may provide additional coverage against CA-MRSA species in regions where this has become endemic.
Bite wounds
Cats cause only 5% of bites presenting to emergency departments, but these bites are associated with a high risk of infection (80%). Most infections (80%) are caused by Pasteurella multocida, a pleomorphic gram-negative rod. For cat bites, amoxicillin/clavulanate 500 mg bid ($17/d) is recommended. Less costly alternatives include doxycycline 100 mg bid, penicillin V 500 mg bid/qid, and TMP-SMZ bid (all $4/course).
Dog bites cause the majority (90%) of bites presenting to emergency departments but are associated with a low risk of infection (5%). Dog maulings in the United States kill 18 persons annually; 60% occur in children younger than 11 years. In the United States, about 2% of the population is bitten annually; 800,000 people require medical attention.62 Infections are usually polymicrobial. Antibiotic prophylaxis has no proven benefit. However, the Sanford Guide to Antimicrobial Therapy suggests amoxicillin/clavulanate as above. Less costly alternatives include clindamycin 150 mg qid plus TMP-SMZ double strength (DS) bid. Treat patients who have been bitten by a dog and who have had a splenectomy with prophylactic penicillin due to increased risk of sepsis and death due to the rare bacterial species Capnocytophaga canimorsus.
Human bites comprise 3% of bites presenting to emergency departments and are associated with a 50% infection rate. Many human bites are clenched fist injuries, which are particularly high infection risks. Amoxicillin/clavulanate is recommended as above. The Sanford Guide to Antimicrobial Therapy suggests 5 days of prophylaxis. Patients discharged from the emergency department should have a follow-up check in 24 hours. Consider passive immunization for hepatitis B with immune globulin (HBIG) 0.06 mL/kg IM.
Rabies
An average of one human rabies case is reported annually in the United States, mostly in immigrants. In nonimmigrants, human rabies is almost entirely due to exposure to infected bats. Other high-risk animals include skunks, raccoons, foxes, and wild carnivores. Treat patients with bites from all of these animals for rabies. Only a fraction of rabid animals are domesticated, and nearly half of all rabid animals are raccoons.63 Interestingly, only one human rabies case from raccoons has ever been reported.64 Low-risk animals include dogs and cats.
Because of pet vaccination, an observed 8,000 canine cases of rabies in 1946 dropped to 128 in 1988. Do not treat patients with these bites unless a rabid animal is suspected. Other recommendations include a 10-day observation of pets and killing of all wild animals for immediate examination of brain tissue using fluorescent antibodies. Currently, zero-risk animals include cows, pigs, rabbits, rats, squirrels, mice, hamsters, gerbils, and nutria.
Treatment includes passive and active immunization. Cost exceeds $1,500 per case.65 This consists of human rabies immune globulin (HRIG, $750/100 kg dosing) 20 IU/kg, half of the dose infiltrated around the wound and half IM, and human diploid cell vaccine (HDCV, $202/dose) 1 mL IM at a site distant from the immunoglobulin on days 0, 3, 7, 14, and 28.66,67
HIV—Post-exposure prophylaxis
In high-risk source patients (eg, known symptomatic HIV infection, AIDS, acute seroconversion, known high viral load) or exposures (eg, large-bore hollow needle, deep puncture, visible blood on device, needle used in patient's artery or vein), the recommended 2-drug regimen (ie, zidovudine [ZDV] plus lamivudine [3TC]; or 3TC and stavudine [d4T]; or d4T and didanosine [ddI]) should begin within 60 minutes of exposure. If the source is high risk and there was a high-risk exposure, a 3-drug regimen is recommended.68 Other retroviral agents can be substituted for these agents. However, nevirapine is not recommended because of several reported cases of life-threatening hepatotoxicity occurring during prophylaxis. Also give HBIG (0.06 mL/kg IM) for those not vaccinated against hepatitis B.
Mucocutaneous exposures should receive 2 drugs prophylactically in cases involving high-risk source patients or large volumes of blood. Postexposure prophylaxis is not recommended (but may be considered) when the source is unknown or when the source patient's HIV status is unknown.
For questions not answered by this section, the US Department of Health and Human Services has a toll-free 24-hour number available to clinicians for advice on postexposure prophylaxis: (888) 448-4911.
Meningococcus
Administer ciprofloxacin 750 mg once by mouth. Pregnant women and children can receive ceftriaxone 125 mg IM once. One study suggests that azithromycin may be effective for chemoprophylaxis as well.69 For repeated exposures in high-risk occupations, a conjugated tetravalent meningococcal vaccine is available.
Positive tuberculin skin test
See paragraph on tuberculosis in this text for more detail. Isoniazid 300 mg daily for 6 months (or 900 mg twice weekly for 12 mo) reduces lifetime risk of death from TB from over 6% to nearly zero. A recently validated alternative is daily rifampin and pyrazinamide taken for 2 months.70
Keywords
antibiotic therapy, antibiotics in the ED, antibiotics in the emergency department, microbial infections, bacterial infections, treatment of bacterial infections, empiric antibiotic therapy, golden rules of antibiotic use, broad-spectrum antibiotics, antimicrobial therapy, cephalosporins, anaerobic coverage, pseudomonal coverage, antibiotic-resistant gram-positive cocci, MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, gram-negative sepsis, bacterial meningitis, pneumonia, respiratory infections, bronchitis, influenza, sinusitis, otitis media, pharyngitis, urinary tract infections, vaginal infections, sexual assault, bites, wounds, rabies

Acknowledgments
The authors and editors of eMedicine gratefully acknowledge the contributions of previous author, Diana Brainard, MD, and Daniel Hayes, PharmD, to the development and writing of this article.

jueves, 25 de marzo de 2010

ID Society Calls for 10 New Antimicrobials by 2020


Emma Hitt, PhD

March 18, 2010 ( UPDATED March 19, 2010 ) — A goal of developing 10 new antibiotics by 2020 has been put forward by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). A statement was published online this week and in the April 15 issue of Clinical Infectious Diseases.
The new goal, known as the 10 × '20 initiative, is designed to bring together various resources to "create a sustainable global antibacterial drug [research and development] enterprise with the power in the short-term to develop 10 new, safe, and effective antibiotics by 2020," according to the statement.
Specially, antimicrobials are needed to treat infections caused to the so-called "ESKAPE" pathogens that currently cause the majority of US hospital infections (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumonia, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter species).
According to the IDSA, the decreasing investment in antibacterial drug development, coupled with the increase in antimicrobial resistance, represents an "impending disaster."
"Despite the good faith efforts of many individuals, professional societies, and governmental agencies, the looming crisis has only worsened over the past decade," state the authors from the IDSA Antimicrobial Availability Task Force, led by David Gilbert, MD.
What It Will Take
Dr. Gilbert and colleagues describe the objective as an "audacious" goal. However, Dr. Gilbert explains that "if all of the stakeholders get behind the idea, we certainly have the resources to have 10 new antibacterial drugs in 10 years." He went on to tell Medscape Infectious Diseases that it will take "financial and intellectual investment to get it done."
According to Dr. Gilbert, the goal will require the effort of the scientific community, the legislative branch of the government, and the pharmaceutical industry. He added that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will also need to "adjust their policies such that the traffic pattern through the FDA is smoothly and easily accomplished."
He noted that infectious disease professionals can help by providing support and advocacy in their communities. "Infectious disease consultants are well aware of the need for new antimicrobials," Dr. Gilbert said, "so they should continue to share their anxieties and concerns about the issue."
A Challenging but Not Impossible Goal
"I think that it is possible to meet this goal," said Neil Fishman, MD, president, Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, and director, Healthcare Epidemiology, Infection Prevention and Control, University of Pennsylvania Health System. "We are an imaginative and resourceful society, and we certainly answered a similar challenge in the development of antiretroviral drugs for HIV, so I believe we can respond to this challenge."
However, Marin H. Kollef, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, pointed out that "the recent experiences with ceftobiprole, telavancin, and tigecycline indicate that the development of new antimicrobials with approvals from the FDA will be a slow process." "This is partly because agreement on the design of studies for indications such as pneumonia has not been reached between the agency and industry," he told Medscape Infectious Diseases.
According to Dr. Kollef, increasing resistance is certainly a problem, but in addition, the industry has shifted away from antibiotic development because these drugs are "not as profitable as drugs for chronic conditions such as hypertension and diabetes," he said. "Also, the recent lack of approvals for new agents will certainly cause drug makers to rethink any investments in this area."
Clinical Effect of 10 New Drugs
Dr. Kollef noted that the effect of 10 new antimicrobials will depend on their ability to overcome current patterns of resistance. "If they are active against the currently problematic pathogens that are often resistant to currently available drugs, then meeting this goal would have a significant impact," he said, but "this would not be true if they were simply 'me too' drugs."
"New drugs are important for addressing the problem of antimicrobial resistance, but they are not going to be the only answer," said Jean Patel, PhD, deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Office of Antimicrobial Resistance. "It is an important part of addressing the problem," she told Medscape Infectious Diseases, "but we're going to need to continue with prevention and control measures, and it will take both to really address this problem."
Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America President Dr. Fishman concurred that solving the antimicrobial resistance problem will take more than just the development of new antibiotics. "Resistance is a complex problem, and therefore requires multifaceted solutions," he said. "We need antimicrobial stewardship to make certain that new agents are used appropriately or we will see rapid development of resistance," he said. "We also need infection control to prevent transmission of resistant bacteria when they do occur."
Dr. Gilbert, Dr. Fishman, and Dr. Patel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kollef is a consultant for the speakers bureau of Merck, Pfizer, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bard, Kimberly Clark, Accelr8, and Ortho-McNeil. IDSA's initiative has been endorsed by several health agencies including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Gastroenterological Association, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases