ArticleHospital pharmacy2016
Successful Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant
Article in Hospital pharmacy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To describe a case of successful treatment of methicillin-resistant Case Summary: A 53-year-old female with a past medical history of cancer (unknown source/type) and hypothyroidism was admitted to the hospital with cervical and paravertebral abscess with suspected sepsis. In the emergency department (ED), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed possible spinal abscess and narrowing of the spinal canal. The patient was initiated on vancomycin 1,250 mg (~15 mg/kg) every 12 hours and cefepime 2 g every 8 hours empirically. On hospital day 4, blood and wound cultures revealed MRSA susceptible to vancomycin, but with a vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 2. Repeat blood cultures were also positive on hospital days 2 and 4. Per infectious disease team consult, therapy was converted to daptomycin 8 mg/kg/day. Although the patient responded well, acute kidney injury (AKI) on hospital day 15 prompted a change in therapy to ceftaroline fosamil 400 mg intravenous every 8 hours. For the remainder of the hospital stay, blood cultures were negative and white blood cell count was within normal limits. On day 20, the patient was discharged to a long-term care facility for continued ceftaroline treatment. Discussion: The management of MRSA bacteremia remains challenging due to increasing antimicrobial resistance. Although the standard therapy for serious MRSA infections is vancomycin, treatment failures are becoming common in clinical practice due to increasing MICs (≥2 μg/mL). Other therapies may include daptomycin and off-label treatment with telavancin, quinupristin/dalfopristin, or ceftaroline fosamil. This report describes a patient with paravertebral abscess and MRSA bacteremia failing 3 days of vancomycin therapy due to MIC greater than or equal to 2 μg/mL and persistent bacteremia. Treatment with ceftaroline fosamil was well tolerated and resulted in continued clinical improvement. Based on this case report, ceftaroline fosamil may be a reasonable alternative for invasive MRSA infections. Conclusions: This case report describes successful treatment of MRSA bacteremia with ceftaroline in a patient who responded poorly to conventional therapy, specifically vancomycin due to an elevated MIC (2 μg/mL).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.