Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Once-Daily Treatments for Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: Are They Good Enough?

  • Intra-abdominal Infections, Hepatitis, and Gastroenteritis (T Steiner, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Infectious Disease Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of the Review

Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia is a common cause of morbidity and mortality. First-line treatment requires frequent daily doses of an anti-staphylococcal beta-lactam. However, some physicians prescribe simpler once-daily regimens to improve compliance and improve healthcare utilization. We reviewed the literature regarding advantages, pitfalls, and efficacy of once-daily treatment options for MSSA bacteremia.

Recent Findings

Several once-daily antibiotics are effective in vitro against MSSA (ceftriaxone, daptomycin, telavancin, dalbavancin, oritavancin, tedizolid, ertapenem, fluoroquinolones, and others), but there is insufficient evidence to support these agents for MSSA bacteremia. Ceftriaxone may be considered for therapy completion with MSSA bacteremia from osteomyelitis, and daptomycin may be considered in patients who cannot tolerate first-line therapy. However, they have not been compared to traditional second-line agents, and their role remains uncertain.

Summary

Current evidence does not support the use of once-daily treatment options for MSSA bacteremia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Styers D, Sheehan DJ, Hogan P, Sahm DF. Laboratory-based surveillance of current antimicrobial resistance patterns and trends among Staphylococcus aureus: 2005 status in the United States. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2006;5(2):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wyllie DH, Crook DW, Peto TEA. Mortality after Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia in two hospitals in Oxfordshire, 1997-2003: cohort study. BMJ. 2006;333:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tong SYC, Davis JS, Eichenberger E, Holland TL, Fowler VG. Staphylococcus aureus infections: epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and management. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2015;28(3):603–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Naber CK. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management strategies. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:231–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fowler VG Jr, Olsen MK, Corey GR, Woods CW, Cabell CH, Reller LB, et al. Clinical identifiers of complicated Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:2066–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. de Kraker MEA, Davey PG, Grundmann H, BURDEN study group. Mortality and hospital stay associated with resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli bacteremia: estimating the burden of antibiotic resistance in Europe. PLoS Med. 2011;8(10):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rubin RJ, Harrington CA, Poon A, Dietrich K, Greene JA, Moiduddin A. The economic impact of Staphylococcus aureus infection in New York City hospitals. Emerg Infect Dis. 1999;5(1):9–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Mylotte JM, Mcdermott C, Spooner JA. Prospective study of 114 consecutive episodes of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Rev Infect Dis. 1987;9(5):891–907.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fowler VG Jr, Sanders LL, Sexton DJ, Kong L, Marr KA, Gopal AK, et al. Outcome of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia according to compliance with recommendations of infectious diseases specialists: experience with 244 patients. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;27:478–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mitchell DH, Howden BP. Diagnosis and management of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Intern Med J. 2005;35:17–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Auwaerter PG. Staphylococcus aureus Treatment [Internet]. John Hopkins ABX Guide. 2016 [cited 2017 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.hopkinsguides.com/hopkins/view/Johns_Hopkins_ABX_Guide/540518/all/Staphylococcus_aureus.

  12. Bai AD, Showler A, Burry L, Steinberg M, Ricciuto DR, Fernandes T, et al. Comparative effectiveness of cefazolin versus cloxacillin as definitive antibiotic therapy for MSSA bacteraemia: results from a large multicentre cohort study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;70:1539–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee S, Choe PG, Song K-H, Park S-W, Bin KH, Kim NJ, et al. Is cefazolin inferior to nafcillin for treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia? Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(11):5122–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Li J, Echevarria KL, Hughes DW, Cadena JA, Bowling JE, Lewis JS II. Comparison of cefazolin versus oxacillin for treatment of complicated bacteremia caused by methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(9):5117–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. McDanel JS, Roghmann M-C, Perencevich EN, Ohl ME, Goto M, Livorsi DJ, et al. Comparative effectiveness of cefazolin versus nafcillin or oxacillin for treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus infections complicated by bacteremia: a nationwide cohort study. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65(1):100–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Calain P, Krause K-H, Vaudaux P, Auckenthaler R, Lew D, Waldvogel F, et al. Early termination of a prospective, randomized trial comparing teicoplanin and flucloxacillin for treating severe Staphylococcal infections. J Infect Dis. 1987;155(2):187–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. • Chang F-Y, Peacock JE Jr, Musher DM, Triplett P, MacDonald BB, Mylotte JM, et al. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: recurrence and the impact of antibiotic treatment in a prospective multicenter study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2003;82(5):333–9. Discusses the recurrance and impact of antibiotic treatment regarding Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Holland TL, Arnold C, Fowler VG Jr. Clinical management of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a review. JAMA. 2014;312(13):1330–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Kosowska-Shick K, McGhee PL, Appelbaum PC. Affinity of ceftaroline and other beta-lactams for penicillin-binding proteins from Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54(5):1670–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Palmer SM, Kang SL, Cappelletty DM, Rybak MJ. Bactericidal killing activities of cefepime, ceftazidime, cefotaxime, and ceftriaxone against Staphylococcus aureus and beta-lactamase-producing strains of Enterobacter aerogenes and Klebsiella pneumoniae in an in vitro infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995;39(8):1764–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Carr D, Bonomo R, Stiefel U, Sims S. Cefazolin versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia in a tertiary-care VA medical center. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2015;2(1):620.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Paul M, Zemer-Wassercug N, Talker O, Lishtzinsky Y, Lev B, Samra Z, et al. Are all beta-lactams similarly effective in the treatment of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia? Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011;17:1581–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. • Patel UC, McKissic EL, Kasper D, Lentino JR, Pachucki CT, Lee T, et al. Outcomes of ceftriaxone use compared to standard of therapy in methicillin susceptible Staphylococcal aureus (MSSA) bloodstream infections. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36:1282–9. Discucces the findings that suggest that CTX may be an alternative for outpatient MSSA bacteremia management.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Winans S, Luce A, Hasbun R. Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: a comparison of cefazolin and ceftriaxone. Infection. 2013;41:769–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wieland BW, Marcantoni JR, Bommarito KM, Warren DK, Marschall J. A retrospective comparison of ceftriaxone versus oxacillin for osteoarticular infections due to methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54(5):585–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sharff KA, Graber CJ, Spindel SJ, Nguyen HM. Ceftriaxone for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus osteoarticular infections: a survey of infectious disease physicians’ attitudes and review of the literature. Infect Dis Clin Pract. 2014;22(3):132–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Carpenter CF, Chambers HF. Daptomycin: another novel agent for treating infections due to drug-resistant Gram-positive pathogens. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38:994–1000.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Critchley IA, Blosser-Middleton RS, Jones ME, Thornsberry C, Sahm DF, Karlowsky JA. Baseline study to determine in vitro activities of daptomycin against Gram-positive pathogens isolated in the United States in 2000–2001. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003;47(5):1689–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Eisenstein BI, Oleson FB, Baltz RH. Daptomycin: from the mountain to the clinic, with essential help from Francis Tally, MD. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50:S10–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Thwaites GE, Edgeworth JD, Gkrania-Klotsas E, Kirby A, Tilley R, Török ME, et al. Clinical management of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Lancet Infect Dis. 2011;11:208–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Naber CK, Baddour LM, Giamarellos-Bourboulis EJ, Gould IM, Herrmann M, Hoen B, et al. Clinical consensus conference: survey on Gram-positive bloodstream infections with a focus on Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:S260–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. •• Fowler VG Jr, Boucher HW, Corey GR, Abrutyn E, Karchmer AW, Rupp ME, et al. Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(7):653–65. This is a very important RCT that demonstrates non-inferiority of daptomycin compared to standard of care for the treatment of S. aureus bacteremia.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Senneville E, Caillon J, Calvet B, Jehl F. Towards a definition of daptomycin optimal dose: lessons learned from experimental and clinical data. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2016;47:12–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, Daum RS, Fridkin SK, Gorwitz RJ, et al. Clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(3):e18–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Seaton RA, Gonzalez-Ruiz A, Cleveland KO, Couch KA, Pathan R, Hamed K. Real-world daptomycin use across wide geographical regions: results from a pooled analysis of CORE and EU-CORE. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2016;15(18):1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cervera C, Sanroma P, González-Ramallo V, de la Maria CG, Sanclemente G, Sopena N, et al. Safety and efficacy of daptomycin in outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: a prospective and multicenter cohort study (DAPTODOM trial). Scand J Infect Dis. 2017;49(3):200–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Silverman JA, Mortin LI, VanPraagh ADG, Li T, Alder J. Inhibition of daptomycin by pulmonary surfactant: in vitro modeling and clinical impact. J Infect Dis. 2005;191:2149–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Marc F, Esquirol C, Papy E, Longuet P, Armand-Lefevre L, Rioux C, et al. A retrospective study of daptomycin use in a Paris teaching-hospital. Med Mal Infect. 2014;44:25–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tompkins NHC, Harnicar SJ. Prescribing trends with daptomycin (cubicin) for the treatment of Gram-positive infections. Pharm Ther. 2008;33(5):282–8.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Leung V. Providence Health Care Antimicrobial Stewardship Program: annual report 2015–16 [Internet]. Providence Health Care. 2016 [cited 2017 Aug 10]. Available from: http://www.researchid.com/pdf/AntimicrobialStewardship/AMSProvidenceAnnualReport2016pdf.

  41. Mendes RE, Sader HS, Smart JI, Castanheira M, Flamm RK. Update of the activity of telavancin against a global collection of Staphylococcus aureus causing bacteremia, including endocarditis (2011-2014). Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017;36:1013–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Joson J, Grover C, Downer C, Pujar T, Heidari A. Successful treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus mitral valve endocarditis with sequential linezolid and telavancin monotherapy following daptomycin failure. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66(9):2186–8.

  43. Marcos LA, Camins BC. Successful treatment of vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus pacemaker lead infective endocarditis with telavancin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54(12):5376–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Stryjewski ME, Lentnek A, O’Riordan W, Pullman J, Tambyah PA, Miró JM, et al. A randomized phase 2 trial of telavancin versus standard therapy in patients with uncomplicated Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: the ASSURE study. BMC Infect Dis. 2014;14(289):1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Stryjewski ME, Graham DR, Wilson SE, O’Riordan W, Young D, Lentnek A, et al. Telavancin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections caused by Gram-positive organisms. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46:1683–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Rubinstein E, Lalani T, Corey GR, Kanafani ZA, Nannini EC, Rocha MG, et al. Telavancin versus vancomycin for hospital-acquired pneumonia due to Gram-positive pathogens. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(1):31–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Wilson SE, Graham DR, Wang W, Bruss JB, Castaneda-Ruiz B. Telavancin in the treatment of concurrent Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a retrospective analysis of ATLAS and ATTAIN studies. Infect Dis Ther. 2017;6:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Corey GR, Kollef MH, Shorr AF, Rubinstein E, Stryjewski ME, Hopkins A, et al. Telavancin for hospital-acquired pneumonia: clinical response and 28-day survival. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(4):2030–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Van Bambeke F. Lipoglycopeptide antibacterial agents in Gram-positive infections: a comparative review. Drugs. 2015;75:2073–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Raad I, Darouiche R, Vazquez J, Lentnek A, Hachem R, Hanna H, et al. Efficacy and safety of weekly dalbavancin therapy for catheter-related bloodstream infection caused by Gram-positive pathogens. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40:374–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Dunne M, Puttagunta S. Clearance of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia in patients treated with dalbavancin. ID Week 2013 Poster Present.

  52. Cho JC, Estrada SJ, Beltran AJ, Revuelta MP. Treatment of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia secondary to septic phlebitis using dalbavancin. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2015;40:604–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Boucher HW, Wilcox M, Talbot GH, Puttagunta S, Das AF, Dunne MW. Once-weekly dalbavancin versus daily conventional therapy for skin infection. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(23):2169–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Corey GR, Kabler H, Mehra P, Gupta S, Overcash JS, Porwal A, et al. Single-dose oritavancin in the treatment of acute bacterial skin infections. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(23):2180–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Corey GR, Good S, Jiang H, Moeck G, Wikler M, Green S, et al. Single-dose oritavancin versus 7–10 days of vancomycin in the treatment of Gram-positive acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the SOLO II noninferiority study. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60(2):254–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Shaw KJ, Poppe S, Schaadt R, Brown-Driver V, Finn J, Pillar CM, et al. In vitro activity of TR-700, the antibacterial moiety of the prodrug TR-701, against linezolid-resistant strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52(12):4442–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Prokocimer P, De Anda C, Fang E, Mehra P, Das A. Tedizolid phosphate vs linezolid for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the ESTABLISH-1 randomized trial. JAMA. 2013;309(6):559–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Moran GJ, Fang E, Corey GR, Das AF, De Anda C, Prokocimer P. Tedizolid for 6 days versus linezolid for 10 days for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ESTABLISH-2): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. Elsevier Ltd. 2014;14:696–705.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Shorr AF, Kunkel MJ, Kollef M. Linezolid versus vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: pooled analysis of randomized studies. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;56:923–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Solomkin JS, Mazuski JE, Bradley JS, Rodvold KA, Goldstein EJC, Baron EJ, et al. Diagnosis and management of complicated intra-abdominal infection in adults and children: guidelines by the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50:133–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Entenza JM, Que YA, Vouillamoz J, Glauser MP, Moreillon P. Efficacies of moxifloxacin, ciprofloxacin, and vancomycin against experimental endocarditis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus expressing various degrees of ciprofloxacin resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45(11):3076–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Wood MJ. The comparative efficacy and safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996;37:209–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Bugano DDG, Cavalcanti AB, Goncalves AR, de Almeida CS, Silva E. Cochrane meta-analysis: teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection. Cochrane Database. 2011;9(3):265–82.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Rasmussen RV, Fowler VG Jr, Skov R, Bruun NE. Future challenges and treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia with emphasis on MRSA. Future Microbiol. 2011;6(1):43–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Noel GJ, Draper MP, Hait H, Tanaka SK, Arbeit RD. A randomized, evaluator-blind, phase 2 study comparing the safety and efficacy of omadacycline to those of linezolid for treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(11):5650–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. VanEperen AS, Segreti J. Empirical therapy in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: an up-to-date approach. J Infect Chemother. 2016;22:351–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 452D, Heather Pavilion East, VGH, 2733 Heather Street, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 3J5, Canada

    Sylvain A. Lother & Natasha Press

Authors
  1. Sylvain A. Lother
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Natasha Press
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sylvain A. Lother.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

All reported studies/experiments with human or animal subjects performed by the authors have been previously published and complied with all applicable ethical standards (including the Helsinki declaration and its amendments, institutional/national research committee standards, and international/national/institutional guidelines).

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Intra-abdominal Infections, Hepatitis, and Gastroenteritis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lother, S.A., Press, N. Once-Daily Treatments for Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: Are They Good Enough?. Curr Infect Dis Rep 19, 43 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11908-017-0599-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11908-017-0599-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation