Article Type
Article
Changed
Fri, 11/03/2017 - 09:06
Display Headline
Vancomycin: A 50-something-year-old antibiotic we still don’t understand
Author(s)
Amy Schilling, PharmD
Elizabeth Neuner, PharmD
Susan J. Rehm, MD, FACP, FIDSA

In the past half-century, vancomycin has gone from near-orphan status to being one of the most often used antibiotics in our formulary. The driving force for its use is clear: the evolution of Staphylococcus aureus. At first, vancomycin was used to treat infections caused by penicillin-resistant strains. However, the discovery of methicillin curbed its use for more than 2 decades.1

Then, as methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA) began to spread in the 1980s, the use of vancomycin began to increase, and with the rise in community-associated MRSA infections in the 1990s, it became even more widely prescribed. The recent Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines for treatment of infections due to MRSA are replete with references to the use of vancomycin.2

Another factor driving the use of vancomycin is the increased prevalence of device-associated infections, many of which are caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci and other organisms that colonize the skin.3 Many of these bacteria are susceptible only to vancomycin; they may be associated with infections of vascular catheters, cardiac valves, pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, orthopedic implants, neurosurgical devices, and other devices.

To use vancomycin appropriately, we need to recognize the changing minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs), to select proper doses and dosing intervals, and to know how to monitor its use. Despite more than 50 years of experience with vancomycin, we sometimes find ourselves with more questions than answers about its optimal use.

WHAT IS VANCOMYCIN?

Vancomycin is a glycopeptide antibiotic isolated from a strain of Streptomyces orientalis discovered in a soil sample from Borneo in the mid-1950s.1 It exerts its action by binding to a d-alanyl-d-alanine cell wall precursor necessary for peptidoglycan cross-linking and, therefore, for inhibiting bacterial cell wall synthesis.

Vancomycin is bactericidal against most gram-positive species, including streptococci and staphylococci, with the exception of Enterococcus species, for which it is bacteriostatic. Though it is bactericidal, it appears to kill bacteria more slowly than beta-lactam antibiotics, and therefore it may take longer to clear bacteremia.4

WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO DOSE VANCOMYCIN?

Vancomycin is widely distributed to most tissues, with an approximate volume of distribution of 0.4 to 1 L/kg; 50% to 55% is protein-bound. Because of this large volume of distribution, vancomycin’s dosing is based on actual body weight.

Vancomycin is not metabolized and is primarily excreted unchanged in the urine via glomerular filtration. It therefore requires dosage adjustments for renal insufficiency.

Vancomycin’s molecular weight is 1,485.73 Da, making it less susceptible to removal by dialysis than smaller molecules. Dosing of vancomycin in patients on hemodialysis depends on many factors specific to the dialysis center, including but not limited to the type of filter used, the duration of filtration, and whether high-flux filtration is used.

Is continuous intravenous infusion better than standard dosing?

Giving vancomycin by continuous infusion has been suggested as a way to optimize its serum concentration and improve its clinical effectiveness.

Wysocki et al5 conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized study comparing continuous and intermittent intravenous infusions of vancomycin (the latter every 12 hours) to treat severe hospital-acquired MRSA infections, including bloodstream infections and pneumonia. Although blood concentrations above 10 μg/mL were reached more than 30 hours faster with continuous infusions than with intermittent ones, the microbiologic and clinical outcomes were similar with either method.

James et al6 compared the pharmacodynamics of conventional dosing of vancomycin (ie, 1 g every 12 hours) and continuous infusion in 10 patients with suspected or documented gram-positive infections in a prospective, randomized, crossover study. While no adverse effects were observed, the authors also found no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups in the pharmacodynamic variables investigated, including the area under the curve (AUC) divided by the MIC (the AUC-MIC ratio).

In view of the currently available data, the guidelines for monitoring vancomycin therapy note that there does not appear to be any difference in patient outcomes with continuous infusion vs intermittent dosing.7

Should a loading dose be given?

Another proposed strategy for optimizing vancomycin’s effectiveness is to give a higher initial dose, ie, a loading dose.

Wang et al8 performed a single-center study in 28 patients who received a 25 mg/kg loading dose at a rate of 500 mg/hour. This loading dose was safe, but the authors did not evaluate its efficacy.

Mohammedi et al9 compared loading doses of 500 mg and 15 mg/kg in critically ill patients receiving vancomycin by continuous infusion. The weight-based loading dose produced higher post-dose levels and a significantly higher rate of clinical cure, but there was no significant difference in the rate of survival to discharge from the intensive care unit.

While the use of a loading dose appears to be safe and likely leads to more rapid attainment of therapeutic blood levels, we lack data on whether it improves clinical outcomes, and further study is needed to determine its role.

 

 

WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO MONITOR VANCOMYCIN THERAPY?

Whether and how to use the serum vancomycin concentration to adjust the dosing has been a matter of debate for many years. Convincing evidence that vancomycin levels predict clinical outcomes or that measuring them prevents toxicity is lacking.7

A consensus statement from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the IDSA, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists7 contains recommendations for monitoring vancomycin therapy, based on a critical evaluation of the available scientific evidence. Their recommendations:

  • Vancomycin serum concentrations should be checked to optimize therapy and used as a surrogate marker of effectiveness.
  • Trough, rather than peak, levels should be monitored.
  • Trough levels should be checked just before the fourth dose, when steady-state levels are likely to have been achieved. More frequent monitoring may be considered in patients with fluctuating renal function.
  • Trough levels should be higher than 10 mg/L to prevent the development of resistance.
  • To improve antibiotic penetration and optimize the likelihood of achieving pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic targets, trough levels of 15 to 20 mg/L are recommended for pathogens with a vancomycin MIC of 1 mg/L or higher and for complicated infections such as endocarditis, osteomyelitis, meningitis, and hospital-acquired pneumonia.
  • For prolonged courses, it is appropriate to check vancomycin levels weekly in hemodynamically stable patients and more often in those who are not hemodynamically stable.

IS VANCOMYCIN NEPHROTOXIC?

In the 1950s, vancomycin formulations were sometimes called “Mississippi mud” because of the many impurities they contained.1 These impurities were associated with significant nephrotoxicity. Better purification methods used in the manufacture of current formulations mitigate this problem, resulting in a lower incidence of nephrotoxicity.

Over the last several years, organizations such as the American Thoracic Society and the IDSA have recommended targeting higher vancomycin trough concentrations.10 The consequent widespread use of higher doses has renewed interest in vancomycin’s potential nephrotoxicity.

Lodise et al,11 in a cohort study, examined the incidence of nephrotoxicity with higher daily doses of vancomycin (≥ 4 g/day), lower daily doses (< 4 g/day), and linezolid (Zyvox). They defined nephrotoxicity as an increase in serum creatinine of 0.5 mg/dL or a decrease in calculated creatinine clearance of 50% from baseline on 2 consecutive days.

The incidence of nephrotoxicity was significantly higher in the high-dose vancomycin group (34.6%) than in the low-dose vancomycin group (10.9%) and in the linezolid group (6.7%) (P = .001). Additional factors associated with nephrotoxicity in this study included baseline creatinine clearance less than 86.6 mL/minute, weight greater than 101.4 kg (223.5 lb), and being in an intensive care unit.

Hidayat et al12 investigated outcomes in patients with high vs low vancomycin trough levels (≥ 15 mg/L vs < 15 mg/L) in a prospective cohort study. Sixty-three patients achieved an average vancomycin trough of 15 to 20 mg/L, and of these, 11 developed nephrotoxicity, compared with no patients in the low-trough group (P = .01). Of the 11 who developed nephrotoxicity, 10 were concomitantly taking other potentially nephrotoxic agents.

Comment. The data on vancomycin and nephrotoxicity are mostly from studies that had limitations such as small numbers of patients, retrospective design, and variable definitions of nephrotoxicity. Many of the patients in these studies had additional factors contributing to nephrotoxicity, including hemodynamic instability and concomitant exposure to other nephrotoxins. Additionally, the sequence of events (nephrotoxicity leading to elevated vancomycin levels vs elevated vancomycin levels causing nephrotoxicity) is still debatable.

The incidence of nephrotoxicity associated with vancomycin therapy is difficult to determine. However, based on current information, the incidence of nephrotoxicity appears to be low when vancomycin is used as monotherapy.

IS S AUREUS BECOMING RESISTANT TO VANCOMYCIN?

An issue of increasing importance in health care settings is the emergence of vancomycin-intermediate S aureus (VISA) and vancomycin-resistant S aureus (VRSA). Eleven cases of VRSA were identified in the United States from 2002 to 2005.13 All cases of VRSA in the United States have involved the incorporation of enterococcal vanA cassette into the S aureus genome.14 While true VRSA isolates remain rare, VISA isolates are becoming more common.

Heteroresistant VISA: An emerging subpopulation of MRSA

Another population of S aureus that has emerged is heteroresistant vancomycin-intermediate S aureus (hVISA). It is defined as the presence of subpopulations of VISA within a population of MRSA at a rate of one organism per 105 to 106 organisms. With traditional testing methods, the vancomycin MIC for the entire population of the strain is within the susceptible range.15 These hVISA populations are thought to be precursors to the development of VISA.16

The resistance to vancomycin in hVISA and VISA populations is due to increased cell wall thickness, altered penicillin-binding protein profiles, and decreased cell wall autolysis.

While the true prevalence of hVISA is difficult to predict because of challenges in microbiological detection and probably varies between geographic regions and individual institutions, different studies have reported hVISA rates between 2% and 13% of all MRSA isolates.15–17

Reduced vancomycin susceptibility can develop regardless of methicillin susceptibility.18

While hVISA is not common, its presence is thought to be a predictor of failing vancomycin therapy.15

Factors associated with hVISA bacteremia include high-bacterial-load infections, treatment failure (including persistent bacteremia for more than 7 days), and initially low serum vancomycin levels.15

 

 

‘MIC creep’: Is it real?

Also worrisome, the average vancomycin MIC for S aureus has been shifting upward, based on reports from several institutions, although it is still within the susceptible range.19,20 However, this “MIC creep” likely reflects, at least in part, differences in MIC testing and varying methods used to analyze the data.19,20

Holmes and Jorgensen,21 in a single-institution study of MRSA isolates recovered from bacteremic patients from 1999 to 2006, determined that no MIC creep existed when they tested vancomycin MICs using the broth microdilution method. The authors found the MIC90 (ie, the MIC in at least 90% of the isolates) remained less than 1 mg/L during each year of the study.

Sader et al,22 in a multicenter study, evaluated 1,800 MRSA bloodstream isolates from nine hospitals across the United States from 2002 to 2006. Vancomycin MICs were again measured by broth microdilution methods. The mode MIC remained stable at 0.625 mg/L during the study period, and the authors did not detect a trend of rising MICs.

The inconsistency between reports of MIC creep at single institutions and the absence of this phenomenon in large, multicenter studies seems to imply that vancomycin MIC creep is not occurring on a grand scale.

Vancomycin tolerance

Another troubling matter with S aureus and vancomycin is the issue of tolerance. Vancomycin tolerance, defined in terms of increased minimum bactericidal concentration, represents a loss of bactericidal activity. Tolerance to vancomycin can occur even if the MIC remains in the susceptible range.23

Safdar and Rolston,24 in an observational study from a cancer center, reported that of eight cases of bacteremia that was resistant to vancomycin therapy, three were caused by S aureus.

Sakoulas et al25 found that higher levels of vancomycin bactericidal activity were associated with higher rates of clinical success; however, they found no effect on the mortality rate.

The issue of vancomycin tolerance remains controversial, and because testing for it is impractical in clinical microbiology laboratories, its implications outside the research arena are difficult to ascertain at present.

IS VANCOMYCIN STILL THE BEST DRUG FOR S AUREUS?

MIC break points have been lowered

In 2006, the Clinical Laboratories and Standards Institute lowered its break points for vancomycin MIC categories for S aureus:

  • Susceptible: ≤ 2 mg/L (formerly ≤ 4 mg/L)
  • Intermediate: 4–8 mg/L (formerly 8–16 mg/L)
  • Resistant: ≥ 16 mg/L (formerly ≥ 32 mg/L).

The rationales for these changes were that the lower break points would better detect hVISA, and that cases have been reported of clinical treatment failure of S aureus infections in which the MICs for vancomycin were 4 mg/L.26

Since 2006, the question has been raised whether to lower the break points even further. A reason for this proposal comes from an enhanced understanding of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of vancomycin.

The variable most closely associated with clinical response to vancomycin is the AUC-MIC ratio. An AUC-MIC ratio of 400 or higher may be associated with better outcomes in patients with serious S aureus infection. A study of 108 patients with S aureus infection of the lower respiratory tract indicated that organism eradication was more likely if the AUC-MIC ratio was 400 or greater compared with values less than 400, and this was statistically significant.27 However, in cases of S aureus infection with a vancomycin MIC of 2 mg/L or higher, this ratio may not be achievable.

A prospective study of 414 MRSA bacteremia episodes found a vancomycin MIC of 2 mg/L to be a predictor of death.28 The authors concluded that vancomycin may not be the optimal treatment for MRSA with a vancomycin MIC of 2 mg/L.28 Additional studies have also suggested a possible decrease in response to vancomycin in MRSA isolates with elevated MICs within the susceptible range.25,29

Recent guidelines from the IDSA recommend using the clinical response, regardless of the MIC, to guide antimicrobial selection for isolates with MICs in the susceptible range.2

Combination therapy with vancomycin

As vancomycin use has increased, therapeutic failures with vancomycin have become apparent. Combination therapy has been suggested as an option to increase the efficacy of vancomycin when treating complicated infections.

Rifampin plus vancomycin is controversial.30 The combination is theoretically beneficial, especially in infections associated with prosthetic devices. However, clinical studies have failed to convincingly support its use, and some have suggested that it might prolong bacteremia. In addition, it has numerous drug interactions to consider and adverse effects.31

Gentamicin plus vancomycin. The evidence supporting the use of this combination is weak at best. It appears that clinicians may have extrapolated from the success reported by Korzeniowski and Sande,32 who found that methicillin-susceptible S aureus bacteremia was cleared faster if gentamicin was added to nafcillin. A more recent study33 that compared daptomycin (Cubicin) monotherapy with combined vancomycin and gentamicin to treat MRSA bacteremia and endocarditis showed a better overall success rate with daptomycin (44% vs 32.6%), but the difference was not statistically significant.

Gentamicin has some toxicity. Even short-term use (for the first 4 days of therapy) at low doses for bacteremia and endocarditis due to staphylococci has been associated with a higher rate of renal adverse events, including a significant decrease in creatinine clearance.34

Clindamycin or linezolid plus vancomycin is used to decrease toxin production by S aureus.30

While combination therapy with vancomycin is recommended in specific clinical situations, and the combinations are synergistic in vitro, information is lacking about clinical outcomes to support their use.

 

 

Don’t use vancomycin when another drug would be better

Vancomycin continues to be the drug of choice in many circumstances, but in some instances its role is under scrutiny and another drug might be better.

Beta-lactams. In patients with infection due to methicillin-susceptible S aureus, failure rates are higher with vancomycin than with beta-lactam therapy, specifically nafcillin.35–37 Beta-lactam antibiotics are thus the drugs of choice for treating infection with beta-lactam-susceptible strains of S aureus.

Linezolid. In theory, linezolid’s ability to decrease production of the S aureus Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) toxin may be an advantage over vancomycin for treating necrotizing pneumonias. For the treatment of MRSA pneumonia, however, controversy exists as to whether linezolid is superior to vancomycin. An analysis of two prospective, randomized, double-blind studies of patients with MRSA pneumonia suggested that initial therapy with linezolid was associated with better survival and clinical cure rates,38 but a subsequent meta-analysis did not substantiate this finding.39 An additional comparative study has been completed, and analysis of the results is in progress.

Daptomycin, approved for skin and soft-tissue infections and bacteremias, including those with right-sided endocarditis, is a lipopeptide antibiotic with a spectrum of action similar to that of vancomycin.40 Daptomycin is also active against many strains of vancomycin-resistant enterococci. As noted above, in the MRSA subgroup of the pivotal comparative study of treatment for S aureus bacteremia and endocarditis, the success rate for daptomycin-treated patients (44.4%) was better than that for patients treated with vancomycin plus gentamicin (32.6%), but the difference was not statistically significant.33,41

The creatine phosphokinase concentration should be monitored weekly in patients on daptomycin.42 Daptomycin is inactivated by lung surfactant and should not be used to treat pneumonia.

Other treatment options approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for MRSA infections include tigecycline (Tygacil), quinupristin-dalfopristin (Synercid), telavancin (Vibativ), and ceftaroline (Teflaro).

Tigecycline is a glycylcycline with bacteriostatic activity against S aureus and wide distribution to the tissues.43

Quinupristin-dalfopristin, a streptogramin antibiotic, has activity against S aureus. Its use may be associated with severe myalgias, sometimes leading patients to stop taking it.

Telavancin, recently approved by the FDA, is a lipoglycopeptide antibiotic.44 It is currently approved to treat complicated skin and skin structure infections and was found to be not inferior to vancomycin. An important side effect of this agent is nephrotoxicity. A negative pregnancy test is required before using this agent in women of childbearing potential.

Ceftaroline, a fifth-generation cephalosporin active against MRSA, has been approved by the FDA for the treatment of skin and skin structure infections and community-acquired pneumonia.45

References
  1. Murray BE, Nannini EC. Glycopeptides (vancomycin and teicoplanin), streptogramins (quinupristin-dalfopristin), and lipopeptides (daptomycin). In:Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, editors. Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier; 2010:449–468.
  2. Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, 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; 52:285–292.
  3. Baddour LM, Epstein AE, Erickson CC, et al; American Heart Association Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease Committee. Update on cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections and their management: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2010; 121:458–477.
  4. Chang FY, Peacock JE, Musher DM, et al. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: recurrence and the impact of antibiotic treatment in a prospective multicenter study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2003; 82:333–339.
  5. Wysocki M, Delatour F, Faurisson F, et al. Continuous versus intermittent infusion of vancomycin in severe staphylococcal infections: prospective multicenter randomized study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45:2460–2467.
  6. James JK, Palmer SM, Levine DP, Rybak MJ. Comparison of conventional dosing versus continuous-infusion vancomycin therapy for patients with suspected or documented gram-positive infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40:696–700.
  7. Rybak M, Lomaestro B, Rotschafer JC, et al. Therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin in adult patients: a consensus review of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2009; 66:82–98.
  8. Wang JT, Fang CT, Chen YC, Chang SC. Necessity of a loading dose when using vancomycin in critically ill patients (letter). J Antimicrob Chemother 2001; 47:246.
  9. Mohammedi I, Descloux E, Argaud L, Le Scanff J, Robert D. Loading dose of vancomycin in critically ill patients: 15 mg/kg is a better choice than 500 mg. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2006; 27:259–262.
  10. American Thoracic Society; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005; 171:388–416.
  11. Lodise TP, Lomaestro B, Graves J, Drusano GL. Larger vancomycin doses (at least four grams per day) are associated with an increased incidence of nephrotoxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008; 52:1330–1336.
  12. Hidayat LK, Hsu DI, Quist R, Shriner KA, Wong-Beringer A. High-dose vancomycin therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: efficacy and toxicity. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:2138–2144.
  13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC reminds clinical laboratories and healthcare infection preventionists of their role in the search and containment of vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA), May 2010. http://emergency.cdc.gov/coca/reminders/2010/2010may06.asp. Accessed June 7, 2011.
  14. Sievert DM, Rudrik JT, Patel JB, McDonald LC, Wilkins MJ, Hageman JC. Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the United States, 2002–2006. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46:668–674.
  15. Charles PG, Ward PB, Johnson PD, Howden BP, Grayson ML. Clinical features associated with bacteremia due to heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38:448–451.
  16. Liu C, Chambers HF. Staphylococcus aureus with heterogeneous resistance to vancomycin: epidemiology, clinical significance, and critical assessment of diagnostic methods. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47:3040–3045.
  17. Sader HS, Jones RN, Rossi KL, Rybak MJ. Occurrence of vancomycin-tolerant and heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate strains (hVISA) among Staphylococcus aureus causing bloodstream infections in nine USA hospitals. J Antimicrob Chemother 2009; 64:1024–1028.
  18. Pillai SK, Wennersten C, Venkataraman L, Eliopoulos GM, Moellering RC, Karchmer AW. Development of reduced vancomycin susceptibility in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49:1169–1174.
  19. Wang G, Hindler JF, Ward KW, Bruckner DA. Increased vancomycin MICs for Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates from a university hospital during a 5-year period. J Clin Microbiol 2006; 44:3883–3886.
  20. Steinkraus G, White R, Friedrich L. Vancomycin MIC creep in nonvancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus (VISA), vancomycin-susceptible clinical methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) blood isolates from 2001–05. J Antimicrob Chemother 2007; 60:788–794.
  21. Holmes RL, Jorgensen JH. Inhibitory activities of 11 antimicrobial agents and bactericidal activities of vancomycin and daptomycin against invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates obtained from 1999 through 2006. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008; 52:757–760.
  22. Sader HS, Fey PD, Limaye AP, et al. Evaluation of vancomycin and daptomycin potency trends (MIC creep) against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates collected in nine U.S. medical centers from 2002 to 2006. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009; 53:4127–4132.
  23. May J, Shannon K, King A, French G. Glycopeptide tolerance in Staphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother 1998; 42:189–197.
  24. Safdar A, Rolston KV. Vancomycin tolerance, a potential mechanism for refractory gram-positive bacteremia observational study in patients with cancer. Cancer 2006; 106:1815–1820.
  25. Sakoulas G, Moise-Broder PA, Schentag J, Forrest A, Moellering RC, Eliopoulos GM. Relationship of MIC and bactericidal activity to efficacy of vancomycin for treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42:2398–2402.
  26. Tenover FC, Moellering RC. The rationale for revising the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute vancomycin minimal inhibitory concentration interpretive criteria for Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44:1208–1215.
  27. Moise-Broder PA, Forrest A, Birmingham MC, Schentag JJ. Pharmacodynamics of vancomycin and other antimicrobials in patients with Staphylococcus aureus lower respiratory tract infections. Clin Pharmacokinet 2004; 43:925–942.
  28. Soriano A, Marco F, Martínez JA, et al. Influence of vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration on the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46:193–200.
  29. Lodise TP, Graves J, Evans A, et al. Relationship between vancomycin MIC and failure among patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia treated with vancomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008; 52:3315–3320.
  30. Deresinski S. Vancomycin in combination with other antibiotics for the treatment of serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49:1072–1079.
  31. Levine DP, Fromm BS, Reddy BR. Slow response to vancomycin or vancomycin plus rifampin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Ann Intern Med 1991; 115:674–680.
  32. Korzeniowski O, Sande MA. Combination antimicrobial therapy for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in patients addicted to parenteral drugs and in nonaddicts: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med 1982; 97:496–503.
  33. Rehm SJ, Boucher H, Levine D, et al. Daptomycin versus vancomycin plus gentamicin for treatment of bacteraemia and endocarditis due to Staphylococcus aureus: subset analysis of patients infected with methicillin-resistant isolates. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008; 62:1413–1421.
  34. Cosgrove SE, Vigliani GA, Fowler VG, et al. Initial low-dose gentamicin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and endocarditis is nephrotoxic. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 48:713–721.
  35. Small PM, Chambers HF. Vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in intravenous drug users. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34:1227–1231.
  36. Gentry CA, Rodvold KA, Novak RM, Hershow RC, Naderer OJ. Retrospective evaluation of therapies for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Pharmacotherapy 1997; 17:990–997.
  37. Chang FY, Peacock JE, Musher DM, et al. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: recurrence and the impact of antibiotic treatment in a prospective multicenter study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2003; 82:333–339.
  38. Wunderink RG, Rello J, Cammarata SK, Croos-Dabrera RV, Kollef MH. Linezolid vs vancomycin: analysis of two double-blind studies of patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia. Chest 2003; 124:1789–1797.
  39. Kalil AC, Murthy MH, Hermsen ED, Neto FK, Sun J, Rupp ME. Linezolid versus vancomycin or teicoplanin for nosocomial pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2010; 38:1802–1808.
  40. Kosmidis C, Levine DP. Daptomycin: pharmacology and clinical use. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2010; 11:615–625.
  41. Fowler VG, Boucher HW, Corey GR, et al; S aureus Endocarditis and Bacteremia Study Group. Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:653–665.
  42. Daptomycin package insert. Lexington, MA. Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. November 2010. www.cubicin.com/pdf/PrescribingInformation.pdf. Accessed June 7, 2011.
  43. Peterson LR. A review of tigecycline—the first glycylcycline. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2008; 32(suppl 4):S215–S222.
  44. Saravolatz LD, Stein GE, Johnson LB. Telavancin: a novel lipoglycopeptide. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49:1908–1914.
  45. Ceftaroline package insert. St. Louis, MO. Forest Pharmaceuticals. October 2010.
Article PDF
media_5ec3d1b_465.pdf
Author and Disclosure Information

Amy Schilling, PharmD
Department of Pharmacy, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston

Elizabeth Neuner, PharmD
Department of Pharmacy, Cleveland Clinic

Susan J. Rehm, MD, FACP, FIDSA
Department of Infectious Disease, Cleveland Clinic

Address: Susan J. Rehm, MD, FACP, FIDSA, Department of Infectious Disease, G21, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail [email protected]

Dr. Rehm has disclosed that she serves on advisory committees or review panels for Cubist Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer, Inc.

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 78(7)
Publications
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
Topics
Drug Therapy
Infectious Diseases
Page Number
465-471
Sections
Current Drug Therapy
Author(s)
Amy Schilling, PharmD
Elizabeth Neuner, PharmD
Susan J. Rehm, MD, FACP, FIDSA
Author(s)
Amy Schilling, PharmD
Elizabeth Neuner, PharmD
Susan J. Rehm, MD, FACP, FIDSA
Author and Disclosure Information

Amy Schilling, PharmD
Department of Pharmacy, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston

Elizabeth Neuner, PharmD
Department of Pharmacy, Cleveland Clinic

Susan J. Rehm, MD, FACP, FIDSA
Department of Infectious Disease, Cleveland Clinic

Address: Susan J. Rehm, MD, FACP, FIDSA, Department of Infectious Disease, G21, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail [email protected]

Dr. Rehm has disclosed that she serves on advisory committees or review panels for Cubist Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer, Inc.

Author and Disclosure Information

Amy Schilling, PharmD
Department of Pharmacy, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston

Elizabeth Neuner, PharmD
Department of Pharmacy, Cleveland Clinic

Susan J. Rehm, MD, FACP, FIDSA
Department of Infectious Disease, Cleveland Clinic

Address: Susan J. Rehm, MD, FACP, FIDSA, Department of Infectious Disease, G21, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail [email protected]

Dr. Rehm has disclosed that she serves on advisory committees or review panels for Cubist Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer, Inc.

Article PDF
media_5ec3d1b_465.pdf
Article PDF
media_5ec3d1b_465.pdf

In the past half-century, vancomycin has gone from near-orphan status to being one of the most often used antibiotics in our formulary. The driving force for its use is clear: the evolution of Staphylococcus aureus. At first, vancomycin was used to treat infections caused by penicillin-resistant strains. However, the discovery of methicillin curbed its use for more than 2 decades.1

Then, as methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA) began to spread in the 1980s, the use of vancomycin began to increase, and with the rise in community-associated MRSA infections in the 1990s, it became even more widely prescribed. The recent Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines for treatment of infections due to MRSA are replete with references to the use of vancomycin.2

Another factor driving the use of vancomycin is the increased prevalence of device-associated infections, many of which are caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci and other organisms that colonize the skin.3 Many of these bacteria are susceptible only to vancomycin; they may be associated with infections of vascular catheters, cardiac valves, pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, orthopedic implants, neurosurgical devices, and other devices.

To use vancomycin appropriately, we need to recognize the changing minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs), to select proper doses and dosing intervals, and to know how to monitor its use. Despite more than 50 years of experience with vancomycin, we sometimes find ourselves with more questions than answers about its optimal use.

WHAT IS VANCOMYCIN?

Vancomycin is a glycopeptide antibiotic isolated from a strain of Streptomyces orientalis discovered in a soil sample from Borneo in the mid-1950s.1 It exerts its action by binding to a d-alanyl-d-alanine cell wall precursor necessary for peptidoglycan cross-linking and, therefore, for inhibiting bacterial cell wall synthesis.

Vancomycin is bactericidal against most gram-positive species, including streptococci and staphylococci, with the exception of Enterococcus species, for which it is bacteriostatic. Though it is bactericidal, it appears to kill bacteria more slowly than beta-lactam antibiotics, and therefore it may take longer to clear bacteremia.4

WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO DOSE VANCOMYCIN?

Vancomycin is widely distributed to most tissues, with an approximate volume of distribution of 0.4 to 1 L/kg; 50% to 55% is protein-bound. Because of this large volume of distribution, vancomycin’s dosing is based on actual body weight.

Vancomycin is not metabolized and is primarily excreted unchanged in the urine via glomerular filtration. It therefore requires dosage adjustments for renal insufficiency.

Vancomycin’s molecular weight is 1,485.73 Da, making it less susceptible to removal by dialysis than smaller molecules. Dosing of vancomycin in patients on hemodialysis depends on many factors specific to the dialysis center, including but not limited to the type of filter used, the duration of filtration, and whether high-flux filtration is used.

Is continuous intravenous infusion better than standard dosing?

Giving vancomycin by continuous infusion has been suggested as a way to optimize its serum concentration and improve its clinical effectiveness.

Wysocki et al5 conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized study comparing continuous and intermittent intravenous infusions of vancomycin (the latter every 12 hours) to treat severe hospital-acquired MRSA infections, including bloodstream infections and pneumonia. Although blood concentrations above 10 μg/mL were reached more than 30 hours faster with continuous infusions than with intermittent ones, the microbiologic and clinical outcomes were similar with either method.

James et al6 compared the pharmacodynamics of conventional dosing of vancomycin (ie, 1 g every 12 hours) and continuous infusion in 10 patients with suspected or documented gram-positive infections in a prospective, randomized, crossover study. While no adverse effects were observed, the authors also found no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups in the pharmacodynamic variables investigated, including the area under the curve (AUC) divided by the MIC (the AUC-MIC ratio).

In view of the currently available data, the guidelines for monitoring vancomycin therapy note that there does not appear to be any difference in patient outcomes with continuous infusion vs intermittent dosing.7

Should a loading dose be given?

Another proposed strategy for optimizing vancomycin’s effectiveness is to give a higher initial dose, ie, a loading dose.

Wang et al8 performed a single-center study in 28 patients who received a 25 mg/kg loading dose at a rate of 500 mg/hour. This loading dose was safe, but the authors did not evaluate its efficacy.

Mohammedi et al9 compared loading doses of 500 mg and 15 mg/kg in critically ill patients receiving vancomycin by continuous infusion. The weight-based loading dose produced higher post-dose levels and a significantly higher rate of clinical cure, but there was no significant difference in the rate of survival to discharge from the intensive care unit.

While the use of a loading dose appears to be safe and likely leads to more rapid attainment of therapeutic blood levels, we lack data on whether it improves clinical outcomes, and further study is needed to determine its role.

 

 

WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO MONITOR VANCOMYCIN THERAPY?

Whether and how to use the serum vancomycin concentration to adjust the dosing has been a matter of debate for many years. Convincing evidence that vancomycin levels predict clinical outcomes or that measuring them prevents toxicity is lacking.7

A consensus statement from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the IDSA, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists7 contains recommendations for monitoring vancomycin therapy, based on a critical evaluation of the available scientific evidence. Their recommendations:

  • Vancomycin serum concentrations should be checked to optimize therapy and used as a surrogate marker of effectiveness.
  • Trough, rather than peak, levels should be monitored.
  • Trough levels should be checked just before the fourth dose, when steady-state levels are likely to have been achieved. More frequent monitoring may be considered in patients with fluctuating renal function.
  • Trough levels should be higher than 10 mg/L to prevent the development of resistance.
  • To improve antibiotic penetration and optimize the likelihood of achieving pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic targets, trough levels of 15 to 20 mg/L are recommended for pathogens with a vancomycin MIC of 1 mg/L or higher and for complicated infections such as endocarditis, osteomyelitis, meningitis, and hospital-acquired pneumonia.
  • For prolonged courses, it is appropriate to check vancomycin levels weekly in hemodynamically stable patients and more often in those who are not hemodynamically stable.

IS VANCOMYCIN NEPHROTOXIC?

In the 1950s, vancomycin formulations were sometimes called “Mississippi mud” because of the many impurities they contained.1 These impurities were associated with significant nephrotoxicity. Better purification methods used in the manufacture of current formulations mitigate this problem, resulting in a lower incidence of nephrotoxicity.

Over the last several years, organizations such as the American Thoracic Society and the IDSA have recommended targeting higher vancomycin trough concentrations.10 The consequent widespread use of higher doses has renewed interest in vancomycin’s potential nephrotoxicity.

Lodise et al,11 in a cohort study, examined the incidence of nephrotoxicity with higher daily doses of vancomycin (≥ 4 g/day), lower daily doses (< 4 g/day), and linezolid (Zyvox). They defined nephrotoxicity as an increase in serum creatinine of 0.5 mg/dL or a decrease in calculated creatinine clearance of 50% from baseline on 2 consecutive days.

The incidence of nephrotoxicity was significantly higher in the high-dose vancomycin group (34.6%) than in the low-dose vancomycin group (10.9%) and in the linezolid group (6.7%) (P = .001). Additional factors associated with nephrotoxicity in this study included baseline creatinine clearance less than 86.6 mL/minute, weight greater than 101.4 kg (223.5 lb), and being in an intensive care unit.

Hidayat et al12 investigated outcomes in patients with high vs low vancomycin trough levels (≥ 15 mg/L vs < 15 mg/L) in a prospective cohort study. Sixty-three patients achieved an average vancomycin trough of 15 to 20 mg/L, and of these, 11 developed nephrotoxicity, compared with no patients in the low-trough group (P = .01). Of the 11 who developed nephrotoxicity, 10 were concomitantly taking other potentially nephrotoxic agents.

Comment. The data on vancomycin and nephrotoxicity are mostly from studies that had limitations such as small numbers of patients, retrospective design, and variable definitions of nephrotoxicity. Many of the patients in these studies had additional factors contributing to nephrotoxicity, including hemodynamic instability and concomitant exposure to other nephrotoxins. Additionally, the sequence of events (nephrotoxicity leading to elevated vancomycin levels vs elevated vancomycin levels causing nephrotoxicity) is still debatable.

The incidence of nephrotoxicity associated with vancomycin therapy is difficult to determine. However, based on current information, the incidence of nephrotoxicity appears to be low when vancomycin is used as monotherapy.

IS S AUREUS BECOMING RESISTANT TO VANCOMYCIN?

An issue of increasing importance in health care settings is the emergence of vancomycin-intermediate S aureus (VISA) and vancomycin-resistant S aureus (VRSA). Eleven cases of VRSA were identified in the United States from 2002 to 2005.13 All cases of VRSA in the United States have involved the incorporation of enterococcal vanA cassette into the S aureus genome.14 While true VRSA isolates remain rare, VISA isolates are becoming more common.

Heteroresistant VISA: An emerging subpopulation of MRSA

Another population of S aureus that has emerged is heteroresistant vancomycin-intermediate S aureus (hVISA). It is defined as the presence of subpopulations of VISA within a population of MRSA at a rate of one organism per 105 to 106 organisms. With traditional testing methods, the vancomycin MIC for the entire population of the strain is within the susceptible range.15 These hVISA populations are thought to be precursors to the development of VISA.16

The resistance to vancomycin in hVISA and VISA populations is due to increased cell wall thickness, altered penicillin-binding protein profiles, and decreased cell wall autolysis.

While the true prevalence of hVISA is difficult to predict because of challenges in microbiological detection and probably varies between geographic regions and individual institutions, different studies have reported hVISA rates between 2% and 13% of all MRSA isolates.15–17

Reduced vancomycin susceptibility can develop regardless of methicillin susceptibility.18

While hVISA is not common, its presence is thought to be a predictor of failing vancomycin therapy.15

Factors associated with hVISA bacteremia include high-bacterial-load infections, treatment failure (including persistent bacteremia for more than 7 days), and initially low serum vancomycin levels.15

 

 

‘MIC creep’: Is it real?

Also worrisome, the average vancomycin MIC for S aureus has been shifting upward, based on reports from several institutions, although it is still within the susceptible range.19,20 However, this “MIC creep” likely reflects, at least in part, differences in MIC testing and varying methods used to analyze the data.19,20

Holmes and Jorgensen,21 in a single-institution study of MRSA isolates recovered from bacteremic patients from 1999 to 2006, determined that no MIC creep existed when they tested vancomycin MICs using the broth microdilution method. The authors found the MIC90 (ie, the MIC in at least 90% of the isolates) remained less than 1 mg/L during each year of the study.

Sader et al,22 in a multicenter study, evaluated 1,800 MRSA bloodstream isolates from nine hospitals across the United States from 2002 to 2006. Vancomycin MICs were again measured by broth microdilution methods. The mode MIC remained stable at 0.625 mg/L during the study period, and the authors did not detect a trend of rising MICs.

The inconsistency between reports of MIC creep at single institutions and the absence of this phenomenon in large, multicenter studies seems to imply that vancomycin MIC creep is not occurring on a grand scale.

Vancomycin tolerance

Another troubling matter with S aureus and vancomycin is the issue of tolerance. Vancomycin tolerance, defined in terms of increased minimum bactericidal concentration, represents a loss of bactericidal activity. Tolerance to vancomycin can occur even if the MIC remains in the susceptible range.23

Safdar and Rolston,24 in an observational study from a cancer center, reported that of eight cases of bacteremia that was resistant to vancomycin therapy, three were caused by S aureus.

Sakoulas et al25 found that higher levels of vancomycin bactericidal activity were associated with higher rates of clinical success; however, they found no effect on the mortality rate.

The issue of vancomycin tolerance remains controversial, and because testing for it is impractical in clinical microbiology laboratories, its implications outside the research arena are difficult to ascertain at present.

IS VANCOMYCIN STILL THE BEST DRUG FOR S AUREUS?

MIC break points have been lowered

In 2006, the Clinical Laboratories and Standards Institute lowered its break points for vancomycin MIC categories for S aureus:

  • Susceptible: ≤ 2 mg/L (formerly ≤ 4 mg/L)
  • Intermediate: 4–8 mg/L (formerly 8–16 mg/L)
  • Resistant: ≥ 16 mg/L (formerly ≥ 32 mg/L).

The rationales for these changes were that the lower break points would better detect hVISA, and that cases have been reported of clinical treatment failure of S aureus infections in which the MICs for vancomycin were 4 mg/L.26

Since 2006, the question has been raised whether to lower the break points even further. A reason for this proposal comes from an enhanced understanding of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of vancomycin.

The variable most closely associated with clinical response to vancomycin is the AUC-MIC ratio. An AUC-MIC ratio of 400 or higher may be associated with better outcomes in patients with serious S aureus infection. A study of 108 patients with S aureus infection of the lower respiratory tract indicated that organism eradication was more likely if the AUC-MIC ratio was 400 or greater compared with values less than 400, and this was statistically significant.27 However, in cases of S aureus infection with a vancomycin MIC of 2 mg/L or higher, this ratio may not be achievable.

A prospective study of 414 MRSA bacteremia episodes found a vancomycin MIC of 2 mg/L to be a predictor of death.28 The authors concluded that vancomycin may not be the optimal treatment for MRSA with a vancomycin MIC of 2 mg/L.28 Additional studies have also suggested a possible decrease in response to vancomycin in MRSA isolates with elevated MICs within the susceptible range.25,29

Recent guidelines from the IDSA recommend using the clinical response, regardless of the MIC, to guide antimicrobial selection for isolates with MICs in the susceptible range.2

Combination therapy with vancomycin

As vancomycin use has increased, therapeutic failures with vancomycin have become apparent. Combination therapy has been suggested as an option to increase the efficacy of vancomycin when treating complicated infections.

Rifampin plus vancomycin is controversial.30 The combination is theoretically beneficial, especially in infections associated with prosthetic devices. However, clinical studies have failed to convincingly support its use, and some have suggested that it might prolong bacteremia. In addition, it has numerous drug interactions to consider and adverse effects.31

Gentamicin plus vancomycin. The evidence supporting the use of this combination is weak at best. It appears that clinicians may have extrapolated from the success reported by Korzeniowski and Sande,32 who found that methicillin-susceptible S aureus bacteremia was cleared faster if gentamicin was added to nafcillin. A more recent study33 that compared daptomycin (Cubicin) monotherapy with combined vancomycin and gentamicin to treat MRSA bacteremia and endocarditis showed a better overall success rate with daptomycin (44% vs 32.6%), but the difference was not statistically significant.

Gentamicin has some toxicity. Even short-term use (for the first 4 days of therapy) at low doses for bacteremia and endocarditis due to staphylococci has been associated with a higher rate of renal adverse events, including a significant decrease in creatinine clearance.34

Clindamycin or linezolid plus vancomycin is used to decrease toxin production by S aureus.30

While combination therapy with vancomycin is recommended in specific clinical situations, and the combinations are synergistic in vitro, information is lacking about clinical outcomes to support their use.

 

 

Don’t use vancomycin when another drug would be better

Vancomycin continues to be the drug of choice in many circumstances, but in some instances its role is under scrutiny and another drug might be better.

Beta-lactams. In patients with infection due to methicillin-susceptible S aureus, failure rates are higher with vancomycin than with beta-lactam therapy, specifically nafcillin.35–37 Beta-lactam antibiotics are thus the drugs of choice for treating infection with beta-lactam-susceptible strains of S aureus.

Linezolid. In theory, linezolid’s ability to decrease production of the S aureus Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) toxin may be an advantage over vancomycin for treating necrotizing pneumonias. For the treatment of MRSA pneumonia, however, controversy exists as to whether linezolid is superior to vancomycin. An analysis of two prospective, randomized, double-blind studies of patients with MRSA pneumonia suggested that initial therapy with linezolid was associated with better survival and clinical cure rates,38 but a subsequent meta-analysis did not substantiate this finding.39 An additional comparative study has been completed, and analysis of the results is in progress.

Daptomycin, approved for skin and soft-tissue infections and bacteremias, including those with right-sided endocarditis, is a lipopeptide antibiotic with a spectrum of action similar to that of vancomycin.40 Daptomycin is also active against many strains of vancomycin-resistant enterococci. As noted above, in the MRSA subgroup of the pivotal comparative study of treatment for S aureus bacteremia and endocarditis, the success rate for daptomycin-treated patients (44.4%) was better than that for patients treated with vancomycin plus gentamicin (32.6%), but the difference was not statistically significant.33,41

The creatine phosphokinase concentration should be monitored weekly in patients on daptomycin.42 Daptomycin is inactivated by lung surfactant and should not be used to treat pneumonia.

Other treatment options approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for MRSA infections include tigecycline (Tygacil), quinupristin-dalfopristin (Synercid), telavancin (Vibativ), and ceftaroline (Teflaro).

Tigecycline is a glycylcycline with bacteriostatic activity against S aureus and wide distribution to the tissues.43

Quinupristin-dalfopristin, a streptogramin antibiotic, has activity against S aureus. Its use may be associated with severe myalgias, sometimes leading patients to stop taking it.

Telavancin, recently approved by the FDA, is a lipoglycopeptide antibiotic.44 It is currently approved to treat complicated skin and skin structure infections and was found to be not inferior to vancomycin. An important side effect of this agent is nephrotoxicity. A negative pregnancy test is required before using this agent in women of childbearing potential.

Ceftaroline, a fifth-generation cephalosporin active against MRSA, has been approved by the FDA for the treatment of skin and skin structure infections and community-acquired pneumonia.45

In the past half-century, vancomycin has gone from near-orphan status to being one of the most often used antibiotics in our formulary. The driving force for its use is clear: the evolution of Staphylococcus aureus. At first, vancomycin was used to treat infections caused by penicillin-resistant strains. However, the discovery of methicillin curbed its use for more than 2 decades.1

Then, as methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA) began to spread in the 1980s, the use of vancomycin began to increase, and with the rise in community-associated MRSA infections in the 1990s, it became even more widely prescribed. The recent Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines for treatment of infections due to MRSA are replete with references to the use of vancomycin.2

Another factor driving the use of vancomycin is the increased prevalence of device-associated infections, many of which are caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci and other organisms that colonize the skin.3 Many of these bacteria are susceptible only to vancomycin; they may be associated with infections of vascular catheters, cardiac valves, pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, orthopedic implants, neurosurgical devices, and other devices.

To use vancomycin appropriately, we need to recognize the changing minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs), to select proper doses and dosing intervals, and to know how to monitor its use. Despite more than 50 years of experience with vancomycin, we sometimes find ourselves with more questions than answers about its optimal use.

WHAT IS VANCOMYCIN?

Vancomycin is a glycopeptide antibiotic isolated from a strain of Streptomyces orientalis discovered in a soil sample from Borneo in the mid-1950s.1 It exerts its action by binding to a d-alanyl-d-alanine cell wall precursor necessary for peptidoglycan cross-linking and, therefore, for inhibiting bacterial cell wall synthesis.

Vancomycin is bactericidal against most gram-positive species, including streptococci and staphylococci, with the exception of Enterococcus species, for which it is bacteriostatic. Though it is bactericidal, it appears to kill bacteria more slowly than beta-lactam antibiotics, and therefore it may take longer to clear bacteremia.4

WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO DOSE VANCOMYCIN?

Vancomycin is widely distributed to most tissues, with an approximate volume of distribution of 0.4 to 1 L/kg; 50% to 55% is protein-bound. Because of this large volume of distribution, vancomycin’s dosing is based on actual body weight.

Vancomycin is not metabolized and is primarily excreted unchanged in the urine via glomerular filtration. It therefore requires dosage adjustments for renal insufficiency.

Vancomycin’s molecular weight is 1,485.73 Da, making it less susceptible to removal by dialysis than smaller molecules. Dosing of vancomycin in patients on hemodialysis depends on many factors specific to the dialysis center, including but not limited to the type of filter used, the duration of filtration, and whether high-flux filtration is used.

Is continuous intravenous infusion better than standard dosing?

Giving vancomycin by continuous infusion has been suggested as a way to optimize its serum concentration and improve its clinical effectiveness.

Wysocki et al5 conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized study comparing continuous and intermittent intravenous infusions of vancomycin (the latter every 12 hours) to treat severe hospital-acquired MRSA infections, including bloodstream infections and pneumonia. Although blood concentrations above 10 μg/mL were reached more than 30 hours faster with continuous infusions than with intermittent ones, the microbiologic and clinical outcomes were similar with either method.

James et al6 compared the pharmacodynamics of conventional dosing of vancomycin (ie, 1 g every 12 hours) and continuous infusion in 10 patients with suspected or documented gram-positive infections in a prospective, randomized, crossover study. While no adverse effects were observed, the authors also found no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups in the pharmacodynamic variables investigated, including the area under the curve (AUC) divided by the MIC (the AUC-MIC ratio).

In view of the currently available data, the guidelines for monitoring vancomycin therapy note that there does not appear to be any difference in patient outcomes with continuous infusion vs intermittent dosing.7

Should a loading dose be given?

Another proposed strategy for optimizing vancomycin’s effectiveness is to give a higher initial dose, ie, a loading dose.

Wang et al8 performed a single-center study in 28 patients who received a 25 mg/kg loading dose at a rate of 500 mg/hour. This loading dose was safe, but the authors did not evaluate its efficacy.

Mohammedi et al9 compared loading doses of 500 mg and 15 mg/kg in critically ill patients receiving vancomycin by continuous infusion. The weight-based loading dose produced higher post-dose levels and a significantly higher rate of clinical cure, but there was no significant difference in the rate of survival to discharge from the intensive care unit.

While the use of a loading dose appears to be safe and likely leads to more rapid attainment of therapeutic blood levels, we lack data on whether it improves clinical outcomes, and further study is needed to determine its role.

 

 

WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO MONITOR VANCOMYCIN THERAPY?

Whether and how to use the serum vancomycin concentration to adjust the dosing has been a matter of debate for many years. Convincing evidence that vancomycin levels predict clinical outcomes or that measuring them prevents toxicity is lacking.7

A consensus statement from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the IDSA, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists7 contains recommendations for monitoring vancomycin therapy, based on a critical evaluation of the available scientific evidence. Their recommendations:

  • Vancomycin serum concentrations should be checked to optimize therapy and used as a surrogate marker of effectiveness.
  • Trough, rather than peak, levels should be monitored.
  • Trough levels should be checked just before the fourth dose, when steady-state levels are likely to have been achieved. More frequent monitoring may be considered in patients with fluctuating renal function.
  • Trough levels should be higher than 10 mg/L to prevent the development of resistance.
  • To improve antibiotic penetration and optimize the likelihood of achieving pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic targets, trough levels of 15 to 20 mg/L are recommended for pathogens with a vancomycin MIC of 1 mg/L or higher and for complicated infections such as endocarditis, osteomyelitis, meningitis, and hospital-acquired pneumonia.
  • For prolonged courses, it is appropriate to check vancomycin levels weekly in hemodynamically stable patients and more often in those who are not hemodynamically stable.

IS VANCOMYCIN NEPHROTOXIC?

In the 1950s, vancomycin formulations were sometimes called “Mississippi mud” because of the many impurities they contained.1 These impurities were associated with significant nephrotoxicity. Better purification methods used in the manufacture of current formulations mitigate this problem, resulting in a lower incidence of nephrotoxicity.

Over the last several years, organizations such as the American Thoracic Society and the IDSA have recommended targeting higher vancomycin trough concentrations.10 The consequent widespread use of higher doses has renewed interest in vancomycin’s potential nephrotoxicity.

Lodise et al,11 in a cohort study, examined the incidence of nephrotoxicity with higher daily doses of vancomycin (≥ 4 g/day), lower daily doses (< 4 g/day), and linezolid (Zyvox). They defined nephrotoxicity as an increase in serum creatinine of 0.5 mg/dL or a decrease in calculated creatinine clearance of 50% from baseline on 2 consecutive days.

The incidence of nephrotoxicity was significantly higher in the high-dose vancomycin group (34.6%) than in the low-dose vancomycin group (10.9%) and in the linezolid group (6.7%) (P = .001). Additional factors associated with nephrotoxicity in this study included baseline creatinine clearance less than 86.6 mL/minute, weight greater than 101.4 kg (223.5 lb), and being in an intensive care unit.

Hidayat et al12 investigated outcomes in patients with high vs low vancomycin trough levels (≥ 15 mg/L vs < 15 mg/L) in a prospective cohort study. Sixty-three patients achieved an average vancomycin trough of 15 to 20 mg/L, and of these, 11 developed nephrotoxicity, compared with no patients in the low-trough group (P = .01). Of the 11 who developed nephrotoxicity, 10 were concomitantly taking other potentially nephrotoxic agents.

Comment. The data on vancomycin and nephrotoxicity are mostly from studies that had limitations such as small numbers of patients, retrospective design, and variable definitions of nephrotoxicity. Many of the patients in these studies had additional factors contributing to nephrotoxicity, including hemodynamic instability and concomitant exposure to other nephrotoxins. Additionally, the sequence of events (nephrotoxicity leading to elevated vancomycin levels vs elevated vancomycin levels causing nephrotoxicity) is still debatable.

The incidence of nephrotoxicity associated with vancomycin therapy is difficult to determine. However, based on current information, the incidence of nephrotoxicity appears to be low when vancomycin is used as monotherapy.

IS S AUREUS BECOMING RESISTANT TO VANCOMYCIN?

An issue of increasing importance in health care settings is the emergence of vancomycin-intermediate S aureus (VISA) and vancomycin-resistant S aureus (VRSA). Eleven cases of VRSA were identified in the United States from 2002 to 2005.13 All cases of VRSA in the United States have involved the incorporation of enterococcal vanA cassette into the S aureus genome.14 While true VRSA isolates remain rare, VISA isolates are becoming more common.

Heteroresistant VISA: An emerging subpopulation of MRSA

Another population of S aureus that has emerged is heteroresistant vancomycin-intermediate S aureus (hVISA). It is defined as the presence of subpopulations of VISA within a population of MRSA at a rate of one organism per 105 to 106 organisms. With traditional testing methods, the vancomycin MIC for the entire population of the strain is within the susceptible range.15 These hVISA populations are thought to be precursors to the development of VISA.16

The resistance to vancomycin in hVISA and VISA populations is due to increased cell wall thickness, altered penicillin-binding protein profiles, and decreased cell wall autolysis.

While the true prevalence of hVISA is difficult to predict because of challenges in microbiological detection and probably varies between geographic regions and individual institutions, different studies have reported hVISA rates between 2% and 13% of all MRSA isolates.15–17

Reduced vancomycin susceptibility can develop regardless of methicillin susceptibility.18

While hVISA is not common, its presence is thought to be a predictor of failing vancomycin therapy.15

Factors associated with hVISA bacteremia include high-bacterial-load infections, treatment failure (including persistent bacteremia for more than 7 days), and initially low serum vancomycin levels.15

 

 

‘MIC creep’: Is it real?

Also worrisome, the average vancomycin MIC for S aureus has been shifting upward, based on reports from several institutions, although it is still within the susceptible range.19,20 However, this “MIC creep” likely reflects, at least in part, differences in MIC testing and varying methods used to analyze the data.19,20

Holmes and Jorgensen,21 in a single-institution study of MRSA isolates recovered from bacteremic patients from 1999 to 2006, determined that no MIC creep existed when they tested vancomycin MICs using the broth microdilution method. The authors found the MIC90 (ie, the MIC in at least 90% of the isolates) remained less than 1 mg/L during each year of the study.

Sader et al,22 in a multicenter study, evaluated 1,800 MRSA bloodstream isolates from nine hospitals across the United States from 2002 to 2006. Vancomycin MICs were again measured by broth microdilution methods. The mode MIC remained stable at 0.625 mg/L during the study period, and the authors did not detect a trend of rising MICs.

The inconsistency between reports of MIC creep at single institutions and the absence of this phenomenon in large, multicenter studies seems to imply that vancomycin MIC creep is not occurring on a grand scale.

Vancomycin tolerance

Another troubling matter with S aureus and vancomycin is the issue of tolerance. Vancomycin tolerance, defined in terms of increased minimum bactericidal concentration, represents a loss of bactericidal activity. Tolerance to vancomycin can occur even if the MIC remains in the susceptible range.23

Safdar and Rolston,24 in an observational study from a cancer center, reported that of eight cases of bacteremia that was resistant to vancomycin therapy, three were caused by S aureus.

Sakoulas et al25 found that higher levels of vancomycin bactericidal activity were associated with higher rates of clinical success; however, they found no effect on the mortality rate.

The issue of vancomycin tolerance remains controversial, and because testing for it is impractical in clinical microbiology laboratories, its implications outside the research arena are difficult to ascertain at present.

IS VANCOMYCIN STILL THE BEST DRUG FOR S AUREUS?

MIC break points have been lowered

In 2006, the Clinical Laboratories and Standards Institute lowered its break points for vancomycin MIC categories for S aureus:

  • Susceptible: ≤ 2 mg/L (formerly ≤ 4 mg/L)
  • Intermediate: 4–8 mg/L (formerly 8–16 mg/L)
  • Resistant: ≥ 16 mg/L (formerly ≥ 32 mg/L).

The rationales for these changes were that the lower break points would better detect hVISA, and that cases have been reported of clinical treatment failure of S aureus infections in which the MICs for vancomycin were 4 mg/L.26

Since 2006, the question has been raised whether to lower the break points even further. A reason for this proposal comes from an enhanced understanding of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of vancomycin.

The variable most closely associated with clinical response to vancomycin is the AUC-MIC ratio. An AUC-MIC ratio of 400 or higher may be associated with better outcomes in patients with serious S aureus infection. A study of 108 patients with S aureus infection of the lower respiratory tract indicated that organism eradication was more likely if the AUC-MIC ratio was 400 or greater compared with values less than 400, and this was statistically significant.27 However, in cases of S aureus infection with a vancomycin MIC of 2 mg/L or higher, this ratio may not be achievable.

A prospective study of 414 MRSA bacteremia episodes found a vancomycin MIC of 2 mg/L to be a predictor of death.28 The authors concluded that vancomycin may not be the optimal treatment for MRSA with a vancomycin MIC of 2 mg/L.28 Additional studies have also suggested a possible decrease in response to vancomycin in MRSA isolates with elevated MICs within the susceptible range.25,29

Recent guidelines from the IDSA recommend using the clinical response, regardless of the MIC, to guide antimicrobial selection for isolates with MICs in the susceptible range.2

Combination therapy with vancomycin

As vancomycin use has increased, therapeutic failures with vancomycin have become apparent. Combination therapy has been suggested as an option to increase the efficacy of vancomycin when treating complicated infections.

Rifampin plus vancomycin is controversial.30 The combination is theoretically beneficial, especially in infections associated with prosthetic devices. However, clinical studies have failed to convincingly support its use, and some have suggested that it might prolong bacteremia. In addition, it has numerous drug interactions to consider and adverse effects.31

Gentamicin plus vancomycin. The evidence supporting the use of this combination is weak at best. It appears that clinicians may have extrapolated from the success reported by Korzeniowski and Sande,32 who found that methicillin-susceptible S aureus bacteremia was cleared faster if gentamicin was added to nafcillin. A more recent study33 that compared daptomycin (Cubicin) monotherapy with combined vancomycin and gentamicin to treat MRSA bacteremia and endocarditis showed a better overall success rate with daptomycin (44% vs 32.6%), but the difference was not statistically significant.

Gentamicin has some toxicity. Even short-term use (for the first 4 days of therapy) at low doses for bacteremia and endocarditis due to staphylococci has been associated with a higher rate of renal adverse events, including a significant decrease in creatinine clearance.34

Clindamycin or linezolid plus vancomycin is used to decrease toxin production by S aureus.30

While combination therapy with vancomycin is recommended in specific clinical situations, and the combinations are synergistic in vitro, information is lacking about clinical outcomes to support their use.

 

 

Don’t use vancomycin when another drug would be better

Vancomycin continues to be the drug of choice in many circumstances, but in some instances its role is under scrutiny and another drug might be better.

Beta-lactams. In patients with infection due to methicillin-susceptible S aureus, failure rates are higher with vancomycin than with beta-lactam therapy, specifically nafcillin.35–37 Beta-lactam antibiotics are thus the drugs of choice for treating infection with beta-lactam-susceptible strains of S aureus.

Linezolid. In theory, linezolid’s ability to decrease production of the S aureus Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) toxin may be an advantage over vancomycin for treating necrotizing pneumonias. For the treatment of MRSA pneumonia, however, controversy exists as to whether linezolid is superior to vancomycin. An analysis of two prospective, randomized, double-blind studies of patients with MRSA pneumonia suggested that initial therapy with linezolid was associated with better survival and clinical cure rates,38 but a subsequent meta-analysis did not substantiate this finding.39 An additional comparative study has been completed, and analysis of the results is in progress.

Daptomycin, approved for skin and soft-tissue infections and bacteremias, including those with right-sided endocarditis, is a lipopeptide antibiotic with a spectrum of action similar to that of vancomycin.40 Daptomycin is also active against many strains of vancomycin-resistant enterococci. As noted above, in the MRSA subgroup of the pivotal comparative study of treatment for S aureus bacteremia and endocarditis, the success rate for daptomycin-treated patients (44.4%) was better than that for patients treated with vancomycin plus gentamicin (32.6%), but the difference was not statistically significant.33,41

The creatine phosphokinase concentration should be monitored weekly in patients on daptomycin.42 Daptomycin is inactivated by lung surfactant and should not be used to treat pneumonia.

Other treatment options approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for MRSA infections include tigecycline (Tygacil), quinupristin-dalfopristin (Synercid), telavancin (Vibativ), and ceftaroline (Teflaro).

Tigecycline is a glycylcycline with bacteriostatic activity against S aureus and wide distribution to the tissues.43

Quinupristin-dalfopristin, a streptogramin antibiotic, has activity against S aureus. Its use may be associated with severe myalgias, sometimes leading patients to stop taking it.

Telavancin, recently approved by the FDA, is a lipoglycopeptide antibiotic.44 It is currently approved to treat complicated skin and skin structure infections and was found to be not inferior to vancomycin. An important side effect of this agent is nephrotoxicity. A negative pregnancy test is required before using this agent in women of childbearing potential.

Ceftaroline, a fifth-generation cephalosporin active against MRSA, has been approved by the FDA for the treatment of skin and skin structure infections and community-acquired pneumonia.45

References
  1. Murray BE, Nannini EC. Glycopeptides (vancomycin and teicoplanin), streptogramins (quinupristin-dalfopristin), and lipopeptides (daptomycin). In:Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, editors. Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier; 2010:449–468.
  2. Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, 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; 52:285–292.
  3. Baddour LM, Epstein AE, Erickson CC, et al; American Heart Association Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease Committee. Update on cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections and their management: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2010; 121:458–477.
  4. Chang FY, Peacock JE, Musher DM, et al. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: recurrence and the impact of antibiotic treatment in a prospective multicenter study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2003; 82:333–339.
  5. Wysocki M, Delatour F, Faurisson F, et al. Continuous versus intermittent infusion of vancomycin in severe staphylococcal infections: prospective multicenter randomized study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45:2460–2467.
  6. James JK, Palmer SM, Levine DP, Rybak MJ. Comparison of conventional dosing versus continuous-infusion vancomycin therapy for patients with suspected or documented gram-positive infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40:696–700.
  7. Rybak M, Lomaestro B, Rotschafer JC, et al. Therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin in adult patients: a consensus review of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2009; 66:82–98.
  8. Wang JT, Fang CT, Chen YC, Chang SC. Necessity of a loading dose when using vancomycin in critically ill patients (letter). J Antimicrob Chemother 2001; 47:246.
  9. Mohammedi I, Descloux E, Argaud L, Le Scanff J, Robert D. Loading dose of vancomycin in critically ill patients: 15 mg/kg is a better choice than 500 mg. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2006; 27:259–262.
  10. American Thoracic Society; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005; 171:388–416.
  11. Lodise TP, Lomaestro B, Graves J, Drusano GL. Larger vancomycin doses (at least four grams per day) are associated with an increased incidence of nephrotoxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008; 52:1330–1336.
  12. Hidayat LK, Hsu DI, Quist R, Shriner KA, Wong-Beringer A. High-dose vancomycin therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: efficacy and toxicity. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:2138–2144.
  13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC reminds clinical laboratories and healthcare infection preventionists of their role in the search and containment of vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA), May 2010. http://emergency.cdc.gov/coca/reminders/2010/2010may06.asp. Accessed June 7, 2011.
  14. Sievert DM, Rudrik JT, Patel JB, McDonald LC, Wilkins MJ, Hageman JC. Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the United States, 2002–2006. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46:668–674.
  15. Charles PG, Ward PB, Johnson PD, Howden BP, Grayson ML. Clinical features associated with bacteremia due to heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38:448–451.
  16. Liu C, Chambers HF. Staphylococcus aureus with heterogeneous resistance to vancomycin: epidemiology, clinical significance, and critical assessment of diagnostic methods. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47:3040–3045.
  17. Sader HS, Jones RN, Rossi KL, Rybak MJ. Occurrence of vancomycin-tolerant and heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate strains (hVISA) among Staphylococcus aureus causing bloodstream infections in nine USA hospitals. J Antimicrob Chemother 2009; 64:1024–1028.
  18. Pillai SK, Wennersten C, Venkataraman L, Eliopoulos GM, Moellering RC, Karchmer AW. Development of reduced vancomycin susceptibility in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49:1169–1174.
  19. Wang G, Hindler JF, Ward KW, Bruckner DA. Increased vancomycin MICs for Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates from a university hospital during a 5-year period. J Clin Microbiol 2006; 44:3883–3886.
  20. Steinkraus G, White R, Friedrich L. Vancomycin MIC creep in nonvancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus (VISA), vancomycin-susceptible clinical methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) blood isolates from 2001–05. J Antimicrob Chemother 2007; 60:788–794.
  21. Holmes RL, Jorgensen JH. Inhibitory activities of 11 antimicrobial agents and bactericidal activities of vancomycin and daptomycin against invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates obtained from 1999 through 2006. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008; 52:757–760.
  22. Sader HS, Fey PD, Limaye AP, et al. Evaluation of vancomycin and daptomycin potency trends (MIC creep) against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates collected in nine U.S. medical centers from 2002 to 2006. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009; 53:4127–4132.
  23. May J, Shannon K, King A, French G. Glycopeptide tolerance in Staphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother 1998; 42:189–197.
  24. Safdar A, Rolston KV. Vancomycin tolerance, a potential mechanism for refractory gram-positive bacteremia observational study in patients with cancer. Cancer 2006; 106:1815–1820.
  25. Sakoulas G, Moise-Broder PA, Schentag J, Forrest A, Moellering RC, Eliopoulos GM. Relationship of MIC and bactericidal activity to efficacy of vancomycin for treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42:2398–2402.
  26. Tenover FC, Moellering RC. The rationale for revising the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute vancomycin minimal inhibitory concentration interpretive criteria for Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44:1208–1215.
  27. Moise-Broder PA, Forrest A, Birmingham MC, Schentag JJ. Pharmacodynamics of vancomycin and other antimicrobials in patients with Staphylococcus aureus lower respiratory tract infections. Clin Pharmacokinet 2004; 43:925–942.
  28. Soriano A, Marco F, Martínez JA, et al. Influence of vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration on the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46:193–200.
  29. Lodise TP, Graves J, Evans A, et al. Relationship between vancomycin MIC and failure among patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia treated with vancomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008; 52:3315–3320.
  30. Deresinski S. Vancomycin in combination with other antibiotics for the treatment of serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49:1072–1079.
  31. Levine DP, Fromm BS, Reddy BR. Slow response to vancomycin or vancomycin plus rifampin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Ann Intern Med 1991; 115:674–680.
  32. Korzeniowski O, Sande MA. Combination antimicrobial therapy for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in patients addicted to parenteral drugs and in nonaddicts: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med 1982; 97:496–503.
  33. Rehm SJ, Boucher H, Levine D, et al. Daptomycin versus vancomycin plus gentamicin for treatment of bacteraemia and endocarditis due to Staphylococcus aureus: subset analysis of patients infected with methicillin-resistant isolates. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008; 62:1413–1421.
  34. Cosgrove SE, Vigliani GA, Fowler VG, et al. Initial low-dose gentamicin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and endocarditis is nephrotoxic. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 48:713–721.
  35. Small PM, Chambers HF. Vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in intravenous drug users. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34:1227–1231.
  36. Gentry CA, Rodvold KA, Novak RM, Hershow RC, Naderer OJ. Retrospective evaluation of therapies for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Pharmacotherapy 1997; 17:990–997.
  37. Chang FY, Peacock JE, Musher DM, et al. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: recurrence and the impact of antibiotic treatment in a prospective multicenter study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2003; 82:333–339.
  38. Wunderink RG, Rello J, Cammarata SK, Croos-Dabrera RV, Kollef MH. Linezolid vs vancomycin: analysis of two double-blind studies of patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia. Chest 2003; 124:1789–1797.
  39. Kalil AC, Murthy MH, Hermsen ED, Neto FK, Sun J, Rupp ME. Linezolid versus vancomycin or teicoplanin for nosocomial pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2010; 38:1802–1808.
  40. Kosmidis C, Levine DP. Daptomycin: pharmacology and clinical use. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2010; 11:615–625.
  41. Fowler VG, Boucher HW, Corey GR, et al; S aureus Endocarditis and Bacteremia Study Group. Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:653–665.
  42. Daptomycin package insert. Lexington, MA. Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. November 2010. www.cubicin.com/pdf/PrescribingInformation.pdf. Accessed June 7, 2011.
  43. Peterson LR. A review of tigecycline—the first glycylcycline. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2008; 32(suppl 4):S215–S222.
  44. Saravolatz LD, Stein GE, Johnson LB. Telavancin: a novel lipoglycopeptide. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49:1908–1914.
  45. Ceftaroline package insert. St. Louis, MO. Forest Pharmaceuticals. October 2010.
References
  1. Murray BE, Nannini EC. Glycopeptides (vancomycin and teicoplanin), streptogramins (quinupristin-dalfopristin), and lipopeptides (daptomycin). In:Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, editors. Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier; 2010:449–468.
  2. Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, 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; 52:285–292.
  3. Baddour LM, Epstein AE, Erickson CC, et al; American Heart Association Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease Committee. Update on cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections and their management: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2010; 121:458–477.
  4. Chang FY, Peacock JE, Musher DM, et al. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: recurrence and the impact of antibiotic treatment in a prospective multicenter study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2003; 82:333–339.
  5. Wysocki M, Delatour F, Faurisson F, et al. Continuous versus intermittent infusion of vancomycin in severe staphylococcal infections: prospective multicenter randomized study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45:2460–2467.
  6. James JK, Palmer SM, Levine DP, Rybak MJ. Comparison of conventional dosing versus continuous-infusion vancomycin therapy for patients with suspected or documented gram-positive infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40:696–700.
  7. Rybak M, Lomaestro B, Rotschafer JC, et al. Therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin in adult patients: a consensus review of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2009; 66:82–98.
  8. Wang JT, Fang CT, Chen YC, Chang SC. Necessity of a loading dose when using vancomycin in critically ill patients (letter). J Antimicrob Chemother 2001; 47:246.
  9. Mohammedi I, Descloux E, Argaud L, Le Scanff J, Robert D. Loading dose of vancomycin in critically ill patients: 15 mg/kg is a better choice than 500 mg. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2006; 27:259–262.
  10. American Thoracic Society; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005; 171:388–416.
  11. Lodise TP, Lomaestro B, Graves J, Drusano GL. Larger vancomycin doses (at least four grams per day) are associated with an increased incidence of nephrotoxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008; 52:1330–1336.
  12. Hidayat LK, Hsu DI, Quist R, Shriner KA, Wong-Beringer A. High-dose vancomycin therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: efficacy and toxicity. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:2138–2144.
  13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC reminds clinical laboratories and healthcare infection preventionists of their role in the search and containment of vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA), May 2010. http://emergency.cdc.gov/coca/reminders/2010/2010may06.asp. Accessed June 7, 2011.
  14. Sievert DM, Rudrik JT, Patel JB, McDonald LC, Wilkins MJ, Hageman JC. Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the United States, 2002–2006. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46:668–674.
  15. Charles PG, Ward PB, Johnson PD, Howden BP, Grayson ML. Clinical features associated with bacteremia due to heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38:448–451.
  16. Liu C, Chambers HF. Staphylococcus aureus with heterogeneous resistance to vancomycin: epidemiology, clinical significance, and critical assessment of diagnostic methods. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47:3040–3045.
  17. Sader HS, Jones RN, Rossi KL, Rybak MJ. Occurrence of vancomycin-tolerant and heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate strains (hVISA) among Staphylococcus aureus causing bloodstream infections in nine USA hospitals. J Antimicrob Chemother 2009; 64:1024–1028.
  18. Pillai SK, Wennersten C, Venkataraman L, Eliopoulos GM, Moellering RC, Karchmer AW. Development of reduced vancomycin susceptibility in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49:1169–1174.
  19. Wang G, Hindler JF, Ward KW, Bruckner DA. Increased vancomycin MICs for Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates from a university hospital during a 5-year period. J Clin Microbiol 2006; 44:3883–3886.
  20. Steinkraus G, White R, Friedrich L. Vancomycin MIC creep in nonvancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus (VISA), vancomycin-susceptible clinical methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) blood isolates from 2001–05. J Antimicrob Chemother 2007; 60:788–794.
  21. Holmes RL, Jorgensen JH. Inhibitory activities of 11 antimicrobial agents and bactericidal activities of vancomycin and daptomycin against invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates obtained from 1999 through 2006. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008; 52:757–760.
  22. Sader HS, Fey PD, Limaye AP, et al. Evaluation of vancomycin and daptomycin potency trends (MIC creep) against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates collected in nine U.S. medical centers from 2002 to 2006. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009; 53:4127–4132.
  23. May J, Shannon K, King A, French G. Glycopeptide tolerance in Staphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother 1998; 42:189–197.
  24. Safdar A, Rolston KV. Vancomycin tolerance, a potential mechanism for refractory gram-positive bacteremia observational study in patients with cancer. Cancer 2006; 106:1815–1820.
  25. Sakoulas G, Moise-Broder PA, Schentag J, Forrest A, Moellering RC, Eliopoulos GM. Relationship of MIC and bactericidal activity to efficacy of vancomycin for treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42:2398–2402.
  26. Tenover FC, Moellering RC. The rationale for revising the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute vancomycin minimal inhibitory concentration interpretive criteria for Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44:1208–1215.
  27. Moise-Broder PA, Forrest A, Birmingham MC, Schentag JJ. Pharmacodynamics of vancomycin and other antimicrobials in patients with Staphylococcus aureus lower respiratory tract infections. Clin Pharmacokinet 2004; 43:925–942.
  28. Soriano A, Marco F, Martínez JA, et al. Influence of vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration on the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46:193–200.
  29. Lodise TP, Graves J, Evans A, et al. Relationship between vancomycin MIC and failure among patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia treated with vancomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008; 52:3315–3320.
  30. Deresinski S. Vancomycin in combination with other antibiotics for the treatment of serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49:1072–1079.
  31. Levine DP, Fromm BS, Reddy BR. Slow response to vancomycin or vancomycin plus rifampin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Ann Intern Med 1991; 115:674–680.
  32. Korzeniowski O, Sande MA. Combination antimicrobial therapy for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in patients addicted to parenteral drugs and in nonaddicts: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med 1982; 97:496–503.
  33. Rehm SJ, Boucher H, Levine D, et al. Daptomycin versus vancomycin plus gentamicin for treatment of bacteraemia and endocarditis due to Staphylococcus aureus: subset analysis of patients infected with methicillin-resistant isolates. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008; 62:1413–1421.
  34. Cosgrove SE, Vigliani GA, Fowler VG, et al. Initial low-dose gentamicin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and endocarditis is nephrotoxic. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 48:713–721.
  35. Small PM, Chambers HF. Vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in intravenous drug users. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34:1227–1231.
  36. Gentry CA, Rodvold KA, Novak RM, Hershow RC, Naderer OJ. Retrospective evaluation of therapies for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Pharmacotherapy 1997; 17:990–997.
  37. Chang FY, Peacock JE, Musher DM, et al. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: recurrence and the impact of antibiotic treatment in a prospective multicenter study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2003; 82:333–339.
  38. Wunderink RG, Rello J, Cammarata SK, Croos-Dabrera RV, Kollef MH. Linezolid vs vancomycin: analysis of two double-blind studies of patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia. Chest 2003; 124:1789–1797.
  39. Kalil AC, Murthy MH, Hermsen ED, Neto FK, Sun J, Rupp ME. Linezolid versus vancomycin or teicoplanin for nosocomial pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2010; 38:1802–1808.
  40. Kosmidis C, Levine DP. Daptomycin: pharmacology and clinical use. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2010; 11:615–625.
  41. Fowler VG, Boucher HW, Corey GR, et al; S aureus Endocarditis and Bacteremia Study Group. Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:653–665.
  42. Daptomycin package insert. Lexington, MA. Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. November 2010. www.cubicin.com/pdf/PrescribingInformation.pdf. Accessed June 7, 2011.
  43. Peterson LR. A review of tigecycline—the first glycylcycline. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2008; 32(suppl 4):S215–S222.
  44. Saravolatz LD, Stein GE, Johnson LB. Telavancin: a novel lipoglycopeptide. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49:1908–1914.
  45. Ceftaroline package insert. St. Louis, MO. Forest Pharmaceuticals. October 2010.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 78(7)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 78(7)
Page Number
465-471
Page Number
465-471
Publications
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
Publications
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
Topics
Drug Therapy
Infectious Diseases
Article Type
Article
Display Headline
Vancomycin: A 50-something-year-old antibiotic we still don’t understand
Display Headline
Vancomycin: A 50-something-year-old antibiotic we still don’t understand
Sections
Current Drug Therapy
Inside the Article

KEY POINTS

  • Giving vancomycin by continuous infusion appears to offer no advantage over giving it every 12 hours.
  • Therapeutic blood levels can be reached more quickly if a loading dose is given, but whether this offers a clinical advantage is unclear.
  • The trough vancomycin serum concentration should be greater than 10 mg/L to prevent the development of resistance, and trough levels of 15 to 20 mg/L are recommended if the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) is 1 mg/L or higher.
  • Whether S aureus is becoming resistant to vancomycin is not clear.
  • The variable most closely associated with clinical response to vancomycin is the area under the curve (AUC) divided by the MIC (the AUC-MIC ratio), which should be greater than 400.
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media