Search

Objective: The use of the vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) as a prognostic predictor in patients with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) has been debated in the last decade. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether an elevated vancomycin MIC is associated with a worse prognosis for patients with MSSA bacteraemia., Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis., Data Sources: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to December 2019., Eligibility Criteria: Randomised controlled trials or observational studies were considered eligible if they provided clinical outcomes of patients with MSSA bacteraemia, stratified by vancomycin MIC., Data Synthesis: Primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included septic thrombophlebitis, persistent bacteraemia and complicated bacteraemia. Pooled ORs and 95% CIs were calculated. Subgroup analyses included the susceptibility testing method., Results: Fifteen observational studies were included. Bacteraemia due to MSSA isolates with high vancomycin MICs was associated with higher mortality than isolates with low MICs (OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.84; I 2 =40.3%). Additionally, significantly greater septic thrombophlebitis (OR 3.16; 95% CI 1.11 to 9.00; I 2 =58.6%) and a trend towards more persistent bacteraemia (OR 1.79; 95% CI 0.97 to 3.31; I 2 =0%) were observed in patients with high vancomycin MICs than in patients with low MICs. Differences in complicated bacteraemia were not significant. Similar findings were obtained in subgroup analyses using Etest. However, significant differences in outcomes were not observed between the high and low vancomycin MICs detected using broth microdilution., Conclusion: The available data suggest an association between elevated vancomycin MICs detected using Etest and adverse clinical outcomes for patients with MSSA bacteraemia. Future studies should validate these findings and explore the potential mechanisms., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42018090547., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to re-assess the efficacy and safety of daptomycin compared with linezolid treatment for vancomycin-resistant enterococcal (VRE) bacteraemia and to explore whether high-dose daptomycin is beneficial., Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and meeting abstracts were searched from inception to February 2019. Studies evaluating daptomycin and linezolid treatment for VRE bacteraemia were included., Results: Twenty-two observational studies were identified. A non-significant higher mortality (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.99-1.63) and significantly lower risk of thrombocytopenia (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.61-0.99) were found with daptomycin compared with linezolid treatment. Clinical response (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.59-1.33), microbiological cure (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.53-1.28), recurrence of bacteraemia (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.70-1.32), and risk of creatine kinase elevation (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.46-1.47) were similar for the two agents. In the subgroup analysis of studies focusing on high-dose daptomycin treatment, similar mortality was observed (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.46-1.84). Moreover, patients receiving daptomycin tended to show a higher clinical response (OR 1.61; 95% CI 0.37-7.09) and microbiological cure (OR 2.09; 95% CI 0.43-10.1) and a lower risk of bacteraemia relapse (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.15-1.45), although the difference was not significant., Conclusions: Compared with linezolid treatment, daptomycin treatment showed comparable clinical and microbiological outcomes but a lower incidence of thrombocytopenia. Because of the dose-dependent effect that was observed, high-dose daptomycin should be considered for patients with VRE bacteraemia., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The aim of this letter was to point out some methodological concerns about an article written by Shi et al. and published in the journal. There is an increasing trend in the isolation of Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and a variety of questions regarding the best therapy to treat this condition. These concerns might lead to selection, publication and information bias that prevent the generalization and application of these results in our clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]