Vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus therapy of respiratory tract infections: the end of an era?

Abstract

In 1991, Karchmer [1] raised several key issues related to the pathogenesis and optimal treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infections. The main issue concerned the role of vancomycin in treating serious or invasive methicillin-sensitive S. aureus ( MSSA) and methicillinresistant S. aureus (MRSA) infections. He recognized and envisaged the current global epidemic of MRSA infections in hospitals [2], and to a lesser extent the community [3], and concluded that ‘there is an urgent need for effective alternatives to vancomycin for the treatment of MRSA infections’. Since then we have emerging evidence, a recent meta-analysis, that in patients with S. aureus -related bacteraemia, MRSA is an independent risk factor for higher mortality compared with MSSA bacteraemia [4]. This adds further support to the ongoing debate about the virulence of MRSA infections compared with MSSA and the need for optimal antibiotics at the onset of treatment. The reality, a decade later, is the occurrence of a broad range of serious and invasive MRSA infections, often in vulnerable patients in ‘high risk’ clinical settings [5]. The need to treat many of these patients empirically with a view to ‘covering’ the most likely offending pathogens is perceived to be high if the critical therapeutic window of opportunity for optimal antibiotic therapy is not to be missed. The undesirable consequences of not getting the ‘right drug, to the right patient, in the right dose at the right time’ are clear [6]. The rapid laboratory and clinical capability of predicting patients likely to be infected with MRSA continues to improve but is by no means ideal [7,8]. Additionally, we are witnessing the concurrent rise in S. aureus strains that exhibits glycopeptide-intermediate susceptibility from several countries including Japan, France and US that has been subject to recent review [9]. For example, strains with MIC to vancomycin of 4 mg/l have caused clinical infections that failed to respond to vancomycin therapy. Traditionally, when the effectiveness of an antimicrobial agent in serious infections is considered, there has been an overemphasis on the need for bactericidal activity as a pre-requisite for a good outcome. Many of us now accept that local tissue penetration should be considered of equal importance. This is particularly important when looking at treatment options for staphylococcal infections, especially in tissues such as lung or the endovascular lining. Vancomycin is still regarded as the ‘gold-standard’ therapy for serious or invasive MRSA infections. Considering Karchmer’s concerns of a decade ago, we examine what more have we learnt about vancomycin treatment and summarize the emerging evidence for new or combination therapies. Vancomycin is bactericidal and appears to exert its effect by binding to the precursor units of peptidoglycan synthesis inhibiting the transpeptidase reaction. It exhibits concentration-independent bactericidal action against susceptible bacteria and is more bactericidal in aerobic conditions. This effect is exerted without a lag period but acts only on multiplying organisms and with a post-antibiotic effect of about 2 h. Against MSSA, it is a less active agent than b-lactams [1,10 /12] by virtue of being more slowly and incompletely bactericidal compared with equivalent concentrations of a b-lactam. A recent illustration of this phenomenon in clinical practice was demonstrated by Tam et al. [13] in haemodialysis patients with MSSA bacteraemia. This study revealed that persistent bacteraemia 24 h after therapy was significantly greater (37% vs. 25%, P /0.05) in patients initially treated with vancomycin compared with those with a b-lactam. Additionally, in patients with MSSA endocarditis and related bacteraemia, there * Corresponding author. Tel.: /44-1382-660-111; fax: /44-1382816-178. E-mail address: dilip.nathwani@tuht.scot.nhs.uk (D. Nathwani). International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 21 (2003) 521 /524