Chan, Lynn

Background: Nafcillin or cefazolin are drugs of choice for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infections. Prior studies indicate a higher incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) with nafcillin, although AKI classification and time to occurrence is not well described. Objective: To characterize the incidence and time to adverse drug events for nafcillin versus cefazolin in the inpatient setting. Methods: A retrospective cohort study evaluated hospitalized, adult patients receiving intravenous nafcillin or cefazolin for treatment of MSSA infection. Incidence and time to AKI based on RIFLE criteria were measured. Secondary end points included antibiotic discontinuation and incidence of neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, elevated transaminases, and Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). Results: Of 324 patients who received nafcillin (n = 119) or cefazolin (n = 205), higher rates of AKI were found for nafcillin versus cefazolin (19% vs 2%, respectively; P < 0.0001). Median time to AKI with nafcillin was 6.5 days (range, 3-14 days). The majority of patients were classified as RIFLE “Risk” stratum. Nafcillin treatment discontinuations were more frequent than for cefazolin (17.6% vs 0.9%, respectively; P < 0.0001). Nafcillin was an independent predictor of AKI (odds ratio = 12.4; 95% CI = 4.14-47.60, P < 0.0001). No differences in neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, elevated transaminases, or CDI were observed. Conclusion and Relevance: Nafcillin displayed higher rates of AKI at a median of 1 week of therapy, which provides a framework for clinician monitoring and consideration of antibiotic modification. Most patients developed “Risk” class AKI (RIFLE classification), which may be reversible with prompt intervention.

Abstract Background There is growing interest in the use of rapid blood culture identification (BCID) in antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). Although many studies have looked at its clinical and economic utility, its comparative utility in gram-positive and gram-negative blood stream infections (BSIs) has not been as well characterized. Methods The study was a quasi-experimental retrospective study at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. All adult patients with positive blood cultures before BCID implementation (June 2015 to December 2015) and after BCID implementation (June 2016 to December 2016) were included. The outcomes of interest included time to first appropriate antibiotic escalation, time to first appropriate antibiotic de-escalation, time to organism identification, length of stay, infectious diseases consultation, discharge disposition, and in-hospital mortality. Results In total, 203 patients were included in this study. There was a significant difference in the time to organism identification between the pre- and post-BCID cohorts (27.1 hours vs 3.3 hours, P &lt; .0001). BCID did not significantly reduce the time to first appropriate antimicrobial escalation or de-escalation for either gram-positive BSIs (GP-BSIs) or gram-negative BSIs (GN-BSIs). Providers were more likely to escalate antimicrobial therapy in GP-BSIs after gram stain and more likely to de-escalate therapy in GN-BSIs after susceptibilities. Although there were no significant differences in changes in antimicrobial therapy for organism identification by BCID vs traditional methods, more than one-quarter of providers (28.1%) made changes after organism identification. There were no differences in hospital length of stay or in-hospital mortality comparing pre- vs post-BCID. Conclusions Although BCID significantly reduced the time to identification for both GP-BSIs and GN-BSIs, BCID did not reduce the time to first appropriate antimicrobial escalation and de-escalation.