ABSTRACT
Objectives
To evaluate nephrotoxicity development in patients treated with vancomycin (VAN) and daptomycin (DAP) for proven severe Gram-positive infections in daily practice.
Patients and methods
A practice-based, observational, retrospective study (eight Spanish hospitals) was performed including patients ≥18 years with a baseline glomerular filtration rate (GFR)>30 mL/min and/or serum creatinine level<2 mg/dL treated with DAP or VAN for >48h. Nephrotoxicity was considered as a decrease in baseline GRF to <50 mL/min or decrease of >10 mL/min from a baseline GRF<50 mL/min. Multivariate analyses were performed to determine factors associated with 1) treatment selection, 2) nephrotoxicity development, and 3) nephrotoxicity development within each antibiotic group.
Results
A total of 133 patients (62 treated with DAP, 71 with VAN) were included. Twenty-one (15.8%) developed nephrotoxicity: 4/62 (6.3%) patients with DAP and 17/71 (23.3%) with VAN (p=0.006). No differences in concomitant administration of aminoglycosides or other potential nephrotoxic drugs were found between groups. Factors associated with DAP treatment were diabetes mellitus with organ lesion (OR=7.81, 95%CI:1.39-4.35) and basal creatinine ≥0.9 mg/dL (OR=2.53, 95%CI:1.15-4.35). Factors associated with VAN treatment were stroke (OR=7.22, 95%CI:1.50-34.67), acute myocardial infarction (OR=6.59, 95%CI:1.51-28.69) and primary bacteremia (OR=5.18, 95%CI:1.03-25.99). Factors associated with nephrotoxicity (R2=0.142; p=0.001) were creatinine clearance<80 mL/min (OR=9.22, 95%CI:1.98-30.93) and VAN treatment (OR=6.07, 95%CI:1.86-19.93). Factors associated with nephrotoxicity within patients treated with VAN (R2=0.232; p=0.018) were congestive heart failure (OR=4.35, 95%CI:1.23-15.37), endocarditis (OR=7.63, 95%CI:1.02-57.31) and basal creatinine clearance<80 mL/min (OR=7.73, 95%CI:1.20-49.71).
Conclusions
Nephrotoxicity with VAN was significantly higher than with DAP despite poorer basal renal status in the DAP group.
Keywords: Nephrotoxicity, daptomycin, vancomycin
RESUMEN
Objectivos
Evaluar el desarrollo de nefrotoxicidad en la práctica clínica diaria en pacientes con infecciones graves probadas por grampositivos, tratados con vancomicina (VAN) y daptomicina (DAP).
Pacientes y métodos
Se diseñó un estudio observacional retrospectivo, basado en la práctica clínica diaria (ocho hospitales españoles), en el que se incluyeron pacientes ≥ 18 años con una tasa basal de filtrado glomerular (GFR) > 30 mL/min y/o una creatinina sérica < 2 mg/dl para los pacientes tratados con DAP o vancomicina durante > 48 horas. La nefrotoxicidad fue considerada como una disminución del GRF basal a < 50 mL/min o una disminución de > 10 mL/min desde un GRF basal de < 50 ml/min. Se diseñaron análisis multivariantes para determinar los factores asociados con: 1) la selección del tratamiento, 2) el desarrollo de nefrotoxicidad y 3) el desarrollo de nefrotoxicidad con cada antibiótico.
Resultados
Se incluyeron 133 pacientes (62 tratados con DAP, 71 con vancomicina). Veintiuno (15,8%) desarrollaron nefrotoxicidad: 4/62 (6,3%) pacientes con DAP y 17/71 (23,3%) con VAN (p=0,006). No se encontraron diferencias entre los grupos en la administración concomitante de aminoglucósidos u otros fármacos potencialmente nefrotóxicos. Los factores asociados con el tratamiento con DAP fueron diabetes mellitus con lesión orgánica (OR=7,81; IC95%:1,39-4,35) y una creatinina basal ≥0,9 mg/dL (OR=2,53; IC95%:1,15-4,35). Los factores asociados con tratamiento con VAN fueron ictus (OR=7,22; IC95%:1,50-34,67), infarto agudo de miocardio (OR=6,59; IC95%:1,51-28,69) y bacteriemia primaria (OR=5,18, IC95%:1,03-25,99). Los factores asociados con nefrotoxicidad (R2=0,142; p=0,001) fueron aclaramiento de creatinina <80 mL/min (OR=9,22; IC95%:1,98-30,93) y tratamiento con VAN (OR=6,07; IC95%:1,86-19,93). Los factores asociados con nefrotoxicidad en los pacientes tratados con VAN (R2=0,232; p=0,018) fueron insuficiencia cardiaca congestiva (OR=4.35; IC95%:1,23-15,37), endocarditis (OR=7,63; IC95%:1,02-57,31) y una creatinina basal <80 mL/min (OR=7,73; IC95%:1,20-49,71).
Conclusiones
La nefrotoxicidad con VAN fue significativamente más alta que la de DAP a pesar del pobre status basal renal del grupo de DAP.
Palabras clave: nefrotoxicidad, daptomicina, vancomicina
INTRODUCTION
Until recent years, vancomycin (VAN) has been the cornerstone antibiotic for the treatment of severe methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus spp. infections. However, the progressive loss of susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus to VAN has led to the use in daily practice of doses higher than those approved by the Food and Drug Administration (1g/12h) to maintain its effectiveness [1-7]. Particularly, high-dose treatments targeting a serum trough concentration of 15-20 mg/L has been recommended in several guidelines [8-14]. This increasing dosage of VAN has been significantly associated with the development of renal failure in several studies [7,15-19]. The incidence of nephrotoxicity related with VAN treatment varies greatly due to the different baseline characteristics of the populations evaluated and the different dosing regimens. Available data suggests its association with concomitant administration of nephrotoxic agents, high serum trough levels, and prolonged duration of therapy [15,20,21]. This is important since small increases in serum creatinine of hospitalized patients are associated with increased mortality, hospital stay and health costs [22-24].
Alternative compounds such as daptomycin (DAP) and linezolid, specific agents against Gram-positive infections, have demonstrated to be less nephrotoxic than VAN (as comparator drug at 1g/12h) [25,26]. However, no comparative study has specifically evaluated nephrotoxicity as primary end-point between DAP and VAN.
The aim of the present study was to evaluate nephrotoxicity development in patients treated with VAN and DAP for severe Gram-positive infections, and factors associated with it, in daily practice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study design and population. A practice-based, observational, retrospective study was conducted to evaluate nephrotoxicity in patients admitted to eight Spanish hospitals with proven Gram-positive cocci infections that had been treated with DAP or VAN according to clinical practice. The study protocol was approved by the Ethical Review Board of Hospital Central de la Defensa Gomez Ulla, Madrid, Spain.
Clinical records of antibiotic-treated patients discharged from Internal Medicine Departments of participating hospitals, at least six months prior to study approval, were reviewed and studied if they were patients ≥18 years of age that had received parenteral DAP or VAN treatment for >48 h, and had a baseline glomerular filtration rate (GFR)>30 mL/min and/or a serum creatinine level <2 mg/dL. Transplant recipients, patients presenting neutropenia (<1000 neutrophils/mm3), AIDS (≤ 200 CD4/mm3), and concomitant disease or infection that in opinion the investigator might confound the results of the study were not considered. Medical records were reviewed for demographic, clinical (concomitant antibiotic treatment, length of treatment, outcome…), microbiological and analytical data.
Study definitions. Nephrotoxicity was defined as a decrease in baseline GRF to <50 mL/min or a decrease of >10 mL/min from a baseline GRF <50 mL/min. Clinical response was considered as resolution or improvement of baseline signs/symptoms. Clinical failure was defined as death, persistence or worsening of baseline signs/symptoms, emergence of new signs/symptoms, or requirement of additional antibiotics different from those empirically prescribed. Microbiological response was considered as eradication (negative cultures after treatment) or absence of post-treatment cultures due to favourable clinical response. Patients were assessed at the end of parenteral treatment and until hospital discharge or death. Standard definitions for sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock were employed [27].
Statistical analysis. Differences between treatments were assessed by t test or U-Mann-Whitney non-parametric tests (continuous variables) or by Chi square/Fish exact tests (discrete variables). Significance level was established at p ≤ 0.05. Several stepwise logistic regression multivariate analyses were conducted in order to determine: 1) factors associated with treatment selection, 2) factors associated with development of nephrotoxicity, 3) factors associated with development of nephrotoxicity among patients treated with VAN, and 4) factors associated with development of nephrotoxicity among patients treated with DAP. All variables showing differences in bivariate analyses (p <0.1) were considered for inclusion in the models. In addition, based on the well-known nephrotoxicity of aminoglycosides, concomitant administration of these drugs was introduced in the model as independent variable. All statistical calculations were computed using SAS system version 9.2® for Windows®
RESULTS
A total of 133 patients were included, 62 patients treated with DAP and 71 patients with VAN. The median (range) total daily dose for DAP was 390 mg (500 mg-700 mg), and for VAN, doses were 1-2g/12h, with 76.1% patients having received 2g/12h. Treatment duration [median (interquartile range)] was significantly higher for DAP [15 (8-28.5) days] than for VAN [10 (6-15) days] (p=0.002). Overall, nephrotoxicity occurred in 21 out of 133 (15.8%) patients: 4 out of 62 (6.3%) patients treated with DAP and 17 out of 71 (23.3%) with VAN (p=0.006). Median (interquartile range) time to nephrotoxicity was 9.5 (2.8-29.8) days with DAP and 7.0 (4.0-18.5) days with VAN (p=0.893).
Table 1 shows microorganisms isolated and concomitant antibiotics. Drugs other than antibiotics with potential nephrotoxicity (furosemide, salicylic acid, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs…) were administered to 15 out of 133 (11.3%) patients, without differences between antibiotic groups and between patients developing or not nephrotoxicity. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) accounted for 29.3% of all isolates. The percentage of the different species isolated did not show differences between groups. With respect to concomitant antibiotics during DAP or VAN treatment, β-lactams administration was more frequent among patients not developing nephrotoxicity, with cephalosporins more frequently used among patients receiving VAN (vs. DAP).
Table 1.
Isolated microorganisms, concomitant antibiotics and outcome
| Total (n=133) | Treatment with |
Nephrotoxicity |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daptomycin (n=62) | Vancomycin (n=71) | p | YES (n=21) | NO (n=112) | p | ||
| CNSa | 43 (32.3) | 18 (29.0) | 25 (35.2) | 0.447 | 9 (42.9) | 34 (30.4) | 0.261 |
| MRSAb | 39 (29.3) | 22 (35.5) | 17 (23.9) | 0.145 | 3 (14.3) | 36 (32.1) | 0.099 |
| MSSAc | 21 (15.8) | 11 (17.7) | 10 (14.1) | 0.564 | 4 (19.0) | 17 (15.2) | 0.744 |
| Enterococcus spp. | 24 (18.0) | 11 (17.7) | 14 (19.7) | 0.591 | 5 (23.8) | 19 (17.0) | 0.536 |
| Other Gram-positive bacteria | 9 (6.8) | 2 (3.2) | 7 (9.9) | 0.178 | 1 (4.8) | 8 (7.1) | 1.000 |
| Gram-negative bacteria | 5 (3.8) | 2 (3.2) | 3 (4.2) | 1.000 | 1 (4.8) | 4 (3.6) | 0.583 |
| Concomitant antibiotics | 70 (53.0) | 31 (58.8) | 39 (54.9) | 0.367 | 8 (38.1) | 62 (55.4) | 0.146 |
| Penicillins | 9 (6.8) | 3 (4.8) | 6 (8.5) | 0.502 | 0 (0.0) | 9 (8.0) | 0.353 |
| Cephalosporins | 15 (11.3) | 3 (4.8) | 12 (16.9) | 0.028 | 2 (9.5) | 13 (11.6) | 1.000 |
| Aztreonam | 2 (1.5) | 2 (3.2) | 0 (0.0) | 0.215 | 0 (0.0) | 2 (1.8) | 1.000 |
| Carbapenem | 22 (16.5) | 11 (17.7) | 11 (15.5) | 0.727 | 1 (4.8) | 21 (18.8) | 0.198 |
| Total β-lactams | 48 (36.1) | 19 (30.6) | 29 (40.8) | 0.221 | 3 (14.3) | 45 (40.2) | 0.043 |
| Aminoglycosides | 13 (9.8) | 5 (8.1) | 8 (11.3) | 0.383 | 4 (19.0) | 9 (8.0) | 0.125 |
| Quinolones | 13 (9.8) | 5 (8.1) | 8 (11.3) | 0.383 | 1 (4.8) | 12 (10.7) | 0.691 |
| Rifampicin | 9 (6.8) | 6 (9.7) | 3 (4.2) | 0.301 | 2 (9.5) | 7 (6.3) | 0.633 |
| Others | 8 (6.0) | 4 (6.5) | 3 (4.2) | 0.705 | 1 (4.8) | 6 (5.4) | 1.000 |
| Clinical cure | 117 (88.0) | 55 (88.7) | 62 (87.3) | 0.806 | 15 (71.4) | 102 (91.1) | 0.011 |
| Eradication + presumed eradication | 109 (82.2) | 52 (83.9) | 57 (80.3) | 0.591 | 15 (71.4) | 94 (83.9) | 0.171 |
CNS: Coagulase-negative staphylococci
MRSA: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
MSSA: Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus
Tables 2 and 3 show characteristics of patients, comorbidities, and type and severity of infections distributing patients by antibiotic treatment and development of nephrotoxicity or not, respectively. More than 65% patients were ≥65 years old, without differences between antibiotic groups but being significantly higher the percentage of patients from this age group among those developing nephrotoxicity. Up to 31.6% patients had a Charlson index ≥3; median (interquartile range) index value for the study population was 2 (0-3), without differences between antibiotic groups or patients developing nephrotoxicity or not. Patients with sepsis/severe sepsis/septic shock represented 88.7% of the study population (118 out of 133 patients), without differences between groups.
Table 2.
Basal data potentially influencing antibiotic selection: patient’s characteristics, comorbidities (present in >9% patients), type of infection and severity. Data expressed as n (%) or mean ± SD
| Total (n=133) | Daptomycin (n=62) | Vancomycin (n=71) | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Males | 85 (63.9) | 44 (71.0) | 41 (57.7) | 0.113 |
| Age | 68.5 ± 15.2 | 67.9 ± 14.9 | 69.1 ± 15.4 | 0.656 |
| ≥65 years | 87 (65.4) | 40 (64.5) | 47 (66.2) | 0.839 |
| Congestive heart failure | 36 (27.1) | 16 (25.8) | 20 (28.2) | 0.760 |
| Diabetes mellitus (DM) | 27 (20.3) | 12 (19.4) | 15 (21.1) | 0.800 |
| COPDa | 23 (17.3) | 8 (12.9) | 15 (21.1) | 0.211 |
| Acute myocardial infarction | 20 (15.0) | 5 (8.1) | 15 (21.1) | 0.036 |
| Malignancies | 23 (17.3) | 9 (14.5) | 14 (19.7) | 0.429 |
| Dementia | 17 (12.8) | 5 (8.1) | 12 (16.9) | 0.128 |
| Stroke | 16 (12.0) | 3 (4.8) | 13 (18.3) | 0.017 |
| DM with organ lesion | 13 (9.8) | 9 (14.5) | 4 (5.6) | 0.085 |
| Hypertension | 12 (9.0) | 9 (14.5) | 3 (4.2) | 0.039 |
| Basal GFRb (mL/min/1.73 m2) | 63.5 ± 31.5 | 59.5 ± 31.2 | 67.2 ± 31.5 | 0.183 |
| Basal GFRb ≤50 mL/min/1.73 m2 | 49 (36.8) | 26 (41.9) | 23 (32.4) | 0.255 |
| Basal creatinine (mg/dL) | 1.0 ± 0.4 | 1.1 ± 0.4 | 1.0 ± 0.4 | 0.036 |
| Basal creatinine ≥0.9 mg/dL | 71 (53.4) | 40 (64.5) | 31 (43.7) | 0.017 |
| Basal creatinine >1.2 mg/dL | 40 (30.1) | 23 (37.1) | 17 (23.9) | 0.099 |
| Basal creatinine clearance (mL/min) | 78.9 ± 37.4 | 73.8 ± 33.1 | 83.1 ± 40.4 | 0.242 |
| Basal creatinine clearance <80 mL/min | 84 (63.2) | 43 (69.4) | 41 (57.7) | 0.166 |
| Basal CPKc (U/L) | 155.0 ± 363.6 | 134.6 ± 196.2 | 171.9 ± 460.2 | 0.666 |
| Osteoarticular infection | 31 (23.3) | 19 (30.6) | 12 (16.9) | 0.061 |
| Skin & Soft tissue infection | 29 (21.8) | 16 (25.8) | 13 (18.3) | 0.296 |
| Catheter-related bacteremia | 26 (19.5) | 11 (17.7) | 15 (21.1) | 0.623 |
| Endocarditis | 17 (12.8) | 12 (19.4) | 5 (7.0) | 0.034 |
| Primary bacteremia | 15 (11.3) | 2 (3.2) | 13 (18.3) | 0.006 |
| Intraabdominal infection | 6 (4.5) | 1 (1.6) | 5 (7.0) | 0.215 |
| Respiratory infection | 4 (3.0) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (5.6) | 0.124 |
| Urinary tract infection | 7 (5.3) | 2 (3.2) | 5 (7.0) | 0.448 |
| Others | 11 (8.3) | 5 (8.1) | 6 (8.5) | 0.936 |
| Sepsis | 97 (72.9) | 43 (69.4) | 54 (76.1) | 0.778 |
| Severe sepsis | 16 (12.0) | 9 (14.5) | 7 (9.9) | 0.410 |
| Shock | 5 (3.8) | 3 (4.8) | 2 (2.8) | 0.663 |
COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
GFR: Glomerular filtration rate
CPK: Creatine phosphokinase
Table 3.
Basal data potentially influencing development of nephrotoxicity: patient’s characteristics, comorbidities (present in >9% patients), type of infection and severity. Data expressed as n (%) or mean ± SD
| Nephrotoxicity |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total (n=133) | YES (n=21) | NO (n=112) | p | |
| Males | 85 (63.9) | 10 (47.6) | 75 (67.0) | 0.090 |
| Age | 68.5 ± 15.2 | 75.9 ± 8.3 | 67.2 ± 15.8 | 0.001 |
| ≥65 years | 87 (65.4) | 19 (90.5) | 68 (60.7) | 0.009 |
| Congestive heart failure | 36 (27.1) | 10 (47.6) | 26 (23.2) | 0.021 |
| Diabetes mellitus (DM) | 27 (20.3) | 5 (23.8) | 22 (19.6) | 0.768 |
| COPDa | 23 (17.3) | 5 (23.8) | 18 (16.1) | 0.363 |
| Acute myocardial infarction | 20 (15.0) | 4 (19.0) | 16 (14.3) | 0.522 |
| Malignancies | 23 (17.3) | 1 (4.8) | 22 (19.6) | 0.039 |
| Dementia | 17 (12.8) | 3 (14.3) | 14 (12.5) | 0.733 |
| Stroke | 16 (12.0) | 5 (23.8) | 11 (9.8) | 0.134 |
| DM with organ lesion | 13 (9.8) | 4 (19.0) | 9 (8.0) | 0.126 |
| Hypertension | 12 (9.0) | 1 (4.8) | 11 (9.8) | 0.690 |
| Basal GFRb (mL/min/1.73 m2) | 63.5 ± 31.5 | 63.9 ± 32.4 | 61.2 ± 25.8 | 0.738 |
| Basal GFRb ≤50 mL/min/1.73 m2 | 49 (36.8) | 8 (38.1) | 41 (36.6) | 0.896 |
| Basal creatinine (mg/dL) | 1.0 ± 0.4 | 1.0 ± 0.4 | 1.2 ± 0.4 | 0.085 |
| Basal creatinine ≥0.9 mg/dL | 71 (53.4) | 16 (76.2) | 55 (49.1) | 0.022 |
| Basal creatinine >1.2 mg/dL | 40 (30.1) | 13 (61.9) | 27 (24.1) | <0.001 |
| Basal creatinine clearance (mL/min) | 78.9 ± 37.4 | 83.0 ± 38.9 | 52.7 ± 19.9 | <0.001 |
| Basal creatinine clearance <80 mL/min | 84 (63.2) | 19 (90.5) | 65 (58.0) | 0.005 |
| Basal CPKc (U/L) | 155.0 ± 363.6 | 165.0 ± 395.9 | 104.1 ± 82.5 | 0.599 |
| Osteoarticular infection | 31 (23.3) | 5 (23.8) | 26 (23.2) | 1.000 |
| Skin & Soft tissue infection | 29 (21.8) | 4 (19.0) | 25 (22.3) | 1.000 |
| Catheter-related bacteremia | 26 (19.5) | 2 (9.5) | 24 (21.4) | 0.367 |
| Endocarditis | 17 (12.8) | 5 (23.8) | 12 (10.7) | 0.146 |
| Primary bacteremia | 15 (11.3) | 1 (4.8) | 14 (12.5) | 0.464 |
| Intraabdominal infection | 6 (4.5) | 1 (4.8) | 5 (4.5) | 1.000 |
| Respiratory infection | 4 (3.0) | 1 (4.8) | 3 (2.7) | 0.501 |
| Urinary tract infection | 7 (5.3) | 2 (9.5) | 5 (4.5) | 0.305 |
| Others | 11 (8.3) | 1 (4.8) | 10 (8.9) | 1.000 |
| Sepsis | 97 (72.9) | 15 (71.4) | 82 (73.2) | 0.865 |
| Severe sepsis | 16 (12.0) | 4 (19.0) | 12 (10.7) | 0.281 |
| Shock | 5 (3.8) | 1 (4.8) | 10 (8.9) | 1.000 |
COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
GFR: Glomerular filtration rate
CPK: Creatine phosphokinase
In bivariate analysis (table 2), acute myocardial infarction and stroke (as comorbidities) and primary bacteremia (type of infection) were significantly more frequent among patients treated with VAN than among those with DAP, whereas hypertension, basal creatinine and endocarditis were more frequent among patients treated with DAP. In the multivariate analysis for treatment selection (R2=0.209; p<0.001), factors associated with DAP treatment were diabetes mellitus (DM) with organ lesion (OR=7.81, 95%CI: 1.39-4.35) and basal creatinine ≥0.9 mg/dL (OR=2.53, 95%CI: 1.15-4.35) while factors associated with VAN treatment were stroke (OR=7.22, 95%CI: 1.50-34.67), acute myocardial infarction (OR=6.59, 95%CI: 1.51-28.69) and primary bacteremia (OR=5.18, 95%CI: 1.03-25.99).
Basal creatinine values were significantly higher and creatinine clearance lower among patients developing nephrotoxicity during treatment (table 3), with higher percentage of patients with congestive heart failure. On the contrary, the percentage of patients with malignancies was higher among patients not developing nephrotoxicity. In the multivariate analysis (R2=0.142; p=0.001), factors associated with nephrotoxicity were basal creatinine clearance <80 mL/min (OR=9.22, 95%CI: 1.98-30.93) and treatment with VAN (OR=6.07, 95%CI: 1.86-19.93).
Table 4 shows basal data potentially influencing development of nephrotoxicity for patients treated with VAN. In the bivariate analysis, patients developing nephrotoxicity were significantly older and presented more frequently congestive heart failure, higher values of basal creatinine and lower values of basal creatinine clearance. In the multivariate analysis (R2=0.232; p=0.018), factors associated with nephrotoxicity were congestive heart failure (OR=4.35, 95%CI: 1.23-15.37), endocarditis (OR=7.63, 95%CI: 1.02-57.31) and basal creatinine clearance <80 mL/min (OR=7.73, 95%CI: 1.20-49.71).
Table 4.
Basal data potentially influencing development of nephrotoxicity for patients treated with vancomycin: patient’s characteristics, comorbidities (present in >9% patients), type of infection and severity. Data expressed as n (%) or mean ± SD
| Nephrotoxicity |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| YES (n=17) | NO (n=54) | p | |
| Males | 8 (47.1) | 33 (61.1) | 0.306 |
| Age | 75.8 ± 8.0 | 67.0 ± 16.6 | 0.004 |
| ≥65 years | 15 (88.2) | 32 (59.3) | 0.039 |
| Congestive heart failure | 10 (58.8) | 10 (18.5) | 0.004 |
| Diabetes mellitus (DM) | 3 (17.6) | 12 (22.2) | 1.000 |
| COPDa | 4 (23.5) | 11 (20.4) | 0.745 |
| Acute myocardial infarction | 4 (23.5) | 11 (20.4) | 0.745 |
| Malignancies | 1 (5.9) | 13 (24.1) | 0.162 |
| Dementia | 3 (17.6) | 9 (16.7) | 1.000 |
| Stroke | 5 (29.4) | 8 (14.8) | 0.278 |
| DM with organ lesion | 2 (11.8) | 2 (3.7) | 0.241 |
| Hypertension | 0 (0.0) | 3 (5.6) | 1.000 |
| Basal GFRb (mL/min/1.73 m2) | 66.3 ± 25.5 | 67.4 ± 33.2 | 0.910 |
| Basal GFRb ≤50 mL/min/1.73 m2 | 5 (29.4) | 18 (33.3) | 0.763 |
| Basal creatinine (mg/dL) | 1.1 ± 0.4 | 0.9 ± 0.3 | 0.100 |
| Basal creatinine ≥0.9 mg/dL | 12 (70.6) | 19 (35.2) | 0.010 |
| Basal creatinine >1.2 mg/dL | 7 (41.2) | 7 (13.0) | 0.030 |
| Basal creatinine clearance (mL/min) | 54.1 ± 22.4 | 89.7 ± 40.8 | 0.003 |
| Basal creatinine clearance <80 mL/min | 15 (88.2) | 26 (48.1) | 0.035 |
| Basal CPKc (U/L) | 104.1 ± 82.5 | 200.9 ± 547.9 | 0.549 |
| Osteoarticular infection | 4 (23.5) | 8 (14.8) | 0.463 |
| Skin & Soft tissue infection | 3 (17.6) | 10 (18.5) | 1.000 |
| Catheter-related bacteremia | 2 (11.8) | 13 (24.1) | 0.496 |
| Endocarditis | 3 (17.6) | 2 (3.7) | 0.085 |
| Primary bacteremia | 1 (5.9) | 12 (22.2) | 0.167 |
| Intraabdominal infection | 1 (5.9) | 4 (7.4) | 1.000 |
| Respiratory infection | 1 (5.9) | 3 (5.6) | 1.000 |
| Urinary tract infection | 2 (11.8) | 3 (5.6) | 0.587 |
| Others | 1 (5.9) | 5 (9.3) | 1.000 |
| Sepsis | 12 (70.6) | 42 (77.8) | 0.532 |
| Severe sepsis | 3 (17.6) | 4 (7.4) | 0.346 |
| Shock | 1 (5.9) | 1 (1.9) | 0.424 |
COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
GFR: Glomerular filtration rate
CPK: Creatine phosphokinase
Table 5 shows basal data potentially influencing development of nephrotoxicity for patients treated with DAP. All patients developing nephrotoxicity presented a basal GFR ≤50 mL/min/1.73 m2. In the multivariate analysis (R2=0.080; p=0.029) only DM with organ lesion (OR=16.00, 95%CI: 1.25-204.11) was associated with nephrotoxicity.
Table 5.
Basal data potentially influencing development of nephrotoxicity for patients treated with daptomycin: patient’s characteristics, comorbidities (present in >9% patients), type of infection and severity. Data expressed as n (%) or mean ± SD
| Nephrotoxicity |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| YES (n=4) | NO (n=58) | p | |
| Males | 2 (50.0) | 42 (72.4) | 0.573 |
| Age | 76.0 ± 10.8 | 67.3 ± 15.1 | 0.209 |
| ≥65 years | 4 (100) | 36 (62.1) | 0.287 |
| Congestive heart failure | 0 (0.0) | 16 (27.6) | 0.565 |
| Diabetes mellitus (DM) | 2 (50.0) | 10 (17.2) | 0.166 |
| COPDa | 1 (25.0) | 7 (12.0) | 0.433 |
| Acute myocardial infarction | 0 (0.0) | 5 (8.6) | 1.000 |
| Malignancies | 0 (0.0) | 9 (15.5) | 1.000 |
| Dementia | 0 (0.0) | 5 (8.6) | 1.000 |
| Stroke | 0 (0.0) | 3 (5.2) | 1.000 |
| DM with organ lesion | 2 (50.0) | 7 (12.1) | 0.097 |
| Hypertension | 1 (25.0) | 8 (13.8) | 0.475 |
| Basal GFRb (mL/min/1.73 m2) | 37.0 ± 7.0 | 60.7 ± 31.6 | 0.085 |
| Basal GFRb ≤50 mL/min/1.73 m2 | 4 (100) | 23 (39.7) | 0.031 |
| Basal creatinine (mg/dL) | 1.5 ± 0.4 | 1.1 ± 0.4 | 0.061 |
| Basal creatinine ≥0.9 mg/dL | 4 (100) | 36 (62.1) | 0.287 |
| Basal creatinine >1.2 mg/dL | 3 (75.0) | 20 (34.5) | 0.139 |
| Basal creatinine clearance (mL/min) | 48.4 ± 11.7 | 75.8 ± 33.4 | 0.170 |
| Basal creatinine clearance <80 mL/min | 4 (100) | 39 (67.2) | 0.302 |
| Basal CPKc (U/L) | 186.2 ± 240.2 | 134.6 ± 199.2 | 1.000 |
| Osteoarticular infection | 1 (25.0) | 18 (31.0) | 1.000 |
| Skin & Soft tissue infection | 1 (25.0) | 15 (25.9) | 1.000 |
| Catheter-related bacteremia | 0 (0.0) | 11 (19.0) | 1.000 |
| Endocarditis | 2 (50.0) | 10 (17.2) | 0.166 |
| Primary bacteremia | 0 (0.0) | 2 (3.4) | 1.000 |
| Intraabdominal infection | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.7) | 1.000 |
| Respiratory infection | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | - |
| Urinary tract infection | 0 (0.0) | 2 (3.4) | 1.000 |
| Others | 0 (0.0) | 5 (8.6) | 1.000 |
| Sepsis | 3 (75.0) | 40 (69.0) | 1.000 |
| Severe sepsis | 1 (25.0) | 8 (13.8) | 0.475 |
| Shock | 0 (0.0) | 3 (5.2) | 1.000 |
COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
GFR: Glomerular filtration rate
CPK: Creatine phosphokinase
No differences in outcome were found between antibiotics (88.7% for DAP vs. 87.3% for VAN), but the percentage of clinical cure among patients developing nephrotoxicity was significant lower (71.4% vs. 91.1% for patients without nephrotoxicity, p=0.011). Eradication or presumed eradication was obtained in 82.2% patients without differences between groups.
DISCUSSION
The present study, to our knowledge the first comparative study assessing VAN- and DAP- induced nephrotoxicity in the treatment of Gram-positive infections in the uncontrolled setting of daily medical practice, showed significantly higher nephrotoxicity among patients treated with VAN than with DAP, not attributable to previous conditions or concomitant treatment with other potential nephrotoxic drugs.
In the literature, high daily doses of VAN providing serum trough levels of 15-20 mg/L, which are recommended when the MIC for MRSA is >1 mg/L, have been independently associated with an increased risk of nephrotoxicity [7,15-19]. A recent retrospective multicenter study with VAN trough levels of 17 mg/L concluded that rates of acute kidney injury were significantly lower in the DAP group in the treatment of bloodstream infections [28]. Two clinical trials, compared DAP with VAN at the dose of 1 g every 12 h [25,29]. Arbeit et al. in a study analysing patients with complicated skin and skin soft tissue infections did not document significant statistical differences between both antibiotics (DAP 2.2% vs VAN 2.7%; p >0.05) [29]. On the contrary, Fowler et al. in a randomized controlled trial that evaluated DAP versus standard therapy (VAN or antistaphylococcal penicillin ± gentamicin) in patients with S. aureus bacteremia and endocarditis reported higher rates of nephrotoxicity with VAN (18.1% vs 6.7% with DAP; p= 0.009) [25]. However, the incidence of renal impairment was similar among patients who received gentamicin and VAN (20.4%) and patients who received gentamicin and an antistaphylococcal penicillin (18.6%) [25]. Thus, as reported, the presence of other nephrotoxic factors such as aminoglycosides and a great variety of comorbidities confound the VAN-induced nephrotoxicity [20]. For these reasons, the present study was carried out to assess factors associated with treatment selection in daily practice and development of nephrotoxicity in a non-selected population with different comorbidities. Although the retrospective nature of the study represents a limitation, the lack of differences between groups in the administration of potential nephrotoxic drugs as aminoglycosides and in responsible microorganisms, as well as the presence of different comorbidities, strength the value of the present practice-based analysis.
The study population can be clearly considered elderly (65.4% were ≥65 years old) with comorbidities (31.6% patients had a Charlson index ≥3) and with moderate-severe infections (88.7% patients presenting sepsis/severe sepsis/septic shock). One important study finding was that osteoarticular infections accounted for 23.3% infections, with higher percentage among patients treated with DAP (30.6% vs. 16.9% for VAN; p=0.061), with no approved indication. However, two previous studies specifically assessed DAP treatment in this type of infections, one retrospective cohort study showing similar efficacy and safety than VAN [30], and one prospective study in combination with rifampicin [31].
Of importance, basal creatinine ≥0.9 mg/dL and DM with organ lesion were factors associated with DAP treatment, suggesting that this antibiotic was majority chosen for patients with suspicion of possible future nephrotoxicity. Regardless this fact, development of nephrotoxicity was associated with basal creatinine clearance <80 mL/min and treatment with VAN. Therefore, the present study showed that nephrotoxicity with VAN was significantly higher than with DAP despite the poorer basal renal status in the DAP group and absence of differences in aminoglycosides use as concomitant antibiotic. The role of comorbidities could be assessed within the VAN group, nephrotoxicity being associated with congestive heart failure and endocarditis while within the DAP group it was associated with DM with organ lesion, although the small number of patients developing nephrotoxicity in this group weakens the data.
In conclusion, the present practice-based study showed that among hospitalized elderly population with Gram-positive severe infections, treatment selection was associated with comorbidities and basal values of creatinine, and nephrotoxicity was associated with VAN treatment and not to other concomitant antibiotics.
FUNDING
This study was supported in part by an unrestricted grant from Novartis Farmacéutica S.A., Barcelona, Spain.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
J. B. and J. M. have received grants for the present study design and coordination, and A. A., F. E., J.-C. R., J. R.-M., J.-L. C., J.-M.- G., I. M.-G. have received funds for this research from Novartis Farmacéutica S.A.
J. B. has received funds for speaking at symposia and support for travel to meetings from Novartis Farmacéutica S.A., and funds for research from Pfizer S.L.U., Madrid, Spain.
M.-J. has received support for travel to meetings from Pfizer S.L.U., Madrid, Spain.
L.A. and J.-J. G.: None to declare.
REFERENCES
- 1.Choi EY, Huh JW, Lim CM, Koh Y, Kim SH, Choi SH et al.. Relationship between the MIC of vancomycin and clinical outcome in patients with MRSA nosocomial pneumonia. Intensive Care Med 2011; 37: 639-47. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-011-2130-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Soriano A, Marco F, Martínez JA, Pisos E, Almela M, Dimova VP et al.. Influence of vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration on the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46: 193-200. DOI: 10.1086/524667 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Lodise TP, Graves J, Evans A, Graffunder E, Helmecke M, Lomaestro BM et al.. Relationship between vancomycin MIC and failure among patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia treated with vancomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008; 52: 3315-20. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00113-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Lin SH, Liao WH, Lai CC, Liao CH, Tan CK, Wang CY et al.. Risk factors for mortality in patients with persistent methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia in a tertiary care hospital in Taiwan. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65: 1792-8. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkq188 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Haque NZ, Zuniga LC, Peyrani P, Reyes K, Lamerato L, Moore CL, et al.. Relationship of vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration to mortality in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, or health-care-associated pneumonia. Chest 2010; 138: 1356-62. DOI: 10.1378/chest.09-2453 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kullar R, Davis SL, Levine DP, Rybak MJ. Impact of vancomycin exposure on outcomes in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: support for consensus guidelines suggested targets. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52: 975-81. DOI: 10.1093/cid/cir124 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.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: 2138-44. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.166.19.2138 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Baddour LM, Wilson WR, Bayer AS, Fowler VG, Tleyjeh IM, Ryback MJ, et al.. Infective endocarditis: diagnosis, antimicrobial therapy, and management of complications: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Committee on Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology, Stroke, and Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, American Heart Association: endorsed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Circulation 2005; 111: e394-434. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.165564 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.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. DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200405-644ST [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Mensa J, Soriano A, Llinares P, Barberán J, Montejo M, Salavert M, et al.. Guidelines for antimicrobial treatment of the infection by Staphylococcus aureus. Rev Esp Quimioter 2013; 26 (Suppl 1): 1-84. PMID: [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Gudiol F, Aguado JM, Pascual A, Pujol M, Almirante B, Miró JM, et al.. Consensus document for the treatment of bacteremia and endocarditis caused by methicillin-resistent Staphylococcus aureus. Sociedad Española de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 2009; 27: 105-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.eimc.2008.09.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Rybak M, Lomaestro B, Rotschafer JC, Moellering RC Jr, Craig WA, Billeter M, 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. DOI: 10.2146/ajhp080434 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Habib G, Hoen B, Tornos P, Thuny F, Prendergast B, Vilacosta I, et al.. Guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infective endocarditis (new version 2009): the Task Force on the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) and the International Society of Chemotherapy (ISC) for Infection and Cancer. Eur Heart J 2009; 30: 2369-413. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehp285 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, Daum RS, Fridkin SK, Gorwitz RJ, et al.. Clinical practice guidelines by the infectious diseases society of america for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52: e18-55. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciq146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Pritchard L, Baker C, Leggett J, Sehdev P, Brown A, Bayley KB. Increasing vancomycin serum trough concentrations and incidence of nephrotoxicity. Am J Med 2010; 123: 1143-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.07.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Hermsen ED, Hanson M, Sankaranarayanan J, Stoner JA, Florescu IMC, Rupp ME. Clinical outcomes and nephrotoxicity associated with vancomycin trough concentrations during treatment of deep-seated infections. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2010; 9: 9-14. DOI: 10.1517/14740330903413514 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Jeffres MN, Isakow W, Doherty JA, Micek ST, Kollef MH. A retrospective analysis of possible renal toxicity associated with vancomycin in patients with health care-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. Clin Ther 2007; 29: 1107-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2007.06.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.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: 1330-6. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01602-07 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Lodise TP, Patel N, Lomaestro BM, Rodvold KA, Drusano G. Relationship between initial vancomycin concentration-time profile and nephrotoxicity among hospitalized patients. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49: 507-14. DOI: 10.1086/600884 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Wong-Beringer A, Joo J, Tse E, Beringer P. Vancomycin-associated nephrotoxicity: a critical appraisal of risk with high-dose therapy. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2011; 37: 95-101. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2010.10.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Tongsai S, Koomanachai P. The safety and efficacy of high versus low vancomycin trough levels in the treatment of patients with infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a meta-analysis. BMC Res Notes 2016; 9: 455. DOI: 10.1186/s13104-016-2252-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Chertow GM, Burdick E, Honour M , Bonventre JV, Bates DW. Acute kidney injury, mortality, length of stay, and costs in hospitalized patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005; 16: 3365-70. DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2004090740 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Coca SG, Peixoto AJ, Garg AX, Krumholz HM, Parikh CR. The prognostic importance of a small acute decrement in kidney function in hospitalized patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 2007; 50: 712-20. DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2007.07.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Hoste EA, Clermont G, Kersten A, Venkataraman R, Angus DC, De Becquer D, et al.. RIFLE criteria for acute kidney injury are associated with hospital mortality in critically ill patients: a cohort analysis. Crit Care 2006; 10: R73. DOI: 10.1186/cc4915 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Fowler VG Jr, Boucher HW, Corey GR, Abrutyn E, Karchmer AW, Rupp ME, et al.. Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 653-65. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa053783 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Wang Y, Zou Y, Xie J, Wang T, Zheng X, He H, et al.. Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: a systematic review employing meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2015; 71: 107-15. DOI: 10.1007/s00228-014-1775-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB, Dellinger RP, Fein AM, Knaus WA, et al.. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference Committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine. Chest 1992; 101: 1644-55. PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Moise PA, Culshaw DL, Wong-Beringer A, Bensman J, Lamp KC, Smith WJ, et al.. Comparative effectiveness of vancomycin versus daptomycin for MRSA bacteremia with vancomycin MIC >1 mg/L: A multicenter evaluation. Clin Ther 2016; 38: 16-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2015.09.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Arbeit RD, Maki D, Tally FP, Campanaro E, Eisenstein BI. The safety and efficacy of daptomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38: 1673-81. DOI: 10.1086/420818 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Liang SY, Khair HN, McDonald JR, Babcock HM, Marschall J. Daptomycin versus vancomycin for osteoarticular infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): a nested case-control study. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2014; 33: 659-64. DOI: 10.1007/s10096-013-2001-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Jugun K, Vaudaux P, Garbino J, Pagani L, Hoffmeyer P, Lew D, Uckay I. The safety and efficacy of high-dose daptomycin combined with rifampicin for the treatment of Gram-positive osteoarticular infections. Int Orthop 2013; 37: 1375-80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]