Methodological errors in staphylococcal equivalence study.

Clinical Infectious Diseases (Impact Factor: 9.42). 04/2005; 40(5):771-2; author reply 772-3. DOI: 10.1086/427950
Source: PubMed


Available from: Jack S Richards, May 03, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The increasing emergence of antimicrobial-resistant organisms, especially methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), has resulted in the increased use of rifampin combination therapy. The data supporting rifampin combination therapy in nonmycobacterial infections are limited by a lack of significantly controlled clinical studies. Therefore, its current use is based upon in vitro or in vivo data or retrospective case series, all with major limitations. A prominent observation from this review is that rifampin combination therapy appears to have improved treatment outcomes in cases in which there is a low organism burden, such as biofilm infections, but is less effective when effective surgery to obtain source control is not performed. The clinical data support rifampin combination therapy for the treatment of prosthetic joint infections due to methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA) after extensive debridement and for the treatment of prosthetic heart valve infections due to coagulase-negative staphylococci. Importantly, rifampin-vancomycin combination therapy has not shown any benefit over vancomycin monotherapy against MRSA infections either clinically or experimentally. Rifampin combination therapy with daptomycin, fusidic acid, and linezolid needs further exploration for these severe MRSA infections. Lastly, an assessment of the risk-benefits is needed before the addition of rifampin to other antimicrobials is considered to avoid drug interactions or other drug toxicities.
    Clinical microbiology reviews 01/2010; 23(1):14-34. DOI:10.1128/CMR.00034-09 · 16.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Clinical Infectious Diseases 03/2005; 40(5):772-773. DOI:10.1086/427951 · 9.42 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Clinical Infectious Diseases 04/2005; 40(5):773-4. DOI:10.1086/427948 · 9.42 Impact Factor