Infect Chemother.  2013 Mar;45(1):62-68.

The Efficacy and Safety of Arbekacin and Vancomycin for the Treatment in Skin and Soft Tissue MRSA Infection: Preliminary Study

• Hwang JH
• Lee JH
• Moon MK
• Kim JS
• Won KS
• Lee CS

Abstract

BACKGROUND
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has become a one of the most important causes of nosocomial infections, and use of vancomycin for the treatment of MRSA infection has increased. Unfortunately, vancomycin-resistant enterococcus have been reported, as well as vancomycin-resistant S. aureus. Arbekacin is an antibacterial agent and belongs to the aminoglycoside family of antibiotics. It was introduced to treat MRSA infection. We studied the clinical and bacteriological efficacy and safety of arbekacin compared to vancomycin in the treatment of infections caused by MRSA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This was a retrospective case-control study of patients who were admitted to tertiary Hospital from January 1st, 2009 to December 31st, 2010, and received the antibiotics arbekacin or vancomycin. All the skin and soft tissue MRSA infected patients who received arbekacin or vancomycin were enrolled during the study period. The bacteriological efficacy response (BER) was classified with improved and failure. The improved BER was defined as no growth of MRSA, where failure was defined as growth of MRSA, culture at the end of therapy or during treatment. Clinical efficacy response (CER) was classified as improved and failure. Improved CER was defined as resolution or reduction of the majority of signs and symptoms related to the original infection. Failure was defined as no resolution and no reduction of majority of the signs and symptoms, or worsening of one or more signs and symptoms, or new symptoms or signs associated with the original infection or a new infection.
RESULTS
Totally, 122 patients (63/99 in arbekacin, 59/168 in vancomycin group) with skin and soft tissue infection who recieved arbekacin or vancomcyin at least 4 days were enrolled and analysed. The bacteriological efficacy response [improved, arbekacin vs vancomycin; 73.0% (46/63), 95% confidence interval (CI) 60.3 to 83.4% vs 83.1% (49/59), 95% CI 71.0 to 91.6%] and clinical efficacy response [improved, arbekacin vs vancomycin; 67.2% (41/61), 95% CI 52.0 to 76.7% vs 78.0% (46/59), 95% CI 65.3 to 87.7%] were similar between the two groups (P=0.264, 0.265). The complication rate was significantly higher in the vancomycin group [29/59(49.2%), 95% CI 35.9 to 62.5%] than arbekacin [10/63(15.9%), 95% CI 8.4 to 29.0%] (P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Arbekacin could be considered as an alternative antibiotics for vancomycin in skin and soft tissue infection with MRSA. However, further prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm this finding.

Keyword

Arbekacin; Vancomycin; MRSA; Skin and soft tissue infection

MeSH Terms

Anti-Bacterial Agents
Case-Control Studies
Cross Infection
Dibekacin
Enterococcus
Humans
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Retrospective Studies
Skin
Soft Tissue Infections
Tertiary Care Centers
Vancomycin
Anti-Bacterial Agents
Dibekacin
Vancomycin

Reference

1. Nichols RL, Florman S. Clinical presentations of soft-tissue infections and surgical site infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2001. 33:Suppl 2. S84–S93.

2. Wilson SE. Clinical trial results with linezolid, an oxazolidinone, in the treatment of soft tissue and postoperative gram-positive infections. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2001. 2:25–35.

3. Nichols RL. Optimal treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1999. 44:Suppl A. 19–23.

4. Kirby JT, Mutnick AH, Jones RN, Biedenbach DJ, Pfaller MA. Geographic variations in garenoxacin (BMS284756) activity tested against pathogens associated with skin and soft tissue infections: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (2000). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2002. 43:303–309.

5. Moet GJ, Jones RN, Biedenbach DJ, Stilwell MG, Fritsche TR. Contemporary causes of skin and soft tissue infections in North America, Latin America, and Europe: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (1998-2004). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007. 57:7–13.

6. Chung GT, Cha JG, Han SY, Jang HS, Lee KM, Yoo JI, Yoo JS, Kim HB, Eun SH, Kim BS, Park O, Lee YS. Nationwide surveillance study of vancomycin intermediate Staphylococcus aureus strains in Korean hospitals from 2001 to 2006. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010. 20:637–642.

7. Lee K, Lee MA, Lee CH, Lee J, Roh KH, Kim S, Kim JJ, Koh E, Yong D, Chong Y. KONSAR Group. Increase of ceftazidime- and fluoroquinolone-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae and imipenem-resistant Acinetobacter spp. in Korea: analysis of KONSAR study data from 2005 and 2007. Yonsei Med J. 2010. 51:901–911.

8. Hiramatsu K, Hanaki H, Ino T, Yabuta K, Oguri T, Tenover FC. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus clinical strain with reduced vancomycin susceptibility. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1997. 40:135–136.

9. Walsh TR, Howe RA. The prevalence and mechanisms of vancomycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2002. 56:657–675.

10. Watanabe T, Ohashi K, Matsui K, Kubota T. Comparative studies of the bactericidal, morphological and post-antibiotic effects of arbekacin and vancomycin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1997. 39:471–476.

11. Lee J, Kim CK, Roh KH, Lee H, Yum JH, Yong D, Lee K, Chong Y. In vitro activity of arbekacin against clinical isolates of Staphylococcus species and Gram-negative Bacilli. Korean J Lab Med. 2007. 27:292–297.

12. Wie SH, Kang JH, Huh DH, Lee DG, Kim SI, Kim YR, Choi JH, Kim JH, Yoo JH, Hur JK, Shin WS, Kang MW. Antimicrobial activities of arbekacin against clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species. Korean J Infect Dis. 2001. 33:254–260.

13. Kim TH, Choo EJ, Lee MS, Kim NJ, Woo JH, Ryu J, Chang MS, Yum YK. Clinical efficacy and safety with arbekacin for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections. Korean J Med. 2003. 65:239–244.

14. Manjunath G, Sarnak MJ, Levey AS. Prediction equations to estimate glomerular filtration rate: an update. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2001. 10:785–792.

15. Hwang JH, Lee JH, Moon MK, Kim JS, Won KS, Lee CS. The usefulness of arbekacin compared to vancomycin. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012. 31:1663–1666.

16. Holmberg SD, Solomon SL, Blake PA. Health and economic impacts of antimicrobial resistance. Rev Infect Dis. 1987. 9:1065–1078.

17. Wang G, Hindler JF, Ward KW, Bruckner DA. Increased vancomycin MICs for Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates from a university hospital during a 5-year period. J Clin Microbiol. 2006. 44:3883–3886.

18. Sievert DM, Rudrik JT, Patel JB, McDonald LC, Wilkins MJ, Hageman JC. Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the United States, 2002-2006. Clin Infect Dis. 2008. 46:668–674.

19. Sato R, Tanigawara Y, Kaku M, Aikawa N, Shimizu K. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship of arbekacin for treatment of patients infected with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006. 50:3763–3769.

20. Lee DG, Chun HS, Yim DS, Choi SM, Choi JH, Yoo JH, Shin WS, Kang MW. Efficacies of vancomycin, arbekacin, and gentamicin alone or in combination against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro infective endocarditis model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003. 47:3768–3773.

21. Hamilton-Miller JM, Shah S. Activity of the semi-synthetic kanamycin B derivative, arbekacin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1995. 35:865–868.

22. Suzuki K. Efficacy and safety of arbekacin for staphylococcal infection in the NICU. Pediatr Int. 2003. 45:301–306.

23. Kobayashi Y, Uchida H, Kawakami Y. Arbekacin. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 1995. 5:227–230.

24. Lodise TP, Patel N, Lomaestro BM, Rodvold KA, Drusano GL. Relationship between initial vancomycin concentration-time profile and nephrotoxicity among hospitalized patients. Clin Infect Dis. 2009. 49:507–514.

25. Ryu JS, Woo JH, Kim KW, Kim TH, Kim YH. Efficacy of teicoplanin in gram-positive bacterial infection. Korean J Infect Dis. 1992. 24:183–189.

26. Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, Daum RS, Fridkin SK, Gorwitz RJ, Kaplan SL, Karchmer AW, Levine DP, Murray BE, J Rybak M, Talan DA, Chambers HF. Clinical practice guidelines by the infectious diseases society of america for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children: executive summary. Clin Infect Dis. 2011. 52:285–292.