Search

Aim of the study: To determine clinical course of Burkholderia cenocepacia bacteremia and outcomes in patients receiving cancer therapy. Materials and methods: We indentified 10 adult patients with culture-verified catheter-related Burkholderia cenocepacia bacteremia. Pathogens were identified with protein mass spectrometry of bacteria cells. Testing for the «Microscan WalkAway 40/96 Plus» (Germany) did antibiotic sensitivity or «VITEK 2» (France). Results: In the majority of cases course of bacteremia was indolent; this fact precluded its rapid identification with standard procedures for diagnosing bloodstream infection. All patients developed fever but we revealed neither leukocytosis nor leucopenia which could be attributed to active infection. However, antibiotic treatment was initiated during the 24 h after the first signs of infection in all cases. In one patient bacteremia was complicated with septic shock. We revealed that Burkholderia cenocepacia was able to form biofilms and persist in implanted venous port systems after treatment and in order to eradicate the pathogen venous catheters had to be removed despite effective antibacterial treatment. Initial treatment was prescribed empirically and further antibacterial treatment was adjusted based on sensitivity testing results in 7 patients. Burkholderia cenocepacia eradication rate was 100% and all patients were cured and were able to continue prescribed cancer therapy afterwards. Conclusion: given to the low frequency of Burkholderia cenocepacia sporadic infections, clinicians must be aware of the possibility of drugs and medical supplies contamination with this pathogen. If one reveals ≥1 case of Burkholderia cenocepacia-associated infection the internal investigation must be initiated. Empiric antimicrobial therapy widely prescribed to treat febrile neutropenia in cancer patients is effective in these cases. However, it cannot eradicate the pathogen from inner lumen of implanted venous catheters. Identification of the possible pathogen in blood cultures and antibiotics sensitivity testing using microbiological analyzers prompts the diagnosis of bacteremia and prescription of most effective therapy

Skin and soft tissue infections are one of the most common nosocomial infections, which are caused most often by gram-positive bacteria (staphylococci, streptococci, enterococci) with multiple drug resistance. These infections are among the major nosocomial infections in oncology clinics along with respiratory and urinary tract infections, blood flow infections, febrile neutropenia, and fevers of unknown origin.The purpose of the study was to compare the clinical activity of two oxazolidinones: linezolid and tedizolide in patients with skin and soft tissue infections.Material and methods. We analyzed recent publications and data available in websites: rlsnet.ru, eucast.org, and medlux.ru.Results. Clinical trials showed that both oxazolidinones were comparable in clinical efficacy, microbiological activity, and incidence of side effects in skin and soft tissue infections caused by various resistant gram-positive microorganisms: methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Streptococcus faecalis (VRE), as well as certain streptococci. The treatment regimen of tedizolide (200 mg once daily for 6 days) was compared with linezolid regimen (600 mg twice daily for 10 days). No comparisons were made with the 6-day linezolid regimen, although the authors concluded that shorter duration of treatment with tadizolide resulted in an equal effect. In addition, the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) obtained by comparing the microbiological activity of these two agents showed the advantage of tedizolide against certain strains. However, the comparison was not made according to the EUCAST standards (Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing). Concerning the cost of both drugs, treatment with linezolidom was 2-3 times cheaper than treatment with tidezolid, even with its shorter course.Conclusion. Thus, tedisolide was equally effective for linezolid. Data on the microbiological sensitivity of linezolid can be extrapolated to tedizolide in the absence of testing in laboratories. However, lower financial costs and wider range of microbiological activity make linezolid the drug of choice for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections caused by resistant gram-positive microorganisms.