Rifampin in device-related infections: Assessing the modern evidence
In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final versi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of health-system pharmacy 2024-09 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.
Rifampin is commonly used to treat device-related infections (DRIs) due to its activity against biofilms, despite a history of limited clinical evidence to support its use. Evidence published since 2011 regarding rifampin use for DRIs is reviewed to describe the contemporary findings and ongoing considerations for rifampin use in these infections.
A literature review was performed by searching PubMed and Google Scholar to identify relevant studies evaluating systemic rifampin use for the treatment of DRIs published from 2011 to 2023. References of identified studies were also screened for additional pertinent studies. Sixty-eight studies were identified, and 48 met the inclusion criteria. Rifampin efficacy was evaluated as both a primary outcome for cardiac device infections (n = 3) and prosthetic joint infections (n = 21) and as a nonprimary outcome (n = 24). Overall, the studies were primarily retrospective (n = 36) and small, with sample sizes ranging from 14 to 842 patients, and varied greatly with respect to prosthesis site, surgical intervention, pathogen, infection time frame, and antibiotic combination and duration. Efficacy outcome results varied greatly, with statistically significant evidence for the efficacy of rifampin combination in DRIs limited to a single study of prosthetic vascular graft infections and 13 studies of prosthetic joint infections.
The modern literature provides conflicting results regarding the benefit and lack of benefit with rifampin combination therapy in DRIs. Additional, robust research is imperative to solidify the ongoing role of rifampin in DRIs. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1079-2082 1535-2900 1535-2900 |
DOI: | 10.1093/ajhp/zxae263 |