Donald P. Levine

Bio: Donald P. Levine is an academic researcher from Wayne State University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Vancomycin & Endocarditis. The author has an hindex of 38, co-authored 87 publications receiving 11611 citations. Previous affiliations of Donald P. Levine include Detroit Receiving Hospital & Eugene Applebaum College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences.

Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America for the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections in Adults and Children

Abstract: Evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections were prepared by an Expert Panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). The guidelines are intended for use by health care providers who care for adult and pediatric patients with MRSA infections. The guidelines discuss the management of a variety of clinical syndromes associated with MRSA disease, including skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI), bacteremia and endocarditis, pneumonia, bone and joint infections, and central nervous system (CNS) infections. Recommendations are provided regarding vancomycin dosing and monitoring, management of infections due to MRSA strains with reduced susceptibility to vancomycin, and vancomycin treatment failures.

Daptomycin versus Standard Therapy for Bacteremia and Endocarditis Caused by Staphylococcus aureus

Abstract: Background Alternative therapies for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and endocarditis are needed. Methods We randomly assigned 124 patients with S. aureus bacteremia with or without endocarditis to receive 6 mg of daptomycin intravenously per kilogram of body weight daily and 122 to receive initial low-dose gentamicin plus either an antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin. The primary efficacy end point was treatment success 42 days after the end of therapy. Results Forty-two days after the end of therapy in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, a successful outcome was documented for 53 of 120 patients who received daptomycin as compared with 48 of 115 patients who received standard therapy (44.2 percent vs. 41.7 percent; absolute difference, 2.4 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, −10.2 to 15.1 percent). Our results met prespecified criteria for the noninferiority of daptomycin. The success rates were similar in subgroups of patients with complicated bacteremia, right-sided endocarditis, a...

Staphylococcus aureus Endocarditis A Consequence of Medical Progress

Abstract: ContextThe global significance of infective endocarditis (IE) caused by Staphylococcus aureus is unknown.ObjectivesTo document the international emergence of health care–associated S aureus IE and methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA) IE and to evaluate regional variation in patients with S aureus IE.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsProspective observational cohort study set in 39 medical centers in 16 countries. Participants were a population of 1779 patients with definite IE as defined by Duke criteria who were enrolled in the International Collaboration on Endocarditis-Prospective Cohort Study from June 2000 to December 2003.Main Outcome MeasureIn-hospital mortality.ResultsS aureus was the most common pathogen among the 1779 cases of definite IE in the International Collaboration on Endocarditis Prospective-Cohort Study (558 patients, 31.4%). Health care−associated infection was the most common form of S aureus IE (218 patients, 39.1%), accounting for 25.9% (Australia/New Zealand) to 54.2% (Brazil) of cases. Most patients with health care−associated S aureus IE (131 patients, 60.1%) acquired the infection outside of the hospital. MRSA IE was more common in the United States (37.2%) and Brazil (37.5%) than in Europe/Middle East (23.7%) and Australia/New Zealand (15.5%, P<.001). Persistent bacteremia was independently associated with MRSA IE (odds ratio, 6.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.9-13.2). Patients in the United States were most likely to be hemodialysis dependent, to have diabetes, to have a presumed intravascular device source, to receive vancomycin, to be infected with MRSA, and to have persistent bacteremia (P<.001 for all comparisons).ConclusionsS aureus is the leading cause of IE in many regions of the world. Characteristics of patients with S aureus IE vary significantly by region. Further studies are required to determine the causes of regional variation.

Vancomycin Therapeutic Guidelines: A Summary of Consensus Recommendations from the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists

Abstract: Practice guidelines for therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin treatment for Staphylococcus aureus infection in adult patients were reviewed by an expert panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. A literature review of existing evidence regarding vancomycin dosing and monitoring of serum concentrations, in addition to patient outcomes combined with expert opinion regarding the drug's pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and safety record, resulted in new recommendations for targeting and adjustment of vancomycin therapy.

Vancomycin: A history

Abstract: Vancomycin became available for clinical use >50 years ago but was soon discarded in favor of other antibiotics that were deemed to be more efficacious and less toxic. The advent of pseudomembranous enterocolitis, coupled with the spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, led to a resurgence in the use of vancomycin. Almost immediately, concerns arose with regard to its therapeutic utility. In addition, resistance to vancomycin developed, first in enterococci and later in staphylococci. Several types of resistance have now been identified, each with a unique effect on infections treated with vancomycin. Recent studies have rekindled interest in the best way to administer the antibiotic. The findings of future studies may result in a return to measuring levels of vancomycin in serum, to assure a successful therapeutic outcome.

KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury.

Abstract: tion’, implying that most patients ‘should’ receive a particular action. In contrast, level 2 guidelines are essentially ‘suggestions’ and are deemed to be ‘weak’ or discretionary, recognising that management decisions may vary in different clinical contexts. Each recommendation was further graded from A to D by the quality of evidence underpinning them, with grade A referring to a high quality of evidence whilst grade D recognised a ‘very low’ evidence base. The overall strength and quality of the supporting evidence is summarised in table 1 . The guidelines focused on 4 key domains: (1) AKI definition, (2) prevention and treatment of AKI, (3) contrastinduced AKI (CI-AKI) and (4) dialysis interventions for the treatment of AKI. The full summary of clinical practice statements is available at www.kdigo.org, but a few key recommendation statements will be highlighted here.

Staphylococcus aureus infections.

Abstract: Micrococcus, which, when limited in its extent and activity, causes acute suppurative inflammation (phlegmon), produces, when more extensive and intense in its action on the human system, the most virulent forms of septicaemia and pyaemia.1 In an elegant series of clinical observations and laboratory studies published in 1880 and 1882, Ogston described staphylococcal disease and its role in sepsis and abscess formation.1,2 More than 100 years later, Staphylococcus aureus remains a versatile and dangerous pathogen in humans. The frequencies of both community-acquired and hospital-acquired staphylococcal infections have increased steadily, with little change in overall mortality. Treatment of these infections . . .

Acute Kidney Injury Network: report of an initiative to improve outcomes in acute kidney injury

Abstract: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a complex disorder for which currently there is no accepted definition. Having a uniform standard for diagnosing and classifying AKI would enhance our ability to manage these patients. Future clinical and translational research in AKI will require collaborative networks of investigators drawn from various disciplines, dissemination of information via multidisciplinary joint conferences and publications, and improved translation of knowledge from pre-clinical research. We describe an initiative to develop uniform standards for defining and classifying AKI and to establish a forum for multidisciplinary interaction to improve care for patients with or at risk for AKI. Members representing key societies in critical care and nephrology along with additional experts in adult and pediatric AKI participated in a two day conference in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, in September 2005 and were assigned to one of three workgroups. Each group's discussions formed the basis for draft recommendations that were later refined and improved during discussion with the larger group. Dissenting opinions were also noted. The final draft recommendations were circulated to all participants and subsequently agreed upon as the consensus recommendations for this report. Participating societies endorsed the recommendations and agreed to help disseminate the results. The term AKI is proposed to represent the entire spectrum of acute renal failure. Diagnostic criteria for AKI are proposed based on acute alterations in serum creatinine or urine output. A staging system for AKI which reflects quantitative changes in serum creatinine and urine output has been developed. We describe the formation of a multidisciplinary collaborative network focused on AKI. We have proposed uniform standards for diagnosing and classifying AKI which will need to be validated in future studies. The Acute Kidney Injury Network offers a mechanism for proceeding with efforts to improve patient outcomes.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

Abstract: To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”. A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Bad Bugs, No Drugs: No ESKAPE! An Update from the Infectious Diseases Society of America

Abstract: The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) continues to view with concern the lean pipeline for novel therapeutics to treat drug-resistant infections, especially those caused by gram-negative pathogens. Infections now occur that are resistant to all current antibacterial options. Although the IDSA is encouraged by the prospect of success for some agents currently in preclinical development, there is an urgent, immediate need for new agents with activity against these panresistant organisms. There is no evidence that this need will be met in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, we remain concerned that the infrastructure for discovering and developing new antibacterials continues to stagnate, thereby risking the future pipeline of antibacterial drugs. The IDSA proposed solutions in its 2004 policy report, “Bad Bugs, No Drugs: As Antibiotic R&D Stagnates, a Public Health Crisis Brews,” and recently issued a “Call to Action” to provide an update on the scope of the problem and the proposed solutions. A primary objective of these periodic reports is to encourage a community and legislative response to establish greater financial parity between the antimicrobial development and the development of other drugs. Although recent actions of the Food and Drug Administration and the 110th US Congress present a glimmer of hope, significant uncertainly remains. Now, more than ever, it is essential to create a robust and sustainable antibacterial research and development infrastructure—one that can respond to current antibacterial resistance now and anticipate evolving resistance. This challenge requires that industry, academia, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the US Department of Defense, and the new Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority at the Department of Health and Human Services work productively together. This report provides an update on potentially effective antibacterial drugs in the late-stage development pipeline, in the hope of encouraging such collaborative action.