Abhisekh Sinha Ray1, Ammar Haikal1, Kassem A Hammoud2, Alan S L Yu3. 1. Divisions of Nephrology and Hypertension and. 2. Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas. 3. Divisions of Nephrology and Hypertension and ayu@kumc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Vancomycin has been in use for more than half a century, but whether it is truly nephrotoxic and to what extent are still highly controversial. The objective of this study was to determine the risk of AKI attributable to intravenous vancomycin. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials and cohort studies that compared patients treated with intravenous vancomycin with a control group of patients given a comparator nonglycopeptide antibiotic and in which kidney function or kidney injury outcomes were reported. PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched from 1990 to September of 2015. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed study risk of bias, and one reviewer adjudicated the assessments. A meta-analysis was conducted on seven randomized, controlled trials (total of 4033 patients). RESULTS: Moderate quality evidence suggested that vancomycin treatment is associated with a higher risk of AKI, with a relative risk of 2.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.69 to 3.55). The risk of kidney injury was similar in patients treated for skin and soft tissue infections compared with those treated for nosocomial pneumonia and other complicated infections. There was an uncertain risk of reporting bias, because kidney function was not a prespecified outcome in any of the trials. The preponderance of evidence was judged to be indirect, because the majority of studies compared vancomycin specifically with linezolid. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that there is a measurable risk of AKI associated with vancomycin, but the strength of the evidence is moderate. A randomized, controlled trial designed to study kidney function as an outcome would be needed to draw unequivocal conclusions.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Vancomycin has been in use for more than half a century, but whether it is truly nephrotoxic and to what extent are still highly controversial. The objective of this study was to determine the risk of AKI attributable to intravenous vancomycin. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials and cohort studies that compared patients treated with intravenous vancomycin with a control group of patients given a comparator nonglycopeptide antibiotic and in which kidney function or kidney injury outcomes were reported. PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched from 1990 to September of 2015. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed study risk of bias, and one reviewer adjudicated the assessments. A meta-analysis was conducted on seven randomized, controlled trials (total of 4033 patients). RESULTS: Moderate quality evidence suggested that vancomycin treatment is associated with a higher risk of AKI, with a relative risk of 2.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.69 to 3.55). The risk of kidney injury was similar in patients treated for skin and soft tissue infections compared with those treated for nosocomial pneumonia and other complicated infections. There was an uncertain risk of reporting bias, because kidney function was not a prespecified outcome in any of the trials. The preponderance of evidence was judged to be indirect, because the majority of studies compared vancomycin specifically with linezolid. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that there is a measurable risk of AKI associated with vancomycin, but the strength of the evidence is moderate. A randomized, controlled trial designed to study kidney function as an outcome would be needed to draw unequivocal conclusions.
Authors: Richard G Wunderink; Michael S Niederman; Marin H Kollef; Andrew F Shorr; Mark J Kunkel; Alice Baruch; William T McGee; Arlene Reisman; Jean Chastre Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Jeannie D Chan; Tam N Pham; Jenny Wong; Michelle Hessel; Joseph Cuschieri; Margaret Neff; Timothy H Dellit Journal: J Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 3.510
Authors: Mark H Wilcox; Kenneth J Tack; Emilio Bouza; Daniel L Herr; Bernhard R Ruf; M Marian Ijzerman; Rodney V Croos-Dabrera; Mark J Kunkel; Charles Knirsch Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Thomas J Walsh; Hedy Teppler; Gerald R Donowitz; Johan A Maertens; Lindsey R Baden; Anna Dmoszynska; Oliver A Cornely; Michael R Bourque; Robert J Lupinacci; Carole A Sable; Ben E dePauw Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-09-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: G Ralph Corey; Heidi Kabler; Purvi Mehra; Sandeep Gupta; J Scott Overcash; Ashwin Porwal; Philip Giordano; Christopher Lucasti; Antonio Perez; Samantha Good; Hai Jiang; Greg Moeck; William O'Riordan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ravindra L Mehta; John A Kellum; Sudhir V Shah; Bruce A Molitoris; Claudio Ronco; David G Warnock; Adeera Levin Journal: Crit Care Date: 2007 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Reza Zonozi; Aozhou Wu; Jung-Im Shin; Alex Secora; Josef Coresh; Lesley A Inker; Alex R Chang; Morgan E Grams Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Cassandra R Duffy; Yongmei Huang; Maria Andrikopoulou; Conrad N Stern-Ascher; Jason D Wright; Mary E D'Alton; Alexander M Friedman Journal: J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med Date: 2020-03-11