Evidence Hub

Successful maintenance treatment of disseminated nocardiosis with cerebral abscess in a severely immunocompromised patient allergic to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole using moxifloxacin and high-dose minocycline: A case report

Hiroshi Yamamoto, H. Kuroda, N. Hiramoto, Toshikazu Hasuike, A. Doi, Hiroaki Nishioka

Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy, 2024

8 citations

Abstract

Nocardiosis in patients after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is rare, but is associated with a significant mortality risk. Although trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX) remains the cornerstone of nocardiosis treatment, optimal alternative therapies for patients intolerant to TMP/SMX are not well-established. Herein, we report a case of disseminated nocardiosis with bacteremia and multiple lesions in the lungs and brain caused by Nocardia farcinica, in a 60-year-old man who had previously undergone allogeneic HSCT and was receiving immunosuppressants for severe chronic graft-versus-host disease. The patient received atovaquone for the prophylaxis of Pneumocystis pneumonia because of a previous serious allergic reaction to TMP/SMX. The patient was initially treated with imipenem/cilastatin and amikacin, which were later switched to ceftriaxone and amikacin based on the results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing. After switching to oral levofloxacin and a standard dose of minocycline, the patient experienced a single recurrence of brain abscesses. However, after switching to oral moxifloxacin and high-dose minocycline, the patient did not experience any relapses during the subsequent two years and seven months of treatment. In treating nocardiosis with brain abscesses, it is crucial to select oral antibiotics based on the antimicrobial susceptibility test results and pharmacokinetics, especially when TMP/SMX is contraindicated. A combination…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free