Australasian Malignant PLeural Effusion (AMPLE)-4 trial: study protocol for a multi-centre randomised trial of topical antibiotics prophylaxis for infections of indwelling pleural catheters.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a debilitating condition as it commonly causes disabling breathlessness and impairs quality of life (QoL). Indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) offers an effective alternative for the management of MPE. However, IPC-related infections remain a significant concern and there are currently no long-term strategies for their prevention. The Australasian Malignant PLeural Effusion (AMPLE)-4 trial is a multicentre randomised trial that evaluates the use of topical mupirocin prophylaxis (vs no mupirocin) to reduce catheter-related infections in patients with MPE treated with an IPC. METHODS: A pragmatic, multi-centre, open-labelled, randomised trial. Eligible patients with MPE and an IPC will be randomised 1:1 to either regular topical mupirocin prophylaxis or no mupirocin (standard care). For the interventional arm, topical mupirocin will be applied around the IPC exit-site after each drainage, at least twice weekly. Weekly follow-up via phone calls or in person will be conducted for up to 6 months. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients who develop an IPC-related (pleural, skin, or tract) infection between the time of catheter insertion and end of follow-up period. Secondary outcomes include analyses of infection (types and episodes), hospitalisation days, health economics, adverse events, and survival. Subject to interim analyses, the trial will recruit up to 418 participants. DISCUSSION: Results from this trial will determine the efficacy of mupirocin prophylaxis in patients who require IPC for MPE. It will provide data on infection rates, microbiology, and potentially infection pathways associated with IPC-related infections. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Sir Charles Gairdner and Osborne Park Health Care Group Human Research Ethics Committee has approved the study (RGS0000005920). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12623000253606. Registered on 9 March 2023.

A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial of MRSA throat carriage treatment, with either standard decolonization alone or in combination with oral clindamycin.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus is a frequent colonizer of the human skin and mucous membranes but can also cause a variety of serious infections. Antimicrobial resistance is an increasing worldwide challenge and is mainly driven by an overuse of antimicrobials. To avoid the spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Denmark, the Danish Health Authority recommends decolonization treatment of MRSA carriers and their household contacts. Standard decolonization treatment includes chlorhexidine body wash and mupirocin nasal ointment, especially throat carriage is difficult to treat. The broad-spectrum antibiotic, clindamycin, is often added to the decolonization treatment, but there is currently low scientific evidence for this treatment. AIM: To investigate whether the addition of clindamycin to the standard decolonization treatment increases decolonization success in MRSA throat carriers. METHODS: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial, including patients ≥ 18 years, who tested MRSA positive in the throat after completing one standard decolonization treatment. All carriers included in the trial receive standard decolonization treatment and are randomized to treatment with either placebo or clindamycin capsules for 10 days. We plan to include 40 participants in each of the two treatment arms. DISCUSSION: Due to the lack of consistent scientific evidence of clindamycin's effect in MRSA decolonization and the worldwide urgent need to reduce the use of antibiotics, we judged that a 30% increase in the decolonization success rate in carriers treated with clindamycin is appropriate to justify prescribing clindamycin as part of the decolonization treatment of asymptomatic MRSA carriers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number 2019-002631-29.

Safety and Biocompatibility of Mupirocin Nanoparticle-Loaded Hydrogel on Burn Wound in Rat Model.

Mupirocin nanoparticle-loaded hydrogel (MLH) was successfully developed. This study focused on the safety of cell lines and the biocompatibility of MLH for wound healing in rat models. MLH was assessed by an analysis of cytotoxicity and the secretion of inflammatory cytokines in cell lines. The cytocompatibility of MLH was compared with mupirocin ointment on full-thickness burn wounds in rats. The results indicated that MLH and blank hydrogel had no toxicity to human epidermal keratinocytes and human fibroblast cells. MLH inhibited lipopolysaccharide (LPS) activity in macrophage-like cells resulting in low nitric oxide production and reduced inflammatory cytokine production (interleukin (IL)-1ß) compared with a positive control (LPS only). In burn wounds, MLH and hydrogel healed the wound better than the other groups determined by wound contraction, reduced secretion, and the generation of new blood vessels, as well as promotion of hair follicle cells. Better granulation tissue proliferation, less necrosis, and a lower degree of inflammation were found in the MLH and blank hydrogel than in the mupirocin ointment. The hydrogel group reduced the macrophages (CD68) on day 14 at the edge of the wound. On day 28, T cells (CD3), B cells (CD20), and CD68+ cells were concentrated in the deeper subcutaneous tissue. Additionally, the transforming growth factor ß1 (TGF-ß1) concentration and matrix prometalloproteinase-2/tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-2 ratio in the MLH and hydrogel groups were less than those in the other groups. The MLH formulation was safe and effective in burn wound healing. Therefore, MLH formulations are promising candidates for further evaluation in clinical trials.

Safety and Efficacy of Universal Postoperative Decolonization for Kidney Transplant Recipients.

OBJECTIVES: Infection is a common cause of morbidity and mortality after kidney transplant. Based on the well-documented successes of reducing infections with decolonization of patients in intensive care units, we began a universal immediate posttransplant decolonization program for all kidney transplant recipients. Herein, we report safety and efficacy of this decolonization program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared a consecutive cohort of kidney transplant recipients who underwent universal decolonization (intervention group) with a cohort of transplant patients from an era immediately prior to this practice (control group). Universal decolonization included daily chlorhexidine body wash and nasal mupirocin ointment. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients who underwent universal decolonization were compared with 43 patients in the control group. Ten microbiologically proven infections (8.3%) occurred in the 30 days after discharge: 7 (9%) in the intervention group and 3 (7%) in the control group. Forty-five transplant recipients (37.2%) were readmitted in the 30 days after discharge: 31 (39.7%) in the intervention group and 14 (32.6%) in the control group. No patients in the intervention group had adverse drug events from mupirocin and chlorhexidine use. CONCLUSIONS: A universal decolonization protocol was successfully implemented and was well tolerated by all patients. Despite successful implementation, we did not observe any significant differences in infection rates between treated patients and historical controls.

Randomized controlled trial of topical mupirocin versus mupirocin with sucralfate combination in chronic skin ulcers.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to carry out a head-to-head comparison of topical sucralfate combined with mupirocin versus mupirocin alone in the treatment of chronic skin ulcers with respect to both effectiveness and safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A parallel-group, open-label, randomized, controlled trial (CTRI/2015/12/006443) was carried out with patients suffering from skin ulcers of Wagner grading 1 or 2 persisting for over 4 weeks. Ninety-six patients were recruited in total, and the modified intention-to-treat analysis dataset included 44 participants treated with mupirocin 2% and 46 treated with combined mupirocin 2% and sucralfate 7% ointment. Both medications were applied topically thrice daily for 6 weeks. Ulcer area assessed using millimeter graph paper and wound infection score assessed on a three-point scale were effectiveness measures. Treatment-emergent adverse reactions that were reported by patients or observed by the investigators were recorded. RESULTS: The median ulcer area was significantly reduced in the combined treatment group at the end of treatment. Clinically, 41.3% of the participants in the combined group showed complete ulcer healing at 6 weeks compared to 18.18% in the mupirocin alone group (P = 0.022). The wound infection score declined significantly from baseline by the end of 3 weeks of treatment in both the groups. The frequency of qualitative wound attributes, namely pain, discharge, and erythema, remained comparable between the groups except for discharge which disappeared completely from all remaining ulcers in the combined group but was still present in 11.36% of the participants treated with mupirocin alone (P = 0.025) at 6 weeks. Adverse events were few, all local, mild, and tolerable. CONCLUSIONS: The wound healing effect of topical sucralfate adds to the antimicrobial effect of mupirocin toward the overall improvement of chronic skin ulcers. The effect of combined topical treatment needs comparison with other topical medications and wound healing strategies.

Two randomized studies to evaluate the cooling sensation, consumer liking, and tolerability of a skin disinfectant spray.

The aim of these two clinical studies was to evaluate the sensory characteristics and irritation potential of a prototype disinfectant spray (containing 0.13% w/v benzalkonium chloride and a cooling agent) in subjects with experimental wounds. The pilot study was a single center, "replicated latinClinicalTrials.ClinicalTrials. square design," randomized and double-blinded study. The pivotal study was a single center, randomized, controlled, crossover, double-blinded study, following a direct comparison test design of the study products. The experimental wounds were generated using sequential tape strippings of the forearm skin before product application. The test product was compared with the currently marketed BACTROBAN® disinfectant spray, negative control (0.9% w/v saline), and positive control (70% w/v isopropyl alcohol, pilot study only). The pilot study was intended to inform the study design and sample size for the pivotal study. The pilot study demonstrated that the positive control product delivered significantly more irritancy (stinging /burning sensory) than the negative control product on the experimental wound, which verified the integrity of the wound model. The results of the pivotal study suggested that the prototype formulation delivered significantly more cooling sensation than both BACTROBAN® disinfectant spray and negative control at 3 and 5 min after product application, and overall for a 15-min period after application. No statistically significant differences in product liking were observed between the prototype disinfectant spray and the BACTROBAN® disinfectant spray or negative control. The prototype disinfectant spray, BACTROBAN® disinfectant spray, and control products were well-tolerated in these studies.

Drug utilization review of mupirocin ointment in a Korean university-affiliated hospital.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Intranasal mupirocin and chlorhexidine bathing are candidate strategies to prevent healthcare-associated infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). In Korea, intranasal mupirocin is not available, and mupirocin ointment, an over-the-counter drug, has been used indiscriminately. Furthermore, because it is covered by health insurance, mupirocin is easy to prescribe within hospitals. METHODS: We performed a mupirocin drug utilization review (DUR) within Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital. Annual use of mupirocin was investigated between 2003 and 2013, and monthly consumption of mupirocin was assessed during the final 2-year period. The DUR focused on August 2012, the period of highest use of mupirocin. Also, we investigated trends in mupirocin resistance in MRSA between 2011 and 2013. RESULTS: Annual consumption of mupirocin increased from 3,529 tubes in 2003 to 6,475 tubes in 2013. During August 2012, 817 tubes were prescribed to 598 patients; of these, 84.9% were prescribed to outpatients, and 77.6% at the dermatology department. The most common indication was prevention of skin infections (84.9%), and the ointment was combined with systemic antibiotics in 62.9% of cases. The average duration of systemic antibiotic administration was about 7.8 days. The rate of low-level mupirocin resistance in MRSA increased from 8.0% to 22.0%, and that of high-level mupirocin resistance increased from about 4.0% to about 7.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate use of mupirocin is prevalent. Considering the increase in resistance and the future application of intranasal mupirocin, prophylactic use of mupirocin in dermatology departments should be reconsidered.

One size does not fit all: why universal decolonization strategies to prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization and infection in adult intensive care units may be inappropriate for neonatal intensive care units.

The REDUCE MRSA Trial (Randomized Evaluation of Decolonization vs Universal Clearance to Eliminate Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus), a large multicenter, randomized controlled trial in adult intensive care units (ICUs), found universal decolonization to be more effective than surveillance and isolation procedures with or without targeted decolonization for reducing rates of MRSA-positive clinical cultures. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention subsequently published protocols for implementing universal decolonization in ICUs based on the trial's methods. Caution should be exercised before widely adopting these procedures in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), particularly strategies that involve bathing with chlorhexidine and mupirocin application due to the potential for adverse events in their unique patient population, especially preterm infants. Large multicenter trials in the NICUs are needed to evaluate the efficacy, short- and long-term safety, and cost effectiveness of these strategies prior to their widespread implementation.

Patient experience with mupirocin or povidone-iodine nasal decolonization.

Led by the federal government, the payers of health care are enacting policies designed to base provider reimbursement on the quality of care they render. This study evaluated and compared patient experiences and satisfaction with nasal decolonization with either nasal povidone-iodine (PI) or nasal mupirocin ointment (MO). A total of 1903 patients were randomized to undergo preoperative nasal decolonization with either nasal MO or PI solution. All randomized patients were also given 2% chlorhexidine gluconate topical wipes. Patients were interviewed prior to discharge to assess adverse events and patient experience with their assigned preoperative antiseptic protocol. Of the 1903 randomized patients, 1679 (88.1%) were interviewed prior to discharge. Of patients receiving PI, 3.4% reported an unpleasant or very unpleasant experience, compared with 38.8% of those using nasal MO (P<.0001). Sixty-seven percent of patients using nasal MO believed it to be somewhat or very helpful in reducing surgical site infections, compared with 71% of patients receiving PI (P>.05). Being recruited as an active participant in surgical site infection prevention was a positive experience for 87.2% of MO patients and 86.3% of PI patients (P=.652). Those assigned to receive PI solution preoperatively reported significantly fewer adverse events than the nasal MO group (P<.01). Preoperative nasal decolonization with either nasal PI or MO was considered somewhat or very helpful by more than two-thirds of patients.

[Investigation of antibacterial activity of topical antimicrobials against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the antibacterial activity of silver sulfadiazine (SD-Ag), mupirocin, and clotrimazole used alone or in combination against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolated from burn wounds. METHODS: Eighteen MRSA isolates from wound excretion of 18 burn patients hospitalized in our unit from July to December 2011 were collected continuously and non-repetitively. (1) Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), 50% MIC (MIC50), and 90% MIC (MIC90) of SD-Ag, mupirocin, and clotrimazole used alone, those of SD-Ag and mupirocin used in combination, and those of SD-Ag, mupirocin, and clotrimazole used in combination to MRSA were determined by checkerboard agar dilution method. (2) Fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) index was calculated to determine the combined effect of SD-Ag plus mupirocin, and SD-Ag plus mupirocin and clotrimazole. Synergy with FIC index less than or equal to 0.5 or additivity with FIC index more than 0.5 and less than or equal to 1.0 was regarded as effective, and indifference with FIC index more than 1.0 and less than or equal to 4.0 or antagonism with FIC index more than 4.0 was regarded as ineffective. The effective ratio was compared with overall ratio (assumed as 0) by unilateral binomial distribution test. RESULTS: The MIC, MIC50, and MIC90 of SD-Ag, mupirocin, and clotrimazole used alone against 18 MRSA isolates were respectively 8, 8, 16 µg/mL; 2, 16, 64 µg/mL; 2, 2, 2 µg/mL. MIC of antimicrobial agents used in combination decreased from 3.1% to 50.0% as compared with that of individual agent used alone. Compared with those of single application of SD-Ag and mupirocin, MIC50 of SD-Ag and that of mupirocin both decreased 75.0%, and MIC90 of them decreased 87.5% when SD-Ag and mupirocin were used in combination. Compared with those of single application of SD-Ag, mupirocin, and clotrimazole, MIC50 of SD-Ag, mupirocin, and clotrimazole respectively decreased 75.0%, 87.5%, and 50.0%; MIC90 of them respectively decreased 87.5%, 96.9%, and 50.0% when SD-Ag, mupirocin, and clotrimazole were used in combination. Among the 18 MRSA isolates, the combined effect of SD-Ag and mupirocin was synergic in 9 isolates, additive in 7 isolates, indifferent in 2 isolates, and antagonistic in 0 isolate; the combined effect of SD-Ag, mupirocin, and clotrimazole was additive in 16 isolates, indifferent in 2 isolates, and antagonistic in 0 isolate. There were statistically significant differences between effective ratio and overall ratio of 18 MRSA isolates treated with combined antimicrobial agents (P values all above 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: For burn wounds at middle and late stages infected with Staphylococcus aureus or Staphylococcus aureus and Fungus, low dose of SD-Ag or combination of above-mentioned antimicrobial agents can effectively control infection and decrease the adverse effect of antimicrobial agents on wound healing.

Prevention of peritoneal dialysis catheter infections in Saudi peritoneal dialysis patients: the emergence of high-level mupirocin resistance.

PURPOSE: Exit-site infection (ESI) and peritonitis remain the major causes of morbidity and mortality in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. This study compared the effectiveness of local mupirocin ointment and gentamicin cream in preventing both gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial infections in PD patients. METHODS: Patients from two centers (n = 203) were assigned to daily mupirocin ointment or gentamicin cream application. Infections were tracked prospectively by organisms and expressed as episodes per patient-year for both ESI and peritonitis. RESULTS: The rate of gram-positive ESI was 0.31/episode/patient-year and 0.22 episodes/patient-year (p<0.05), whereas the rate of gram-negative ESI was 0.28 episode/patient-year and 0.11 episode/patient-year (p<0.01) in the mupirocin group and gentamicin group, respectively. Gram-positive ESI occurred in 17.1% vs 10.2% of patients (p<0.05), whereas 20% of and 5.1% of patients (p<0.001) had gram-negative ESI in the 2 groups respectively. S.aureus was cultured at exit-site in the mupirocin group in 27.8% patients, 60% (16.7% of the total Gram-positive isolates) of them being with high-level mupirocin-resistance. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was cultured in 21.8% of ESI in the mupirocin group, and in only 6.7% in the gentamicin group (p<0.01). Peritonitis rates were lower using gentamicin cream, 0.17 episode/patient-year compared with mupirocin, 0.39 episode/patient-year (p<0.01). With multivariate analysis, only gentamicin exit-site use was a significant predictor for lower catheter infection rate. CONCLUSION: Prolonged use of mupirocin for ESI-prophylaxis is associated with the emergence of mupirocin-resistant S. aureus. Gentamicin cream is superior to mupirocin ointment in the prevention of PD catheter infections.

Targeted versus universal decolonization to prevent ICU infection.

BACKGROUND: Both targeted decolonization and universal decolonization of patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are candidate strategies to prevent health care-associated infections, particularly those caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial. Hospitals were randomly assigned to one of three strategies, with all adult ICUs in a given hospital assigned to the same strategy. Group 1 implemented MRSA screening and isolation; group 2, targeted decolonization (i.e., screening, isolation, and decolonization of MRSA carriers); and group 3, universal decolonization (i.e., no screening, and decolonization of all patients). Proportional-hazards models were used to assess differences in infection reductions across the study groups, with clustering according to hospital. RESULTS: A total of 43 hospitals (including 74 ICUs and 74,256 patients during the intervention period) underwent randomization. In the intervention period versus the baseline period, modeled hazard ratios for MRSA clinical isolates were 0.92 for screening and isolation (crude rate, 3.2 vs. 3.4 isolates per 1000 days), 0.75 for targeted decolonization (3.2 vs. 4.3 isolates per 1000 days), and 0.63 for universal decolonization (2.1 vs. 3.4 isolates per 1000 days) (P=0.01 for test of all groups being equal). In the intervention versus baseline periods, hazard ratios for bloodstream infection with any pathogen in the three groups were 0.99 (crude rate, 4.1 vs. 4.2 infections per 1000 days), 0.78 (3.7 vs. 4.8 infections per 1000 days), and 0.56 (3.6 vs. 6.1 infections per 1000 days), respectively (P<0.001 for test of all groups being equal). Universal decolonization resulted in a significantly greater reduction in the rate of all bloodstream infections than either targeted decolonization or screening and isolation. One bloodstream infection was prevented per 54 patients who underwent decolonization. The reductions in rates of MRSA bloodstream infection were similar to those of all bloodstream infections, but the difference was not significant. Adverse events, which occurred in 7 patients, were mild and related to chlorhexidine. CONCLUSIONS: In routine ICU practice, universal decolonization was more effective than targeted decolonization or screening and isolation in reducing rates of MRSA clinical isolates and bloodstream infection from any pathogen. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; REDUCE MRSA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00980980).

Hydrocortisone acetate alone or combined with mupirocin for atopic dermatitis in infants under two years of age - a randomized double blind pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: The skin of patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) is heavily colonized with Staphylococcus (S.) aureus, even at uninvolved sites. Toxins secreted by the majority of S. aureus on the skin behave as superantigens and can directly influence the disease activity, although clinical signs of bacterial superinfection might be absent. OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of hydrocortisone cream, combined with mupirocin or alone with emmolient ointment for the treatment of mild to moderate AD in infants between six months and two years of age. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 83 patients with mild to moderate AD were randomized to receive hydrocortisone, hydrocortisone+ mupirocin or emmolient ointment twice daily in one week and followed-up for 8 weeks, in a blind study. Efficacy evaluation made by SCORAD and eczema area and severity index (EASI) at baseline, day 7, and weeks 2, 4, and 8. Possible adverse events were recorded to evaluate safety. RESULTS: At the end of study, 65% (17 of 26) of the patients were treated successfully with hydrocortisone ointment based on SCORAD and EASI scores. Also there was a significant improvement in patients combined with mupirocin ointment [74% (20 of 27)]. The percent improvement from baseline in EASI scores was also significantly greater in hydrocortisone and combined group compared with emmolient-treated patients (36%) (p = 0.0187, p = 0.012 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Monotherapy with hydrocortisone ointment is the main treatment in infants with mild to moderate AD and combination with mupirocin is safe and effective often needed because of possible Staphylococcus carriage.

A randomized controlled trial comparing mupirocin and polysporin triple ointments in peritoneal dialysis patients: the MP3 Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Infectious complications remain a significant cause of peritoneal dialysis (PD) technique failure. Topical ointments seem to reduce peritonitis; however, concerns over resistance have led to a quest for alternative agents. This study examined the effectiveness of applying topical Polysporin Triple ointment (P(3)) against mupirocin in a multi-centered, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: PD patients routinely applied either P(3) or mupirocin ointment to their exit site. Patients were followed for 18 months or until death or catheter removal. The primary study outcome was a composite endpoint of exit-site infection (ESI), tunnel infection, or peritonitis. RESULTS: Seventy-five of 201 randomized patients experienced a primary outcome event (51 peritonitis episodes, 24 ESIs). No difference was seen in the time to first event for P(3) (13.2 months; 95% confidence interval, 11.9-14.5) and mupirocin (14.0 months; 95% confidence interval, 12.7-15.4) (P=0.41). Twice as many patients reported redness at the exit site in the P(3) group (14 versus 6, P=0.10). Over the complete study period, a higher rate per year of fungal ESIs was seen in patients using P(3) (0.07 versus 0.01; P=0.02) with a corresponding increase in fungal peritonitis (0.04 versus 0.00, respectively; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that P(3) is not superior to mupirocin in the prophylaxis of PD-related infections. Colonization of the exit site with fungal organisms is of concern and warrants further study. As such, the use of P(3) over mupirocin is not advocated in the prophylaxis of PD-related infections.

Preventing surgical-site infections in nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus.

BACKGROUND: Nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus are at increased risk for health care-associated infections with this organism. Decolonization of nasal and extranasal sites on hospital admission may reduce this risk. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial, we assessed whether rapid identification of S. aureus nasal carriers by means of a real-time polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay, followed by treatment with mupirocin nasal ointment and chlorhexidine soap, reduces the risk of hospital-associated S. aureus infection. RESULTS: From October 2005 through June 2007, a total of 6771 patients were screened on admission. A total of 1270 nasal swabs from 1251 patients were positive for S. aureus. We enrolled 917 of these patients in the intention-to-treat analysis, of whom 808 (88.1%) underwent a surgical procedure. All the S. aureus strains identified on PCR assay were susceptible to methicillin and mupirocin. The rate of S. aureus infection was 3.4% (17 of 504 patients) in the mupirocin-chlorhexidine group, as compared with 7.7% (32 of 413 patients) in the placebo group (relative risk of infection, 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.75). The effect of mupirocin-chlorhexidine treatment was most pronounced for deep surgical-site infections (relative risk, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.62). There was no significant difference in all-cause in-hospital mortality between the two groups. The time to the onset of nosocomial infection was shorter in the placebo group than in the mupirocin-chlorhexidine group (P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The number of surgical-site S. aureus infections acquired in the hospital can be reduced by rapid screening and decolonizing of nasal carriers of S. aureus on admission. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN56186788.)

Mupirocin resistance.

With increasing pressure to prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection, it is possible that there will be increased use of mupirocin for nasal decolonization of MRSA. Understanding the mechanisms, clinical significance, and epidemiology of mupirocin resistance is important for predicting how changes in mupirocin use may affect bacterial populations and MRSA control. High-level mupirocin resistance in S. aureus is mediated by a plasmid-encoded mupA gene. This gene can be found on conjugative plasmids that carry multiple resistance determinants for other classes of antimicrobial agents. High-level resistance has been associated with decolonization failure, and increased resistance rates have been associated with increased mupirocin use. Low-level mupirocin resistance is mediated via mutation in the native ileS gene, and the clinical significance of this resistance is unclear. Laboratory tests to detect and distinguish between these types of resistance have been described but are not widely available in the United States. Institutions that are considering the implementation of widespread mupirocin use should consider these resistance issues and develop strategies to monitor the impact of mupirocin use.

An intranasal irritation assessment of antibacterial ointment alone or in combination with mupirocin versus Bactroban Nasal in rabbits.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential irritating effects and the systemic exposure level of an antibacterial ointment containing REP8839 as a single agent or in combination with mupirocin versus Bactroban Nasal in rabbits. Additionally, the reversibility of REP8839 effects during a 14-day recovery period was assessed. Five treatment groups of six male and six female New Zealand White rabbits received dose levels of 1%, 2%, and 4% REP8839, 2% Bactroban Nasal, or 2% REP8839/2% mupirocin combination. One additional group of six animals/sex served as the control and received the vehicle, Petrolatum/Softisan 649. The test article or vehicle was administered to all groups via topical administration to the external nares, twice a day (approx. 8h intervals between the doses) for 21 consecutive days, at a dose volume of 100 microL per nare/dose for a total of 400 microL per day (200 microL per nare). Two animals/sex/group were maintained for a 14-day recovery period. The external nares were reflected back and the mucosal lining was evaluated and scored for erythema and edema within 30-60 min following the first dose each day. Blood samples were collected from all animals at designated time points on Day 21 of the study to assess systemic exposure levels. Cross-sectioning of the nasal tract was conducted in all the groups for microscopic evaluation. Mucosal scoring of the nares did not reveal any edema or erythema in any of the dose groups with the antibacterial alone, with the combination product, or with Bactroban Nasal. Mean body weights and food consumption were not adversely impacted by the test articles. Minimal plasma exposure was observed in the rabbits (<5 ng/mL). The REP8839 groups did appear to have dose-responsive exposure (from below the limit of quantitation to 5 ng/mL with 1%, 2%, and 4% REP8839, respectively). Microscopic changes on the nasal sectioning noted in these animals were infrequent and considered incidental findings unrelated to administration of the test articles. In conclusion doses of up to 4% of REP8839 ointment as a single agent or 2% in the combination product, as well as 2% Bactroban Nasal, were not found to induce mucosal irritation when applied topically to the external nares twice a day for 21 consecutive days. Additionally, no delayed effects were observed in the recovery animals.