-
American Family Physician Aug 2014Impetigo is the most common bacterial skin infection in children two to five years of age. There are two principal types: nonbullous (70% of cases) and bullous (30% of... (Review)
Review
Impetigo is the most common bacterial skin infection in children two to five years of age. There are two principal types: nonbullous (70% of cases) and bullous (30% of cases). Nonbullous impetigo, or impetigo contagiosa, is caused by Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus pyogenes, and is characterized by honey-colored crusts on the face and extremities. Impetigo primarily affects the skin or secondarily infects insect bites, eczema, or herpetic lesions. Bullous impetigo, which is caused exclusively by S. aureus, results in large, flaccid bullae and is more likely to affect intertriginous areas. Both types usually resolve within two to three weeks without scarring, and complications are rare, with the most serious being poststreptococcal glomerulonephritis. Treatment includes topical antibiotics such as mupirocin, retapamulin, and fusidic acid. Oral antibiotic therapy can be used for impetigo with large bullae or when topical therapy is impractical. Amoxicillin/clavulanate, dicloxacillin, cephalexin, clindamycin, doxycycline, minocycline, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, and macrolides are options, but penicillin is not. Natural therapies such as tea tree oil; olive, garlic, and coconut oils; and Manuka honey have been anecdotally successful, but lack sufficient evidence to recommend or dismiss them as treatment options. Treatments under development include minocycline foam and Ozenoxacin, a topical quinolone. Topical disinfectants are inferior to antibiotics and should not be used. Empiric treatment considerations have changed with the increasing prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, with methicillin-resistant S. aureus, macrolide-resistant streptococcus, and mupirocin-resistant streptococcus all documented. Fusidic acid, mupirocin, and retapamulin cover methicillin-susceptible S. aureus and streptococcal infections. Clindamycin proves helpful in suspected methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections. Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole covers methicillin-resistant S. aureus infection, but is inadequate for streptococcal infection.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Diagnosis, Differential; Disease Management; Global Health; Humans; Impetigo; Incidence; Skin
PubMed: 25250996
DOI: No ID Found -
International Journal of Molecular... Jul 2022This paper discusses the mechanisms of drug resistance including: (1) introduction. (2) resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics, with particular emphasis on the genes... (Review)
Review
This paper discusses the mechanisms of drug resistance including: (1) introduction. (2) resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics, with particular emphasis on the genes found in the family, the structure and occurrence of SCC cassettes, as well as differences in the presence of some virulence genes and its expression in major epidemiological types and clones of HA-MRSA, CA-MRSA, and LA-MRSA strains. Other mechanisms of resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics will also be discussed, such as mutations in the gene, BORSA or MODSA phenotypes, as well as resistance to ceftobiprole and ceftaroline. (3) Resistance to glycopeptides (VRSA, VISA, hVISA strains, vancomycin tolerance). (4) Resistance to oxazolidinones (mutational and enzymatic resistance to linezolid). (5) Resistance to MLS-B (macrolides, lincosamides, ketolides, and streptogramin B). (6) Aminoglycosides and spectinomicin, including resistance genes, their regulation and localization (plasmids, transposons, class I integrons, SCC), and types and spectrum of enzymes that inactivate aminoglycosides. (7). Fluoroquinolones (8) Tetracyclines, including the mechanisms of active protection of the drug target site and active efflux of the drug from the bacterial cell. (9) Mupirocin. (10) Fusidic acid. (11) Daptomycin. (12) Resistance to other antibiotics and chemioterapeutics (e.g., streptogramins A, quinupristin/dalfopristin, chloramphenicol, rifampicin, fosfomycin, trimethoprim) (13) Molecular epidemiology of MRSA.
Topics: Aminoglycosides; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Resistance; Humans; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus aureus
PubMed: 35897667
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23158088 -
Journal of Global Antimicrobial... Mar 2020Staphylococcus aureus is one of the most common pathogens causing nosocomial and community-acquired infections associated with high morbidity and mortality. Mupirocin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Staphylococcus aureus is one of the most common pathogens causing nosocomial and community-acquired infections associated with high morbidity and mortality. Mupirocin has been increasingly used for treatment of methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) infections. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of mupirocin-resistant S. aureus (MuRSA), mupirocin-resistant MRSA (MuRMRSA), high-level MuRSA (HLMuRSA) and high-level MuRMRSA (HLMuRMRSA) worldwide.
METHODS
Online databases including Medline, Embase and Web of Science were searched (2000-2018) to identify studies addressing the prevalence of MuRSA, MuRMRSA, HLMuRSA and HLMuRMRSA. STATA v. software was used to interpret the data.
RESULTS
Of the 2243 records identified from the databases, 30 and 63 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria for MuRSA and MuRMRSA, respectively. Finally, 27 and 60 studies were included separately for HLMuRSA and HLMuRMRSA, respectively. The analyses revealed pooled and averaged prevalences of MuRSA, MuRMRSA, HLMuRSA and HLMuRMRSA of 7.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 6.2-9.0%], 13.8% (95% CI 12.0-15.6%), 8.5% (95% CI 6.3-10.7%) and 8.1% (95% CI 6.8-9.4%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
Overall, these results show a global increase in the prevalence of HLMuRSA and HLMuRMRSA among clinical S. aureus isolates over time. However, there was only a significant increase in the prevalence of MuRMRSA compared with the other categories, especially MuRSA. Since mupirocin remains the most effective antibiotic for MSSA and MRSA decolonisation both in patients and healthcare personnel, a reduction of its effectiveness presents a risk for invasive infection. Monitoring of mupirocin resistance development remains critical.
Topics: Community-Acquired Infections; Cross Infection; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Humans; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Mupirocin; Population Surveillance; Prevalence; Staphylococcal Infections
PubMed: 31442624
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgar.2019.07.032 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Nov 2022Surgical site infections (SSIs) are one of the most significant complications in surgical patients and are strongly associated with poorer prognosis. Due to their... (Review)
Review
Surgical site infections (SSIs) are one of the most significant complications in surgical patients and are strongly associated with poorer prognosis. Due to their aggressive character, cardiac surgical procedures carry a particular high risk of postoperative infection, with infection incidence rates ranging from a reported 3.5% and 26.8% in cardiac surgery patients. Given the specific nature of cardiac surgical procedures, sternal wound and graft harvesting site infections are the most common SSIs. Undoubtedly, DSWIs, including mediastinitis, in cardiac surgery patients remain a significant clinical problem as they are associated with increased hospital stay, substantial medical costs and high mortality, ranging from 3% to 20%. In SSI prevention, it is important to implement procedures reducing preoperative risk factors, such as: obesity, hypoalbuminemia, abnormal glucose levels, smoking and carriage. For decolonisation of carriers prior to cardiac surgery, it is recommended to administer nasal mupirocin, together with baths using chlorhexidine-based agents. Perioperative management also involves antibiotic prophylaxis, surgical site preparation, topical antibiotic administration and the maintenance of normal glucose levels. SSI treatment involves surgical intervention, NPWT application and antibiotic therapy.
PubMed: 36498567
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11236991 -
Povidone Iodine: Properties, Mechanisms of Action, and Role in Infection Control and Decolonization.Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Aug 2020Nasal decolonization is an integral part of the strategies used to control and prevent the spread of methicillin-resistant (MRSA) infections. The two most commonly used... (Review)
Review
Nasal decolonization is an integral part of the strategies used to control and prevent the spread of methicillin-resistant (MRSA) infections. The two most commonly used agents for decolonization are intranasal mupirocin 2% ointment and chlorhexidine wash, but the increasing emergence of resistance and treatment failure has underscored the need for alternative therapies. This article discusses povidone iodine (PVP-I) as an alternative decolonization agent and is based on literature reviewed during an expert's workshop on resistance and MRSA decolonization. Compared to chlorhexidine and mupirocin, respectively, PVP-I 10 and 7.5% solutions demonstrated rapid and superior bactericidal activity against MRSA in and studies. Notably, PVP-I 10 and 5% solutions were also active against both chlorhexidine-resistant and mupirocin-resistant strains, respectively. Unlike chlorhexidine and mupirocin, available reports have not observed a link between PVP-I and the induction of bacterial resistance or cross-resistance to antiseptics and antibiotics. These preclinical findings also translate into clinical decolonization, where intranasal PVP-I significantly improved the efficacy of chlorhexidine wash and was as effective as mupirocin in reducing surgical site infection in orthopedic surgery. Overall, these qualities of PVP-I make it a useful alternative decolonizing agent for the prevention of infections, but additional experimental and clinical data are required to further evaluate the use of PVP-I in this setting.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Infection Control; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Mupirocin; Povidone-Iodine; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus aureus
PubMed: 32571829
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00682-20 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Feb 2019Hospitalized patients who are colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are at high risk for infection after discharge. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Hospitalized patients who are colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are at high risk for infection after discharge.
METHODS
We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of postdischarge hygiene education, as compared with education plus decolonization, in patients colonized with MRSA (carriers). Decolonization involved chlorhexidine mouthwash, baths or showers with chlorhexidine, and nasal mupirocin for 5 days twice per month for 6 months. Participants were followed for 1 year. The primary outcome was MRSA infection as defined according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria. Secondary outcomes included MRSA infection determined on the basis of clinical judgment, infection from any cause, and infection-related hospitalization. All analyses were performed with the use of proportional-hazards models in the per-protocol population (all participants who underwent randomization, met the inclusion criteria, and survived beyond the recruitment hospitalization) and as-treated population (participants stratified according to adherence).
RESULTS
In the per-protocol population, MRSA infection occurred in 98 of 1063 participants (9.2%) in the education group and in 67 of 1058 (6.3%) in the decolonization group; 84.8% of the MRSA infections led to hospitalization. Infection from any cause occurred in 23.7% of the participants in the education group and 19.6% of those in the decolonization group; 85.8% of the infections led to hospitalization. The hazard of MRSA infection was significantly lower in the decolonization group than in the education group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.96; P=0.03; number needed to treat to prevent one infection, 30; 95% CI, 18 to 230); this lower hazard led to a lower risk of hospitalization due to MRSA infection (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.99). The decolonization group had lower likelihoods of clinically judged infection from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.99) and infection-related hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.93); treatment effects for secondary outcomes should be interpreted with caution owing to a lack of prespecified adjustment for multiple comparisons. In as-treated analyses, participants in the decolonization group who adhered fully to the regimen had 44% fewer MRSA infections than the education group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.86) and had 40% fewer infections from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.78). Side effects (all mild) occurred in 4.2% of the participants.
CONCLUSIONS
Postdischarge MRSA decolonization with chlorhexidine and mupirocin led to a 30% lower risk of MRSA infection than education alone. (Funded by the AHRQ Healthcare-Associated Infections Program and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01209234 .).
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adult; Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Carrier State; Chlorhexidine; Comorbidity; Disease Transmission, Infectious; Disinfection; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Hospitalization; Humans; Hygiene; Infection Control; Male; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Middle Aged; Mupirocin; Patient Education as Topic; Staphylococcal Infections
PubMed: 30763195
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1716771 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Despite the health benefits of breastfeeding, initiation and duration rates continue to fall short of international guidelines. Many factors influence a woman's decision... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Despite the health benefits of breastfeeding, initiation and duration rates continue to fall short of international guidelines. Many factors influence a woman's decision to wean; the main reason cited for weaning is associated with lactation complications, such as mastitis. Mastitis is an inflammation of the breast, with or without infection. It can be viewed as a continuum of disease, from non-infective inflammation of the breast to infection that may lead to abscess formation.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of preventive strategies (for example, breastfeeding education, pharmacological treatments and alternative therapies) on the occurrence or recurrence of non-infective or infective mastitis in breastfeeding women post-childbirth.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (3 October 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of interventions for preventing mastitis in postpartum breastfeeding women. Quasi-randomised controlled trials and trials reported only in abstract form were eligible. We attempted to contact the authors to obtain any unpublished results, wherever possible. Interventions for preventing mastitis may include: probiotics, specialist breastfeeding advice and holistic approaches. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 trials (3034 women). Nine trials (2395 women) contributed data. Generally, the trials were at low risk of bias in most domains but some were high risk for blinding, attrition bias, and selective reporting. Selection bias (allocation concealment) was generally unclear. The certainty of evidence was downgraded due to risk of bias and to imprecision (low numbers of women participating in the trials). Conflicts of interest on the part of trial authors, and the involvement of industry funders may also have had an impact on the certainty of the evidence. Most trials reported our primary outcome of incidence of mastitis but there were almost no data relating to adverse effects, breast pain, duration of breastfeeding, nipple damage, breast abscess or recurrence of mastitis. Probiotics versus placebo Probiotics may reduce the risk of mastitis more than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 0.75; 2 trials; 399 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if probiotics reduce the risk of breast pain or nipple damage because the certainty of evidence is very low. Results for the biggest of these trials (639 women) are currently unavailable due to a contractual agreement between the probiotics supplier and the trialists. Adverse effects were reported in one trial, where no woman in either group experienced any adverse effects. Antibiotics versus placebo or usual care The risk of mastitis may be similar between antibiotics and usual care or placebo (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.34; 3 trials; 429 women; low-certainty evidence). The risk of mastitis may be similar between antibiotics and fusidic acid ointment (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.81; 1 trial; 36 women; low-certainty evidence) or mupirocin ointment (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.05 to 3.89; 1 trial; 44 women; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. None of the trials reported adverse effects. Topical treatments versus breastfeeding advice The risk of mastitis may be similar between fusidic acid ointment and breastfeeding advice (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.22; 1 trial; 40 women; low-certainty evidence) and mupirocin ointment and breastfeeding advice (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.35; 1 trial; 48 women; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. One trial (42 women) compared topical treatments to each other. The risk of mastitis may be similar between fusidic acid and mupirocin (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.00; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported. Specialist breastfeeding education versus usual care The risk of mastitis (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.17 to 4.95; 1 trial; 203 women; low-certainty evidence) and breast pain (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.37; 1 trial; 203 women; low-certainty evidence) may be similar but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported. Anti-secretory factor-inducing cereal versus standard cereal The risk of mastitis (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.72; 1 trial; 29 women; low-certainty evidence) and recurrence of mastitis (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.03 to 4.57; 1 trial; 7 women; low-certainty evidence) may be similar but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported. Acupoint massage versus routine care Acupoint massage probably reduces the risk of mastitis compared to routine care (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.78;1 trial; 400 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and breast pain (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.23; 1 trial; 400 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported. Breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment versus routine care Breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment may reduce risk of mastitis (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.21; 1 trial; 300 women; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is some evidence that acupoint massage is probably better than routine care, probiotics may be better than placebo, and breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment may be better than routine care for preventing mastitis. However, it is important to note that we are aware of at least one large trial investigating probiotics whose results have not been made public, therefore, the evidence presented here is incomplete. The available evidence regarding other interventions, including breastfeeding education, pharmacological treatments and alternative therapies, suggests these may be little better than routine care for preventing mastitis but our conclusions are uncertain due to the low certainty of the evidence. Future trials should recruit sufficiently large numbers of women in order to detect clinically important differences between interventions and results of future trials should be made publicly available.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bias; Breast Feeding; Edible Grain; Female; Fusidic Acid; Humans; Massage; Mastitis; Mupirocin; Neuropeptides; Ointments; Patient Education as Topic; Placebos; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32987448
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007239.pub4 -
International Journal of Surgery... Oct 2020To evaluate the effects of different surgical dressings in reducing surgical site infection (SSI) and identify the optimal dressings. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effects of different surgical dressings in reducing surgical site infection (SSI) and identify the optimal dressings.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials investigating the application of surgical dressings were retrieved from electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. The odds ratios (ORs) of the SSI rate were compared by direct meta-analysis, and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve values were calculated based on the Bayesian theorem. A node-splitting model was applied to analyse the consistency of the comprehensive comparison results.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies containing 5487 participants were pooled for the comprehensive comparison. Among all the studies included, 9 types of surgical dressings were identified for comparison. The results of the direct meta-analysis revealed that novel dressings significantly reduced the overall SSI rate with an OR of 1.026 (95% CI: 1.013-1.040, p < 0.001), which was determined to have low heterogeneity (I = 32.1%). Specifically, 3 types of dressings presented significant effects in reducing SSI, namely, mupirocin-containing (OR = 1.076, 95% CI: 1.014-1.142, p = 0.015), dialkylcarbamoyl-chloride-containing (OR = 1.047, 95% CI: 1.012-1.083, p = 0.008) and vitamin E (VE)-silicone-containing (OR = 1.129, 95% CI: 1.016-1.255, p = 0.025) dressings. Network meta-analysis demonstrated that the VE-silicone dressing (SUCRA = 0.37) was the optimal dressing, followed by the mupirocin dressing, with a SUCRA of 0.31.
CONCLUSION
The present network meta-analysis identified the superiority of VE-silicone and mupirocin dressings in preventing SSI. The evidence-based results provide suggestions and directions for future investigations on surgical dressings. More large-scale trials with rigorous designs are warranted to clarify the clinical value of novel dressings in surgical incision management.
Topics: Bandages; Bayes Theorem; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Odds Ratio; Postoperative Period; Surgical Wound; Surgical Wound Infection; Wound Healing
PubMed: 32853782
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.07.066 -
Emerging Microbes & Infections Dec 2022The aim of this study was to investigate the genomic epidemiology of MRSA in China to identify predominant lineages and their associated genomic and phenotypic...
The aim of this study was to investigate the genomic epidemiology of MRSA in China to identify predominant lineages and their associated genomic and phenotypic characteristics. In this study, we conducted whole-genome sequencing on 565 MRSA isolates from 7 provinces and municipalities of China between 2014 and 2020. MRSA isolates were subjected to MLST, typing, SCC typing, analysis of virulence determinants and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Among 565 MRSA isolates tested, clonal complex (CC) 59 (31.2%), CC5 (23.4%) and CC8 (13.63%) were the major lineages, and the clonal structure was dominated by ST59-t437-IV (14.9%), ST239-t030-III (6.4%) and ST5-t2460-II (6.0%), respectively. Of note, CC8, the predominant lineage in 2014-2015, was replaced by CC59 after 2016. Interestingly, the extension and unstable structure of the CC5 population was observed, with ST5-t311-II, ST764-t1084-II, ST5-t2460-II and ST764-t002-II existing complex competition. Further analysis revealed that virulence determinant profiles and antibiograms were closely associated with the clonal lineage. The CC59 MRSA was less resistant to most tested antimicrobials and carried fewer resistance determinants. But rifampicin resistance and mupirocin resistance were closely linked with CC8 and CC5, respectively. MRSA isolates conservatively carried multiple virulence genes involved in various functions. PVL encoding genes were more common in ST338, CC30, CC398, ST8 and CC22, while -1 was associated with ST5. In conclusion, the community-associated CC59-ST59-t437-IV lineage was predominant in China, with diverse clonal isolates alternately circulating in various geographical locations. Our study highlights the need for MRSA surveillance in China to monitor changes in MRSA epidemiology.
Topics: China; Genotype; Humans; Longitudinal Studies; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Multilocus Sequence Typing; Staphylococcal Infections
PubMed: 35060838
DOI: 10.1080/22221751.2022.2032373