Previous Article | Next Article 
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, June 1999, p. 1412-1416, Vol. 43, No. 6
Infection Control
Program1 and Clinical Microbiology
Laboratory,2 University Hospitals of Geneva,
CH-1211 Geneva 14, Switzerland
Received 21 December 1998/Returned for modification 8 March
1999/Accepted 7 April 1999
Mupirocin has been widely used for the clearance of nasal
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriage
during outbreaks, but no placebo-controlled trial has evaluated its
value for eradicating MRSA carriage at multiple body sites in settings where MRSA is not epidemic. In a 1,500-bed teaching hospital with endemic MRSA, 102 patients colonized with MRSA were randomized into a
double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and treated with either
mupirocin (group M) or placebo (group P) applied to the anterior nares
for 5 days; both groups used chlorhexidine soap for body washing.
Follow-up screening, susceptibility testing, and genotyping were
performed to evaluate treatment success, mupirocin or chlorhexidine
resistance, and exogenous recolonization. At baseline, MRSA carriage
was 60% in the nares, 38% in the groin, and 62% in other sites (skin
lesions, urine). The MRSA eradication rate (all body sites) was 25% in
group M (12 of 48 patients), compared to 18% in group P (9 of 50 patients; relative risk [RR], 0.72; 95% confidence interval
[CI95], 0.33 to 1.55). At the end of follow-up, 44% of
patients (19 of 43) were free of nasal MRSA in group M, compared to
23% (11 of 44) in group P (RR, 0.57; CI95, 0.31 to 1.04).
Ten patients developed MRSA infections (three in group M and seven in
group P). One mupirocin treatment failure was due to exogenous MRSA
recolonization. No MRSA isolate showed chlorhexidine resistance or
high-level mupirocin resistance; however, we observed an association
(P = 0.003) between low-level mupirocin resistance at
study entry (prevalence, 23%) and subsequent treatment failure in both
study arms. These results suggest that nasal mupirocin is only
marginally effective in the eradication of multisite MRSA carriage in a
setting where MRSA is endemic.
The prevention and treatment of
infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus has become a
difficult task because of the worldwide emergence of
multidrug-resistant strains (22). Nasal and
extranasal carriage of methicillin-resistant S. aureus
(MRSA) is an essential step in invasive MRSA infections and plays a
decisive role in the dissemination of these microorganisms (18,
31). Topical mupirocin has been used widely for the clearance of
nasal MRSA carriage during outbreaks (1). In guidelines
recently issued by a British working group, this agent has been
recommended for decolonization of all nasal MRSA carriers
(4). Furthermore, mupirocin has been shown to eradicate
carriage of S. aureus in health care workers (8)
and to prevent staphylococcal infections in surgical and hemodialysis
patients (19, 20).
Hitherto, there has not been a single placebo-controlled, randomized
trial evaluating the value of mupirocin for eradicating multisite body
carriage of MRSA in a setting where it is endemic. The aim of this
investigation was to compare the efficacy of intranasal mupirocin and
chlorhexidine body washing with that of chlorhexidine body washing
alone in eliminating MRSA carriage at multiple body sites in
hospitalized patients without signs of active MRSA infection.
(This work was presented in part at the 38th Interscience Conference on
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, San Diego, Calif., 25 September
1998 [12a].)
Trial design and study objectives.
This study was conducted
in a double-blind, placebo-controlled fashion and was approved by the
Institutional Review Committee at the University Hospitals of Geneva
(HUG), Geneva, Switzerland. Treatment was allocated randomly in
variable-length blocks. The primary study objective was the assessment
of the clinical efficacy of mupirocin in eradicating overall MRSA
carriage in patients who were MRSA carriers on admission to the
hospital or became colonized during the hospital stay. Secondary study
objectives were the assessment of the effect of mupirocin on MRSA nasal
carriage, MRSA infection rates, resource use, and development of
mupirocin or chlorhexidine resistance.
Setting and study population.
HUG is a 1,500-bed health care
center with 40,000 admissions per year, providing primary and tertiary
acute care and geriatric long-term care. The annual rate of MRSA
colonization or infection increased significantly (r2 = 0.88, P = 0.042) from 0.05 cases per 100 admissions in 1989 to 0.57 cases per 100 admissions in 1994 (27). During the
study period (October 1995 to September 1997), the number of newly
identified MRSA patients decreased to a rate of 0.24 cases per 100 admissions following the implementation of various control measures
previously described (12). On-site surveillance and
molecular analysis showed that the spread of MRSA at HUG was mainly due
to nosocomial transmission of several epidemic strains (12).
0066-4804/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Trial To Evaluate
the Efficacy of Mupirocin for Eradicating Carriage of
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Study medication and procedures. For patients receiving active treatment, calcium mupirocin 2% (Bactroban nasal; SmithKline Beecham) was applied intranasally in a base of soft, white paraffin. Control patients applied a placebo ointment (soft, white paraffin base only) that was similar in appearance. Patients were instructed to apply a small amount of ointment (approximately 1 cm) with a cotton-tipped applicator to each of the anterior nares once in the morning and once again at night for 5 consecutive days. After each application, the nostrils were gently massaged to distribute the ointment. When necessary, a nurse administered the nasal ointment to ensure optimal compliance. Patients, investigators, and all health care workers involved were blinded as to the nature of the ointment. The tubes with the ointment bore the patient and study numbers without indicating the treatment. Concomitant infection control measures for all patients included consisted of the application of an antiseptic solution containing chlorhexidine for daily body cleansing and the contact isolation procedures routinely performed at HUG (12).
Microbiologic evaluation. Twelve, 19, and 26 days (each ±3 days) after the initiation of therapy, swabs were to be taken from different screening sites (the nose, the groin, pressure sores or other lacerated skin sites, and the urine if a catheter was present) and immediately introduced into Amies transport medium (Copan, Brescia, Italy). Semiquantitative cultures were performed on Columbia agar (Difco, Detroit, Mich.) supplemented with 5% sheep blood agar and on phenylethyl alcohol agar plates (Bacto Phenylethanol Agar; Difco) both incubated 48 h in 5% CO2 at 35°C. Qualitative cultures were performed after enrichment in staphylococcal broth with 7.5% NaCl (Bacto m Staphylococcus Broth; Difco) during 24 h and subculturing on sheep blood agar plates. Identification of S. aureus was based on the morphology of colonies, a positive catalase test, the presence of clumping factor and protein A (Pastorex Staph-Plus; Sanofi Diagnostics Pasteur, Marnes-la-Coquette, France), and the production of heat-stable nuclease (Bacto DNase test agar [Difco] and toluidine blue O [E. Merck Suisse SA]) (17).
Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed according to the guidelines of the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) (25) by using disk diffusion methodology. Disks of mupirocin (Sanofi) were charged at 5 µg. The zone diameter breakpoints for isolates susceptible and resistant to mupirocin were at
14 and 
13 mm, respectively (10). In addition, all S. aureus isolates were spot inoculated on Mueller-Hinton
agar (Oxoid Ltd., Basingstoke, England) containing 6 mg of oxacillin (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, Mo.)/liter and 4% NaCl according to
NCCLS recommendations (25). MICs of chlorhexidine (Sigma Chemical Co.) were determined by the agar dilution method with an
inoculum of 105 CFU/ml. MICs of mupirocin were determined
by E-test methodology (AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden). The MIC breakpoints
of mupirocin were 4 mg/liter for susceptible isolates, 8 to 64 mg/liter for low-level resistance, 128 to 256 mg/liter for
intermediate-level resistance, and 500 mg/liter for high-level
resistance (21). S. aureus ATCC 29223 was used as
a quality control strain for disk diffusion testing and for
determination of MICs. Molecular typing of MRSA isolates was performed
by contour-clamped homogenous electric field electrophoresis (CHEF),
after digestion of chromosomal DNA as previously described
(32). Clonal diversity was defined as proposed by Tenover et
al. (30).
Efficacy analysis. The final outcome was determined without knowledge of which treatment had been given. Patients were withdrawn if they received antistaphylococcal agents other than the study drug or if they failed to receive two or more applications of the study ointment.
The results of bacteriologic cultures for MRSA provided the basis for evaluating treatment efficacy. If any of the screening cultures in the month following treatment with mupirocin or placebo were positive for MRSA, and if the strain was identical with the original strain, the case was counted as a failure. Secondary outcome variables were MRSA nasal carriage, MRSA infection rates, development of mupirocin or chlorhexidine resistance, and resource utilization, which was measured by the length of the hospital stay after randomization, the duration of contact isolation, the number of visits by the infection control nurses, and the daily nursing workload. The latter was evaluated by the Project Research in Nursing (PRN) system, a validated system for managing nursing staff (13).Sample size and statistical analysis.
This study was
designed to detect a difference of at least 30% in the overall MRSA
eradication rate (60% in the mupirocin group [group M] compared to
30% in the placebo group [group P]) (15) with a power of
80% (1 
= 0.80) and the overall 
level set at 0.05. The
minimal number of evaluable patients to be included in each study group
was 48.
2 test and the
Fisher exact test for categorical variables and the t test
or Wilcoxon test for continuous variables. Two-sided P
values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Statistical analysis was performed with EpiInfo 6.0 (CDC, Atlanta, Ga.)
and SPSS 8.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Ill.).
| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
|
|---|
Trial profile and study population. Between October 1995 and September 1997, a total of 275 patients were detected to be MRSA positive at HUG. Among these patients, 110 (40%) had MRSA infections and were not evaluated further. Sixty-three eligible patients (23%) were not enrolled because of varying exclusion criteria. Of the 102 randomized patients (51 to mupirocin and 51 to placebo), 4 were withdrawn at baseline because of concomitant systemic antistaphylococcal therapy. Ninety-eight patients (mupirocin, 48; placebo, 50) entered the intention-to-treat analysis.
Ages averaged 74 ± 16 years; 59% of the patients were men. Sixty-three patients (64%) were newly detected MRSA carriers, and 35 (36%) had known MRSA carriage; among them, 22 had previously been exposed to mupirocin (median time interval, 155 days). Table 1 shows the different MRSA carriage sites at baseline: 58% of the patients (57 of 98) had microbiologically documented MRSA carriage in the anterior nares, 38% were colonized in the groin, and 62% were colonized at another site. Most patients (69 of 98; 70%) were colonized simultaneously at different body sites. There were no significant differences between the treatment groups with respect to other baseline characteristics (Table 2).
|
|
Efficacy.
Table 3 shows the main
results of this study. The overall MRSA eradication rate was 25% in
group M (12 of 48 patients), and 18% in group P (9 of 50 patients;
relative risk [RR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval
[CI95], 0.64 to 2.99; P = 0.40). The 21 patients who were free of MRSA throughout the follow-up period had a
median of one MRSA-positive baseline culture (range, 1 to 3), with the following distribution: nose only, 4 patients; groin, 6; other skin
sites, 11; urine, 4.
|
Genotyping and resistance patterns. A total of 183 isolates from 98 patients were available for molecular subtyping and determination of mupirocin and chlorhexidine resistance. The analysis of the chromosomal DNA of the MRSA isolates by CHEF showed identity of patient isolates at baseline and follow-up in all except two failure cases (one in each arm). All isolates were susceptible to chlorhexidine (MIC < 2 mg/liter).
No patient isolates showed intermediate or high-level resistance to mupirocin. Overall, 46 MRSA isolates with low-level mupirocin resistance (MICs, 8 to 64 mg/liter) were observed among 27 patients. At the time of study enrollment, strains with low-level resistance were documented in 23 patients (12 in group P and 11 in group M); strains in 4 patients acquired low-level resistance during mupirocin therapy. Mupirocin exposure prior to randomization was not a significant risk factor for low-level resistance (RR, 1.52; CI95, 0.71 to 3.27; P = 0.29). In contrast, all 23 patients with strains exhibiting low-level resistance at the time of entry into the study had persistent MRSA carriage at the end of follow-up, compared to 54 of 75 patients without baseline low-level resistance (RR, 1.39; CI95, 1.21 to 1.60). Thus, we noted an association between low-level mupirocin resistance at study entry and subsequent treatment failure (P = 0.003 by Fisher's exact test). It is noteworthy that this association was valid for both treatment arms, irrespective of the study therapy assigned: among 36 patients with persistent MRSA carriage in group M, 12 (33%) had strains with low-level mupirocin resistance at study entry, compared to 11 of 41 patients (27%) in group P (RR, 1.24; CI95, 0.63 to 2.46; P = 0.53).| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
|
|---|
This is the first placebo-controlled, randomized trial to clarify the issue of mupirocin eradication treatment in hospitalized patients colonized with MRSA. Our results suggest that nasal mupirocin is only marginally effective in the eradication of multisite MRSA carriage in a setting where MRSA is endemic, even in combination with chlorhexidine body washing. Nasal MRSA carriage was reduced by mupirocin in some patients, but the elimination of MRSA from the anterior nares was not associated with an overall reduction at other body sites.
Our findings stand in contrast to those of studies in which mupirocin was given to health care workers (29) and to those of MRSA outbreak reports, in which it may have been overlooked that nasal carriage may have recurred after the end of mupirocin treatment (14). In addition, most outbreak studies did not evaluate carriage in the urinary tract or skin, which frequently provide sites for MRSA recolonization. Only one randomized trial from Spain compared mupirocin with oral cotrimoxazole plus topical fusidic acid and showed poor efficacy of mupirocin in eradicating extranasal MRSA carriage: MRSA eradication was achieved in 17 of 23 (74%) subjects treated with cotrimoxazole plus topical fusidic acid versus 3 of 13 (23%) patients treated with mupirocin (P = 0.003) (26). As in our patient cohort, many extranasal body sites (skin or urinary tract) existed where MRSA persisted and maintained itself.
The effect of mupirocin, considered the most effective agent available for elimination of MRSA carriage, may be overestimated and needs to be reconsidered in settings where MRSA is endemic. In fact, most studies of the use of mupirocin to eliminate MRSA carriage have been conducted during outbreaks, by using an observational study design, where mupirocin use was uncontrolled and multiple control measures were carried out in an effort to contain the epidemics quickly (1). Thus, it is difficult to evaluate whether the development of negative MRSA cultures in those outbreaks could be attributed to mupirocin therapy alone or to other infection control strategies as well.
In our study, the possibility that successfully decontaminated subjects were recolonized from external sources could be excluded in all but two cases. Although the development of high-level resistance has been reported in the literature (5), we observed no treatment failure related to this resistance mechanism. Thus, exogenous recolonization or high-level resistance cannot explain the results of our trial.
Hitherto, it has been postulated that low-level resistance to mupirocin
(MIC 64 mg/liter) has no major clinical significance. This
concept is based on the finding that strains with low-level resistance
can be eradicated with mupirocin, given a local drug concentration of
20,000 µg/liter, the increased activity of the drug at acid pHs, and
the rarity of clinical failures observed in the treatment of isolates
demonstrating low-level resistance (3, 5, 9). Surprisingly,
we observed in our study that low-level resistance at baseline was
significantly associated with persistence of MRSA carriage, independent
of the study drug assigned. Thus, even in placebo-treated patients,
MRSA eradication was achieved only if low-level resistance was absent
at study enrollment. Given the potential for specious associations when multiple statistical comparisons are performed, circumspection is
required in dealing with these results. Further research in this
direction is clearly needed, but our finding of a potential relation
between baseline low-level resistance and subsequent treatment failure
should reinforce heightened vigilance about mupirocin resistance and
its clinical impact.
Several aspects of our study deserve careful analysis. First, despite the fact that we included all patients with a strong presumption of nasal MRSA carriage, only two-thirds (58%) of our study subjects had documented nasal carriage at baseline. In further studies, investigators should perform at least two pretreatment nasal swabs yielding MRSA in order to focus mupirocin treatment on patients who may better benefit from this eradication treatment. Second, we included a great variety of MRSA patients, including surgical and geriatric patients with multiple comorbidities and multiple MRSA colonization sites. We assume that by selecting less severely ill patients with nasal MRSA carriage only, we may have improved the efficacy rate of the mupirocin eradication treatment. Unlike other placebo-controlled mupirocin studies (8, 19, 20), in which the highly selected nature of the study population forced physicians to extrapolate results to the broader range of heavily colonized MRSA patients seen in most settings, our "real-life trial" was designed so that the circumstances of treatment closely resembled those of clinical practice. Third, we did not apply mupirocin ointment on skin lesions colonized with MRSA due to resistance concerns (16). Whether the combination of nasal and cutaneous mupirocin ointment could lead to improved outcomes needs further research. Finally, our results cannot be generalized to all settings. Mupirocin may still be a valuable element in stopping localized MRSA outbreaks, such as those occurring in critical-care units (6, 7, 24). But once MRSA has become endemic in a hospital, mupirocin is probably of less value, despite the common practice (23) and current recommendations (4) to apply mupirocin to all MRSA patients.
As stated by Boyce (2), more than 50 different treatment regimens have been tested for the eradication of nasal MRSA colonization, but the results have generally been unsatisfactory. Of all the topical treatments used, mupirocin has had the most encouraging results and is widely recommended for eradication of the MRSA carrier state. Based on our study results, we suggest that mupirocin should still be used with caution and may be targeted only at patients without chronic extranasal MRSA colonization.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
This work was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from SmithKline Beecham, Switzerland. S.H. was supported by the Holtzer Scholarship from Harvard University, Boston, Mass.
We thank all members of the Infection Control Program and the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory for their support and help. In particular, we thank Josiane Sztazel-Boissard, Sadia Huguet, Nadia Colaizzi, and Yves Martin for their invaluable help in clinical and laboratory work and data handling.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Infection Control Program, University Hospitals of Geneva, CH-1211 Geneva 14, Switzerland. Phone: 41-22-372 98 28. Fax: 41-22-372 39 87. E-mail: didier.pittet{at}hcuge.ch.
Present address: Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of
Public Health, Boston, MA 02215.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
|
|---|
| 1. |
Bertino, J. S., Jr.
1997.
Intranasal mupirocin for outbreaks of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm.
54:2185-2191 |
| 2. | Boyce, J. M. 1996. Preventing staphylococcal infections by eradicating nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: proceeding with caution. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 17:775-779[Medline]. |
| 3. | Bradley, S. F., M. A. Ramsey, T. M. Morton, and C. A. Kauffman. 1995. Mupirocin resistance: clinical and molecular epidemiology. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 16:354-358[Medline]. |
| 4. | British Society of Antimicrobial Agents and Hospital Infection Society. 1998. Revised guidelines for the control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in hospitals. J. Hosp. Infect. 39:253-290[Medline]. |
| 5. |
Cookson, B. D.
1998.
The emergence of mupirocin resistance: a challenge to infection control and antibiotic prescribing practice.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
41:11-18 |
| 6. | Coovadia, Y. M., R. H. Bhana, A. P. Johnson, I. Haffejee, and R. R. Marples. 1989. A laboratory-confirmed outbreak of rifampicin-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a newborn nursery. J. Hosp. Infect. 14:303-312[Medline]. |
| 7. | Davies, E. A., A. M. Emmerson, G. M. Hogg, M. F. Patterson, and M. D. Shields. 1987. An outbreak of infection with a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a special care baby unit: value of topical mupirocin and of traditional methods of infection control. J. Hosp. Infect. 10:120-128[Medline]. |
| 8. | Doebbeling, B. N., D. L. Breneman, H. C. Neu, R. Aly, B. G. Yangco, H. P. Holley, Jr., R. J. Marsh, M. A. Pfaller, J. E. McGowan, Jr., B. E. Scully, D. R. Reagan, and R. P. Wenzel. 1993. Elimination of Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage in health care workers: analysis of six clinical trials with calcium mupirocin ointment. Clin. Infect. Dis. 17:466-474[Medline]. |
| 9. | Eltringham, I. 1997. Mupirocin resistance and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Hosp. Infect. 35:1-8[Medline]. |
| 10. | Finlay, J. E., L. A. Miller, and J. A. Poupard. 1997. Interpretive criteria for testing susceptibility of staphylococci to mupirocin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 41:1137-1139[Abstract]. |
| 11. | Garner, J. S., W. R. Jarvis, T. G. Emori, T. C. Toran, and J. M. Hughes. 1988. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections. Am. J. Infect. Control 16:128-140[Medline]. |
| 12. | Harbarth, S., and D. Pittet. 1997. Controlling a long-term, hospital-wide epidemic of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains: experience from the Geneva university hospital. Hyg. Med. 22:306-313. |
| 12a. | Harbarth, S., P. Copin, N. Henry, R. Auckenthaler, B. Brönimann, and D. Pittet. 1998. Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of mupirocin for eradicating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriage in an endemic setting, abstr. K-25, p. 507. In Abstracts of the 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C. |
| 13. | Hernandez, C. A., and L. L. O'Brien-Pallas. 1996. Validity and reliability of nursing workload measurement systems: review of validity and reliability theory. Can. J. Nurs. Admin. 9(3):32-50. |
| 14. |
Hill, R. L.,
G. L. Duckworth, and M. W. Casewell.
1988.
Elimination of nasal carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with mupirocin during a hospital outbreak.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
22:377-384 |
| 15. | Hudson, I. R. 1994. The efficacy of intranasal mupirocin in the prevention of staphylococcal infections: a review of recent experience. J. Hosp. Infect. 27:81-98[Medline]. |
| 16. | Kauffman, C. A., M. S. Terpenning, X. He, L. T. Zarins, M. A. Ramsey, K. A. Jorgensen, W. S. Sottile, and S. F. Bradley. 1993. Attempts to eradicate methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from a long-term-care facility with the use of mupirocin ointment. Am. J. Med. 94:371-378[Medline]. |
| 17. | Kloos, W. E., and T. L. Bannerman. 1995. Staphylococcus and Micrococcus, p. 282-298. In P. R. Murray, E. J. Baron, M. A. Pfaller, F. C. Tenover, and R. H. Yolken (ed.), Manual of clinical microbiology, 6th ed. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C. |
| 18. | Kluytmans, J., A. van Belkum, and H. Verbrugh. 1997. Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: epidemiology, underlying mechanisms, and associated risks. Clin Microbiol Rev. 10:505-520[Abstract]. |
| 19. | Kluytmans, J. A., M. J. Manders, E. van Bommel, and H. Verbrugh. 1996. Elimination of nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus in hemodialysis patients. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 17:793-797[Medline]. |
| 20. | Kluytmans, J. A., J. W. Mouton, M. F. Vanden Bergh, M. J. Manders, A. P. Maat, J. H. Wagenvoort, M. F. Michel, and H. A. Verbrugh. 1996. Reduction of surgical-site infections in cardiothoracic surgery by elimination of nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 17:780-785[Medline]. |
| 21. |
Layton, M. C., and J. E. Patterson.
1994.
Mupirocin resistance among consecutive isolates of oxacillin-resistant and borderline oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at a university hospital.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
38:1664-1667 |
| 22. |
Lowy, F. D.
1998.
Staphylococcus aureus infections.
N. Engl. J. Med.
339:520-532 |
| 23. | Mayall, B., R. Martin, A. M. Keenan, L. Irving, P. Leeson, and K. Lamb. 1996. Blanket use of intranasal mupirocin for outbreak control and long-term prophylaxis of endemic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an open ward. J. Hosp. Infect. 32:257-266[Medline]. |
| 24. | Meier, P. A., C. D. Carter, S. E. Wallace, R. J. Hollis, M. A. Pfaller, and L. A. Herwaldt. 1996. A prolonged outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the burn unit of a tertiary medical center. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 17:798-802[Medline]. |
| 25. | National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 1998. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. Document M100-S8. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa. |
| 26. | Parras, F., M. C. Guerrero, E. Bouza, M. J. Blazquez, S. Moreno, M. C. Menarguez, and E. Cercenado. 1995. Comparative study of mupirocin and oral cotrimoxazole plus topical fusidic acid in eradication of nasal carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 39:175-179[Abstract]. |
| 27. |
Pittet, D.,
E. Safran,
S. Harbarth,
F. Borst,
P. Copin,
P. Rohner,
J. R. Scherrer, and R. Auckenthaler.
1996.
Automatic alerts for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus surveillance role of a hospital information system.
Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.
17:496-502[Medline].
|
| 28. | Pittet, D., B. Thiévent, R. P. Wenzel, N. Li, G. Gurman, and P. M. Suter. 1993. Importance of pre-existing co-morbidities for prognosis of septicemia in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 19:265-272[Medline]. |
| 29. | Reagan, D. R., B. N. Doebbeling, M. A. Pfaller, C. T. Sheetz, A. K. Houston, R. J. Hollis, and R. P. Wenzel. 1991. Elimination of coincident Staphylococcus aureus nasal and hand carriage with intranasal application of mupirocin calcium ointment. Ann. Intern. Med. 114:101-106. |
| 30. | Tenover, F. C., R. D. Arbeit, R. V. Goering, P. A. Mickelsen, B. E. Murray, D. H. Persing, and B. Swaminathan. 1995. Interpreting chromosomal DNA restriction patterns produced by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis: criteria for bacterial strain typing. J. Clin. Microbiol. 33:2233-2239[Medline]. |
| 31. | Thompson, R. L., I. Cabezudo, and R. P. Wenzel. 1982. Epidemiology of nosocomial infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Ann. Intern. Med. 97:309-317. |
| 32. |
Wei, M. Q.,
F. U. Wang, and W. B. Grubb.
1992.
Use of contour-clamped homogeneous electric field electrophoresis to type methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
J. Med. Microbiol.
36:172-176 |
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, June 1999, p. 1412-1416, Vol. 43, No. 6
0066-4804/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Malaviolle, X., Nonhoff, C., Denis, O., Rottiers, S., Struelens, M. J.
(2008). Evaluation of disc diffusion methods and Vitek 2 automated system for testing susceptibility to mupirocin in Staphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother
62: 1018-1023
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Mastoraki, A., Kriaras, I., Douka, E., Mastoraki, S., Stravopodis, G., Geroulanos, S.
(2008). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus preventing strategy in cardiac surgery. ICVTS
7: 452-456
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Huang, Y.-C., Chou, Y.-H., Su, L.-H., Lien, R.-I., Lin, T.-Y.
(2006). Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Colonization and Its Association With Infection Among Infants Hospitalized in Neonatal Intensive Care Units. Pediatrics
118: 469-474
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Bootsma, M. C. J., Diekmann, O., Bonten, M. J. M.
(2006). Controlling methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Quantifying the effects of interventions and rapid diagnostic testing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
103: 5620-5625
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Gemmell, C. G., Edwards, D. I., Fraise, A. P., Gould, F. K., Ridgway, G. L., Warren, R. E., on behalf of the Joint Working Party of the Britis,
(2006). Guidelines for the prophylaxis and treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in the UK. J Antimicrob Chemother
57: 589-608
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Rouse, M. S., Rotger, M., Piper, K. E., Steckelberg, J. M., Scholz, M., Andrews, J., Patel, R.
(2005). In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluations of the Activities of Lauric Acid Monoester Formulations against Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
49: 3187-3191
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Rotger, M., Trampuz, A., Piper, K. E., Steckelberg, J. M., Patel, R.
(2005). Phenotypic and Genotypic Mupirocin Resistance among Staphylococci Causing Prosthetic Joint Infection. J. Clin. Microbiol.
43: 4266-4268
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Giannoudis, P. V., Parker, J., Wilcox, M. H.
(2005). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in trauma and orthopaedic practice. J Bone Joint Surg Br
87-B: 749-754
[Full Text] -
Tomic, V., Svetina Sorli, P., Trinkaus, D., Sorli, J., Widmer, A. F., Trampuz, A.
(2004). Comprehensive Strategy to Prevent Nosocomial Spread of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a Highly Endemic Setting. Arch Intern Med
164: 2038-2043
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Walker, E. S., Levy, F., Shorman, M., David, G., Abdalla, J., Sarubbi, F. A.
(2004). A Decline in Mupirocin Resistance in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Accompanied Administrative Control of Prescriptions. J. Clin. Microbiol.
42: 2792-2795
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Hardy, K. J., Hawkey, P. M., Gao, F., Oppenheim, B. A.
(2004). Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the critically ill. Br J Anaesth
92: 121-130
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Upton, A., Lang, S., Heffernan, H.
(2003). Mupirocin and Staphylococcus aureus: a recent paradigm of emerging antibiotic resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother
51: 613-617
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Francois, P., Pittet, D., Bento, M., Pepey, B., Vaudaux, P., Lew, D., Schrenzel, J.
(2003). Rapid Detection of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Directly from Sterile or Nonsterile Clinical Samples by a New Molecular Assay. J. Clin. Microbiol.
41: 254-260
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Tan, L., Nielsen, N. H., Young, D. C., Trizna, Z., for the Council on Scientific Affairs, American Me,
(2002). Use of Antimicrobial Agents in Consumer Products. Arch Dermatol
138: 1082-1086
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Carrier, M., Marchand, R., Auger, P., Hebert, Y., Pellerin, M., Perrault, L. P., Cartier, R., Bouchard, D., Poirier, N., Page, P.
(2002). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in a cardiac surgical unit. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.
123: 40-44
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Watanabe, H., Masaki, H., Asoh, N., Watanabe, K., Oishi, K., Kobayashi, S., Sato, A., Sugita, R., Nagatake, T.
(2001). Low Concentrations of Mupirocin in the Pharynx following Intranasal Application May Contribute to Mupirocin Resistance in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol.
39: 3775-3777
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Cimochowski, G. E., Harostock, M. D., Brown, R., Bernardi, M., Alonzo, N., Coyle, K.
(2001). Intranasal mupirocin reduces sternal wound infection after open heart surgery in diabetics and nondiabetics. Ann. Thorac. Surg.
71: 1572-1579
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Watanabe, H., Masaki, H., Asoh, N., Watanabe, K., Oishi, K., Kobayashi, S., Sato, A., Nagatake, T.
(2000). Molecular Analysis of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus as a Causative Agent of Bronchopulmonary Infection: Relation to Colonization in the Upper Respiratory Tract. J. Clin. Microbiol.
38: 3867-3869
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
(1999). Mupirocin Not Really Effective for Eradicating MRSA. JWatch Infect. Diseases
1999: 6-6
[Full Text]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»