Prophylactic intranasal mupirocin ointment in the treatment of peritonitis in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis patients

Antimicrobial approaches in the prevention of Staphylococcus aureus infections: a review

Background

The prophylactic application of antimicrobials that are active against Staphylococcus aureus can prevent infections. However, implementation in clinical practice is limited. We have reviewed antimicrobial approaches for the prevention of S. aureus infections.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and trial registries using synonyms for S. aureus, infections and prevention as search terms. We included randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews only.

Results

Most studies were conducted with mupirocin. Mupirocin is effective in preventing S. aureus infections in patients receiving dialysis treatment and in surgical patients, particularly if the patients are carriers of S. aureus. The combination of mupirocin and chlorhexidine, but not chlorhexidine alone, is also effective against S. aureus infections. So far, vaccines have not proven successful in protecting against S. aureus infections. Regarding prophylactic povidone-iodine and systemic antibiotics, there is limited evidence supporting their effectiveness against S. aureus infections. Antimicrobial honey has not been proven to be more effective or non-inferior to mupirocin in protecting against S. aureus infections.

Conclusions

The current evidence supports the use of mupirocin as prophylaxis for preventing infections with S. aureus, particularly in carriers and in the surgical setting or in patients receiving dialysis treatment. Other antimicrobial agents have not been sufficiently proven to be effective so far, or have been proven ineffective. New trials with vaccines and anti-staphylococcal peptides are currently underway and may lead to new preventive strategies in the future.

Antimicrobial agents for preventing peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an important therapy for patients with end-stage kidney disease and is used in more than 200,000 such patients globally. However, its value is often limited by the development of infections such as peritonitis and exit-site and tunnel infections. Multiple strategies have been developed to reduce the risk of peritonitis including antibiotics, topical disinfectants to the exit site and antifungal agents. However, the effectiveness of these strategies has been variable and are based on a small number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The optimal preventive strategies to reduce the occurrence of peritonitis remain unclear.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of antimicrobial strategies used to prevent peritonitis in PD patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 4 October 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs or quasi-RCTs in patients receiving chronic PD, which evaluated any antimicrobial agents used systemically or locally to prevent peritonitis or exit-site/tunnel infection were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies, randomising 4435 patients, were included. Twenty additional studies have been included in this update. The risk of bias domains were often unclear or high; risk of bias was judged to be low in 19 (49%) studies for random sequence generation, 12 (31%) studies for allocation concealment, 22 (56%) studies for incomplete outcome reporting, and in 12 (31%) studies for selective outcome reporting. Blinding of participants and personnel was considered to be at low risk of bias in 8 (21%) and 10 studies (26%) for blinding of outcome assessors. It should be noted that blinding of participants and personnel was not possible in many of the studies because of the nature of the intervention or control treatment.The use of oral or topical antibiotic compared with placebo/no treatment, had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (3 studies, 191 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.04) and the risk of peritonitis (5 studies, 395 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.19).The use of nasal antibiotic compared with placebo/no treatment had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (3 studies, 338 patients, low quality evidence: RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.87) and the risk of peritonitis (3 studies, 338 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.31).Pre/perioperative intravenous vancomycin compared with no treatment may reduce the risk of early peritonitis (1 study, 177 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.61) but has an uncertain effect on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (1 study, 177 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.32).The use of topical disinfectant compared with standard care or other active treatment (antibiotic or other disinfectant) had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (8 studies, 973 patients, low quality evidence, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.33) and the risk of peritonitis (6 studies, 853 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.06).Antifungal prophylaxis with oral nystatin/fluconazole compared with placebo/no treatment may reduce the risk of fungal peritonitis occurring after a patient has had an antibiotic course (2 studies, 817 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63).No intervention reduced the risk of catheter removal or replacement. Most of the available studies were small and of suboptimal quality. Only six studies enrolled 200 or more patients.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this update, we identified limited data from RCTs and quasi-RCTs which evaluated strategies to prevent peritonitis and exit-site/tunnel infections. This review demonstrates that pre/peri-operative intravenous vancomycin may reduce the risk of early peritonitis and that antifungal prophylaxis with oral nystatin or fluconazole reduces the risk of fungal peritonitis following an antibiotic course. However, no other antimicrobial interventions have proven efficacy. In particular, the use of nasal antibiotic to eradicate Staphylococcus aureus, had an uncertain effect on the risk of peritonitis and raises questions about the usefulness of this approach. Given the large number of patients on PD and the importance of peritonitis, the lack of adequately powered and high quality RCTs to inform decision making about strategies to prevent peritonitis is striking.

Clinical Effectiveness of Mupirocin for Preventing Staphylococcus aureus Infections in Nonsurgical Settings: A Meta-analysis

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed to identify effectiveness of mupirocin decolonization in prevention of Staphylococcus aureus infections, among nonsurgical settings. Of the 15 662 unique studies identified up to August 2015, 13 randomized controlled trials, 22 quasi-experimental studies, and 1 retrospective cohort study met the inclusion criteria. Studies were excluded if mupirocin was not used for decolonization, there was no control group, or the study was conducted in an outbreak setting. The crude risk ratios were pooled (cpRR) using a random-effects model. We observed substantial heterogeneity among included studies (I(2) = 80%). Mupirocin was observed to reduce the risk for S. aureus infections by 59% (cpRR, 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], .36-.48) and 40% (cpRR, 0.60; 95% CI, .46-.79) in both dialysis and nondialysis settings, respectively. Mupirocin decolonization was protective against S. aureus infections among both dialysis and adult intensive care patients. Future studies are needed in other settings such as long-term care and pediatrics.

Treatment for peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis

BACKGROUND

Peritonitis is a common complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD) that is associated with significant morbidity including death, hospitalisation, and need to change from PD to haemodialysis. Treatment is aimed to reduce morbidity and recurrence. This is an update of a review first published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of treatments for PD-associated peritonitis.

SEARCH METHODS

For this review update we searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to March 2014 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, and handsearching conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the treatment of peritonitis in PD patients (adults and children). We included any study that evaluated: administration of an antibiotic by different routes (e.g. oral, intraperitoneal (IP), intravenous (IV)); dose of an antibiotic agent; different schedules of administration of antimicrobial agents; comparisons of different regimens of antimicrobial agents; any other intervention including fibrinolytic agents, peritoneal lavage and early catheter removal.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Multiple authors independently extracted data on study risk of bias and outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model. We expressed summarised treatment estimates as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 eligible studies in 2433 participants: antimicrobial agents (36 studies); urokinase (4 studies), peritoneal lavage (1 study), and IP immunoglobulin (1 study). We did not identify any optimal antibiotic agent or combination of agents. IP glycopeptides (vancomycin or teicoplanin) had uncertain effects on primary treatment response, relapse rates, and need for catheter removal compared to first generation cephalosporins, although glycopeptide regimens were more likely to achieve a complete cure (3 studies, 370 episodes: RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.72). For relapsing or persistent peritonitis, simultaneous catheter removal and replacement was better than urokinase at reducing treatment failure rates (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.91) although evidence was limited to a single small study. Continuous and intermittent IP antibiotic dosing schedules had similar treatment failure and relapse rates. IP antibiotics were superior to IV antibiotics in reducing treatment failure in one small study (RR 3.52, 95% CI 1.26 to 9.81). Longer duration treatment (21 days of IV vancomycin and IP gentamicin) had uncertain effects on risk of treatment relapse compared with 10 days treatment (1 study, 49 patients: RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.95) although may have increased ototoxicity.In general, review conclusions were based on a small number of studies with few events in which risk of bias was generally high; interventions were heterogeneous, and outcome definitions were often inconsistent. There were no RCTs evaluating optimal timing of catheter removal and data for automated PD were absent.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Many of the studies evaluating treatment of PD-related peritonitis are small, out-dated, of poor quality, and had inconsistent definitions and dosing regimens. IP administration of antibiotics was superior to IV administration for treating PD-associated peritonitis and glycopeptides appear optimal for complete cure of peritonitis, although evidence for this finding was assessed as low quality. PD catheter removal may be the best treatment for relapsing or persistent peritonitis.Evidence was insufficient to identify the optimal agent, route or duration of antibiotics to treat peritonitis. No specific antibiotic appears to have superior efficacy for preventing treatment failure or relapse of peritonitis, but evidence is limited to few trials. The role of routine peritoneal lavage or urokinase is uncertain.

Peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis: towards improving evidence, practices, and outcomes

Peritonitis is a common serious complication of peritoneal dialysis that results in considerable morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. It also significantly limits the use of this important dialysis modality. Despite its importance as a patient safety issue, peritonitis practices and outcomes vary markedly and unacceptably among different centers, regions, and countries. This article reviews peritonitis risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention, particularly focusing on potential drivers of variable practices and outcomes, controversial or unresolved areas, and promising avenues warranting further research. Potential strategies for augmenting the existing limited evidence base and reducing the gap between evidence-based best practice and actual practice also are discussed.

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.

Mupirocin for preventing exit-site infection and peritonitis in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis

OBJECTIVES

Recently, there have been increasing concerns about the emergence of mupirocin resistance and increased infections due to lowered inhibition of Staphylococcus aureus. We conducted this systemic analysis to find out whether the application of mupirocin was effective for the prevention of exit-site infection (ESI) and peritonitis in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD).

METHODS

Recruited studies met the following criteria: they were randomized controlled trials or historical cohort studies; subjects consisted of adults (age, >or= 18 years) undergoing PD; mupirocin treatment was administered to the therapy group and placebo or no treatment was administered to the control group. The primary extracted data were the difference in the episodes of ESI and peritonitis S. aureus or other organisms among treatment and control groups. Results. Fourteen studies described in 13 articles and a total of 1,233 patients versus 1,217 controls were included in the analysis. Of the 13 articles, 6 were newly published articles that had not been analysed previously and 3 were randomized controlled trials. The application of mupirocin decreased the risk by 72% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.60-0.81] in ESI and by 70% (95% CI 0.52-0.81) in peritonitis due to S. aureus among all patients undergoing PD. Treatment of mupirocin reduced the risks of ESI and peritonitis due to all organisms by 57% (95% CI: 0.46-0.66) and 41% (95% CI: 0.24-0.54), respectively. Based on the six newly published articles, the reduced risk rate for mupirocin therapy was found to be 80% (95% CI: 0.39-0.93, P = 0.004) in ESI and 91% (95% CI: 0.72-0.97, P < 0.0001) in peritonitis due to S. aureus; 70% (95% CI: 0.47-0.82, P < 0.0001) in ESI and 42% (95% CI: 0.25-0.55, P < 0.0001) in peritonitis due to all organisms among mupirocin-treated and -untreated subjects. Based on the three randomized controlled trials, ESI and peritonitis due to S. aureus were found to be reduced by 73% (95% CI: 0.63-0.80, P < 0.0001) and 40% (95% CI: 0.17-0.56, P = 0.002), respectively. Interestingly, although mupirocin treatment can reduce the risk rate of ESI by 46% (95% CI: 0.35-0.55, P < 0.00001), it cannot decrease the risk rate of peritonitis due to all organisms (P = 0.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Mupirocin prophylaxis was effective on preventing ESI and peritonitis due to S. aureus and other organisms in PD patients.

Mupirocin ointment for preventing Staphylococcus aureus infections in nasal carriers

BACKGROUND

Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) is the leading nosocomial (hospital acquired) pathogen in hospitals throughout the world. Traditionally, control of S. aureus has been focused on preventing cross-infection between patients, however, it has been shown repeatedly that a large proportion of nosocomial S. aureus infections originate from the patient's own flora. Nasal carriage of S. aureus is now considered a well defined risk factor for subsequent infection in various groups of patients. Local antibiotic treatment with mupirocin ointment is often used to eradicate nasal S. aureus.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the use of mupirocin nasal ointment in patients with identified S. aureus nasal carriage reduced S. aureus infection rates.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (May 2008), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 2 2008), MEDLINE (1950 to May 2008), EMBASE (1980 to May 2008) and CINAHL (1982 to May 2008). To identify unpublished trials, abstract books from major scientific meetings (ICAAC, ESCMID and SHEA) were handsearched, researchers and manufacturers of mupirocin were contacted and other electronic databases were searched (SIGLE, ASLIB Index, mRCT, USA Clinical Trials).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nasal mupirocin with no treatment or placebo or alternative nasal treatment in the prevention of S. aureus infections in nasal S. aureus carriers were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Titles, abstracts and full-text articles of studies retrieved from the search process were independently assessed by two authors for inclusion. From included studies a data extraction form was made and the quality of the trial was assessed. The primary outcome was the S. aureus infection rate (any site). Secondary outcomes were time to infection, mortality, adverse events and infection rate caused by micro-organisms other than S. aureus.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine RCTs involving 3396 participants met the inclusion criteria. Patient populations varied and several types of nosocomial S. aureus infection were described including bacteraemia, exit-site infections, peritonitis, respiratory tract infections, skin infections, surgical site infections (SSI) and urinary tract infections. After pooling the eight studies that compared mupirocin with placebo or with no treatment, there was a statistically significant reduction in the rate of S. aureus infection associated with intranasal mupirocin (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.70).A planned subgroup analysis of surgical trials demonstrated a significant reduction in the rate of nosocomial S. aureus infection rate associated with mupirocin use (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.89) however this effect disappeared if the analysis only included surgical site infections caused by S. aureus (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.04), possibly due to a lack of power. The infection rate caused by micro-organisms other than S. aureus was significantly higher in patients treated with mupirocin compared with control patients (RR 1.38 95% CI 1.118 to 1.72).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people who are nasal carriers of S. aureus, the use of mupirocin ointment results in a statistically significant reduction in S. aureus infections.