A tale of two intensive care units (ICUs): Baseline Staphylococcus aureus colonization and mupirocin susceptibility in neonatal and pediatric patients requiring intensive care

OBJECTIVE

To assess the incidence rate of S. aureus colonization at baseline along with the mupirocin susceptibility (or resistance) rate in patients in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) in conjunction with the implementation of universal decolonization as the standard of care.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Children's Hospital of Michigan (CHM) inpatient intensive care units (ICUs).

PARTICIPANTS

Newly admitted pediatric patients to the CHM NICU or PICU aged between 1 day and ≤21 years.

INTERVENTIONS

Baseline and follow-up S. aureus screening cultures were obtained before patients underwent universal decolonization with mupirocin 2% antibiotic ointment (intranasal and umbilical) and chlorhexidine baths as standard of care to reduce CLABSI rates.

RESULTS

Baseline S. aureus colonization rates of new admissions to the CHM NICU and PICU were high at 32% and 29%, respectively. Baseline mupirocin susceptibility to any S. aureus growth was 98.4%. All baseline culture isolates whether positive for MRSA or MSSA, with one exception, had minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of ≤0.19 µg/mL. All follow-up study cultures after universal decolonization at 7 days or beyond with any S. aureus growth had mupirocin MICs of ≤0.125 µg/mL.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline S. aureus colonization rates of new admissions to the CHM ICUs were high as was baseline mupirocin susceptibility. Follow-up cultures, albeit limited in number, did not detect increasing mupirocin MICs over 1 year, despite broad mupirocin exposure due to the implementation of universal decolonization.

Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis Peritonitis Guidelines - Consensus Statement of Peritoneal Dialysis Society of India - 2020

Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) related peritonitis is a major cause of technique failure, morbidity, and mortality in patients on CAPD. Its prevention and management is key to success of CAPD program. Due to variability in practice, microbiological trends and sensitivity towards antibiotics, there is a need for customized guidelines for management of CAPD related peritonitis (CAPDRP) in India. With this need, Peritoneal Dialysis Society of India (PDSI) organized a structured meeting to discuss various aspects of management of CAPDRP and formulated a consensus agreement which will help in management of patients with CAPDRP.

Epidemiology, management, and prevention of exit site infections in peritoneal dialysis patients

Exit site infection (ESI) is a leading complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD), at an incidence of 0.6 episodes per year in the United States, and a major risk factor for catheter removal and peritonitis. An estimated 20% of all peritonitis cases are preceded by an ESI, with up to 50% of Staphylococcus aureus peritonitis associated with ESI. Gram-negative ESIs are less associated with succeeding peritonitis than their gram-positive counterparts, though when present, are associated with a lower peritonitis cure rate. The rate of catheter removal for refractory ESI is relatively highest in ESI due to mycobacteria (up to 40%), S. aureus (35%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (28%), followed by Corynebacterium, Serratia, and fungi. In review of relevant literature, we found no prophylactic benefit of dressings over nondressings, specific antiseptics over normal saline, or topical honey over topical antibiotic prophylaxis, and thus recommend individualized exit site hygiene. We found topical gentamicin effective for prevention of most ESIs, including gram-negative ESIs, and thus recommend consideration of prophylactic topical gentamicin in areas of high gram-negative peritonitis incidence. With long-term use, observational studies detect up to 25% of gram-positive and 14% of gram-negative ESIs may be mupirocin and gentamicin resistant, respectively. We review empiric and targeted ESI management, including indications for ultrasound, anti-VMRSA, anti-Pseudomonal, and anti-mycobacterial antibiotic use, and catheter removal. We recommend further investigation into the earlier use of second-line treatment agents and the utility of treating post-infectious exit site colonization as avenues to decrease refractory and repeat ESI.

Peritoneal Dialysis Guidelines 2019 Part 1 (Position paper of the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy)

Approximately 10 years have passed since the Peritoneal Dialysis Guidelines were formulated in 2009. Much evidence has been reported during the succeeding years, which were not taken into consideration in the previous guidelines, e.g., the next peritoneal dialysis PD trial of encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis (EPS) in Japan, the significance of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), the effects of icodextrin solution, new developments in peritoneal pathology, and a new international recommendation on a proposal for exit-site management. It is essential to incorporate these new developments into the new clinical practice guidelines. Meanwhile, the process of creating such guidelines has changed dramatically worldwide and differs from the process of creating what were “clinical practice guides.” For this revision, we not only conducted systematic reviews using global standard methods but also decided to adopt a two-part structure to create a reference tool, which could be used widely by the society’s members attending a variety of patients. Through a working group consensus, it was decided that Part 1 would present conventional descriptions and Part 2 would pose clinical questions (CQs) in a systematic review format. Thus, Part 1 vastly covers PD that would satisfy the requirements of the members of the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy (JSDT). This article is the duplicated publication from the Japanese version of the guidelines and has been reproduced with permission from the JSDT.

Análisis de las infecciones del orificio de salida del catéter peritoneal. Efectividad de un protocolo basado en la aplicación de mupirocina tópica diaria

Objetivos: Analizar las infecciones del orificio de salida del catéter peritoneal, identificando los principales factores relacionados con las mismas; asimismo se ha comparado la efectividad de un protocolo basado en la utilización diaria de mupirocina tópica en la cura del orificio de salida frente a la utilización suero salino. Material y Método: Estudio observacional, retrospectivo. Recogimos variables demográficas, clínicas, la etiología y evolución de los episodios de infección del orificio en un periodo de 2 años. Utilizamos un protocolo de profilaxis con suero fisiológico y con mupirocina crema al 2%. Resultados: Estudiamos 75 pacientes, edad media 60,3±13,9 años, 66,7% varones, mediana de tiempo en diálisis peritoneal 24,3 meses (rango intercuartílico 11-48,7). La incidencia de infección del orificio de salida fue del 26,7%, el 77% fueron originadas por microorganismos de piel y mucosas. La infección del orificio de salida se relacionó con el estado portador nasal de Staphylococcus aureus (p=0,048) y la extrusión del dacron externo (p=0,004). De los 4 pacientes que presentaron una peritonitis secundaria a la infección del orificio de salida, 3 fueron trasferidos a hemodiálisis (p=0,025). Con el protocolo de antibioterapia tópica diaria se redujo un 68% la tasa de infecciones. Conclusiones: La exteriorización del anillo externo del catéter peritoneal es un factor predisponente de infecciones. La aplicación diaria de mupirocina es una estrategia efectiva para reducir la incidencia de infección del orificio y peritonitis. La erradicación de portadores nasales de Staphylococcus aureus puede contribuir a reducir la pérdida del catéter y la transferencia a hemodiálisis.

Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge dressing for prevention of catheter exit-site infection in peritoneal dialysis patients: a pilot study

PURPOSE

The study aimed to examine effect of chlorhexidine dressing in the prevention of peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infection in PD patients.

METHODS

This single-center pilot study recruited 50 incident PD patients to use weekly chlorhexidine dressing. The primary outcome was exit-site/tunnel infection rate. Secondary outcomes were peritonitis rate, time to first PD-related infection, infection-related hospitalization, technique and patient survival, adverse events, and chlorhexidine dressing acceptability. These clinical outcomes were compared with those of a historical cohort (2016-2017) using daily gentamicin cream.

RESULTS

A total of 50 patients were recruited to use chlorhexidine and followed up for one year. The exit-site/tunnel infection rate was 0.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02-0.22) and peritonitis rate was 0.07 (95% CI 0.01-0.19) episodes per patient-year with chlorhexidine dressing. The 1-year infection-free survival rates for exit-site/tunnel infection and peritonitis were 92% and 94%, respectively. The 1-year technique and patient survival rates were 86% and 96%, respectively. Overall, 12% of participants developed localized contact dermatitis with chlorhexidine. Most participants (73%) reported that chlorhexidine dressings were very acceptable. Compared to a historical cohort using gentamicin cream (n = 238), the chlorhexidine group had similar exit-site/tunnel infection rates (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.65, 95% CI 0.22-1.92) but had lower peritonitis rates (IRR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07-0.77), and lower PD infection-related hospitalization rates (IRR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06-0.69) after adjusting for age, sex, race, primary kidney disease, and diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSION

Weekly chlorhexidine dressing was associated with acceptable PD-related infection outcomes and was well-accepted by patients, although had a 12% rate of delayed localized contact dermatitis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE

The study was registered under www.clinicaltrials.gov with the reference number of NCT03406520 on 23 January 2018.

Eradication of Staphylococcus aureus colonization by chronic use of mupirocin in patients on home parenteral nutrition

OBJECTIVES

Although in other groups Staphylococcus aureus eradication has proven to be an effective infection prevention measure, to our knowledge, no such studies have been performed in patients on home parenteral nutrition (HPN). The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of chronic nasal mupirocin use on S. aureus eradication and prevention of catheter related infections in patients on HPN.

METHODS

This was a cohort study with data collected from adult patients on HPN who were screened for S. aureus carriage. In case of carriage, the patient was instructed to apply mupirocin nasal ointment monthly. Outcomes were the percentage of successful S. aureus eradication and the effect on the incidence of catheter-related infections and development of mupirocin resistance.

RESULTS

S. aureus nasal carriage was found in 54% of the patients. Eradication was successful in 66% (70 of 106) of patients treated with mupirocin. Overall S. aureus catheter-related infection rates decreased by 50% (P = 0.02). The decrease was mostly due to a drop in central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates (0.26versus 0.1 per 1000 central venous catheter days; P = 0.04). The overall CLABSI rates decreased as well (incidence ratio rate, 0.43; 95% confidence interval. 0.24-0.76; P < 0.01). Low-level mupirocin resistance was observed in four patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from the present study highlighted the potential usefulness of mupirocin ointment prophylaxis to establish S. aureus eradication in patients on HPN. However, awareness for the development of mupirocin resistance is prudent. Further research needs to be carried out to validate these findings.

Topical application of mupirocin to exit sites in patients on peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

The International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis guidelines recommends the topical application of antibiotics on the exit site for the prevention of peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infections. However, the recommendation is based on meta-analyses on applying nasal mupirocin ointment or observational or retrospective studies. Here, we evaluated the efficacy of topical application of mupirocin on the exit site for the prevention of PD-related infections.

Methods

We searched the databases, MEDLINE and CENTRAL, documenting the topical application of antibiotics on the exit site in PD patients in April 2017. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with adult patients wherein the effects of mupirocin were examined. Exit site infection (ESI), peritonitis, and technical failure were assessed as the main outcomes.

Results

Overall, six RCTs were included in this study. It was uncertain whether the application of mupirocin ointment prevents ESI (rate ratio (RR), 0.36; 95% CI, 0.13–1.05), peritonitis (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.50–1.21), and technical failure (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.25–7.21). Moreover, a comparison between mupirocin and gentamicin showed no difference in the incidence of ESI (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.27–4.81), peritonitis (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.32–2.26), and technical failure (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.28–1.20).

Conclusions

It remains unclear whether topical application of mupirocin on the exit site has any significant effects on PD-related infection or technical failure. Large-scale RCTs with high methodological quality are required to confirm the efficacy of topical application of antibiotics on the exit site.

Trial registration

UMINR000039267

Prophylaxis against Gram-Positive Organisms Causing Exit-Site Infection and Peritonitis in Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis Patients by Applying Mupirocin Ointment at the Catheter Exit Site

Objective

We evaluated the effectiveness of local application of mupirocin ointment at the catheter exit site in preventing exit-site infection and peritonitis attributable to gram-positive organisms in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis patients.

Methods

This prospective randomized controlled trial included 154 patients. They were randomly allocated to a mupirocin-treated group (group M) and a control group (group C). Group M included 73 patients (47.4%) who were instructed to apply mupirocin ointment to the catheter exit site once daily after the routine daily exit-site dressing. Group C included 81 patients (52.6%) who continued their usual daily exit-site care without applying mupirocin. The two groups were followed to see whether there would be any difference in the frequency of exit-site infection and peritonitis or in the infecting organisms.

Results

Interim data were collected at 5 months after the start of the study. Those data showed a significantly lower incidence of exit-site infection and peritonitis attributable to gram-positive organisms in group M as compared with group C. The incidence of gram-positive exit-site infection in group C was 1 episode per 36.8 patient–months; in group M, the incidence was 1 episode per ∞ patient–months (0 incidence in 5 months, p < 0.05). The incidence of gram-positive peritonitis in group C was 1 episode per 40.5 patient–months; in group M, the incidence was 1 episode per 365 patient–months ( p < 0.05). Mupirocin treatment had no significant effect on the incidence of exit-site infection and peritonitis attributable to other organisms. Before mupirocin treatment, we saw a trend toward higher infection rates in diabetic patients and nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus as compared with non diabetic patients and nasal non carriers, although the differences were not statistically significant. Mupirocin brought the infection rate attributable to gram-positive organisms to an equally low level in diabetic and non-diabetic patients, and in nasal carriers and nasal non carriers of S. aureus. No adverse effect of local application of mupirocin was reported.

Conclusion

Local application of mupirocin ointment at the catheter exit site is a safe and effective method of preventing exit-site infection and peritonitis involving gram-positive organisms.

Effect of Local Mupirocin Application on Exit-Site Infection and Peritonitis in an Indian Peritoneal Dialysis Population

Background

Staphylococcus aureus-associated peritonitis and catheter exit-site infections (ESIs) are important causes of hospitalization and catheter loss in patients undergoing chronic peritoneal dialysis. Intranasal and topical use of mupirocin has been found to be an effective strategy in decreasing S. aureus-related infectious complications in persons who are carriers of S. aureus; however, there is no consensus regarding the prophylactic use of mupirocin irrespective of carrier status. We aimed to determine the potential effectiveness of application of mupirocin cream at the catheter exit site in preventing ESI and peritonitis irrespective of carrier status in a tropical country such as India.

Methods

This prospective historically controlled study was done in a total of 40 patients. From August 2003, all patients, incident and prevalent, were instructed to apply 2% mupirocin cream daily to the exit site instead of the older practice of povidone-iodine and gauze dressing. Patients were not screened to determine whether they were S. aureus carriers. The infection-related data for 1 year, until July 2004, were compared with the historical control, which was infection-related data for the year preceding the year of mupirocin application.

Results

Mean age of the study population was 62 years, with 61.8% being male and 64.3% being diabetic. Local application of mupirocin led to a significant reduction in the incidence density per patient-month of both ESI and peritonitis compared to controls (0.15 vs 0.37 and 0.37 vs 0.67, p = 0.01 for both). This amounted to a relative reduction of 60.5% and 55% respectively. ESI and peritonitis due to S. aureus were also significantly lower in the study group compared to controls (incidence density per patient-month 0.05 vs 0.13 and zero vs 0.17 respectively, p < 0.01 for both). There occurred no catheter removal due to infection-related complications during the study period compared to two during the control period. None of the patients reported a mupirocin-related adverse effect.

Conclusions

Daily application of mupirocin at the exit site is a well-tolerated and effective strategy in reducing the incidence of ESI and peritonitis in a tropical country such as India. It can thus significantly reduce morbidity, catheter loss, and transfer to hemodialysis in peritoneal dialysis patients.

Sources of Staphylococcus Aureus for Patients on Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis

← Objective

This study was designed to determine whether family members and health care workers are a source of Staphylococcus aureus for patients on peritoneal dialysis.

← Design

Over 36 months, cultures were obtained from the nares of patients, family members that cared for the patients’ catheters, and health care workers in a dialysis unit. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis was performed on all S. aureus isolates.

← Setting

A university-based peritoneal dialysis program.

← Participants

74 patients, 32 family members, and 17 health care workers.

← Interventions

None.

← Main Outcome Measures

The number of patients that acquired S. aureusstrains during the study period.

← Results

Of the 48 patients whose initial nares cultures were negative, 7 (15%) acquired S. aureus strains. Overall, 24 of 53 (45%) patients that had 2 or more cultures obtained during the study gained strains. Potential sources were not identified for strains gained by 11 (46%) patients. Five patients appeared to acquire their strains from family members; however, other patients also shared related strains; 8 patients acquired strains shared by other patients.

← Conclusions

Family members and other patients appeared to be important sources of S. aureus for patients on peritoneal dialysis. Health care workers that carry S. aureus transiently may be important intermediaries. Good hand hygiene is essential to prevent transmission of S. aureus to these susceptible patients.

Use of Cleansing Agents at the Peritoneal Catheter Exit Site

Heavy bacterial colonization results in exit-site infection. Antiseptic and non antiseptic agents have both been used for exit-site cleansing. An ideal cleansing agent should not only reduce the number of microorganisms, but should also be harmless to the body's defenses and should not interfere with wound healing. In vitro studies using animal cells have demonstrated that some antiseptic agents have adverse effects on wound healing. Strong cytotoxic antiseptics should be discouraged in exit-site cleansing.

In choosing an appropriate cleansing agent for exit-site care, the phase of wound healing, the condition of the exit site, and the goal of cleansing should be taken into consideration. Antimicrobial soap is recommended for cleansing a healed exit site, but biocompatible solution is preferred for the postoperative, infected, or traumatized exit site. In vivo studies on the effectiveness of some cleansing agents are still lacking, and clinical study of exit-site cleansing is needed to determine the most effective agents for the task.

Increasing Mupirocin Resistance of Staphylococcus Aureus in CAPD — Should it Continue to be Used as Prophylaxis?

This editorial summarizes the mechanisms of mupirocin resistance and the conditions that promote its development. While there is increasing evidence that high-level mupirocin resistance is developing during systematic use of mupirocin as prophylaxis against Staphylococcus aureus, the appearance of resistance does not preclude the beneficial effect of regular prophylaxis. Vigilance has to be exercised to notice larger-scale resistance that may require limiting the use of mupirocin.

Staphylococcus Aureus Prophylaxis and Trends in Gram-Negative Infections in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients

Objective

To examine gram-negative exit-site infection and peritonitis rates before and after the implementation of Staphylococcus aureus prophylaxis in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients.

Design

Prospective data collection with periodic implementation of protocols to decrease infection rates in two PD programs.

Patients

663 incident patients on PD.

Interventions

Implementation of S. aureus prophylaxis, beginning in 1990.

Main Outcome Measures

Rates of S. aureus, gram-negative, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa exit-site infections and peritonitis.

Results

Staphylococcus aureus exit-site infection and peritonitis rates fluctuated without significant trends during the first decade (without prophylaxis), then began to decline during the 1990s subsequent to implementation of prophylaxis, reaching levels of 0.02/year at risk and zero in the year 2000. Gram-negative infections fell toward the end of the 1980s, due probably to the implementation of better connectology. However, there have been no significant changes for the past 6 years. There was little change in P. aeruginosa infections over the entire time period. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is now the most common cause of catheter infection and catheter-related peritonitis.

Conclusions

Prophylaxis against S. aureus is highly effective in reducing the rate of S. aureus infections but has no effect on gram-negative infections. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is now the most serious cause of catheter-related peritonitis.

A Prospective Study of the Efficacy of Local Application of Gentamicin versus Mupirocin in the Prevention of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter-Related Infections

Background

Peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infections are the major cause of technique failure. Exit-site infections (ESI) can be prevented by local application of antibiotics. Mupirocin (M) is the most extensively studied drug for this application. Long-term use can result in the development of resistance. Gentamicin (G) is an attractive alternative, with both gram-positive and gram-negative activities. We studied the comparative efficacy of G cream versus M ointment in the prevention of PD-related infections in a Chinese cohort.

Methods

This was a prospective study of adult PD patients of the Princess Margaret Hospital, Hong Kong. Patients were excluded if they had active infection, recent ESI or peritonitis, history of allergy to either drug, or were unable to apply the drug or give consent. Patients were taught to apply the drug daily to the exit site after routine exit-site care. Records were tracked prospectively during hospital admissions and clinic follow-ups.

Results

95 patients were recruited; 14 discontinued the study. The ESI rates were 0.38 and 0.20 episodes/patient-year for the G group and the M group respectively ( p = 0.36). Gram-positive ESI rates were 0.18 and 0 episodes/patient-year for the G group and the M group respectively. Gram-negative ESI rates were 0.20 episodes/patient-year for both groups ( p = 0.62). The overall peritonitis rates were similar in the two groups ( p = 0.91).

Discussion

In addition to good perioperative care and strict exit-site care, local antibiotic application can prevent ESI. Mupirocin has been extensively studied and shown to be effective. Similar if not superior effects of G cream have been demonstrated. In this study, neither antibiotic gave significantly better results in the prevention of either ESI or peritonitis.

Conclusions

Both gentamicin and mupirocin were effective as prophylaxis for ESI. Longer study is required to determine the long-term efficacy and the potential beneficial effect on the prevention of peritonitis.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Mupirocin versus Polysporin Triple for the Prevention of Catheter-Related Infections in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients (The MP3 Study)

Background

Peritonitis remains the most serious complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD). Gram-positive organisms are among the most common causes of PD peritonitis; however, recent trends show increasing rates of gram-negative and fungal infections. Strategies to prevent peritonitis include the use of prophylactic topical mupirocin at the site where the PD catheter exits from the abdominal wall; however, mupirocin does not afford protection against gram-negative or fungal infections. The aim of this study is to determine if the incidence of catheter-related infections (exit-site infection, tunnel infection, or peritonitis) is significantly reduced by the routine application of Polysporin Triple antibiotic ointment (Pfizer Canada, Markham, Ontario, Canada) in comparison to mupirocin ointment.

Methods and Design

The Mupirocin Versus Polysporin Triple Study (MP3) is a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded controlled study comparing Polysporin Triple (P3) against the current standard of care. The aim of the study is to recruit 200 patients being treated with or starting on PD and randomize them to receive either mupirocin or P3 at the catheter exit site. Patients will be followed for 18 months or until death or transfer from PD to an alternate treatment modality. The primary outcome will be the time to first catheter-related infection. Catheter-related infections will be strictly defined using current guidelines and categorized into exit-site infections, infective peritonitis, or tunnel infections. The primary analysis will be an intention-to-treat analysis.

Discussion

The results of this study will help determine if the use of P3 is superior to mupirocin ointment in the prevention of catheter-related infections and will help guide evidence-based best practices.

Ciprofloxacin and Cefazolin as a Combination for Empirical Initial Therapy of Peritoneal Dialysis-Related Peritonitis: Five-year Follow-up

The treatment of peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related peritonitis has been a matter of extensive investigation, frequently generating therapeutic trials. Several combinations of antibiotics have served as newer protocols and tended to be efficacious, comfortable, and cost-effective. According to the more recent recommendations from the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis, the rationale for empirical initial therapy of clinically detected peritonitis in PD patients has been to follow the bacterial profile derived from cultured specimens of PD effluents.

The current study describes 5 year's experience with the use of a new antibiotic regimen for the treatment of peritonitis. We herein analyze the outcome of 95 episodes of peritonitis in 54 patients on either automated PD or continuous ambulatory PD at the dialysis unit of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis was treated with the combination of oral ciprofloxacin and intraperitoneal cefazolin. The observed cure rate was 85.2% and the sensitivity test was observed to be positive for this combination of antibiotics in 88.9% of positive cultures. Of the 14 unsuccessful episodes, 7 were due to catheter colonization and the rest did not respond to the proposed therapy within 48 hours. These 7 cases were also related to peritoneal fluid cultures that were resistant to both ciprofloxacin and cefazolin.

From this study, we propose this combination of oral ciprofloxacin and intraperitoneal cefazolin as a first choice for empirical initial therapy of PD-related peritonitis, given its efficacy and low cost. However, in order to apply the most adequate cost-effective therapy, careful examination of the bacterial profile and sensitivities to antibiotics used in each unit is strongly recommended.

Comparative Effectiveness of Local Application of Chlorhexidine Gluconate, Mupirocin Ointment, and Normal Saline for the Prevention of Peritoneal Dialysis-related Infections (COSMO-PD Trial): a multicenter randomized, double-blind, controlled protocol

BACKGROUND

Current international guidelines recommend the use of a daily topical exit-site antimicrobial to prevent peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infections. Although nonantibiotic-based therapies are appealing because they may limit antimicrobial resistance, no controlled trials have been conducted to compare topical antimicrobial agents with usual exit-site care for the prevention of PD-related infections among the Thai PD population. We propose a controlled three-arm trial to examine the efficacy and safety of a daily chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated patch versus mupirocin ointment versus usual exit-site care with normal saline for the prevention of PD-related infections.

METHODS/DESIGNS

This study is a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, active-controlled, clinical trial. Adult patients aged 18 years or older who have end-stage kidney disease and are undergoing PD will be enrolled at three PD Centers in Thailand. A total of 354 PD patients will be randomly assigned to either the 2% chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated patch, mupirocin ointment, or usual exit-site care with normal saline dressing according to a computer-generated random allocation sequence. Participants will be followed until discontinuation of PD or completion of 24 months. The primary study outcomes are time to first PD-related infection (exit-site/tunnel infection or peritonitis) event and the overall difference in PD-related infection rates between study arms. Secondary study outcomes will include (i) the rate of infection-related catheter removal and PD technique failure, (ii) rate of nasal and exit-site Staphylococcus aureus colonization, (iii) healthcare costs, and (iv) skin reactions and adverse events. We plan to conduct a cost-utility analysis alongside the trial from the perspectives of patients and society. A Markov simulation model will be used to estimate the total cost and health outcome in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 20-year time horizon. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in Thai Baht and U.S. dollars per QALYs gained will be illustrated. A series of probabilistic sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the cost-utility analysis findings.

DISCUSSION

The results from this study will provide new clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence to support the best strategy for the prevention of PD-related infections among the Thai PD population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02547103. Registered on September 11, 2015.

Effects of prophylactic antibiotics before peritoneal dialysis catheter implantation on the clinical outcomes of peritoneal dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) related infections, such as peritonitis, are still the main obstacle for the development of PD. Prophylactic antibiotic as one of the interventions to prevent early peritonitis was recommended to use before PD catheter insertion by International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) guidelines, In our hospital, however, since 2012, the prophylactic antibiotics for insertion of PD catheters were not allowed to use because of our hospital's regulation. In order to analyze the outcomes of PD patients without using prophylactic antibiotics before the PD catheter insertion, we compared the PD patients with or without prophylactic antibiotics before PD catheter insertion.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 247 patients undergoing permanent PD catheter placement with conventional open surgical method consecutively between February 2008 and June 2013. Of these, 154 patients were given intravenous cefazolin, 1.0 g, 0.5-2 h before the procedure (antibiotic group) and 93 patients were not given prophylactic antibiotics (nonantibiotic group). All the patients were administered intermittent PD within 24 h after PD catheter insertion. The early complications and long-term outcomes were recorded respectively.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the incidence of peritonitis and exit-site/tunnel infection and mechanical complications between the two groups in the first 30 days after the PD catheter implantation. In addition, after 6 years of follow-up, no difference was seen between the two groups in patient survival, technique survival, and peritonitis-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study does not show any beneficial effect of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing the postoperative peritonitis.

Efficacy and acceptability of treatment to eradicate nasal Staphylococcus aureus carriage among haemodialysis patients

AIM

For patients requiring haemodialysis, the risk of Staphylococcus aureus disease is higher in those colonized and persists while the person requires haemodialysis, necessitating frequent decolonization. However, the duration of successful decolonization is not known. This study aimed to determine the duration of efficacy of decolonization in intermittent and persistent S. aureus carriers requiring haemodialysis using two decolonization strategies.

METHODS

We screened 100 outpatients requiring haemodialysis for S. aureus carriage and then decolonized 14 intermittent carriers and 18 persistent carriers. Participants were invited to undertake two decolonization attempts, using systemic or topical antibiotics 12 weeks apart. Nasal swabs were taken weekly to determine the duration of successful decolonization.

RESULTS

Decolonization was successful in 24/32 (75%) participants and the median duration of decolonization was 35 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 11-59). The median duration of S. aureus decolonization was significantly shorter for persistent carriers (19 days, 95% CI 13-25 days) in comparison with intermittent carriers (70 days, 95% CI 61-79 days; P < 0.01). 28/52 (54%) post-decolonization surveys indicated that they would use the treatment again, 14/52 (27%) surveys indicated that they would not use the treatment again, and 10/52 (19%) were undecided. 16/53 (30%) decolonization attempts resulted in an adverse drug reaction.

CONCLUSION

Staphylococcus aureus decolonization using topical or systemic treatments was successful for many haemodialysis patients, and provided a month free of S. aureus colonization. Although decolonization treatment provided a shorter duration of success for persistent carriers in comparison with intermittent carriers, persistent carriers are likely to gain the most from effective decolonization strategies.

Clinical Value of Screening Peritoneal Dialysis Patients for Bacterial Colonization or Contamination

INTRODUCTION

The adoption of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis guideline of using mupirocin ointment has been limited by fear of developing mupirocin-resistant organisms. We performed a surveillance program of a large peritoneal dialysis (PD) unit.

METHODS

We performed 1,175 surveillance swabs from anterior nares, PD catheter exit site, groin, and axilla, from 240 patients. The mean interval between swabs was 3.3 months.

RESULTS

Colonization by Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) or Pseudomonas species was 9.5% and 10.9%, respectively. Despite adopting a universal policy of applying mupirocin to PD catheter exit sites in 2001, no instances of mupirocin-resistant S. aureus were identified. Moreover, patients who grew S. aureus from surveillance swabs did not experience higher peritonitis rates than those with "no growth." This was in contrast to patients who grew Pseudomonas or enteric organisms. There were no differences in patient demographics for those who grew S. aureus, Pseudomonas, or enteric organisms (compared with "no-growth" patients).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the application of mupirocin ointment appeared to minimize peritonitis of patients colonized with S. aureus. The use of mupirocin in this patient cohort has not led to mupirocin resistance. The increased peritonitis rate of patients who grew Pseudomonas or enteric organisms is of interest. We propose that greater attention to hygiene and catheter care in these patients is warranted. The increasing use of paid healthcare workers attending patients daily to help perform PD (assisted PD) gives an opportunity for us to address these wider issues.

Peritoneal Dialysis Access Associated Infections

Infection is a significant driver of morbidity and mortality in patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing maintenance dialysis. In the United States, septicemia and other infections account for 8% deaths in patients undergoing dialysis. In patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD), PD-related peritonitis remains the most frequent treatment-related infection and is the greatest contributor to infection-related morbidity, including risk for hospitalization, and temporary or permanent transfer to hemodialysis. In the 4 decades since the introduction of ambulatory PD in clinical practice, a large number of treatment innovations have been shown to be effective in reducing the risk for exit site infection and PD-related peritonitis. Notwithstanding the evidence for efficacy of these innovations and the numerous adverse health consequences with PD-related peritonitis, the uptake of these interventions in clinical practice around the world remains inconsistent. This article reviews current knowledge with regards to prevention of PD-associated infections, and the diagnosis and management of exit site infections and peritonitis.

A Retrospective Sequential Comparison of Topical Application of Medicated Honey and Povidone Iodine for Preventing Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter-Related Infections

Application of medicated honey (MH) to peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter exit sites has been found to be as effective as intra-nasal mupirocin for preventing PD catheter-related infections (CRIs), but was associated with increased risk for CRIs in diabetics. The efficacy of topical MH as a prophylactic agent has not been compared with the exit-site application of povidone iodine (PI). This retrospective multicentre cohort study compared cumulative incidence rates of PD CRIs (peritonitis or exit-site infections) and the number of PD CRIs observed per patient over the study period with PD exit-site application of MH or PI, in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Outcomes were compared in incident patients in 2 eras: January 2011 - December 2012, when 147 received exit-site care with PI (PI group), and July 2013 - June 2015, when 171 patients applied MH (MH group). Patients were followed until technique failure, death, transplant, or end of study treatment era. Cumulative incidence of PD CRIs was higher in the PI group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 - 2.6, p = 0.019) and the benefit of MH was not modified by diabetic status (present/absent, interaction p = 0.723). A similar trend was observed in the cumulative incidence of peritonitis (HR = 1.6, 95% CI 0.99 - 2.6, p = 0.059). After adjusting for months of exposure, the rate ratio for PD CRIs was 1.58 for PI compared to MH (95% CI, 1.03 - 2.42, p = 0.035). We conclude that exit-site application of MH is more effective than PI in preventing PD CRIs, and this effect is not modified by the presence or absence of diabetes.

Current and future treatment options for community-associated MRSA infection

INTRODUCTION

Community-associated MRSA (CA-MRSA) represents a global epidemic which beautifully encapsulates the fascinating ability of bacterial organisms to adapt quickly on an evolutionary basis to the extreme selective pressure of antibiotic exposure. In stark contrast to Healthcare-associated MRSA (HA-MRSA), it has become apparent that CA-MRSA is less straight forward of a challenge in terms of controlling its transmission, and has forced clinicians to adjust empiric management of clinical syndromes such as skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) as well as pneumonia.

AREAS COVERED

This review details the history and epidemiology of CA-MRSA, while covering both current and future treatment options that are and may be available to clinicians. The authors reviewed both historic and more recent literature on this ever-evolving topic.

EXPERT OPINION

While development of new anti-MRSA agents should be encouraged, the importance of antimicrobial stewardship in the battle to stay ahead of the curve with regards to the ongoing control of the MRSA epidemic should be emphasised.

Current and Emerging Topical Antibacterials and Antiseptics: Agents, Action, and Resistance Patterns

Bacterial skin infections represent some of the most common infectious diseases globally. Prevention and treatment of skin infections can involve application of a topical antimicrobial, which may be an antibiotic (such as mupirocin or fusidic acid) or an antiseptic (such as chlorhexidine or alcohol). However, there is limited evidence to support the widespread prophylactic or therapeutic use of topical agents. Challenges involved in the use of topical antimicrobials include increasing rates of bacterial resistance, local hypersensitivity reactions (particularly to older agents, such as bacitracin), and concerns about the indiscriminate use of antiseptics potentially coselecting for antibiotic resistance. We review the evidence for the major clinical uses of topical antibiotics and antiseptics. In addition, we review the mechanisms of action of common topical agents and define the clinical and molecular epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance in these agents. Moreover, we review the potential use of newer and emerging agents, such as retapamulin and ebselen, and discuss the role of antiseptic agents in preventing bacterial skin infections. A comprehensive understanding of the clinical efficacy and drivers of resistance to topical agents will inform the optimal use of these agents to preserve their activity 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.

Comparison of Topical Chlorhexidine and Mupirocin for the Prevention of Exit-Site Infection in Incident Peritoneal Dialysis Patients

♦ OBJECTIVE: Prevention of exit-site infection (ESI) is of paramount importance to peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of chlorhexidine in the prevention of ESI in incident PD patients compared with mupirocin. ♦ METHODS: This retrospective, pre-test/post-test observational study included all incident PD patients at Singapore General Hospital from 2012 to 2015. Patients received daily topical exit-site application of either mupirocin (2012 - 2013) or chlorhexidine (2014 - 2015) in addition to routine exit-site cleaning with 10% povidone-iodine. The primary outcome was ESI rate during the 2 time periods. Secondary outcomes were peritonitis rate, times to first ESI and peritonitis, hospitalization rate, and infection-related catheter removal. Event rates were analyzed using Poisson regression, and infection-free survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression survival analyses. ♦ RESULTS: The study included 162 patients in the mupirocin period (follow-up 141.5 patient-years) and 175 patients in the chlorhexidine period (follow-up 136.9 patient-years). Compared with mupirocin-treated patients, chlorhexidine-treated patients experienced more frequent ESIs (0.22 vs 0.12 episodes/patient-year, p = 0.048), although this was no longer statistically significant following multivariable analysis (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98 - 3.26, p = 0.06). No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups with respect to time to first ESI (p = 0.10), peritonitis rate (p = 0.95), time to first peritonitis (p = 0.60), hospitalization rate (p = 0.21) or catheter removal rate (0.03 vs 0.04/patient-year, p = 0.56). ♦ CONCLUSIONS: Topical exit-site application of chlorhexidine cream was associated with a borderline significant, higher rate of ESI in incident PD patients compared with mupirocin cream.

Decolonization in Prevention of Health Care-Associated Infections

Colonization with health care-associated pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus, enterococci, Gram-negative organisms, and Clostridium difficile is associated with increased risk of infection. Decolonization is an evidence-based intervention that can be used to prevent health care-associated infections (HAIs). This review evaluates agents used for nasal topical decolonization, topical (e.g., skin) decolonization, oral decolonization, and selective digestive or oropharyngeal decontamination. Although the majority of studies performed to date have focused on S. aureus decolonization, there is increasing interest in how to apply decolonization strategies to reduce infections due to Gram-negative organisms, especially those that are multidrug resistant. Nasal topical decolonization agents reviewed include mupirocin, bacitracin, retapamulin, povidone-iodine, alcohol-based nasal antiseptic, tea tree oil, photodynamic therapy, omiganan pentahydrochloride, and lysostaphin. Mupirocin is still the gold standard agent for S. aureus nasal decolonization, but there is concern about mupirocin resistance, and alternative agents are needed. Of the other nasal decolonization agents, large clinical trials are still needed to evaluate the effectiveness of retapamulin, povidone-iodine, alcohol-based nasal antiseptic, tea tree oil, omiganan pentahydrochloride, and lysostaphin. Given inferior outcomes and increased risk of allergic dermatitis, the use of bacitracin-containing compounds cannot be recommended as a decolonization strategy. Topical decolonization agents reviewed included chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), hexachlorophane, povidone-iodine, triclosan, and sodium hypochlorite. Of these, CHG is the skin decolonization agent that has the strongest evidence base, and sodium hypochlorite can also be recommended. CHG is associated with prevention of infections due to Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms as well as Candida. Conversely, triclosan use is discouraged, and topical decolonization with hexachlorophane and povidone-iodine cannot be recommended at this time. There is also evidence to support use of selective digestive decontamination and selective oropharyngeal decontamination, but additional studies are needed to assess resistance to these agents, especially selection for resistance among Gram-negative organisms. The strongest evidence for decolonization is for use among surgical patients as a strategy to prevent surgical site infections.

Prevention of Surgical Site Infections: Decontamination With Mupirocin Based on Preoperative Screening for Staphylococcus aureus Carriers or Universal Decontamination?

Perioperative decolonization of Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriers with mupirocin together with chlorhexidine body washing reduces the incidence of S. aureus surgical site infection. A targeted strategy, applied in S. aureus carriers only, is costly, and implementation may reduce effectiveness. Universal decolonization is more cost-effective but increases exposure of noncarriers to mupirocin and the risk of resistance to mupirocin in staphylococci. High-level mupirocin resistance in S. aureus can emerge through horizontal gene transfer originating from coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) and through clonal transmission. The current evidence on the occurrence of high-level mupirocin resistance in S. aureus and CoNS, in combination with the results of mathematical modeling, strongly suggests that the increased selection of high-level mupirocin resistance in CoNS does not constitute an important risk for high-level mupirocin resistance in S. aureus. Compared with a targeted strategy, universal decolonization seems associated with an equally low risk of mupirocin resistance in S. aureus.

Exit-Site Dressing and Infection in Peritoneal Dialysis: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial

♦

OBJECTIVE

Peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infection is a common cause of catheter loss and the main reason for PD drop-out. Exit-site infection (ESI) is a pathway to developing tunnel infection and peritonitis, hence rigorous exit-site care has always been emphasized in PD therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of exit-site dressing vs non-dressing on the rate of PD-related infection. ♦

METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted in prevalent PD patients at the Hospital Tuanku Jaafar Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia, from April 2011 until April 2013. All patients were required to perform daily washing of the exit site with antibacterial soap during a shower. In the dressing group (n = 54), patients were required to clean their exit site using povidone-iodine after drying, followed by topical mupirocin antibiotic application to the exit site. The exit site was then covered with a sterile gauze dressing and the catheter immobilized with tape. In the non-dressing group (n = 54), patients were not required to do any further dressing after drying. They were only required to apply mupirocin cream to the exit site and then left the exit site uncovered. The catheter was immobilized with tape. The primary outcome was ESI. The secondary outcomes were evidence of tunnel infection or peritonitis. ♦

RESULTS

A total of 97 patients completed the study. There were a total of 12 ESI episodes: 4 episodes in 4 patients in the dressing group vs 8 episodes in 4 patients in the non-dressing group. This corresponds to 1 episode per 241.3 patient-months vs 1 episode per 111.1 patient-months in the dressing and non-dressing groups respectively. Median time to first ESI episode was shorter in the non-dressing than in the dressing group, but not significant (p = 0.25). The incidence of gram-positive ESI in both groups was similar. There were no gram-negative ESI in the non-dressing group compared with 2 in the dressing group. The peritonitis rate was 1 per 37.1 patient-month in the dressing group and 1 per 44.4 patient-months in the non-dressing group. Median time to first peritonitis episode was significantly shorter in the dressing group compared to non-dressing (p = 0.03). There was no impact of dressing disruptions in the occurrence of major PD catheter-related infection. ♦

CONCLUSION

Use of a non-dressing technique with only prophylactic topical mupirocin cream application is effective in preventing PD-related infection. The non-dressing technique is more cost-effective and convenient for PD patients, with fewer disposables.

Efficacy of skin and nasal povidone-iodine preparation against mupirocin-resistant methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and S. aureus within the anterior nares

Mupirocin decolonization of nasal Staphylococcus aureus prior to surgery decreases surgical-site infections; however, treatment requires 5 days, compliance is low, and resistance occurs. In 2010, 3M Company introduced povidone-iodine (PVP-I)-based skin and nasal antiseptic (Skin and Nasal Prep [SNP]). SNP has rapid, broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity. We tested SNP's efficacy using full-thickness tissue (porcine mucosal [PM] and human skin) explant models and human subjects. Prior to or following infection with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (mupirocin sensitive and resistant), explants were treated with Betadine ophthalmic preparation (Bet), SNP, or mupirocin (Bactroban nasal ointment [BN]) or left untreated. One hour posttreatment, explants were washed with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) plus 2% mucin. One, 6, or 12 h later, bacteria were recovered and enumerated. Alternatively, following baseline sampling, human subjects applied two consecutive applications of SNP or saline to their anterior nares. One, 6, and 12 h after application of the preparation (postprep), nasal swabs were obtained, and S. aureus was enumerated. We observed that treatment of infected PM or human skin explants with SNP resulted in >2.0 log10 CFU reduction in MRSA, regardless of mupirocin sensitivity, which was significantly different from the values for BN- and Bet-treated explants and untreated controls 1 h, 6 h, and 12 h after being washed with PBS plus mucin. Swabbing the anterior nares of human subjects with SNP significantly reduced resident S. aureus compared to saline 1, 6, and 12 h postprep. Finally, pretreatment of PM explants with SNP, followed by a mucin rinse prior to infection, completely prevented MRSA infection. We conclude that SNP may be an attractive alternative for reducing the bioburden of anterior nares prior to surgery.

Prevention of Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections in Hemodialysis Patients

An increasing proportion of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) are seen in outpatient settings. Many of such infections are due to hemodialysis catheters (HD-CLABSIs). Such infections are associated with substantial morbidity, mortality, and excess healthcare costs. Patients who receive dialysis through a catheter are 2–3 times more likely to be hospitalized for infection and to die of septic complications than dialysis patients with grafts or fistulas. Prevention measures include minimizing the use of hemodialysis catheters, use of CLABSI prevention bundles for line insertion and maintenance, and application of antimicrobial ointment to the catheter exit site. Instillation into dialysis catheters of antimicrobial solutions that remain in the catheter lumen between dialyses (antimicrobial lock solutions) has been studied, but it is not yet standard practice in some dialysis units. At least 34 studies have evaluated the impact of antimicrobial lock solutions on HD-CLABSI rates. Thirty-two (94%) of the 34 studies demonstrated reductions in HD-CLABSI rates among patients treated with antimicrobial lock solutions. Recent multicenter randomized controlled trials demonstrated that the use of such solutions resulted in significantly lower HD-CLABSI rates, even though such rates were low in control groups. The available evidence supports more routine use of antimicrobial lock solutions as an HD-CLABSI prevention measure in hemodialysis units.

Estimation of clinical efficiency of topical combination therapy patients with pyoderma complicated eczema

The results of direct open-label study of efficacy and portability of combination therapy with topical betamethasone dipropionate and mupirocin are presented. Material and methods. Twenty two patients with pyoderma complicated eczema were treated with ointment for external use (betamethasone dipropionate and mupirocin) 2 times a day for 14 days. Clinical efficacy was assessed by the reliability decrease of index EASI and dermatological symptoms scale index (DSSI). Results. Clinical convalescense was achieved in all patients by the 14th day of therapy. There was a statistically significant decrease in the indices EASI, DSSI. Portability were well. Conclusion. Our study results showed clinical efficacy and portability of topical combination therapy of betamethasone dipropionate and mupirocin in patients with pyoderma complicated eczema.

Preventing surgical site infections: a randomized, open-label trial of nasal mupirocin ointment and nasal povidone-iodine solution

BACKGROUND

Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus colonization before surgery reduces risk of surgical site infection (SSI). The regimen of nasal mupirocin ointment and topical chlorhexidine gluconate is effective, but cost and patient compliance may be a barrier. Nasal povidone-iodine solution may provide an alternative to mupirocin.

METHODS

We conducted an investigator-initiated, open-label, randomized trial comparing SSI after arthroplasty or spine fusion in patients receiving topical chlorhexidine wipes in combination with either twice daily application of nasal mupirocin ointment during the 5 days before surgery or 2 applications of povidone-iodine solution into each nostril within 2 hours of surgical incision. The primary study end point was deep SSI within the 3 months after surgery.

RESULTS

In the modified intent-to-treat analysis, a deep SSI developed after 14 of 855 surgical procedures in the mupirocin group and 6 of 842 surgical procedures in the povidone-iodine group (P = .1); S. aureus deep SSI developed after 5 surgical procedures in the mupirocin group and 1 surgical procedure in the povidone-iodine group (P = .2). In the per protocol analysis, S. aureus deep SSI developed in 5 of 763 surgical procedures in the mupirocin group and 0 of 776 surgical procedures in the povidone-iodine group (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Nasal povidone-iodine may be considered as an alternative to mupirocin in a multifaceted approach to reduce SSI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01313182.

Prevention of gram-positive infections in peritoneal dialysis patients in Hong Kong: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Gram-positive bacteria are the major causative pathogens of peritonitis and exit site infection in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD). We investigated the cost-effectiveness of regular application of mupirocin at the exit site in PD recipients from the perspective of health care providers in Hong Kong.

METHODS

A decision tree was designed to simulate outcomes of incident PD patients with and without regular application of mupirocin over a 1-year period. Outcome measures included total direct medical costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and gram-positive infection-related mortality rate. Model inputs were derived from the literature. Sensitivity analyses evaluated the impact of uncertainty in all model variables.

RESULTS

In a base case analysis, the mupirocin group had a higher expected QALY value (0.6496 vs 0.6456), a lower infection-related mortality rate (0.18% vs 1.64%), and a lower total cost per patient (US $258 vs $1661) compared with the control group. The rate of gram-positive peritonitis without mupirocin and the risk of gram-positive peritonitis with mupirocin were influential factors. In 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, the mupirocin group had significantly lower associated costs, higher QALYs, and a lower mortality rate 99.9% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical mupirocin appears to be a cost-effective preventive measure against gram-positive infection in incident patients undergoing PD. The cost-effectiveness of mupirocin is affected by the level of infection risk reduction and subject to resistance against mupirocin.

Meta-analysis of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization and risk of infection in dialysis patients

Patients undergoing dialysis are particularly vulnerable to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections. We performed a meta-analysis of published studies to estimate the prevalence of MRSA colonization in dialysis patients, time trends, and long-term risk of subsequent MRSA infections. Our search of the PubMed and Embase databases returned 5743 nonduplicate citations, from which we identified 38 relevant studies that included data on 5596 dialysis patients. The estimated prevalence of MRSA colonization was 6.2% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 4.2% to 8.5%). The prevalence increased over time but remained stable after 2000. Stratification of patients according to dialysis modality and setting revealed that 7.2% (95% CI, 4.9% to 9.9%) of patients on hemodialysis were colonized with MRSA compared with 1.3% (95% CI, 0.5% to 2.4%) of patients on peritoneal dialysis (P=0.01), and that a statistically significant difference existed in the percentage of colonized inpatients and outpatients (14.2% [95% CI, 8.0% to 21.8%] versus 5.4% [95% CI, 3.5% to 7.7%], respectively; P=0.04). Notably, the risk of developing MRSA infections increased among colonized hemodialysis patients compared with noncolonized patients (relative risk, 11.5 [95% CI, 4.7 to 28.0]). The long-term (6-20 months) probability of developing a MRSA infection was 19% among colonized hemodialysis patients compared with only 2% among noncolonized patients. In summary, 6.2% of dialysis patients are MRSA colonized, and the average prevalence of colonization has remained stable since 2000. Colonization in hemodialysis patients is associated with increased risk of MRSA infection.

Prevention of peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis

Reducing the frequency of peritonitis for patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD) continues to be a challenge. This review focuses on recent updates in catheter care and other patient factors that influence infection rates. An experienced nursing staff plays an important role in teaching proper PD technique to new patients, but nursing staff must be cognizant of each patient's unique educational needs. Over time, many patients become less adherent to proper dialysis technique, such as washing hands or wearing a mask. This behavior is associated with higher risk of peritonitis and is modifiable with re-training. Prophylactic antibiotics before PD catheter placement can decrease the infection risk immediately after catheter placement. In addition, some studies suggest that prophylaxis against fungal superinfection after antibiotic exposure is effective in reducing fungal peritonitis, although larger randomized studies are needed before this practice can be recommended for all patients. Over time, exit site and nasal colonization with pathogenic organisms can lead to exit-site infections and peritonitis. For patients with Staphylococcus aureus colonization, exit-site prophylaxis with either mupirocin or gentamicin cream reduces clinical infection with this organism. Although there are limited data for support, antibiotic prophylaxis before gastrointestinal, gynecologic, or dental procedures may also help reduce the risk of peritonitis.

The economics of hemodialysis catheter-related infection prophylaxis

Hemodialysis central venous catheter (CVC) use is associated with the highest morbidity, mortality, and cost of all types of hemodialysis vascular access. CVC-related infection drives much of the cost associated with CVC use. The magnitude of the cost associated with CVC-related infection varies depending on the type and severity of that infection; however, estimates of the total direct and indirect costs associated with hospitalizations due to hemodialysis CVC-related infections range from 17,000 USD to 32,000 USD per episode. Thus, it is critically important, to not only have effective strategies to limit CVC-related infection but also evaluate whether these strategies are an efficient use of resources. Prophylactic strategies can be considered economically efficient only if the value of its implementation and the corresponding drop in infection rate offer greater value than standard care. The optimal CVC-related infection prophylaxis strategy should work to limit infection risk with minimal risk, inconvenience, and discomfort to the patient, and at minimal cost. The aim of this review was to examine the clinical and economic impact of some commonly described interventions used for CVC infection prophylaxis.

Exit-site infection of peritoneal catheter is reduced by the use of polyhexanide. results of a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

One of the most common and severe complications affecting peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients is exit-site infection of the peritoneal catheter; it is therefore of vital importance to prevent it. This complication has a negative impact on the success of the technique. In spite of this, there are no clear guidelines concerning how to take care of the exit site. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of polyhexanide in preventing exit-site infection over a 12-month period.

METHODS

We designed a single-center, prospective, open-labeled, randomized controlled clinical trial with parallel groups. Requirements for participation in the study included implantation of the peritoneal catheter at least six weeks before entering the study and no infectious complications requiring either hospital admission or antibiotic treatment for at least three months before entering into the study. Patients were randomized to be daily cured as follows: Group A: traditional care with saline serum and povidone-iodine; and Group B: polyhexanide solution. Exit sites were evaluated at baseline and every four to six weeks or if any event occurred, according to the Twardowski criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 60 included patients, 46 completed the 12-month follow-up period. Six underwent transplantation, five died and three were transferred to hemodialysis (HD). The treatment was well tolerated, with no side effects nor abandonments due to such effects. Throughout the study period, six patients (20%) undergoing traditional care and only two (6,7%) receiving polyhexanide developed an exit-site infection (p = 0.032). There were a total number of 12 infections; nine occurred in patients following the traditional approach and only three in patients treated with polyhexanide (p = 0.037). The germs responsible for the infections were: S. aureus (six cases), Corynebacterium jeikeium (two cases) and P. aeruginosa (one case) in the saline serum and povidone-iodine group and P. aeruginosa (three cases) in the polyhexanide group. The mean rate of exit-site infection was 1 episode/36.6 patient-months for the traditional care group and 1 episode/102.7 patient-months for the polyhexanide group (p = 0.017). Patients following the traditional treatment required fewer days to get infected than those using polyhexanide (p = 0.033; log rank: 4.2).

CONCLUSIONS

These results show that using polyhexanide is efficient for the prevention of exit-site infections. Patients treated with this product suffer from fewer infections and need more time to become infected. Polyhexanide application is painless, no allergies have been described and it is well tolerated by patients. We therefore propose that it may be used routinely from now on for the care of healthy exit site.