Mupirocin/chlorexidine to prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: post hoc analysis of a placebo-controlled, randomized trial using mupirocin/chlorhexidine and polymyxin/tobramycin for the prevention of acquired infections in intubated patients

Rebound Inverts the Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia Prevention Effect of Antibiotic Based Decontamination Interventions in ICU Cohorts with Prolonged Length of Stay

Could rebound explain the paradoxical lack of prevention effect against Staphylococcus aureus blood stream infections (BSIs) with antibiotic-based decontamination intervention (BDI) methods among studies of ICU patients within the literature? Two meta-regression models were applied, each versus the group mean length of stay (LOS). Firstly, the prevention effects against S. aureus BSI [and S. aureus VAP] among 136 studies of antibiotic-BDI versus other interventions were analyzed. Secondly, the S. aureus BSI [and S. aureus VAP] incidence in 268 control and intervention cohorts from studies of antibiotic-BDI versus that among 165 observational cohorts as a benchmark was modelled. In model one, the meta-regression line versus group mean LOS crossed the null, with the antibiotic-BDI prevention effect against S. aureus BSI at mean LOS day 7 (OR 0.45; 0.30 to 0.68) inverted at mean LOS day 20 (OR 1.7; 1.1 to 2.6). In model two, the meta-regression line versus group mean LOS crossed the benchmark line, and the predicted S. aureus BSI incidence for antibiotic-BDI groups was 0.47; 0.09-0.84 percentage points below versus 3.0; 0.12-5.9 above the benchmark in studies with 7 versus 20 days mean LOS, respectively. Rebound within the intervention groups attenuated and inverted the prevention effect of antibiotic-BDI against S. aureus VAP and BSI, respectively. This explains the paradoxical findings.

Modeling Interventions to Reduce the Spread of Multidrug-Resistant Organisms Between Health Care Facilities in a Region

IMPORTANCE

Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) can spread across health care facilities in a region. Because of limited resources, certain interventions can be implemented in only some facilities; thus, decision-makers need to evaluate which interventions may be best to implement.

OBJECTIVE

To identify a group of target facilities and assess which MDRO intervention would be best to implement in the Shared Healthcare Intervention to Eliminate Life-threatening Dissemination of MDROs in Orange County, a large regional public health collaborative in Orange County, California.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An agent-based model of health care facilities was developed in 2016 to simulate the spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) for 10 years starting in 2010 and to simulate the use of various MDRO interventions for 3 years starting in 2017. All health care facilities (23 hospitals, 5 long-term acute care hospitals, and 74 nursing homes) serving adult inpatients in Orange County, California, were included, and 42 target facilities were identified via network analyses.

EXPOSURES

Increasing contact precaution effectiveness, increasing interfacility communication about patients' MDRO status, and performing decolonization using antiseptic bathing soap and a nasal product in a specific group of target facilities.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

MRSA and CRE prevalence and number of new carriers (ie, transmission events).

RESULTS

Compared with continuing infection control measures used in Orange County as of 2017, increasing contact precaution effectiveness from 40% to 64% in 42 target facilities yielded relative reductions of 0.8% (range, 0.5%-1.1%) in MRSA prevalence and 2.4% (range, 0.8%-4.6%) in CRE prevalence in health care facilities countywide after 3 years, averting 761 new MRSA transmission events (95% CI, 756-765 events) and 166 new CRE transmission events (95% CI, 158-174 events). Increasing interfacility communication of patients' MDRO status to 80% in these target facilities produced no changes in the prevalence or transmission of MRDOs. Implementing decolonization procedures (clearance probability: 39% in hospitals, 27% in long-term acute care facilities, and 3% in nursing homes) yielded a relative reduction of 23.7% (range, 23.5%-23.9%) in MRSA prevalence, averting 3515 new transmission events (95% CI, 3509-3521 events). Increasing the effectiveness of antiseptic bathing soap to 48% yielded a relative reduction of 39.9% (range, 38.5%-41.5%) in CRE prevalence, averting 1435 new transmission events (95% CI, 1427-1442 events).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this study highlight the ways in which modeling can inform design of regional interventions and suggested that decolonization would be the best strategy for the Shared Healthcare Intervention to Eliminate Life-threatening Dissemination of MDROs in Orange County.

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.

Chlorhexidine bathing of the critically ill for the prevention of hospital-acquired infection

BACKGROUND

Hospital-acquired infection is a frequent adverse event in patient care; it can lead to longer stays in the intensive care unit (ICU), additional medical complications, permanent disability or death. Whilst all hospital-based patients are susceptible to infections, prevalence is particularly high in the ICU, where people who are critically ill have suppressed immunity and are subject to increased invasive monitoring. People who are mechanically-ventilated are at infection risk due to tracheostomy and reintubation and use of multiple central venous catheters, where lines and tubes may act as vectors for the transmission of bacteria and may increase bloodstream infections and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Chlorhexidine is a low-cost product, widely used as a disinfectant and antiseptic, which may be used to bathe people who are critically ill with the aim of killing bacteria and reducing the spread of hospital-acquired infections.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of chlorhexidine bathing on the number of hospital-acquired infections in people who are critically ill.

SEARCH METHODS

In December 2018 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and checked reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared chlorhexidine bathing with soap-and-water bathing of patients in the ICU.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and undertook risk of bias and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence .

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies in this review. Four RCTs included a total of 1537 individually randomised participants, and four cluster-randomised cross-over studies included 23 randomised ICUs with 22,935 participants. We identified one study awaiting classification, for which we were unable to assess eligibility.The studies compared bathing using 2% chlorhexidine-impregnated washcloths or dilute solutions of 4% chlorhexidine versus soap-and-water bathing or bathing with non-antimicrobial washcloths.Eight studies reported data for participants who had a hospital-acquired infection during the ICU stay. We are uncertain whether using chlorhexidine for bathing of critically ill people reduces the rate of hospital-acquired infection, because the certainty of the evidence is very low (rate difference 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 3.29; 21,924 participants). Six studies reported mortality (in hospital, in the ICU, and at 48 hours). We cannot be sure whether using chlorhexidine for bathing of critically-ill people reduces mortality, because the certainty of the evidence is very low (odds ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.99; 15,798 participants). Six studies reported length of stay in the ICU. We noted that individual studies found no evidence of a difference in length of stay; we did not conduct meta-analysis because data were skewed. It is not clear whether using chlorhexidine for bathing of critically ill people reduced length of stay in the ICU, because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Seven studies reported skin reactions as an adverse event, and five of these reported skin reactions which were thought to be attributable to the bathing solution. Data in these studies were reported inconsistently and we were unable to conduct meta-analysis; we cannot tell whether using chlorhexidine for bathing of critically ill people reduced adverse events, because the certainty of the evidence is very low.We used the GRADE approach to downgrade the certainty of the evidence of each outcome to very low. For all outcomes, we downgraded evidence because of study limitations (most studies had a high risk of performance bias, and we noted high risks of other bias in some studies). We downgraded evidence due to indirectness, because some participants in studies may have had hospital-acquired infections before recruitment. We noted that one small study had a large influence on the effect for hospital-acquired infections, and we assessed decisions made in analysis of some cluster-randomised cross-over studies on the effect for hospital-acquired infections and for mortality; we downgraded the evidence for these outcomes due to inconsistency. We also downgraded the evidence on length of stay in the ICU, because of imprecision. Data for adverse events were limited by few events and so we downgraded for imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the very low-certainty evidence available, it is not clear whether bathing with chlorhexidine reduces hospital-acquired infections, mortality, or length of stay in the ICU, or whether the use of chlorhexidine results in more skin reactions.

Fighting antibiotic resistance in the intensive care unit using antibiotics

Antibiotic resistance is a global and increasing problem that is not counterbalanced by the development of new therapeutic agents. The prevalence of antibiotic resistance is especially high in intensive care units with frequently reported outbreaks of multidrug-resistant organisms. In addition to classical infection prevention protocols and surveillance programs, counterintuitive interventions, such as selective decontamination with antibiotics and antibiotic rotation have been applied and investigated to control the emergence of antibiotic resistance. This review provides an overview of selective oropharyngeal and digestive tract decontamination, decolonization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and antibiotic rotation as strategies to modulate antibiotic resistance in the intensive care unit.

Decolonization and decontamination: what's their role in infection control?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hospital-acquired infections cause up to 19% of infections in paediatric patients contributing to the spread of antimicrobial resistance. This review evaluates the effect of decolonization and decontamination in hospitalized children and neonates as an adjunct to standard infection control measures.

RECENT FINDINGS

Few studies on decolonization and decontamination are available in children. The evidence about the effectiveness of daily chlorhexidine washcloths on bacteraemia in paediatric patients relies on a single randomized controlled trial, in neonates with central venous access in a single retrospective observational study. It is uncertain whether nasal mupirocin reduces methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriage and infections in neonates, whereas oral chlorhexidine mouthwashes have not proven effective in children in intensive care settings. Scanty evidence demonstrates a reduction in the rate of ventilation-acquired pneumonia with digestive tract decontamination in paediatric patients and no studies are available in neonates. These strategies have not been extensively tested in resource-poor countries.

SUMMARY

Strong evidence about the efficacy of decolonization and decontamination interventions exists in adult medicine but not in paediatric patients. There is an urgent need to understand how these interventions could be adapted to neonates and resource-poor settings in which the prevalence of hospital-acquired infections is higher.

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.

Efficacy of chlorhexidine bathing for reducing healthcare associated bloodstream infections: a meta-analysis

Background

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine if daily bathing with chlorhexidine decreased hospital-acquired BSIs in critically ill patients.

Methods

We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases to identify randomized controlled trials that compared daily bathing with chlorhexidine and a control in critically ill patients.

Results

This meta-analysis included five RCTs. The overall incidence of measured hospital-acquired BSIs was significantly lower in the chlorhexidine group compared to the controls 0.69 (95 % CI 0.55–0.85; P < 0.001; I² = 57.7 %). Gram-positive-induced (RR = 0.49, 95 % CI 0.41–0.58; P = 0.000; I² = 0.0 %) bacteremias were significantly less common in the chlorhexidine group. The incidence of MRSA bacteremias (RR 0.63; 95 % CI 0.44–0.91; P = 0.006; I² = 30.3 %) was significantly lower among patients who received mupirocin in addition to chlorhexidine bathing than among those who did not routinely receive mupirocin.

Conclusions

Daily bathing with chlorhexidine may be effective to reduce the incidence of hospital-acquired BSIs. However, chlorhexidine bathing alone may be of limited utility in reduction of MRSA bacteremia; intranasal mupirocin may also be required. This meta-analysis has several limitations. Future large-scale international multicenter studies are needed.