Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of polyhexanide for topical decolonization of MRSA carriers

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of polyhexanide (Prontoderm(®)) in eliminating MRSA carriage.

METHODS

In a 1900 bed teaching hospital, MRSA-colonized patients were randomized into a double-blind, placebo-controlled superiority trial between January 2011 and July 2014. Patients were treated with either polyhexanide or placebo applied to the anterior nares (thrice daily) and skin (once daily) for 10 days. The primary outcome was MRSA decolonization at day 28 (D28) after the end of treatment assessed by ITT responder and PP analyses (microbiological follow-up ± 7 days and topical treatment ≥ 5 days). Secondary outcomes included safety, emergence of resistance and MRSA genotype changes. Registered trial number ISRCTN02288276.

RESULTS

Of 2590 patients screened, 146 (polyhexanide group, 71; placebo group, 75) were included. ITT analysis showed that 24/71 (33.8%) patients in the polyhexanide group versus 22/75 (29.3%) in the placebo group were MRSA-free at D28 (risk difference, 4.5%; 95% CI, -10.6% to 19.5%; P = 0.56). PP analysis confirmed the results with 19/53 (35.8%) decolonized polyhexanide-treated patients versus 17/56 (30.4%) in the placebo arm (risk difference, 5.5%; 95% CI, -12.2% to 23%; P = 0.54). Nine serious adverse events occurred in the polyhexanide group versus 12 in the placebo group; none was attributable to study medication. Emergence of polyhexanide resistance or cross-resistance between polyhexanide and chlorhexidine was not observed. No case of exogenous recolonization by a genotypically different MRSA strain was documented.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that under real-life conditions, a single polyhexanide decolonization course is not effective in eradicating MRSA carriage.

Testing wound dressings using an in vitro wound model

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether or not there are any significant differences in the effects of wound dressings on bacterial bioburden.

METHOD

A selection of non-occlusive, non-adhesive dressings was tested for their effect on bacterial bioburden. The dressings selected included two dressings with antimicrobial properties (one containing silver and one containing PHMB), a cotton-based dressing enclosed in a perforated sleeve of poly(ethylene terephthalate), a carboxymethyl cellulose-based dressing, a fibre-free alginate dressing, and a 12-ply 100% cotton gauze. Using the colony-drip flow reactor (DFR) model, a meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm was grown underneath a dressing sample. Biofilm growth was examined via plate counts, fluorescent microscopy and scanning electron microscopy.

RESULTS

The dressings containing antimicrobial agents had the greatest effect on bacterial load. In the MRSA experiments, both antimicrobial dressings produced lower bacteria counts than the other dressings (p<0.001), while in the P. aeruginosa experiments, only the silver-containing sample had fewer bacteria (p<0.0001). However, neither antimicrobial dressing was able to completely eradicate the bacteria when testing with either microorganism.

CONCLUSION

The results presented herein illustrate that bacteria can grow unchallenged within the dressing environment and that an antimicrobial dressing can limit this bacterial growth.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

None.

Water enema computed tomography (WE-CT) in the local staging of low colorectal neoplasms: comparison with transrectal ultrasound

BACKGROUND

To determine the accuracy of computed tomography performed with a water enema application (WE-CT) in the local staging of low colorectal neoplasms and to compare the results with those of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS).

METHODS

Forty patients with low colorectal tumors were evaluated prospectively by CT with the simultaneous administration of a lukewarm rectal enema (0.5-1.5 L). Thin slices (5 mm) and intravenous application of iodinated contrast media were routinely used. TRUS was performed in 18 patients. Tumor size, location, and staging according to the TNM classification of the UICC were registered. Tumors were classified as < T3 (T1 or T2) or as T3 or T4. For staging peritumoral lymph node metastases on WE-CT, two criteria of positivity were tested: N+ if at least one peritumoral node > or 5 mm in diameter was seen (reading A); N+ if at least one peritumoral node > or = 5 mm or three peritumoral nodes < 5 mm were identified (reading B).

RESULTS

For the tumor staging, WE-CT showed a sensitivity of 90%, a specificity of 73%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 90%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 73%, and an accuracy of 85%. For TRUS, the results were sensitivity of 73%, specificity of 29%, PPV of 62%, NPV of 40%, and an accuracy of 39%. Concerning nodal staging with WE-CT, results were superior when reading A was used: sensitivity = 84%, specificity = 83%, PPV = 73%, NPV = 91%, and accuracy = 84%. TRUS showed a sensitivity of 29%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, NPV of 67%, and an accuracy of 71%.

CONCLUSION

WE-CT is a reliable technique for the local staging of low colorectal tumors that can be superior to TRUS. For diagnosis of peritumoral metastatic lymph nodes on WE-CT, the 5-mm diameter cutoff value is the most appropriate size criterion.