OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical and molecular epidemiology of mupirocin-resistant (MR) and mupirocin-susceptible (MS) methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) at a Veterans' Affairs hospital and to assess risk factors associated with the acquisition of MR MRSA. DESIGN: All clinical MRSA isolates for the period October 1990 through March 1995 underwent susceptibility testing to mupirocin. Mupirocin resistance trends were measured, and MS MRSA and MR MRSA isolates underwent typing by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). A retrospective case-control study was conducted to evaluate risk factors for having MR versus MS MRSA. SETTING: The James H. Quillen Veterans' Affairs Medical Center in Mountain Home, Tennessee, included a 324-bed acute-care hospital, a 120-bed nursing home, and a 525-bed domiciliary. Colonizations and infections with MRSA were endemic, and mupirocin ointment was commonly used. PATIENTS: Inpatients and outpatients at the facility. RESULTS: MS MRSA was recovered from 506 patients and MR MRSA from 126. Among MR MRSA isolates, 58% showed low-level mupirocin resistance (minimum inhibitory concentration [MIC] > or = 4 to 256 microg/mL), and 42% showed high-level mupirocin resistance (MIC > or = 512 microg/mL). A significant increase (P=.002) in the number of high-level MR isolates occurred during the 1993 to 1995 period. A case-control study showed that presence of a decubitus ulcer correlated with high-level resistant isolates (P<.05). The distribution of PFGE patterns did not differ for MR and MS MRSA CONCLUSIONS: Use of mupirocin ointment in a program aimed at managing endemic MRSA infection or colonization resulted in a significant increase in the recovery of high-level MR MRSA isolates. These isolates appeared to emerge from our existing MRSA pool. A case-control study provided few clues concerning patients likely to harbor MR MRSA. We confirmed the position that the extended use of mupirocin ointment should be avoided in settings where MRSA is endemic.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical and molecular epidemiology of mupirocin-resistant (MR) and mupirocin-susceptible (MS) methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) at a Veterans' Affairs hospital and to assess risk factors associated with the acquisition of MR MRSA. DESIGN: All clinical MRSA isolates for the period October 1990 through March 1995 underwent susceptibility testing to mupirocin. Mupirocin resistance trends were measured, and MS MRSA and MR MRSA isolates underwent typing by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). A retrospective case-control study was conducted to evaluate risk factors for having MR versus MS MRSA. SETTING: The James H. Quillen Veterans' Affairs Medical Center in Mountain Home, Tennessee, included a 324-bed acute-care hospital, a 120-bed nursing home, and a 525-bed domiciliary. Colonizations and infections with MRSA were endemic, and mupirocin ointment was commonly used. PATIENTS: Inpatients and outpatients at the facility. RESULTS: MS MRSA was recovered from 506 patients and MR MRSA from 126. Among MR MRSA isolates, 58% showed low-level mupirocin resistance (minimum inhibitory concentration [MIC] > or = 4 to 256 microg/mL), and 42% showed high-level mupirocin resistance (MIC > or = 512 microg/mL). A significant increase (P=.002) in the number of high-level MR isolates occurred during the 1993 to 1995 period. A case-control study showed that presence of a decubitus ulcer correlated with high-level resistant isolates (P<.05). The distribution of PFGE patterns did not differ for MR and MS MRSA CONCLUSIONS: Use of mupirocin ointment in a program aimed at managing endemic MRSA infection or colonization resulted in a significant increase in the recovery of high-level MR MRSA isolates. These isolates appeared to emerge from our existing MRSA pool. A case-control study provided few clues concerning patients likely to harbor MR MRSA. We confirmed the position that the extended use of mupirocin ointment should be avoided in settings where MRSA is endemic.
Authors: Benjamin J Privett; Angela D Broadnax; Susanne J Bauman; Daniel A Riccio; Mark H Schoenfisch Journal: Nitric Oxide Date: 2012-02-18 Impact factor: 4.427
Authors: C Camus; V Sebille; A Legras; B Garo; A Renault; P Le Corre; P-Y Donnio; A Gacouin; D Perrotin; Y Le Tulzo; E Bellissant Journal: Infection Date: 2014-01-25 Impact factor: 3.553