Matthew N Hurley1,2, Andrew Fogarty3, Tricia M McKeever3, Christopher H Goss4,5,6, Margaret Rosenfeld6,7, Alan R Smyth1,2. 1. 1 Division of Child Health, Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of Nottingham, and. 2. 2 Nottingham Children's Hospital, Nottingham, United Kingdom. 3. 3 Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom. 4. 4 Department of Medicine and. 5. 5 Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington. 6. 6 Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; and. 7. 7 Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Consensus is lacking regarding antistaphylococcal antibiotic prophylaxis use for young children with cystic fibrosis. Prophylaxis is recommended in the United Kingdom, but it is recommended against in the United States. OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that antistaphylococcal antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with a decreased risk of Staphylococcus aureus acquisition but no increased risk of Pseudomonas aeruginosa acquisition. METHODS: We undertook a longitudinal observational study of children with cystic fibrosis who were recruited from birth (or from their first registry entry in the period) and followed until the age of 4 years (1,500 d) using 2000-2009 data from the UK Cystic Fibrosis Trust and Cystic Fibrosis Foundation registries. Children were excluded if they had a positive culture result for S. aureus or P. aeruginosa, or if they were receiving inhaled antibiotics, at the first encounter. Time to first S. aureus and P. aeruginosa detection in the UK/U.S. cohorts was compared using a Cox proportional hazards model. A UK-based analysis compared the same for those receiving flucloxacillin with those who received no prophylaxis. We included the following covariates: sex, age at registry entry, dornase alfa use, genotype, and center size. RESULTS: The primary analysis comprised 1,074 UK and 3,677 U.S. children. The risk of first detection was greater in U.S. children than in UK children for S. aureus (hazard ratio [HR], 5.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.85, 6.90; P < 0.001) and P. aeruginosa (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.65, 2.24; P < 0.001). In the UK analysis, we compared 278 children receiving flucloxacillin and 306 receiving no prophylaxis. Flucloxacillin was not associated with a reduced risk of S. aureus detection (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.74, 2.0; P = 0.43), but it was associated with an increased risk of P. aeruginosa detection (HR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.71, 3.74; P < 0.001). None of the covariates significantly affected the risk estimate in either analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of first detection of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa was greater in the United States than in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, the risk of first P. aeruginosa detection was increased among those receiving flucloxacillin compared with those who received no prophylaxis. These observational findings should be examined in randomized controlled trials.
RATIONALE: Consensus is lacking regarding antistaphylococcal antibiotic prophylaxis use for young children with cystic fibrosis. Prophylaxis is recommended in the United Kingdom, but it is recommended against in the United States. OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that antistaphylococcal antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with a decreased risk of Staphylococcus aureus acquisition but no increased risk of Pseudomonas aeruginosa acquisition. METHODS: We undertook a longitudinal observational study of children with cystic fibrosis who were recruited from birth (or from their first registry entry in the period) and followed until the age of 4 years (1,500 d) using 2000-2009 data from the UK Cystic Fibrosis Trust and Cystic Fibrosis Foundation registries. Children were excluded if they had a positive culture result for S. aureus or P. aeruginosa, or if they were receiving inhaled antibiotics, at the first encounter. Time to first S. aureus and P. aeruginosa detection in the UK/U.S. cohorts was compared using a Cox proportional hazards model. A UK-based analysis compared the same for those receiving flucloxacillin with those who received no prophylaxis. We included the following covariates: sex, age at registry entry, dornase alfa use, genotype, and center size. RESULTS: The primary analysis comprised 1,074 UK and 3,677 U.S. children. The risk of first detection was greater in U.S. children than in UK children for S. aureus (hazard ratio [HR], 5.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.85, 6.90; P < 0.001) and P. aeruginosa (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.65, 2.24; P < 0.001). In the UK analysis, we compared 278 children receiving flucloxacillin and 306 receiving no prophylaxis. Flucloxacillin was not associated with a reduced risk of S. aureus detection (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.74, 2.0; P = 0.43), but it was associated with an increased risk of P. aeruginosa detection (HR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.71, 3.74; P < 0.001). None of the covariates significantly affected the risk estimate in either analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of first detection of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa was greater in the United States than in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, the risk of first P. aeruginosa detection was increased among those receiving flucloxacillin compared with those who received no prophylaxis. These observational findings should be examined in randomized controlled trials.
Authors: M Rosenfeld; J Emerson; F Accurso; D Armstrong; R Castile; K Grimwood; P Hiatt; K McCoy; S McNamara; B Ramsey; J Wagener Journal: Pediatr Pulmonol Date: 1999-11
Authors: Jiangchao Zhao; Patrick D Schloss; Linda M Kalikin; Lisa A Carmody; Bridget K Foster; Joseph F Petrosino; James D Cavalcoli; Donald R VanDevanter; Susan Murray; Jun Z Li; Vincent B Young; John J LiPuma Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2012-03-26 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Patrick A Flume; Brian P O'Sullivan; Karen A Robinson; Christopher H Goss; Peter J Mogayzel; Donna Beth Willey-Courand; Janet Bujan; Jonathan Finder; Mary Lester; Lynne Quittell; Randall Rosenblatt; Robert L Vender; Leslie Hazle; Kathy Sabadosa; Bruce Marshall Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2007-08-29 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Scott D Sagel; Ronald L Gibson; Julia Emerson; Sharon McNamara; Jane L Burns; Jeffrey S Wagener; Bonnie W Ramsey Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2008-09-25 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: T A Douglas; S Brennan; S Gard; L Berry; C Gangell; S M Stick; B S Clements; P D Sly Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2008-11-14 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Alan R Smyth; Scott C Bell; Snezana Bojcin; Mandy Bryon; Alistair Duff; Patrick Flume; Nataliya Kashirskaya; Anne Munck; Felix Ratjen; Sarah Jane Schwarzenberg; Isabelle Sermet-Gaudelus; Kevin W Southern; Giovanni Taccetti; Gerald Ullrich; Sue Wolfe Journal: J Cyst Fibros Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Dustin R Long; Daniel J Wolter; Michael Lee; Mimi Precit; Kathryn McLean; Elizabeth Holmes; Kelsi Penewit; Adam Waalkes; Lucas R Hoffman; Stephen J Salipante Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2021-05-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Eryn E Bernardy; Robert A Petit; Vishnu Raghuram; Ashley M Alexander; Timothy D Read; Joanna B Goldberg Journal: mBio Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 7.867
Authors: Daniela K Schlüter; Josh S Ostrenga; Siobhán B Carr; Aliza K Fink; Albert Faro; Rhonda D Szczesniak; Ruth H Keogh; Susan C Charman; Bruce C Marshall; Christopher H Goss; David Taylor-Robinson Journal: Thorax Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 9.139