葡萄糖酸氯己定、鼻内莫匹星、利福平和多西环素与葡萄糖酸氯己定和鼻内莫匹星单独根除耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)定植的随机对照试验

Q3 Medicine
JAMMI Pub Date : 2021-12-03 eCollection Date: 2021-12-01 DOI:10.3138/jammi-2020-0049
Lucy Y Eum, Stefanie Materniak, Paula Duffley, Sameh El-Bailey, George R Golding, Duncan Webster
{"title":"葡萄糖酸氯己定、鼻内莫匹星、利福平和多西环素与葡萄糖酸氯己定和鼻内莫匹星单独根除耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)定植的随机对照试验","authors":"Lucy Y Eum,&nbsp;Stefanie Materniak,&nbsp;Paula Duffley,&nbsp;Sameh El-Bailey,&nbsp;George R Golding,&nbsp;Duncan Webster","doi":"10.3138/jammi-2020-0049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several decolonization regimens have been studied to prevent recurrent methicillin-resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> (MRSA) infections. Clinical equipoise remains with regard to the role of MRSA decolonization. We compared initial MRSA clearance and subsequent MRSA recolonization rates over a 12-month period after standard decolonization (using topical chlorhexidine gluconate, and intranasal mupirocin) or systemic decolonization (using topical chlorhexidine gluconate, intranasal mupirocin, oral rifampin, and oral doxycycline).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MRSA-colonized patients were randomized to receive either standard or systemic decolonization. Follow-up with MRSA screening was obtained at approximately 3, 6, and 12 months after completion of therapy. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were calculated and assessed for significant differences using log-rank tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 98 enrolled patients (25 standard decolonization, 73 systemic decolonization), 24 patients (7 standard decolonization, 17 systemic decolonization) did not complete the study. Univariate analysis showed a marginally significant difference in the probability of remaining MRSA-negative post-treatment (<i>p</i> = 0.043); patients who received standard decolonization had a 31.9% chance of remaining MRSA-negative compared with a 49.9% chance among those who received systemic decolonization. With multivariate analysis, there was no difference in the probability of remaining MRSA-negative between systemic and standard decolonization (<i>p</i> = 0.165). Initial MRSA clearance was more readily achieved with systemic decolonization (79.1%; 95% CI 32.4% to 71.6%) than with standard decolonization (52.0%; 95% CI 69.4% to 88.8%; <i>p</i> = 0.0102).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Initial MRSA clearance is more readily achieved with systemic decolonization than with standard decolonization. There is no significant difference in the probability of sustained MRSA clearance.</p>","PeriodicalId":36782,"journal":{"name":"JAMMI","volume":"6 4","pages":"296-306"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9629256/pdf/jammi-2020-0049.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Randomized controlled trial of chlorhexidine gluconate, intranasal mupirocin, rifampin, and doxycycline versus chlorhexidine gluconate and intranasal mupirocin alone for the eradication of methicillin-resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> (MRSA) colonization.\",\"authors\":\"Lucy Y Eum,&nbsp;Stefanie Materniak,&nbsp;Paula Duffley,&nbsp;Sameh El-Bailey,&nbsp;George R Golding,&nbsp;Duncan Webster\",\"doi\":\"10.3138/jammi-2020-0049\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several decolonization regimens have been studied to prevent recurrent methicillin-resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> (MRSA) infections. Clinical equipoise remains with regard to the role of MRSA decolonization. We compared initial MRSA clearance and subsequent MRSA recolonization rates over a 12-month period after standard decolonization (using topical chlorhexidine gluconate, and intranasal mupirocin) or systemic decolonization (using topical chlorhexidine gluconate, intranasal mupirocin, oral rifampin, and oral doxycycline).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MRSA-colonized patients were randomized to receive either standard or systemic decolonization. Follow-up with MRSA screening was obtained at approximately 3, 6, and 12 months after completion of therapy. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were calculated and assessed for significant differences using log-rank tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 98 enrolled patients (25 standard decolonization, 73 systemic decolonization), 24 patients (7 standard decolonization, 17 systemic decolonization) did not complete the study. Univariate analysis showed a marginally significant difference in the probability of remaining MRSA-negative post-treatment (<i>p</i> = 0.043); patients who received standard decolonization had a 31.9% chance of remaining MRSA-negative compared with a 49.9% chance among those who received systemic decolonization. With multivariate analysis, there was no difference in the probability of remaining MRSA-negative between systemic and standard decolonization (<i>p</i> = 0.165). Initial MRSA clearance was more readily achieved with systemic decolonization (79.1%; 95% CI 32.4% to 71.6%) than with standard decolonization (52.0%; 95% CI 69.4% to 88.8%; <i>p</i> = 0.0102).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Initial MRSA clearance is more readily achieved with systemic decolonization than with standard decolonization. There is no significant difference in the probability of sustained MRSA clearance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMMI\",\"volume\":\"6 4\",\"pages\":\"296-306\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9629256/pdf/jammi-2020-0049.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMMI\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3138/jammi-2020-0049\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/12/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMMI","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jammi-2020-0049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:研究了几种去菌落方案来预防耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)感染复发。关于MRSA去殖民化的作用,临床平衡仍然存在。在标准去菌落(外用葡萄糖酸氯己定和鼻内莫匹罗星)或全身去菌落(外用葡萄糖酸氯己定、鼻内莫匹罗星、口服利福平和口服多西环素)后的12个月内,我们比较了最初的MRSA清除率和随后的MRSA再菌落率。方法:mrsa定殖患者随机接受标准或系统去殖。在治疗完成后约3、6和12个月进行MRSA筛查随访。使用log-rank检验计算Kaplan-Meier生存曲线并评估显著差异。结果:在98例入组患者中(25例标准去殖,73例全身去殖),24例(7例标准去殖,17例全身去殖)未完成研究。单因素分析显示,治疗后剩余mrsa阴性的概率差异有统计学意义(p = 0.043);接受标准去菌落的患者有31.9%的机会保持mrsa阴性,而接受系统去菌落的患者有49.9%的机会保持mrsa阴性。通过多因素分析,系统去菌落和标准去菌落的mrsa阴性概率无差异(p = 0.165)。系统去菌落更容易清除MRSA (79.1%;95% CI 32.4% ~ 71.6%)比标准去殖组(52.0%;95% CI 69.4% ~ 88.8%;P = 0.0102)。结论:系统去菌落比标准去菌落更容易清除MRSA。在MRSA持续清除的可能性上没有显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Randomized controlled trial of chlorhexidine gluconate, intranasal mupirocin, rifampin, and doxycycline versus chlorhexidine gluconate and intranasal mupirocin alone for the eradication of methicillin-resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> (MRSA) colonization.

Randomized controlled trial of chlorhexidine gluconate, intranasal mupirocin, rifampin, and doxycycline versus chlorhexidine gluconate and intranasal mupirocin alone for the eradication of methicillin-resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> (MRSA) colonization.

Randomized controlled trial of chlorhexidine gluconate, intranasal mupirocin, rifampin, and doxycycline versus chlorhexidine gluconate and intranasal mupirocin alone for the eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization.

Background: Several decolonization regimens have been studied to prevent recurrent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections. Clinical equipoise remains with regard to the role of MRSA decolonization. We compared initial MRSA clearance and subsequent MRSA recolonization rates over a 12-month period after standard decolonization (using topical chlorhexidine gluconate, and intranasal mupirocin) or systemic decolonization (using topical chlorhexidine gluconate, intranasal mupirocin, oral rifampin, and oral doxycycline).

Methods: MRSA-colonized patients were randomized to receive either standard or systemic decolonization. Follow-up with MRSA screening was obtained at approximately 3, 6, and 12 months after completion of therapy. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were calculated and assessed for significant differences using log-rank tests.

Results: Of 98 enrolled patients (25 standard decolonization, 73 systemic decolonization), 24 patients (7 standard decolonization, 17 systemic decolonization) did not complete the study. Univariate analysis showed a marginally significant difference in the probability of remaining MRSA-negative post-treatment (p = 0.043); patients who received standard decolonization had a 31.9% chance of remaining MRSA-negative compared with a 49.9% chance among those who received systemic decolonization. With multivariate analysis, there was no difference in the probability of remaining MRSA-negative between systemic and standard decolonization (p = 0.165). Initial MRSA clearance was more readily achieved with systemic decolonization (79.1%; 95% CI 32.4% to 71.6%) than with standard decolonization (52.0%; 95% CI 69.4% to 88.8%; p = 0.0102).

Conclusions: Initial MRSA clearance is more readily achieved with systemic decolonization than with standard decolonization. There is no significant difference in the probability of sustained MRSA clearance.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JAMMI
JAMMI Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信