|
 
 |
| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2014 | Volume
: 6
| Issue : 8 | Page : 403-407 |
|
Prevalence of mupirocin resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates among patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital
Parul Chaturvedi1, Amit Kumar Singh1, Amit Kumar Singh2, Snehanshu Shukla1, Loveleena Agarwal3
1 Department of Microbiology, Mayo Institute of Medical Sciences, Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Department of Microbiology, Major SD Singh Medical College and Hospital, Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
3 Department of Microbiology, Mayo Institute of Medical Sciences, Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh
| Date of Web Publication | 20-Aug-2014 |
Correspondence Address:
Amit Kumar Singh
Department of Microbiology, Mayo Institute of Medical Sciences, Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/1947-2714.139293
Background: For the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections and decolonization of MRSA carriers, the use of mupirocin a topical antibiotic is increasing day by day. Aim: The present study was carried out to determine the prevalence rate of high-level and low-level mupirocin resistant MRSA isolates among patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective study carried out on MRSA isolated from the various clinical specimens from outpatient and inpatient departments during period of one year. A total of 82 MRSA isolates were recovered from 6468 different clinical specimens. Mupirocin resistant MRSA was detected by two different methods: Epsilometer test (E-test) and agar dilution method. D-shaped zone test (D-zone test) was also performed for determination of inducible clindamycin resistance in MRSA isolates. Results: Out of 82 non-duplicate MRSA isolates mupirocin resistance were found in 15 (18.3%) isolates by both E-test and agar dilution method. Of these 15 mupirocin resistant, 8 (53.3%) isolates were high-level resistant (MuH) and 7 (46.7%) isolates were low-level resistant (MuL). Four isolates were D-zone test positive showing simultaneous inducible clindamycin resistance among mupirocin resistant MRSA isolates. Conclusion: Higher prevalence of both high-level and low-level of mupirocin resistant MRSA was observed in patient from the population. It is advisable to perform routine test to detect MRSA colonization among health care workers and nasal decolonization to prevent spread of MRSA infections among hospitalized patients. Keywords: High-level, MRSA, MuH, MuL, Mupirocin resistance, Low-level
How to cite this article:
Chaturvedi P, Singh AK, Singh AK, Shukla S, Agarwal L. Prevalence of mupirocin resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates among patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital. North Am J Med Sci 2014;6:403-7 |
How to cite this URL:
Chaturvedi P, Singh AK, Singh AK, Shukla S, Agarwal L. Prevalence of mupirocin resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates among patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital. North Am J Med Sci [serial online] 2014 [cited 2023 Mar 26];6:403-7. Available from: https://www.najms.org/text.asp?2014/6/8/403/139293 |
| Introduction | |  |
Staphylococcus aureus infections are one of the most common and serious hospital-acquired infections seen in developing countries. [1],[2],[3] Various studies have shown an increased prevalence of staphylococcus infections which may be attributed to its carriage in anterior nares and hands of health care workers and patients. [4],[5] Along with that drug resistance seen in cases of Staphylococcus aureus infections is a great concern for the clinicians to prevent spread of infections. Methicillin an important drug of penicillin group was commonly used for these infections before the emergence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strains. [6] The important risk factors for development of MRSA are irrational use of antibiotic, prolong duration of hospital stay, nasal and hand carriage in health care staff. [7],[8]
Vancomycin and linezolid are commonly used antibiotics for MRSA infections whereas mupirocin a topical antibiotic is used for treatment of skin and soft tissue infections as well as decolonization of carriers. [9],[10] It inhibits the protein synthesis by binding specifically to isoleucyl-tRNA synthetase enzyme. [11] The increased pressure of MRSA infections among patients and its carriage in health care staff has led to indiscriminate use of mupirocin which has resulted in emergence of its resistance. [10] Phenotypically mupirocin resistant strains are grouped into low-level (MuL) resistance and high-level (MuH) resistance phenotypes. [11] The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) are <4 μg/ml, 8-256 μg/ml and >512 μg/ml for mupirocin sensitive, low-level resistance and high-level resistance respectively. [12] Although there is no guideline for detection of mupirocin resistance, traditionally disc diffusion method using 5 μg and 200 μg mupirocin disc, agar dilution method and broth micro dilution method have been used. [13]
Various studies have suggested that treatment of infections with low-level resistant strains is still possible with normal dosage schedule of 0.2% mupirocin ointment. [14] Whereas, high-level resistant strains are frequently associated with failure of decolonization as well as treatment of skin and soft tissues infections. [15],[16],[17] Thus the present study was aimed to determine the prevalence of high-level mupirocin resistance strains, low-level mupirocin resistance strains and mupirocin sensitive phenotypes.
| Material and Methods | | |
MRSA isolates recovered from clinical specimens such as pus, blood, urine, tracheal aspirate, wounds swab, surgical pus and synovial fluid from patients who attended various outpatient departments or admitted to various wards of Mayo Institute of Medical Sciences, Barabanki, UP, India during one year period from May 2013 to April 2014 were included in the study. Informed consent was obtained from each patient and a detailed clinical history and demographic profile was taken and recorded from the patients whose culture was positive for MRSA.
Isolation and identification of MRSA
Clinical specimens obtained in the microbiology laboratory were processed as per routine microbiological procedures for isolation and identification of Staphylococcus aureus. All the clinical specimens excluding urine were inoculated on 5% sheep blood agar and MacConkey agar media, whereas urine samples were inoculated on Cysteine-lactose electrolyte deficient (CLED) agar media and incubated at 37 o C aerobically. The growth was identified as Staphylococcus aureus by using conventional biochemical methods according to standard microbiological techniques.
Detection of MRSA
MRSA was detected by using cefoxitin (30 μg) disc as per Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines. [18] A lawn culture was made on Mueller-Hinton agar (MHA) with 4% NaCl from suspension of turbidity equivalent to 0.5 MacFarland Standards from overnight growth in nutrient agar and incubated for 24 hours aerobically at 35 o C. After incubation the plates were examined for zone of inhibition. Zone of inhibition ≥22 mm was considered as sensitive and such isolates were excluded from the study, whereas ≤21 was considered as resistant and reported as a MRSA and included in the study.
Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of MRSA
Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was done according to the CLSI guidelines by Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method for the following antibiotics: Cefuroxime (30 μg), cephalothin (30 μg), clindamycin (2 μg), cotrimoxazole (1.25/23.75 μg), erythromycin (15 μg), oxacillin (1 μg), penicillin (10 units), chloramphenicol (30 μg), linezolid (30 μg), vancomycin (30 μg). [18] Four to five morphological identical colonies picked from overnight growth in nutrient agar, were inoculated into 5 ml of peptone water and incubated at 37 o C until turbid and compared with 0.5 McFarland Standards. After standardization of turbidity, using a sterile cotton swab a lawn culture was done on the surface of MHA. Antibiotic discs were applied by pressing gently using a sterile forceps on the surface of media and placed at least 20 mm apart from each other.
Epsilometer test (E-test) for determination of minimum inhibitory concentration for mupirocin
E-test was performed by Kirby Bauer disc-diffusion method as per CLSI guidelines by using HiComb mupirocin strip. [18] Lawn culture was made on the surface of MHA medium. HiComb strip with mupirocin antibiotic ranges from 0.1-240 μg/ml was applied perfectly by gently pressing using a sterile forceps. The plates were then incubated aerobically at 35 o C for 24 hours. After incubation plates were examined for the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC). Isolates with MICs > 512 μg/ml were considered as MuH, those with MICs 8-256 μg/ml were considered as MuL and with <4 μg/ml were considered as mupirocin sensitive.
Agar dilution method for determination of MIC for mupirocin
Agar dilution method was performed by doubling dilution of mupirocin incorporated in MHA plate. A suspension of turbidity equivalent to 0.5 MacFarland Standards was prepared from overnight growth of Staphylococcus aureus on nutrient agar. The surface of each MHA plate was inoculated with 1 μl of suspension and plate was incubated at 37 o C aerobically for 24 hours. Plates were examined for growth and compared with positive growth control plate without the antibiotic agent, more than one colony or light film of growth was considered as mupirocin resistant. By this method, more than one bacteria were tested per plate. MIC values were same as used for E-test.
D-shaped zone test (D-test) for determination of inducible clindamycin resistance
D-test was performed for determination of inducible clindamycin resistance in MRSA isolates. While performing antimicrobial susceptibility testing, erythromycin disk was placed in close proximity (20 mm) to clindamycin disk. After 16-18 hours of incubation the plates were observed for flattening of the zone of inhibition adjacent to the erythromycin disk (referred to as a D-zone) which indicates inducible clindamycin resistance. These isolates were reported as resistant to clindamycin. Hazy growth within the zone of inhibition around clindamycin was also considered as clindamycin resistance, even if no D-zone is apparent. [18]
Statistical analysis
All the data were recorded in Microsoft excel sheet. Data were analyzed statistically by using Chi-square test to calculate significant levels. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.
| Results | | |
A total of 361 Staphylococcus aureus were obtained from 6468 different clinical samples. Among 361 Staphylococcus aureus, 82 isolates were MRSA. MRSA isolates were obtained in highest number from pus (72%) followed by sputum (8.5%), urine (7.3%) and blood (6.1%). Distribution of Staphylococcus aureus and MRSA on the basis of source of specimen is listed in [Table 1]. | Table 1: Distribution of Staphylococcus aureus and MRSA on the basis of source
Click here to view |
Out of 82 MRSA isolates, mupirocin resistance were seen in 15 (18.3%) isolates by both E-test and agar dilution method. Of these 15 mupirocin resistant MRSA, 8 (53.3%) isolates were MuH and 7 (46.7%) isolates were MuL [Table 2]. Four isolates were D-zone test positive showing simultaneous inducible clindamycin resistance among mupirocin resistant MRSA isolates. | Table 2: Mupirocin resistant Staphylococcus aureus
among MRSA isolates (n = 82)
Click here to view |
[Table 3] shows the antimicrobial susceptibility profile of MRSA isolates. In this study, it is observed that MRSA isolates were resistant to 88.4%, 55.9%, 44.2%, and 40.3% of penicillin, cotrimoxazole, cephalothin, and cefuroxime respectively. Vancomycin and linezolid were uniformily sensitive to all MRSA isolates. | Table 3: Antimicrobial resistance patt ern of MRSA and Mupirocin-resistant MRSA isolates (n = 82)
Click here to view |
| Discussion | | |
MRSA is one of the leading cause of infections among health care staff and hospitalized patients. It also causes community associated infections. It causes a wide range of infections such as abscesses, impetigo, cellulitis, deep seated pyogenic lesions, meningitis, septicaemia, and pneumonia. [19] Prevalence of MRSA infections may increase because of improper hand hygiene and handling of MRSA carrier patients. Mupirocin is a commonly used antibiotic for decolonization of MRSA in carriers and for treatment of skin and soft tissue infections caused by MRSA. [9],[10] Emergence of mupirocin resistance due to its irrational use for treatment of skin and soft tissue infections is further worsening the problem of MRSA infections. Studies also suggest that mupirocin resistance may be transferred from the commensal flora of skin to MRSA during mupirocin therapy. [20] In this study, a total of 82 (22.7%) MRSA isolates were obtained from 361 Staphylococcus aureus. The prevalence is quite low as compared to several other studies conducted in this region. [1],[21] This may be attributed to lesser exposure to antibiotics due to low-level of healthcare facilities in this region in past years.
Among 82 MRSA isolates, 15 (18.3%) isolates were mupirocin resistant which is high as compared to other studies conducted in this region. [22],[23] The reason for higher prevalence of mupirocin resistance may be an increased use of mupirocin ointment for skin and soft tissue infections. Eight (9.7%) MuH and 7 (8.5%) MuL MRSA isolates determined by two different MIC methods were comparable. Whereas MuL isolates may be treated with normal dosage schedule of mupirocin ointment, but MuH has been found to be associated with treatment and decolonization failure. [14],[15],[16],[17]
In this study 4 (4.9%) mupirocin resistant MRSA isolates were showing D-test positive indicating inducible clindamycin resistance. This is low in comparison to several studies conducted in different regions. [24],[25],[26] Antibiotic susceptibility pattern of MRSA and mupirocin-resistant MRSA isolates showed no significant association of methicillin resistance and mupirocin resistance with resistance to other antibiotics in this study.
| Conclusion | | |
The study has demonstrated a higher prevalence of both MuH and MuL in MRSA isolates which is a serious challenge to the clinicians to deal with increasing problem of MRSA transmission in the hospital. This may be due to an increased prevalence of MRSA infections in the health care setup and over the counter sale of drugs. Mupirocin resistance along with MRSA resistance may enhance the spread of infections. Thus it is advisable to routinely perform nasal decolonization of health care workers to prevent spread of infections among hospitalized patients and to detect mupirocin resistance in MRSA strains isolated from the carriers so that alternative decolonization methods may be used.
| References | | |
| 1. | Joshi S, Ray P, Manchanda V, Bajaj J, Chitnis DS, Gautam V, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in India: Prevalence and susceptibility pattern. Indian J Med Res 2013;137:363-9. 
|
| 2. | Dubey D, Rath S, Sahu MC, Pattnaik L, Debata NK, Padhy RN. Surveillance of infection status of drug resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an Indian teaching hospital. Asian Pac J Trop Dis 2013;3:133-42.
|
| 3. | Kaur H, Purwar S, Saini A, Kaur H, Karadesai SG, Kholkute SD, Roy S. Status of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections and Evaluation of PVL Producing Strains in Belgaum, South India. JKIMSU 2012;1:43-51.
|
| 4. | Sivaraman K, Venkataraman N, Cole AM. Staphylococcus aureus Nasal Carriage and its Contributing Factors. Future Microbiol 2009;4:999-1008.
|
| 5. | Wertheim HF, Melles DC, Vos MC, van Leeuwen W, van Belkum A, Verbrugh HA, et al. The role of nasal carriage in Staphylococcus aureus infections. Lancet Infect Dis 2005;5:751-62.
|
| 6. | Rayner C, Munckhof WJ. Antibiotics currently used in the treatment of infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus. Intern Med J 2005;35:S3-16.
|
| 7. | Klutymans J, van Balkum A, Verbrughi H. Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: Epidemiology, underlying mechanisms and associated risk. Clin Microbiol Rev 1997;10:505-20.
|
| 8. | Graffunder EM, Venezia RA. Risk factors associated with nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection including previous use of antimicrobials. J Antimicrob Chemother 2002;49:999-1005.
|
| 9. | Rodvold KA, McConeghy KW. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus therapy: Past, present, and future. Clin Infect Dis 2014;58:S20-7.
|
| 10. | Hogue JS, Buttke P, Braun LE, Fairchok MP. Mupirocin resistance related to increasing mupirocin use in clinical isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a pediatric population. J Clin Microbiol 2010;48:2599-600.
|
| 11. | Yanagisawa T, Lee JT, Wu HC, Kawakami M. Relationship of protein structure of isoleucyl-tRNA synthetase with pseudomonic acid resistance of Escherichia coli. A proposed mode of action of pseudomonic acid as an inhibitor of isoleucyl-tRNA synthetase. J Biol Chem 1994;269:24304-9.
|
| 12. | de Oliveira NE, Cardozo AP, Marques De A, dos Santos KR, Giambiagi-deMarval M. Interpretive criteria to differentiate low- and high-level mupirocin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. J Med Microbiol 2007;56:937-9.
|
| 13. | Patel JB, Gorwitz RJ, Jernigan JB. Mupirocin resistance. Clin Infect Dis 2009;49:935-41.
|
| 14. | Hudson IR. The efficacy of intranasal mupirocin in the prevention of staphylococcal infections: A review of recent experience. J Hosp Infect 1994;27:81-98.
[PUBMED] |
| 15. | Walker ES, Vasquez JE, Dula R, Bullock H, Sarubbi FA. Mupirocin-resistant, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Does mupirocin remain effective? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:342-6.
|
| 16. | Simor AE, Phillips E, McGeer A, Konvalinka A, Loeb M, Devlin HR, et al. Randomized controlled trial of chlorhexidine gluconate for washing, intranasal mupirocin, and rifampin and doxycycline versus no treatment for the eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization. Clin Infect Dis 2007;44:178-85.
|
| 17. | Robicsek A, Beaumont JL, Thomson RB Jr, Govindarajan G, Peterson LR. Topical therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization: Impact on infection risk. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009;30:623-32.
|
| 18. | CLSI. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; Twenty-Third Informational Supplement. CLSI document M100-S23. Vol 33. Wayne: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2013. p. 74-85.
|
| 19. | Gordon RJ, Lowy FD. Pathogenesis of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46: S350-9.
|
| 20. | Hurdle JG, O Neill AJ, Mody L, Chopra I, Bradley SF. In vivo transfer of high-level mupirocin resistance from Staphylococcus epidermidis to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus associated with failure of mupirocin prophylaxis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005;56:1166-8.
|
| 21. | Arora S, Devi P, Arora U, Devi B. Prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in a tertiary care hospital in northern India. J Lab Physicians 2010;2:78-81.
[PUBMED]  |
| 22. | Singh AK, Venkatesh V, Singh M. Mupirocin resistance in clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus in a tertiary care hospital set up in north India. Int J Med Res Health Sci 2013;2:840-7.
|
| 23. | Gadepalli R, Dhawan B, Mohanty S, Kapil A, Das BK, Chaudhry R, et al. Mupirocin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus in an Indian hospital. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2007;58:125-7.
|
| 24. | Gadepalli R, Dhawan B, Mohanty S, Kapil A, Das BK, Chaudhry R. Inducible clindamycin resistance in clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus. Indian J Med Res 2006;123: 571-3.
[PUBMED] |
| 25. | Gupta V, Datta P, Rani H, Chander J. Inducible clindamycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus: A Study from North India. J Postgrad Med 2009;55:176-9.
[PUBMED] |
| 26. | Prabhu K, Rao S, Rao V. Inducible clindamycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus isolated from clinical samples. J Lab Physicians 2011;3:25-7.
[PUBMED] |
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
Increased Incidence of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Knee and Hip Prosthetic Joint Infection |
|
| Matthew Hays, Beau Kildow, Curtis Hartman, Elizabeth Lyden, Bryan Springer, Thomas Fehring, Kevin Garvin | | The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2023; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 2 |
Quality improvement study on the effectiveness of intranasal povidone-iodine decolonization on surgery patients |
|
| Eric N. Hammond, Ashley E. Kates, Nathan Putman-Buehler, Lauren Watson, Jared J. Godfrey, Colleen N. Riley, Jonah Dixon, Nicole Brys, Ambar Haleem, Michael L. Bentz, Nasia Safdar | | Infection Prevention in Practice. 2023; : 100274 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 3 |
Dissemination of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Sequence Type 764 Isolates with Mupirocin Resistance in China |
|
| Yinjuan Guo, Linling Xu, Bingjie Wang, Lulin Rao, Yanlei Xu, Xinyi Wang, Huilin Zhao, Jingyi Yu, Ying Zhou, Fangyou Yu, Kunyan Zhang | | Microbiology Spectrum. 2023; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 4 |
A quality improvement study on the relationship between intranasal povidone-iodine and anesthesia and the nasal microbiota of surgery patients |
|
| Eric N. Hammond, Ashley E. Kates, Nathan Putman-Buehler, Lauren Watson, Jared J. Godfrey, Nicole Brys, Courtney Deblois, Andrew J. Steinberger, Madison S. Cox, Joseph H. Skarlupka, Ambar Haleem, Michael L. Bentz, Garret Suen, Nasia Safdar, Rajesh P. Shastry | | PLOS ONE. 2022; 17(12): e0278699 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 5 |
Staphylococcus aureus Efflux Pumps and Tolerance to Ciprofloxacin and Chlorhexidine following Induction by Mupirocin |
|
| Q. C. Truong-Bolduc, Y. Wang, J. L. Reedy, J. M. Vyas, D. C. Hooper | | Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2022; 66(2) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 6 |
New update on molecular diversity of clinical Staphylococcus aureus isolates in Iran: antimicrobial resistance, adhesion and virulence factors, biofilm formation and SCCmec typing |
|
| Mahtab Tabandeh, Hami Kaboosi, Mojtaba Taghizadeh Armaki, Abazar Pournajaf, Fatemeh Peyravii Ghadikolaii | | Molecular Biology Reports. 2022; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 7 |
Genomic characterization of two community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with novel sequence types in Kenya |
|
| John Njenga, Justin Nyasinga, Zubair Munshi, Angela Muraya, Geoffrey Omuse, Caroline Ngugi, Gunturu Revathi | | Frontiers in Medicine. 2022; 9 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 8 |
MRSA colonization in health care professionals with varying degrees of exposure to the hospital environment and its susceptibility to mupirocin in a tertiary care centre |
|
| Shakthi R,Venkatesha D | | Indian Journal of Microbiology Research. 2021; 8(1): 71 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 9 |
Role of topical nadifloxacin as an empirical treatment in patients with skin and soft-tissue infections in India: A review and consensus |
|
| Rashmi Sarkar, Sushil Tahiliani, Amit Madan, Anil Abraham, Anil Ganjoo, Bela J. Shah, Kiran Godse, Koushik Lahiri, T. Salim, Archana Karadkhele, Snehal Muchchala, Rahul Rathod | | Cosmoderma. 2021; 1: 61 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 10 |
Antibiotic resistance pattern of Staphylococcus aureus with reference to MRSA isolates from pediatric patients |
|
| Raja Ram Gurung,Prashanna Maharjan,Ganga Gharti Chhetri | | Future Science OA. 2020; : FSO464 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 11 |
Antibiotic Susceptibility Pattern of Methicillin Sensitive and Resistant Staphylococcus aureus from Clinical Isolates in a Tertiary Care Hospital at Mathura, Western Uttar Pradesh |
|
| Kandhakumari Gandhi,Ashok Kumar Dhanvijay | | Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology. 2020; 14(1): 455 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 12 |
Predictors of Staphylococcus Aureus Nasal Colonization in Joint Arthroplasty Patients |
|
| Erik J. Stapleton,Brandon Petrone,Theofanis Zois,Vivian Papas,Nicholas Frane,Evan Green,Giles R. Scuderi | | The Journal of Knee Surgery. 2020; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 13 |
Can a nasal and skin decolonization protocol safely replace contact precautions for MRSA-colonized patients? |
|
| Jacqueline Christie,Don Wright,Jacalyn Liebowitz,Paul Stefanacci | | American Journal of Infection Control. 2020; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 14 |
Mupirocin Resistance in Coagulase Negative Staphylococcus Isolated from Rural Population - An Underestimated Threat? |
|
| Dinesh Kumar,Dakshina Bisht,Sameer Singh Faujdar | | Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences. 2020; 9(41): 3050 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 15 |
Nasal povidone-iodine implementation for preventing surgical site infections: Perspectives of surgical nurses |
|
| Eric N. Hammond,Nicole Brys,Ashley Kates,Jackson S. Musuuza,Ambar Haleem,Michael L. Bentz,Nasia Safdar,Kourosh Parham | | PLOS ONE. 2020; 15(11): e0242217 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 16 |
In vitro
antibacterial activity of plumbagin isolated from
Plumbago zeylanica
L. against methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus |
|
| H. Periasamy,S. Iswarya,N. Pavithra,S. Senthilnathan,A. Gnanamani | | Letters in Applied Microbiology. 2019; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 17 |
A review on mechanism of action, resistance, synergism, and clinical implications of mupirocin against Staphylococcus aureus |
|
| Saeed Khoshnood,Mohsen Heidary,Arezoo Asadi,Saleh Soleimani,Moloudsadat Motahar,Mohammad Savari,Morteza Saki,Mahtab Abdi | | Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy. 2019; 109: 1809 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 18 |
Antimicrobial Resistance to Agents Used for Staphylococcus aureus Decolonization: Is There a Reason for Concern? |
|
| Gregory R. Madden,Costi D. Sifri | | Current Infectious Disease Reports. 2018; 20(8) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 19 |
Low prevalence of mupirocin resistance in Staphylococcus pseudintermedius
isolates from canine pyoderma in Korea |
|
| Ji-Hyung Park,Jung-Hun Kang,Jae-Eun Hyun,Cheol-Yong Hwang | | Veterinary Dermatology. 2018; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 20 |
The effect of fennel essential oil in combination with antibiotics on Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated from carriers |
|
| Pawel Kwiatkowski,Magdalena Mnichowska-Polanowska,Agata Pruss,Helena Masiuk,Malgorzata Dzieciol,Stefania Giedrys-Kalemba,Monika Sienkiewicz | | Burns. 2017; 43(7): 1544 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 21 |
Infection Prevention Strategy in Hospitals in the Era of Community-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the Asia-Pacific Region: A Review |
|
| Sun Young Cho,Doo Ryeon Chung | | Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2017; 64(suppl_2): S82 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 22 |
Prevalence and Genetic Mechanisms of Antimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus Species: A Multicentre Report of the Indian Council of Medical Research Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network |
|
| Sunanda Rajkumar,Sujatha Sistla,Meerabai Manoharan,Madhan Sugumar,Niveditha Nagasundaram,Subhash Chandra Parija,Pallab Ray,Yamuna Devi Bakthavatchalam,Balaji Veeraraghavan,Arti Kapil,Kamini Walia,V.C. Ohri | | Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2017; 35(1): 53 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 23 |
The changing face of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus |
|
| P Kale,B Dhawan | | Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2016; 34(3): 275 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 24 |
Correlation of mupirocin resistance with biofilm production in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from surgical site infections in a tertiary centre, Egypt |
|
| Ghada I. Barakat,Yasmin M. Nabil | | Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance. 2016; 4: 16 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 25 |
Colonization by methicillin resistant staphylococci of nares and skin in healthcare workers: a pilot study in spinal surgeries |
|
| Lorenzo Drago,Laura Cappelletti,Claudio Lamartina,Pedro Berjano,Roberto Mattina,Elena De Vecchi | | Injury. 2015; 46: S77 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 26 |
Mupirocin resistant staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization among healthcare workers |
|
| Chand Wattal,Jaswinder Oberoi | | Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine. 2014; 18(11): 709 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | |
|
 |
|
|
|
Search Pubmed for