Clearance of Nasal Staphylococcus aureus Colonization With Triple Antibiotic Ointment
December 2012 | Volume 11 | Issue 12 | Original Article | 1490 | Copyright © 2012
Elizabeth M. Grossman MD MBA,a Shivani Nanda BS,a Jennifer R.S. Gordon MD,a Meghan Dubina MD,aAlfred W. Rademaker PhD,b Dennis P. West PhD,a and Peter A. Lio MDa
aDepartment of Dermatology and bDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
Background: The prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus colonization of healthcare workers is reported at 30%, with colonization rates for
methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA) reported between 2.0% and 8.5% among industrialized nations. The anterior nares are the most
frequent colonization site. Mupirocin is the standard of care for nasal S aureus decolonization, with decolonization rates as high as 90%.
Staphyloccocal resistance to mupirocin has been described, requiring additional management strategies. In certain situations, triple antibiotic
ointment (TAO) may be a suitable alternative for elimination of nasal S aureus colonization.
Observations: Adult healthcare workers within an academic-centered hospital (n=216) were screened via nasal swab with culture for S aureus colonization. Forty-five subjects (20.8%) screened positive for S aureus; of these subjects, 3 (1.4%) were positive for MRSA. Of the 45 subjects with positive cultures, 30 completed 5 days of twice-daily intranasal TAO application. One week after treatment, all 30 subjects were reswabbed; 16 (53.3%) showed evidence of decolonization on repeat culture.
Conclusions: The rate of S aureus colonization of healthcare workers in our study is lower than published rates in industrialized nations. Intranasal application of TAO may be a viable option for eradication of nasal colonization by methicillin-susceptible S aureus in environments where mupirocin-resistant bacterial strains become more prevalent.
J Drugs Dermatol. 2012;11(12):1490-1492.
Purchase Original Article
Purchase a single fully formatted PDF of the original manuscript as it was published in the JDD.
Download the original manuscript as it was published in the JDD.
Contact a member of the JDD Sales Team to request a quote or purchase bulk reprints, e-prints or international translation requests.
To get access to JDD's full-text articles and archives, upgrade here.
Save an unformatted copy of this article for on-screen viewing.
Print the full-text of article as it appears on the JDD site.→ proceed | ↑ close
Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated disease characterized by red papules and plaques with a silver scale, and it affects 0.6% to 4.8% of the world population and approximately 2.2% of the US population.1-3 Psoriasis has a significant impact on patients’ quality of life and is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, and cancer.1 Moderate to severe psoriatic disease usually requires phototherapy or systemic therapy, including biologic agents such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors.
Although TNF-α inhibitors are effective and commonly used in treating psoriasis, drug safety is a consistent, long-term concern for physicians prescribing these drugs.4 One of the key safety concerns about TNF-α inhibitors is the risk of overall infection or serious infection, especially tuberculosis (TB). The majority of available information regarding this safety concern is from the patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and Crohn’s disease. Evidence from observational studies, surveillance reports, and systemic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials suggests increased risks of infection and serious infection in patients with RA.5-10 Whether we can draw the same conclusion in the psoriatic population is uncertain. Patients with psoriasis are usually treated with monotherapy rather than concomitant immunosuppressive agents, such as methotrexate and prednisone. Patients with psoriasis also have different comorbidities and may be a generally healthier patient population than the RA population. RA itself is a risk factor for infectious diseases, whereas this is not thought to be the case for psoriasis. Therefore, infection rates in RA cannot be generalized to the psoriatic population without further investigation.
Because of the limited evidence in patients with psoriasis, it is still controversial as to whether or not TNF-α inhibitors increase the risk of infection or serious infection in treating psoriasis. This systemic review discusses the mechanism of TNF-α inhibitors and different types of serious infection associated with them,11-27 current evidence in the psoriatic population,28-38 and implications for future research.
TNF-α and TNF-α Inhibitors
TNF-α is a proinflammatory cytokine that mediates inflammation and immune functions.11 TNF-α is involved in a variety of immunological and physiologic processes, such as the recruitment of inflammatory cells to the sites of infection, cell activation, maintenance and formation of granulomas, and the induction of cytokines and adhesion molecules.11,12 TNF-α inhibitors block these processes, which results in reducing the expression of pattern-recognition receptors, decreasing the production of interferon α, increasing monocyte apoptosis, and the deterioration of granulomas.11 Overall, TNF-α inhibitors intervene in the host’s immune resistance against several infectious microorganisms such as Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Listeria monocytogenes, and Pneumocystis jiroveci. This is why there is particular concern about the increasing risk of infection—especially TB—associated with the use of TNF-α inhibitors. This article focuses on the 3 most commonly used TNF-α inhibitors for treating moderate to severe psoriasis: adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab. These 3 drugs have been approved to treat psoriasis in the United States, the European Union, and other regions.13