Publication:
Impact of mupirocin resistance on the transmission and control of healthcare-associated MRSA

dc.contributor.authorSarah R. Deenyen_US
dc.contributor.authorColin J. Worbyen_US
dc.contributor.authorOlga Tosas Augueten_US
dc.contributor.authorBen S. Cooperen_US
dc.contributor.authorJonathan Edgeworthen_US
dc.contributor.authorBarry Cooksonen_US
dc.contributor.authorJulie V. Robothamen_US
dc.contributor.otherPublic Health Englanden_US
dc.contributor.otherHarvard School of Public Healthen_US
dc.contributor.otherGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trusten_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Oxforden_US
dc.contributor.otherUCLen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-23T10:30:25Z
dc.date.available2018-11-23T10:30:25Z
dc.date.issued2015-12-01en_US
dc.description.abstract© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to estimate the relative transmissibility of mupirocin-resistant (MupR) and mupirocin-susceptible (MupS) MRSA strains and evaluate the long-term impact of MupR on MRSA control policies.METHODS: Parameters describing MupR and MupS strains were estimated using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods applied to data from two London teaching hospitals. These estimates parameterized a model used to evaluate the long-term impact of MupR on three mupirocin usage policies: 'clinical cases', 'screen and treat' and 'universal'. Strategies were assessed in terms of colonized and infected patient days and scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed.RESULTS: The transmission probability of a MupS strain was 2.16 (95% CI 1.38-2.94) times that of a MupR strain in the absence of mupirocin usage. The total prevalence of MupR in colonized and infected MRSA patients after 5 years of simulation was 9.1% (95% CI 8.7%-9.6%) with the 'screen and treat' mupirocin policy, increasing to 21.3% (95% CI 20.9%-21.7%) with 'universal' mupirocin use. The prevalence of MupR increased in 50%-75% of simulations with 'universal' usage and >10% of simulations with 'screen and treat' usage in scenarios where MupS had a higher transmission probability than MupR.CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide evidence from a clinical setting of a fitness cost associated with MupR in MRSA strains. This provides a plausible explanation for the low levels of mupirocin resistance seen following 'screen and treat' mupirocin usage. From our simulations, even under conservative estimates of relative transmissibility, we see long-term increases in the prevalence of MupR given 'universal' use.en_US
dc.identifier.citationThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy. Vol.70, No.12 (2015), 3366-3378en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/jac/dkv249en_US
dc.identifier.issn14602091en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-84949574795en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/36245
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84949574795&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleImpact of mupirocin resistance on the transmission and control of healthcare-associated MRSAen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84949574795&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections