Fusidic Acid-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Impetigo Contagiosa and Secondarily Infected Atopic Dermatitis

Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, SE-413 45 Göteborg, Sweden.
Acta Dermato-Venereologica (Impact Factor: 4.24). 01/2010; 90(1):52-7. DOI: 10.2340/00015555-0771
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Fusidic acid-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (FRSA) has been identified as a causative agent in outbreaks of impetigo and its emergence has been associated with increased use of topical fusidic acid. The frequency of FRSA in atopic dermatitis (AD) has been less extensively investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the bacterial spectrum and frequency of FRSA in patients with impetigo or secondarily infected AD. A prospective study in our clinic in 2004 to 2008 included 38 patients with impetigo and 37 with secondarily infected AD. S. aureus was the predominant finding in all groups (bullous impetigo 92% (12/13), impetigo 76% (19/25) and secondarily infected AD 89% (33/37)). Seventy-five percent of S. aureus were fusidic acid resistant in bullous impetigo, 32% in impetigo and 6.1% in secondarily infected AD (bullous impetigo vs. AD p < 0.0001, impetigo vs. AD p < 0.05). We then performed a retrospective patient record review including all patients with impetigo or secondarily infected AD seen at the clinic during the first and last year of the prospective study. In the first year 33% (19/58) of the S. aureus isolates were fusidic acid-resistant in impetigo and 12% (5/43) in secondarily infected AD (p < 0.05). In the last year corresponding values were 24% (6/25) for impetigo and 2.2% (1/45) for AD (p < 0.01). In summary, the prospective study and the patient record review both showed higher FRSA levels in impetigo than in AD. FRSA levels were persistently low in AD. Continued restrictive use of topical fusidic acid is advised to limit an increase in FRSA levels in dermatology patients.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background From around the year 2000, Northern Europe experienced a rise in impetigo caused by Staphylococcus aureus resistant to fusidic acid. A single clone of S. aureus was found to be the bacterial pathogen involved in the impetigo outbreak in Norway, Sweden, the UK and Ireland, termed ‘the epidemic European fusidic acid-resistant impetigo clone’ (EEFIC). We have followed the incidence of impetigo during the years 2001–2012 based on all patients in general practice in the island community of Austevoll, Western Norway. We previously reported a marked decline of impetigo incidence in Austevoll, from 0.0260 cases per person-year in 2002 to 0.0038 in 2009. This article explores indications of an end to the impetigo epidemic caused by the EEFIC clone. Methods: All four general practitioners (GPs) in the community (mean population = 4400) were asked to diagnose impetigo in a uniform way and to take bacterial specimens from all impetigo cases. Phenotypic characteristics of specimen bacteria were determined for the whole period and molecular analyses were performed on isolates in the period 2008–2012. Results: We observed a further decline in incidence of impetigo in Austevoll in the study period. The proportion of fusidic acid-resistant S. aureus isolates decreased during the period 2002–2012, with a mean of 80% in the epidemic years of 2002–2004, 55% in 2005–2009, and 6% in 2010–2012. In total, 44 S. aureus isolates from impetigo were subject to molecular analyses in the period 2008–2012, and 11 were found to be related to the EEFIC. All EEFIC isolates were found in 2008–2009, with no new isolates in 2010–2012. Conclusion: There is an apparent end to the impetigo epidemic related to the EEFIC in this population in Western Norway.
    Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases 09/2014; 46(12):1-6. DOI:10.3109/00365548.2014.947317 · 1.64 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Impetigo is a common, superficial bacterial skin infection, which is most frequently encountered in children. There is no generally agreed standard therapy, and guidelines for treatment differ widely. Treatment options include many different oral and topical antibiotics as well as disinfectants. This is an updated version of the original review published in 2003. To assess the effects of treatments for impetigo, including non-pharmacological interventions and 'waiting for natural resolution'. We updated our searches of the following databases to July 2010: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 2005), EMBASE (from 2007), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched online trials registries for ongoing trials, and we handsearched the reference lists of new studies found in the updated search. Randomised controlled trials of treatments for non-bullous, bullous, primary, and secondary impetigo. Two independent authors undertook all steps in data collection. We performed quality assessments and data collection in two separate stages. We included 57 trials in the first version of this review. For this update 1 of those trials was excluded and 12 new trials were added. The total number of included trials was, thus, 68, with 5578 participants, reporting on 50 different treatments, including placebo. Most trials were in primary impetigo or did not specify this.For many of the items that were assessed for risk of bias, most studies did not provide enough information. Fifteen studies reported blinding of participants and outcome assessors.Topical antibiotic treatment showed better cure rates than placebo (pooled risk ratio (RR) 2. 24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61 to 3.13) in 6 studies with 575 participants. In 4 studies with 440 participants, there was no clear evidence that either of the most commonly studied topical antibiotics (mupirocin and fusidic acid) was more effective than the other (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11).In 10 studies with 581 participants, topical mupirocin was shown to be slightly superior to oral erythromycin (pooled RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13). There were no significant differences in cure rates from treatment with topical versus other oral antibiotics. There were, however, differences in the outcome from treatment with different oral antibiotics: penicillin was inferior to erythromycin, in 2 studies with 79 participants (pooled RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.56), and cloxacillin, in 2 studies with 166 participants (pooled RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.08).There was a lack of evidence for the benefit of using disinfectant solutions. When 2 studies with 292 participants were pooled, topical antibiotics were significantly better than disinfecting treatments (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32).The reported number of side-effects was low, and most of these were mild. Side-effects were more common for oral antibiotic treatment compared to topical treatment. Gastrointestinal effects accounted for most of the difference.Worldwide, bacteria causing impetigo show growing resistance rates for commonly used antibiotics. For a newly developed topical treatment, retapamulin, no resistance has yet been reported. There is good evidence that topical mupirocin and topical fusidic acid are equally, or more, effective than oral treatment. Due to the lack of studies in people with extensive impetigo, it is unclear if oral antibiotics are superior to topical antibiotics in this group. Fusidic acid and mupirocin are of similar efficacy. Penicillin was not as effective as most other antibiotics. There is a lack of evidence to support disinfection measures to manage impetigo.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2012; 1(1):CD003261. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD003261.pub3 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Miconazole (MCZ) is a time-honored antifungal of the imidazole class. MCZ exerts a multipronged effect on fungi. It inhibits the cytochrome P450 complex, including the 14α-demethylase enzyme required for ergosterol biosynthesis, in fungal cell membranes. In addition, intracellular accumulation of toxic methylated sterols occurs and the synthesis of triglycerides and phospholipids is altered. Disturbances in oxidative and peroxidative enzyme activities lead to an intracellular toxic concentration of hydrogen peroxide. As a result, intracellular organelle destruction then leads to cell necrosis. Farnesol synthesis stimulated in Candida spp. prevents the yeast-to-mycelium formation. MCZ is further active against Gram-positive bacteria. AREAS COVERED: This review aims at revisiting the MCZ antifungal activity in dermatomycoses. EXPERT OPINION: MCZ's wide spectrum of activity appears noteworthy. The full pharmacological profile of MCZ indicates its fungistatic profile through its effect on ergosterol biosynthesis. In addition, it exhibits a fungicidal effect against a number of fungal species, due to hydrogen peroxide accumulation. MCZ is characterized by high safety, efficacy and versatility, and a unique, multifaceted nature of activity in the treatment of dermatomycoses.
    Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy 05/2012; 13(8):1187-94. DOI:10.1517/14656566.2012.687047 · 3.09 Impact Factor


1 Download
Available from