Staphylococcus AureusNCT00304902
Chart Review of Outcome of Treatment for S. Aureus Bacteremia
An observational study of Staphylococcus Aureus, run by Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The purpose of this study is to review medical records at MEDVAMC in order to relate the outcome of bacteremic MRSA infection to the antibiotics selected for treatment. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 64 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Staphylococcus Aureus
- How many people
- 120 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Feb 2006to Aug 2010
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 64 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Study population: All patients with Staphylococcus aureus in a blood culture.
Who may be able to join
- Patients with Staphylococcus aureus in a blood culture between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2005.
Who cannot join
- None
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center
Houston, Texas, 77030
About this study
Official title: Retrospective Chart Review of the Outcome of Treatment for Staphylococcus Aureus Bacteremia
The purpose of this study is to review medical records at MEDVAMC in order to relate the outcome of bacteremic MRSA infection to the antibiotics selected for treatment.
Read the detailed description
Treatment of bacteremic infection (infection associated with positive blood cultures) due to Staphylococcus aureus has become increasingly problematic as a result of the increasing prevalence of strains that are resistant to beta-lactam antibiotics (so-called methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MRSA). About 70% of hospital-related strains of S. aureus are MRSA, and, in the past 4 years, the incidence of MRSA in community-acquired infection has risen to about 50%; these data are quite representative of what is being seen elsewhere in the United States and other parts of the world.
Bacteremic MRSA infections are highly problematic for at least two reasons: (1)they are serious, with substantial morbidity and about a 25% rate of mortality in middle-aged adults, the principal patients in our system; and (2)available antibiotic therapy is suboptimal.
In the pre-MRSA era (before 1982 in the United States), treatment of bacteremic S. aureus infection with a beta-lactam antibiotic such as nafcillin produced a uniform microbiological cure (Musher DM, McKenzie SO: Infections due to Staphylococcus aureus. Medicine 56:383-409, 1977). This means that, in the absence of an untreated focus of infection that required surgical removal (such as a myocardial abscess), antibiotics rapidly sterilized the blood stream. This does not mean that no one died; deaths from complications of infection remained common. But, at autopsy, there was generally no evidence for active infection. Extensive literature examined the question of whether gentamicin should be added to nafcillin to treat this kind of disease (reviewed critically in DM, Verner EF: Treatment of Infections due to Staphylococcus aureus. IN The Staphylococci, Ed. by J Jeljascewicz, Gustave Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, New York, pp.407-419, 1986). Gentamicin produced a synergistic bactericidal effect agains S. aureus in vitro and in animal models. In humans, the addition of gentamicin was associated with more rapid sterilization of the blood stream, but prolonged gentamicin therapy was also associated with nephrotoxicity.
In contrast, in the MRSA era, treatment with vancomycin is associated with persistence of bacteremia (positive blood cultures) and death from active infection. The investigators have recently participated in a prospective observational study that documented the association between vancomycin treatment, persistently positive blood cultures, and persistence of active infection during treatment of S. aureus bacteremia with vancomycin (Chang F-Y, McDonald BB, Peacock, Jr. JE, Musher DM, et al. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: recurrence and the impact of antibiotic treatment in a prospective multicenter study. Medicine 82:333-339, 2003).
There appears to be a very close correlation between the outcome of treatment for serious S. aureus infection and the bactericidal activity of the treating antibiotic in vitro using conventional techniques (Musher DM, Verner EF: Treatment of infections due to Staphylococcus aureus. IN The Staphylococci, Ed. by J Jeljascewicz, Gustave Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, New York, pp.407-419, 1986). We recently showed that adding low concentrations of gentamicin to vancomycin led to substantial synergistic bactericidal activity against MRSA (Shelburne SA, Musher DM, Hulten K, Ceasar H, Lu MY, Bhaila I, Hamill RJ. In-vitro killing of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with drug combinations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 48:4016-9, 2004).
Based in part on the analogy of nafcillin for treating methicillin-susceptible S. aureus infection, and in part of in vitro studies such as ours (cited above), some physicians regularly add gentamicin to vancomycin for treating MRSA infection. Others, without even the in vitro support, add rifampin either instead of gentamicin or together with gentamicin. There are no clinical studies to support or to refute any of these clinically motivated usages.
Thus, at present, about one-third of patients with MRSA bacteremia at VAMC are treated with vacomycin plus gentamicin, and two-thirds receive vancomycin alone; some in each group receive rifampin. The decisionto add gentamicin is made a haphazard fashion, generally reflecting the interpretation of the literature by the attending physician and/or the residents.
Our proposal is, simply to systematically review records from the past two years in order to relate treatment of MRSA bacteremic infection to outcome.
- Conditions
- Staphylococcus Aureus
- Keywords
- MRSA, Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia
- Medical subject headings
- Staphylococcal Infections
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted20 Mar 2006 (estimated)
- Study startFeb 2006
- Primary completionJul 2010
- Study completionAug 2010
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Staphylococcus AureusStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Ecologic or community
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Enrolment
- 120 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center
- Sponsor type
- US federal agency
- Collaborators
- Baylor College of Medicine
- Investigators
- Daniel M Musher, M.D., Principal investigator, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston VA Medical Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00304902
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- H-18867
- Status last verified
- Sep 2010
- First submitted
- 16 Mar 2006
- Last updated
- 10 Sep 2010
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 10 Sep 2010. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Retrospective Chart Review of the Outcome of Treatment for Staphylococcus Aureus Bacteremia
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00304902
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- H-18867
- Conditions
- Staphylococcus Aureus
- Keywords
- MRSA, Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 120 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical CenterUS federal agency
- Collaborators
- Baylor College of Medicine
- Study start
- Feb 2006
- Primary completion
- Jul 2010 (actual)
- Study completion
- Aug 2010 (actual)
- First posted
- 20 Mar 2006 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of this study is to review medical records at MEDVAMC in order to relate the outcome of bacteremic MRSA infection to the antibiotics selected for treatment.
Detailed description
Treatment of bacteremic infection (infection associated with positive blood cultures) due to Staphylococcus aureus has become increasingly problematic as a result of the increasing prevalence of strains that are resistant to beta-lactam antibiotics (so-called methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MRSA). About 70% of hospital-related strains of S. aureus are MRSA, and, in the past 4 years, the incidence of MRSA in community-acquired infection has risen to about 50%; these data are quite representative of what is being seen elsewhere in the United States and other parts of the world.
Bacteremic MRSA infections are highly problematic for at least two reasons: (1)they are serious, with substantial morbidity and about a 25% rate of mortality in middle-aged adults, the principal patients in our system; and (2)available antibiotic therapy is suboptimal.
In the pre-MRSA era (before 1982 in the United States), treatment of bacteremic S. aureus infection with a beta-lactam antibiotic such as nafcillin produced a uniform microbiological cure (Musher DM, McKenzie SO: Infections due to Staphylococcus aureus. Medicine 56:383-409, 1977). This means that, in the absence of an untreated focus of infection that required surgical removal (such as a myocardial abscess), antibiotics rapidly sterilized the blood stream. This does not mean that no one died; deaths from complications of infection remained common. But, at autopsy, there was generally no evidence for active infection. Extensive literature examined the question of whether gentamicin should be added to nafcillin to treat this kind of disease (reviewed critically in DM, Verner EF: Treatment of Infections due to Staphylococcus aureus. IN The Staphylococci, Ed. by J Jeljascewicz, Gustave Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, New York, pp.407-419, 1986). Gentamicin produced a synergistic bactericidal effect agains S. aureus in vitro and in animal models. In humans, the addition of gentamicin was associated with more rapid sterilization of the blood stream, but prolonged gentamicin therapy was also associated with nephrotoxicity.
In contrast, in the MRSA era, treatment with vancomycin is associated with persistence of bacteremia (positive blood cultures) and death from active infection. The investigators have recently participated in a prospective observational study that documented the association between vancomycin treatment, persistently positive blood cultures, and persistence of active infection during treatment of S. aureus bacteremia with vancomycin (Chang F-Y, McDonald BB, Peacock, Jr. JE, Musher DM, et al. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: recurrence and the impact of antibiotic treatment in a prospective multicenter study. Medicine 82:333-339, 2003).
There appears to be a very close correlation between the outcome of treatment for serious S. aureus infection and the bactericidal activity of the treating antibiotic in vitro using conventional techniques (Musher DM, Verner EF: Treatment of infections due to Staphylococcus aureus. IN The Staphylococci, Ed. by J Jeljascewicz, Gustave Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, New York, pp.407-419, 1986). We recently showed that adding low concentrations of gentamicin to vancomycin led to substantial synergistic bactericidal activity against MRSA (Shelburne SA, Musher DM, Hulten K, Ceasar H, Lu MY, Bhaila I, Hamill RJ. In-vitro killing of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with drug combinations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 48:4016-9, 2004).
Based in part on the analogy of nafcillin for treating methicillin-susceptible S. aureus infection, and in part of in vitro studies such as ours (cited above), some physicians regularly add gentamicin to vancomycin for treating MRSA infection. Others, without even the in vitro support, add rifampin either instead of gentamicin or together with gentamicin. There are no clinical studies to support or to refute any of these clinically motivated usages.
Thus, at present, about one-third of patients with MRSA bacteremia at VAMC are treated with vacomycin plus gentamicin, and two-thirds receive vancomycin alone; some in each group receive rifampin. The decisionto add gentamicin is made a haphazard fashion, generally reflecting the interpretation of the literature by the attending physician and/or the residents.
Our proposal is, simply to systematically review records from the past two years in order to relate treatment of MRSA bacteremic infection to outcome.
Study design
- Observational model
- Ecologic or community
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 64 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
- Study population
- All patients with Staphylococcus aureus in a blood culture.
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients with Staphylococcus aureus in a blood culture between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2005.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- None
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Not reported in the source record.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 10 Sep 2010.
Related trials for Staphylococcus Aureus
RecruitingObservational study
Study of the Nasal Intracellular Reservoir of Staphylococcus Aureus in Patients With S. Aureus Bacteremia
Bacteria Infection Mechanism
Not yet recruiting
Farm-originated Antimicrobial Resistance Modeling: Exploring Humans-to-Animal Dissemination
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Colonization
RecruitingPhase 2
Combination Cefazolin With Ertapenem for Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus Aureus Bacteremia
Staphylococcus Aureus Bacteremia, Staphylococcus Aureus Septicemia
Active, not recruitingPhase 1/2
A Study to Evaluate AZD7760 Safety and Pharmacokinetics in Healthy Adults (Phase I) and Adults With End-stage Kidney Disease on Hemodialysis With a Central Venous Catheter (Phase IIa)
Staphylococcus Aureus
Not yet recruiting
Bacterial Decolonization to Prevent Severe Radiation Dermatitis in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma
HNSCC
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Daniel M Musher, M.D. principal investigator
Baylor College of Medicine, Houston VA Medical Center
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Staphylococcus Aureus, run by Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 10 Sep 2010. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 10 Sep 2010.