AzTrials
AzTrials

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.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

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

Other trials in United States

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.

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.

  1. First posted20 Mar 2006 (estimated)
  2. Study startFeb 2006
  3. Primary completionJul 2010
  4. Study completionAug 2010

Resources

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)
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

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.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in