MRSA

hi everyone

came across this while reading 'the mirror' yesterday, thought it was pretty interesting

LINK

apparently, research has been carried out at Heriot-Watt University, in Edinburgh, and an antibiotic strong enough to destroy the MRSA bug has been discovered/created.

it goes on to say that an antibiotic this powerful clearly has some potential

If this is true, it sounds like the solution for the UK hospitals MRSA problem hopefully.

would be interesting to hear what other ATS members think of the 'clear potential' of this antibiotic, as quoted from professor Brian Austin.

Hey Brian

We only have problems with antiobiotic resistance because people have been handing them out like sweeties for the past fifty years. I was overjoyed to hear that we are still shovelling huge amounts of antibiotics into intensively farmed animals to keep their weight up, MRSA notwithstanding.

Develop a new antibiotic and you'll develop an antiobiotic resistant microbe, as sure as eggs is eggs. That said, if people keep this new drug restricted and 'last resort' (once it has passed clinical trials), then you might keep it useful.

I still worry that bacteria, and their associated plasmids are just that bit more adaptable than us!

Cheers and happy new year

TD

My parents and I have all had MRSA. My mother was in a medication induced coma for a couple of weeks, due to her severe illness. While she was under, they used an IV antibiotic on the MRSA that works really well. The only problem is that it has to go in for 96 hours, which comes out to 4 bags of IV fluid, and each bag is $10,000. If the first treatment doesn't work, they wait 72 hours, and then give it again.

MRSA can already be treated with Vancomyacin in severe cases. If proper regime and doseage is given it will take care of it. Septra and Clindamyacin also work as well.

The concern is Staph Aureous (The SA in MRSA) that is resistant to heavy hitters such as Vancomyacin

MRSA is completely blown out of proportion by the UK media. It is estimated that approx 30% of the population are colonised with S.aureous of some description. The fact that the form is methacillin resistant is neither here nor there. Colonisation per-say is not a problem. S.aureous is only a problem if it enters the blood stream. It then simply increases the cost of treatment by increasing lenght of hospital stays. The best form of defence against MRSA in the secondary care environment is by using good hand hygene among healthcare workers. Keep the infection out of wounds by using aseptic technique during dressing changes and treat known colonisations using undiluted Hibi-scrub (sp) as a soap. If there is a blood infection, then treat using IV Clindamyacin. No dramas.

The biggest problem with MRSA is the community environment. Think about it. MRSA lives in dusty dry environments. People tend to be colonised with these bugs for a long time before it is found. By this stage it is already all over their house. They come into hospital, get treated, get sent home and then get re-colonised by the dust on their sofa. Antibiotic treatments will get rid of the blood-borne infection, but if colonisation is not addressed then the next time the patient gets a wound they are back to square one.

drug against mrsa had been discovered and had been in market for long ago it was Vancomycin .....the reason that vancomycin isnt used in REGULAR practice are

1 vancomycin was considered by some to be the last line of defense against some multi antibiotic resistant strains like MRSA , C Defficle, E Fecalis , E Fecum etc ....so the use was limited in order to prevent development of resistance to such drugs ......but in some underdeveloped countries like india , pakistan bangladesh the medical system wasnt that strict and doctors for their business means started using last /second last lines of defense as their first line of defense ...this eventually led to development of resistance durgs like vancomycin

2 vancomycin is considered to be a very toxic drug ...its side effects include s nephro toxicity , neuro muscular blockage , grey baby syndrome(may be fatal) along with general sideeffects like :
sore throat, fever, chills, and other signs of infection
hives
skin rash
itching
difficulty breathing or swallowing
redness of the skin above the waist
pain and muscle tightness of the chest and back
unusual bleeding or bruising
fainting
dizziness
blurred vision
ringing in the ears


due to development of this resistance to vancomycin today we have 2 lines of defense in normal practice

cindamycin .....its the brodest sprectrum of antibiotic available and has been reported to have been effective against vancomycin resistant s aurius ....but there are some reasons that i (at present i am undergoing my medicine rotations ) and my department dont like clindamycin

1 it may cause/predespose pseudomembranous colitis .(caused by c defficle ) and that c defficle may be resistant to vancomycin ....then we will have a situation in which we have even lost our last weapon (ie vancomycin ) ...prevention is better than cure

2 clindamycin is a very expensive drug and we have another choice (linezolid, see below ) that is equally /even more effective and comes at a very less price compared to clindamycin

3 clindamycin is a bacteriostatic (it stops the growth but cant killl the bacteria ) drug instead of being bacteriocidal (kills the bacteria )...like vancomycin and linezolid

so when we have vancomycin resistant mrsa we prefer
LINEZOLID (Zyvox ) in russia
the plus points are
1 more efficacy
2 less sideeffect (it has shown to have only few general side effects like headache diarrhoea that any drug may have )
3 less price

i dont find the logic behind the use of clindamycin in some of the US clinics as one of the posters have mentioned