↓ Skip to main content

The Effect of Exit-Site Antibacterial Honey versus Nasal Mupirocin Prophylaxis on the Microbiology and Outcomes of Peritoneal Dialysis-Associated Peritonitis and Exit-Site Infections: A Sub-Study of…

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Peritoneal Dialysis, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Effect of Exit-Site Antibacterial Honey versus Nasal Mupirocin Prophylaxis on the Microbiology and Outcomes of Peritoneal Dialysis-Associated Peritonitis and Exit-Site Infections: A Sub-Study of the Honeypot Trial
Published in
Advances in Peritoneal Dialysis, November 2015
DOI 10.3747/pdi.2014.00206
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lei Zhang, Sunil V. Badve, Elaine M. Pascoe, Elaine Beller, Alan Cass, Carolyn Clark, Janak de Zoysa, Nicole M. Isbel, Steven McTaggart, Alicia T. Morrish, E. Geoffrey Playford, Anish Scaria, Paul Snelling, Liza A. Vergara, Carmel M. Hawley, David W. Johnson

Abstract

♦ Background: The HONEYPOT study recently reported that daily exit-site application of antibacterial honey was not superior to nasal mupirocin prophylaxis for preventing overall peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infection. This paper reports a secondary outcome analysis of the HONEYPOT study with respect to exit-site infection (ESI) and peritonitis microbiology, infectious hospitalization and technique failure. ♦ Methods: A total of 371 PD patients were randomized to daily exit-site application of antibacterial honey plus usual exit-site care (N = 186) or intranasal mupirocin prophylaxis (in nasal Staphylococcus aureus carriers only) plus usual exit-site care (control, N = 185). Groups were compared on rates of organism-specific ESI and peritonitis, peritonitis- and infection-associated hospitalization, and technique failure (PD withdrawal). ♦ Results: The mean peritonitis rates in the honey and control groups were 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32 - 0.50) and 0.41 (95% CI 0.33 - 0.49) episodes per patient-year, respectively (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.01, 95% CI 0.75 - 1.35). When specific causative organisms were examined, no differences were observed between the groups for gram-positive (IRR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 - 1.49), gram-negative (IRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.39 - 1.29), culture-negative (IRR 2.01, 95% CI 0.91 - 4.42), or polymicrobial peritonitis (IRR 1.08, 95% CI 0.36 - 3.20). Exit-site infection rates were 0.37 (95% CI 0.28 - 0.45) and 0.33 (95% CI 0.26 - 0.40) episodes per patient-year for the honey and control groups, respectively (IRR 1.12, 95% CI 0.81 - 1.53). No significant differences were observed between the groups for gram-positive (IRR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70 - 1.72), gram-negative (IRR: 0.85, 95% CI 0.46 - 1.58), culture-negative (IRR 1.88, 95% CI 0.67 - 5.29), or polymicrobial ESI (IRR 1.00, 95% CI 0.40 - 2.54). Times to first peritonitis-associated and first infection-associated hospitalization were similar in the honey and control groups. The rates of technique failure (PD withdrawal) due to PD-related infection were not significantly different between the groups. ♦ Conclusion: Compared with standard nasal mupirocin prophylaxis, daily topical exit-site application of antibacterial honey resulted in comparable rates of organism-specific peritonitis and ESI, infection-associated hospitalization, and infection-associated technique failure in PD patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Other 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 17 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 21 36%