Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol.
Sec. Biofilms
Volume 14 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2024.1501360
This article is part of the Research Topic Controlling Biofilm-Related Infections in Healthcare Settings View all 7 articles

The Efficacy of a Nitric Oxide-Releasing Intranasal formulation on Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infected Wounds

Provisionally accepted
Stephen C Davis Stephen C Davis *Joel Gil Joel Gil *Michael Solis Michael Solis *Ryan Strong Ryan Strong *
  • University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine. Dr. Phillip Frost Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery, MIAMI, United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    The colonization of Staphylococcus aureus (SA) acquired in nosocomial infections may develop acute and chronic infections such as Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in the nose. As a commensal microorganism with the ability to form a biofilm, SA can dwell on the skin, nostrils, throat, perineum, and axillae of healthy humans. Nitric oxide (NO) is an unstable gas with various molecular functions and has antimicrobial properties which are converted into many potential treatments.Methods: Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus MRSA BAA1686 isolated from nasal infection was used in a porcine wound infection model. Deep partial-thickness wounds (10mm x 7mm x 0.5mm) were made on three animals using a specialized electrokeratome. All wounds were inoculated and then covered with polyurethane film dressings for biofilm formation. After 48 hours, three wounds were recovered from each animal for baseline enumeration. The remaining wounds were randomly assigned to six treatment groups and treated once daily. The treatment groups are as follows: NO topical ointments concentrations of 0.3, 0.9 and 1.8%, Vehicle Ointment, Mupirocin 2%, and Untreated Control. Microbiological recoveries were conducted on day 4 and day 7.The greatest efficacy observed from the NO formulations against MRSA BAA1686 was the 1.8% concentration. This agent was able to reduce more than 99% of bacterial counts when compared to Baseline, Vehicle Ointment, and Untreated Control wounds on both assessment days.Mupirocin 2% was the overall best treatment against MRSA BAA1686 on both assessment days, with a significant reduction (p≤0.05) of 4.70±0.13 Log CFU/mL from day 4 to day 7.Overall, the positive control Mupirocin 2% was the most effective in eliminating MRSA BAA1686 throughout the study. This experiment demonstrated a downward trend from the highest concentration of NO topical ointment formulations to the lowest concentrations on both assessment days (0.3% -1.8%). Out of all NO topical ointments, the highest concentration (1.8%) was the most effective with the potential to be an alternative treatment against a MRSA nasal strain biofilm.

    Keywords: Nitric Oxide, Intranasal gel, Biofilm, Nasal infection, Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Porcine wound model

    Received: 24 Sep 2024; Accepted: 11 Nov 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Davis, Gil, Solis and Strong. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence:
    Stephen C Davis, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine. Dr. Phillip Frost Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery, MIAMI, United States
    Joel Gil, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine. Dr. Phillip Frost Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery, MIAMI, United States
    Michael Solis, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine. Dr. Phillip Frost Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery, MIAMI, United States
    Ryan Strong, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine. Dr. Phillip Frost Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery, MIAMI, United States

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.