| Title |
Co-Therapy Using Lytic Bacteriophage and Linezolid: Effective Treatment in Eliminating Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from Diabetic Foot Infections
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0056022 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sanjay Chhibber, Tarsem Kaur, Sandeep Kaur |
| Abstract |
Staphylococcus aureus remains the predominant pathogen in diabetic foot infections and prevalence of methicillin resistant S.aureus (MRSA) strains further complicates the situation. The incidence of MRSA in infected foot ulcers is 15-30% and there is an alarming trend for its increase in many countries. Diabetes acts as an immunosuppressive state decreasing the overall immune functioning of body and to worsen the situation, wounds inflicted with drug resistant strains represent a morbid combination in diabetic patients. Foot infections caused by MRSA are associated with an increased risk of amputations, increased hospital stay, increased expenses and higher infection-related mortality. Hence, newer, safer and effective treatment strategies are required for treating MRSA mediated diabetic foot infections. The present study focuses on the use of lytic bacteriophage in combination with linezolid as an effective treatment strategy against foot infection in diabetic population. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 284 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nepal | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 280 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 41 | 14% |
| Researcher | 38 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 36 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 35 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 5% |
| Other | 50 | 18% |
| Unknown | 71 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 53 | 19% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 46 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 35 | 12% |
| Engineering | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 26 | 9% |
| Unknown | 82 | 29% |