4.5 Article

MRSA nasal colonization burden and risk of MRSA infection

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL
Volume 41, Issue 5, Pages 405-410

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2012.07.017

Keywords

Staphylococcus aureus; Carriage quantification; Cycle threshold

Funding

  1. PHS Grant from the Clinical and Translational Science Award program, National Institutes of Health, National Center for Research Resources [UL RR025008]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization burden has been identified as a risk factor for infection. This study evaluates methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA) nasal burden, as defined by the cycle threshold (C-t) and risk of subsequent infection. Methods: In a retrospective cohort study, United States veterans were classified into 3 MRSA nasal colonization groups: noncarriers, low burden (C-t > 24 cycles), and high burden (C-t <= 24 cycles). MRSA infections were identified prospectively, and clinical information was obtained by chart review. Multivariate logistic regression assessed the association of MRSA nasal burden and risk of MRSA infection. Results: During 4-years of follow-up, 4.3% of noncarriers, 18.5% of low burden, and 17.2% of high burden developed a MRSA infection. In multivariate analysis, MRSA nasal colonization was a risk factor for MRSA infection (P = .008) with low burden (risk ratio [RR], 3.62; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.47-8.93) and high burden (RR, 2.71; 95% CI: 0.95-7.72) associated with subsequent MRSA infection when compared with noncarriers. When compared with low burden, high burden nasal carriers were not at increased risk of infection (RR, 0.75; 95% CI 0.36-1.55). Conclusion: MRSA nasal colonization was a risk factor for MRSA infection. High nasal burden of MRSA did not increase the risk of infection. Copyright (c) 2013 by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available