4.7 Article

Prediction of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus involvement in disease sites by concomitant nasal sampling

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 46, Issue 2, Pages 588-592

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01746-07

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nasal colonization with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is believed to precede disease. It is therefore reasonable to expect that testing for nasal MRSA colonization could provide guidance in the choice of empirical therapy for infections. We conducted a retrospective review of 5,779 nasal MRSA tests performed within a 24-h period before or after a clinical culture showed the growth of any organism. A positive nasal MRSA test strongly predicted MRSA involvement at a clinical site (relative risk, 12.9 times higher than in the remainder of the population; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 10.4, 16.1). Nasal MRSA colonization also strongly predicted antimicrobial resistance in other organisms. A negative nasal test was less useful; only 217 of 323 patients (67.2%; 95% CI, 61.8, 72.3) with clinical cultures involving MRSA had detectable, concomitant nasal MRSA colonization. Patients with clindamycin-susceptible MRSA infections were less likely (59%) to have nasal colonization than those with clindamycin-resistant MRSA infections (71%; P = 0.042). Patients nasally colonized with MRSA were substantially more likely to have antibiotic-resistant floras in clinical specimens, and this should be considered when initiating therapy. However, nearly a third of MRSA-infected patients were not nasally colonized, suggesting that nasal colonization need not precede disease and that a negative test for nasal colonization would not rule out MRSA disease in settings of moderate or high prevalence.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available