4.3 Review

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus lung infection in coronavirus disease 2019: how common?

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 149-162

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QCO.0000000000000813

关键词

coronavirus disease 2019; lung; methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; SARS-CoV-2; Staphylococcus aureus

资金

  1. Angelini
  2. Basilea
  3. Astellas
  4. Shionogi
  5. Cidara
  6. Melinta
  7. Gilead
  8. Pfizer
  9. MSD
  10. Correvio Italia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The burden of MRSA lung infection in patients with COVID-19 remains unclear due to heterogeneity in studies, but MRSA is among the most common causative agents of pulmonary infection in COVID-19 patients.
Purpose of reviewSome patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may develop pulmonary bacterial coinfection or superinfection, that could unfavorably impact their prognosis.Recent findingsThe exact burden of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) lung infection in peculiar populations such as patients with COVID-19 remains somewhat elusive, possibly because of wide heterogeneity in methods and endpoints across studies.There was important heterogeneity in the retrieved literature on the epidemiology of MRSA lung infection in patients with COVID-19, both when considering all other bacteria as the denominator (relative prevalence ranging from 2% to 29%) and when considering only S. aureus as the denominator (relative prevalence ranging from 11% to 65%). Overall, MRSA is among the most frequent causative agents of pulmonary infection in patients with COVID-19. Improving our ability to rapidly reach etiological diagnosis of bacterial lung infection in COVID-19 patients remains fundamental if we are to improve the rates of appropriate antibiotic therapy in patients with COVID-19 and concomitant/superimposed MRSA infection, at the same time avoiding antibiotic overuse in line with antimicrobial stewardship principles.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据