4.7 Review

Surveillance and epidemiology of MRSA bacteraemia in the UK

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 56, 期 3, 页码 455-462

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dki266

关键词

nosocomial infections; Staphylococcus aureus; antibiotic resistance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Surveillance of bacteraemia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in the UK has involved collection of data from hospital microbiology laboratories via several mechanisms, including a voluntary reporting scheme that has been operational in England and Wales since 1989 and mandatory reporting schemes that have been running independently in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland since 2001. In addition, surveillance schemes involving panels of participating sentinel laboratories that submit isolates for centralized susceptibility testing, such as the Bacteraemia Resistance Surveillance Programme run by the BSAC, have also been established. Each of these data sources have particular advantages, but they also have their individual limitations, with the result that they each give an incomplete picture if considered in isolation. However, by pooling the findings from these different but complementary surveillance programmes, a much more comprehensive and credible picture of the problem posed by MRSA is produced. These schemes have shown both a dramatic rise in the total numbers of cases of S. aureus bacteraemia reported annually and an increase in the proportion of such cases that involve MRSA (from 2% in 1990 to > 40% in the early 2000s), although the most recent data indicate a slight reversal of these trends. Characterization of isolates of MRSA shows a marked temporal relationship between the rise in MRSA bacteraemias and the emergence and spread of two strains of epidemic MRSA, EMRSA-15 and EMRSA-16. Surveillance and control of MRSA infection continue to be high profile and further developments to the mandatory surveillance system in England are likely in the near future.

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

4.7
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