4.7 Article

Predictors of Clinical Virulence in Community-Onset Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections: The Importance of USA300 and Pneumonia

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 53, 期 8, 页码 757-765

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cid/cir472

关键词

-

资金

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [1 U01 CI000334-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Though USA300 community-onset methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CO-MRSA) has emerged as a major public health concern in the United States, its relative virulence is unknown. We sought to evaluate if the USA300 strain of CO-MRSA causes more severe infections than other MRSA (ie, USA100, -500, -800, and others) strains. Methods. An epidemiologic study was conducted from 2000 to 2007 to measure rates of severe infection. A matched case-control study was conducted from 2004 to 2006 to assess the relationship of strain type, syndrome, and severity of infection. Severe illness was defined as CO-MRSA infections with medical intensive care unit (MICU) admission or death within 1 week of admission. Controls were those with CO-MRSA infection without MICU admission. Results. We found an incidence of 75 cases per 100 000 people of CO-MRSA infection in 2000, which increased to a rate of 396 per 100 000 in 2007 (relative risk [RR], 5.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.47-6.27). The incidence of severe infections increased from 5 cases per 100 000 in 2000 to 17 per 100 000 in 2007 (RR, 3.4; 95% CI; 1.67-6.43). USA300 strains were negatively associated with severe clinical courses or death as compared with other MRSA strain types. The highest risk of severe infection was found in those with pulmonary embolic infiltrates and bacteremia in the setting of USA300 infection (odds ratio, 31.41; 95% CI, 6.40-154.23). Conclusions. Our findings suggest that USA300 infections are negatively associated with severe clinical courses, suggesting less virulence than other MRSA strains, except in the setting of pneumonia with septic pulmonary emboli.

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