BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has dramatically changed over the last decade by the emergence of community-associated MRSA (CA-MRSA). Recent studies indicate that these strains have already spread to hospitals. To evaluate if SCCmec type IV and Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) are unambiguous markers of CA-MRSA, we analyzed 77 sporadic MRSA strains isolated, in our low MRSA incidence university hospital, from inpatients between 2000 and 2004. METHODS: MRSA strains were analyzed by staphylococcal cassette chromosome mmecec (SCCmec) typing, PCR for PVL genes and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). MRSA was classified in HA-MRSA or CA-MRSA according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using microbroth dilution method following CLSI recommendations. RESULTS: Among 77 sporadic single-patient strains, SCCmec types I-IV and four subtypes were identified. Type IV/IVA was most common (42.9%).The distribution of SCCmec types changed over the years. Type IV/IVA strains increased from 33.3% in 2000 to 57.9% in 2004. Type IV strains were resistant to ciprofloxacin in 81.8%, and in 9.1% to tobramycin while type IVA strains were 100% resistant to both antimicrobials. In contrast, non-type IV/IVA strains were resistant to ciprofloxacin in 86.4%, and in 75.0% to tobramycin. Only one strain was PVL positive and harbored SCCmec type III variant. By PFGE analysis, the 33 SCCmec type IV/IVA strains comprised 12 distinct genotypes. 36.4% of 11 CA-MRSA and 43.9% of 66 HA-MRSA harbored SCCmec type IV/IVA. CONCLUSION: Type IV/IVA has become the most common SCCmec type in inpatients of our university hospital. The SCCmec type IV/IVA is present in both CA-MRSA and HA-MRSA limiting its use as a marker for CA-MRSA.
BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has dramatically changed over the last decade by the emergence of community-associated MRSA (CA-MRSA). Recent studies indicate that these strains have already spread to hospitals. To evaluate if SCCmec type IV and Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) are unambiguous markers of CA-MRSA, we analyzed 77 sporadic MRSA strains isolated, in our low MRSA incidence university hospital, from inpatients between 2000 and 2004. METHODS: MRSA strains were analyzed by staphylococcal cassette chromosome mmecec (SCCmec) typing, PCR for PVL genes and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). MRSA was classified in HA-MRSA or CA-MRSA according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using microbroth dilution method following CLSI recommendations. RESULTS: Among 77 sporadic single-patient strains, SCCmec types I-IV and four subtypes were identified. Type IV/IVA was most common (42.9%).The distribution of SCCmec types changed over the years. Type IV/IVA strains increased from 33.3% in 2000 to 57.9% in 2004. Type IV strains were resistant to ciprofloxacin in 81.8%, and in 9.1% to tobramycin while type IVA strains were 100% resistant to both antimicrobials. In contrast, non-type IV/IVA strains were resistant to ciprofloxacin in 86.4%, and in 75.0% to tobramycin. Only one strain was PVL positive and harbored SCCmec type III variant. By PFGE analysis, the 33 SCCmec type IV/IVA strains comprised 12 distinct genotypes. 36.4% of 11 CA-MRSA and 43.9% of 66 HA-MRSA harbored SCCmec type IV/IVA. CONCLUSION: Type IV/IVA has become the most common SCCmec type in inpatients of our university hospital. The SCCmec type IV/IVA is present in both CA-MRSA and HA-MRSA limiting its use as a marker for CA-MRSA.
Authors: Chulmin Park; Dong-Gun Lee; Sun Woo Kim; Su-Mi Choi; Sun Hee Park; Hye-Sun Chun; Jung-Hyun Choi; Jin-Hong Yoo; Wan Shik Shin; Jin Han Kang; Jong Hyun Kim; Soo Young Lee; Sun Mi Kim; Bok Yang Pyun Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2007-10-17 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Keiko Okuma; Kozue Iwakawa; John D Turnidge; Warren B Grubb; Jan M Bell; Frances G O'Brien; Geoffrey W Coombs; John W Pearman; Fred C Tenover; Maria Kapi; Chuntima Tiensasitorn; Teruyo Ito; Keiichi Hiramatsu Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: F C Tenover; R D Arbeit; R V Goering; P A Mickelsen; B E Murray; D H Persing; B Swaminathan Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 1995-09 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: G Lina; Y Piémont; F Godail-Gamot; M Bes; M O Peter; V Gauduchon; F Vandenesch; J Etienne Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Timothy S Naimi; Kathleen H LeDell; Kathryn Como-Sabetti; Stephanie M Borchardt; David J Boxrud; Jerome Etienne; Susan K Johnson; Francois Vandenesch; Scott Fridkin; Carol O'Boyle; Richard N Danila; Ruth Lynfield Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-12-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: M A Guimarães; M S Ramundo; M A Américo; M C de Mattos; R R Souza; E S Ramos-Júnior; L R Coelho; A Morrot; P A Melo; S E L Fracalanzza; F A Ferreira; A M S Figueiredo Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: S J Eells; J A McKinnell; A A Wang; N L Green; D Whang; P O'Hara; M L Brown; L G Miller Journal: Epidemiol Infect Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 2.451
Authors: Cristina Motta Ferreira; Felipe Gomes Naveca; William Antunes Ferreira; Cíntia Mara Costa de Oliveira; Maria das Graças Vale Barbosa Journal: Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 2.743