BACKGROUND: There have been no randomized controlled trials comparing active and passive screening for documenting clearance of colonization with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). We compared the efficacy of active and passive screening using both culture and commercial polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for documentation of MRSA clearance and discontinuation of MRSA contact precautions (CPs). METHODS:Inpatients with a history of MRSA infection or colonization enrolled between December 2010 and September 2011 were randomized to either passive (nonintervention arm; n = 202; observation with local standard of care) or active screening (intervention arm; n = 405; study staff screened using culture and commercial PCR). The primary outcome was discontinuation of CPs by trial arm based on 3 negative cultures. In the intervention arm, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the first PCR were compared to cultures. RESULTS: CPs were discontinued significantly more often (rate ratio [RR], 4.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3%-7.1%) in the intervention arm, including in an intent-to-screen analysis (RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5%-4.7%). The first PCR, compared to 3 cultures, detected MRSA with a sensitivity of 93.9% (95% CI, 85.4%-97.6%), a specificity of 92.0% (95% CI, 85.9%-95.6%), a positive predictive value of 86.1% (95% CI, 75.9%-93.1%), and a negative predictive value of 96.6% (95% CI, 91.6%-99.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to passive screening using culture methods, active screening resulted in discontinuation of MRSA CPs at a significantly higher frequency. Active screening with a single PCR would significantly increase the completion of the screening process. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01234831.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: There have been no randomized controlled trials comparing active and passive screening for documenting clearance of colonization with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). We compared the efficacy of active and passive screening using both culture and commercial polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for documentation of MRSA clearance and discontinuation of MRSA contact precautions (CPs). METHODS: Inpatients with a history of MRSA infection or colonization enrolled between December 2010 and September 2011 were randomized to either passive (nonintervention arm; n = 202; observation with local standard of care) or active screening (intervention arm; n = 405; study staff screened using culture and commercial PCR). The primary outcome was discontinuation of CPs by trial arm based on 3 negative cultures. In the intervention arm, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the first PCR were compared to cultures. RESULTS:CPs were discontinued significantly more often (rate ratio [RR], 4.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3%-7.1%) in the intervention arm, including in an intent-to-screen analysis (RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5%-4.7%). The first PCR, compared to 3 cultures, detected MRSA with a sensitivity of 93.9% (95% CI, 85.4%-97.6%), a specificity of 92.0% (95% CI, 85.9%-95.6%), a positive predictive value of 86.1% (95% CI, 75.9%-93.1%), and a negative predictive value of 96.6% (95% CI, 91.6%-99.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to passive screening using culture methods, active screening resulted in discontinuation of MRSA CPs at a significantly higher frequency. Active screening with a single PCR would significantly increase the completion of the screening process. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01234831.
Authors: Holenarasipur R Vikram; Diane G Dumigan; Cynthia Kohan; Nancy L Havill; Allison Tauman; John M Boyce Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Eilish Creamer; Anthony Dolan; Orla Sherlock; Toney Thomas; John Walsh; Joan Moore; Edmond Smyth; Eoghan O'Neill; Anna Shore; Derek Sullivan; Angela S Rossney; Robert Cunney; David Coleman; Hilary Humphreys Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Menno R Vriens; Hetty E M Blok; Ada C M Gigengack-Baars; Ellen M Mascini; Chris van der Werken; Jan Verhoef; Annet Troelstra Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Stacey E Baker; Stephen M Brecher; Ernest Robillard; Judith Strymish; Elizabeth Lawler; Kalpana Gupta Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Erica S Shenoy; Hang Lee; Erin E Ryan; Taige Hou; Rochelle P Walensky; Winston Ware; David C Hooper Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Erica S Shenoy; Farzad Noubary; Jiyeon Kim; Eric S Rosenberg; Jessica A Cotter; Hang Lee; Rochelle P Walensky; David C Hooper Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Erica S Shenoy; Hang Lee; Taige Hou; Winston Ware; Erin E Ryan; David C Hooper; Rochelle P Walensky Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Erica S Shenoy; Hang Lee; Jessica A Cotter; Winston Ware; Douglas Kelbaugh; Eric Weil; Rochelle P Walensky; David C Hooper Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2015-10-02 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Erica S Shenoy; Molly L Paras; Farzad Noubary; Rochelle P Walensky; David C Hooper Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2014-03-31 Impact factor: 3.090