BACKGROUND: Screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is intended to reduce nosocomial spread by identifying patients colonized by MRSA. Given the widespread use of this screening, we evaluated its potential clinical utility in predicting the resistance of clinical isolates of S. aureus. METHODS: We conducted a 2-year retrospective cohort study that included patients with documented clinical infection with S. aureus and prior screening for MRSA. We determined test characteristics, including sensitivity and specificity, of screening for predicting the resistance of subsequent S. aureus isolates. RESULTS: Of 510 patients included in the study, 53 (10%) had positive results from MRSA screening, and 79 (15%) of infecting isolates were resistant to methicillin. Screening for MRSA predicted methicillin resistance of the infecting isolate with 99% (95% confidence interval [CI] 98%-100%) specificity and 63% (95% CI 52%-74%) sensitivity. When screening swabs were obtained within 48 hours before isolate collection, sensitivity increased to 91% (95% CI 71%-99%) and specificity was 100% (95% CI 97%-100%), yielding a negative likelihood ratio of 0.09 (95% CI 0.01-0.3) and a negative predictive value of 98% (95% CI 95%-100%). The time between swab and isolate collection was a significant predictor of concordance of methicillin resistance in swabs and isolates (odds ratio 6.6, 95% CI 1.6-28.2). INTERPRETATION: A positive result from MRSA screening predicted methicillin resistance in a culture-positive clinical infection with S. aureus. Negative results on MRSA screening were most useful for excluding methicillin resistance of a subsequent infection with S. aureus when the screening swab was obtained within 48 hours before collection of the clinical isolate.
BACKGROUND: Screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is intended to reduce nosocomial spread by identifying patients colonized by MRSA. Given the widespread use of this screening, we evaluated its potential clinical utility in predicting the resistance of clinical isolates of S. aureus. METHODS: We conducted a 2-year retrospective cohort study that included patients with documented clinical infection with S. aureus and prior screening for MRSA. We determined test characteristics, including sensitivity and specificity, of screening for predicting the resistance of subsequent S. aureus isolates. RESULTS: Of 510 patients included in the study, 53 (10%) had positive results from MRSA screening, and 79 (15%) of infecting isolates were resistant to methicillin. Screening for MRSA predicted methicillin resistance of the infecting isolate with 99% (95% confidence interval [CI] 98%-100%) specificity and 63% (95% CI 52%-74%) sensitivity. When screening swabs were obtained within 48 hours before isolate collection, sensitivity increased to 91% (95% CI 71%-99%) and specificity was 100% (95% CI 97%-100%), yielding a negative likelihood ratio of 0.09 (95% CI 0.01-0.3) and a negative predictive value of 98% (95% CI 95%-100%). The time between swab and isolate collection was a significant predictor of concordance of methicillin resistance in swabs and isolates (odds ratio 6.6, 95% CI 1.6-28.2). INTERPRETATION: A positive result from MRSA screening predicted methicillin resistance in a culture-positive clinical infection with S. aureus. Negative results on MRSA screening were most useful for excluding methicillin resistance of a subsequent infection with S. aureus when the screening swab was obtained within 48 hours before collection of the clinical isolate.
Authors: Rajiv Jain; Stephen M Kralovic; Martin E Evans; Meredith Ambrose; Loretta A Simbartl; D Scott Obrosky; Marta L Render; Ron W Freyberg; John A Jernigan; Robert R Muder; LaToya J Miller; Gary A Roselle Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-04-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A J Clavo-Sánchez; J A Girón-González; D López-Prieto; J Canueto-Quintero; A Sánchez-Porto; A Vergara-Campos; P Marín-Casanova; J A Córdoba-Doña Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 1997-06 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Ari Robicsek; Jennifer L Beaumont; Suzanne M Paule; Donna M Hacek; Richard B Thomson; Karen L Kaul; Peggy King; Lance R Peterson Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-03-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Joel T Fishbain; Joseph C Lee; Honghung D Nguyen; Jeffery A Mikita; Cecilia P Mikita; Catherine F T Uyehara; Duane R Hospenthal Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Guillaume Butler-Laporte; Matthew P Cheng; Alexandre P Cheng; Emily G McDonald; Todd C Lee Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2016-11-21 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Michael S Niederman; Rebecca M Baron; Lila Bouadma; Thierry Calandra; Nick Daneman; Jan DeWaele; Marin H Kollef; Jeffrey Lipman; Girish B Nair Journal: Crit Care Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Josée Rioux; Jenny Edwards; Lauren Bresee; Adrian Abu-Ulba; Stephen Yu; Deonne Dersch-Mills; Ben Wilson Journal: Can J Hosp Pharm Date: 2017-04-28
Authors: Anthony D Bai; Lisa Burry; Adrienne Showler; Marilyn Steinberg; Daniel Ricciuto; Tania Fernandes; Anna Chiu; Sumit Raybardhan; George A Tomlinson; Chaim M Bell; Andrew M Morris Journal: Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol Date: 2015 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.471