Xiaohua Ye1, Weidong Liu1, Yanping Fan1, Xiaolin Wang1, Junli Zhou1, Zhenjiang Yao2, Sidong Chen3. 1. Guangdong Key Laboratory of Molecular Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou, China. 2. Guangdong Key Laboratory of Molecular Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou, China. Electronic address: zhjyao2001@yahoo.com. 3. Guangdong Key Laboratory of Molecular Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou, China. Electronic address: chensidong1@126.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence indicates a strong association between occupational livestock contact and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriage. However, it remains unclear whether there are frequency-risk and duration-risk relations between occupational livestock contact and human MRSA carriage. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Guangdong, China, using a multistage sampling method. Participants were interviewed and provided a nasal swab for S aureus analysis. All MRSA isolates were genotyped by multilocus sequence typing. The dose-response relation was examined using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Among the 1,860 participants, 1.4% of controls tested positive for MRSA (characterized as sequence type [ST] 59 and ST7), and 7% of workers with livestock contact tested positive for MRSA (characterized as ST9, ST59, and ST7). There was a 5.31 times increased risk of MRSA carriage corresponding to occupational livestock contact (odds ratio = 6.31; 95% confidence interval, 3.44-11.57) using no contact as reference. We found frequency and short-term duration of occupational livestock contact were associated with increased risk of MRSA carriage in a dose-response manner. These significant trends were observed consistently among workers with occupational pig contact. However, no long-term duration-risk increasing trend was observed for occupational livestock or pig contact. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that there may be dose-response relations between occupational livestock contact and human MRSA carriage. Nasal MRSA clonal complex 9 is not found in controls, but it is found in workers with livestock contact.
BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence indicates a strong association between occupational livestock contact and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriage. However, it remains unclear whether there are frequency-risk and duration-risk relations between occupational livestock contact and human MRSA carriage. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Guangdong, China, using a multistage sampling method. Participants were interviewed and provided a nasal swab for S aureus analysis. All MRSA isolates were genotyped by multilocus sequence typing. The dose-response relation was examined using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Among the 1,860 participants, 1.4% of controls tested positive for MRSA (characterized as sequence type [ST] 59 and ST7), and 7% of workers with livestock contact tested positive for MRSA (characterized as ST9, ST59, and ST7). There was a 5.31 times increased risk of MRSA carriage corresponding to occupational livestock contact (odds ratio = 6.31; 95% confidence interval, 3.44-11.57) using no contact as reference. We found frequency and short-term duration of occupational livestock contact were associated with increased risk of MRSA carriage in a dose-response manner. These significant trends were observed consistently among workers with occupational pig contact. However, no long-term duration-risk increasing trend was observed for occupational livestock or pig contact. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that there may be dose-response relations between occupational livestock contact and human MRSA carriage. Nasal MRSA clonal complex 9 is not found in controls, but it is found in workers with livestock contact.
Authors: Stefan Monecke; Dolores Gavier-Widén; Helmut Hotzel; Martin Peters; Sebastian Guenther; Alexandros Lazaris; Igor Loncaric; Elke Müller; Annett Reissig; Antje Ruppelt-Lorz; Anna C Shore; Birgit Walter; David C Coleman; Ralf Ehricht Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 3.240