Literature DB >> 26016829

[Molecular diagnosis of methicillin-resistent Staphylococcus aureus: Methods and efficacy].

M Hell1, J W Bauer2, M Laimer2.   

Abstract

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates are a serious public health problem whose ever-increasing rate is commensurate with the pressure it is exerting on the healthcare system. At present, more than 20% of clinical S. aureus isolates in German hospitals are methicillin-resistant, in Austria less than 10%. Strategies from low-prevalence countries show that this development is not necessarily inevitable. In the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, thanks to a rigorous prevention programme, MRSA prevalence has been kept at an acceptably low level (< 1-3%). Central to these search-and-destroy control strategies is an admission screening using several MRSA swabs taken from mucocutaneous colonisation sites of high-risk patients (MRSA surveillance). It has also been reported that the speed with which MRSA carriage is detected has an important role, as it is a key component of any effective strategy to prevent the pathogen from spreading. Since MRSA culturing involves a 2-3 day delay before the final results are available, rapid detection techniques (commonly referred to as MRSA rapid tests) using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods and, most recently, rapid culturing methods have been developed. The implementation of rapid tests reduces the time of detection of MRSA carriers from 48-72 to 2-5 h. Clinical evaluation data have shown that MRSA can thus be detected with very high sensitivity. Specificity, however, is sometimes impaired due to false-positive PCR signals occurring in mixed flora specimens. In order to rule out false-positive PCR results, a culture screen must always be carried out simultaneously. The data provide preliminary evidence that a PCR assay can reduce nosocomial MRSA transmission in high-risk patients or high-risk areas, whereas an approach that screens all patients admitted to the hospital is probably not effective. Information concerning the cost effectiveness of rapid MRSA tests is still sparse and thus the issue remains debated.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Direct detection; Hospitals; Polymerase chain reaction; Rapid test; Screening

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26016829     DOI: 10.1007/s00105-015-3643-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hautarzt        ISSN: 0017-8470            Impact factor:   0.751


  37 in total

1.  Does nasal cocolonization by methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus strains occur frequently enough to represent a risk of false-positive methicillin-resistant S. aureus determinations by molecular methods?

Authors:  Karsten Becker; Isabelle Pagnier; Brigitte Schuhen; Frauke Wenzelburger; Alexander W Friedrich; Frank Kipp; Georg Peters; Christof von Eiff
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  PCR for the identification of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strains using a single primer pair specific for SCCmec elements and the neighbouring chromosome-borne orfX.

Authors:  C Cuny; W Witte
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 8.067

3.  Effectiveness of a hospital-wide selective screening programme for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriers at hospital admission to prevent hospital-acquired MRSA infections.

Authors:  M H Wernitz; S Swidsinski; K Weist; D Sohr; W Witte; K-P Franke; D Roloff; H Rüden; S K Veit
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 8.067

4.  Direct detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in clinical specimens by a nucleic acid-based hybridisation assay.

Authors:  M Holfelder; U Eigner; A-M Turnwald; W Witte; M Weizenegger; A Fahr
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 8.067

5.  Comparison of BD GeneOhm methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) PCR versus the CHROMagar MRSA assay for screening patients for the presence of MRSA strains.

Authors:  John M Boyce; Nancy L Havill
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2007-11-21       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  Evaluation of three molecular assays for rapid identification of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Authors:  Patrice Francois; Manuela Bento; Gesuele Renzi; Stephan Harbarth; Didier Pittet; Jacques Schrenzel
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2007-04-11       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Cost analysis of a hospital-wide selective screening programme for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriers in the context of diagnosis related groups (DRG) payment.

Authors:  M H Wernitz; S Keck; S Swidsinski; S Schulz; S K Veit
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 8.067

8.  Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with a novel mecA homologue in human and bovine populations in the UK and Denmark: a descriptive study.

Authors:  Laura García-Álvarez; Matthew T G Holden; Heather Lindsay; Cerian R Webb; Derek F J Brown; Martin D Curran; Enid Walpole; Karen Brooks; Derek J Pickard; Christopher Teale; Julian Parkhill; Stephen D Bentley; Giles F Edwards; E Kirsty Girvan; Angela M Kearns; Bruno Pichon; Robert L R Hill; Anders Rhod Larsen; Robert L Skov; Sharon J Peacock; Duncan J Maskell; Mark A Holmes
Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 25.071

Review 9.  Rapid detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus directly from clinical samples: methods, effectiveness and cost considerations.

Authors:  Enno Stürenburg
Journal:  Ger Med Sci       Date:  2009-07-06

10.  Evaluation of rapid screening and pre-emptive contact isolation for detecting and controlling methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in critical care: an interventional cohort study.

Authors:  Stephan Harbarth; Cristina Masuet-Aumatell; Jacques Schrenzel; Patrice Francois; Christophe Akakpo; Gesuele Renzi; Jerome Pugin; Bara Ricou; Didier Pittet
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 9.097

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.