title: Rapid detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus directly from clinical samples: methods, effectiveness and cost considerations.
abstract: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates is 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. 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 to play, 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 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 any 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.
authors.affiliation: LADR GmbH, MVZ Dr. Kramer & Colleagues, Geesthacht, Germany. stuerenburg@ladr.de
authors.forename: Enno
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Stürenburg
mesh_terms: D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D004269:DNA, Bacterial / Q000032:analysis*; D006801:Humans; D016106:Methicillin Resistance; D055624:Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus / Q000235:genetics / Q000302:isolation & purification*; D008826:Microbial Sensitivity Tests / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods*; D016133:Polymerase Chain Reaction / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods*; D013203:Staphylococcal Infections / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000382:microbiology*
chemical_list: D004269:DNA, Bacterial
references.citation: J Hosp Infect. 2004 Apr;56(4):321-5
references.pmid: 15066745
references.citation: Am J Infect Control. 2006 Oct;34(8):476-83
references.pmid: 17015152
references.citation: J Antimicrob Chemother. 2000 Oct;46(4):617-20
references.pmid: 11020261
references.citation: BMJ. 2008 Apr 26;336(7650):927-30
references.pmid: 18417521
references.citation: Clin Infect Dis. 1998 Sep;27(3):543-50
references.pmid: 9770155
references.citation: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005 Feb;26(2):166-74
references.pmid: 15756888
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2006 Jan;44(1):229-31
references.pmid: 16390977
references.citation: J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004 Jul;54(1):229-31
references.pmid: 15150163
references.citation: Clin Microbiol Infect. 2005 Jun;11(6):457-65
references.pmid: 15882195
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2008 Jan;46(1):350-1
references.pmid: 18032616
references.citation: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999 Jul;20(7):473-7
references.pmid: 10432159
references.citation: Clin Infect Dis. 2003 Jan 1;36(1):53-9
references.pmid: 12491202
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2007 Jun;45(6):2011-3
references.pmid: 17428926
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2007 Apr;45(4):1098-101
references.pmid: 17287320
references.citation: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003 Jun;24(6):409-14
references.pmid: 12828316
references.citation: Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2006 Feb 09;5:2
references.pmid: 16469106
references.citation: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2002 Nov;21(11):782-6
references.pmid: 12461587
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2008 Oct;46(10):3285-90
references.pmid: 18685003
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2008 Jul;46(7):2151-4
references.pmid: 18448693
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Apr 4;103(14):5620-5
references.pmid: 16565219
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2004 May;42(5):1875-84
references.pmid: 15131143
references.citation: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005 Jul;26(7):607-15
references.pmid: 16092740
references.citation: J Hosp Infect. 2002 Jul;51(3):189-200
references.pmid: 12144798
references.citation: Clin Microbiol Infect. 2006 Dec;12(12):1163-7
references.pmid: 17121621
references.citation: Clin Microbiol Infect. 2005 Oct;11(10):834-7
references.pmid: 16153258
references.citation: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005 Feb;26(2):121-6
references.pmid: 15756880
references.citation: J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008 Jun;61(6):1277-80
references.pmid: 18359757
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2006 Apr;44(4):1219-23
references.pmid: 16597841
references.citation: JAMA. 2008 Mar 12;299(10):1149-57
references.pmid: 18334690
references.citation: J Hosp Infect. 2008 Jun;69(2):124-30
references.pmid: 18387695
references.citation: Crit Care. 2006 Feb;10(1):R25
references.pmid: 16469125
references.citation: J Hosp Infect. 2007 Jan;65(1):24-8
references.pmid: 17145100
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 2004 Oct 11;164(18):2038-43
references.pmid: 15477440
references.citation: Clin Microbiol Infect. 2005 Jun;11(6):466-71
references.pmid: 15882196
references.citation: Am J Epidemiol. 1996 Mar 1;143(5):496-504
references.pmid: 8610665