What is the utility of nasal screen for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in patients with skin and soft tissue infections?

In patients at high risk of MRSA infection (eg, prior history of MRSA colonization or infection, recent hospitalization/antibiotics, intravenous drug use, traumatic injury),1 particularly in the presence of an open wound or purulent drainage, a negative MRSA nasal screen does not rule out MRSA skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI), nor does a positive MRSA nasal screen reliably predict MRSA SSTI. In contrast, in low risk patients without severe disease, a negative MRSA nasal screen may be helpful in deescalating empiric anti-MRSA coverage.

The sensitivity of MRSA nasal screen by culture or PCR for SSTIs may be as low as 40%, higher among those with an ulcer (70%), with negative predictive values of 80% to 98% depending on the prevalence of MRSA in the population; its specificity is better (72% to 96%) with positive predictive values of 7% to 76%. 2

In a retrospective study involving 57 diabetic patients hospitalized with foot wound infection, the sensitivity of MRSA nasal screen was only ~40% with a negative predictive value of 80%. 3 Another study found a negative predictive value of ~90% for MRSA nasal screen among patients with a diabetic foot infection when MRSA isolation from wounds was uncommon (7.5%).4

Several reasons explain why patients with a negative MRSA nasal screen could still have MRSA SSTI, including colonization in other body sites known to harbor MRSA (eg, rectum, axilla, groin, oropharynx) 6-9 or direct wound contamination with MRSA in the absence of carriage, particularly in healthcare facilities.10

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that dogs, particularly those owned by healthcare workers, may also carry MRSA in their nostrils?.11,12

 

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 

References

  1. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers H, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 59:e10-52. https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/skin-and-soft-tissue-infections/
  2. Carr AL, Daley MJ, Merkel KG, et al. Clinical utility of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal screening for antimicrobial stewardship: A review of current literature. Pharmacotherapy 2018;38:1216-1228. https://accpjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/phar.2188
  3. Lavery LA, La Fonatine J, Bhavan K, et al. Risk factors for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in diabetic foot infections. Diabet Foot Ankle 2014;5:10.3402/dfa.v5.23575. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3984406/
  4. Mergenhagen KA, Croix M, Starr KE, et al. Utility of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nares screening for patients with a diabetic foot infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2020;64:e02213-19. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31988097/  
  5. Currie A, Davis L, Odrobina E, et al. Sensitivities of nasal and rectal swabs for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization in an active surveillance program. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:3101-3103. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2546770/
  6. Mermel LA, Cartony JM, Covington P, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization at different body sites: a prospective, quantitative analysis. J Clin Microbiol 2011;49:1119-21. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3067701/#B4
  7. Baker SE, Brecher SM, Robillar E, et al. Extranasal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization at admission to an acute care Veterans Affairs Hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:42-6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19954335/
  8. Manian FA, Senkel D, Zack J et al. Routine screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among patients newly admitted to an acute rehabilitation unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23:516-9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12269449/
  9. Lautenbach E, Nachamkin I, Hu B, et al. Surveillance culture for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: diagnostic yield of anatomic sites and comparison of provider- and patient-collected samples. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009;30:380-82. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2665909/
  10. Boyce JM, Bynoe-Potter G, Chenevert C, et al. Environmental contamination due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: possible infection control implications 1997;18:622-7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9309433/  
  11. Boost MV, O’donaghue MM, James A. Prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus among dogs and their owners. Epidemiol Infect 2008;136:953-64. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870875/#ref017
  12. Manian FA. Asymptomatic carriage of mupirocin-resistant methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in a pet dog associated with MRSA infection in household contacts. Clin Infect Dis 2003;36;e26-28. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/36/2/e26/317343

 

 

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, its affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

What is the utility of nasal screen for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in patients with skin and soft tissue infections?

How might categorizing severity of illness help in the management of my patient with Covid-19?

Although the criteria for Covid-19 severity of illness categories may overlap at times or vary across guidelines and clinical trials, I have found those published in the National Institute of Health (USA) Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines most useful and uptodate.1  Keep in mind that the primary basis for severity categories in Covid-19 is the degree by which it alters pulmonary anatomy and physiology and respiratory function (see my table below).

The first question to ask when dealing with Covid-19 patients is whether they have any signs or symptoms that can be attributed to the disease (eg, fever, cough, sore throat, malaise, headache, muscle pain, lack of sense of smell). In the absence of any attributable symptoms, your patient falls into “Asymptomatic” or “Presymptomatic” category.  These patients should be monitored for any new signs or symptoms of Covid-19 and should not require additional laboratory testing or treatment.

If symptoms of Covid-19 are present (see above), the next question to ask is whether the patient has any shortness of breath or abnormal chest imaging. If neither is present, the illness can be classified as “Mild” with no specific laboratory tests or treatment indicated in otherwise healthy patients. These patients may be safely managed in ambulatory settings or at home through telemedicine or remote visits. Those with risk factors for severe disease (eg, older age, obesity, cancer, immunocompromised state), 2 however, should be closely monitored as rapid clinical deterioration may occur.

Once lower respiratory tract disease based on clinical assessment or imaging develops, the illness is no longer considered mild. This is a good time to check a spot 02 on room air and if it’s 94% or greater at sea level, the illness qualifies for “Moderate” severity. In addition to close monitoring for signs of progression, treatment for possible bacterial pneumonia or sepsis should be considered when suspected. Corticosteroids are not recommended here and there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of remdesivir in patients with mild/moderate Covid-19.

Once spot 02 on room air drops below 94%, Covid-19 illness is considered “Severe”; other parameters include respiratory rate >30, Pa02/Fi02 < 300 mmHg or lung infiltrates >50%. Here, patients require further evaluation, including pulmonary imaging, ECG, CBC with differential and a metabolic profile, including liver and renal function tests. C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer and ferritin are also often obtained for their prognostic value. These patients need close monitoring, preferably in a facility with airborne infection isolation rooms.  In addition to treatment of bacterial pneumonia or sepsis when suspected, consideration should also be given to treatment with corticosteroids. Remdesivir is recommended for patients who require supplemental oxygen but whether it’s effective in those with more severe hypoxemia (eg, those who require oxygen through a high-flow device, noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-ECMO) is unclear. Prone ventilation may be helpful here in patients with refractory hypoxemia as long as it is not used to avoid intubation in those who otherwise require mechanical ventilation.

“Critical” illness category is the severest forms of Covid-19 and includes acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), septic shock, cardiac dysfunction and cytokine storm. In addition to treatment for possible bacterial pneumonia or sepsis when suspected, corticosteroids and supportive treatment for hemodynamic instability and ARDS, including prone ventilation, are often required. The effectiveness of remdesivir in patients with severe hypoxemia (see above) is unclear at this time.

 

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 References

  1. NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines. https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/. Accessed Aug 27, 2020.
  2. CDC. Covid-19.  https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html/. Accessed Aug 27, 2020.  

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, its affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

 

How might categorizing severity of illness help in the management of my patient with Covid-19?

Could my patient with acute dysuria and less than 10,000 E. coli/ml on urine culture still have a urinary tract infection (UTI)?

Absolutely! Although historically ≥100,000 bacteria/ml has been used as a criterion for UTI based on studies of women with pyelonephritis in the 1950s,1 several studies have since found that this criterion may not be met in up to 50% of symptomatic patients with UTI. 2-6 A lower criterion of 100-1,000 bacteria/ml of urine increases the sensitivity of urine culture to ~90% or more for diagnosis of UTI (albeit with lower specificity). 2-5

A 1982 NEJM study involving UTIs due to coliforms in acutely dysuric women found that the traditional count of ≥100,000 bacteria/ml in midstream urine missed ~50% of cases based on positive bladder cultures. 2 Similarly a 2013 NEJM study reported that 40% of women with symptomatic UTI would be missed if the ≥100,000 bacteria/ml criterion for midstream urine is used. 3

Among symptomatic men, 32% have been found to have <100,000 bacteria/ml in their midstream urine 4 and a single urine specimen by urethral catheterization growing ≥ 100 bacteria/ml is consistent with bacteriuria for both men and women. 5

Since most of these studies have involved UTI caused by E. coli or other coliforms, more data are needed to find out if the same findings apply to non-coliform urinary pathogens.

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that because quantitative urine culture results are concentration dependent (ie, “per ml”), a dilute urine—as may be found in patients experiencing diuresis—will result in lower numbers of bacteria/ ml. 5

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 References

  1. Kass EH. Asymptomatic infections of the urinary tract. Trans Assoc Am Physicians 1958;69:56-74. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13380946/
  2. Stamm WE, Counts GW, Running KR, et al. Diagnosis of coliform infection in acutely dysuric women. N Engl J Med 1982;307:463-8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7099208/
  3. Hooten TM, Roberts PL, Cox ME, et al. Voided midstream urine culture and acute cystitis in premenopausal women. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1883-91. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1302186
  4. Lipsky BA, Ireton RC, Fihn SD, et al. Diagnosis of bacteriuria in men: specimen collection and culture interpretation. J Infect Dis 1987;155:847-54. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3559288/
  5. Nicolle LE, Bradley S, Colgan R, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria in adults. Clin Infect Dis 2005;40:643-54. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15714408/
  6. Roberts KB, Wald ER. The diagnosis of UTI: colony count criteria revisited. Pediatrics 2018;141:e20173239. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-3239

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, its affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

Could my patient with acute dysuria and less than 10,000 E. coli/ml on urine culture still have a urinary tract infection (UTI)?

What changes should I consider in my treatment of hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in light of the 2019 guidelines of the American Thoracic society (ATS) and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)?

Compared to 2007,1 the 2019 ATS/IDSA guidelines2 propose changes in at least 4 major areas of CAP treatment in inpatients, with 2 “Do’s” and 2 “Dont’s”:

  • Do select empiric antibiotics based on severity of CAP and risk factors for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (see related pearl on P4P)
  • Do routinely treat CAP patients who test positive for influenza with standard CAP antibiotics
  • Don’t routinely provide anaerobic coverage in aspiration pneumonia (limit it to empyema and lung abscess) (see related pearl on P4P)
  • Don’t routinely treat CAP with adjunctive corticosteroids in the absence of refractory shock

β-lactam plus macrolide is recommended for both non-severe and severe CAP.  β-lactam plus respiratory fluoroquinolone is an alternative regime in severe CAP, though not endorsed as strongly as β-lactam plus macrolide therapy (low quality of evidence).  Management per CAP severity summarized below:

  • Non-severe CAP
    • β-lactam (eg, ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, ampicillin-sulbactam and newly-added ceftaroline) plus macrolide (eg, azithromycin, clarithromycin) OR respiratory fluoroquinolone (eg, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin)
    • In patients at risk of MRSA or P. aeruginosa infection (eg, prior isolation of respective pathogens, hospitalization and parenteral antibiotics in the last 90 days or locally validated risk factors—HCAP has been retired), obtain cultures/PCR
    • Hold off on MRSA or P. aeruginosa coverage unless culture/PCR results return positive.
  • Severe CAP
    • β-lactam plus macrolide OR β-lactam plus respiratory fluoroquinolone (see above)
    • In patients at risk of MRSA or P. aeruginosa infection (see above), obtain cultures/PCR
    • Add MRSA coverage (eg, vancomycin or linezolid) and/or P. aeruginosa coverage (eg, cefepime, ceftazidime, piperacillin-tazobactam, meropenem, imipenem) if deemed at risk (see above) while waiting for culture/PCR results

Duration of antibiotics is for a minimum of 5 days for commonly-targeted pathogens and a minimum of 7 days for MRSA or P. aeruginosa infections, irrespective of severity or rapidity in achieving clinical stability.

For patients who test positive for influenza and have CAP, standard antibacterial regimen should be routinely added to antiinfluenza treatment.

For patients suspected of aspiration pneumonia, anaerobic coverage (eg, clindamycin, ampicillin-sulbactam, piperacillin-tazobactam) is NOT routinely recommended in the absence of lung abscess or empyema.

Corticosteroids are NOT routinely recommended for non-severe (high quality of evidence) or severe (moderate quality of evidence) CAP in the absence of refractory septic shock.

Related pearls on P4P:

2019 CAP guidelines on diagnostics:                                        https://pearls4peers.com/2020/02/14/what-changes-should-i-consider-in-my-diagnostic-approach-to-hospitalized-patients-with-community-acquired-pneumonia-cap-in-light-of-the-2019-guidelines-of-the-american-thoracic-society-ats-and-inf/ 

Anerobic coverage of aspiration pneumonia: https://pearls4peers.com/2019/07/31/should-i-routinely-select-antibiotics-with-activity-against-anaerobes-in-my-patients-with-presumed-aspiration-pneumonia/

References

  1. Mandell LA, Wunderink RG, Anzueto A. Infectious Disease Society of America/American Thoracic Society Consensus Guidelines on the Management guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis 2007;44:S27-72. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17278083
  2. Metlay JP, Waterer GW, Long AC, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2019;200:e45-e67. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31573350

 

What changes should I consider in my treatment of hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in light of the 2019 guidelines of the American Thoracic society (ATS) and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)?

What changes should I consider in my diagnostic approach to hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in light of the 2019 guidelines of the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)?

Compared to 2007,1 the 2019 ATS/IDSA guidelines2 have 2 major “Do’s” and 2 major “Dont’s” in the diagnostic approach to CAP in hospitalized patients:

  • DO order sputum and blood cultures in patients empirically treated for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or Pseudomonas aeruginosa—in addition to those with severe CAP as in 2007.  
  • DO order rapid influenza molecular assay—in preference to antigen test— when influenza viruses are circulating in community, irrespective of pneumonia severity
  • DON’T routinely order urine antigens for pneumococcal or Legionella antigens, except in severe CAP or in the presence of suggestive epidemiological factors (eg. Legionella outbreak, recent travel)
  • DON’t routinely order serum procalcitonin to determine need for initial antibacterial therapy

Patients at risk of MRSA or P. aeruginosa include those with prior infection with the same pathogens as well as those with hospitalization and treated with parenteral antibiotics—in or out of the hospital— in the last 90 days; HCAP is no longer recognized as an entity.

The definition of severe CAP is unchanged: 1 of 2 major criteria (septic shock or respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation) or 3 or more of the following minor criteria or findings listed below:

  • Clinical
    • Respiratory rate ≥30 breath/min
    • Hypotension requiring aggressive fluid resuscitation
    • Hypothermia (core temperature <36 ᵒC, 96.8 ᵒF)
    • Confusion/disorientation
  • Radiographic 
    • Multilobar infiltrates
  • Laboratory 
    • Leukopenia (WBC <4,000/ul)
    • Thrombocytopenia (platelets <100,000/ul)
    • BUN ≥20 mg/dl
    • Pa02/FI02 ratio ≤250

Keep in mind that these guidelines focus on adults who are not immunocompromised or had recent foreign travel and are often based on expert opinion but low or very low quality evidence due to the dearth of properly designed studies.

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that the urine Legionella antigen only tests for L. pneumophila type I, with an overall sensitivity ranging from 45% to 100%!3,4

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References

  1. Mandell LA, Wunderink RG, Anzueto A. Infectious Disease Society of America/American Thoracic Society Consensus Guidelines on the Management guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis 2007;44:S27-72. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17278083
  2. Metlay JP, Waterer GW, Long AC, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2019;200:e45-e67. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31573350
  3. Blazquez RM, Espinosa FJ, Martinez-Toldos CM, et al. Sensitivity of urinary antigen test in relation to clinical severity in a large outbreak of Legionella pneumonia in Spain. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2005;24:488-91. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15997369
  4. Marlow E, Whelan C. Legionella pneumonia and use of the Legionella urinary antigen test. J Hosp Med 2009;4:E1-E2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19301376

 

 

What changes should I consider in my diagnostic approach to hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in light of the 2019 guidelines of the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)?