Specificity;’

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

FA Manian MD, MPH, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

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 useful is serum 1, 3-β-D-glucan in diagnosing Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia and invasive fungal disease?

FA Manian MD, MPH, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Serum 1, 3-β-D-glucan (BG) is highly accurate for Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (PJP), but only moderately accurate for diagnosing invasive fungal disease (IFD).

For PJP, a meta-analysis of studies looking at the performance of BG found a pooled sensitivity of 96%, specificity of 84% and area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of 0.96. 1 Thus, a negative BG essentially rules out PJP.

For IFD (primarily invasive candidiasis or aspergillosis), data based on 3 separate meta-analyses came to similar conclusions with a pooled sensitivity and specificity of ~80% and AUC-ROC of ~0.89 each.1-3 In some of the studies,2,3 the sensitivity of BG for IFD was between 50% to 60% which makes it difficult to exclude IFD when BG is normal.

Remember that BG may be false-positive in a variety of situations, including patients receiving immunological preparations (eg albumin or globulins), use of membranes and filters made from cellulose in hemodialysis, and use of cotton gauze swabs/packs/pads and sponges during surgery. 1 In addition, although BG is a component of the cell wall of most fungi, there are some exceptions including Zygomycetes and cryptococci.

Bonus pearl: Did you know that BG assay is based on Limulus amoebocyte lysate, extracted from amoebocytes of horseshoe crab species? 3

If you like this post, sign up under MENU and catch future pearls right in your inbox!

References

  1. Onishi A, Sugiyama D, Kogata Y, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of serum 1,3-β-D-glucan for Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia, invasive candidiasis, and invasive aspergillosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Microbiol 2012;50:7-15. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22075593
  2. He S, Hang JP, Zhang L, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of serum 1,3–β-D-glucan for invasive fungal infection: focus on cutoff levels. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2015;48:351-61. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25081986
  3. Karageogopoulos DE, Vouloumanou EK, Ntziora F, et al. β-D-glucan assay for the diagnosis of invasive fungal infections: a meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52:750-69. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/52/6/750/361658/

 

How useful is serum 1, 3-β-D-glucan in diagnosing Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia and invasive fungal disease?

How accurate are peripheral thermometers for estimating body temperature in my patient with chills?

FA Manian MD, MPH, , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Though convenient, oral, tympanic membrane, axillary, and temporal artery thermometers (AKA “peripheral thermometers”) may not be highly accurate in measuring body temperature.

A 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of peripheral thermometers involving 75 studies (mostly in adults) found that compared to central thermometers (eg, pulmonary artery, urinary bladder, rectal), peripheral thermometers had a low sensitivity (64%, 95% CI 55%-72%), but much better specificity (96%, 95% CI 93%-97%) for fever (most commonly defined as 37.8° C [100° F] or greater).1

In the same study, for oral electronic thermometers, sensitivity was 74% with a specificity of 86%. For temporal artery thermometers, sensitivities ranged from 26% to 91%, while specificities ranged from 67% to 100%. For tympanic membrane thermometers, sensitivities ranged from 23% to 87%, with a specificity of 57% to 99%.

A 2016 study involving adult emergency department patients reported the sensitivity of peripheral thermometers (vs rectal temperature 38 C [100.4] or higher) as follows: oral (37%), tympanic membrane (68%), and temporal artery (71%). Specificity for fever was >90% for all peripheral thermometers. 2

So, it looks like while we may be pretty comfortable with a diagnosis of “fever” when our patient with chills has a high temperature recorded by a peripheral thermometer, lack of fever alone by these devices should not veer us away from the possibility of systemic infection. When in doubt and if possible, check a rectal temperature.

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. Niven DJ, Gaudet JE, Laupland KB. Accuracy of peripheral thermometers for estimating temperature: A systematic and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2015;163:768-777. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26571241
  2. Bijur PE, Shah PD, Esses D. Temperature measurement in the adult emergency department: oral tympanic membrane and temporal artery temperatures versus rectal temperature. Emerg Med J 2016;33:843-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27334759

 

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 accurate are peripheral thermometers for estimating body temperature in my patient with chills?