Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 11, Number 10—October 2005
Research

Community-associated Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Minnesota, 2000–2003

On This Page
Methods
Results
Discussion
Cite This Article
Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Downloads
Article
RIS [TXT - 2 KB]
Article Metrics
Metric Details
70
citations of this article
EID Journal Metrics on Scopus
Author affiliations: *Minnesota Department of Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Cite This Article

Abstract

We compared characteristics of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) and CA-MRSA invasive disease identified in Minnesota from 2000 through 2003. A total of 586 patients with SSTIs and 65 patients with invasive disease were identified. Patients with invasive disease were more likely to be smokers (p = 0.03), and report a history of immunosuppressive therapy (p = 0.03), emphysema (p = 0.011), or injection drug use (p = 0.020) than were SSTI patients. Invasive disease isolates were less likely to be susceptible to ciprofloxacin (p = 0.002) and clindamycin (p = 0.001) and more likely to have healthcare-associated pulsed-field gel electrophoresis subtypes than SSTI isolates (p<0.001). Patients with invasive disease may have had healthcare exposures that put them at risk of acquiring healthcare-associated MRSA and which were not exclusion criteria in the CA-MRSA case definition. Continued surveillance of MRSA is needed to better characterize CA-MRSA infections.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was first reported in 1961 and was recognized as a nosocomial pathogen by the late 1960s (1,2). Known MRSA risk factors include recent surgery or hospitalization, residence in a long-term care facility, presence of a percutaneous device or indwelling catheter, or recent dialysis (3).

In the 1980s, MRSA infections were reported in persons who lacked traditional MRSA risk factors. These infections appeared to be acquired in the community and are now known as community-associated (CA) MRSA infections. These infections have been reported worldwide (4–18). Outbreaks have occurred in many settings and among different populations (10,16,19–23).

Previous studies have demonstrated significant differences between MRSA isolates from persons with healthcare exposures and persons without these exposures in both antimicrobial susceptibility results and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) subtypes (5,7). Studies have also demonstrated demographic differences between CA-MRSA cases and healthcare-associated (HA) MRSA cases regarding age, race, and income (5,7).

The most common clinical manifestations of CA-MRSA are skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) such as abscesses or cellulitis (5,7,9,24). Less commonly, CA-MRSA can cause severe diseases such as necrotizing pneumonia, osteomyelitis, and septicemia (6–9). Most CA-MRSA infections resolve, but deaths from invasive CA-MRSA disease have been reported (8).

Although invasive disease caused by CA-MRSA has been described in the literature, no research has been published that evaluates possible patient and isolate differences between CA-MRSA SSTIs and CA-MRSA invasive disease. A subanalysis of CA-MRSA invasive disease patients and SSTI patients and isolates was conducted by using data collected from CA-MRSA prospective sentinel surveillance in Minnesota from 2000 through 2003.

Methods

Facility Enrollment

In 2000, 12 sentinel hospitals in Minnesota (6 in the 7-county Minneapolis–St. Paul metropolitan area and 6 in greater Minnesota) began reporting all cases of MRSA isolated in their respective microbiology laboratories to the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). Characteristics of these sentinel sites have been described elsewhere (7).

Case Enrollment

Infection control practitioners from each hospital completed a case report form for patients with a positive MRSA culture obtained during 2000–2003. Patient medical records were reviewed to determine the type of infection, history of underlying illness (injection drug use, diabetes, malignancy, chronic heart or lung conditions, chronic skin conditions), or immunosuppressive therapy (defined as long-term systemic steroid use, excluding topical creams, steroids used only for short-course treatment, and inhaled steroids used for asthma) and any history of patient healthcare exposures as defined in the CA-MRSA case definition. The hospital laboratories submitted CA-MRSA isolates to MDH.

All patients with cultures obtained during 2000–2002 who met the CA-MRSA case definition based on medical record review were interviewed to confirm their classification (patient culture dates 2000–2002) and to assess possible CA-MRSA risk factors (patient culture dates 2001–2002). Patients identified at 4 of the 12 sentinel sites during 2003 who had no exclusionary healthcare exposures noted on medical record review were contacted to confirm CA-MRSA classification and conduct risk factor interviews. In addition, a random sample of 2003 patients from the remaining 8 sentinel sites were interviewed to confirm CA-MRSA classification. Informed consent was obtained from all patients before telephone interview.

US Census data from 2000 were used to provide median income by zip code (25) as a proxy for case household income. The University of Minnesota and MDH Institutional Review Boards reviewed and approved the study.

CA-MRSA Case Definition

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Active Bacterial Core Surveillance Program defined a CA-MRSA case as a patient with an MRSA infection and no history of the following: surgery, hospitalization, or residence in a long-term care facility within the year before infection, presence of a percutaneous device or indwelling catheter, dialysis within the previous year, hospitalization >48 h before MRSA culture, or previous MRSA infection or colonization.

Patients were classified as confirmed CA-MRSA case-patients if the medical record review and interview did not show any of the above healthcare risk factors. Patients were classified as probable CA-MRSA case-patients if the medical record review did not show any healthcare risk factors, but the interview was not completed (because of patient refusal, inability to locate, or language barriers).

Subanalysis Inclusion

CA-MRSA patients identified from prospective sentinel surveillance with culture dates in 2000 and 2003 were included in this subanalysis if they had an SSTI (e.g., abscess, cellulitis, folliculitis, wound infection [nonsurgical]) or infection in a normally sterile site caused by CA-MRSA. CDC's Active Bacterial Core Surveillance Program definition of sterile site infections was used to define cases of invasive CA-MRSA disease. This definition defines a normally sterile site as a portion of the body in a healthy state in which no microorganisms are found and includes the following: blood, cerebrospinal fluid, pleural fluid, peritoneal fluid, pericardial fluid, bone, joint fluid, internal body site (lymph node, brain, heart, liver, spleen, vitreous fluid, kidney, pancreas, or ovary), or other normally sterile site. Although cases of necrotizing pneumonia caused by CA-MRSA have been reported (26), CA-MRSA specimens isolated only from sputum were not included in our subanalysis because sputum was not defined as a sterile site.

Isolate Characterization

All MRSA isolates submitted to MDH were tested to confirm Staphylococcus aureus identification by using a tube coagulase test (27) (Difco Laboratories, Detroit, MI, USA). Testing for antimicrobial susceptibility was performed by using a broth microdilution panel (PML Microbiologicals, Wilsonville, OR, USA) containing the following 11 antimicrobial agents: ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, clindamycin, tetracycline, erythromycin, rifampin, linezolid, mupirocin, vancomycin, and oxacillin. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI, formerly National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards) breakpoints were used to determine levels of resistance for all antimicrobial agents except mupirocin, for which no CLSI breakpoints exist (28). A standard of <4 μg/mL was used as a breakpoint for susceptibility to mupirocin (29).

Molecular Characterization

Molecular subtyping of MRSA isolates was performed by PFGE and digestion with the restriction endonuclease SmaI (30). Patterns were evaluated both visually and with BioNumerics software (Applied Maths, Kortrijk, Belgium) by using the dice coefficient. Indistinguishable patterns must visually appear identical, and the DNA patterns must differ by <1.5% with respect to molecular weight. MRSA isolates were considered part of a CA-MRSA pulsed-field type (PFT) if they were >80% similar to the USA300 or USA400 reference strains based on Dice coefficients. MRSA isolates were considered part of an HA-MRSA PFT if they were >80% similar to USA100, USA200, or USA500–800 reference strains (30).

Statistical Analysis

The Yates continuity corrected chi-square test was used to test for trends with EpiInfo version 6.2 (CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA), and univariate analysis of the data was performed with EpiInfo 2000 (CDC). Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the association of the type of MRSA infection (SSTI versus invasive disease) with microbiologic and molecular features of the MRSA isolates. Demographic characteristics associated with the type of infection in the univariate analysis were controlled for in the multivariate analysis model. An α<0.05 significance level was required for predictors to remain in the model. Multivariate analysis was accomplished by using SAS version 8.0 for Windows (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).

Results

A total of 738 CA-MRSA infections were identified from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2003. SSTIs accounted for 79% (586/738) of all infections reported, and invasive disease accounted for 9% (65/738) of all CA-MRSA infections reported. The proportion of CA-MRSA infections that were invasive did not differ significantly over the study period. The most common site of invasive disease was the bloodstream (50%), followed by joint or bone (32%). Clinical information was available for 511 (87%) of 586 SSTI patients. The most common clinical conditions reported for SSTIs were abscesses (49%) and cellulitis (33%) (Table 1).

Case Demographics

Invasive disease patients were more likely to be male than SSTI patients (66% vs. 51%, odds ratio [OR] 1.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10–3.24). No difference in median age was found between the 2 groups. Race information was available for 54 (83%) of 65 invasive disease patients and 477 (81%) of 586 SSTI patients. No difference was shown between the 2 groups when race was analyzed in terms of white and nonwhite race categories (Table 2).

Patient hospitalization status was available for all of the invasive disease CA-MRSA patients and 562 (96%) of 586 SSTI patients. As expected, invasive disease patients were more likely to be hospitalized for their infection than were SSTI patients (OR 6.89, 95% CI 3.81–12.4). Results remained significant after controlling for age and sex (p<0.001). No differences were observed between median income of CA-MRSA invasive disease patients and SSTI patients (Table 2).

History of underlying medical conditions was obtained for 58 (89%) of 65 invasive disease patients and 515 (88%) of 586 SSTI patients. Invasive disease patients were more likely to report a history of underlying illness than were SSTI patients (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.05–4.20). Invasive disease CA-MRSA patients were more likely to have a history of immunosuppressive therapy (OR 9.31, 95% CI 1.87–47.2), solid organ malignancy (OR 9.16, 95% CI 1.27–66.3), or emphysema/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (OR 13.9, 95% CI 2.29–85.5) than SSTI patients. Invasive disease CA-MRSA patients were also more likely to be current smokers (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.09–4.67) or injection drug users (OR 5.56, 95% CI 1.29–23.9) than SSTI patients. History of underlying illness (p = 0.007), immunosuppressive therapy (p = 0.003), emphysema/COPD (p = 0.012), current smoking (p = 0.028), and injection drug use (p = 0.021) remained significant in a multivariate model that controlled for age and sex (Table 2).

Isolate Characteristics

We received isolates from 60 (92%) of 65 invasive disease patients and 525 (90%) of 586 SSTI patients. Tests for antimicrobial drug susceptibility were completed on 57 (95%) of 60 invasive disease isolates and 517 (98%) of 525 SSTI isolates. All isolates were susceptible to linezolid and vancomycin. Compared with SSTI isolates, those from invasive infections were less likely to be susceptible to ciprofloxacin (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.54–5.04) and clindamycin (OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.67–6.69). When ciprofloxacin and clindamycin susceptibilities were analyzed in a model that controlled for sex and age, the results remained significant (p = 0.002 and p = 0.001, respectively) (Table 3).

Initial antimicrobial therapy information was documented for 41 (63%) of 65 patients with invasive disease whose isolates were available and for 415 (71%) of 586 patients with SSTI whose isolates were available. For 27 (66%) of 41 invasive disease patients and 333 (80%) of 415 SSTI patients, the initial antimicrobial agent prescribed was of a class to which the organism was resistant. Invasive disease patients were more likely to be empirically treated with an antimicrobial drug to which their MRSA isolate was susceptible than were SSTI patients (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.05–4.20). Results remained significant after controlling for age and sex (p = 0.015).

All available isolates received were characterized by PFGE. Fifty-three (88%) of 60 invasive disease isolates and 501 (95%) of 525 SSTI isolates had PFGE subtypes that could be categorized into PFTs that have been associated with HA-MRSA (USA100, USA200, USA500–800) or CA-MRSA (USA300 and USA400) (30). Compared with PFGE subtypes from SSTI isolates, PFGE subtypes from invasive disease isolates were more likely to be associated with HA-MRSA PFTs (OR 3.63, 95% CI 2.03–6.50). This result remained significant after controlling for age and sex (p<0.001) (Table 4). When invasive disease and SSTI case isolate susceptibility to ciprofloxacin and clindamycin were analyzed in a multivariate model that controlled for CA- or HA-MRSA PFT and sex, no difference in susceptibility patterns was found between the 2 groups (Table 3).

Confirmed CA-MRSA Analysis

Three hundred two (52%) of 586 SSTI patients and 36 (55%) of 65 invasive disease patients were confirmed (through patient interview and medical record review, as opposed to medical record review alone) to meet the CA-MRSA case definition. Confirmed CA-MRSA patients and isolates underwent the previously described analysis regarding differences in underlying conditions and isolate antimicrobial susceptibility. Underlying condition information was available for 30 (83%) of 36 invasive disease patients and 273 (90%) of 302 SSTI patients. Confirmed invasive disease CA-MRSA patients were more likely than confirmed SSTI patients to report a history of underlying illness (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.09–5.10), history of immunosuppressive therapy (OR 10.0, 95% CI 1.92–52.0), solid organ malignancy (OR 19.4, 95% CI 1.71–221), or to be a current smoker (OR 3.06, 95% CI 1.25–7.50). Hospitalization information was available for all invasive disease patients and 299 (99%) of 302 SSTI patients. Confirmed invasive disease patients were more likely to be hospitalized for their infection than were confirmed SSTI patients (OR 5.94, 95% CI 2.75–12.8). Isolates were available for 30 (83%) of 36 invasive disease patients and 265 (88%) of 302 SSTI patients. Confirmed CA-MRSA invasive disease isolates were less likely to be susceptible to ciprofloxacin (OR 5.02, 95% CI 2.11–12.0) and clindamycin (OR 5.75, 95% CI 2.58–12.8). Twenty-eight (93%) of 30 invasive disease isolates and 257 (85%) of 302 SSTI isolates could be categorized into PFTs that have been associated with HA-MRSA or CA-MRSA. Invasive disease isolates were more likely to have HA-MRSA PFTs than were SSTI isolates (OR 4.24, 95% CI 1.90–9.43). When invasive disease and SSTI isolate susceptibility to ciprofloxacin and clindamycin were analyzed in a multivariate model that controlled for CA- or HA-MRSA PFT and sex, invasive disease isolates were still more likely to be resistant to ciprofloxacin than were SSTI isolates (p = 0.04).

Discussion

This report compares CA-MRSA invasive disease patients and their isolates with those of SSTI patients. Invasive disease patients were more likely to be male and more likely to have a history of underlying conditions (immunosuppressive therapy, emphysema/COPD, injection drug use, and smoking) than were SSTI patients. Invasive disease isolates were similar to HA-MRSA isolates in that they were resistant to additional antimicrobial drugs (clindamycin and ciprofloxacin) and were more likely to belong to a PFT usually associated with HA-MRSA (7). These similarities suggest that invasive CA-MRSA patients may have had healthcare exposures that put them at risk of acquiring HA-MRSA, even though they are classified as CA-MRSA by the current CDC case definition.

The results of the ciprofloxacin and clindamycin multivariate analysis, including PFT association with both confirmed and probable CA-MRSA or HA-MRSA, showed no difference in susceptibility patterns between invasive disease and SSTI isolates. This suggests that the initial differences in susceptibility were not due to more resistant CA-MRSA strains causing invasive disease, but rather that more of the invasive disease isolates classified as CA-MRSA were actually HA-MRSA strains, which are typically resistant to more antimicrobial agents. However, when this same analysis was conducted by using confirmed CA-MRSA cases only, invasive disease isolates were still more likely to be resistant to ciprofloxacin. More research is needed to determine whether invasive disease CA-MRSA isolates are more resistant to antimicrobial drugs than CA-MRSA isolates that cause SSTI.

Invasive disease patient characteristics identified in this analysis were similar to results from other studies, which found that CA invasive disease patients had underlying conditions such as diabetes, smoking, and cardiovascular disease (31,32). The underlying conditions identified in the S. aureus and MRSA patients in these studies do not disqualify them from meeting the current CDC CA-MRSA case definition, yet these conditions may have put them at risk of acquiring HA-MRSA.

One possible explanation for some of the results of this analysis could be the likelihood that invasive disease patients had more healthcare exposures than did SSTI patients. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that invasive disease patients reported serious underlying illnesses that would imply a history of extensive healthcare contacts. During these healthcare contacts, invasive disease patients may have been colonized by HA-MRSA strains. A recent study found that in 50% of patients nasally colonized with MRSA subsequent infection developed over the next 18 months (33). Although we were unable to determine the colonization status of our patients for this analysis, patients have been found colonized with MRSA for up to 40 months (34).

This study has several limitations. Although the hospital laboratories were selected to reflect state population demographics, the study was not population based. Therefore, generalizing the findings to entire state population is not possible. Also, some HA-MRSA patients may have been misclassified as CA-MRSA patients because of incomplete ascertainment of HA risk factors. However, since no major differences were found in results when analysis was restricted to confirmed CA-MRSA patients, misclassification bias as a result of incomplete ascertainment of HA risk factors that are exclusion criteria for the current CA-MRSA case definition is unlikely to be a large factor. In addition, the sample size, particularly of invasive disease cases, limited the ability to detect small statistical differences between the 2 groups. Finally, complete data on all cases were not available for all factors analyzed in this report. These missing data could have biased the results of this analysis.

Underlying conditions or healthcare exposures not currently included as exclusion criteria in the CA-MRSA case definition may put patients at risk of HA-MRSA colonization and infection. In addition, persons with underlying conditions may also be at greater risk of invasive disease caused by MRSA. Clinicians should be aware of possible serious MRSA infections in persons without previously recognized HA-MRSA risk factors. Continued surveillance of CA-MRSA is needed to further define the epidemiology of invasive disease and SSTI and to develop recommendations for the prevention and control of this emerging public health threat.

Ms Buck is an epidemiologist with the Minnesota Department of Health Acute Disease Investigation and Control Unit. Her primary research interests are methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and infection control issues.

Top

Acknowledgments

We thank Harry Hull, Joanne Bartkus, John Besser, Stephanie Borchardt, Karen Hilts, Billie Juni, Summer Martins, Jennifer Sweeney, Jessica West, Scott Fridkin, Jeff Hageman, Patricia Ackerman, Jeanne Anderson, Dorothy Berg, Jeanette Biorn, Becky Carlson, Charles Cartwright, John Cota, Kathy Gray, Ann Endy, Charleen Hansen, Ron Jadwin, Jackie Koranda, Barbara Kotts, Richard Lally, Karen Margolis, Michael Olesen, Lucille Owen, Sally Petrowski, Barbara Piasecki, Joni Sherin, Kathleen Steinmann, Mary Thompson, Dean Tsukyama, Lianne Walker, Cindi Welch, Deb Westerberg, and Ann Zierden for contributing to this research and helping prepare this article.

This work was supported by a cooperative agreement (U50/CCU511190) with the CDC as part of the Emerging Infections Program. This work was presented, in part, at the 2004 International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases, Atlanta, Georgia.

Top

References

  1. Jevons  M. Celbenin-resistant staphylococci. BMJ. 1961;1:124–5. DOIGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett  F, McGehee  R, Finland  M. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at Boston City Hospital. N Engl J Med. 1968;279:441–8. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brumfitt  W, Hamilton-Miller  J. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:1188–96. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Saravolatz  LD, Pohlod  DJ, Arking  LM. Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: a new source for nosocomial outbreaks. Ann Intern Med. 1982;97:325–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Groom  AV, Wolsey  DH, Naimi  TS, Smith  K, Johnson  S, Boxrud  D, Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a rural American Indian community. JAMA. 2001;286:1201–5. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Naimi  TS, LeDell  KH, Boxrud  DJ, Groom  AV, Steward  CD, Johnson  SK, Epidemiology and clonality of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Minnesota, 1996–1998. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33:990–6. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Naimi  T, LeDell  KH, Como-Sabetti  K, Borchardt  SM, Boxrud  DJ, Etienne  J, Community and healthcare-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in Minnesota. JAMA. 2003;290:2976–84. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Four pediatric deaths from community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus–Minnesota and North Dakota, 1997–1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999;48:707–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Herold  BC, Immergluck  LC, Maranan  MC, Lauderdale  DS, Gaskin  RE, Boyle-Vavra  S, Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in children with no identified predisposing risk. JAMA. 1998;279:593–8. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Public health dispatch: outbreaks of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin infections–Los Angeles County, California, 2002–2003. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003;52:88.
  11. Fey  P, Said-Salim  B, Rupp  M, Hinrichs  SH, Boxrud  DJ, Davis  CC, Comparative molecular analysis of community-or hospital-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003;47:196–203. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Maguire  G, Arthur  A, Boustead  P, Dwyer  B, Currie  B. Clinical experience and outcomes of community-acquired and nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a northern Australian hospital. J Hosp Infect. 1998;38:273–81. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Salmenlinna  S, Lyytikainen  O, Vuopio-Varkila  J. Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Finland. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8:602–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Nimmo  G, Schooneveldt  J, O'Kane  G, McCall  B, Vickery  A. Community acquisition of gentamicin-sensitive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in southeast Queensland, Australia. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38:3926–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Dufour  P, Gillet  Y, Bes  M, Lina  G, Vandenesch  F, Floret  D, Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in France: emergence of a single clone that produces Panton-Valentine leukocidin. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;35:819–24. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in correctional facilities–Georgia, Texas, and California, 2001–2003. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003;52:992–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Nakamura  M, Rohling  K, Shashaty  M, Lu  H, Tang  Y, Edwards  K. Prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage in the community pediatric population. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2002;21:917–21. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Moreno  F, Crisp  C, Jorgensen  JH, Patterson  JE. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus as a community organism. Clin Infect Dis. 1995;21:1308–12. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Adcock  PM, Pastor  P, Medley  F, Patterson  JE, Murphy  TV. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in two child care centers. J Infect Dis. 1998;178:577–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lindenmayer  JM, Schoenfeld  S, O'Grady  R, Carney  JK. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a high school wrestling team and the surrounding community. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:895–9. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Stacey  AR, Endersby  KE, Chan  PC, Marples  RR. An outbreak of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in a rugby football team. Br J Sports Med. 1998;153–4. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Pan  E, Diep  B, Carleton  H, Charlebois  ED, Sensabaugh  GF, Haller  BL, Increasing prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in California jails. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;37:1384–8. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. LaMar  JE, Carr  RB, Zinderman  C, McDonald  K. Sentinel cases of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus onboard a naval ship. Mil Med. 2003;168:135–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Fridkin  S, Hageman  J, Morrison  M, Sanza  LT, Como-Sabetti  K, Jernigan  JA, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in three communities. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:1485–7. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. US Census Bureau. United States Census, 2000. Vol. May 5, 2003; 2000.
  26. Francis  J, Doherty  M, Lopatin  U, Johnston  CP, Sinha  G, Ross  T, Severe community-onset pneumonia in healthy adults caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carrying the Panton-Valentine leukocidin genes. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40:100–7. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Becton-Dickenson  BBL. Coagulase plasma product insert. Volume Revision: Nov 1999.
  28. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. Volume 20. 5th ed. Approved standard M7-A5. Wayne (PA): The Committtee; 2000.
  29. Finlay  J, Miller  L, Poupard  J. Interpretive criteria for testing susceptibility of staphylococci to mupirocin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41:1137–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. McDougal  L, Steward  C, Killgore  G, Chaitram  J, McAllister  S, Tenover  F. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis typing of oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates from the United States: establishing a national database. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41:5113–20. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Petit  S, Barrett  N. Hadler J. Epidemiology of community-onset (CO) invasive infection with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA in Connecticut, 2001–2002. In: International conference on emerging infectious diseases. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2004.
  32. Morin  CA, Hadler  JL. Population-based incidence and characteristics of community-onset Staphylococcus aureus infections with bacteremia in 4 metropolitan Connecticut areas, 1998. J Infect Dis. 2001;184:1029–34. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Huang  S, Platt  R. Risk of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection after previous infection or colonization. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36:281–5. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Sanford  M, Widmer  A, Bale  M, Jones  R, Wenzel  R. Efficient detection and long-term persistence of the carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis. 1994;19:1123–8. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar

Top

Tables

Top

Cite This Article

DOI: 10.3201/eid1110.050141

Table of Contents – Volume 11, Number 10—October 2005

EID Search Options
presentation_01 Advanced Article Search – Search articles by author and/or keyword.
presentation_01 Articles by Country Search – Search articles by the topic country.
presentation_01 Article Type Search – Search articles by article type and issue.

Top

Comments

Please use the form below to submit correspondence to the authors or contact them at the following address:

Jessica M. Buck, Acute Disease Investigation and Control, Infection Control and Antimicrobial Resistance Unit, Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Prevention and Control, PO Box 9441, Minneapolis, MN 55440-9441, USA; fax: 612-676-5743

Send To

10000 character(s) remaining.

Top

Page created: February 22, 2012
Page updated: February 22, 2012
Page reviewed: February 22, 2012
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external