LETTER
We read with great interest the article by Senn and others (1) as a prime example of how detailed molecular analysis can unravel the epidemiological patterns that methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strains follow in the colonizing process and the usefulness of extranasal sampling to uncover MRSA prevalence and spreading pathways.
Screening of MRSA on multiple body sites is well known to greatly enhance isolation sensitivity. However, the study by Senn et al. is among the first to open a new awareness about qualitative differences in the behavior of specific MRSA strains. Based on our experience, we concur with the implied author’s conclusion that screening protocols limited to the nares may lead to selective under- or overestimation of the prevalence of specific strains, with the potential of greatly undermining surveillance efforts. As in Senn’s study, our data also paint a picture of variability in strain behavior, which in our case manifests itself in the response to interventions.
We performed molecular typing of 471 confirmed MRSA strains isolated during our targeted infection prevention (TIP) clinical trial (2), which focused on high-risk nursing home residents with an indwelling urinary catheter or feeding tube. The intervention program included use of preemptive barrier precautions, deidentified feedback, an interactive hand hygiene program, and an interactive infection prevention educational program for all health care workers (3). Strains were assigned to 1 of 18 groups based on SmaI pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) cytotoxin PCR (4), agr typing (5–7), or SCCmec typing (8–10) and were stratified by site of isolation (nasal, oral, groin, perianal, feeding tube insertion site, urinary catheter insertion site, and wound). We observed significant changes in the ratio of nasal to extranasal colonization in the intervention facilities compared to the control facilities, among specific molecular types (Table 1). The ratio of nasal to extranasal sample positivity was fairly consistent among different molecular types in the control group. In the intervention group, however, the ratio was significantly decreased for some strains and increased for others. In the absence of molecular typing, those changes would have been unnoticed. Moreover, the total number of isolates from all sites also showed different reduction percentages with the intervention: type 2 isolates, for example, decreased by 65%, and type 3 did not decrease at all. Type 2 isolates represent PFGE USA300 PVL+ strains, which are commonly community acquired. Most USA300 isolates described so far have been recovered from wounds and skin and soft tissue infections, where they can be the predominant type (11). However, in nursing homes, USA300 isolates have been uncommon until recently (12). As in Senn and colleagues’ observations, differential behavior of selected strains was inferred from screening extranasal sites and molecular typing. In our case, this phenomenon manifested as a different response to interventions. This observation has few precedents in the literature, except for specific resistance to topical antiseptics (13, 14).
TABLE 1 .
Distribution of the most represented MRSA types (20 or more isolates) for nasal versus extranasal colonization in control and intervention facilities
| Typea | PFGE profile | No. of control isolates (3,258 swabs tested) |
No. of isolates with intervention (3,149 swabs tested) |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Site of isolation |
Total | Extranasal/nasal ratio | Site of isolation |
Total | Extranasal/nasal ratio | ||||
| Nasal | Extranasal | Nasal | Extranasal | ||||||
| 1 | USA100 | 36 | 96 | 132 | 2.7 | 35 | 59 | 94b | 1.7b |
| 2 | USA300 PVL+ | 16 | 29 | 45 | 1.8 | 1 | 15 | 16b | 15b |
| 3 | USA non-100-1100 | 16 | 29 | 45 | 1.8 | 8 | 41 | 49 | 5.1b |
| All | 88 | 182 | 270 | 2.1 | 57 | 144 | 201b | 2.5 | |
Type grouping was assigned based on 18 unique combinations of PFGE (1% tolerance), agr typing, SCCmec typing, or PVL typing.
P values of <0.05 (intervention vs. control).
During the 3-year study period, we did not observe outbreaks in any of the 12 facilities. This study, conducted in the nursing home setting, adds confirmation that MRSA strain-specific characteristics influences anatomic site colonization patterns and the response to interventions. This must be taken into account when designing resource-intensive interventions aimed at decreasing MRSA burden.
Funding Statement
This work, including the efforts of Lona Mody, was funded by National Institute on Aging (R01AG032298, R01AG041780, and K24AG050685).
Footnotes
Citation Cassone M, McNamara SE, Perri MB, Zervos M, Mody L. 2016. Impact of intervention measures on MRSA clonal type and carriage site prevalence. mBio 7(2):e00218-16. doi:10.1128/mBio.00218-16.
REFERENCES
- 1.Senn L, Clerc O, Zanetti G, Basset P, Prod’hom G, Gordon NC, Sheppard AE, Crook DW, James R, Thorpe HA, Feil EJ, Blanc DS. 2016. The stealthy superbug: the role of asymptomatic enteric carriage in maintaining a long-term hospital outbreak of ST228 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. mBio 7:e02039-15. doi: 10.1128/mBio.02039-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Mody L, Krein SL, Saint S, Min LC, Montoya A, Lansing B, McNamara SE, Symons K, Fisch J, Koo E, Rye RA, Galecki A, Kabeto MU, Fitzgerald JT, Olmsted RN, Kauffman CA, Bradley SF. 2015. A targeted infection prevention intervention in nursing home residents with indwelling devices: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 175:714–723. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.University of Michigan Targeted infection prevention study toolkit implementation guide. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor: http://inventions.umich.edu/technologies/6949_targeted-infection-prevention-tip-study-toolkit-implementation-guide. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Lina G, Piémont Y, Godail-Gamot F, Bes M, Peter MO, Gauduchon V, Vandenesch F, Etienne J. 1999. Involvement of Panton-Valentine leukocidin-producing Staphylococcus aureus in primary skin infections and pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis 29:1128–1132. doi: 10.1086/313461. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Okuma K, Iwakawa K, Turnidge JD, Grubb WB, Bell JM, O’Brien FG, Coombs GW, Pearman JW, Tenover FC, Kapi M, Tiensasitorn C, Ito T, Hiramatsu K. 2002. Dissemination of new methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus clones in the community. J Clin Microbiol 40:4289–4294. doi: 10.1128/JCM.40.11.4289-4294.2002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Witte W, Enright M, Schmitz FJ, Cuny C, Braulke C, Heuck D. 2001. Characteristics of a new epidemic MRSA in Germany ancestral to United Kingdom EMRSA 15. Int J Med Microbiol 290:677–682. doi: 10.1016/S1438-4221(01)80006-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Strommenger B, Cuny C, Werner G, Witte W. 2004. Obvious lack of association between dynamics of epidemic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in central Europe and agr specificity groups. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 23:15–19. doi: 10.1007/s10096-003-1046-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kondo Y, Ito T, Ma XX, Watanabe S, Kreiswirth BN, Etienne J, Hiramatsu K. 2007. Combination of multiplex PCRs for staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec type assignment: rapid identification system for mec, ccr, and major differences in junkyard regions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 51:264–274. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00165-06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Zhang K, McClure JA, Elsayed S, Louie T, Conly JM. 2005. Novel multiplex PCR assay for characterization and concomitant subtyping of staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec types I to V in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Microbiol 43:5026–5033. doi: 10.1128/JCM.43.10.5026-5033.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.McDougal LK, Steward CD, Killgore GE, Chaitram JM, McAllister SK, Tenover FC. 2003. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis typing of oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates from the United States: establishing a national database. J Clin Microbiol 41:5113–5120. doi: 10.1128/JCM.41.11.5113-5120.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Albrecht VS, Limbago BM, Moran GJ, Krishnadasan A, Gorwitz RJ, McDougal LK, Talan DA, EMERGEncy ID NET Study Group . 2015. Staphylococcus aureus colonization and strain type at various body sites among patients with a closed abscess and uninfected controls at U.S. emergency departments. J Clin Microbiol 53:3478–3484. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01371-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Shurland SM, Stine OC, Venezia RA, Zhan M, Furuno JP, Miller RR, Roghmann MC. 2012. USA300 methicillin-resistant S. aureus (USA300 MRSA) colonization and the risk of MRSA infection in residents of extended-care facilities. Epidemiol Infect 140:390–399. doi: 10.1017/S0950268811001324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Whitman TJ, Schlett CD, Grandits GA, Millar EV, Mende K, Hospenthal DR, Murray PR, Tribble DR. 2012. Chlorhexidine gluconate reduces transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus USA300 among Marine recruits. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 33:809–816. doi: 10.1086/666631. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Batra R, Cooper BS, Whiteley C, Patel AK, Wyncoll D, Edgeworth JD. 2010. Efficacy and limitation of a chlorhexidine-based decolonization strategy in preventing transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an intensive care unit. Clin Infect Dis 50:210–217. doi: 10.1086/648717. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]