Advertisement
Journal Home
Search for

Volume 35, Issue 6, Pages 359-366 (August 2007)


View previous. 4 of 16 View next.

Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus prevalence: How common is it? A methodological comparison of prevalence ascertainment

E. Yoko Furuya, MDaCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Heather A. Cook, MPHa, Mei-Ho Lee, BSa, Maureen Miller, PhDb, Elaine Larson, PhDc, Sandra Hyman, RN, MPA, CICd, Phyllis Della-Latta, PhDe, Eneida A. Mendonca, MD, PhDf, Franklin D. Lowy, MDa

Background

Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) infections are becoming increasingly prevalent. There is geographic variation in their reported prevalence across the United States; however, studies reporting on CA-MRSA prevalence also demonstrate great variability in their case-finding methodology. We conducted a study to see how three different methods to ascertain CA-MRSA prevalence would lead to different estimates.

Methods

Different methods were used to identify cases of CA-MRSA colonization and/or infection in New York City. Method 1: retrospective review of clinical and surveillance cultures identified through a hospital computer database. Method 2: prospective collection of surveillance cultures in the same hospital's emergency department. Method 3: prospective collection of surveillance cultures in a community setting.

Results

Differing values for CA-MRSA prevalence resulted depending on the method and denominator used. All nares cultures as the denominator led to prevalence estimates of 0.3%-0.6%; all S. aureus as the denominator led to rates of 1.2%-5%; all MRSA as the denominator led to estimates of 5.5%-50%.

Conclusions

A comparison of three methods revealed that variability in case-finding methodologies can lead to different prevalence estimates. Key factors to consider when comparing CA-MRSA rates include the definition of CA-MRSA, choice of denominator, and method and setting of sample collection.

New York, New York

a From the Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Columbia University, College of Physicians & Surgeons, New York, NY

b Columbia University, Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY

c Columbia University, School of Nursing and Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY

d Department of Epidemiology, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY

e Department of Pathology, Columbia University, College of Physicians & Surgeons, New York, NY

f Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY

Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to E. Yoko Furuya, MD, 630 W. 168th St., PH-8W #876, New York, NY 10032.

 Supported by the National Institutes of Health grants K23 AI01752-01A1 and R01 AI60859-01A1.

PII: S0196-6553(07)00100-9

doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2006.12.009


View previous. 4 of 16 View next.