Skip Navigation LinksHome > September 2012 - Volume 8 - Issue 3 > A Perspective on the Evidence Regarding Methicillin-resistan...
Journal of Patient Safety:
doi: 10.1097/PTS.0b013e3182627b89
Review Article

A Perspective on the Evidence Regarding Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Surveillance

Kavanagh, Kevin MD, MS*; Abusalem, Said PhD, RN*†; Saman, Daniel M. DrPH, MPH, CPH*

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

From the *Health Watch USA, Somerset, KY; and †University of Louisville, School of Nursing, Louisville, KY.

Correspondence: Kevin Kavanagh, MD, MS, Health Watch USA Somerset, KY (e-mail: healthwatchusa@gmail.com).

The authors disclose no conflict of interest.

Collapse Box

Abstract

Abstract: Two prominent studies have been used by policy makers to prevent the enactment of standards of care regarding active surveillance of patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in hospital settings. In this brief review and perspective of those studies, we contend that both studies have serious limitations (i.e., the intervention group was not given optimal intervention) that may not have been scrutinized by many policy makers, health officials, and other researchers. These studies seem to have had a disproportionate impact on health-care policy despite their limitations. Furthermore, health-care policy and treatment standards need to reflect the preponderance of evidence with appropriate weight given to research studies based on their strengths and limitations. Only then can treatment standards that are effective against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus be adopted or refuted.

Back to Top | Article Outline

TOPIC REVIEW AND PERSPECTIVE

The setting of standards and the practice of evidence-based medicine has received much attention in the medical literature. However, in reality, evidence-based medicine is difficult to implement. We believe an example of reluctance to adopt standards can be found in medicine’s response to health care–associated infections. Intense debate has centered on the use of active surveillance testing. The 2003 Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America guidelines concluded the following: “Active surveillance cultures are essential to identify the reservoir for spread of MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) and VRE (Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus) infections and make control possible using the CDC’s long-recommended contact precautions.”1 However, since 2003, medicine has backed away from setting guidelines related to when and when not to use active surveillance testing (AST) and, in the process, has hindered the practice of evidence-based medicine.

Active detection and isolation for patients with hospital infections that can be dangerous to health-care workers (such as active Mycobacterium tuberculosis, smallpox, and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome) has been used for decades and is without question.2 Two types of interventions are important with active surveillance testing: The first is full contact precautions (i.e., hand hygiene, donning gloves and gowns, and preferably, the patient is placed in a private room3), and the second is decolonization. Contact isolation requires that the patient is placed in a private room with health-care workers donning gowns and gloves and performing hand hygiene before entering the room. Contact precautions and isolation are designed to prevent the spread of pathogens from person to person and also prevents spread of pathogens from indirect contact (i.e., from person to object to person).3 Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus can spread by both direct and indirect contact and can live longer than 51 days on widely used plastics.4 Spread to the environment can be quick with 35% of colonized patients having contaminated their environment within 33 hours after admission.5 Despite the publication of significant reductions of MRSA infections by at least 14 studies using active surveillance testing and isolation/decolonization protocols involving high-risk patients,6,7 patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (ICU)/neonatal ICU,8–12 surgical wards/patients,9,13–17 or the entire hospital,18,19 active surveillance testing and isolation/decolonization have still not been widely adopted by hospitals. Two of the studies that implemented ICU active surveillance testing protocols even observed a facility-wide reduction of MRSA infections.10,11

The publication in prominent journals of 2 studies, the STAR*ICU Study20 and the MRSA-Swiss Study,21 seems to have had a disproportionate impact on health-care policy, which has stymied the widespread adoption of MRSA active surveillance testing in hospitals. The impact of these studies needs to be questioned because in both studies, the intervention group did not have optimal intervention. One of the most important factors in the success of an active surveillance testing program is the percentage of days that MRSA carriers in hospitals are isolated (e.g., 10 days isolated out of 10 total days in a hospital is optimal at 100% isolation). Peterson22 performed a literature review and estimated that for an active surveillance testing program to be successful, the percentage of MRSA isolation days should be as high as possible, with no actualized benefits (e.g., reduction of MRSA) of the active surveillance testing program if colonized patients are not isolated over 72% of the days they are in the hospital. Robicsek et al.,18 reported that MRSA patient isolation days during the baseline period was only 18% of that observed with universal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) surveillance. Robicsek et al.,18 (2008) also reported a 69.6% decrease in MRSA disease observed with universal active surveillance testing and observed that hospital-wide MRSA patient isolation days increased over five-fold using universal PCR surveillance.

In this area, the STAR*ICU study falls far short. There was a 5-day delay in obtaining the test results,23 resulting in the intervention group being assigned to contact precautions a median of 51% of ICU days.20 Once assigned, the staff’s compliance with protocol was poor, as “gloves were used for a median of 82% of contacts, gowns for 77% of contacts, and hand hygiene after 69% of contacts.”20 Because the purpose of active detection and isolation is also to prevent spread from patient to surface to patient, another limitation of this study must also be noted: 2993 (55%) of the 5434 subjects were excluded because their stay in the ICU was less than 3 days.20 These excluded patients may well have had a similar rate (10.6%) of MRSA colonization as the studied patients and served to further contaminate the facility’s environment. Thus, one could argue that combined with the poor staff compliance with gowning, that effective intervention was less than 40% of the time.

Despite its shortcomings, the STAR*ICU study has had a profound impact on health-care policy in the United States.

* The STAR*ICU Study has been used to support the position that there is not enough evidence to recommend active surveillance testing.24

* The AMA’s American Medical News ran a story on the STAR*ICU study entitled, “Doubt cast on effectiveness of universal MRSA screening,” which stated as a subtitle “Ten states require hospitals to screen all ICU patients for the antibiotic-resistant superbug. New research, however, shows that approach may not work.”23

* The Maine Hospital Association has used the STAR*ICU Study to support a successful repeal of Maine’s mandatory active surveillance testing law by entering into testimony, “Furthermore, the STAR*ICU study that Dr. Pinsky described is the latest and best research to date on the issue. My understanding of its conclusion is that screening (as proposed in LD 267) and contact precautions (also proposed in LD 267) were proven to be no more effective than standard precautions.”25

* The Centers for Disease Control has used the results of the STAR*ICU Study to support a statement on a CDC blog that reads, “The fact that these studies seem to give different answers illustrates the challenge we as scientists face in making recommendations on how best to use limited prevention resources-sometimes the answers aren’t as simple as we would like.”26

The lack of recommendations for the control of MRSA is a significant problem and a focus of a Government Accountability Office report that criticizes the CDC for not prioritizing the almost 1200 recommended practices, including the more than 500 strongly recommended practices, to reduce health care–associated infections.27

The control of MRSA in surgical wards/patients has been found to be effective using active surveillance testing by at least 6 authors.9,13–17 In surgical units, there is heightened concern of spread of MRSA to other patients but also for developing a MRSA postoperative infection in the carrier. Harbarth et al.21 observed that 7.8% of MRSA carriers admitted to surgical units developed an infection.

Two studies, which did not show an effect on surgical patients, were published by Harbarth et al.21,28 The 2008 study (MRSA-Swiss) was the most descriptive and, similar to the STAR*ICU study, may not have had effective intervention in the intervention group.29 The MRSA-Swiss study was published approximately 1 month before an important congressional hearing on health-care–associated infections30 and approximately 1 week before a study from Northwestern University in the Annals of Internal Medicine that showed benefit of active surveillance testing in the control of MRSA.18

In the MRSA-Swiss study, only 43% of patients who were known to be MRSA carriers before surgery received effective preoperative antibiotics against MRSA. In addition, 31% of MRSA carriers undergoing surgery were identified only after the surgery because of the emergent nature of the intervention and time delays. Carriers were also only isolated in “flagged side or single rooms whenever available” and “especially in abdominal surgery, surgeons were reluctant to add vancomycin to the standard prophylactic regimen.”21 The place of MRSA acquisition, in the operating room or on the ward, was not determined in the study. In contradistinction, all of the 26 patients who were identified as MRSA carriers on an outpatient basis underwent decolonization and had adequate MRSA prophylaxis. None of these patients developed an infection.21 Another interesting observation in support of active surveillance testing was that the 5.1% of patients who were colonized with MRSA developed 43% of the MRSA infections.

* The MRSA-Swiss study has also been widely quoted in the literature and has been used as a reason for not setting standards. An accompanying editorial to the MRSA-Swiss study stated the findings supported the CDC’s guidelines and control position statement against the routine or mandated use of MRSA active surveillance cultures.31

* Approximately a month after the publication of the MRSA-Swiss study21 and the Northwestern University Study,18 Rep. Henry Waxman referenced these articles32 and made the following statement during a congressional hearing on health care–associated infections: “Other infection control measures may be promising, but are less well understood. For instance, two articles recently appeared in the top medical journals about screening for the drug resistant bacteria known as MRSA. One concluded that MRSA screening did work. One concluded it did not.”30

* Six months later, these seemingly contradictory studies (MRSA-Swiss21 and the Northwestern University Study18) were used by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America/HICPAC in a position paper as justification for the following statement: “Healthcare facilities may or may not choose to conduct AST; 2 recent studies offer conflicting findings as to whether AST for MRSA, followed by measures to prevent transmission by identified carriers, can significantly reduce MRSA disease burden.”33

* In a discussion regarding screening for MRSA on admission, Medscape34 republished a widely read article by Uckay et al.,35 which stated, “However, the results of several outstanding prospective trials in recent years are inconclusive. While some before–after studies report a benefit, other crossover design trials (Harbarth, 2008; Jeyaratnam 2008) fail to show a reduction in SSI rates (or at least in SSI rates due to MRSA).”

* The Evidence Based Review in Surgery Group published an analysis of preoperative MRSA surveillance testing (Henteleff et al.)36 using the MRSA-Swiss article21 as illustration of conflicting evidence, which prevented adopting a recommended practice.29

There have also been a number of studies, which have compared using cultures to PCR testing.37–40 Three of these studies showed a significant decrease in MRSA with PCR testing. In 1 study, Jeyaratnam et al.40 showed a slight nonsignificant decrease. The Jeyaratnam et al. (2008) study was not facility-wide and was limited to designated wards. In addition, the study was a crossover design and had a duration of 14 months; MRSA can live in the environment for a protracted period,4 leading one to wonder if MRSA residing in the facility environment of the control wards would cause indirect contact transmission and contaminate future patients in the experimental arm.

Research studies have sometimes been found to portray a perception that a nonsignificant result has some significance. Boutron et al.41 identified “spin” in over 40% of surveyed studies with primarily nonsignificant results. We feel that the MRSA-Swiss and STAR*ICU studies fall into another category of “spin,” that of having received undue emphasis as evidence that the studied intervention is not effective.

Northern Europe/Scandinavian nations that incorporate a successful “search and destroy” strategy have a percentage of Methicillin resistance found in Staphylococcus aureus cultures of less than 5%.42,43 In the United States, that number has passed the 50% mark and varies widely.43 Although MRSA has receded in some parts of the country, rates in the East South Central U.S. region are approaching 70% with no sight of decline.43

Some evidence indicates that MRSA may be starting to decline.44 However, there is also wide variation around our country.43 Instances where improvement is observed in some regions but not others are supportive for the setting of standards and the practicing of evidence-based medicine.

In setting standards of care, the question should not be whether someone has performed active surveillance testing with negative results, for almost any protocol if not properly executed will not work. The question that needs to be asked is, “Are there any other protocols with equal or greater effectiveness that do not include active surveillance testing?”

There is no question that surveillance for the control of MRSA is still under debate. To formulate an effective strategy, it is imperative that U.S. policy makers base policy decisions on the preponderance of evidence that support widespread surveillance and not just the findings of a few studies. The strength of existing evidence should guide the setting of standards for control of MRSA.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Muto CA, Jernigan JA, Ostrowsky BE, et al.. SHEA guidelines for preventing nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003; 24: 362–386.

2. Farr BM, Jarvis WR. Transmission of resistant bacteria in intensive care. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 762; author reply 764-5.

3. Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M, et al. the Healthcare Infections Control Practice Advisory Committee. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2007 Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings. Pages 15–16, 70. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/isolation/Isolation2007.pdf. Accessed July 3, 2012.

4. Neely AN, Maley MP. Survival of enterococci and staphylococci on hospital fabrics and plastic. J Clin Microbiol. 2000; 38: 724–726.

5. Chang S, Sethi AK, Stiefel U, et al.. Occurrence of skin and environmental contamination with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus before results of polymerase chain reaction at hospital admission become available. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010; 31: 607–612.

6. Shitrit P, Gottesman BS, Katzir M, et al.. Active surveillance for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) decreases the incidence of MRSA bacteremia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006; 27: 1004–1008.

7. Rodríguez-Baño J, García L, Ramírez E, et al.. Long-term control of endemic hospital-wide methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): the impact of targeted active surveillance for MRSA in patients and healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010; 31: 786–795.

8. Clancy M, Graepler A, Wilson M, et al.. Active screening in high-risk units is an effective and cost-avoidant method to reduce the rate of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in the hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006; 27: 1009–1017.

9. Muder RR, Cunningham C, McCray E, et al.. Implementation of an industrial systems-engineering approach to reduce the incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008; 29: 702–708, 7 p following 708.

10. Huang SS, Yokoe DS, Hinrichsen VL, et al.. Impact of routine intensive care unit surveillance cultures and resultant barrier precautions on hospital-wide methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis. 2006; 43: 971–978.

11. Simmons S. Effects of selective patient screening for MRSA on overall MRSA hospital-acquired infection rates. Crit Care Nurs Q. 2011; 34: 18–24.

12. Huang YC, Lien RI, Su LH, et al.. Successful control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in endemic neonatal intensive care units—a 7-year campaign. PLoS One. 2011; 6: e23001.

13. Kim DH, Spencer M, Davidson SM, et al.. Institutional prescreening for detection and eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010; 92: 1820–1826.

14. Rao N, Cannella B, Crossett LS, et al.. A preoperative decolonization protocol for Staphylococcus aureus prevents orthopaedic infections. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008; 466: 1343–1348.

15. Pofahl WE, Goettler CE, Ramsey KM, et al.. Active surveillance screening of MRSA and eradication of the carrier state decreases surgical-site infections caused by MRSA. J Am Coll Surg. 2009; 208: 981–986; discussion 986-8.

16. Nixon M, Jackson B, Varghese P, et al.. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus on orthopaedic wards: incidence, spread, mortality, cost and control. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006; 88: 812–817.

17. Walsh EE, Greene L, Kirshner R. Sustained reduction in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus wound infections after cardiothoracic surgery. Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171: 68–73.

18. Robicsek A, Beaumont JL, Paule SM, et al.. Universal surveillance for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in 3 affiliated hospitals. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 148: 409–418.

19. Jain R, Kralovic SM, Evans NE, et al.. Veterans Affairs Initiative to Prevent Methicillin-resistant Staphyloccus aureus Infections. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364: 1419–1430.

20. Huskins WC, Huckabee CM, O’Grady NP, et al.. Intervention to Reduce Transmission of Resistant Bacteria in Intensive Care. N Engl J Med. Page 1411. 2011; 364: 1407–1428.

21. Harbarth S, Fankhauser C, Schrenzel J, et al.. Universal screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at hospital admission and nosocomial infection in surgical patients. Page 1153. JAMA. 2008; 299: 1149–1157.

22. Peterson LR, Diekema DJ. To Screen or Not To Screen for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Microbiol. 2010; 48: 683–689.

23. O’Reilly KB. Doubt cast on effectiveness of universal MRSA screening. AMA News April 26, 2011.http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/04/25/prsb0426.htm. Accessed July 2012.

24. Morris A. Comment on Active surveillance and use of barrier precautions did not reduce colonization and infection with MRSA and VRE in adult ICUs. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155: JC2–JC13.

25. Austin J. Testimony of the Maine Hospital Association. In Opposition to LD 267—An Act to Strengthen the Laws on Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and to Improve Health Care. In Support Of LD 1212—An Act to Improve Hospital Reporting of MRSA Data. April 27, 2011.

26. Jernigan JA. Prevention MRSA in healthcare—Is there a silver bullet? (Part 1 of 3)Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention. April 13, 2011. Available at: http://blogs.cdc.gov/safehealthcare/?p=1542. Accessed July 3, 2012.

27. Government Accountability Office. Health-Care Associated Infections In Hospitals. Leadership Needed from HHS to Prioritize Prevention Practices and Improve Data on These Infections. GAO-08-283 Washington, DC; 2008, pages 39–40. Available at: http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-283 or http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08283.pdf. Accessed July 3, 2012.

28. Harbarth S, Masuet-Aumatell C, Schrenzel J, et al.. Evaluation of rapid screening and pre-emptive contact isolation for detecting and controlling methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in critical care: an interventional cohort study. Crit Care. 2006; 10: R25.

29. Kavanagh K, Abusalem S. Mounting evidence supports universal surveillance for MRSA in preoperative patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2011; 213: 335–336.

30. House of Representatives. Healthcare-Associated Infections: A Preventable Epidemic. Hearing before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform House of Representatives. April 16, 2008. Available at: http://oversight-archive.waxman.house.gov/documents/20080416111629.pdf. Accessed July 3, 2012.

31. Diekema DJ, Climo M. Preventing MRSA infections. Finding it is not enough. JAMA. 2008; 299: 1190–1191.

32. Letter, L Response to enquiry by Congressman Waxman’s health policy staff. E-Mail Oct 2, 2012. Available at: http://www.healthwatchusa.org/publications/2012-Documents/20120202-Waxman-HAI-Hearing.pdf. Accessed July 3, 2012.

33. Cohen AL, Calfee D, Fridkin SK, et al.. Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Recommendations for metrics for multidrug-resistant organisms in healthcare settings: SHEA/HICPAC Position paper. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008; 29: 901–913.

34. Medscape General Surgery News. Section 4, July 21, 2010. Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/723601. Accessed July 3, 2012.

35. Uçkay I, Harbarth S, Peter R, et al.. Preventing surgical site infections. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2010; 8: 657–670.

36. Henteleff HJ, Barie PS, Hamilton SM. Members of the Evidence-Based Reviews in Surgery Group. Universal screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in surgical patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2011; 213: 335–336.

37. Olchanski N, Mathews C, Fusfeld L, Jarvis W. Assessment of the influence of test characteristics on the clinical and cost impacts of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening programs in US hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011; 32: 250–257.

38. Hardy K, Price C, Szczepura A, et al.. Reduction in the rate of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus acquisition in surgical wards by rapid screening for colonization: a prospective, cross-over study. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010; 16: 333–339.

39. Cunningham R, Jenks P, Northwood J, et al.. Effect on MRSA transmission of rapid PCR testing of patients admitted to critical care. J Hosp Infect. 2007; 65: 24–28.

40. Jeyaratnam D, Whitty CJ, Phillips K, et al.. Impact of rapid screening tests on acquisition of meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus: cluster randomized crossover trial. BMJ. 2008; 336: 927–930.

41. Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, et al.. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA. 2010; 303: 2058–2064.

42. Struelens MJ, Monnet DL. Prevention of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection: is Europe winning the fight? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010; 31: S42–44.

43. The Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy. (2011) Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Available at: http://www.cddep.org/ResistanceMap/bug-drug/MRSA#1.Accessed July 3, 2012.

44. Kallen AJ, Mu Y, Bulens S, et al.. Active Bacterial Core surveillance (ABCs) MRSA Investigators of the Emerging Infections Program. Health care-associated invasive MRSA infections, 2005–2008. JAMA. 2010; 304: 641–648.

Keywords:

surveillance; MRSA; methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; research integrity; research spin; treatment standards; healthcare associated infections; hospital acquired infections; hospital acquired conditions; evidence based medicine; ADI; AST; HAI; HAC

© 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Login

Article Tools

Share

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.