MRSA What Is the Causative

MRSA

What is the causative agent for MRSA? The British Association of Medical Microbiologists reports that MRSA (Staphylococcus aureus) is a bacterium frequently found in the noses of up to 30% of "normal healthy people." It is often found on human skin, as well. But if the Staphylococcus aureus gets inside the body it can cause "important infections such as boils or pneumonia," the report continues. The problem with this particular strain of this bacterium is that there are no antibiotics that can knock it down once it has entered the internal part of the human body. The www.link.med.ed.ac.ukBritish medical Web site points out that individuals can become carriers of MRSA in the same exact way that they can carry the ordinary Staphylococcus aureus - by "physical contact with the organism." And if the organism is on the skin, having physical contact with another person's skin means that other person is then exposed.

The British medical site points out that the MRSA bacterium, when it enters under the skin or in the lungs, can cause "important infections such as boils or pneumonia." The irony to this disease is that people who carry the Staphylococcus aureus are normally very healthy, and have no problems though they indeed are carriers.

MRSA is known to be confined to hospitals and to patients who are particularly vulnerable - such as those in intensive care units, burns units, surgical and orthopedic wards. The MRSA bacterium is normally "colonized" in the nose, on the skin, or in the back of the throat, and there is no problem. However, when a patient gets a fever, or has had a recent surgery, that patient may then begin suffering a full blown debilitating case of MRSA.

What is the problem with this disease? If a MRSA organism is passed along to a person (in a hospital or in the community) who is already ill then a more serious infection can occur. This poses a major risk for persons who have existing health problems, and for their families. If school children become infected and spread the disease among classmates, a major outbreak would be a very serious dilemma for the school and the community.

When treating an infection related to MRSA, a decision must be made between using a Bactericidal (bacteria-killing) drug or a bacteriostatic (bacteria-inhibiting) drug. In Science Daily (www.sciencedaily.com) the authors say the solution as to which to use "is not always obvious." Indeed, it is true that certain bacteriostatic drugs "may be preferable in cases of streptococcal..." infections, the article explains. Some physicians that treat infectious diseases "wrongly believe that bacteria-killing drugs are automatically preferable to those that inhibit bacterial growth," according to Dr. Robert Finberg of the University of Massachusetts. "The misperception that it's always better to use a bactericidal drug is incorrect."

In the publication of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, the authors assert that "Bactericidal antibiotics are generally regarded as superior to bacteriostatic agents" when treating most infections. To determine which of the antibiotics are best suited for any particular infection, a clinical trial should be conducted, however, "given the strong presumption of the superiority of bactericidal over bacteriostatic agents, a clinical trial to directly test this hypothesis for the treatment of infections where bactericidal activity is likely to make a difference would be considered unethical," according to Dr. Henry F. Chambers, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco (www.nfid.org).

Moreover, as for Chambers' article, he contends that "bactericidal activity is not an invariable property of an antibiotic"; that depends on the organism and the conditions under which the organism is growing. In any event, Staphylococcus aureus "is not killed by protein synthesis inhibitors, cholramphinicol and erythromycin," the classic agents known to seek out the ribosome.

What are the ways for diagnosis of MRSA? The Department of Public Health in Massachusetts (www.mass.gov) says the way health officials go about diagnosing MRSA is first taking a culture from the infected person and taking it to a lab. A small biopsy of the actual skin, or of the pus that is draining from the infection - or, better yet, a culture of a skin lesion "is especially useful in recurrent or persistent cases," the article explains. If a patient suspected of having MRSA has pneumonia, a sputum culture is taken, and if a bloodstream infection is apparent, blood cultures are taken using 'aseptic techniques." With a urinary infection, healthcare professionals will take urine cultures - again, using aseptic techniques - and if staph bacteria are isolated, the organism "should be tested to determine which antibiotics are effective for treatment."