Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2018
The Clinical Utility of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Nasal Screening to Rule Out MRSA Pneumonia: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis With Antimicrobial Stewardship Implications.
СтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Parente Diane M, Cunha Cheston B, Mylonakis Eleftherios, Timbrook Tristan T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Recent literature has highlighted methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal screening as a possible antimicrobial stewardship program tool for avoiding unnecessary empiric MRSA therapy for pneumonia, yet current guidelines recommend MRSA therapy based on risk factors. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the diagnostic value of MRSA nasal screening in MRSA pneumonia.
METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception to November 2016 for English studies evaluating MRSA nasal screening and development of MRSA pneumonia. Data analysis was performed using a bivariate random-effects model to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).
RESULTS: Twenty-two studies, comprising 5163 patients, met our inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of MRSA nares screen for all MRSA pneumonia types were 70.9% and 90.3%, respectively. With a 10% prevalence of potential MRSA pneumonia, the calculated PPV was 44.8%, and the NPV was 96.5%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRSA community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) were 85% and 92.1%, respectively. For CAP and HCAP both the PPV and NPV increased, to 56.8% and 98.1%, respectively. In comparison, for MRSA ventilated-associated pneumonia, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 40.3%, 93.7%, 35.7%, and 94.8%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Nares screening for MRSA had a high specificity and NPV for ruling out MRSA pneumonia, particularly in cases of CAP/HCAP. Based on the NPV, MRSA nares screening is a valuable tool for AMS to streamline empiric antibiotic therapy, especially among patients with pneumonia who are not colonized with MRSA.
METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception to November 2016 for English studies evaluating MRSA nasal screening and development of MRSA pneumonia. Data analysis was performed using a bivariate random-effects model to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).
RESULTS: Twenty-two studies, comprising 5163 patients, met our inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of MRSA nares screen for all MRSA pneumonia types were 70.9% and 90.3%, respectively. With a 10% prevalence of potential MRSA pneumonia, the calculated PPV was 44.8%, and the NPV was 96.5%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRSA community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) were 85% and 92.1%, respectively. For CAP and HCAP both the PPV and NPV increased, to 56.8% and 98.1%, respectively. In comparison, for MRSA ventilated-associated pneumonia, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 40.3%, 93.7%, 35.7%, and 94.8%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Nares screening for MRSA had a high specificity and NPV for ruling out MRSA pneumonia, particularly in cases of CAP/HCAP. Based on the NPV, MRSA nares screening is a valuable tool for AMS to streamline empiric antibiotic therapy, especially among patients with pneumonia who are not colonized with MRSA.