Evidence Hub

Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in men who have sex with men: A case series

Sztramko R, Katz K, Antoniou T, Mulvey M, Brunetta J, Crouzat F, Kovacs C, Merkley B et al.

The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale, 2007

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to describe the clinical characteristics and management of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) infections among a cohort of men who have sex with men.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients with culture-proven MRSA at Maple Leaf Medical Clinic (Toronto, Ontario) between November 2004 and December 2005. Cases were identified by individual physicians and by queries in the clinical management system. A standard data collection form was used to record patient demographics, potential risk factors for MRSA and course of illness. When available, antimicrobial sensitivities were recorded. DNA fingerprinting using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, and genetic analysis for SCCmec typing and detection of the Panton-Valentine leukocidin cytotoxin were performed on six available isolates.

RESULTS: Seventeen patients with MRSA infection were identified, 12 (71%) of whom were HIV-positive. The most common clinical presentation was abscess (35%), followed by furuncle (17%), folliculitis (17%), cellulitis (17%) and sinusitis (12%). The majority of MRSA isolates were resistant to ciprofloxacin (92%) and levofloxacin (77%). All isolates were susceptible to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, rifampin, linezolid, gentamicin and clindamycin, while the majority were susceptible to tetracycline (80%). All six isolates tested were SCCmec type IVa-positive and Panton-Valentine…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free