Evidence Hub

Impact of MRSA nasal swab screening and PCR in pneumonia treatment and antimicrobial stewardship: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Yuri Castelo Branco Tanure, Maria Julia Geranutti, Simone de Souza Ventura, I. J. B. Do Nascimento, William Gustavo Lima, J. Brito

Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2025

1,649 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The rise of multidrug-resistant bacteria in hospitals, especially methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), presents a major challenge in managing pneumonia, a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in intensive care. Early exclusion of MRSA infection is vital for guiding appropriate antibiotic therapy, as unnecessary or prolonged anti-MRSA treatment increases mortality, hospital stay, and adverse effects such as nephrotoxicity.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nasal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) screening for MRSA in de-escalating antibiotic therapy in hospitalized pneumonia patients.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational retrospective studies assessing the impact of nasal MRSA PCR screening in hospitalized pneumonia patients. Inclusion criteria focused on outcomes like therapy duration, acute kidney injury, hospital stay, and mortality.

RESULTS

Six studies (1,649 patients) were included. Random-effects models showed a significant reduction in vancomycin duration (-0.98 days; 95 % confidence interval (CI) [-1.61, -0.59]) and a non-significant decrease in acute kidney injury (Odds ration (OR) 0.53; 95 % CI [0.26, 1.08]). No significant effect was observed for hospital stay (-0.20 days; 95 % CI [-0.85, 0.45]) or mortality (OR 0.68; 95 % CI [0.45-1.02]). The reduction in therapy was greater in non-community-acquired pneumonia subgroups (-1.55 vs. -0.68 days). However, most studies lacked consistent reporting…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,649 participants or records.

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