As Maryn McKenna and others have reported, a paper was released on Friday showing a high percentage of drug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus contaminating raw, retail-available meat products. There has been a lot of media coverage of this finding–so what does the study say, and what are its implications? More after the jump.
One of the reasons I’ve not been blogging as much over the past 2 years or so is that it’s been just insane in the lab. As I was still living off start-up funds and pilot grants, I didn’t have anyone full-time to take care of everything, so all the work has been done by myself and a handful of excellent graduate & undergrad students. Happily, some of the initial projects are wrapping up, and publications are starting to come out (I’ll be blogging about others in the coming days/weeks). One of them was published yesterday in Emerging Infectious Diseases: Livestock-associated Staphylococcus aureus in Childcare Worker. More after the jump.
Continue reading “New paper: Staphylococcus aureus ST398 in a childcare worker”
Over at the Worms and Germs blog, Scott Weese has a great post on MRSA testing. He notes the he’s frequently asked by human MRSA patients whether their pet should be tested as well, since several studies have documented transmission of MRSA between humans and their companion animals. His first response is always, “why?”
One big question I ask is ‘why do you want to know and what would you do with the results?’ Sometimes people want to know their pet’s status to see if the pet was the source of their infection. However, MRSA in pets is typically human-associated, and if a pet is carrying MRSA, it probably got it from the owner. Finding MRSA in a pet after someone was diagnosed with an MRSA infection doesn’t mean the pet was the source. More likely, the person got MRSA somewhere else and passed it on to their pet.
Sometimes, people want to know if their pet is at risk of an infection. Carrying MRSA presumably increases the risk of an MRSA infection, but likely only in animals already at risk of an infection because of underlying disease or other risk factors such as surgery. The risk to the average pet from short-term MRSA colonization is probably limited. Also, if the pet was identified as a carrier, we wouldn’t be doing anything to eliminate carriage, since we have no idea if we can do it and it doesn’t seem to be needed (since dogs and cats almost always get rid of it on their own). Therefore, it’s hard to justify screening for this reason. If the animal was getting ready to undergo surgery, then that might change my answer.
I think Scott makes great points. As he notes later in his post, his advice would be the same whether an animal was found to be colonized or not (since even if the animal is negative, that only means they were *negative at the time of the testing,* and they could become colonized later: practice good hygiene.
I’d add one addendum to his response, though. As he notes, his answer may change if the animal may be facing surgery. I’d add also from the human side that the carriage status of pet animals may be something important to know if there are recurring infections in the family. If this is an issue, then the entire family will need to be looked at as a unit, to see if one of them is a reservoir (potentially re-infecting others in the family)–and the family unit should include pets at this point. As Scott notes, typically pets become colonized from their owners, but once colonized, they do have the potential to pass it back to the other human family members like the world’s worst game of hot potato. As such, they may keep the MRSA transmission chain going, even if their humans are subjected to decolonization measures (as was described in this NEJM paper).
So, in special cases, it may be helpful to have your animals tested for MRSA–but for the vast majority of people, having that knowledge won’t do much one way or the other.
Interesting discussion over at The Spandrel Shop and Cackle of Rad on doing field work in the sciences–and the potential dangers that might be encountered. Now, Prof-like Substance and Cackle of Rad are discussing field work along the lines of biological sample collection, sometimes in the middle of nowhere, which isn’t something I’ve ever done. However, we have our own issues when carrying out our epidemiological field sampling; more after the jump.
Continue reading “Danger, Will Robinson? Safety in scientific field work”