That's No Spider Bite: Antibiotic Resistant Staph Infections Now Very Common

That's No Spider Bite: Antibiotic Resistant Staph Infections Now Very Common

Once it takes hold, it is easily transmitted among family members, co-workers or schoolmates. And because doctors often unwittingly prescribe an ineffective antibiotic — which occurred 57 percent of the time in the study — it often lingers...

Solid numbers on MRSA are hard to come by. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn't require that doctors report community-acquired MRSA infections the way they're required to with most communicable diseases.

More...

I am now personally aware of two people that have this...

I was shocked to run into this article today...

This is not good...

And why the hell is this NOT being tracked?????

[edit on 16-8-2006 by loam]

This is being tracked, as far as I know.

In the EU, anytime we come across a case of MRSA (methicillin resistant staph aureus), we have to report it to the government epidemiological groups. I'm pretty sure it falls under the category of reported disease in the USA, too.

This infection is actually fairly easy to treat, when reported, as well. Acyclovir or valacyclovir often works, despite being a big strong. You could try zyvox as well.

Mariella

Originally posted by bsl4doc
I'm pretty sure it falls under the category of reported disease in the USA, too.

Well according to the source article above:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn't require that doctors report community-acquired MRSA infections

Btw, both of the people I mentioned above have been hospitalized for the infection.

Community acquired, yes, would not be reported. Most staph infections, however, are acquired in the hospital.

And yes, I realise they were hospitalised. It is a very nasty infection, but still treatable.

Mariella

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Most staph infections, however, are acquired in the hospital.

Isn't the whole point of the article that it is less true? And given those "community" acquired infections are not tracked, how can you definitively make that assertion?

Moreover, I suppose my personal acquaintance with two victims means I won the veritable "association lottery", huh?

There's a big difference between acquiring and INFECTION in the community, and acquiring the BACTERIA in the community. In the article, they mention taking nasal swabs from children and finding that 9% of children tested positive for MRSA. However, these children didn't have gaping sores all over their face and nose. You know why? Staph aureus is a commensal bacteria for a good portion of people found on the skin and in the throat/nasal passage.

Now, that being said, MRSA is a very nasty bug, epecially in the patients I saw (HIV+ patients). However, it's not some new plague striking the heart of the nation by any means, and it is treatable assuming the patient seeks medical help before it turns into a giant black leprosy-esque sore.

Mariella

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Most staph infections, however, are acquired in the hospital.

Isn't the whole point of the article that it is less true? And given those "community" acquired infections are not tracked, how can you definitively make that assertion?

Its not that hard. Patients who aquire MRSA or plain old staph after they are hospitalized (aka nosicomial infections) are easily tracked within the system. You compare that to total infection rates and viola. Hospitals are crawling with Staph as we say in the PICU the hospital is a good place to get sick.

[edit on 9/13/06 by FredT]

i saw on the news tonight, channel four, from nashville, how several high schools in the area were having out breaks of this "highly contagious, non-responsive staff infection".. they listed several..SEVERAL high schools with an epedemic of sorts.

scary.