Next Article in Journal
Antibacterial Activity of a Natural Clay Mineral against Burkholderia cepacia Complex and Other Bacterial Pathogens Isolated from People with Cystic Fibrosis
Next Article in Special Issue
Multidrug-Resistant Enterococcal Infection in Surgical Patients, What Surgeons Need to Know
Previous Article in Journal
How Do Lactobacilli Search and Find the Vagina?
Previous Article in Special Issue
Vancomycin Resistance in Enterococcus and Staphylococcus aureus
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 11
Issue 1
10.3390/microorganisms11010149
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Molecular and Source-Specific Profiling of Hospital Staphylococcus aureus Reveal Dominance of Skin Infection and Age-Specific Selections in Pediatrics and Geriatrics

by
Kamaleldin B. Said
1,2,*,
Naif Saad Alghasab
3,
Mohammed S. M. Alharbi
4,
Ahmed Alsolami
4,
Mohd Saleem
1,
Sulaf A. Alhallabi
1,
Shahad F. Alafnan
1,
Azharuddin Sajid Syed Khaja
1,
Taha E. Taha
5 and
on behalf of the Ha’il COM Research Unit Group
†
1
Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, University of Ha’il, Ha’il 55476, Saudi Arabia
2
Genomics, Bioinformatics and Systems Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel-By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
3
Department of Cardiology, College of Medicine, University of Ha’il, Ha’il 55476, Saudi Arabia
4
Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Ha’il, Ha’il 55476, Saudi Arabia
5
Department of Epidemiology, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Ha’il College of Medicine (COM) Research Unit is a research-intensive hub that, in addition to housing advanced research initiatives, co-ordinates medical and clinical research in the college, and organizes, follows up, and facilitates Deanship Funded Research Programs such as annual “Research Groups” series, Badi, and other institutional local, national and regional program.
Microorganisms 2023, 11(1), 149; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11010149
Submission received: 6 November 2022 / Revised: 24 December 2022 / Accepted: 28 December 2022 / Published: 6 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Multi-Drug Resistant (MDR) Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Staphylococcus aureus is a major human-associated pathogen that causes a wide range of clinical infections. However, the increased human dynamics and the changing epidemiology of the species have made it imperative to understand the population structure of local ecotypes, their transmission dynamics, and the emergence of new strains. Since the previous methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) pandemic, there has been a steady increase in global healthcare-associated infections involving cutaneous and soft tissue and resulting in high morbidities and mortalities. Limited data and paucity of high-quality evidence exist for many key clinical questions about the pattern of S. aureus infections. Using clinical, molecular, and epidemiological characterizations of isolates, hospital data on age and infection sites, as well as antibiograms, we have investigated profiles of circulating S. aureus types and infection patterns. We showed that age-specific profiling in both intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU revealed highest infection rates (94.7%) in senior-patients > 50 years; most of which were MRSA (81.99%). However, specific distributions of geriatric MRSA and MSSA rates were 46.5% and 4.6% in ICU and 35.48% and 8.065% in non-ICU, respectively. Intriguingly, the age groups 0–20 years showed uniquely similar MRSA patterns in ICU and non-ICU patients (13.9% and 9.7%, respectively) and MSSA in ICU (11.6%). The similar frequencies of both lineages in youth at both settings is consistent with their increased socializations and gathering strongly implying carriage and potential evolutionary replacement of MSSA by MRSA. However, in age groups 20–50 years, MRSA was two-fold higher in non-ICU (35%) than ICU (18.6%). Interestingly, a highly significant association was found between infection-site and age-groups (p-value 0.000). Skin infections remained higher in all ages; pediatrics 32.14%, adults 56%, and seniors 25% while respiratory infections were lower in pediatrics (14.3%) and adults (17%) while it was highest in seniors (38%). Blood and “other” sites in pediatrics were recorded (28.6%; 25%, respectively), and were slightly lower in adults (18.6%; 8.6%) and seniors (14%; 22.8%), respectively. Furthermore, a significant association existed between infection-site and MRSA (Chi-Square Test, p-value 0.002). Thus, the common cutaneous infections across all age-groups imply that skin is a significant reservoir for endogenous infections; particularly, for geriatrics MRSA. These findings have important clinical implications and in understanding S. aureus profiles and transmission dynamics across different age groups that is necessary for strategic planning in patient management and infection control.

1. Introduction

Staphylococcus aureus is an important nosocomial pathogen. By the virtue of the species ability to rapidly adapt to humans, it continuously evolves and emerges into highly virulent lineages. It has been well established that superantigens of this species elicit cytokine storms leading to sever necrotizing pneumonia, necrotizing fasciitis, and invasive skin infections even in young and otherwise healthy people. The frequently changing transmission dynamics and clinical manifestations of S. aureus are similar to those of the SARS-CoV-2 and the monkeypox [1]. In extreme cases, S. aureus necrotizing pneumonia and disseminated intravascular coagulation can induce infectious Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) shock leading to multi-organ failure [2]. Interestingly, while MRSA has been found to cause gastroenteritis and unilobar infiltrates, methicillin sensitive S. aureus (MSSA) was involved in airway hemorrhage, multilobar infiltrates, and ARDS [3]. Thus, knowledge of profiles of MRSA and invasive MSSA lineages in the region is important; particularly since they may aggravate the current pandemic viral infections. This study aims to determine the distributions of MRSA and MSSA infections and disease profiles in Ha’il hospitals, Saudi Arabia.
The changing epidemiology of S. aureus lineages have created several gaps in our understanding of this species’ subtle mechanisms of infection and transmission. During the last decade, pandemic emergence of pvl positive community acquired (CA)-MRSA, MRSA, and invasive MSSA lineages have paralysed global healthcare systems with mortality rates similar to that of AIDS, tuberculosis, and viral hepatitis combined [4,5,6,7,8,9]. Staphylococcus aureus has been evolving and emerging through decades, not in spite of, but surprisingly as a consequence of the advances in medical progress [10]. History explains a continuous evolutionary pattern of the original pandemic strains. A single major lineage that evolved into sub-lineages caused more invasive diseases than the combined rates of those caused by bacterial species with transformable genomes; nevertheless, estimates of S. aureus mortality rates were projected to exceed that of the HIV [6,11]. Despite the past bitter lesson, many cases are still considered indolent, consistent with the notion “those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it” as quoted by Chalmer et al., [12]. Although global MRSA pandemic outbreaks have declined, high morbidities and mortalities are still being reported globally due to sporadic outbreaks [13]. A comprehensive review of 15 clinical investigations showed that up to 74% of worldwide S. aureus infections were caused by different MRSA lineages in Europe [14], and another pandemic with an annual economic burden of $3.3 billion in the USA alone, was proposed. Thus, studies for more insights into S. aureus mechanisms of infection, transmission, acute nosocomial resistances, and carriage have become imperative in the context of the emerging viral pandemics with similar syndromes. Specifically, profiles of resistant strains circulating in hospitals and communities, antimicrobial resistance patterns, and carriage rates are not well defined in the region.
The declaration of COVID-19 as the new respiratory pandemic in early March 2020 introduced significant changes in the management of infections and co-infections [15]. Microbial co-infections during SARS-CoV-2 and monkeypox aggravate diseases, increase mortalities, and morbidities [16]. Coinfections significantly alter the pathophysiology of the disease and the patient recovery outcome [17,18]. Bacterial coinfections are considered more important than others based on experience with previous viral pandemics [19] where high mortalities in critically ill patients were reported [20]. However, there is a significant paucity in high quality data on established S. aureus infection patterns, strain profiles, and clinical characteristics. This makes it difficult to precisely estimate the role of the species in co-infection during COVID-19 and/or monkeypox. Of particular importance are the respiratory and skin lineages such as HA-MRSA and CA-MRSA. Susceptibility to infections by one of the MRSA lineages is ideally measured by their colonization of the nares and skin surfaces where their absence is a known negative indicator of the disease. It has been recently highlighted that MRSA nasal screening in non-COVID-19 patients is a useful antimicrobial stewardship to avoid unnecessary empiric MRSA therapy such as vancomycin [21,22]. Current guidelines for the treatment of pneumonia as per the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recommended empiric MRSA coverage in patients at-risk [23,24]. While initiating appropriate empiric antibiotics in a timely manner is critical, identifying nasal and skin carriage status is equally important for specific initiation and de-escalation timings of anti-MRSA coverage therapy.
Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is most severe in communities and/or extended home-cares worldwide due to the septic necrotizing pneumonia [12,25,26]. Staphylococcus aureus hospital pulmonary sepsis has been postulated to correlate with ARDS for years until a recent study confirmed the direct involvement of MRSA and the role of FTY720 S-phosphonate in endothelial cell protection [27]. An estimated 30 million cases of lung sepsis annually have led to more than eight million deaths, i.e., 15–30% in high-income countries and 50% or higher in low-and middle-income countries [28]. It becomes serious when pvl-positive S. aureus (CA-MRSA lineage) are involved in infectious ARDS conditions. More importantly, clinical management is particularly challenging when the etiologic scenarios in ARDS and superantigenic CA-MRSA pneumonias are further complicated by similar respiratory COVID-19 and/or skin monkeypox syndromes. In recent years, with the increase in global population dynamics, a significant increase in community associated lung infections have occurred globally. Despite the remarkable progress made in advancing healthcare systems, pneumonia associated with lung sepsis remains burdensome in global public health [29,30]. Furthermore, the high complexity and costs associated with lung care complicates cases leading to high morbidity and mortality. Particularly, the clinical and economic burden of CAP is staggering, far-reaching, and expected to increase as new antibiotic resistance mechanisms emerge while the world’s population ages [31]. Therefore, a leading cause of death worldwide is sepsis, especially when developed as a dysregulated immune response to infectious pneumonia [32,33]. The potential risk of S. aureus in these cases is quite high.
Evolution of virulent strains and re-emergence of lineages associated to high morbidities and mortalities are being reported [13]. For instance, up to 74% of global S. aureus infections are caused by evolving new lineages [14]. Particularly, the evolution of invasive MSSA strains causing bloodstream infections is being increasingly reported [34]. Emergence of a single MSSA clone in Greece carrying high level resistances primarily to mupirocin (99%) has caused significant staphylococcal scaled skin syndromes in a setting; a total of 85% of the cases were impetigo [35]. Furthermore, the recent emergence of a new and the previously unreported clonal complexes of methicillin-resistant MRSA strains in the region are of concern [36,37,38,39].
It Is still not clear how S. aureus switches from a commensal to a life threatening pathogen and from human to animal associated lineages or vice versa despite significant evidence of a clonal core genome from intrinsic and highly polymorphic accessory genes [40,41,42,43]. The common genomic background of the species opens a new aspect in S. aureus epidemiology, i.e., understanding the principles underlying animal to human-to-human transmission dynamics and/or vice versa across different gender and age groups is key in its host- and tissue-specific adaptive emergences. For these reasons, regular hospital surveillance of S. aureus infections for local strain profiles, sources of transmissions across different age groups, and antimicrobial resistance is important. We have previously used surveillance programs to understand the rates of S. aureus infections followed by molecular differentiations of MRSA and MSSA lineages to identify dominant clonal lines in North America and the Middle East [44,45,46].
Unfortunately, significant variations occur in the rates of S. aureus surveillance programs in Middle Eastern and African countries (MENA) that make it difficult to develop an effective MRSA management program. A recent comprehensive report from January 2005 to December 2019 revealed great heterogeneity in MRSA rates. For instance, nasal MRSA colonization ranged from 2–16% in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), 1–9% in the Levant, and 0.2–9% in North African Arab states. Clinical isolates of MRSA ranged from 9–38% in GCC, 28–67% in the Levant, and 28–57% in North African states. Studies demonstrated a wide clonal diversity in the MENA. In addition, significant diversities in clonal complexes and antimicrobial resistances were also seen in the region with variation in patterns depending on location and clonal type [47]. Thus, comprehensive, and accurate prevalence of S. aureus in the region is required in each country first, before vertical genotyping of dominant clones for local strain profiling. This study was intended to determine the distributions of hospital S. aureus and sources and infection patterns in different age groups, disease profiles, antibiogram patterns, and types of circulating MRSA and MSSA lineages across different patient groups in hospital units. In this study, we report on significant insight into the patterns of distributions of S. aureus hospital ecotype-lineages, i.e., the high prevalence of MRSA in the two extremes of life, i.e., the pediatrics and senior patients, similar coexistence of MRSA and MSSA in younger groups < 20 years at ICU, and the two-fold increase in MRSA at non-ICU patients >20 years old. In addition, we found a significant association to infection sites; particularly, the dominance of skin infections among patient groups.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Bacteriological Analysis, Patients’ Demographics, and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

In this work, we analyzed all positive specimens for non-duplicate isolates of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and methicillin sensitive S. aureus (MSSA), obtained from clinical infections recovered from hospitals in Ha’il in the first quarter year of 2021. All data were collected from microbiology laboratory records, hospital medical records, and various sources within hospitals. The data included but was not limited to antibiotic sensitivity data, specimen types and collection sites, intensive care unit (ICU), and non-ICU ward, and age differences from King Khalid hospital.

2.2. Microbiological Analysis

In general, specimens were analyzed by routine bacteriology and standard antimicrobial sensitivity testing. Briefly, they were cultured to confirm primary identifications, preparations of inoculums for storage, and for automated testing. Isolates were identified by standard bacteriological methods and ID and susceptibility testing using automated systems. For non-automated procedures, specimens were aseptically collected in suitable transport media and swabs to the lab, processed immediately, and cultured using standard conditions and media under 37 °C incubations for 18 h. Bacterial isolates were kept in broth cultures at −80 °C for future reference and vertical studies. However, most of the work performed on automated systems mostly included BD Phoenix system (BD Biosciences, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) and MicroScan plus (Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA, USA) for the identification and antimicrobial sensitivity. Susceptibility was confirmed by culture and agar diffusions experiments as necessary. Susceptibility testing and breakpoint interpretive standards were carried out in accordance to the recommendations of Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI document M100S-26) [48].

2.3. Classifications as Multi-, Extremely- and Pan-Drug Resistant Bacteria (MDR, XDR, and PDR)

The standard definitions for acquired resistances classifications categorize hospital acquired MRSA isolates as multi drug-resistant (MDR) by the virtue of their methicillin resistance and resistance to beta lactams. However, this classification (i.e., MDR) does not apply to the community-acquired lineages (CA-MRSA) since they are known to be susceptible to beta lactams. Furthermore, extensive drug-resistant (XDR), and pan drug-resistant (PDR) are usually applied based on recommendations of European Centre for Disease Control. The MDR criteria for acquired resistance states non-susceptibility to at least one agent in three or more antimicrobial categories, XDR was defined as non-susceptibility to at least one agent in all but two or fewer antimicrobial categories (i.e., bacterial isolates remain susceptible to only one or two categories) and PDR was defined as non-susceptibility to all agents in all antimicrobial categories as reported by Magiorakos et al., [49]. Intrinsic resistances to particular drugs were not included. Criteria for defining S. aureus MDR classifications include one or more of the following to apply: 1. hospital acquired MRSA is always considered MDR by virtue of being an MRSA. 2. Non-susceptible to ≥1 agent in >3 antimicrobial categories.

2.4. Direct Multi-Gene Molecular Detection of S. aureus Lineages by GeneXpert System

The reason for using the advanced molecular system, the GeneXpert RT-PCR, is to address the problems of mutations during laboratory serial subculturing, long term in vitro passages, and to minimize the highly alert adaptive mutations and expressions of S. aureus genome in response to laboratory media and processes. We and others have established that these in vitro processes significantly alter the genetic profiles of the original genotype isolated from patients. Substantial experimental errors can be introduced when these isolates are used in downstream studies. Therefore, direct molecular detection from patient specimen allows for correct strain profile consistent with clinical characteristics, patient demographics, and disease categories recorded.
Direct molecular detection and characterizations were carried out in the latest versions of the Cepheid GeneXpert® Dx system using the SA Complete and MRSA assay kits) using manufacturers recommendations and names and codes included in each kit. This system is equipped with mutli-gene molecular primers and reagent kits for robust automated direct detection, characterization, and differentiation of S. aureus lineages directly from specimens. The system uses built-in primers for nuc spa, mecA and the mec (SCCmec) gene direct detections from specimens. This test utilizes automated real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Culturing was also done for further susceptibility testing as explained earlier. The GeneXpert Dx is all-in-one system that integrates sample purification, nucleic acid amplification, and detection of the target sequence in simple or complex samples using real-time PCR. It consists of an instrument, personal computer, and preloaded software for running tests and viewing the results. A single-use disposable self-contained cartridge with PCR reagents is inserted and inoculated directly with swabs/samples. In addition to avoiding environmental cues that alter the genome, cross-contamination between samples or during specimen collection or processing as well as cross-sequence contaminations in molecular tests are all remote since the cartridge is a disposable, closed, and self-contained kit. A sample processing control (SPC) and a Probe Check Control (PCC) are also included. The SPC is present to control for adequate processing of the target bacteria and to monitor the presence of inhibitor(s) in the PCR reaction. The PCC verifies reagent rehydration, PCR tube filling in the cartridge, probe integrity, and dye stability.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Collected data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences software (IBM SPSS; Version 24 SPSS version 23.0 for Windows (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Descriptive and stratified analyses were conducted; we present absolute numbers, proportions, and graphical distributions. We conducted exact statistical tests for proportions and show p-values (based on Chi square test values) where appropriate (a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant).

3. Results

In this study, we have collected 195 isolates of S. aureus for clinical disease profiling, antibiogram patterns, and rates, molecular types of circulating MRSA and MSSA lineages in different hospital settings. Of these isolates, overall, 41% (n = 80) of the isolates were MSSA and the rest 60% (n = 115) were MRSA. However, 167 isolates were used for comparative examination of ICU and non-ICU infections across different age groups. As shown in Figure 1, the overall MSSA infection rates were lower among different age groups of patients in ICU and non-ICU settings compared to that of MRSA. Different age groups of patients revealed different patterns of S. aureus lineages and disease characteristics with lowest infection rates reported in pediatric patients.

3.1. Age-Specific Frequencies of S. aureus Lineages in ICU and Non-ICU

Figure 1 and Table 1 showed that in the first group (0 to 20 years old), the overall total MRSA isolation rate in both ICU and non-ICU settings was 23.6% (n = 39 of 167) while that of MSSA was 16% (n = 26 of 167). However, among this age group under ICU, 14% were positive for any type of MRSA infections while 11.6% had infections with invasive MSSA lineage. On the other hand, among the same aforementioned age group under other clinical settings than ICU (inpatient and outpatient), MRSA isolation rate of 9.7% was over two times higher than that of MSSA (4%). However, in the subsequent higher age groups, rates of S. aureus infections substantially increased as indicated by the results obtained below. In the second age group among the young and mid-aged patients (20–50 years old), the overall MRSA and MSSA rates in all hospital settings were 53.3% and 12.7%, respectively. Patients in the above age group under ICU units reported 18.6% and 4.6% of MRSA and MSSA infections, respectively. However, the overall rate of infections by the two lineages under non-ICU “other clinical settings than ICU” was 42.7% of which 34.68% of patients were positive for MRSA infections and 8.065% of them had MSSA infections. The third age group included patients over 50 years who had the highest frequency of overall S. aureus infections (94.7%). Among these, the overall total rates of the two lineages, MRSA and MSSA, in all settings were 81.99% and 12.7%, respectively. However, in ICU, 46.5% were MRSA and 4.6% were MSSA. On the other hand, under other non-ICU clinical settings, the senior patient group showed isolation rates of 35.5% and 8% MRSA and MSSA, respectively (Figure 1, Table 1).

3.2. Organ-Specific Distribution of Clinical S. aureus Infections among Different Age Groups

S. aureus is widely known to cause endogenous infections seeded from specific reservoir sites. In this study, we also intended to examine and identify this situation by studying age- and organ-specific distributions in hospitals. We also wanted to understand the potential influence of S. aureus carriage sites, i.e., skin and nares sites, as reservoirs for endogenous respiratory infections. For these purposes, we selected 177 patients from different age groups. As shown in Table 2, statistical analysis (Pearson Chi-Square, Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association) revealed a significant association between age groups and infection sites. In this study, skin infections remained higher in all age groups as followed: pediatrics 32.14%, adults 56%, and seniors 25% (Figure 2). However, respiratory infections remained relatively lower in pediatrics (14.3%) and adults (17%), while seniors showed the highest infection rates (38%). Blood and “other” (organ sources other than specified) infections were higher in pediatrics (28.6% and 25%, respectively) and slightly lower in adults (18.6%) and (8.6%) and seniors (14%) and (22.8%), respectively.

3.3. Association between Site of Infection and S. aureus Lineage

To understand the clinical patterns of MRSA and MSSA lineage infections among different age groups of patients, we have developed a strategy to validate the notion of a site- and lineage-specific infection concept. For this, we have screened 195 S. aureus clinical isolates from different specimen types. As shown in Table 3, a significant association between specimen site and MRSA detection was observed (p-vlaue 0.002). Total MRSA and MSSA infections in all sites were 74.9% and 25.1%, respectively. The frequency of MRSA infections in different specimens were 70.7%, 65.3%, 72.7%, and 95.7% in “others”, skin, blood, and respiratory samples, respectively. On the other hand, MSSA infections were 29.3%, 34.7%, 27.3%, and 4.3% in “others”, skin, blood, and respiratory samples, respectively (Figure 3; Table 3).

3.4. Molecular Characterization and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (AST) of Clinical S. aureus Lineages

Molecular characterization involving minimum laboratory processing was an innovated approach that successfully recovered specific isolates with potentially intact genomes and expression profiles reflective of the host-microenvironment during infection. This is because the samples were immediately injected into the all-in-one self-contained cartridges with built-in primers and reagents for fully robust automated GeneXpert real time-PCR that has minimum lab processing and personnel involvement. As a result, all S. aureus isolates were directly detected and confirmed as S. aureus species by the nun gene and differentiated MRSA lineages from MSSA by, spa, mecA, and the mec (SCCmec) gene sequences from specimens of patients following manufacturers recommendations. This approach ensured accurate molecular detection and minimizing the potential mutation or adaptive expressions that are prone to alter clonal properties of isolates. Concomitant culturing was carried out from all positive specimens and isolates were immediately stored at −80 °C freezer for future studies.
The AST of clinical S. aureus recovered from different clinical specimens is shown Figure 4. Out of 195 S. aureus isolates studied, MRSA isolates were 75% (n = 146) while MSSA were 25% (n = 49). The antimicrobial susceptibility testing revealed significant progress and encouraging results for the MRSA and CA-MRSA management strategies introduced. Every patient, in-patient, out-patient, causal visitors, and consultees are all subjected to nasal screening for MRSA. Any positive result is immediately subjected to a quarantine isolation until cleared. In this study, the antibigram of S. aureus (Figure 4,) was tested again for 21 antimicrobials in different categories. We identified three different patterns of susceptibilities that were grouped into three different groups as followed: Group 1 antibiotics included (Tetracycline, Teicoplanin, Daptomycin, Linezolid, Mupirocin, Nitrofurantoin, Vancomycin, Moxifloxacin and Clindamycin) with a sensitivity rate of more than 97% except for Clindamycin 92%. Group 2 antibiotics included (Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, Ciprofloxacin, Erythromycin, and Cefotetan/Cefalexin) with a sensitivity of more than 70%. Group 3 antibiotics included (Fusidic acid, Imipenem, Amoxicillin clavulanic acid, Cefotaxime, Oxacillin, Cefoxitin, Ampicillin and Pencillin G) with a resistance more than 50% even reaching up to 90%. Antimicrobial resistance classifications of S. aureus lineages are based on standard definitions for acquired resistance where they were MRSA lineage is classified as a multi drug-resistant (MDR) by virtue of only being an MRSA.

4. Discussion

In this study, we have investigated different aspect of nosocomial S. aureus infections that revealed findings with significant clinical implications for development of effective patient management strategies and MRSA and MSSA containment practices. These included the patterns and distribution of clinical isolates, rates, and frequencies of different molecular types of circulating MRSA and MSSA lineages. In addition, we studied age-specific distribution rates among groups of patients, antibiogram patterns across 21 different antimicrobials. More importantly, studies on skin carriage status for potential endogenous infections in respiratory and other sites were examined. Finally, S. aureus lineage-specific distributions in different organs was determined. Management of infections by different types of S. aureus is extremely difficult in clinical settings. This is primarily due to the elaborate mechanisms for rapid human adaptation, several modes of transmission dynamics, and the widespread pan-resistances. Therefore, present study is required for profiling of local ecotypes of circulating S. aureus, sources of infections, demographics, epidemiology and transmission dynamics. This study provides more insights into age and source specific distribution of dominant types of S. aureus in hospital settings.
Age-specific infections among different age groups of patients revealed that senior patients over 50 years old had the highest S. aureus infection rates (94.7%); the overwhelming of these were MRSA (81.99%) and 12.7% were caused by MSSA. This finding is consistent with many other studies in geriatric infection and long term care facilities (LTCF) around the world [50,51,52,53] However, it was surprising to find lower MRSA transmissions in hospitalized seniors compared to new admission screening and shorter-term residents. These novel findings are rare except for a few studies describing similar results in Japan [52]. At present, we do not have clear explanations on these findings other than the stricter MRSA screening protocols in place since the aftermath of MRSA pandemics more than a decade ago [6,11,12]. Positive impact of active MRSA screening protocols have been found in different countries where reduction rates were significant [54]. The recent implementation of a National Infection Control Campaign in UK resulted in large decreases in ICU-acquired infections, including MRSA, occurred across the UK ICU network during the first few years [55]. Nevertheless, state mandated State-Mandated Active Surveillance was not successful in some regions in the USA due to limitations in application [56]. However, 46.5% of the geriatric MRSA infections, and only about 4.6% MSSA, we reported here were in ICU. Unfortunately, MRSA sepsis and complications remain as a significant issue in ICU in many geographic regions where prevalence has been found exceptionally high in many countries including China [57], Korea [58], India [59], as well as Saudi Arabia [60]. Thus, further surveillance programs and stricter screening procedures have become imperative in clear MRSA from critically ill patients. This should also include non-ICU MRSA where the rates showed 35.48%.
Profiles of S. aureus infections in children and young adults (age groups 0 to 20 years old), showed unique distribution pattern despite their lower rates than those of older age groups. While MRSA lineage showed similar frequency in both ICU and non-ICU patients (13.9%, 9.7%, respectively), MSSA infection rates in ICU (11.6%) were similar to those of MRSA, but lower in non-ICU (4%). Since geriatric and pediatric ICUs are separate, and that MRSA screening is equally applied in all patients, the similar frequency of MRSA in ICU and non-ICU is potentially a host- organ-, and age-specific factor in colonization and/or infection rather than underlying cause for hospitalization. Relevant findings in this context have been historically established. For example, significant association between S. aureus types and age as well as host-and-tissue specificity has been found long ago in human and animal lineages [41,61]. This is further supported by our results in this study where Chi-Square Tests revealed significant association between age groups and infection sites (p-value 0.000) and that skin infections remained higher in all age groups as followed: pediatrics 32.14%, adults 56%, and seniors 25% implying carriage and genetic transfer of virulence. Intriguingly, this interesting picture also reflects reservoir and carriage status for evolutionary origins of these lineages. It is plausible that in a confined age group under a single setting the common genetic background allowed for gene transfer and evolution of virulence between MSSA and MRSA lineages. We have previously established that the host- and organ-specificity of related S. aureus lineages drives gene transfer and evolution of virulence [45]. This occurs only between related lineages due to a novel lineage-specific type-I restriction-modification system that blocks distant gene transfer into S. aureus [62]. Future vertical genomic profiling for gene content would provide valuable clues to the multifactorial mechanisms involved. This is important since MRSA rates were 2-fold higher in non-ICU (35%) than that of ICU (18.6%) among mid-aged patients (20–50 years old) while MSSA rates remained relatively lower in both settings.
The lineages specificity and infection profiles to different sites revealed further inside into the distribution of clinical isolates of the MRSA and MSSA infections. We report on significant association between specimen site and MRSA detection as indicated by the Chi-Square Tests value (0.002). The likely reason for this could be explained in terms of the natural resident sites on human skin and respiratory regions (anterior nares and nasopharyngeal sites) and their transmission routes therefrom. Consequently, MSSA infections rates were higher on skin implying potential carriage owing to the fact that skin is a normal ecological niche. Since MRSA detection in respiratory sites including all nasopharyngeal and lung regions as well as in blood is common, its high frequency on skin among all age groups might imply endogenous seeding from reservoir carriage sites. This particularly strengthened the contagious cutaneous mode of transmission route in nosocomial MRSA dynamics. Future molecular genotyping and genomic analysis will provide more insights into MRSA evolutionary origins and MSSA profiles on carriage sites.
The patterns of S. aureus antibiogram shown by the antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) indicated effectiveness of the MRSA management strategies introduced. All isolates were tested again 21 antimicrobials in different categories. By test results as being considered MRSA, isolates were assigned a MDR definition based on standard classifications of MRSA [48]. We identified three different patterns of susceptibilities that were grouped into three different groups as followed: Group 1 antibiotics included (Tetracycline, Teicoplanin, Daptomycin, Linezolid, Mupirocin, Nitrofurantoin, Vancomycin, Moxifloxacin and Clindamycin) with a sensitivity rate of more than 97% except for Clindamycin 92%. Group 2 antibiotics included (Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, Ciprofloxacin, Erythromycin, and Cefotetan/Cefalexin) with a sensitivity of more than 70%. Group3 antibiotic included (Fusidic acid, Imipenem, Amoxicillin clavulanic acid, Cefotaxime, Oxacillin, Cefoxitin, Ampicillin and Pencillin G) with a resistance more than 50% even reaching up to 90%. Susceptibility to Group 1 is much higher prompting to CA-MRSA phenotypes. As a widely accepted property, these lineages are normally susceptible to non beta lactam antibiotics. Future studies on genotyping and detection of gene content and cassette types would reveal more information.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we provided significant insight into the distributions of S. aureus among different age groups, specimen types and sites of infection, hospital units, disease patterns, and associated lineage types. The highest prevalence of MRSA in senior patients at ICU is worrisome. However, the intriguingly similar coexistence of MRSA and MSSA in younger groups < 20 years at ICU, and the subsequent two-fold increase in MRSA at non-ICU patients over 20 years strongly imply age-specific selection for the evolution of resistant strains from resident MSSA ancestors. More importantly, the highly significant association to infection sites, particularly, the dominance of skin infections has a high potential for skin-carriage. These findings have important clinical implications for strategic planning in patient management and S. aureus control, particularly in geriatric and pediatric settings. Future vertical studies will reveal more insights into lineage/types, gene content, and evolutionary patterns. This study is limited by being single-centered; a large scale multi-center approach is likely to gain more insights into S. aureus infection profiles in the whole region.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.B.S.; Data curation, K.B.S., N.S.A., M.S.M.A., A.A., M.S., S.A.A., S.F.A., A.S.S.K., T.E.T. and The Ha’il COM Research Unit Group; Formal analysis, K.B.S., N.S.A., M.S.M.A., A.A., M.S., S.A.A., S.F.A., A.S.S.K., T.E.T. and The Ha’il COM Research Unit Group; Funding acquisition, K.B.S. and The Ha’il COM Research Unit Group; Investigation, K.B.S. and The Ha’il COM Research Unit Group; Methodology, K.B.S., N.S.A., M.S.M.A., A.A., M.S., S.A.A., S.F.A., A.S.S.K., T.E.T. and The Ha’il COM Research Unit Group; Project administration, K.B.S., M.S.M.A. and The Ha’il COM Research Unit Group; Resources, K.B.S., N.S.A., M.S.M.A., A.A., M.S., S.A.A., S.F.A., A.S.S.K., T.E.T. and The Ha’il COM Research Unit Group; Software, K.B.S., N.S.A., M.S.M.A., A.A., M.S., S.A.A., S.F.A., A.S.S.K. and T.E.T.; Supervision, K.B.S. and The Ha’il COM Research Unit Group; Visualization, K.B.S., N.S.A., M.S.M.A., A.A., M.S., S.A.A., S.F.A., A.S.S.K. and T.E.T.; Writing—original draft, K.B.S.; Writing—review & editing, K.B.S., N.S.A., M.S.M.A., A.A., M.S., S.A.A., S.F.A., A.S.S.K. and T.E.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research has been funded by the Scientific Research Deanship at the University of Ha’il, Saudi Arabia, through the project number RG20184.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This project (number RG20184) has been approved by the Research Ethical Committee (H-2020-248, 361-7849) (REC at the University of Ha’il, dated 17 December 2020) and endorsed by the university president’s letter number 23561/5/5/42, dated 05/05/1442.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

There is no additional data deposited on any other site other than those in this manuscript.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the University of Ha’il for the support and encouragement through the Deanship of Scientific Research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bunge, E.M.; Hoet, B.; Chen, L.; Lienert, F.; Weidenthaler, H.; Baer, L.R.; Steffen, R. The Changing Epidemiology of Human Monkeypox—A Potential Threat? A Systematic Review. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2022, 16, e0010141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Sato, E.; Yamamoto, H.; Honda, T.; Koyama, S.; Kubo, K.; Sediguchi, M. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Due to Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Sepsis in Hyper-IgE Syndrome. Eur. Respir. J. 1996, 9, 386–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Vardakas, K.Z.; Matthaiou, D.K.; Falagas, M.E. Comparison of Community-Acquired Pneumonia Due to Methicillin-Resistant and Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus Aureus Producing the Panton-Valentine Leukocidin. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 2009, 13, 1476–1485. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Boucher, H.W.; Corey, G.R. Epidemiology of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2008, 46 (Suppl. S5), S344–S349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Kuehnert, M.J.; Hill, H.A.; Kupronis, B.A.; Tokars, J.I.; Solomon, S.L.; Jernigan, D.B. Methicillin-Resistant–Staphylococcus Aureus Hospitalizations, United States. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2005, 11, 868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Klevens, R.M.; Morrison, M.A.; Nadle, J.; Petit, S.; Gershman, K.; Ray, S.; Harrison, L.H.; Lynfield, R.; Dumyati, G.; Townes, J.M.; et al. Invasive Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Infections in the United States. JAMA 2007, 298, 1763–1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Louise Gerberding, J.; Director, M.; Cohen, M.; Ronald Valdiserri, P.O.; Acting Director, M.; Janssen, R.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/library/reports/surveillance/cdc-hiv-surveillance-report-2004-vol-16.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2023).
  8. FastStats-Viral Hepatitis. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hepatitis.htm (accessed on 19 March 2022).
  9. Table 1|Reported TB in the US 2020|Data & Statistics|TB|CDC. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/tb/statistics/reports/2020/table1.htm (accessed on 19 March 2022).
  10. Fowler, V.G.; Miro, J.M.; Hoen, B.; Cabell, C.H.; Abrutyn, E.; Rubinstein, E.; Corey, G.R.; Spelman, D.; Bradley, S.F.; Barsic, B.; et al. Staphylococcus Aureus Endocarditis: A Consequence of Medical Progress. JAMA 2005, 293, 3012–3021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Bancroft, E.A. Antimicrobial Resistance: It’s Not Just for Hospitals. JAMA 2007, 298, 1803–1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Chalmers, J.D.; Reyes, L.F.; Aliberti, S.; Restrepo, M.I. Empirical Coverage of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus in Community-Acquired Pneumonia: Those Who Do Not Remember the Past Are Doomed to Repeat It. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2016, 63, 1145–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Hassoun, A.; Linden, P.K.; Friedman, B. Incidence, Prevalence, and Management of MRSA Bacteremia across Patient Populations-a Review of Recent Developments in MRSA Management and Treatment. Crit. Care 2017, 21, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Köck, R.; Becker, K.; Cookson, B.; van Gemert-Pijnen, J.E.; Harbarth, S.; Kluytmans, J.; Mielke, M.; Peters, G.; Skov, R.L.; Struelens, M.J.; et al. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA): Burden of Disease and Control Challenges in Europe. Euro. Surveill. 2010, 15, 19688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Cucinotta, D.; Vanelli, M. WHO Declares COVID-19 a Pandemic. Acta Bio. Medica. Atenei. Parm. 2020, 91, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Güner, R.; Hasanoğlu, İ.; Aktaş, F. COVID-19: Prevention and Control Measures in Community. Turk. J. Med. Sci. 2020, 50, 571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Singh, V.; Upadhyay, P.; Reddy, J.; Granger, J. SARS-CoV-2 Respiratory Co-Infections: Incidence of Viral and Bacterial Co-Pathogens. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2021, 105, 617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sharifipour, E.; Shams, S.; Esmkhani, M.; Khodadadi, J.; Fotouhi-Ardakani, R.; Koohpaei, A.; Doosti, Z.; Ej Golzari, S. Evaluation of Bacterial Co-Infections of the Respiratory Tract in COVID-19 Patients Admitted to ICU. BMC Infect. Dis. 2020, 20, 646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rice, T.W.; Rubinson, L.; Uyeki, T.M.; Vaughn, F.L.; John, B.B.; Miller, R.R.; Higgs, E.; Randolph, A.G.; Smoot, B.E.; Thompson, B.T. Critical Illness from 2009 Pandemic Influenza A (H1N1) Virus and Bacterial Co-Infection in the United States. Crit. Care Med. 2012, 40, 1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Joseph, C.; Togawa, Y.; Shindo, N. Bacterial and Viral Infections Associated with Influenza. Influenza Other Respir Viruses 2013, 7 (Suppl. S2), 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Giancola, S.E.; Nguyen, A.T.; Le, B.; Ahmed, O.; Higgins, C.; Sizemore, J.A.; Orwig, K.W. Clinical Utility of a Nasal Swab Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Polymerase Chain Reaction Test in Intensive and Intermediate Care Unit Patients with Pneumonia. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2016, 86, 307–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Smith, M.N.; Erdman, M.J.; Ferreira, J.A.; Aldridge, P.; Jankowski, C.A. Clinical Utility of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Nasal Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay in Critically Ill Patients with Nosocomial Pneumonia. J. Crit. Care 2017, 38, 168–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chan, J.D.; Dellit, T.H.; Choudhuri, J.A.; McNamara, E.; Melius, E.J.; Evans, H.L.; Cuschieri, J.; Arbabi, S.; Lynch, J.B. Active Surveillance Cultures of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus as a Tool to Predict Methicillin-Resistant S. Aureus Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia. Crit. Care Med. 2012, 40, 1437–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Langsjoen, J.; Brady, C.; Obenauf, E.; Kellie, S. Nasal Screening Is Useful in Excluding Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus in Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia. Am. J. Infect Control 2014, 42, 1014–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Self, W.H.; Wunderink, R.G.; Williams, D.J.; Zhu, Y.; Anderson, E.J.; Balk, R.A.; Fakhran, S.S.; Chappell, J.D.; Casimir, G.; Courtney, D.M.; et al. Staphylococcus Aureus Community-Acquired Pneumonia: Prevalence, Clinical Characteristics, and Outcomes. Clin. Infect Dis. 2016, 63, 300–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Peyrani, P.; Mandell, L.; Torres, A.; Tillotson, G.S. The Burden of Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia in the Era of Antibiotic Resistance. Expert. Rev. Respir. Med. 2019, 13, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Wang, L.; Letsiou, E.; Wang, H.; Belvitch, P.; Meliton, L.N.; Brown, M.E.; Bandela, M.; Chen, J.; Garcia, J.G.N.; Dudek, S.M. MRSA-Induced Endothelial Permeability and Acute Lung Injury Are Attenuated by FTY720 S-Phosphonate. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell Mol. Physiol. 2022, 322, L149–L161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dugani, S.; Veillard, J.; Kissoon, N. Reducing the Global Burden of Sepsis. CMAJ 2017, 189, E2–E3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Troeger, C.; Blacker, B.; Khalil, I.A.; Rao, P.C.; Cao, J.; Zimsen, S.R.M.; Albertson, S.B.; Deshpande, A.; Farag, T.; Abebe, Z.; et al. Estimates of the Global, Regional, and National Morbidity, Mortality, and Aetiologies of Lower Respiratory Infections in 195 Countries, 1990–2016: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018, 18, 1191–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Naghavi, M.; Wang, H.; Lozano, R.; Davis, A.; Liang, X.; Zhou, M.; Vollset, S.E.; Abbasoglu Ozgoren, A.; Abdalla, S.; Abd-Allah, F.; et al. Global, Regional, and National Age-Sex Specific All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality for 240 Causes of Death, 1990–2013: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 2015, 385, 117–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. McLaughlin, J.M.; Johnson, M.H.; Kagan, S.A.; Baer, S.L. Clinical and Economic Burden of Community-Acquired Pneumonia in the Veterans Health Administration, 2011: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Infection 2015, 43, 671–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Fernando, S.M.; Rochwerg, B.; Seely, A.J.E. Clinical Implications of the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). CMAJ 2018, 190, E1058–E1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Li, T.; Qian, Y.; Miao, Z.; Zheng, P.; Shi, T.; Jiang, X.; Pan, L.; Qian, F.; Yang, G.; An, H.; et al. Xuebijing Injection Alleviates Pam3CSK4-Induced Inflammatory Response and Protects Mice From Sepsis Caused by Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus. Front. Pharmacol. 2020, 11, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kourtis, A.P.; Hatfield, K.; Baggs, J.; Mu, Y.; See, I.; Epson, E.; Nadle, J.; Kainer, M.A.; Dumyati, G.; Petit, S.; et al. Vital Signs: Epidemiology and Recent Trends in Methicillin-Resistant and in Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus Aureus Bloodstream Infections - United States. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2019, 68, 214–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Doudoulakakis, A.G.; Bouras, D.; Drougka, E.; Kazantzi, M.; Michos, A.; Charisiadou, A.; Spiliopoulou, I.; Lebessi, E.; Tsolia, M. Community-Associated Staphylococcus Aureus Pneumonia among Greek Children: Epidemiology, Molecular Characteristics, Treatment, and Outcome. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect Dis. 2016, 35, 1177–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ghahremani, M.; Jazani, N.H.; Sharifi, Y. Emergence of Vancomycin-Intermediate and -Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus among Methicillin-Resistant S. Aureus Isolated from Clinical Specimens in the Northwest of Iran. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2018, 14, 4–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Boswihi, S.S.; Udo, E.E.; Monecke, S.; Mathew, B.; Noronha, B.; Verghese, T.; Tappa, S.B. Emerging Variants of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Genotypes in Kuwait Hospitals. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0195933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Senok, A.; Ehricht, R.; Monecke, S.; Al-Saedan, R.; Somily, A. Molecular Characterization of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus in Nosocomial Infections in a Tertiary-Care Facility: Emergence of New Clonal Complexes in Saudi Arabia. New Microbes New Infect. 2016, 14, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Senok, A.; Somily, A.M.; Nassar, R.; Garaween, G.; Sing, G.K.; Müller, E.; Reissig, A.; Gawlik, D.; Ehricht, R.; Monecke, S. Emergence of Novel Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Strains in a Tertiary Care Facility in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Infect. Drug Resist. 2019, 12, 2739–2746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Feng, Y.; Chen, C.J.; Su, L.H.; Hu, S.; Yu, J.; Chiu, C.H. Evolution and Pathogenesis of Staphylococcus Aureus: Lessons Learned from Genotyping and Comparative Genomics. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2008, 32, 23–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. van Leeuwen, W.B.; Melles, D.C.; Alaidan, A.; Al-Ahdal, M.; Ne, H.; Boelens, A.M.; Snijders, S.V.; Wertheim, H.; van Duijkeren, E.; Peeters, J.K.; et al. Host-and Tissue-Specific Pathogenic Traits of Staphylococcus Aureus. J. Bacteriol. 2005, 187, 4584–4591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Kuhn, G.; Francioli, P.; Blanc, D.S. Evidence for Clonal Evolution among Highly Polymorphic Genes in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus. J. Bacteriol. 2006, 188, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Feil, E.J.; Cooper, J.E.; Grundmann, H.; Robinson, D.A.; Enright, M.C.; Berendt, T.; Peacock, S.J.; Smith, J.M.; Murphy, M.; Spratt, B.G.; et al. How Clonal Is Staphylococcus Aureus? J. Bacteriol. 2003, 185, 3307–3316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Said, K.B.; Al-Jarbou, A.N.; Alrouji, M.; Al-Harbi, H.O. Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance among Clinical Isolates Recovered from a Tertiary Care Hospital in Al Qassim, Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Health Sci. 2014, 8, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Said, K.B.; Zhu, G.; Zhao, X. Organ- and Host-Specific Clonal Groups of Staphylococcus Aureus from Human Infections and Bovine Mastitis Revealed by the Clumping Factor A Gene. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2010, 7, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Said, K.B.; Ramotar, K.; Zhu, G.; Zhao, X. Repeat-Based Subtyping and Grouping of Staphylococcus Aureus from Human Infections and Bovine Mastitis Using the R-Domain of the Clumping Factor A Gene. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2009, 63, 24–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tabaja, H.; Hindy, J.R.; Kanj, S.S. Epidemiology of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus in Arab Countries of the Middle East and North African (MENA) Region. Mediterr. J. Hematol. Infect. Dis. 2021, 13, 2021050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Global Laboratory Standards for a Healthier World. 26th Edition. CLSI Document MS100. Available online: www.clsi.org/ (accessed on 22 December 2022).
  49. Magiorakos, A.P.; Srinivasan, A.; Carey, R.B.; Carmeli, Y.; Falagas, M.E.; Giske, C.G.; Harbarth, S.; Hindler, J.F.; Kahlmeter, G.; Olsson-Liljequist, B.; et al. Multidrug-Resistant, Extensively Drug-Resistant and Pandrug-Resistant Bacteria: An International Expert Proposal for Interim Standard Definitions for Acquired Resistance. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 268–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Manzur, A.; Gavalda, L.; Ruiz De Gopegui, E.; Mariscal, D.; Dominguez, M.A.; Perez, J.L.; Segura, F.; Pujol, M. Prevalence of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus and Factors Associated with Colonization among Residents in Community Long-Term-Care Facilities in Spain. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2008, 14, 867–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Stone, N.D.; Lewis, D.R.; Johnson, T.M.; Hartney, T.; Chandler, D.; Byrd-Sellers, J.; McGowan, J.E.; Tenover, F.C.; Jernigan, J.A.; Gaynes, R.P. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) Nasal Carriage in Residents of Veterans Affairs Long-Term Care Facilities: Role of Antimicrobial Exposure and MRSA Acquisition. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2012, 33, 551–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sasahara, T.; Ae, R.; Yoshimura, A.; Kosami, K.; Sasaki, K.; Kimura, Y.; Akine, D.; Ogawa, M.; Hamabata, K.; Hatakeyama, S.; et al. Association between Length of Residence and Prevalence of MRSA Colonization among Residents in Geriatric Long-Term Care Facilities. BMC Geriatr. 2020, 20, 481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rodríguez-Villodres, Á.; Martín-Gandul, C.; Peñalva, G.; Guisado-Gil, A.B.; Crespo-Rivas, J.C.; Pachón-Ibáñez, M.E.; Lepe, J.A.; Cisneros, J.M. Prevalence and Risk Factors for Multidrug-Resistant Organisms Colonization in Long-Term Care Facilities around the World: A Review. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lee, Y.J.; Chen, J.Z.; Lin, H.C.; Liu, H.Y.; Lin, S.Y.; Lin, H.H.; Fang, C.T.; Hsueh, P.R. Impact of Active Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) and Decolonization on MRSA Infections, Mortality and Medical Cost: A Quasi-Experimental Study in Surgical Intensive Care Unit. Crit. Care 2015, 19, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Edgeworth, J.D.; Batra, R.; Wulff, J.; Harrison, D. Reductions in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus, Clostridium Difficile Infection and Intensive Care Unit–Acquired Bloodstream Infection Across the United Kingdom Following Implementation of a National Infection Control Campaign. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2020, 70, 2530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Lin, M.Y.; Hayden, M.K.; Lyles, R.D.; Lolans, K.; Fogg, L.F.; Kallen, A.J.; Weber, S.G.; Weinstein, R.A.; Trick, W.E. Regional Epidemiology of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Among Adult Intensive Care Unit Patients Following State-Mandated Active Surveillance. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2018, 66, 1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Qiao, F.; Huang, W.; Cai, L.; Zong, Z.; Yin, W. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Nasal and Infection in an Intensive Care Unit of a University Hospital In. J. Int. Med. Res. 2018, 46, 3698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Yoon, Y.K.; Lee, M.J.; Ju, Y.; Lee, S.E.; Yang, K.S.; Sohn, J.W.; Kim, M.J. Determining the Clinical Significance of Co-Colonization of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus in the Intestinal Tracts of Patients in Intensive Care Units: A Case–Control Study. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2019, 18, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Mehta, Y.; Hegde, A.; Pande, R.; Zirpe, K.G.; Gupta, V.; Ahdal, J.; Qamra, A.; Motlekar, S.; Jain, R. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus in Intensive Care Unit Setting of India: A Review of Clinical Burden, Patterns of Prevalence, Preventive Measures, and Future Strategies. Indian J. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 24, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ali, M.A.; Rajab, A.M.; Al-Khani, A.M.; Ayash, S.Q.; Chamsi Basha, A.; Abdelgadir, A.; Rajab, T.M.; Enabi, S.; Saquib, N. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Development in Intensive Care Patients A Case-Control Study OPEN ACCESS. Saudi Med. J. 2020, 41, 1181–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Angvik, M.; Olsen, R.S.; Olsen, K.; Simonsen, G.S.; Furberg, A.-S.; Ericson Sollid, J.U. Age-and Gender-Associated Staphylococcus Aureus Spa Types Found among Nasal Carriers in a General Population: The Tromsø Staph and Skin Study. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2011, 49, 4213–4218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Bayles, K.W.; Wesson, C.A.; Liou, L.E.; Fox, L.K.; Bohach, G.A.; Trumble, A.W.R. Intracellular Staphylococcus Aureus Escapes the Endosome and Induces Apoptosis in Epithelial Cells. Infect. Immun. 1998, 66, 336–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Microorganisms 11 00149 g001 550
Figure 1. Age-group specific distributions of MRSA and MSSA isolates recovered from clinical specimens in ICUs, and other non-ICUs (inpatient and outpatient) settings in Ha’il hospitals, Saudi Arabia. Abbreviations: MRSA—Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA– Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus; ICU-intensive care unit; non-ICU-non-intensive care unit.
Figure 1. Age-group specific distributions of MRSA and MSSA isolates recovered from clinical specimens in ICUs, and other non-ICUs (inpatient and outpatient) settings in Ha’il hospitals, Saudi Arabia. Abbreviations: MRSA—Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA– Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus; ICU-intensive care unit; non-ICU-non-intensive care unit.
Microorganisms 11 00149 g001
Microorganisms 11 00149 g002 550
Figure 2. Skin and other organ-specific distribution of Staphylococcus aureus isolates among different age-groups of patients in Ha’il region, Saudi Arabia.
Figure 2. Skin and other organ-specific distribution of Staphylococcus aureus isolates among different age-groups of patients in Ha’il region, Saudi Arabia.
Microorganisms 11 00149 g002
Microorganisms 11 00149 g003 550
Figure 3. Frequencies of MRSAs and MSSAs rates on the skin and different specimen sites in Ha’il region, Saudi Arabia. Abbreviations/A- not available; MRSA—Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA—Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus.
Figure 3. Frequencies of MRSAs and MSSAs rates on the skin and different specimen sites in Ha’il region, Saudi Arabia. Abbreviations/A- not available; MRSA—Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA—Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus.
Microorganisms 11 00149 g003
Microorganisms 11 00149 g004 550
Figure 4. Antibiogram patterns of Staphylococcus aureus isolates recovered from clinical infections in Ha’il regin, Saudi Arabia. Abbreviations of 21 different antimicrobials: CN gentamicin, IMI imipenem, cefoxitin FOX, cefotaxime CTX, AMP ampicillin, p penicillin, OX oxacillin, AMC AMPICILLIN/SULBACTAM, DAP daptomycin, SXT trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, TEC teicoplanin, VA vancomycin, CD clindamycin, E erythromycin, FUS fusidic acid, LNZ linezolid, MUP mupirocin, NIT nitrofuran, CIP ciprofloxacin, MXF moxifloxacin, TE tetracycline.
Figure 4. Antibiogram patterns of Staphylococcus aureus isolates recovered from clinical infections in Ha’il regin, Saudi Arabia. Abbreviations of 21 different antimicrobials: CN gentamicin, IMI imipenem, cefoxitin FOX, cefotaxime CTX, AMP ampicillin, p penicillin, OX oxacillin, AMC AMPICILLIN/SULBACTAM, DAP daptomycin, SXT trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, TEC teicoplanin, VA vancomycin, CD clindamycin, E erythromycin, FUS fusidic acid, LNZ linezolid, MUP mupirocin, NIT nitrofuran, CIP ciprofloxacin, MXF moxifloxacin, TE tetracycline.
Microorganisms 11 00149 g004
Table
Table 1. Profiles of nosocomial MRSA and MSSA clinical isolates among different age-groups of patients at ICUs, and other non-ICUs settings in Ha’il region, Saudi Arabia.
Table 1. Profiles of nosocomial MRSA and MSSA clinical isolates among different age-groups of patients at ICUs, and other non-ICUs settings in Ha’il region, Saudi Arabia.
Staphylococcus aureus IsolatesAge Groups
<2020–50>50
MSSASettingICU529
Non-ICU51025
Total101234
MRSASettingICU6834
Non-ICU124399
Total1851133
TotalSettingICU111043
Non-ICU1753124
Total 2863167
Abbreviations/A- not available; MRSA—Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA– Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus.
Table
Table 2. Frequency of Staphylococcus aureus isolate from skin and other organs among different age-groups of patients in Ha’il region, Saudi Arabia.
Table 2. Frequency of Staphylococcus aureus isolate from skin and other organs among different age-groups of patients in Ha’il region, Saudi Arabia.
SPECIMEN SITETotal
OthersSkinBloodRespiratory
Age <20Count798428
Percentage25.0%32.1%28.6%14.3%100.0%
20–50Count639131270
Percentage8.6%55.7%18.6%17.1%100.0%
>50Count1820113079
Percentage22.8%25.3%13.9%38.0%100.0%
TotalCount31683246177
Percentage17.5%38.4%18.1%26.0%100.0%
ValuedfAsymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square25.03260.000
Likelihood Ratio25.23760.000
Linear-by-Linear Association2.84810.051
N of Valid Cases177
Table
Table 3. Association rates between site of infection on different specimen and MRSA and MSSA lineages in Ha’il region, Saudi Arabia.
Table 3. Association rates between site of infection on different specimen and MRSA and MSSA lineages in Ha’il region, Saudi Arabia.
Specimen Site by Staphylococcus aureus IsolatesTotal
MSSAMRSA
Specimen SiteOthersCount122941
Percentage29.3%70.7%100.0%
SkinCount264975
Percentage34.7%65.3%100.0%
BloodCount92433
Percentage27.3%72.7%100.0%
RespiratoryCount24446
Percentage4.3%95.7%100.0%
TotalCount49146195
Percentage25.1%74.9%100.0%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Said, K.B.; Alghasab, N.S.; Alharbi, M.S.M.; Alsolami, A.; Saleem, M.; Alhallabi, S.A.; Alafnan, S.F.; Khaja, A.S.S.; Taha, T.E.; on behalf of the Ha’il COM Research Unit Group. Molecular and Source-Specific Profiling of Hospital Staphylococcus aureus Reveal Dominance of Skin Infection and Age-Specific Selections in Pediatrics and Geriatrics. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 149. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11010149

AMA Style

Said KB, Alghasab NS, Alharbi MSM, Alsolami A, Saleem M, Alhallabi SA, Alafnan SF, Khaja ASS, Taha TE, on behalf of the Ha’il COM Research Unit Group. Molecular and Source-Specific Profiling of Hospital Staphylococcus aureus Reveal Dominance of Skin Infection and Age-Specific Selections in Pediatrics and Geriatrics. Microorganisms. 2023; 11(1):149. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11010149

Chicago/Turabian Style

Said, Kamaleldin B., Naif Saad Alghasab, Mohammed S. M. Alharbi, Ahmed Alsolami, Mohd Saleem, Sulaf A. Alhallabi, Shahad F. Alafnan, Azharuddin Sajid Syed Khaja, Taha E. Taha, and on behalf of the Ha’il COM Research Unit Group. 2023. "Molecular and Source-Specific Profiling of Hospital Staphylococcus aureus Reveal Dominance of Skin Infection and Age-Specific Selections in Pediatrics and Geriatrics" Microorganisms 11, no. 1: 149. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11010149

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop