Brief Report: Nasal colonization with Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus among community-dwelling older adults with comorbidities seeking follow-up medical care in Central Sri Lanka

  1. Ifaaz Iqbal
  2. Zeenath Sabri
  3. Adithya Illangasinghe
  4. Ashini Isurindi
  5. Rashmi Jayakodi
  6. Wasana Jayasekara
  7. Kaveesha Jayarathna
  8. Nonduni Jayasinghe
  9. Mekhala Ishani
  10. Ishan Jayasekara
  11. Nelum Handapangoda
  12. Dilrukshi Menike
  13. Rasadanie Dissanayake
  14. Asela Ekanayake
  15. Veranja Liyanapathirana

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

Older adults are more severely affected by infections caused by drug-resistant bacteria including Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). We aimed to identify the MRSA colonization rates and associated factors among older adults aged more than 65-years-old. Among the 309 recruited, 152 (49.2 %) were males. Self-collected nasal swabs were used to isolate Staphylococcus aureus and MRSA with routine microbiological methods. Staphylococcus aureus was isolated from 36 (11.7 %) participants while 11 (3.6 %) were colonized with MRSA. We identified a significant association between the male sex and MRSA colonization ( P =0.028, Chi-square test). However, this needs careful interpretation given the smaller number of outcome events. Other factors studied had no statistically significant association with MRSA colonization.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.000724.v3 on Access Microbiology
  3. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.000724.v2 on Access Microbiology
  4. Access Microbiology

    Thank you for submitting your important work to Access Microbiology. I was pleased and impressed to read that it was conducted in part by undergraduate authors. The reviewer comments for your article are largely positive and supportive of publication, however, multiple points for revision have been raised and as such your manuscript should undergo a major revision. Please address the reviewer comments in a point-by-point response and also incorporate these points into your manuscript. Reviewer one asks for your to elaborate on your analysis and interpretation in the manuscript leading to a re-write of the entire manuscript. Please consider this point, but there is no need to rewrite the entire manuscript. Please ensure you have provided sufficient detail about how data were collected, analysed and interpreted in the main text. it is not necessary to love your supplementary data table into the main manuscript. However, regarding your data table, I found it confusing to have many columns without data. Can you please either remove the columns without data, or mention that you have collected those data, but not presented them to avoid revealing patient identifying information.

  5. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    The study regarding nasal colonization with S. aureus and MRSA among older adults with chronic diseases, is not a new issue, and the present study holds nothing new, however, it can be accepted as an update in an area lacks data about such topic.

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Good

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    Satisfactory

    To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?

    Partially support

    Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?

    No

    Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?

    No

    If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?

    Yes

  6. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    I have some of the queries regarding the below study Author focus on 65 years old adults in the current study of MRSA colonization rates so what will be the reason behind the current selection? What is the significance of the observed gender disparity in MRSA colonization, with a higher prevalence among males? What will be the MRSA colonization rates in older adults compare to other age groups, is if possible for the author to elaborate this point? Could the author explain the findings to align with or differ from existing knowledge regarding MRSA colonization in the elderly population? I have a suggestion for the author to add a part regarding the public health measures or interventions that could be implemented to address the identified MRSA colonization rates in older adults? Is there any specific comorbidities or medical histories considered in the study that could be linked to MRSA colonization?

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Good

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    Very good

    To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?

    Strongly support

    Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?

    No

    Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?

    No

    If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?

    Yes

  7. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    Title: follow-up instead of follow up Abstract reported that male sex associated with MRSA colonization which might be misleading to audience as the sample size is small (only 11 MRSA) and the authors actually did not see association between gender and SA colonization. Results: The work focuses on "community-dwelling older adults with comorbidities seeking follow up medical care", but unfortunately does not link any comorbidities with colonization which makes the result less meaningful.

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Satisfactory

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    Satisfactory

    To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?

    Partially support

    Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?

    No

    Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?

    No

    If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?

    Yes

  8. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    It is a good study with work done but not in the body of the manuscript. I have to go to the table to see what all was done. However, they need to elaborate the same in the manuscript. Include all the different data collected in the methodology section as well. Elaborate the different analysis performed and interpretation of the data in the body of the manuscript under the results section. The paper needs a rewriting with the above mentioned edits.

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Satisfactory

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    Poor

    To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?

    Partially support

    Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?

    No

    Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?

    No

    If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?

    Yes

  9. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.000724.v1 on Access Microbiology