Is MRSA so bad if.....

[OmCheeto]

TL;DR Summary

MRSA is a bacteria that lives on the skin of approximately 1 in 30 people.

ref: "MRSA is a bacteria that lives on the skin of approximately 1 in 30 people."

That seems like a lot of people.
From my feeble memory, in the past, MRSA seemed like a death sentence.

Anyone here ever been diagnosed with it, and lived?

ps. As always..... What is the best way to get an HMO to test for the disease, rather than having them drag you around for months, calling you a hypochondriac, such that they can suck you financially dry, before you actually die?

pps. As always, as a 17 year member of this forum, I'm aware of the rules. I'm NOT asking for medical advice, I'm asking, again, how to deal with a system that's not interested in curing me, but taking my money, thank you very much.

----
as always, ok to delete, infract, and ban.

 

[BillTre]

MRSA is a form of Staphylococcus aureus that is resistant to several antibiotics.
There are still ways to treat it.
Testing may involve a IDing to species (Staphylococcus aureus) as well as determining what kinds of resistances it might carry. This could involve testing its DNA for resistances of doing a culturing test. It won't grow on antibiotics that it is not resistant to.
Similar tests may reveal what it is still not resistant to so it could be treated.

Clinical approaches could differ. This is more of a research approach.

 

[phinds]

TL;DR Summary: MRSA is a bacteria that lives on the skin of approximately 1 in 30 people.

Anyone here ever been diagnosed with it, and lived?

Uh ... I got it in a hospital and it had no trouble with it. They put a small amount of gunk up my nose and kept me quarantined for a day or two and I never felt a thing. My understanding is that although it IS dangerous, my experience is not unusual. The doc and nurses seemed relatively indifferent that I had it. It's very common in hospitals and nursing homes.

 

[Rive]

I have some issues with interpreting that initial statement. Staphylococcus Aureus (SA of the MRSA) is really relatively commonly found on skin, and is an opportunistic pathogen: some specific strains are Multi Resistant (MR of the MRSA). So I don't know if the original statement is about SA or (tested) MRSA. Any thoughts?

Anyway: since it is an opportunistic pathogen, it means that usually there are no symptoms. No need for cure.
If you have symptoms, that's a different story, for your doctor.

 

[berkeman]

When my wife was having hip issues (arthritis runs in her family), she was given a cortisone shot in her hip joint in hopes that it would help enough that she would not need hip replacement surgery. Unfortunately the injection pushed MRSA into the joint, and when she eventually went in for hip replacement surgery (she was in a *lot* of pain), they found the infection and had to put off the replacement surgery until the infection was cured.

She got a PICC line[1] implanted so I could do at-home IV therapy for her every 12 hours for 6 weeks using the antibiotic Vancomycin, which is one of the few antibiotics that seems to work well against MRSA. The good news is that the IVs worked and after the 6 weeks of at-home therapy she had successful hip replacement surgery. So MRSA can be cured in some cases, but it's still a lot of work!

[1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/picc-line/about/pac-20468748

 

[OmCheeto]

....
Anyway: since it is an opportunistic pathogen, it means that usually there are no symptoms. No need for cure.
...

Do you have any medical training? I have none, but the above strikes me as gibberish.

 

[berkeman]

Here is more info on MRSA infections:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mrsa/symptoms-causes/syc-20375336

 

[DaveE]

Multi Resistant (MR of the MRSA).

Almost. Most others think it's methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Which is resistant to one group of antibiotics which are common, cheap, and relatively safe.

 

[BillTre]

The Staphylococcus aureus cells have a main cellular chromosome which is very large and circular.

It is common for bacteria to also carry (let plasmids reside/replicate in the cell and maintained by the cell's metabolism) several smaller DNA circles called plasmids. They can encode proteins for antibiotic resistances. Plasmids are easily passed between bacteria. So, besides the survival benefits if the antibiotic is around, they can rapidly spread to new cells.

The multiple part refers to more than one resistance factor being expressed by the cell. This could be more than one kind of plasmid or one kind carrying the genes for two resistances. Cells can have many kinds of plasmids.
The plasmids and the proteins they make will have a metabolic price to pay and will not be adaptive (aids in survival and reproduction) if there are not antibiotics around so selection can maintain them.

This using of plasmids as carriers of genes with useful properties underlies a lot of molecular biology's genetic manipulations.

 

[DaveE]

What is the best way to get an HMO to test for the disease

Maybe just have a frank discussion with your primary care doctor about your specific concerns? Not every test is good to do regardless of cost issues. False positives or ambiguous results can cause more invasive workups that can cause harm. Misdiagnosis can cause harm. Clinical suspicion is the first step, don't skip over it. They know more than you, or us, about appropriate medical care.

 

[BillTre]

If you have a clear infection, you should have a medical person start looking at it.
Do you have specific reasons to think it is MRSA like coming in contact with someone who has it?
If you do, tell, the medico and then they should take it from there. Either test to confirm you have it (which will affect treatment) or refer you to someone who can do that.
Treatment could be just different antibiotics. However, an internalized or really bad infection might require surgery.

Best to deal with rapidly.
I was on a ship once and a guy got a blood infection (very red blood vessels) that getting rapidly worse. They had to helicopter him of, which was very unusual.

 

[phyzguy]

My wife is planning a hip replacement surgery. Before the surgery, they tested her skin for MRSA. They said if she has it, they will modify the post-surgical antibiotic campaign to deal with it. So, as others have said above, it seems that there are still antibiotics that can stop it (for now).

 

[OmCheeto]

Maybe just have a frank discussion with your primary care doctor about your specific concerns?

I've tried that, on multiple occasions. Nada.

Not every test is good to do regardless of cost issues.

What do you mean by this? From my research a petri dish type tests cost around $10.

False positives or ambiguous results can cause more invasive workups that can cause harm.

Not if the patient is self-informed, and prevents the 'professionals' from performing 'more invasive workups'.
One of the few time I went to the doctor, I was offered either antibiotics or a Cat Scan.
Beings that I had already self-diagnosed with a fungal infection, and google said antibiotics were the worst things to do in such a case, I opted for a cat scat.

Misdiagnosis can cause harm. Clinical suspicion is the first step, don't skip over it. They know more than you, or us, about appropriate medical care.

Of course they know more than we do!
I've had ZERO formal training in such areas.
But somehow, I don't feel that they have MY self interest, anywhere near THEIR self interest.

 

[Rive]

I have none, but the above strikes me as gibberish.

I can see that.

SA is a bacteria naturally present in the environment. Its permanent contact with human skin (and presence there) usually does not cause any infection, thus in general simple presence does not require medical attention.

Only in cases when it gets an opportunity like surgery, deprived immune system or severely bad luck can it act as a pathogen and cause actual infection.

To deny any opportunity in special cases (surgery, immune deficiency what I know about) it is dealt with preventively or actively. In these cases presence of MRSA may matter so can be tested for, thus antibiotics could be adjusted.

No preventive measures for bad luck, though.

So far you did not specify if you are just worrying about simple presence (no medical attention required - as you described, that's exactly what you got) or you have some special circumstances (which case medical attention may be required but on the discretion of your doctor).

Based on the hinted lack of medical response I can only suspect you are just worrying about simple everyday presence.

 

[DaveE]

I've tried that, on multiple occasions. Nada.


What do you mean by this? From my research a petri dish type tests cost around $10.


Not if the patient is self-informed, and prevents the 'professionals' from performing 'more invasive workups'.
One of the few time I went to the doctor, I was offered either antibiotics or a Cat Scan.
Beings that I had already self-diagnosed with a fungal infection, and google said antibiotics were the worst things to do in such a case, I opted for a cat scat.


Of course they know more than we do!
I've had ZERO formal training in such areas.
But somehow, I don't feel that they have MY self interest, anywhere near THEIR self interest.

Got it. We aren't doctors. We can't help with this sort of problem. In my experience good medical care is a collaborative effort. Good doctors provide good medical care to good patients. Good luck, I wish you well. I'm done here.

 

[Laroxe]

You need to consider that humans live in a world populated by huge numbers of microorganisms, and in fact provide a home for a considerable number of them. We have large and varied populations of bacteria, particularly on the surfaces that act as a barrier between our internal environment and the external world, we call these areas our microbiome and they vary depending on the type of environment they provide. Our gut has several thousand different species, mucous membranes like in our nose and chest are heavily populated as well as our skin. In fact these populations are often self-controlling, the populations being controlled by species competition, this is why antimicrobials can actually increase infection risk.

Staphylococcus Aureus is a common member of these populations, with around 30% of the population being long term carriers and many more providing an occasional home and causing no particular problem. Like most bacteria capable of causing infection, it has to bypass the surface barriers and defences, gain access to our internal environment and multiply at a rate that our defence systems can't effectively manage. Infections are most common following breaks in the integrity of our skin, so naturally, surgery carries increased risk.

This organism does have a number of abilities that can make it problematic, one of these is in its ability to rapidly develop ways to resist the actions of various antibiotics following exposure, perhaps more importantly this organism has the ability to exchange parts of its genome with others. This means that it can exchange genetic information that give antibiotic resistance (often to multiple drugs) even without exposure, these bacteria become more common in environments where antibiotic use is common, as in hospitals.
The threat from these bacteria was first recognised with the emergence of methicillin resistant organisms, which earned it the name MRSA, though the name now is often used to describe Multi-drug Resistant Staph Aureus. Its now common to screen people for this organism prior to any planned surgery to reduce the risk, outside of these situations it has little significance.