Molecular Identification of Etiological Agents in Fungal and Bacterial Skin Infections: United States, 2020-2024.

IF 3.4 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Infectious Disease Reports Pub Date : 2024-11-18 DOI:10.3390/idr16060087
Aditya K Gupta, Tong Wang, Sara A Lincoln, Hui-Chen Foreman, Wayne L Bakotic
{"title":"Molecular Identification of Etiological Agents in Fungal and Bacterial Skin Infections: United States, 2020-2024.","authors":"Aditya K Gupta, Tong Wang, Sara A Lincoln, Hui-Chen Foreman, Wayne L Bakotic","doi":"10.3390/idr16060087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: Cutaneous infections of fungal and bacterial origins are common. An accurate diagnosis-especially concerning pathogens that are difficult to isolate on culture-can be achieved using molecular methods (PCR) with a short turnaround time. <b>Methods</b>: We reviewed records of skin specimens (superficial scrapings) submitted by dermatologists across the United States with a clinically suspected dermatitis. As per physician's order, specimens were tested for infections either fungal (N = 4262) or bacterial (N = 1707) in origin. All unique specimens (one per patient) were subjected to real-time PCR assays where cases suspected of a fungal etiology were tested for dermatophytes, <i>Malassezia</i> and <i>Candida</i>, and cases suspected of a bacterial etiology were tested for <i>Streptococcus pyogenes</i>, <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>, and the <i>mecA</i> gene potentially conferring β-lactam resistance. <b>Results</b>: Fungal agents were detected in 32.8% (SD: 4.5) of the submitted specimens, with most attributed to dermatophytes (19.3% (SD: 4.9)), followed by <i>Malassezia</i> (8.7% (SD: 2.8)) and <i>Candida</i> (2.9% (SD: 1.0)). Dermatophyte detection was more common in the elderly (≥65 years) compared to young adults (18-44 years) (OR: 1.8 (95% CI: 1.5, 2.2)), whereas <i>Malassezia</i> was more commonly detected in younger age groups (12.1-13.6%) than the elderly (5.6%). <i>Candida</i> was more frequently observed in females while dermatophytes and <i>Malassezia</i> were more frequently observed in males. Approximately one quarter of the submitted skin specimens tested positive for <i>S. aureus</i> (23.6% (SD: 3.4)), of which 34.4% (SD: 9.8) exhibited concurrent detection of the <i>mecA</i> gene. An <i>S. aureus</i> detection was more frequently observed in males (OR: 1.5 (95% CI: 1.2, 1.9)) and in children (OR: 1.7 (95% CI: 1.2, 2.5)). <i>Streptococcus pyogenes</i> was rarely detected. Among specimens positive for dermatophytes, 12.0% (20/166) showed co-detection of <i>S. aureus</i> and <i>mecA</i>, which is in contrast to 6.8% (70/1023) detected in samples without a fungal co-detection and 6.2% (8/130) in samples positive for <i>Malassezia</i>. <b>Conclusions</b>: PCR testing, when available, can be valuable as a part of routine care for diagnosing patients with clinically suspected skin infections. Further studies are warranted to survey the prevalence of resistant <i>S. aureus</i> isolates in dermatology outpatients, in particular with regard to the association with dermatophyte infections.</p>","PeriodicalId":13579,"journal":{"name":"Infectious Disease Reports","volume":"16 6","pages":"1075-1083"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11586989/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infectious Disease Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/idr16060087","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Cutaneous infections of fungal and bacterial origins are common. An accurate diagnosis-especially concerning pathogens that are difficult to isolate on culture-can be achieved using molecular methods (PCR) with a short turnaround time. Methods: We reviewed records of skin specimens (superficial scrapings) submitted by dermatologists across the United States with a clinically suspected dermatitis. As per physician's order, specimens were tested for infections either fungal (N = 4262) or bacterial (N = 1707) in origin. All unique specimens (one per patient) were subjected to real-time PCR assays where cases suspected of a fungal etiology were tested for dermatophytes, Malassezia and Candida, and cases suspected of a bacterial etiology were tested for Streptococcus pyogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, and the mecA gene potentially conferring β-lactam resistance. Results: Fungal agents were detected in 32.8% (SD: 4.5) of the submitted specimens, with most attributed to dermatophytes (19.3% (SD: 4.9)), followed by Malassezia (8.7% (SD: 2.8)) and Candida (2.9% (SD: 1.0)). Dermatophyte detection was more common in the elderly (≥65 years) compared to young adults (18-44 years) (OR: 1.8 (95% CI: 1.5, 2.2)), whereas Malassezia was more commonly detected in younger age groups (12.1-13.6%) than the elderly (5.6%). Candida was more frequently observed in females while dermatophytes and Malassezia were more frequently observed in males. Approximately one quarter of the submitted skin specimens tested positive for S. aureus (23.6% (SD: 3.4)), of which 34.4% (SD: 9.8) exhibited concurrent detection of the mecA gene. An S. aureus detection was more frequently observed in males (OR: 1.5 (95% CI: 1.2, 1.9)) and in children (OR: 1.7 (95% CI: 1.2, 2.5)). Streptococcus pyogenes was rarely detected. Among specimens positive for dermatophytes, 12.0% (20/166) showed co-detection of S. aureus and mecA, which is in contrast to 6.8% (70/1023) detected in samples without a fungal co-detection and 6.2% (8/130) in samples positive for Malassezia. Conclusions: PCR testing, when available, can be valuable as a part of routine care for diagnosing patients with clinically suspected skin infections. Further studies are warranted to survey the prevalence of resistant S. aureus isolates in dermatology outpatients, in particular with regard to the association with dermatophyte infections.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
皮肤真菌和细菌感染病原体的分子鉴定:美国,2020-2024 年。
背景/目的:真菌和细菌引起的皮肤感染很常见。使用分子方法(PCR)可在短时间内做出准确诊断,尤其是对培养难以分离的病原体。方法:我们查阅了美国各地皮肤科医生提交的临床疑似皮炎皮肤标本(表皮刮片)的记录。根据医嘱,我们对标本进行了真菌(4262 例)或细菌(1707 例)感染检测。对所有标本(每位患者一份)进行实时 PCR 检测,对疑似真菌病因的病例进行皮癣菌、马拉色菌和念珠菌检测,对疑似细菌病因的病例进行化脓性链球菌、金黄色葡萄球菌和可能产生 β-内酰胺耐药性的 mecA 基因检测。结果:在 32.8%(标清:4.5)的送检标本中检测到真菌,其中大部分是皮真菌(19.3%(标清:4.9)),其次是马拉色菌(8.7%(标清:2.8))和念珠菌(2.9%(标清:1.0))。与青壮年(18-44 岁)相比,老年人(≥65 岁)更容易检出皮癣菌(OR:1.8 (95% CI:1.5, 2.2)),而年轻群体(12.1%-13.6%)比老年人(5.6%)更容易检出马拉色菌。念珠菌多见于女性,而皮癣菌和马拉色菌多见于男性。在提交的皮肤标本中,约有四分之一(23.6%,标准差:3.4)的金黄色葡萄球菌检测呈阳性,其中 34.4%(标准差:9.8)的标本同时检测到了 mecA 基因。男性(OR:1.5 (95% CI: 1.2, 1.9))和儿童(OR:1.7 (95% CI: 1.2, 2.5))更容易检测到金黄色葡萄球菌。化脓性链球菌很少被检测到。在皮癣菌阳性样本中,有 12.0%(20/166)的样本同时检测到金黄色葡萄球菌和 mecA,而在未同时检测到真菌的样本中检测到的比例为 6.8%(70/1023),在马拉色菌阳性样本中检测到的比例为 6.2%(8/130)。结论:如果可以进行 PCR 检测,它可以作为诊断临床疑似皮肤感染患者的常规护理的一部分,具有重要价值。有必要开展进一步研究,调查皮肤科门诊病人中耐药金黄色葡萄球菌分离物的流行情况,尤其是与皮癣菌感染的关联。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Infectious Disease Reports
Infectious Disease Reports INFECTIOUS DISEASES-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Molecular Identification of Etiological Agents in Fungal and Bacterial Skin Infections: United States, 2020-2024. Lemierre Syndrome Associated with Streptococcus constellatus and Atypical Vascular Involvement: A Case Report and Review of the Literature. Legionella pneumophila-Klebsiella pneumoniae Pulmonary Coinfection in a COVID-19 Patient: Case Report. Multidisciplinary Approach in Rare, Fulminant-Progressing, and Life-Threatening Facial Necrotizing Fasciitis. Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin Kexin 9 Inhibitor in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Patients in a Phase II Prospective Cohort Study-Preliminary Results.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1