A 10-Year Review of Ocular Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections: Epidemiology, Clinical Features, and Treatment.

PURPOSE: To characterize epidemiological data on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) ocular infections over a 10-year period in Hong Kong; to compare the characteristics between hospital-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (h-MRSA) and community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) ocular infections; and to review the treatment regimen and outcome of identified cases. METHODS: A retrospective case review of ocular samples testing positive for MRSA at a tertiary eye center from July 2005 to June 2015 was performed. RESULTS: Ninety nonduplicative samples from 75 patients with ocular MRSA infection were included during the study period. The average annual rate of ocular MRSA infection among all ocular S. aureus infections was 12.9%. Ten patients had CA-MRSA (13.3%). The most common clinical manifestation was preseptal cellulitis in the CA-MRSA group and blepharoconjunctivitis in the h-MRSA group. Vision-threatening conditions occurred only in the h-MRSA group. Besides vancomycin, other antibiotics to which both MRSA groups were highly sensitive included chloramphenicol, fusidic acid, cotrimoxazole, and gentamicin. Significantly more CA-MRSA was sensitive to levofloxacin and clindamycin (P < 0.01). The h-MRSA group required a significantly longer duration of treatment to eradicate infection (mean 79 vs. 28 days, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: CA-MRSA presents as a genetically different organism with distinctive clinical presentation and antibiotic sensitivity from its h-MRSA counterpart. Despite increasing resistance patterns, we demonstrate that MRSA ocular infections can be effectively treated without the use of vancomycin, limiting its use to refractory or vision-threatening conditions.

A systematic review to evaluate the accuracy of electronic adverse drug event detection.

OBJECTIVE: Adverse drug events (ADEs), defined as adverse patient outcomes caused by medications, are common and difficult to detect. Electronic detection of ADEs is a promising method to identify ADEs. We performed this systematic review to characterize established electronic detection systems and their accuracy. METHODS: We identified studies evaluating electronic ADE detection from the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. We included studies if they contained original data and involved detection of electronic triggers using information systems. We abstracted data regarding rule characteristics including type, accuracy, and rationale. RESULTS: Forty-eight studies met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-four (50%) studies reported rule accuracy but only 9 (18.8%) utilized a proper gold standard (chart review in all patients). Rule accuracy was variable and often poor (range of sensitivity: 40%-94%; specificity: 1.4%-89.8%; positive predictive value: 0.9%-64%). 5 (10.4%) studies derived or used detection rules that were defined by clinical need or the underlying ADE prevalence. Detection rules in 8 (16.7%) studies detected specific types of ADEs. CONCLUSION: Several factors led to inaccurate ADE detection algorithms, including immature underlying information systems, non-standard event definitions, and variable methods for detection rule validation. Few ADE detection algorithms considered clinical priorities. To enhance the utility of electronic detection systems, there is a need to systematically address these factors.