MRSA in the News Again: Another Misleading Report
.jpg)
Last week, I took a group of Seattle researchers to task about issuing a press release about isolating methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from sand samples taken from public beaches in Washington State. Their findings were neither remarkable nor news worthy and likely did more harm than good. Sadly, another article about MRSA—designed to alarm rather than inform and educate the American public—appeared in today’s Science section of the NY Times.
The article, “Ties to Pets Has Germ Jumping To and Fro” in which the word “germ” appeared several times, reports on the possible transmission of MRSA between humans and their pets, most notably dogs and cats. Much of the article focuses on the “strong link between animal to human transmission,” offers several frightening examples of serious zoonotic cases that have been recently reported and suggests that cats are eight times more likely than other pets to transmit MRSA to their owners. After reading the first part of the article, readers would rightfully believe that we are in the midst of a massive zoonotic MRSA epidemic with family pets at its epicenter. However, on the second page of the article the author mentions an epidemiological survey study conducted by Dr. J. Scott Weese, a veterinarian from the University of Guelph in Ontario Canada which showed that only “two to three percent of pets carry MRSA on their fur or skin or in their saliva.” Further, the study suggests that healthy animals that are transiently colonized by MRSA eliminate them “in a manner of weeks.” Compare the 2 to 3 per cent carrier rate in pets with an almost 70% human carriage rate of MRSA. While I am a PhD-trained infectious disease microbiologist, I don’t think it requires a PhD to quickly realize that pets really aren’t a major source or cause of MRSA infections for humans. That said, raising awareness among veterinarians about MRSA might aid in the development of appropriate disease surveillance, diagnostic testing, andinfection control to lessen the impact of MRSA on smallanimals.
I have no doubt that many people will look at and possibly treat their pets differently after reading the Times article. Further, many will unnecessarily spend money to have their pets tested for the presence or absence of MRSA. While informing the American public that pets (like humans) might unknowingly transmit MRSA is a good thing, turning the rare transmission of MRSA from animals to humans into a major epidemiological brou-ha-ha is misleading, scientifically disingenuous and reckless. Good journalism should inform and educate, not alarm and frighten people by presenting misleading and wrong-headed information.
Until next time....
Good Luck and Good petting your pets (it will do more good than harm)
