Transmission of @entity3256 -resistant XXXX between infected @entity235 and @entity468 and contact pets, @entity1 and the environment in households and veterinary clinics.

@entity1 @entity3256 @entity235 @entity281 @entity23819 @entity468
The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence of @entity3256 -resistant @entity23819 (MRSP) in @entity1 , pets and the environment in households with a pet with a clinical @entity281 within the past year. Personnel and the environment at veterinary clinics were also screened. Nasal swabs ( @entity1 ), nasal and perineal swabs (pets) and environmental wipes were examined using selective culturing. Twenty households were enrolled; 10/20 index cases still had clinical signs of @entity281 at the start of the study and all were MRSP-positive. Of the remaining 10 index cases five were MRSP-positive in nasal and/or perineal samples. Five of 14 (36%) contact @entity235 and four of 13 (31%) contact @entity468 were found MRSP-positive. In the households with an index case with clinical signs of @entity281 6/7 (86%) contact animals were MRSP-positive. MRSP was cultured from 2/45 (4%) @entity1 nasal samples. Domestic contamination was widespread as positive samples were found in 70% of the households and 44% of all environmental samples were MRSP-positive. In all but one of these MRSP-positive households the index case was still MRSP positive. Among the personnel in veterinary clinics 4/141 (3%) were MRSP-positive. MRSP was cultured from 31/200 environmental samples in 7/13 clinics at the first sampling and in 3/6 clinics the environment remained MRSP-positive after cleaning and disinfection indicating that current cleaning procedures often were unable to eliminate MRSP. These results show that transmission of MRSP between infected or colonized @entity235 and @entity468 and healthy @entity1 does occur but is relatively uncommon, while transmission to contact pets occurs frequently, especially when the index case still has clinical signs of @entity281 .
