If one is treated for MRSA are they still contagious?

If someone has a MRSA infection and is treated with IV Vanco, when he gets out of the hospital, is he still able to spread MRSA to others?

If a person has strep, after 24 hours of antibiotics they are considered not contagious anymore. But with MRSA, I have heard it said people may be carriers forever.

I had a relative treated for MRSA, and the doctors just told us to "wash our hands a lot and we will be fine." I thought, no way. If he still has MRSA on him, if he touches ANYTHING in my house, and then I touch the same thing, I can now become colonized with MRSA. But if he is treated with Vanco, and the wound heals completely, is he still colonized? Can he still spread it to everyone he touches?

So what's your opinion? If you invite someone in your home who was treated for MRSA, would you disinfect everything he touches?
There's more than likely MRSA already all over your house. That's why you have an immune system.

It's not that uncommon anymore and chances are you are exposed at the grocery store or library on a regular basis. Once in awhile it takes hold. Yes some people are colonized with it and live with it just fine. Others get an acute infection and are treated for it.

If someone has a MRSA infection and is on Vanco and Zosyn, and the wound heals, do they still have MRSA?If someone has strep, and they are treated with antibiotics, after 24 hours, they are not infectious anymore. Is MRSA different?

Quote from beachmomIf someone has a MRSA infection and is on Vanco and Zosyn, and the wound heals, do they still have MRSA?If someone has strep, and they are treated with antibiotics, after 24 hours, they are not infectious anymore. Is MRSA different?

I know they are different. I'm just saying you can cure strep. Why can't you cure MRSA? If the antibiotics kill the MRSA enough for the wound to heal, why is the person still colonized and infectious?

MRSA is resistant to methicillin, a very high-powered antibiotic. It's difficult to cure MRSA because of this drug resistance.Per the Mayo clinic:Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection is caused by a strain of staph bacteria that's become resistant to the antibiotics commonly used to treat ordinary staph infections.

My facility requires a negative MRSA swab before removing precautions. Unfortunately, very few providers do their due diligence and follow up with the test after treatment.

Quote from roser13My facility requires a negative MRSA swab before removing precautions. Unfortunately, very few providers do their due diligence and follow up with the test after treatment.

That's actually a good question. From what I understand (or at least what I see in the system I work in) a patient goes on contact precautions if they have EVER tested positive for MRSA wether or not they have an "active" infection. Seems to me the MRSA is something that you always have once you get it. Sounds more like a virus than a bacteria... You'd think that after you were treated- that would be that, but it doesn't seem to be the case, does it? Hmmmmmm....

We used to require 2 swabs, but recent research has indicated only one is necessary.I always heard the "once a MRSA patient, always a MRSA patient" also. But I've seen folks who battled it for quite some time eventually test negative. So, I guess it can happen.I also always figured that I was MRSA positive, given my healthcare history. But my pre-op swab for TKA was negative.

If only one is treated, whoever they are have presumably not been, so they may still be carriers. The one may not be anymore (the three swabs rule). Please try to keep your pronouns and verbs parallel, because I am easily confused about this. One is singular, they is plural. One has, they have. As to MRSA, it's ubiquitous in the community and in institutions now. They used to differentiate between strains, one being called HA (hospital-acquired) and the other CA (community-acquired), but this is no longer true as the two strains have swapped back and forth so often. Don't get all fluffed up about this. If someone who is colonized with MRSA touched something you touch later, that doesn't necessarily infect you or colonize you (you should make yourself familiar with the very real differences in these two states, and not just for purposes of this discussion, either) and you probably could find it in your house anyway. Go to the CDC site cited earlier and read up.

"MRSA" isn't a disease or even an infection, it's just refers to staph bacteria that are resistant to a group of antibiotics. Just like "regular" staff (MSSA) or any number of other bacteria that are always present on or in your body, it can be the culprit bacteria in an infection. We don't really "cure" MRSA, we treat infections caused by MRSA bacteria, just like we treat infections caused by other staph, strep which even once an infection is "cured", people are typically still colonized with those bacteria, which are two very different things. It's not really possible to fully decolonize someone of all bacteria without killing them, and you wouldn't really want to since our bodies need various bacteria to function properly. There is some debate as to whether or not it's actually possible to decolonize MRSA bacteria specifically, we know we can lower the bacterial load such as before surgery, and that we can make it harder to detect, but in general "curing" MRSA colonization isn't recommended even if it is potentially possible due the risk we might just give that person't MRSA bacteria even more resistance to other agents.