Continuing Education Activity

Staphylococcus aureus remains one of the most significant bacterial pathogens worldwide, responsible for a wide range of community- and hospital-acquired infections. Its ability to colonize skin, mucous membranes, and the gastrointestinal tract, while also causing severe, life-threatening disease, underscores its clinical complexity. This course reviews the organism’s capacity for antimicrobial resistance, toxin production, and immune evasion—particularly in methicillin-resistant S aureus strains—that continues to challenge clinicians across disciplines. The proper evaluation of S aureus bacteremia, which requires distinguishing between uncomplicated and complicated cases, identifying sources of infection, ensuring prompt source control, and selecting appropriate antimicrobial therapy, is also discussed.

This course explores current evidence-based guidance on the pathogenesis, clinical evaluation, and management of S aureus infections, emphasizing bacteremia. Participants will gain the ability to assess risk factors, interpret diagnostic findings, and implement effective treatment and infection control strategies. This activity for healthcare professionals is designed to enhance the learner's competence in identifying S aureus infections, preventing transmission, performing the recommended evaluation, and implementing an appropriate interprofessional approach when managing this disease to improve patient outcomes.

Objectives:

• Identify key pathogenic mechanisms of Staphylococcus aureus infections.
• Differentiate uncomplicated from complicated S aureus bacteremia based on diagnostic criteria.
• Apply evidence-based management strategies for Staphylococcus aureus infections.
• Collaborate with members of the interprofessional team to ensure coordinated care and improved patient outcomes.

Introduction

Staphylococcus aureus (S aureus) causes a wide spectrum of clinical diseases and remains one of the leading sources of bacterial-associated morbidity and mortality worldwide.[1] Infections occur in both community-acquired and hospital-acquired settings, with prevention and treatment complicated by the organism’s high transmissibility, extensive pathogenic mechanisms, and growing antimicrobial resistance. S aureus can exist as an innocuous colonizer of skin, mucous membranes, and the gastrointestinal tract..

Despite its ability to exist as a benign colonizer, S aureus can also produce severe, life-threatening infections. The organism frequently exchanges mobile genetic elements with both pathogenic and nonpathogenic bacteria, enhancing its adaptability and virulence. Through these genetic exchanges, S aureus has acquired the capacity to invade tissues, produce toxins, resist antimicrobial therapies, and evade host immune defenses.[2][3] This overview discusses the pathogenesis of S aureus infections, with particular attention to the evaluation and management of bacteremia.

Etiology

S aureus are gram-positive cocci that typically appear microscopically in grape-like clusters but may also present singly, in pairs, or in short chains. These organisms are nonmotile, non-spore-forming, coagulase-positive, often catalase-positive, and generally facultative anaerobes. They inhabit a wide range of animal and human hosts, displaying remarkable adaptability. In humans, colonization most frequently occurs in the anterior nares, oropharynx, skin, axilla, and perineum, where the bacteria can persist without causing disease.

Compared with less virulent staphylococcal species, S aureus possesses distinctive structural and biochemical features that promote pathogenicity. These include specialized surface proteins, enzymes, and toxins that facilitate tissue adherence, immune evasion, and invasion. Certain strains, eg, methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA), harbor chromosomal genes that confer resistance to multiple antibiotics, significantly complicating treatment and contributing to the organism’s global clinical impact.[4]  Please see StatPearls' companion resource, "Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus," for further information.

Epidemiology

Approximately 20% to 30% of the human population is persistently colonized by S aureus. Intermittent colonization occurs in an additional 30% of the population.[5][6][3] Colonization by the organism most often occurs in the nares, oropharynx, axillae, groin, and intestine.

Some populations tend to have higher rates of S aureus colonization (up to 80%), eg, health care workers, people who use drugs (PWUDs), people with diabetes, hospitalized patients, and immunocompromised individuals. Additionally, colonization by S aureus is a risk factor for subsequent infection, particularly in immunocompromised people, surgical patients, and people with chronic conditions. S aureus is easily transmitted by direct contact with animals, people, and inanimate objects. Approximately 25% of bacteremia in hospitalized children is due to S aureus (16% methicillin-sensitive S aureus [MSSA] and 9% MRSA).[7] Estimates by the CDC indicate an annual incidence of more than 70,000 severe infections and 9,000 deaths due to MRSA.[CDC. Infection Control Guidance: Preventing Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Healthcare Facilities. June 27, 2025.] Global population studies have shown significant differences in rates of S aureus nasal carriage, likely reflecting differences in socioeconomics, healthcare, and occupational exposures.[2] 

Advances in medicine, eg, dialysis, transplantation, surgical procedures, chemotherapy, implant devices, and central venous catheter use, have significantly increased the incidence and prevalence of infections due to S aureus.[8] Worldwide, S aureus is the leading cause of death due to bacterial bloodstream infections with an attributable mortality of 30%.[9] Therefore, S aureus infections contribute to a staggering burden of healthcare costs.[10] 

Pathophysiology

The organism’s unique ability to respond and adapt to its environment enhances S aureus' success as both a commensal and opportunistic pathogen. The S aureus genome consists of approximately 2.8 million base pairs that code for structural and regulatory genes. The majority of the genome is conserved between staphylococcal species and is considered housekeeping elements, whereas the remainder (accessory genes) are carried on strain-specific mobile genetic elements that code for virulence, immune evasion, and drug resistance.[11] The genetic element, staphylococcal cassette chromosome (SCC) mec, is responsible for methicillin resistance.[12] Please see StatPearls' companion resource, "Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus," for further information.

Pathogenic Mechanisms

S aureus is capable of causing infections in every anatomic site. The anterior nares as well as the oropharynx are the primary niches for S aureus colonization, a risk factor for subsequent skin colonization and infection.[2][13] Skin colonization and wound contamination can initiate infection of superficial cutaneous structures and invasion of deep cutaneous tissues. Tissue invasion is initiated when there is a breach in skin integrity, resulting in microthrombi. S aureus adhesins are surface proteins that bind avidly to fibrin, fibrinogen, and collagen. The bacteria secrete coagulases capable of promoting more thrombus formation. Proteases secreted by the bacteria allow them to escape the clot and extend the tissue invasion. The proteases inhibit complement-mediated opsonin and phagocyte activity. S aureus secretes proteins that interact with inflamed endothelium and promote attachment of the bacteria, which results in endovascular infection.

Bloodstream infections due to S aureus have a propensity to infect endovascular tissues, including heart valves, implanted and prosthetic material, and major organs. Super antigens and toxins can produce shock and multiorgan failure. The bacteria respond and adapt to environmental conditions by a variety of complex regulatory mechanisms that contribute to immune evasion and control metabolic and virulence gene expression.[3][2] Regulatory control of surface adhesins can promote S aureus attachment to heart valves and can stimulate the expression of toxins and biofilms.[14] S aureus strains that express increased levels of surface adhesins and biofilm formation are the most common cause of chronic infections of heart valves, bone, implants, and prosthetic devices.[2] Biofilms shield the bacteria from both immunologic and antibiotic action.

Immune evasion by S aureus is complex and multifaceted.[3] The bacteria evade phagocytosis by elaborating a cloaking polysaccharide capsule and secreting various factors that inhibit chemotaxis and block neutrophil receptors. Antibody-mediated phagocytosis is inhibited by specific S aureus secreted proteins. As noted above, opsonin activity is inhibited by proteases produced by S aureus. The bacteria produce a complement-inhibitory protein capable of blocking the alternative complement pathway. S aureus can be shielded by the production of fibrinogen-binding protein that prevents contact of neutrophils. Production of catalase inhibits the activation of neutrophils and blocks the oxidative burst killing of bacteria.[15] The organism can alter its membrane phospholipid surface charge, thereby making it less susceptible to antimicrobial peptides present in skin and mucous membranes.[16]

S aureus strains capable of producing toxins that dysregulate immune function and damage cells and tissues have been identified.[14][2] Staphylococcal Scalded Skin Syndrome (SSSS) is caused by toxigenic strains that produce exfoliative toxins. SSSS is rare and occurs most often in neonates and young children.[17] Bullous impetigo is a localized form of the disease. Please see StatPearls' companion resource, "Staphylococcal Scalded Skin Syndrome," for further information. Strains of S aureus can produce a variety of enterotoxins that are a common cause of food poisoning.[18] The heat-stable toxins are not destroyed in the cooking process. The S aureus enterotoxins cause a self-limited course of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The Panton-Valentine-Leukocidin (PVL) toxin produced by strains of S aureus is cytotoxic to leukocytes and alveolar epithelium. PVL-producing strains have a propensity to cause skin abscesses, necrotizing pneumonia, osteomyelitis, and bacteremia.[19][20] 

The enterotoxins noted above are members of a large family of toxins that are categorized as superantigens.[21] S aureus enterotoxins and toxic shock syndrome toxin (TSST) are representatives of well-characterized superantigens; proteins capable of activating a large pool of T lymphocytes, and initiating a cytokine storm, shock, and multiorgan failure.[22] Please see StatPearls' companion resource, "Toxic Shock Syndrome," for further information.

S aureus is capable of efficiently modifying its metabolic pathways to survive in a variety of host tissue environments. Siderophore production and heme acquisition are mechanisms by which S aureus extracts iron from host cells. The bacteria are unique in their ability to utilize a variety of carbon substrates (eg, glucose, lactate, and amino acids) in biofilm communities where nutrients may be deficient.[23][24] 

The unique array of pathogenic and adaptive mechanisms deployed by S aureus contribute to it being one of the most common bacterial infections capable of causing a variety of diseases, including, but not limited to bacteremia, infective endocarditis, skin and soft tissue infections (eg, impetigo, folliculitis, furuncles, carbuncles, cellulitis, scalded skin syndrome, and others), osteomyelitis, septic arthritis, implantable and prosthetic device infections, pleuropulmonary infections (eg, pneumonia and empyema), gastroenteritis, meningitis, toxic shock syndrome, urinary tract infections, and abscesses of every organ. For a more detailed discussion of currently identified S aureus pathogenic mechanisms, several excellent reviews have been published.[3][2]

Staphylococcus Aureus Antibiotic Resistance

Antibiotic resistance is a common feature of S aureus. The bacteria can develop resistance to almost every antibiotic class. Resistance to β-lactams via plasmid-mediated penicillinase is widespread, occurring in over 80% of isolates.[25] The penicillinase-resistant β-lactams, eg, methicillin, oxacillin, nafcillin, and the cephalosporin class of antibiotics, retain activity in the presence of penicillinase. However, shortly after the development and use of the penicillinase-resistant β-lactams and cephalosporins, MRSA emerged.

MRSA is now prevalent throughout the world and tends to be multidrug resistant.[26] Please see StatPearls' companion resource, "Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus," for further information. The glycopeptide class of antibiotics, including vancomycin and daptomycin, retains activity against most, but not all, MRSA strains. By altering its terminal peptidoglycan target, D-Ala-D-Ala, MRSA is capable of developing high-level resistance to the glycopeptides. This plasmid-mediated resistance mechanism has important clinical implications.[27][28][29] MRSA strains with intermediate sensitivity to vancomycin display thickened cell walls that sequester the antibiotic. Multiple gene mutations underlie this resistance mechanism.[30] 

S aureus tends to be resistant to macrolides, ketolides, lincosamides, and streptogramin B classes of antibiotics. These agents inhibit protein synthesis by binding to the bacterial 50S ribosomal subunit. Resistance mechanisms include intracellular drug efflux, ribosomal modification, and drug inactivation.[31] The oxazolidinone class of antibiotics, including linezolid and tedizolid, bind to a different region of the 50S ribosomal subunit and tend to retain activity against S aureus, including MRSA. However, resistance mutants have been identified.[32][33] S aureus strains employ multiple mechanisms to resist aminoglycosides, including aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes, modification of the 30S ribosomal binding site, reduced drug uptake, and activation of efflux pumps.[34] Tetracycline resistance mechanisms include plasmid-mediated production of proteins that interfere with the binding of the antibiotic to the 30S ribosomal subunit, as well as the activation of efflux pumps.[35][36] The fluoroquinolone class of antibiotics targets and inhibits DNA topoisomerases. Chromosomal mutations in S aureus, particularly MRSA, reduce fluoroquinolone binding affinity and activate efflux pumps.[37] 

As noted above, the bacteria are capable of forming biofilms, which are the primary mechanism for the establishment of chronic infections in endovascular tissue, bone, prosthetic implants, and catheter material. Eradication of biofilm-associated infections by antibiotics is exceedingly difficult, often requiring surgical intervention.[24] 

Differentiating between MSSA and MRSA in clinical isolates is of utmost importance and is a key factor in choosing appropriate antibiotic therapy. Molecular methods for the rapid detection of MSSA and MRSA from swab specimens, and directly from positive blood culture bottles, are recent advancements that can help direct early, appropriate antibiotic selection.[38] Additional considerations regarding antibiotic therapy should be based on several factors, including but not limited to: anatomic sites of infection, severity of illness, anticipated duration of therapy, ease of administration, allergies, patient age, renal function, drug interactions, and adverse effect profile.

History and Physical

History and physical will vary depending on the anatomic sites involved in the infection. No “one size fits all” approach to the evaluation of a patient with a S aureus infection has been established. Please see StatPearls' companion resources, "Staphylococcal Scalded Skin Syndrome," "Bacteremia," "Septic Thrombophlebitis," "Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection," "Bacterial Endocarditis," " Cardiac Abscess," "Staphylococcal Pneumonia," "Septic Arthritis," "Osteomyelitis," "Periprosthetic Joint Infection," "Splenic Abscess," "Liver Abscess," "Epidural Abscess," "Lens Abscess," "Perinephric Abscess," "Renal Abscess," "Toxic Shock Syndrome," "Antibiotic Resistance," for further information.  

In general, key components of the history and physical must attempt to answer the following questions:

• Are the following host risk factors present?

  • Immunocompromise
  • Skin-soft tissue injury
  • Recent hospitalization
  • Recent surgery
  • Indwelling catheters, implantable devices, and prostheses
  • Injection drug use
• Is there a known source of the infection?
• Is there a history of MRSA infection at any time in the past?
• Is the infection limited to the superficial skin, or does it extend to deeper cutaneous tissue?
• Does the infection require surgical drainage?
• Is bone, implant devices, or prosthetic material involved?
• Is the infection acute or chronic?
• Is the infection due to a relapse of a prior, inadequately treated infection?
• Is an associated bloodstream infection present?
• In the setting of a bloodstream infection, is there evidence for endovascular involvement, including septic thrombophlebitis, endocarditis, indwelling medical devices, prosthetic devices, or metastatic spread to organs?
• Is there evidence of infection at multiple anatomic sites?
• Will therapy require removal of an implanted medical or prosthetic device in addition to antibiotic therapy?
• Are there underlying comorbidities or socioeconomic conditions that will impact the choice of antibiotic therapy?
• Does the infection require antibiotic treatment?

  • What antibiotics should be administered?
  • How long a course of antibiotics is required?

Evaluation

Uncomplicated and Complicated Staphylococcus Aureus Infections

In addition to the history and physical components of assessment noted above, clinicians should also evaluate the complexities associated with patients with S aureus bacteremia. A particularly important consideration in the evaluation and management of a patient with S aureus bacteremia is whether the infection is likely to be uncomplicated or complicated.[39][40][41] The classification terms “uncomplicated” and “complicated” have been used to guide recommendations for determining the extent of a patient’s evaluation, antibiotic choices, and duration of therapy.[42][39] 

Recommendations based on these terms are derived chiefly from experience and observational studies, with few robust, prospective, randomized clinical trials existing to test the strengths of the classification scheme. Thus, the approach to evaluating patients with S aureus bacteremia should be individualized on a case-by-case basis. Simply put, an uncomplicated S aureus bacteremia implies the following characteristics:

• The infection is acute.
• The source is known and has been controlled.
• No evidence of endovascular, organ, osteoarticular, implantable device, or prosthetic material involvement is present.
• Antibiotics are initiated quickly.
• The bacteremia is not sustained, although no consensus has been established on a uniformly accepted definition of sustained bacteremia after the initiation of antibiotics.
• Defervescence occurs within 72 hours of antibiotic initiation.
• The patient neither injects drugs nor has a history of endocarditis.

A complicated S aureus bacteremia is defined as not meeting all of the aforementioned criteria. In fact, a significant majority of patients with S aureus bacteremia have complicated infections.[43][42] 

General Management Recommendations

Due to the complexities associated with S aureus bacteremia, management guidelines recommend a thorough history and physical, focusing on identifying the source of infection and potential involvement of metastatic sites. Vascular catheters present at the time of bacteremia should be removed as soon as possible. Follow-up blood cultures, echocardiography, and an infectious disease consultation are also recommended (see Image. Gram Stain of Staphylococcus aureus).[42][39] The preferred type of echocardiogram remains an unsettled issue; several excellent reviews in the literature discuss the topic.[44][39] Based on history, physical findings, and clinical suspicion, imaging of anatomic regions of concern should be performed by computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging, or positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scans. Aspiration and drainage of collections should be attempted.

Ideally, fevers should abate within 72 hours of initiating antibiotics. Blood cultures should be repeated daily until they remain negative. Blood cultures that remain positive once antibiotics are initiated are disconcerting and raise suspicion of an endovascular or undrained focus of infection. Rapid molecular tests can accelerate the detection and identification of MSSA and MRSA directly from clinical specimens and shorten the time to selection of optimal antibiotics.[45][38] Additionally, the Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-of-Flight (MALDI-TOF) assay is being employed in many clinical laboratories. This study is capable of rapidly identifying organisms growing in culture.[46][47] Therefore, when resources permit, these rapid detection methods should be employed.

Treatment / Management

Treatment of S aureus infections depends on several critical factors, including the affected anatomic site, antimicrobial resistance profile of the organism, and the feasibility of achieving effective source control. Additional considerations include patient-specific elements, eg, drug allergies, comorbid conditions, and socioeconomic factors that may influence adherence and access to care. The broad range of anatomic sites susceptible to S aureus infection demands individualized therapeutic strategies tailored to the clinical presentation and pathogen characteristics. Because S aureus can cause infections involving nearly every organ system, detailed treatment recommendations for each site extend beyond the scope of this discussion, which is focused on bacteremia.

Please see the following StatPearls' companion resources for further information on site-specific recommendations for S aureus infection:

• Cellulitis
• Impetigo
• Erysipelas
• Folliculitis
• Carbuncles
• Acute Mastitis
• Necrotizing Fasciitis
• Staphylococcal Scalded Skin Syndrome
• Breast Abscess
• Staphylococcal Pneumonia
• Endocarditis
• Endocarditis Antibiotic Regimens
• Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis
• Cardiac Abscess
• Epidural Abscess
• Brain Abscess
• Perinephric Abscess
• Renal Abscess
• Septic Thrombophlebitis
• Bacterial Meningitis
• Septic Arthritis
• Septic Arthritis of the Pediatric Hip
• Septic Bursitis
• Osteomyelitis
• Vertebral Osteomyelitis
• Periprosthetic Joint Infections
• Toxic Shock Syndrome
• Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
• Penicillin
• Cephalosporins
• Vancomycin
• Daptomycin
• Quinolones
• Linezolid
• Trimethoprim Sulfamethoxazole
• Aminoglycosides
• Doxycycline
• Tetracycline
• Rifampin
• Clindamycin
• Bacitracin Topical
• Mupirocin

Staphylococcus Aureus Bacteremia Management

The primary concern in the management and treatment of patients with S aureus bacteremia is whether the infection represents an uncomplicated or complicated process. (Please refer to the Evaluation section for more information on complicated and uncomplicated S aureus infections.) Because S aureus bloodstream infections often behave unpredictably, cases initially considered uncomplicated may later reveal complications. Guidelines serve as useful frameworks, but clinicians must ultimately rely on evidence-based studies, experience, and clinical judgment while considering patient variability and resource availability.[40][39][8]

First-line therapy

Cefazolin or an antistaphylococcal penicillin remains the preferred therapy for MSSA, with vancomycin or daptomycin as alternatives in beta-lactam–allergic patients. Vancomycin, daptomycin, ceftaroline, or ceftobiprole are recommended for MRSA monotherapy.[39][48] Although ceftaroline is not Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for MRSA bacteremia, this agent has shown efficacy in both adults and children and is frequently used off-label.[49][48] Ceftobiprole recently received FDA approval for S aureus infections, including bacteremia, though its precise therapeutic role remains under evaluation.[50]

Empiric therapy

Empiric combination therapy with a beta-lactam plus vancomycin or daptomycin has been proposed during the initial assessment phase while awaiting culture sensitivities, which often require several days.[51] The benefits of this approach remain unproven, and concerns exist regarding potential risks.[52][53] Rapid molecular diagnostic testing performed directly from positive blood cultures, when available, can minimize delays in pathogen identification.[54]

Persistent bacteremia with MSSA or MRSA frequently indicates an endovascular source. Persistent MRSA bacteremia occurs in 8% to 39% of cases despite monotherapy.[55] Combination therapy may be considered on a case-by-case basis, although data regarding efficacy and safety are conflicting. Studies indicate that adding a beta-lactam to vancomycin or daptomycin may shorten MRSA bacteremia duration but increase the risk of acute kidney injury without a clear mortality benefit.[56][55] Similarly, combining ceftaroline or a carbapenem with an antistaphylococcal beta-lactam in MSSA cases may reduce bacteremia duration but has an uncertain impact on mortality.[55]  Further studies that stratify patients based on individual risk characteristics are required to determine which patients may benefit from combination therapy and whether to continue dual regimens or revert to monotherapy after blood cultures become negative. Nevertheless, in all cases, infection source control—through catheter removal, abscess drainage, surgical debridement, and removal of infected prostheses—remains essential.[57] 

Management in low-risk populations

In low-risk patients with suspected uncomplicated S aureus bacteremia, generally at least 2 weeks of antibiotic therapy from the first negative culture has traditionally been recommended, and in high-risk or complicated cases, typically 4 to 6 weeks of therapy.[40][57][39] However, these conventional durations do not account for patient variability or socioeconomic factors, and thus do not universally apply to many real-world cases of S aureus bacteremia. Subsequently, optimal antibiotic selection, dosing, and duration remain under investigation.

Recent developments, including shortened treatment duration, early switch to oral agents, and the use of new antibiotics, have expanded therapeutic options for select low-risk patients. Systematic reviews have shown that shorter antibiotic courses have an equivalent 90-day all-cause mortality endpoint compared to standard 14-day regimens.[58][59] Additionally, a large randomized controlled trial demonstrated equivalent efficacy and safety between oral early-switch therapy and standard intravenous therapy in low-risk cases.[43] Lipoglycopeptides (eg, dalbavancin and oritavancin) with long half-lives, allowing for once-weekly dosing, have shown similar efficacy and safety to standard regimens for complicated bacteremia and may reduce hospital stays when prolonged intravenous therapy is impractical.[60][61] When using these newer agents, clinicians must carefully monitor for emerging resistance and adverse effects.

Management of persistent bacteremia

Management of complicated S aureus bacteremia in patients with persistent positive cultures or uncontrolled infection sources remains uncertain. Combination antibiotics and switch strategies have been used with variable success.[39] In some refractory cases, long-term antibiotic suppression has also been attempted, but with inconsistent outcomes.

Prevention and Infection Control

Prevention strategies for S aureus infection emphasize hygiene, screening for colonization, and targeted decolonization. This involves the application of topical antibiotics and disinfectants for those at risk of colonization, in an attempt to reduce the risks of acquiring and transmitting S aureus infection. Healthcare and congregate settings, where MRSA infections pose significant risks, employ strict infection control practices.[62][63][63][63]

Key prevention measures include proper wound care, consistent hand hygiene, avoidance of shared personal items, and disinfection of shared equipment and surfaces (eg, athletic equipment). Strategies to reduce the incidence of hospital-acquired S aureus infections include:

• Central line-associated bloodstream infection practices
• Surgical site infection prevention practices
• Hemodialysis bloodstream infection prevention practices
• Ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention practices
• Decolonization strategies for high-risk patients

MRSA infection control strategies in healthcare settings involve all of the above, in addition to the following:

• Hand hygiene (highest importance)
• Contact precautions
• Private room or cohort room placement
• Environmental cleaning and disinfection
• Active surveillance

Decolonization protocols for high-risk patients often involve intranasal mupirocin with chlorhexidine or dilute bleach body washes. Reinfection and recolonization commonly occur, frequently due to household transmission. Furthermore, evidence indicates that decolonizing both the index case and household members reduces recurrent skin and soft tissue infections in children.[64] However, the effectiveness of similar strategies in adults remains uncertain. Hand hygiene, contact precautions, private or cohort room placement, environmental cleaning, and active surveillance remain foundational components of MRSA control in healthcare environments.

Differential Diagnosis

Because Staphylococcus aureus can infect nearly every organ system, the differential diagnosis extends across a wide range of conditions. The following list outlines several of the most frequently encountered diseases that clinicians should consider when evaluating potential S aureus infections:

• Infectious or inflammatory skin-soft tissue disorders
• Sepsis syndrome and septic shock
• Abscess
• Endocarditis
• Acute gastroenteritis
• Wound infection
• Necrotizing fasciitis, most importantly, beta-hemolytic streptococci
• Acute arthritis
• Acute bursitis
• Spondylitis
• Implanted medical device and prosthesis infection
• Pneumonia
• Meningitis

Prognosis

The prognosis of S aureus infections is dependent on the anatomic sites involved, the general health and immune function of the host, the ability to manage and eradicate the source of the infection, and the prompt initiation of antibiotics. Infection due to S aureus can be relatively avirulent with an excellent prognosis (eg, minor skin infection, food poisoning) to life-threatening (eg, fasciitis, bacteremia, endocarditis, pneumonia, toxic shock syndrome). However, even minor skin and soft tissue infections can rapidly advance in severity. Additionally, infections due to S aureus can be acute and immediately life-threatening, or chronic and indolent.

Complications

Minor skin-soft tissue infections can progress, causing extensive destruction of the integument and toxin-mediated septic shock. Bacteremia can cause septic shock and metastatic infections that can involve virtually any tissue and organ. S aureus pneumonia can cause irreversible damage to the lung parenchyma. Endocarditis can progress locally to cardiac valve disruption and destruction. Endocarditis can also progress systemically, causing septic embolic complications to every organ, most importantly to the central nervous system.

Moreover, S aureus infections involving implants can become a chronic source of ongoing infection and require device removal, which itself can lead to significant complications. Infections involving prosthetic material can be exceedingly difficult to eradicate and often require removal of the prosthesis. Both implant device and prostheses removal will invariably result in prolonged complications associated with impediments to performing activities of daily living. Furthermore, adverse events related to the administration of prolonged courses of anti-S aureus antibiotics can have a myriad of complications, including catheter-associated thrombosis and infection, antibiotic allergy, and kidney injury.

Deterrence and Patient Education

Prevention of Staphylococcus aureus infections depends on educating at-risk populations about transmission methods and promoting consistent adherence to personal hygiene, environmental cleaning, and disinfection practices. Individuals who inject drugs face a particularly high risk of developing complicated S aureus infections. Once infected, they often require antibiotics, management of opioid withdrawal, and treatment for opioid use disorder. Incorporating addiction counseling and social support networks strengthens overall infectious disease management and improves long-term outcomes.

Standard treatment approaches for complicated S aureus infections frequently involve extended courses of intravenous antibiotics, which can impose significant financial burdens, disrupt daily life, and increase health risks. Considering alternative options, eg, oral step-down therapy or the use of long-acting antibiotics that can replace multiple infusions, may enhance treatment adherence, reduce complications, and lower healthcare costs. Achieving these benefits requires collaboration and acceptance within the healthcare and insurance sectors to support broader access to these evolving therapeutic strategies.

Pearls and Other Issues

The following factors should be kept in mind when managing S aureus infections:

• S aureus is a leading cause of community-acquired and healthcare-associated infections worldwide.
• S aureus can cause minor infections at one end of the clinical spectrum and life-threatening infections at the other.
• Infections due to S aureus can involve virtually every organ.
• The bacteria evolve many complex pathogenic mechanisms that can evade host immune function, invade tissues, produce toxins, and promote biofilm formation.
• S aureus can adapt metabolically to differing anatomic environments.
• S aureus biofilms are the predominant cause of endovascular, medical implant, and prosthetic infections.
• S aureus biofilms are intrinsically resistant to all current antibiotics.
• S aureus is easily transmitted by close contact, sharing of personal hygiene items, and contaminated surfaces.
• Commensal colonization of the nares and oropharynx is common and is a risk for skin colonization and subsequent infection.
• Decolonization strategies using topical mupirocin in combination with chlorhexidine gluconate or dilute bleach baths are frequently effective, but often temporarily successful.
• S aureus bacteremia can initially appear "uncomplicated," but often results in complications, including sepsis, metastatic seeding of organs, medical implants, and prosthetics.
• Identifying patients who experience uncomplicated versus complicated S aureus bacteremia is very challenging.
• Standard antibiotic recommendations for the treatment of uncomplicated and complicated S aureus bacteremia are often based on observational studies; there is a lack of robust randomized clinical trials that can help establish firm treatment and management guidelines.
• The definitive choice of antibiotic regimen for S aureus bacteremia is not known, and many different approaches are being used in practice.
• Antibiotic monotherapy, combination therapy, intravenous-to-oral switch therapy, off-label antibiotic use, and long-acting antibiotics are currently used and applied to heterogeneous patient populations with S. aureus bacteremia.

Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes

S aureus causes a broad range of infections, from mild skin and soft tissue infections to severe, life-threatening diseases such as sepsis, endocarditis, and pneumonia. The organism’s ability to colonize human hosts, exchange genetic material, and develop antimicrobial resistance—including MRSA—poses major challenges to infection control and treatment. Effective prevention and management require early recognition, appropriate antimicrobial selection, and coordinated infection prevention strategies.

Optimal management of S aureus infections demands strong interprofessional collaboration. At the community level, virtually every healthcare practitioner will encounter patients with a S aureus infection. Clinicians will often seek advice from clinical microbiologists, infectious disease consultants, surgeons, pharmacists, and public health colleagues. Physicians and advanced practitioners guide diagnosis, antibiotic selection, and source control, while nurses monitor patient response, ensure adherence to isolation precautions, and educate patients on hygiene and prevention. Pharmacists review antibiotic regimens, manage dosing, and monitor for drug interactions and resistance. Infection control specialists and microbiologists support surveillance, decolonization, and outbreak prevention. Effective communication, shared decision-making, and coordinated care among all team members enhance patient safety, improve outcomes, and reduce recurrence and transmission.

S aureus infections can cause outbreaks in long-term care and congregant settings. Coordination between nursing, epidemiology staff, physicians, and environmental cleaning staff is critical for limiting the scope of an outbreak. Administrators hold an important position in supporting efforts to establish infection control policies and procedures. 

Review Questions

• Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.
• Click here for a simplified version.
• Comment on this article.

References

1.

Lowy FD. Staphylococcus aureus infections. N Engl J Med. 1998 Aug 20;339(8):520-32. [PubMed: 9709046]

2.

Touaitia R, Mairi A, Ibrahim NA, Basher NS, Idres T, Touati A. Staphylococcus aureus: A Review of the Pathogenesis and Virulence Mechanisms. Antibiotics (Basel). 2025 May 06;14(5) [PMC free article: PMC12108373] [PubMed: 40426537]

3.

Howden BP, Giulieri SG, Wong Fok Lung T, Baines SL, Sharkey LK, Lee JYH, Hachani A, Monk IR, Stinear TP. Staphylococcus aureus host interactions and adaptation. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2023 Jun;21(6):380-395. [PMC free article: PMC9882747] [PubMed: 36707725]

4.

Lakhundi S, Zhang K. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Molecular Characterization, Evolution, and Epidemiology. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2018 Oct;31(4) [PMC free article: PMC6148192] [PubMed: 30209034]

5.

Wertheim HF, Melles DC, Vos MC, van Leeuwen W, van Belkum A, Verbrugh HA, Nouwen JL. The role of nasal carriage in Staphylococcus aureus infections. Lancet Infect Dis. 2005 Dec;5(12):751-62. [PubMed: 16310147]

6.

WILLIAMS RE. Healthy carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: its prevalence and importance. Bacteriol Rev. 1963 Mar;27(1):56-71. [PMC free article: PMC441169] [PubMed: 14000926]

7.

Spaulding AB, Watson D, Dreyfus J, Heaton P, Grapentine S, Bendel-Stenzel E, Kharbanda AB. Epidemiology of Bloodstream Infections in Hospitalized Children in the United States, 2009-2016. Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Aug 30;69(6):995-1002. [PubMed: 30534940]

8.

Chastain DB, White BP, Henao-Martínez AF, Tu PJ, Bland CM, Foster RA, Cluck DB. Adjunctive β-lactams for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a narrative review. Ther Adv Infect Dis. 2025 Jan-Dec;12:20499361251343969. [PMC free article: PMC12171258] [PubMed: 40529959]

9.

GBD 2019 Antimicrobial Resistance Collaborators. Global mortality associated with 33 bacterial pathogens in 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2022 Dec 17;400(10369):2221-2248. [PMC free article: PMC9763654] [PubMed: 36423648]

10.

Nelson RE, Hatfield KM, Wolford H, Samore MH, Scott RD, Reddy SC, Olubajo B, Paul P, Jernigan JA, Baggs J. National Estimates of Healthcare Costs Associated With Multidrug-Resistant Bacterial Infections Among Hospitalized Patients in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Jan 29;72(Suppl 1):S17-S26. [PMC free article: PMC11864165] [PubMed: 33512523]

11.

Lindsay JA, Holden MT. Staphylococcus aureus: superbug, super genome? Trends Microbiol. 2004 Aug;12(8):378-85. [PubMed: 15276614]

12.

Pantosti A, Sanchini A, Monaco M. Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Future Microbiol. 2007 Jun;2(3):323-34. [PubMed: 17661706]

13.

Nilsson P, Ripa T. Staphylococcus aureus throat colonization is more frequent than colonization in the anterior nares. J Clin Microbiol. 2006 Sep;44(9):3334-9. [PMC free article: PMC1594670] [PubMed: 16954269]

14.

Di Bella S, Marini B, Stroffolini G, Geremia N, Giacobbe DR, Campanile F, Bartoletti M, Alloisio G, Di Risio L, Viglietti G, Principe L, Costantino V, Busetti M, Zerbato V, Mearelli F, Biolo G, Nunnari A, Cafiero CM, di Masi A. The virulence toolkit of Staphylococcus aureus: a comprehensive review of toxin diversity, molecular mechanisms, and clinical implications. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2025 Aug;44(8):1797-1816. [PMC free article: PMC12321932] [PubMed: 40323347]

15.

Beavers WN, Skaar EP. Neutrophil-generated oxidative stress and protein damage in Staphylococcus aureus. Pathog Dis. 2016 Aug;74(6) [PMC free article: PMC5975594] [PubMed: 27354296]

16.

Peschel A, Collins LV. Staphylococcal resistance to antimicrobial peptides of mammalian and bacterial origin. Peptides. 2001 Oct;22(10):1651-9. [PubMed: 11587793]

17.

Gray L, Hansen AM, Cipriano SD. Pediatric Staphylococcal Scalded Skin Syndrome: A Systematic Review of the Literature to Inform Work-Up and Management. Pediatr Dermatol. 2025 Sep-Oct;42(5):978-984. [PubMed: 40650480]

18.

Nunes Nascimento JC, Alvarenga VO, Paulino BN, de Cerqueira E Silva AB, Matos JR, Rosário ILDS, Andrade IHP, Silva JG, Costa M. Staphylococcus aureus in food safety: antimicrobial resistance, detection technologies, and future perspectives. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2026;66(3):607-630. [PubMed: 40679190]

19.

Prista-Leão B, Abreu I, Duro R, Silva-Pinto A, Ceia F, Andrade P, Sobrinho-Simões J, Tavares M, Pereira JM, Santos L, Sarmento A. Panton-Valentine Leukocidin-Producing Staphylococcus aureus Infection: A Case Series. Infect Dis Rep. 2020 Nov 03;12(3):61-69. [PMC free article: PMC7768458] [PubMed: 33153134]

20.

Garbo V, Venuti L, Boncori G, Albano C, Condemi A, Natoli G, Frasca Polara V, Billone S, Canduscio LA, Cascio A, Colomba C. Severe Panton-Valentine-Leukocidin-Positive Staphylococcus aureus Infections in Pediatric Age: A Case Report and a Literature Review. Antibiotics (Basel). 2024 Dec 07;13(12) [PMC free article: PMC11672633] [PubMed: 39766583]

21.

Xu SX, McCormick JK. Staphylococcal superantigens in colonization and disease. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2012;2:52. [PMC free article: PMC3417409] [PubMed: 22919643]

22.

Jarczak D, Nierhaus A. Cytokine Storm-Definition, Causes, and Implications. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Oct 03;23(19) [PMC free article: PMC9570384] [PubMed: 36233040]

23.

Ghssein G, Ezzeddine Z. The Key Element Role of Metallophores in the Pathogenicity and Virulence of Staphylococcus aureus: A Review. Biology (Basel). 2022 Oct 18;11(10) [PMC free article: PMC9598555] [PubMed: 36290427]

24.

Moormeier DE, Bayles KW. Staphylococcus aureus biofilm: a complex developmental organism. Mol Microbiol. 2017 May;104(3):365-376. [PMC free article: PMC5397344] [PubMed: 28142193]

25.

Gillespie MT, May JW, Skurray RA. Antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus aureus isolated at an Australian hospital between 1946 and 1981. J Med Microbiol. 1985 Apr;19(2):137-47. [PubMed: 3845119]

26.

Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, Daum RS, Fridkin SK, Gorwitz RJ, Kaplan SL, Karchmer AW, Levine DP, Murray BE, J Rybak M, Talan DA, Chambers HF. Clinical practice guidelines by the infectious diseases society of america for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children: executive summary. Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Feb 01;52(3):285-92. [PubMed: 21217178]

27.

Brdová D, Ruml T, Viktorová J. Mechanism of staphylococcal resistance to clinically relevant antibiotics. Drug Resist Updat. 2024 Nov;77:101147. [PubMed: 39236354]

28.

Howden BP, Davies JK, Johnson PD, Stinear TP, Grayson ML. Reduced vancomycin susceptibility in Staphylococcus aureus, including vancomycin-intermediate and heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate strains: resistance mechanisms, laboratory detection, and clinical implications. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2010 Jan;23(1):99-139. [PMC free article: PMC2806658] [PubMed: 20065327]

29.

McGuinness WA, Malachowa N, DeLeo FR. Vancomycin Resistance in Staphylococcus aureus
. Yale J Biol Med. 2017 Jun;90(2):269-281. [PMC free article: PMC5482303] [PubMed: 28656013]

30.

Hu Q, Peng H, Rao X. Molecular Events for Promotion of Vancomycin Resistance in Vancomycin Intermediate Staphylococcus aureus. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1601. [PMC free article: PMC5062060] [PubMed: 27790199]

31.

Foster TJ. Antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Current status and future prospects. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2017 May 01;41(3):430-449. [PubMed: 28419231]

32.

Yang W, Chen T, Zhou Q, Xu J. Resistance to linezolid in Staphylococcus aureus by mutation, modification, and acquisition of genes. J Antibiot (Tokyo). 2025 Jan;78(1):4-13. [PMC free article: PMC11700844] [PubMed: 39420155]

33.

Goda NB, El-Ganiny AM, El-Khamissy TR, Najar FZ, Kadry AA. Identification of genetic mutations conferring tedizolid resistance in MRSA mutants. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2025 Aug;44(8):1917-1924. [PMC free article: PMC12321651] [PubMed: 40360924]

34.

Mlynarczyk-Bonikowska B, Kowalewski C, Krolak-Ulinska A, Marusza W. Molecular Mechanisms of Drug Resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Jul 22;23(15) [PMC free article: PMC9332259] [PubMed: 35897667]

35.

Li W, Atkinson GC, Thakor NS, Allas U, Lu CC, Chan KY, Tenson T, Schulten K, Wilson KS, Hauryliuk V, Frank J. Mechanism of tetracycline resistance by ribosomal protection protein Tet(O). Nat Commun. 2013;4:1477. [PMC free article: PMC3576927] [PubMed: 23403578]

36.

Grossman TH. Tetracycline Antibiotics and Resistance. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2016 Apr 01;6(4):a025387. [PMC free article: PMC4817740] [PubMed: 26989065]

37.

Muñoz Bellido JL, Alonso Manzanares MA, Yagüe Guirao G, Gutiérrez Zufiaurre MN, Toldos MC, Segovia Hernández M, Garcia-Rodríguez JA. In vitro activities of 13 fluoroquinolones against Staphylococcus aureus isolates with characterized mutations in gyrA, gyrB, grlA, and norA and against wild-type isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999 Apr;43(4):966-8. [PMC free article: PMC89238] [PubMed: 10103212]

38.

Palavecino EL. Rapid Methods for Detection of MRSA in Clinical Specimens. Methods Mol Biol. 2020;2069:29-45. [PubMed: 31523763]

39.

Minter DJ, Appa A, Chambers HF, Doernberg SB. Contemporary Management of Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia-Controversies in Clinical Practice. Clin Infect Dis. 2023 Nov 30;77(11):e57-e68. [PMC free article: PMC11959183] [PubMed: 37950887]

40.

Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, Daum RS, Fridkin SK, Gorwitz RJ, Kaplan SL, Karchmer AW, Levine DP, Murray BE, J Rybak M, Talan DA, Chambers HF., Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clinical practice guidelines by the infectious diseases society of america for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children. Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Feb 01;52(3):e18-55. [PubMed: 21208910]

41.

Lam JC, Stokes W. The Golden Grapes of Wrath - Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: A Clinical Review. Am J Med. 2023 Jan;136(1):19-26. [PubMed: 36179908]

42.

Kouijzer IJE, Fowler VG, Ten Oever J. Redefining Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: A structured approach guiding diagnostic and therapeutic management. J Infect. 2023 Jan;86(1):9-13. [PMC free article: PMC11105116] [PubMed: 36370898]

43.

Kaasch AJ, López-Cortés LE, Rodríguez-Baño J, Cisneros JM, Dolores Navarro M, Fätkenheuer G, Jung N, Rieg S, Lepeule R, Coutte L, Bernard L, Lemaignen A, Kösters K, MacKenzie CR, Soriano A, Hagel S, Fantin B, Lafaurie M, Talarmin JP, Dinh A, Guimard T, Boutoille D, Welte T, Reuter S, Kluytmans J, Martin ML, Forestier E, Stocker H, Vitrat V, Tattevin P, Rommerskirchen A, Noret M, Adams A, Kern WV, Hellmich M, Seifert H., SABATO study group. Efficacy and safety of an early oral switch in low-risk Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection (SABATO): an international, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2024 May;24(5):523-534. [PubMed: 38244557]

44.

Silbiger JJ, Rashed E, Chen H, Wiesenfeld E, Robinson SE, Cagliostro M. Cardiac Imaging for Diagnosis and Management of Infective Endocarditis. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2022 Sep;35(9):910-924. [PubMed: 35487472]

45.

Banerjee R, Teng CB, Cunningham SA, Ihde SM, Steckelberg JM, Moriarty JP, Shah ND, Mandrekar JN, Patel R. Randomized Trial of Rapid Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction-Based Blood Culture Identification and Susceptibility Testing. Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Oct 01;61(7):1071-80. [PMC free article: PMC4560903] [PubMed: 26197846]

46.

Rensner JJ, Lueth P, Bellaire BH, Sahin O, Lee YJ. Rapid detection of antimicrobial resistance in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus using MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023;13:1281155. [PMC free article: PMC10702551] [PubMed: 38076465]

47.

Santos P, Alho I, Ribeiro E. MALDI-TOF MS Biomarkers for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Detection: A Systematic Review. Metabolites. 2025 Aug 08;15(8) [PMC free article: PMC12388497] [PubMed: 40863157]

48.

Miller A, Grizzle M, Van Poppel H, Alvira-Arill GR, Lueking R, Thacker SA, Hornback KM, Morrisette T. Evaluation of Ceftaroline Use in Pediatric Patients: A Retrospective Case Series. Antibiotics (Basel). 2025 Aug 28;14(9) [PMC free article: PMC12466418] [PubMed: 41009843]

49.

Cosimi RA, Beik N, Kubiak DW, Johnson JA. Ceftaroline for Severe Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections: A Systematic Review. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017 Spring;4(2):ofx084. [PMC free article: PMC5499876] [PubMed: 28702467]

50.

Zimmerman J, Giuliano C, Kale-Pradhan PB. Ceftobiprole Medocaril: A New Fifth-Generation Cephalosporin. Ann Pharmacother. 2025 Jul;59(7):657-665. [PubMed: 39644134]

51.

McConeghy KW, Bleasdale SC, Rodvold KA. The empirical combination of vancomycin and a β-lactam for Staphylococcal bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Dec;57(12):1760-5. [PubMed: 23985343]

52.

McDanel JS, Perencevich EN, Diekema DJ, Herwaldt LA, Smith TC, Chrischilles EA, Dawson JD, Jiang L, Goto M, Schweizer ML. Comparative effectiveness of beta-lactams versus vancomycin for treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections among 122 hospitals. Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Aug 01;61(3):361-7. [PubMed: 25900170]

53.

Tong SYC, Lye DC, Yahav D, Sud A, Robinson JO, Nelson J, Archuleta S, Roberts MA, Cass A, Paterson DL, Foo H, Paul M, Guy SD, Tramontana AR, Walls GB, McBride S, Bak N, Ghosh N, Rogers BA, Ralph AP, Davies J, Ferguson PE, Dotel R, McKew GL, Gray TJ, Holmes NE, Smith S, Warner MS, Kalimuddin S, Young BE, Runnegar N, Andresen DN, Anagnostou NA, Johnson SA, Chatfield MD, Cheng AC, Fowler VG, Howden BP, Meagher N, Price DJ, van Hal SJ, O'Sullivan MVN, Davis JS., Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases Clinical Research Network. Effect of Vancomycin or Daptomycin With vs Without an Antistaphylococcal β-Lactam on Mortality, Bacteremia, Relapse, or Treatment Failure in Patients With MRSA Bacteremia: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2020 Feb 11;323(6):527-537. [PMC free article: PMC7042887] [PubMed: 32044943]

54.

She RC, Bender JM. Advances in Rapid Molecular Blood Culture Diagnostics: Healthcare Impact, Laboratory Implications, and Multiplex Technologies. J Appl Lab Med. 2019 Jan;3(4):617-630. [PubMed: 31639730]

55.

Kuehl R, Morata L, Boeing C, Subirana I, Seifert H, Rieg S, Kern WV, Kim HB, Kim ES, Liao CH, Tilley R, Lopez-Cortés LE, Llewelyn MJ, Fowler VG, Thwaites G, Cisneros JM, Scarborough M, Nsutebu E, Gurgui Ferrer M, Pérez JL, Barlow G, Hopkins S, Ternavasio-de la Vega HG, Török ME, Wilson P, Kaasch AJ, Soriano A., International Staphylococcus aureus collaboration study group and the ESCMID Study Group for Bloodstream Infections, Endocarditis and Sepsis. Defining persistent Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Dec;20(12):1409-1417. [PubMed: 32763194]

56.

Hicks AS, Dolan MA, Shah MD, Elwood SE, Platts-Mills JA, Madden GR, Elliott ZS, Eby JC. Early initiation of ceftaroline-based combination therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2025 Jan 13;24(1):3. [PMC free article: PMC11730128] [PubMed: 39806392]

57.

López-Cortés LE, Del Toro MD, Gálvez-Acebal J, Bereciartua-Bastarrica E, Fariñas MC, Sanz-Franco M, Natera C, Corzo JE, Lomas JM, Pasquau J, Del Arco A, Martínez MP, Romero A, Muniain MA, de Cueto M, Pascual A, Rodríguez-Baño J., REIPI/SAB group. Impact of an evidence-based bundle intervention in the quality-of-care management and outcome of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Nov;57(9):1225-33. [PubMed: 23929889]

58.

Schnizer M, Schellong P, Rose N, Fleischmann-Struzek C, Hagel S, Abbas M, Payne B, Evans RN, Pletz MW, Weis S. Long versus short course anti-microbial therapy of uncomplicated Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: a systematic review. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2024 Oct;30(10):1254-1260. [PubMed: 38823452]

59.

Grillo Perez S, Diaz-Brochero C, Garzon Herazo JR, Muñoz Velandia OM. Short-term versus usual-term antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ther Adv Infect Dis. 2024 Jan-Dec;11:20499361241237615. [PMC free article: PMC10929032] [PubMed: 38476737]

60.

Turner NA, Hamasaki T, Doernberg SB, Lodise TP, King HA, Ghazaryan V, Cosgrove SE, Jenkins TC, Liu C, Sharma S, Zaharoff S, Wahid L, Renard VJ, Cook P, Raad I, Hachem R, Chaftari AM, Sims M, DeMarco C, Miller LG, McCarthy MW, Morse CG, Lucasti C, Forrest GN, Cherabuddi K, Polk C, Fazili T, Rupp ME, Thompson GR, Kim K, Strnad L, Schnee AE, McKinnell JA, Ramesh M, Silveira FP, McCarty TP, Lee TC, McDonald EG, Paolino K, Wiegand K, Wall A, Riccobene T, Patel R, Rappo U, Evans S, Chambers HF, Fowler VG, Holland TL., Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group. Dalbavancin for Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: The DOTS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2025 Aug 13;334(10):866-77. [PMC free article: PMC12351474] [PubMed: 40802264]

61.

Jordan H, Kozierowski K, Pickles R, Davis JS. Oritavancin for the Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia-A Retrospective Single-arm Cohort Study. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2025 Jul;12(7):ofaf333. [PMC free article: PMC12248416] [PubMed: 40657166]

62.

Kalu IC, Kao CM, Fritz SA. Management and Prevention of Staphylococcus aureus Infections in Children. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2022 Mar;36(1):73-100. [PMC free article: PMC9901217] [PubMed: 35168715]

63.

Troeman DPR, Van Hout D, Kluytmans JAJW. Antimicrobial approaches in the prevention of Staphylococcus aureus infections: a review. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019 Feb 01;74(2):281-294. [PMC free article: PMC6337897] [PubMed: 30376041]

64.

Hogan PG, Parrish KL, Mork RL, Boyle MG, Muenks CE, Thompson RM, Morelli JJ, Sullivan ML, Hunstad DA, Bubeck Wardenburg J, Rzhetsky A, Gehlert SJ, Burnham CD, Fritz SA. HOME2 Study: Household Versus Personalized Decolonization in Households of Children With Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Skin and Soft Tissue Infection-A Randomized Clinical Trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Dec 06;73(11):e4568-e4577. [PMC free article: PMC8653631] [PubMed: 32521007]

Disclosure: Tracey Taylor declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Ellis Tobin declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Chandrashekhar Unakal declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.