This retrospective descriptive cross-sectional study reviewed microbiology laboratory records for clinical specimens submitted for bacteriological culture at Meru Teaching and Referral Hospital (MeTRH). A census approach was applied: all eligible laboratory records within the study period were included. The study aimed to determine the prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus among processed specimens, to describe antimicrobial susceptibility patterns, and to estimate the proportion of methicillin‑resistant isolates.
Clinical specimens were processed using routine microbiological methods. Suspected S. aureus isolates were identified by conventional laboratory techniques and confirmed with the VITEK® 2 Compact automated identification system. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using the VITEK® 2 Compact platform, and results were interpreted according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) criteria. Methicillin resistance was determined phenotypically using cefoxitin susceptibility as a surrogate marker. Data analysis comprised frequencies and percentages as reported in the source.
A total of 1,082 clinical specimens were analysed. Among the 37 confirmed S. aureus isolates, 21 (56.8%) were recovered from male patients and 16 (43.2%) from female patients. Pus was the predominant specimen type, accounting for 25 (67.6%) of isolates. Other specimen types accounted for 8 (21.6%) isolates and urine for 4 (10.8%). The source did not provide a further breakdown of age distribution, inpatient versus outpatient status, or clinical diagnoses associated with the isolates.
Out of 1,082 clinical specimens processed at MeTRH during the study period, 37 yielded S. aureus, corresponding to an overall prevalence of 3.42% among submitted specimens. The source reports this prevalence as relatively low in the study setting.
Antimicrobial susceptibility varied across agents tested. Resistance was highest to the commonly used penicillin group: all tested isolates demonstrated 100% resistance to benzylpenicillin and amoxicillin. Resistance to amoxicillin–clavulanic acid was 75.0% among tested isolates. Oxacillin resistance was reported at 63.3% among isolates tested for that agent.
Susceptibility was comparatively higher for several non–β‑lactam agents: gentamicin showed 82.8% susceptibility, ciprofloxacin 77.3% and clindamycin 75.0% among isolates tested. All isolates tested against linezolid and vancomycin were reported as susceptible. The source does not report the absolute number of isolates tested against each antibiotic beyond the percentages provided.
Methicillin resistance was determined using cefoxitin as a phenotypic surrogate marker. Among 30 isolates with available methicillin susceptibility results, 19 (63.3%) were classified as MRSA and 11 (36.7%) as methicillin‑susceptible S. aureus (MSSA). The study highlights a high proportion of MRSA among isolates with methicillin susceptibility testing available.
Although the overall prevalence of S. aureus among specimens processed at MeTRH was relatively low (3.42%), a substantial proportion of isolates displayed resistance to commonly used β‑lactam antibiotics, including universal resistance to benzylpenicillin and amoxicillin and high resistance to amoxicillin–clavulanic acid. The reported high proportion of MRSA (63.3% among tested isolates) is of clinical and public health importance because it limits β‑lactam therapeutic options and may necessitate alternative agents for empiric and directed therapy.
Reported high susceptibility to vancomycin and linezolid suggests retained activity of these agents against the tested isolates, and higher susceptibility to gentamicin, ciprofloxacin, and clindamycin indicates potential alternatives depending on clinical context and local stewardship policies. The source does not provide patient outcome data or detailed clinical correlates.
The authors recommend routine antimicrobial susceptibility testing, development and use of hospital‑specific antibiograms, antimicrobial stewardship interventions, and strengthened infection prevention and control measures to guide appropriate treatment and limit the spread of resistant S. aureus. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Meru University Institutional Research Ethics Review Committee (MIRERC 073/2025). Administrative permissions were obtained from Meru Teaching and Referral Hospital through the county research committee and NACOSTI (NACOSTI/P/26/4185173). The source states that all necessary participant consent and institutional approvals were obtained and that study data are available on reasonable request.
The source does not provide certain details that could affect interpretation: exact study dates and timeframe were not specified in the provided text; the absolute counts of isolates tested against each specific antibiotic beyond the percentages were not reported; and clinical details such as patient outcomes, ward location, prior antibiotic exposure, or community versus hospital acquisition were not described in the source material. These omissions limit the ability to contextualize resistance patterns fully within clinical care.