Effect of Palivizumab Prophylaxis on Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection in Very Preterm Infants in the First Year of Life in The Netherlands

Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) poses a severe threat to infants, particularly preterm infants. Palivizumab, the standard preventive prophylaxis, is primarily utilized in high-risk newborns due to its cost. This study assessed palivizumab’s effectiveness in preventing RSV infections in predominantly very preterm infants during their first year of life. Serum samples from a prospective multicentre cohort study in the Netherlands were analyzed to assess RSV infection rates by measuring IgG levels against three RSV proteins: nucleoprotein, pre-fusion, and post-fusion protein. Infants were stratified based on gestational age (GA), distinguishing very preterm (≤32 weeks GA) from moderate/late preterm (>32 to ≤36 weeks GA). In very preterm infants, palivizumab prophylaxis significantly reduced infection rates (18.9% vs. 48.3% in the prophylaxis vs. non-prophylaxis group. Accounting for GA, sex, birth season, and birth weight, the prophylaxis group showed significantly lower infection odds. In infants with >32 to ≤36 weeks GA, the non-prophylaxis group (55.4%) showed infection rates similar to the non-prophylaxis ≤32-week GA group, despite higher maternal antibody levels in the moderate/late preterm infants. In conclusion, palivizumab prophylaxis significantly reduces RSV infection rates in very premature infants. Future research should explore clinical implications and reasons for non-compliance, and compare palivizumab with emerging prophylactics like nirsevimab aiming to optimize RSV prophylaxis and improve preterm infant outcomes

Model-based evaluation of school- and non-school-related measures to control the COVID-19 pandemic

Background: In autumn 2020, many countries, including the Netherlands, are experiencing a second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Health policymakers are struggling with choosing the right mix of measures to keep the COVID-19 case numbers under control, but still allow a minimum of social and economic activity. The priority to keep schools open is high, but the role of school-based contacts in the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 is incompletely understood. We used a transmission model to estimate the impact of school contacts on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and to assess the effects of school-based measures, including school closure, on controlling the pandemic at different time points during the pandemic. Methods and Findings: The age-structured model was fitted to age-specific seroprevalence and hospital admission data from the Netherlands during spring 2020. Compared to adults older than 60 years, the estimated susceptibility was 23% (95%CrI 20-28%) for children aged 0 to 20 years and 61% (95%CrI 50%-72%) for the age group of 20 to 60 years. The time points considered in the analyses were (i) August 2020 when the effective reproduction number (R_e) was estimated to be 1.31 (95%CrI 1.15-2.07), schools just opened after the summer holidays and measures were reinforced with the aim to reduce R_e to a value below 1, and (ii) November 2020 when measures had reduced R_e to 1.00 (95%CrI 0.94-1.33). In this period schools remained open. Our model predicts that keeping schools closed after the summer holidays, in the absence of other measures, would have reduced R_e by 10% (from 1.31 to 1.18 (95%CrI 1.04-1.83)) and thus would not have prevented the second wave in autumn 2020. Reducing non-school-based contacts in August 2020 to the level observed during the first wave of the pandemic would have reduced R_e to 0.83 (95%CrI 0.75-1.10). Yet, this reduction was not achieved and the observed R_e in November was 1.00. Our model predicts that closing schools in November 2020 could reduce R_e from the observed value of 1.00 to 0.84 (95%CrI 0.81-0.90), with unchanged non-school based contacts. Reductions in R_e due to closing schools in November 2020 were 8% for 10 to 20 years old children, 5% for 5 to 10 years old children and negligible for 0 to 5 years old children. Conclusions: The impact of measures reducing school-based contacts, including school closure, depends on the remaining opportunities to reduce non-school-based contacts. If opportunities to reduce R_e with non-school-based measures are exhausted or undesired and R_e is still close to 1, the additional benefit of school-based measures may be considerable, particularly among the older school children.</jats:p

Antibiotic treatment of gastroenteritis in primary care

Background: Gastroenteritis (GE) is a frequent reason for consultating a general practitioner. Yet little is known about antibiotic prescribing in primary care patients with GE. In this study, we quantified empirical and targeted antibiotic treatment of GE, compliance with recommendations from primary care clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and the degree of antimicrobial resistance in patients receiving diagnostic faeces testing (DFT). Methods: We performed a cohort study using routine care data of 160 general practitioners, including electronic patient records from 2013 to 2014. GE episodes were extracted and linked to microbiological laboratory records to retrieve results of DFT. For each episode, data on patient characteristics, DFT results including antimicrobial resistance testing, and antibiotic prescriptions were collected. Results: We identified 13217 GE episodes. Antibiotic treatment was prescribed in 1163 (8.8%) episodes, most frequently with metronidazole (n = 646, 4.9%), azithromycin (n = 254, 1.9%) or ciprofloxacin (n = 184, 1.4%). Treatment was empirical for 641 (5%) GE episodes, of which 30% (n = 191) followed the CPG-recommended antibiotic choice. Targeted treatment following DFT results was prescribed for 537 GE episodes (4%), of which 99% (n = 529) followed CPG recommendations. Non-susceptibility to first- or second-choice antibiotics was demonstrated in three Salmonella isolates (9%-13% of all isolates) and one Campylobacter isolate (1%). Conclusions: Antibiotic treatment of GE in primary care is relatively infrequent, with 1 in 11 episodes treated. Empirical treatment was more frequent compared with targeted treatment and mostly with non-CPG-recommended antibiotics. However, treatment based upon DFT results followed CPG recommendations

Digital tools for the fight against COVID-19: Can a second wave be avoided?

Sinds het begin van de covid-19-epidemie zijn verschillende digitale middelen ontwikkeld, zoals apps die kunnen helpen bij de bestrijding van SARS-CoV-2. Met een app kunnen GGD’en de contacten van mensen die positief zijn getest op SARS-CoV-2 sneller traceren en daarmee verdere verspreiding van het virus beperken. Is een tweede golf hiermee te voorkomen

Model-based evaluation of school- and non-school-related measures to control the COVID-19 pandemic

The role of school-based contacts in the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 is incompletely understood. We use an age-structured transmission model fitted to age-specific seroprevalence and hospital admission data to assess the effects of school-based measures at different time points during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands. Our analyses suggest that the impact of measures reducing school-based contacts depends on the remaining opportunities to reduce non-school-based contacts. If opportunities to reduce the effective reproduction number (Re) with non-school-based measures are exhausted or undesired and Re is still close to 1, the additional benefit of school-based measures may be considerable, particularly among older school children. As two examples, we demonstrate that keeping schools closed after the summer holidays in 2020, in the absence of other measures, would not have prevented the second pandemic wave in autumn 2020 but closing schools in November 2020 could have reduced Re below 1, with unchanged non-school-based contacts

Digitale middelen in de strijd tegen covid-19: Is een tweede golf te voorkomen?

Sinds het begin van de covid-19-epidemie zijn verschillende digitale middelen ontwikkeld, zoals apps die kunnen helpen bij de bestrijding van SARS-CoV-2. Met een app kunnen GGD’en de contacten van mensen die positief zijn getest op SARS-CoV-2 sneller traceren en daarmee verdere verspreiding van het virus beperken. Is een tweede golf hiermee te voorkomen

Contact precautions in single-bed or multiple-bed rooms for patients with extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in Dutch hospitals: a cluster-randomised, crossover, non-inferiority study

Background: Use of single-bed rooms for control of extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae is under debate; the added value when applying contact precautions has not been shown. We aimed to assess whether an isolation strategy of contact precautions in a multiple-bed room was non-inferior to a strategy of contact precautions in a single-bed room for preventing transmission of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Methods: We did a cluster-randomised, crossover, non-inferiority study on medical and surgical wards of 16 Dutch hospitals. During two consecutive study periods, either contact precautions in a single-bed room or contact precautions in a multiple-bed room were applied as the preferred isolation strategy for patients with ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae cultured from a routine clinical sample (index patients). Eligible index patients were aged 18 years or older, had no strict indication for barrier precautions in a single-bed room, had a culture result reported within 7 days of culture and before discharge, and had no wardmate known to be colonised or infected with an ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae isolate of the same bacterial species with a similar antibiogram. Hospitals were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by computer to one of two sequences of isolation strategies, stratified by university or non-university hospital. Allocation was masked for laboratory technicians who assessed the outcomes but not for patients, treating doctors, and infection-control practitioners enrolling index patients. The primary outcome was transmission of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae to wardmates, which was defined as rectal carriage of an ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae isolate that was clonally related to the index patient's isolate in at least one wardmate. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population, which included patients who were adherent to the assigned room type. A 10% non-inferiority margin for the risk difference was used to assess non-inferiority. This study is registered with Nederlands Trialregister, NTR2799. Findings: 16 hospitals were randomised, eight to each sequence of isolation strategies. All hospitals randomised to the sequence single-bed room then multiple-bed room and five of eight hospitals randomised to the sequence multiple-bed room then single-bed room completed both study periods and were analysed. From April 24, 2011, to Feb 27, 2014, 1652 index patients and 12 875 wardmates were assessed for eligibility. Of those, 693 index patients and 9527 wardmates were enrolled and 463 index patients and 7093 wardmates were included in the per-protocol population. Transmission of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae to at least one wardmate was identified for 11 (4%) of 275 index patients during the single-bed room strategy period and for 14 (7%) of 188 index patients during the multiple-bed room strategy period (crude risk difference 3·4%, 90% CI −0·3 to 7·1). Interpretation: For patients with ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae cultured from a routine clinical sample, an isolation strategy of contact precautions in a multiple-bed room was non-inferior to a strategy of contact precautions in a single-bed room for preventing transmission of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Non-inferiority of the multiple-bed room strategy might change the current single-bed room preference for isolation of patients with ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae and, thus, broaden infection-control options for ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae in daily clinical practice. Funding: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development