Prevalence and mechanisms of resistance to carbapenems in Enterobacteriaceae

Objectives: To determine the point prevalence of carbapenem-non-susceptible Enterobacteriaceae (CNSE) and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) isolates among hospitalized patients in Belgium. Methods: Twenty-four hospital-based laboratories prospectively collected 200 non-duplicated Enterobacteriaceae isolates from clinical specimens of hospitalized patients over a 2 month period. All isolates were screened locally for decreased susceptibility to carbapenem drugs using a disc diffusion method according to CLSI interpretative criteria. CNSE strains were referred centrally for confirmation of carbapenemase by phenotypic and molecular testing. Results: From February to April 2012, 158 of the 4564 screened Enterobacteriaceae isolates were categorized as non-susceptible to carbapenems, resulting in a point prevalence of CNSE of 3.5% (95% CI: 2.9%–4.2%; range per centre: 0.5%–8.5%). Of the 125 referred CNSE isolates, 11 Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates [OXA-48 (n=7), KPC type (n=3) and NDM type (n=1)], 1 OXA-48-positive Escherichia coli isolate and 1 KPC-positive Klebsiella oxytoca isolate were detected in eight hospitals. None of the 72 carbapenem-non-susceptible Enterobacter spp. isolates were confirmed as CPE. The minimal estimated point prevalence of CPE isolates was 0.28% (13/ 4564; 95% CI: 0.13%–0.44%) overall (range per centre: 0%–1.5%). Conclusions: Despite the overall low prevalence of CNSE found in this study, the detection of CPE isolates in one-third of the participating centres raises concerns and highly suggests the spread and establishment of CPE in Belgian hospitals

Oseltamivir for coronavirus illness: post-hoc exploratory analysis of an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial in European primary care from 2016 to 2018

BackgroundPatients infected with the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) are being treated empirically with oseltamivir, but there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials to support the treatment of coronavirus infections with oseltamivir.AimTo determine whether adding oseltamivir to usual care reduces time to recovery in symptomatic patients who have tested positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2).Design and settingExploratory analysis of data from an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial during three influenza seasons, from 2016 to 2018, in primary care research networks, in 15 European countries.MethodPatients aged ≥1 year presenting to primary care with influenza-like illness (ILI), and who tested positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2), were randomised to usual care or usual care plus oseltamivir. The primary outcome was time to recovery defined as a return to usual activities, with minor or absent fever, headache, and muscle ache.ResultsCoronaviruses (CoV-229E, CoV-OC43, CoV-KU1 and CoV-NL63) were identified in 308 (9%) out of 3266 randomised participants in the trial; 153 of these were allocated to usual care and 155 to usual care plus oseltamivir; the primary outcome was ascertained in 136 and 147 participants, respectively. The median time to recovery was shorter in patients randomised to oseltamivir: 4 days (interquartile range [IQR] 3–6) versus 5 days (IQR 3–8; hazard ratio 1.31; 95% confidence interval = 1.03 to 1.66; P = 0.026).ConclusionPrimary care patients with ILI testing positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2) recovered sooner when oseltamivir was added to usual care compared with usual care alone. This may be of relevance to the primary care management of COVID-19.</jats:sec

Point-of-Care Tests for Hepatitis B Are Associated with A Higher Linkage to Care and Lower Cost Compared to Venepuncture Sampling During Outreach Screenings in an Asian Migrant Population

Background: This study compares venepuncture versus point-of-care (POC) HBsAg tests on screening cost and linkage to care in prospective outreach screenings in an Asian population in three major cities in Belgium between 10/2014 and 5/2018. Methods: Two community outreach screening programs were organised between 10/2014 and 5/2018. The first screening program used venepuncture and serologic testing for HBsAg. In the second program, HBsAg was tested in finger stick blood POC tests. Positive results were confirmed during outpatient visits with serologic testing. Linkage to care was defined as having received specialist care follow-up with at least one abdominal ultrasound within three months of screening. Results: For 575 participating individuals, 571 valid results were obtained, 456 with venepuncture, and 115 using POC testing. Overall HBsAg seroprevalence was 6.8%. Linkage to care was higher when using POC testing compared to venepuncture (86% or n = 6/7 versus 34% or n = 11/32; p = 0.020). The POC screening program was economically more attractive with a total cost of € 1,461.8 or € 12.7 per person screened compared to € 24,819 or € 54.0 per person screened when using venepuncture testing. Results and an appointment for specialist care follow-up were given onsite with POC testing, while with venepuncture testing; results were sent within 20-45 days. Conclusion: In an Asian migrant population in Belgium with an HBsAg seroprevalence of 6.8%, HBV screening based on POC tests resulted in lower costs per person screened (76.5% lower), and higher linkage to care (2.5 times)

Impact of co-infection with SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses on illness:Pooled analyses of 11 COVID-19 cohorts

Objective: This individual patient data meta-analysis investigates the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection with or without other respiratory viruses on Acute Respiratory Illness (ARI) occurrence and severity. Methods: We pooled individual participant data from 11 prospective COVID-19 community and healthcare cohorts (2020-2024). A subject's first respiratory sample was tested for SARS-CoV-2 and a panel of respiratory viruses. The association of SARS-CoV-2 single versus viral co-infection with ARI occurrence and severity was analyzed using mixed effects regression. The analysis was repeated for Human Rhinovirus (HRV). Results: Of 1606 SARS-CoV-2 positive episodes (1597 subjects), 124 (7.7%) were co-infected with another respiratory virus, the majority with HRV (66.1%). SARS-CoV-2 Co-infection was associated with a lower odds of ARI than SARS-CoV-2 single infection in community cohorts (adjusted (a) OR: 0.39; 95%CI: 0.21-0.71). This association was not observed for ARI severity in healthcare cohorts (aOR: 1.76; 95%CI: 0.67-4.61). Co-infection versus single infection with HRV was associated with higher ARI occurrence and severity in both settings (community: aOR: 1.72 and healthcare: aOR: 6.04). Conclusion: In community settings, SARS-CoV-2 co-infection with another virus, particularly HRV, attenuates ARI compared to SARS-CoV-2 single infection. The low number of detected co-infections with other viruses, such as influenza or RSV, limits generalizability to other combinations of co-infecting viruses. (c) 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The British Infection Association. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Oseltamivir plus usual care versus usual care for influenza-like illness in primary care: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

Background Antivirals are infrequently prescribed in European primary care for influenza-like illness, mostly because of perceived ineffectiveness in real world primary care and because individuals who will especially benefit have not been identified in independent trials. We aimed to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to usual primary care for patients with influenza-like illness reduces time to recovery overall and in key subgroups. Methods We did an open-label, pragmatic, adaptive, randomised controlled trial of adding oseltamivir to usual care in patients aged 1 year and older presenting with influenza-like illness in primary care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery, defined as return to usual activities, with fever, headache, and muscle ache minor or absent. The trial was designed and powered to assess oseltamivir benefit overall and in 36 prespecified subgroups defined by age, comorbidity, previous symptom duration, and symptom severity, using a Bayesian piece-wise exponential primary analysis model. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN 27908921. Findings Between Jan 15, 2016, and April 12, 2018, we recruited 3266 participants in 15 European countries during three seasonal influenza seasons, allocated 1629 to usual care plus oseltamivir and 1637 to usual care, and ascertained the primary outcome in 1533 (94%) and 1526 (93%). 1590 (52%) of 3059 participants had PCR-confirmed influenza infection. Time to recovery was shorter in participants randomly assigned to oseltamivir (hazard ratio 1·29, 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCrI] 1·20–1·39) overall and in 30 of the 36 prespecified subgroups, with estimated hazard ratios ranging from 1·13 to 1·72. The estimated absolute mean benefit from oseltamivir was 1·02 days (95% [BCrI] 0·74–1·31) overall, and in the prespecified subgroups, ranged from 0·70 (95% BCrI 0·30–1·20) in patients younger than 12 years, with less severe symptoms, no comorbidities, and shorter previous illness duration to 3·20 (95% BCrI 1·00–5·50) in patients aged 65 years or older who had more severe illness, comorbidities, and longer previous illness duration. Regarding harms, an increased burden of vomiting or nausea was observed in the oseltamivir group. Interpretation Primary care patients with influenza-like illness treated with oseltamivir recovered one day sooner on average than those managed by usual care alone. Older, sicker patients with comorbidities and longer previous symptom duration recovered 2–3 days sooner. Funding European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme