Is a single positive blood culture for Enterococcus species representative of infection or contamination?

Abstract Data on the clinical outcomes of patients with a single compared with multiple positive blood cultures for Enterococcus species is limited. We undertook a retrospective cohort study in adults with at least one positive blood culture for Enterococcus species in a single institution. Clinical outcomes included death and elimination of infection. We included 471 positive blood cultures from 206 enterococcal positive blood culture episodes in 189 patients. Multiple positive blood cultures for Enterococcus species occurred in 110/206 (53.4 %) episodes; 31.6 % of patients had diabetes mellitus; 42.9 % of patients had solid or hematologic malignancy; 26.5 % of patients were solid organ transplant recipients; hospital-acquired and healthcare-associated acquisition represented 55.3 % and 33.0 % of episodes, respectively. Thirtyfive patients died and 110 episodes of enterococcal bloodstream infection were successfully treated. In the multivariable analysis, multiple positive blood cultures were not statistically significantly associated with an increased likelihood of in-hospital death [odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.42-2.40] or elimination (OR 1.41, 95 % CI 0.76-2.64) compared with single positive blood cultures. Hematologic malignancy and diabetes mellitus were independently associated with in-hospital death (OR 2.83, 95 % Cl 1.02-7.82; OR 2.79, 95 % Cl 1.16-6.70, respectively). Infectious disease consultation was associated with a greater likelihood of elimination (OR 2.50, 95 % Cl 1.32-4.72). The clinical outcomes of patients with single versus multiple positive blood cultures with Enterococcus species were similar in our institution. Further studies should examine efficient methods to detect contamination versus true infection

Implication of backward contact tracing in the presence of overdispersed transmission in COVID-19 outbreaks

Introduction: Contact tracing has the potential to control outbreaks without the need for stringent physical distancing policies, e.g. civil lockdowns. Unlike forward contact tracing, backward contact tracing identifies the source of newly detected cases. This approach is particularly valuable when there is high individual-level variation in the number of secondary transmissions (overdispersion). Methods: By using a simple branching process model, we explored the potential of combining backward contact tracing with more conventional forward contact tracing for control of COVID-19. We estimated the typical size of clusters that can be reached by backward tracing and simulated the incremental effectiveness of combining backward tracing with conventional forward tracing. Results: Across ranges of parameter values consistent with dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, backward tracing is expected to identify a primary case generating 3-10 times more infections than a randomly chosen case, typically increasing the proportion of subsequent cases averted by a factor of 2-3. The estimated number of cases averted by backward tracing became greater with a higher degree of overdispersion. Conclusion: Backward contact tracing can be an effective tool for outbreak control, especially in the presence of overdispersion as is observed with SARS-CoV-2

Clusters of Coronavirus Disease in Communities, Japan, January-April 2020

We analyzed 3, 184 cases of coronavirus disease in Japan and identified 61 case-clusters in healthcare and other care facilities, restaurants and bars, workplaces, and music events. We also identified 22 probable primary case-patients for the clusters; most were 20-39 years of age and presymptomatic or asymptomatic at virus transmission

Is a single positive blood culture for Enterococcus species representative of infection or contamination?

Abstract Data on the clinical outcomes of patients with a single compared with multiple positive blood cultures for Enterococcus species is limited. We undertook a retrospective cohort study in adults with at least one positive blood culture for Enterococcus species in a single institution. Clinical outcomes included death and elimination of infection. We included 471 positive blood cultures from 206 enterococcal positive blood culture episodes in 189 patients. Multiple positive blood cultures for Enterococcus species occurred in 110/206 (53.4 %) episodes; 31.6 % of patients had diabetes mellitus; 42.9 % of patients had solid or hematologic malignancy; 26.5 % of patients were solid organ transplant recipients; hospital-acquired and healthcare-associated acquisition represented 55.3 % and 33.0 % of episodes, respectively. Thirtyfive patients died and 110 episodes of enterococcal bloodstream infection were successfully treated. In the multivariable analysis, multiple positive blood cultures were not statistically significantly associated with an increased likelihood of in-hospital death [odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.42-2.40] or elimination (OR 1.41, 95 % CI 0.76-2.64) compared with single positive blood cultures. Hematologic malignancy and diabetes mellitus were independently associated with in-hospital death (OR 2.83, 95 % Cl 1.02-7.82; OR 2.79, 95 % Cl 1.16-6.70, respectively). Infectious disease consultation was associated with a greater likelihood of elimination (OR 2.50, 95 % Cl 1.32-4.72). The clinical outcomes of patients with single versus multiple positive blood cultures with Enterococcus species were similar in our institution. Further studies should examine efficient methods to detect contamination versus true infection