Efficacy of five ‘sporicidal’ surface disinfectants against Clostridioides difficile spores in suspension tests and 4-field tests

Background: A sporicidal surface disinfection is recommended both for the outbreak and the endemic setting but a comparative evaluation on the efficacy of ‘sporicidal’ surface disinfectants using suspension tests and 4-field tests has not been performed. Aim: To determine the efficacy of five ‘sporicidal’ surface disinfectants (three ready-to-use wipes (A, B, E), two concentrates (C, D) based on peroxides or aldehydes against C. difficile spores. Methods: The efficacy was determined under clean conditions using a suspension test and the 4-field test. Each test was performed in duplicate in two separate laboratories. Wipes were wrung to collect the solution for the suspension tests. Results: Product A (peracetic acid; 5 min), product C (peracetic acid; 2% solution in 15 min or 1% solution in 30 min) and product D (peracetic acid; only 2% solution in 15 min) were effective with at least a 4 log10-reduction of C. difficile spores in suspension and on surfaces. Product B (hydrogen peroxide) was not effective in suspension (0.9 log10 after 15 min; 3.2 log10 after 1 h) and on surfaces (2.8 log10 after 15 and 60 min). Product E based on glutaraldehyde, (ethylendioxy)dimethanol and DDAC demonstrated 0.9 log10 after 4 h in suspension and 4.5 log10 after 4 h on surfaces. Conclusions: Not all surface disinfectants with a sporicidal claim were effective against C. difficile spores in standardized suspension tests and in the 4-field test. In clinical practice preference should be given to products that reliably pass the efficacy criteria of both types of tests.Peer Reviewe

White Paper: Bridging the gap between surveillance data and antimicrobial stewardship in long-term care facilities-practical guidance from the JPIAMR ARCH and COMBACTE-MAGNET EPI-Net networks

Contains fulltext : 230158.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access

Education and training programmes for infection prevention and control professionals: mapping the current opportunities and local needs in European countries

Background: Studies have repeatedly highlighted the need for homogenisation of training content and opportunities in infection prevention and control (IPC) across European countries. Objectives: To map current training opportunities for IPC professionals, define local needs and highlight differences, across 11 European countries (Cyprus, France, England, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Switzerland). Sources: From July 2018 to February 2019, IPC experts directly involved in IPC training and education in their countries and/or internationally were invited to complete a prespecified set of questions in order to provide a detailed description of IPC training opportunities and needs in their country. Conclusions: IPC training among nurses and doctors varies greatly across countries, with differences in content and type of training (e.g., standardised curriculum, educational programme, clinical experience) duration, as well as in assessment and recognition/accreditation. The observed heterogeneity in IPC training between European countries can be eliminated through establishment of interdisciplinary region-wide training programmes, with common learning objectives, shared know-how and supported by national and international professional bodies. © 2020, The Author(s)

Antimicrobial consumption and impact of antimicrobial stewardship programmes in long-term care facilities

Background: Antimicrobials are among the most frequently prescribed drugs in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs) is often challenging because of scarce data in this setting. Objectives: This narrative review aimed to provide data about antibiotic consumption in LTCFs and the need, implementation, and organization of ASPs in this setting

ESCMID-EUCIC clinical guidelines on decolonization of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria carriers

Scope: The aim of these guidelines is to provide recommendations for decolonizing regimens targeting multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) carriers in all settings. Methods: These evidence-based guidelines were produced after a systematic review of published studies on decolonization interventions targeting the following MDR-GNB: third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (3GCephRE), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), aminoglycoside-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (AGRE), fluoroquinolone-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (FQRE), extremely drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (XDRPA), carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), cotrimoxazole-resistant Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (CRSM), colistin-resistant Gram-negative organisms (CoRGNB), and pan-drug-resistant Gram-negative organisms (PDRGNB). The recommendations are grouped by MDR-GNB species. Faecal microbiota transplantation has been discussed separately. Four types of outcomes were evaluated for each target MDR-GNB:(a) microbiological outcomes (carriage and eradication rates) at treatment end and at specific post-treatment time-points; (b) clinical outcomes (attributable and all-cause mortality and infection incidence) at the same time-points and length of hospital stay; (c) epidemiological outcomes (acquisition incidence, transmission and outbreaks); and (d) adverse events of decolonization (including resistance development). The level of evidence for and strength of each recommendation were defined according to the GRADE approach. Consensus of a multidisciplinary expert panel was reached through a nominal-group technique for the final list of recommendations. Recommendations: The panel does not recommend routine decolonization of 3GCephRE and CRE carriers. Evidence is currently insufficient to provide recommendations for or against any intervention in patients colonized with AGRE, CoRGNB, CRAB, CRSM, FQRE, PDRGNB and XDRPA. On the basis of the limited evidence of increased risk of CRE infections in immunocompromised carriers, the panel suggests designing high-quality prospective clinical studies to assess the risk of CRE infections in immunocompromised patients. These trials should include monitoring of development of resistance to decolonizing agents during treatment using stool cultures and antimicrobial susceptibility results according to the EUCAST clinical breakpoints. © 2019 The Author