Self-sampling is appropriate for detection of Staphylococcus aureus: a validation study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Studies frequently use nasal swabs to determine <it>Staphylococcus aureus</it> carriage. Self-sampling would be extremely useful in an outhospital research situation, but has not been studied in a healthy population. We studied the similarity of self-samples and investigator-samples in nares and pharynxes of healthy study subjects (hospital staff) in the Netherlands.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>One hundred and five nursing personnel members were sampled 4 times in random order after viewing an instruction paper: 1) nasal self-sample, 2) pharyngeal self-sample, 3) nasal investigator-sample, and 4) pharyngeal investigator-sample.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>For nasal samples, agreement is 93% with a kappa coefficient of 0.85 (95% CI 0.74-0.96), indicating excellent agreement, for pharyngeal samples agreement is 83% and the kappa coefficient is 0.60 (95% CI 0.43-0.76), indicating good agreement. In both sampling sites self-samples even detected more <it>S. aureus</it> than investigator-samples.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This means that self-samples are appropriate for detection of <it>Staphylococcus aureus</it> and methicillin-resistant <it>Staphylococcus aureus</it>.</p

Prevalence and Clinical Presentation of Health Care Workers With Symptoms of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in 2 Dutch Hospitals During an Early Phase of the Pandemic

Importance: On February 27, 2020, the first patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported in the Netherlands. During the following weeks, at 2 Dutch teaching hospitals, 9 health care workers (HCWs) received a diagnosis of COVID-19, 8 of whom had no history of travel to China or northern Italy, raising the question of whether undetected community circulation was occurring. Objective: To determine the prevalence and clinical presentation of COVID-19 among HCWs with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was performed in 2 teaching hospitals in the southern part of the Netherlands in March 2020, during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Health care workers employed in the participating hospitals who experienced fever or respiratory symptoms were asked to voluntarily participate in a screening for infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Data analysis was performed in March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was determined by semiquantitative real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction on oropharyngeal samples. Structured interviews were conducted to document symptoms for all HCWs with confirmed COVID-19. Results: Of 9705 HCWs employed (1722 male [18%]), 1353 (14%) reported fever or respiratory symptoms and were tested. Of those, 86 HCWs (6%) were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (median age, 49 years [range, 22-66 years]; 15 [17%] male), representing 1% of all HCWs employed. Most HCWs experienced mild disease, and only 46 (53%) reported fever. Eighty HCWs (93%) met a case definition of fever and/or coughing and/or shortness of breath. Only 3 (3%) of the HCWs identified through the screening had a history of travel to China or northern Italy, and 3 (3%) reported having been exposed to an inpatient with a known diagnosis of COVID-19 before the onset of symptoms. Conclusions and Relevance: Within 2 weeks after the first Dutch case was detected, a substantial proportion of HCWs with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, likely as a result of acquisition of the virus in the community during the early phase of local spread. The high prevalence of mild clinical presentations, frequently not including fever, suggests that the currently recommended case definition for suspected COVID-19 should be used less stringently

COVID-19 in health-care workers in three hospitals in the south of the Netherlands: a cross-sectional study

Background: 10 days after the first reported case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the Netherlands (on Feb 27, 2020), 55 (4%) of 1497 health-care workers in nine hospitals located in the south of the Netherlands had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. We aimed to gain insight in possible sources of infection in health-care workers. Methods: We did a cross-sectional study at three of the nine hospitals located in the south of the Netherlands. We screened health-care workers at the participating hospitals for SARS-CoV-2 infection, based on clinical symptoms (fever or mild respiratory symptoms) in the 10 days before screening. We obtained epidemiological data through structured interviews with health-care workers and combined this information with data from whole-genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples taken from health-care workers and patients. We did an in-depth analysis of sources and modes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in health-care workers and patients. Findings: Between March 2 and March 12, 2020, 1796 (15%) of 12 022 health-care workers were screened, of whom 96 (5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. We obtained complete and near-complete genome sequences from 50 health-care workers and ten patients. Most sequences were grouped in three clusters, with two clusters showing local circulation within the region. The noted patterns were consistent with multiple introductions into the hospitals through community-acquired infections and local amplification in the community. Interpretation: Although direct transmission in the hospitals cannot be ruled out, our data do not support widespread nosocomial transmission as the source of infection in patients or health-care workers. Funding: EU Horizon 2020 (RECoVer, VEO, and the European Joint Programme One Health METASTAVA), and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health

Transmission of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus CC398 from Livestock Veterinarians to Their Household Members

There are indications that livestock-associated MRSA CC398 has a reduced human-to-human transmissibility, limiting its impact on public health and justifying modified control measures. This study determined the transmissibility of MRSA CC398 from livestock veterinarians to their household members in the community as compared to MRSA non-CC398 strains. A one-year prospective cohort study was performed to determine the presence of MRSA CC398 in four-monthly nasal and oropharyngeal samples of livestock veterinarians (n  =  137) and their household members (n  =  389). In addition, a cross-sectional survey was performed to detect the presence of MRSA non-CC398 in hospital derived control patients (n  =  20) and their household members (n  =  41). Staphylococcus aureus isolates were genotyped by staphylococcal protein A (spa) typing and multiple-locus variable-number tandem repeat analysis (MLVA). Mean MRSA CC398 prevalence over the study period was 44% (range 41.6-46.0%) in veterinarians and 4.0% (range 2.8-4.7%) in their household members. The MRSA CC398 prevalence in household members of veterinarians was significantly lower than the MRSA non-CC398 prevalence in household members of control patients (PRR 6.0; 95% CI 2.4-15.5), indicating the reduced transmissibility of MRSA CC398. The impact of MRSA CC398 appears to be low at the moment. However, careful monitoring of the human-to-human transmissibility of MRSA CC398 remains important

Prevalence and Clinical Presentation of Health Care Workers With Symptoms of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in 2 Dutch Hospitals During an Early Phase of the Pandemic

Question What was the prevalence and clinical presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 among health care workers with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms in 2 Dutch hospitals within 2 weeks after the first patient with coronavirus disease 2019 was detected in the Netherlands? Findings In this cross-sectional study that included 1353 health care workers with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms, 6% were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Most health care workers with coronavirus disease 2019 experienced mild disease, and only 53% reported fever. Meaning The high prevalence of mild clinical presentations, frequently not including fever, suggests that the currently recommended case definition for suspected coronavirus disease 2019 should be used less stringently.Importance On February 27, 2020, the first patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported in the Netherlands. During the following weeks, at 2 Dutch teaching hospitals, 9 health care workers (HCWs) received a diagnosis of COVID-19, 8 of whom had no history of travel to China or northern Italy, raising the question of whether undetected community circulation was occurring. Objective To determine the prevalence and clinical presentation of COVID-19 among HCWs with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study was performed in 2 teaching hospitals in the southern part of the Netherlands in March 2020, during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Health care workers employed in the participating hospitals who experienced fever or respiratory symptoms were asked to voluntarily participate in a screening for infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Data analysis was performed in March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures The prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was determined by semiquantitative real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction on oropharyngeal samples. Structured interviews were conducted to document symptoms for all HCWs with confirmed COVID-19. Results Of 9705 HCWs employed (1722 male [18%]), 1353 (14%) reported fever or respiratory symptoms and were tested. Of those, 86 HCWs (6%) were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (median age, 49 years [range, 22-66 years]; 15 [17%] male), representing 1% of all HCWs employed. Most HCWs experienced mild disease, and only 46 (53%) reported fever. Eighty HCWs (93%) met a case definition of fever and/or coughing and/or shortness of breath. Only 3 (3%) of the HCWs identified through the screening had a history of travel to China or northern Italy, and 3 (3%) reported having been exposed to an inpatient with a known diagnosis of COVID-19 before the onset of symptoms. Conclusions and Relevance Within 2 weeks after the first Dutch case was detected, a substantial proportion of HCWs with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, likely as a result of acquisition of the virus in the community during the early phase of local spread. The high prevalence of mild clinical presentations, frequently not including fever, suggests that the currently recommended case definition for suspected COVID-19 should be used less stringently.This cross-sectional study examines the prevalence and clinical presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 among health care workers in the Netherlands with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms.Medical Microbiolog

Livestock-Associated MRSA in Household Members of Pig Farmers: Transmission and Dynamics of Carriage, A Prospective Cohort Study

This prospective cohort study describes carriage of livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (LA-MRSA) in household members from 49 farrowing pig farms in the Netherlands (2010-2011). Of 171 household members, 4% were persistent MRSA nasal carriers, and the MRSA prevalence on any given sampling moment was 10% (range 7-11%). Working in the stables (of which 98% was MRSA-positive, prevalence ratio (PR) = 2.11 per 10 hours), working with sows (PR=1.97), and living with an MRSA-positive pig farmer (PR=4.63) were significant determinants for MRSA carriage. Significant protective factors were carriage of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) (PR=0.50), and wearing a facemask when working in the stables (37% decreased prevalence). All MRSA strains during the study period were known livestock-associated types. The bacteriophage φ3 was not found in household members. Transmission from pigs and the environment appeared to be important determinants; human-to-human transmission could not sufficiently be differentiated. Wearing a facemask when working in the stables and carriage of MSSA are potential interventional targets

Dynamics of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus carriage in pig farmers: a prospective cohort study

AbstractOur purpose was to determine the dynamics of livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (LA-MRSA) carriage and its determinants in persons working at pig farms, in order to identify targets for interventions. This prospective cohort study surveyed 49 pig farms in the Netherlands on six sampling dates in 1 year (2010-11). Nasal and oropharyngeal swabs were collected, as well as environmental surface samples from stables and house. Of 110 pig farmers, 38% were persistent MRSA nasal carriers. The average cross-sectional MRSA prevalence was 63%. Methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) nasal carriage was associated with fewer MRSA acquisitions (prevalence rate (PR) = 0.47, p 0.02). In multivariate analysis, an age of 40-49 years (PR = 2.13, p 0.01), a working week of ≥40 h (PR=1.89, p 0.01), giving birth assistance to sows (PR=2.26, p 0.03), removing manure of finisher pigs (PR=0.48, p 0.02), and wearing a facemask (PR = 0.13, p 0.02) were significantly related with persistent MRSA nasal carriage. A higher MRSA exposure in stables was associated with MRSA in pig farmers (p <0.0001). This study describes a very high prevalence of LA-MRSA carriage in pig farmers, reflecting extensive exposure during work. We identified the possible protective effects of MSSA carriage and of continuously wearing a facemask during work

Rapid screening of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus using PCR and chromogenic agar: a prospective study to evaluate costs and effects

Contains fulltext : 89508.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)Pre-emptive isolation of suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriers is considered essential for controlling the spread of MRSA, but noncolonized patients will be isolated unnecessarily as a result of a delay in diagnosis of 3-5 days with conventional cultures. We determined costs per isolation day avoided, and incremental costs of rapid MRSA screening tests when added to conventional screening, but with decisions on isolation measures based on PCR results. A prospective multicentre study evaluating BD GeneOhm MRSA PCR (`IDI') (BD Diagnostics, San Diego, CA, USA), Xpert MRSA (`GeneXpert') (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) and chromogenic agar (MRSA-ID) (bioMerieux, Marcy-l'Etoile, France) was performed in 14 Dutch hospitals. Among 1764 patients at risk, MRSA prevalence was 3.3% (n=59). Duration of isolation was 19.7 and 16.1 h with IDI and GeneXpert, respectively, and would have been 30.0 and 76.2 h when based on chromogenic agar and conventional cultures, respectively. Negative predictive values (at a patient level) were 99.5%, 99.1% and 99.5% for IDI, GeneXpert and chromogenic agar, respectively. Numbers of isolation days were reduced by 60% and 47% with PCR-based and chromogenic agar-based screening, respectively. The cost per test was euro56.22 for IDI, euro69.62 for GeneXpert and euro2.08 for chromogenic agar, and additional costs per extra isolation day were euro26.34. Costs per isolation day avoided were euro95.77 (IDI) and euro125.43 (GeneXpert). PCR-based decision-making added euro153.64 (IDI) and euro193.84 (GeneXpert) per patient to overall costs and chromogenic testing would have saved euro30.79 per patient. Rapid diagnostic testing safely reduces the number of unnecessary isolation days, but only chromogenic screening, and not PCR-based screening, can be considered as cost saving.1 december 201