Response to Imported Case of Marburg Hemorrhagic Fever, the Netherlands

Adventure tourism may bring this disease to Western countries

Melioidosis in travelers: An analysis of Dutch melioidosis registry data 1985–2018

Background: Melioidosis, caused by the Gram-negative bacterium Burkholderia pseudomallei, is an opportunistic infection across the tropics. Here, we provide a systematic overview of imported human cases in a non-endemic country over a 25-year period. Methods: All 5

Imported case of Marburg Hemorrhagic Fever, in the Netherlands

On July 10, 2008, Marburg hemorrhagic fever (MHF) was confirmed in a Dutch patient who had vacationed recently in Uganda. Exposure most likely occurred in the Python Cave (Maramagambo Forest), which harbors bat species that elsewhere in Africa have been found positive for Marburg virus (MARV). A multidisciplinary response team was convened to perform a structured risk assessment, perform risk classification of contacts, issue guidelines for follow-up, provide information, and monitor the crisis response. In total, 130 contacts were identified (66 classified as high risk and 64 as low risk) and monitored for 21 days after their last possible exposure. The case raised questions specific to international travel, postexposure prophylaxis for MARV, and laboratory testing of contacts with fever. We present lessons learned and results of the follow-up serosurvey of contacts and focus on factors that prevented overreaction during an event with a high public health impact

Melioidosis in travelers: An analysis of Dutch melioidosis registry data 1985–2018

Background: Melioidosis, caused by the Gram-negative bacterium Burkholderia pseudomallei, is an opportunistic infection across the tropics. Here, we provide a systematic overview of imported human cases in a non-endemic country over a 25-year period. Methods: All 55 Dutch microbiology laboratories were contacted in order to identify all B. pseudomallei positive cultures from 1990 to 2018. A response rate of 100% was achieved. Additionally, a systematic literature search was performed, medical-charts reviewed, and tissue/autopsy specimens were re-assessed. Results: Thirty-three travelers with melioidosis were identified: 70% male with a median-age of 54 years. Risk factors were present in most patients (n = 23, 70%), most notably diabetes (n = 8, 24%) and cystic fibrosis (n = 3, 9%). Countries of acquisition included Thailand, Brazil, Indonesia, Panama, and The Gambia. Disease manifestations included pneumonia, intra-abdominal abscesses, otitis externa, genitourinary, skin-, CNS-, and thyroid gland infections. Twelve (36%) patients developed sepsis and/or septic shock. Repeat episodes of active infection were observed in five (15%) and mortality in four (12%) patients. Post-mortem analysis showed extensive metastatic (micro)abscesses amongst other sites in the adrenal gland and bone marrow. Conclusions: The number of imported melioidosis is likely to increase, given rising numbers of (immunocompromised) travelers, and increased vigilance of the condition. This first systematic retrospective surveillance study in a non-endemic melioidosis country shows that imported cases can serve as sentinels to provide information about disease activity in areas visited and inform pre-travel advice and post-travel clinical management

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

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