Multiple drug resistance Staphylococcus aureus isolated in foods of animal origin in Nairobi, Kenya

Background: StaphylococcuS. aureus is the most important agent, which is known to cause a wide range of diseases in both human and animals. Extended use and misuse of antibiotics in agriculture, stock farming and in the treatment of human diseases, has contributed to the rapid increase of the number of bacteria that are resistant to antimicrobial agents.Objective: To determine the occurrence of S. aureus in foods of animal origin and their reactions to commonly used antibiotic.Design: A descriptive, cross-sectional, quantitative study.Setting: Central Business District of Nairobi (CBDN) and its environment.Subject: Samples of meat (n=280) and dairy products (n=140) were randomly purchased from various butcheries and supermarkets. Additional 251 samples of various pork products were also collected randomly from a nearby pig processing plant for comparison purposes. Baird-Parker agar with 2% egg yolk tellurite emulsion was used as growth medium for isolation of S. aureus. The typical culture confirmed positive of S. aureus were tested for antibiotic susceptibility to eight commonly used antibiotics using the disc diffusion method.Result: Occurrence of S. aureus was 36.2% (152/420) and 39.4% (99/251) from the food outlets and meat processing factory respectively. Proportions of contamination from the two sources were not significantly different (p=0.400). Significantly, more contamination was observed in meat products (40.7%) compared to dairy products (25.0%) (p=0.001). Penicilin G (246; 99.6%) was the most resisted antibiotic followed by Ampicillin (230; 93.1).Conclusion: The results of this study confirms that multi antibiotics resistant S. aureus strains are present not only in hospital setups, but also widespread in foods of animal origin

The effect of repeated washing of long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs) on the feeding success and survival rates of Anopheles gambiae

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Insecticide-treated nets protect users from mosquito bites, thereby preventing transmissions of mosquito borne pathogens. Repeated washing of nets removes insecticide on the netting rendering them ineffective within a short period. Long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs) offer longer time protection against such bites because they are more wash resistant, and are preferred to conventionally treated nets. However, there is limited information on the effect of repeated washing of LLINs on the feeding success and survival of wild malaria vectors.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The current study evaluated the effect of repeated washing of four brands of LLINs on the feeding success and survival rates of <it>Anopheles gambiae </it>sl reared from wild strains. In this study, two- to five-day old F1s, reared from gravid mosquitoes collected from an area with a high coverage of LLINs were offered blood meals through protective barriers of the above LLINs. Mosquitoes were exposed for a period of 10 minutes each time. Nets were tested unwashed and subsequently after every 5^ththrough wash 15. After exposure mosquitoes were sorted out according to their feeding status. They were then held under normal laboratory conditions for 24 hours and mortality was scored in both fed and unfed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>It was observed that mosquitoes did not feed through a barrier of unwashed LLINs. However, the feeding success and survival rates increased with successive number of washes and were also net brand dependant. After 15 washes, 49% of vectors succeeded to feed through a protective barrier of PermaNet 2.0 and 50% of the fed died after 24 hrs while after the same number of washes 60% of vectors succeeded to feed through Olyset brand of LLINs and all of them survived. In general, more mosquitoes survived after feeding through Olyset compared to the other four brands that were evaluated. When efficacy of individual LLINs was compared by a t-test analysis to a conventionally treated net, the results were not significantly different statistically for Olyset (<it>p = </it>0.239) and NetProtect (TNT) (<it>p = </it>0.135). However, the results were highly significant when comparison was made with PermaNet and Interceptor (BASF); <it>p </it>values 0.015 and 0.025 respectively.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The result of this study shows that repeated washing of LLINs at short time intervals using local washing methods may render them infective within a short time in preventing local vectors from feeding.</p

Longitudinal parental perception of COVID-19 vaccines for children in a multi-site, cohort study

Objectives: Pediatric COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and uptake is not well understood. Among parents of a prospective cohort of children aged 6 months–17 years, we assessed COVID-19 vaccine knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP), and uptake over 15 months. Methods: The PROTECT study collected sociodemographic characteristics of children at enrollment and COVID-19 vaccination data and parental KAPs quarterly. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to test the effect of KAPs on vaccine uptake; McNemar's test for paired samples was used to evaluate KAP change over time. Results: A total of 2,837 children were enrolled, with more than half (61 %) vaccinated by October 2022. Positive parental beliefs about vaccine safety and effectiveness strongly predicted vaccine uptake among children aged 5–11 years (aOR 13.1, 95 % CI 8.5–20.4 and aOR 6.4, 95 % CI 4.3–9.6, respectively) and children aged 12+ years (aOR 7.0, 95 % CI 3.8–13.0 and aOR 8.9, 95 % CI 4.4–18.0). Compared to enrollment, at follow-up parents (of vaccinated and unvaccinated children) reported higher self-assessed vaccine knowledge, but more negative beliefs towards vaccine safety, effectiveness, and trust in government. Parents unlikely to vaccinate their children at enrollment reported more positive beliefs on vaccine knowledge, safety, and effectiveness at follow-up. Conclusion: The PROTECT cohort allows for an examination of factors driving vaccine uptake and how beliefs about COVID-19 and the COVID-19 vaccines change over time. Findings of the current analysis suggest that these beliefs change over time and policies aiming to increase vaccine uptake should focus on vaccine safety and effectiveness. © 2024 Abt Global LLCOpen access articleThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Pediatric Research Observing Trends and Exposures in COVID-19 Timelines (PROTECT): Protocol for a Multisite Longitudinal Cohort Study

Background: Assessing the real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and understanding the incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 illness in children are essential to inform policy and guide health care professionals in advising parents and caregivers of children who test positive for SARS-CoV-2. Objective: This report describes the objectives and methods for conducting the Pediatric Research Observing Trends and Exposures in COVID-19 Timelines (PROTECT) study. PROTECT is a longitudinal prospective pediatric cohort study designed to estimate SARS-CoV-2 incidence and COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against infection among children aged 6 months to 17 years, as well as differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccine response between children and adolescents. Methods: The PROTECT multisite network was initiated in July 2021, which aims to enroll approximately 2305 children across four US locations and collect data over a 2-year surveillance period. The enrollment target was based on prospective power calculations and accounts for expected attrition and nonresponse. Study sites recruit parents and legal guardians of age-eligible children participating in the existing Arizona Healthcare, Emergency Response, and Other Essential Workers Surveillance (HEROES)-Research on the Epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in Essential Response Personnel (RECOVER) network as well as from surrounding communities. Child demographics, medical history, COVID-19 exposure, vaccination history, and parents/legal guardians' knowledge and attitudes about COVID-19 are collected at baseline and throughout the study. Mid-turbinate nasal specimens are self-collected or collected by parents/legal guardians weekly, regardless of symptoms, for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza testing via reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay, and the presence of COVID-like illness (CLI) is reported. Children who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 or influenza, or report CLI are monitored weekly by online surveys to report exposure and medical utilization until no longer ill. Children, with permission of their parents/legal guardians, may elect to contribute blood at enrollment, following SARS-CoV-2 infection, following COVID-19 vaccination, and at the end of the study period. PROTECT uses electronic medical record (EMR) linkages where available, and verifies COVID-19 and influenza vaccinations through EMR or state vaccine registries. Results: Data collection began in July 2021 and is expected to continue through the spring of 2023. As of April 13, 2022, 2371 children are enrolled in PROTECT. Enrollment is ongoing at all study sites. Conclusions: As COVID-19 vaccine products are authorized for use in pediatric populations, PROTECT study data will provide real-world estimates of VE in preventing infection. In addition, this prospective cohort provides a unique opportunity to further understand SARS-CoV-2 incidence, clinical course, and key knowledge gaps that may inform public health. © 2022 JMIR Publications Inc.. All right reserved.Open access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Effectiveness of 2-Dose BNT162b2 (Pfizer BioNTech) mRNA Vaccine in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Children Aged 5–11 Years and Adolescents Aged 12–15 Years — PROTECT Cohort, July 2021–February 2022

The BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was recommended by CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for persons aged 12–15 years (referred to as adolescents in this report) on May 12, 2021, and for children aged 5–11 years on November 2, 2021 (1–4). Realworld data on vaccine effectiveness (VE) in these age groups are needed, especially because when the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant became predominant in the United States in December 2021, early investigations of VE demonstrated a decline in protection against symptomatic infection for adolescents aged 12–15 years and adults* (5). The PROTECT† prospective cohort of 1,364 children and adolescents aged 5–15 years was tested weekly for SARS-CoV-2, irrespective of symptoms, and upon COVID-19–associated illness during July 25, 2021–February 12, 2022. Among unvaccinated participants (i.e., those who had received no COVID-19 vaccine doses) with any laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, those with B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant infections were more likely to report COVID-19 symptoms (66%) than were those with Omicron infections (49%). Among fully vaccinated children aged 5–11 years, VE against any symptomatic and asymptomatic Omicron infection 14–82 days (the longest interval after dose 2 in this age group) after receipt of dose 2 of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 31% (95% CI = 9%–48%), adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, health information, frequency of social contact, mask use, location, and local virus circulation. Among adolescents aged 12–15 years, adjusted VE 14–149 days after dose 2 was 87% (95% CI = 49%–97%) against symptomatic and asymptomatic Delta infection and 59% (95% CI = 22%–79%) against Omicron infection. Fully vaccinated participants with Omicron infection spent an average of one half day less sick in bed than did unvaccinated participants with Omicron infection. All eligible children and adolescents should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations. © 2022, MMWR Recommendations and Reports. All Rights Reserved.Public domain journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]