The first strain of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was detected in the United Kingdom in 1961.¹ In subsequent decades, MRSA has rapidly spread throughout the world and has become highly endemic in many health care institutions.^2-5 However, major variance in the ability to control MRSA has occurred with different strategies.⁶ In a laboratory-based survey conducted between 1990 and 1991 in 10 European countries, the proportion of MRSA among all S aureus isolates varied from less than 1% in Scandinavia to greater than 30% in France, Italy, and Spain.⁷ Similar results were found in a recent survey conducted in 15 European countries between 1997 and 1999, with prevalence rates ranging from 2% in the Netherlands and Switzerland to greater than 40% in Italy, Portugal, and Turkey.⁸ Interestingly, high variability in MRSA prevalence has also been found among different institutions in a given geographic area and even among different hospital wards of comparable size and patient case mix.^9-15 These variations may reflect a combination of different management approaches and infection control guidelines, surveillance practices, awareness of the problem, legislative requirements, financial and personnel resources, and experience.

We report here on 14438 Streptococcus pneumoniae and 14770 Haemophilus influenzae isolates collected from 560 centres globally between 2004 and 2012 as a part of the Tigecycline Evaluation and Surveillance Trial (T.E.S.T.). MIC testing was performed using broth microdilution methods as described by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) using CLSI-approved breakpoints; US Food and Drug Administration breakpoints were used for tigecycline as CLSI breakpoints are not available. At least 99% of S. pneumoniae isolates globally were susceptible to levofloxacin, linezolid, tigecycline or vancomycin. Penicillin resistance was observed among 14.8% of S. pneumoniae and was highest in Asia/Pacific Rim (30.1%) and Africa (27.6%); 23.4% of S. pneumoniae isolates were penicillin-intermediate, which were most common in Africa (37.6%). Minocycline susceptibility among S. pneumoniae decreased by 20% between 2004-2008 and 2009-2012. High (>98.5%) susceptibility was reported among H. influenzae to all antimicrobial agents on the T.E.S.T. panel excluding ampicillin, to which only 78.3% were susceptible. β-lactamase production was observed among 20.2% of H. influenzae isolates; 1.5% of isolates were β-lactamase negative, ampicillin-resistant. S. pneumoniae remained highly susceptible to levofloxacin, linezolid, tigecycline and vancomycin while H. influenzae was susceptible to most antimicrobial agents in the testing panel (excluding ampicillin).

Detection and quantification of DNA biomarkers relies heavily on the yield and quality of DNA obtained by extraction from different matrices. Although a large number of studies have compared the yields of different extraction methods, the repeatability and intermediate precision of these methods have been largely overlooked. In the present study, five extraction methods were evaluated, using digital PCR, to determine their efficiency in extracting DNA from three different Gram-negative bacteria in sputum samples. The performance of two automated methods (GXT NA and QuickPick genomic DNA extraction kit, using Arrow and KingFisher Duo automated systems, respectively), two manual kit-based methods (QIAamp DNA mini kit; DNeasy UltraClean microbial kit), and one manual non-kit method (CTAB), was assessed. While GXT NA extraction kit and the CTAB method have the highest DNA yield, they did not meet the strict criteria for repeatability, intermediate precision, and measurement uncertainty for all three studied bacteria. However, due to limited clinical samples, a compromise is necessary, and the GXT NA extraction kit was found to be the method of choice. The study also showed that dPCR allowed for accurate determination of extraction method repeatability, which can help standardize molecular diagnostic approaches. Additionally, the determination of absolute copy numbers facilitated the calculation of measurement uncertainty, which was found to be influenced by the DNA extraction method used.

Early diagnosis with rapid detection of the virus plays a key role in preventing the spread of infection and in treating patients effectively. In order to address the need for a straightforward detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection and assessment of viral spread, we developed rapid, sensitive, extraction-free one-step reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in saliva. We analyzed over 700 matched pairs of saliva and nasopharyngeal swab (NSB) specimens from asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals. Saliva, as either an oral cavity swab or passive drool, was collected in an RNA stabilization buffer. The stabilized saliva specimens were heat-treated and directly analyzed without RNA extraction. The diagnostic sensitivity of saliva-based RT-qPCR was at least 95% in individuals with subclinical infection and outperformed RT-LAMP, which had at least 70% sensitivity when compared to NSBs analyzed with a clinical RT-qPCR test. The diagnostic sensitivity for passive drool saliva was higher than that of oral cavity swab specimens (95% and 87%, respectively). A rapid, sensitive one-step extraction-free RT-qPCR test for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in passive drool saliva is operationally simple and can be easily implemented using existing testing sites, thus allowing high-throughput, rapid, and repeated testing of large populations. Furthermore, saliva testing is adequate to detect individuals in an asymptomatic screening program and can help improve voluntary screening compliance for those individuals averse to various forms of nasal collections.

Background: Repeated rotation of empiric antibiotic treatment strategies is hypothesized to reduce antibiotic resistance. Clinical rotation studies failed to change unit-wide prevalence of antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) carriage, including an international cluster-randomized crossover study. Unit-wide effects may differ from individual effects due to “ecological fallacy”. This post-hoc analysis of a cluster-randomized crossover study assesses differences between cycling and mixing rotation strategies in acquisition of carriage with Gram-negative ARB in individual patients. Methods: This was a controlled cluster-randomized crossover study in 7 ICUs in 5 European countries. Clinical cultures taken as routine care were used for endpoint assessment. Patients with a first negative culture and at least one culture collected in total were included. Community acquisitions (2 days of admission or less) were excluded. Primary outcome was ICU-acquisition of Enterobacterales species with reduced susceptibility to: third- or fourth generation cephalosporins or piperacillin-tazobactam, and Acinetobacter species and Pseudomonas aeruginosa with reduced susceptibility for piperacillin-tazobactam or carbapenems. Cycling (altering first-line empiric therapy for Gram-negative bacteria, every other 6-weeks), to mixing (changing antibiotic type every empiric antibiotic course). Rotated antibiotics were third- or fourth generation cephalosporins, piperacillin-tazobactam and carbapenems. Results: For this analysis 1,613 admissions were eligible (855 and 758 during cycling and mixing, respectively), with 16,437 microbiological cultures obtained. Incidences of acquisition with ARB during ICU-stay were 7.3% (n = 62) and 5.1% (n = 39) during cycling and mixing, respectively (p-value 0.13), after a mean of 17.7 (median 15) and 20.8 (median 13) days. Adjusted odds ratio for acquisition of ARB carriage during mixing was 0.62 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.00). Acquired carriage with ARB were Enterobacterales species (n = 61), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 38) and Acinetobacter species (n = 20), with no statistically significant differences between interventions. Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in individual patients’ risk of acquiring carriage with Gram-negative ARB during cycling and mixing. These findings substantiate the absence of difference between cycling and mixing on the epidemiology of Gram-negative ARB in ICU. Trial registration: This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, registered 10 January 2011, NCT01293071.