Newly identified risk factors for MRSA carriage in The Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

To elucidate new risk factors for MRSA carriers without known risk factors (MRSA of unknown origin; MUO). These MUO carriers are neither pre-emptively screened nor isolated as normally dictated by the Dutch Search & Destroy policy, thus resulting in policy failure.

METHODS

We performed a prospective case control study to determine risk factors for MUO acquisition/carriage (Dutch Trial Register: NTR2041). Cases were MUO carriers reported by participating medical microbiological laboratories to the RIVM from September 1st 2011 until September 1st 2013. Controls were randomly selected from the community during this period.

RESULTS

Significant risk factors for MUO in logistic multivariate analysis were antibiotic use in the last twelve months, aOR 8.1 (5.6-11.7), screened as contact in a contact tracing but not detected as a MRSA carrier at that time, aOR 4.3 (2.1-8.8), having at least one foreign parent, aOR 2.4 (1.4-3.9) and receiving ambulatory care, aOR 2.3 (1.4-3.7). Our found risk factors explained 83% of the MUO carriage.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying new risk factors for MRSA carriers remains crucial for countries that apply a targeted screening approach as a Search and Destroy policy or as vertical infection prevention measure.

Clinical breakpoint changes and their impact on surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli causing bacteraemia

Dutch laboratories are currently changing their breakpoint criteria from mostly Clinical Laboratory and Standards Institute (CLSI) breakpoints to European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) breakpoints. To evaluate the impact of these changes, we studied antimicrobial resistance trends of Escherichia coli in blood specimens from January 2008 to January 2012 using CLSI and EUCAST breakpoints and compared them with the antimicrobial susceptibility test (AST) interpretations reported by Dutch laboratories participating in the Infectious Disease Surveillance Information System for Antibiotic Resistance (ISIS-AR). ISIS-AR collects AST interpretations, including underlying minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of routinely cultured bacterial species on a monthly basis from Dutch laboratories. MICs of Etests or automated systems were reinterpreted according to the CLSI 2009 and EUCAST 2010 guidelines. Trends in non-susceptibility (i.e. intermediate resistant and resistant) over time were analysed by the Cochran-Armitage test for trend. The effects of the change from CLSI to EUCAST breakpoints on non-susceptibility were small. There were no differences in non-susceptibility to amoxicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, cefuroxim, gentamicin and co-trimoxazol and only small differences (1-1.5%) for ciprofloxacin between AST interpretations by CLSI or EUCAST. However, for ceftazidime, and cefotaxime/ceftriaxone the proportion of non-susceptibility was substantially higher when EUCAST breakpoints were used (2-3%). The effects on time trends of the change in guidelines were limited, with only substantial differences for the oxymino-cephalosporins. Our study shows that the implementation of EUCAST breakpoints has a limited effect on the proportion of non-susceptible isolates and time trends in E. coli for most, but not all, antimicrobial agents.

Ascertainment of meningococcal disease in Europe

Meningococcal disease surveillance in most countries is based upon a combination of statutory notification systems and laboratory reporting, both of which are recognised to underestimate the true burden of disease. The incidence of meningococcal disease varies throughout Europe, and although there are many reasons for this, it is important to quantify the degree of under-ascertainment in order to validate international comparisons. Here, we review the literature on the ascertainment of meningococcal disease in Europe and the available methods for estimating the degree of under-reporting. We found that the sensitivity of surveillance varies between countries and over time, with estimates ranging from 40% to 96%. We identified five methods suitable for conducting ascertainment studies, from simple comparative studies to more complicated capture-recapture and regression analyses. Studies of ascertainment may be used to identify weaknesses and biases in surveillance data, and facilitate the improvement of these systems. These findings are relevant to the surveillance of other infectious diseases, particularly those with lower mortality and a lower public profile than meningococcal disease, for which ascertainment may be worse.

Ascertainment of meningococcal disease in Europe

Meningococcal disease surveillance in most countries is based upon a combination of statutory notification systems and laboratory reporting, both of which are recognised to underestimate the true burden of disease. The incidence of meningococcal disease varies throughout Europe, and although there are many reasons for this, it is important to quantify the degree of under-ascertainment in order to validate international comparisons. Here, we review the literature on the ascertainment of meningococcal disease in Europe and the available methods for estimating the degree of under-reporting. We found that the sensitivity of surveillance varies between countries and over time, with estimates ranging from 40% to 96%. We identified five methods suitable for conducting ascertainment studies, from simple comparative studies to more complicated capture-recapture and regression analyses. Studies of ascertainment may be used to identify weaknesses and biases in surveillance data, and facilitate the improvement of these systems. These findings are relevant to the surveillance of other infectious diseases, particularly those with lower mortality and a lower public profile than meningococcal disease, for which ascertainment may be worse.