No abstract

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to determine the rate of asymptomatic carriage and spread of multidrug-resistant micro-organisms (MDRO) and to identify risk factors for extended spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-E) carriage in 12 long term care facilities (LTCFs) in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Materials and methodsFrom November 2014 to august 2015, feces and nasal swabs from residents from LTCFs in Amsterdam, the Netherlands were collected and analyzed for presence of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDRGN), including ESBL-E, carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE), colistin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess associations between variables and ESBL-carriage.ResultsIn total, 385 residents from 12 LTCFs (range 15–48 residents per LTCF) were enrolled. The prevalence of carriage of MDRGN was 18.2% (range among LTCFs 0–47%) and the prevalence of ESBL-E alone was 14.5% (range among LTCFs: 0–34%). Of 63 MDRGN positive residents, 50 (79%) were ESBL-E positive of which 43 (86%) produced CTX-M. Among 44 residents with ESBL-E positive fecal samples of whom data on contact precautions were available at the time of sampling, only 9 (20%) were already known as ESBL-E carriers. The prevalence for carriage of MRSA was 0.8% (range per LTCF: 0–7%) and VRE 0%. One CPE colonized resident was found. All fecal samples tested negative for presence of plasmid mediated resistance for colistin (MCR-1). Typing of isolates by Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (AFLP) showed five MDRGN clusters, of which one was found in multiple LTCFs and four were found in single LTCFs, suggesting transmission within and between LTCFs. In multivariate analysis only the presence of MDRO in the preceding year remained a risk factor for ESBL-E carriage.ConclusionsThe ESBL-carriage rate of residents in LTCFs is nearly two times higher than in the general population but varies considerably among LTCFs in Amsterdam, whereas carriage of MRSA and VRE is low. The majority (80%) of ESBL-E positive residents had not been detected by routine culture of clinical specimens at time of sampling. Current infection control practices in LTCFs in Amsterdam do not prevent transmission. Both improvement of basic hygiene, and funding for laboratory screening, should allow LTCFs in Amsterdam to develop standards of care to prevent transmission of ESBL-E.

BackgroundRecent studies indicate that 27% of Dutch blood donors have evidence of past infection with HEV. However, the low number of diagnosed HEV infections indicates either an asymptomatic course or under diagnosis.ObjectivesWe investigated whether HEV is a cause of acute hepatitis in Dutch patients and which diagnostic modality (serology or PCR) should be used for optimal detection.Study designSerum samples were retrospectively selected from non-severely immuno-compromised patients from a university hospital population, suspected of having an infectious hepatitis. Criteria were: elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT> 34 U/l) and request for antibody testing for CMV, EBV or Hepatitis A (HAV).ResultsAll samples were tested for HEV using ELISA and PCR. Ninety patients/sera were tested, of which 22% were HEV IgG positive. Only one serum was IgM positive. HEV PCR was positive in two patients: one patient was both HEV IgM and IgG positive, the other patient was only IgG positive. Both HEV RNA positive samples belonged to genotype 3. Evidence of recent infection with CMV, EBV and HAV was found in 13%, 10% and 3% respectively.ConclusionsAlthough our study is limited by small numbers, we conclude that HEV is a cause of acute hepatitis in hospital associated patients in The Netherlands. Moreover, in our study population the prevalence of acute HAV (3%) was almost similar to acute HEV (2%). We propose to incorporate HEV testing in panels for acute infectious hepatitis. Negative results obtained for HEV IgM in a HEV PCR positive patient, indicates that antibody testing alone may not be sufficient and argues for PCR as a primary diagnostic tool in hospital associated patients. The high percentage of HEV IgG seropositivity confirms earlier epidemiological studies.