Rapid detection of Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an important concern for both treatment and implementation of infection control policies. The present study provides an ‘in house’ real-time PCR assay to detect directly nuc , pvl , and mecA genes. The assay is able to perform identification of MRSA, Methicillin-Sensitive S. aureus , Methicillin-Resistant Coagulase Negative Staphylococci and the Panton-Valentine leukocidin virulence gene from rectal and pharyngeal swab samples in a screening context. We found an analytical sensitivity of this current Triplex PCR assay of 514 CFU/mL. Analytical specificity was tested with different Gram-positive and Gram-negative species and yielded no false-positive PCR signal. The sensitivity and specificity of the Triplex Real Time PCR were both 100% for these targets when compared with the culture and conventional methods. This assay is readily adaptable for routine use in a microbiology laboratory, as it will enable the implementation of timely and properly guided therapy and infection control strategies.

Background: The increasing burden of candidemia and the emergence of resistance, especially among non-Candida albicans strains, represent a new threat for public health. We aimed to assess the status of surveillance and to identify publicly accessible resistance data in Candida spp blood isolates from surveillance systems and epidemiological studies in 28 European and 4 European Free Trade Association member states. Methods: A systematic review of national and international surveillance networks, from 2015 to 2020, and peer-reviewed epidemiological surveillance studies, from 2005 to 2020, lasting for at least 12 consecutive months and with at least two centers involved, was completed to assess reporting of resistance to amphotericin B, azoles, and echinocandins in C. albicans, C. glabrata, C. parapsilosis, C. tropicalis, C. krusei, and C. auris. Results: Only 5 (Austria, Italy, Norway, Spain, and United Kingdom) of 32 countries provided resistance data for Candida spp blood isolates. Among 322 surveillance studies identified, 19 were included from Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. C. albicans and C. glabrata were the most monitored species, followed by C. parapsilosis and C. tropicalis. C. krusei was not included in any national surveillance system; 13 studies assessed resistance. No surveillance system or study reported resistance for C. auris. Fluconazole, voriconazole, caspofungin, and amphotericin B resistance in C. albicans, C. glabrata, and C. parapsilosis were the most common drug–species combination monitored. Quality of surveillance data was poor, with only two surveillance systems reporting microbiological methods and clinical data. High heterogeneity was observed in modalities of reporting, data collection, and definitions. Conclusion: Surveillance of antifungal resistance in Candida spp blood-isolates is fragmented and heterogeneous, delaying the application of a translational approach to the threat of antifungal resistance and the identification of proper targets for antifungal stewardship activities. International efforts are needed to implement antifungal resistance surveillance programs in order to adequately monitor antifungal resistance.

Background The JPIAMR ARCH and COMBACTE-MAGNET EPI-Net networks have joined efforts to formulate a set of target actions to link the surveillance of antimicrobial usage (AMU) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) with antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) activities in four different settings. This White Paper focuses on the veterinary setting and embraces the One Health approach. Methods A review of the literature was carried out addressing research questions in three areas: AMS leadership and accountability; AMU surveillance and AMS; and AMR surveillance and AMS. Consensus on target actions was reached through a RAND-modified Delphi process involving over 40 experts in infectious diseases, clinical microbiology, AMS, veterinary medicine and public health, from 18 countries. Results/discussion Forty-six target actions were developed and qualified as essential or desirable. Essential actions included the setup of AMS teams in all veterinary settings, building government-supported AMS programmes and following specific requirements on the production, collection and communication of AMU and AMR data. Activities of AMS teams should be tailored to the local situation and capacities, and be linked to local or national surveillance systems and infection control programmes. Several research priorities were also identified, such as the need to develop more clinical breakpoints in veterinary medicine. Conclusions This White Paper offers a practical tool to veterinary practitioners and policy makers to improve AMS in the One Health approach, thanks to surveillance data generated in the veterinary setting. This work may also be useful to medical doctors wishing to better understand the specificities of the veterinary setting and facilitate cross-sectoral collaborations.

Objectives To systematically summarize the evidence on how to collect, analyse and report antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance data to inform antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) teams providing guidance on empirical antibiotic treatment in healthcare settings. Methods The research group identified 10 key questions about the link between AMR surveillance and AMS using a checklist of 9 elements for good practice in health research priority settings and a modified 3D combined approach matrix, and conducted a systematic review of published original studies and guidelines on the link between AMR surveillance and AMS. Results The questions identified focused on AMS team composition; minimum infrastructure requirements for AMR surveillance; organisms, samples and susceptibility patterns to report; data stratification strategies; reporting frequency; resistance thresholds to drive empirical therapy; surveillance in high-risk hospital units, long-term care, outpatient and veterinary settings; and surveillance data from other countries. Twenty guidelines and seven original studies on the implementation of AMR surveillance as part of an AMS programme were included in the literature review. Conclusions The evidence summarized in this review provides a useful basis for a more integrated process of developing procedures to report AMR surveillance data to drive AMS interventions. These procedures should be extended to settings outside the acute-care institutions, such as long-term care, outpatient and veterinary. Without proper AMR surveillance, implementation of AMS policies cannot contribute effectively to the fight against MDR pathogens and may even worsen the burden of adverse events from such interventions.