Search

Tularemia is a zoonotic disease of the Northern Hemisphere, caused by the highly virulent bacterium Francisella tularensis. Although F. tularensis subspecies tularensis (type A, found only in North America) is [...]

Gonorrhea, a sexually transmissible infection (STI) caused by Neisseria gonorrhoeae, is the second most common bacterial STI (1). Most gonorrhea cases are mild, but serious complications can occur. Gonorrhea is [...]

Background: Men who have sex with men (MSM) are more vulnerable to acquiring sexually transmitted infections (STIs). In 2019, for instance, 74% of European Neisseria gonorrhoeae (Ng) cases among males affected MSM. A recent report by the World Health Organization showed that most of the 2020' interim targets to end STIs by 2030 had not been met. A broadened understanding of STI transmission networks could guide future elimination strategies and reduce the STI burden. Therefore, we used whole-genome sequencing (WGS) to determine Ng-clusters and assess sexual mixing. Methods: WGS was performed on Ng-isolates collected at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria and was used for core genome multi-locus sequencing typing cluster analysis. Epidemiologic and infection-specific details were extracted from medical records. Results: Genomic analysis and demographic data were available for 415 isolates, and 43.9% (182/415) were allocated to 31 Ng-clusters. Nine clusters comprised samples from heterosexual individuals only (women N = 4, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-negative men N = 49, HIV-positive man N = 1), nine clusters included MSM only (HIV-negative N = 22, HIV-positive N = 13) and 13 clusters included both heterosexuals and MSM (HIV-negative N = 75, HIV-positive N = 18). Current use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) was reported by 22.8% of MSM. In multivariate analysis, only 'MSM' predicted clustering with isolates from HIV-positive individuals (adjusted odds ratio 10.24 (95% CI 5.02–20.90)). Conclusions: Sexual mixing of HIV-positive, HIV-negative MSM and non-MSM was frequently observed. Furthermore, HIV-serodiscordant clustering highlights the importance of PrEP rollout to avert HIV transmission. Our findings can inform future STI prevention strategies and continuous surveillance efforts are required to keep up with transmission dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Mouthwash presents a sufficient collection method for detecting SARS-CoV-2. • Buccal swabbing does not present a sufficient collection method for detecting SARS-CoV-2 due to low sensitivity. • Mouthwash is better tolerated by patients especially children that nasopharyngeal swabbing. • Viral load of SARS-CoV-2 is highest in the first week of disease in mouthwash, buccal swab and nasopharyngeal swab. The use of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs as a specimen collection method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection is frequently perceived as uncomfortable by patients and requires trained personnel. In this study, detection rate of SARS-CoV-2 in mouthwash samples and buccal swabs were compared in both children and adults. In patients admitted to hospital with confirmed COVID-19 within the previous 72 hours, NP and buccal swabs as well as mouthwash samples were collected. RT-qPCR was performed on all samples. In total, 170 samples were collected from 155 patients (137 adults and 18 children). Approximately 91.7% of the collected NP swabs were positive in RT-PCR compared to 63.1% of mouthwash samples and 42.4% of buccal swabs. Compared to NP swabs, the sensitivity of using mouthwash was 96.3% and 65.4% for buccal swabs in NP swab samples with a CT value <25. With increasing CT values, sensitivity decreased in both mouthwash and buccal swabs. The virus load was highest during the first week of infection, with a continuous decline observed in all three collection methods over time. Mouthwash presents an alternative collection method for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in the case of unfeasible NP swab sampling. Buccal swabs should not be used due to their low sensitivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In December 2019, the People's Republic of China and the World Health Organization first reported on a cluster of pneumonia with an unknown cause. Nine months later more than 1.4 million people have died from COVID 19. In this work, the effects of the COVID 19 pandemic on five nursing homes in Austria, which cared for 889 residents in the first half of 2020, were examined. The research question was whether the measures taken were appropriate to prevent an outbreak within the individual facilities. To detect previously unrecognized infections, the present study evaluated the prevalence of neutralizing antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus in residents and employees of the nursing homes. Following the analysis of blood samples, the prospectively collected data was connected to data from screening examinations and data from contact tracing. The present study demonstrated an overall prevalence of neutralizing antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus in nursing homes of 3.7%. Whereas the prevalence in those facilities that have never been hit by an outbreak is 0%, the prevalence in those facilities with an outbreak is up to 4.9%. Neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 35 persons. A retrospective analysis of all 5 included nursing homes demonstrated that upon regular clinical screening in combination with PCRs an infection with SARS-COV-2 was detected in 66 residents and 24 employees from different professional groups. In only 25 of the 35 persons with neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 an infection was proven in advance. This study suggests that specific measures can prevent transmission within a health care facility. Nevertheless, the results also show that a risk reduction to 0% cannot be achieved. In preparation for further pandemic waves there is still the need to reduce the probability of a transmission in nursing homes with specific test strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundThe number of cholera cases reported to the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2022 was more than double that of 2021. Nine countries of the WHO European Region reported 51 cases of cholera in 2022 vs five reported cases in 2021.AimWe aimed to confirm that the Vibrio cholerae O1 isolates reported by WHO European Region countries in 2022 belonged to the seventh pandemic El Tor lineage (7PET). We also studied their virulence, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) determinants and phylogenetic relationships.MethodsWe used microbial genomics to study the 49 V. cholerae O1 isolates recovered from the 51 European cases. We also used > 1,450 publicly available 7PET genomes to provide a global phylogenetic context for these 49 isolates.ResultsAll 46 good-quality genomes obtained belonged to the 7PET lineage. All but two isolates belonged to genomic Wave 3 and were grouped within three sub-lineages, one of which, Pre-AFR15, predominated (34/44). This sub-lineage, corresponding to isolates from several countries in Southern Asia, the Middle East and Eastern or Southern Africa, was probably a major contributor to the global upsurge of cholera cases in 2022. No unusual AMR profiles were inferred from analysis of the AMR gene content of the 46 genomes.ConclusionReference laboratories in high-income countries should use whole genome sequencing to assign V. cholerae O1 isolates formally to the 7PET or non-epidemic lineages. Periodic collaborative genomic studies based on isolates from travellers can provide useful information on the circulating strains and their evolution, particularly as concerns AMR.

This work generates the data needed to set epidemiological cut-off values for disc-diffusion zone measurements of Vibrio cholerae. The susceptibility of 147 European isolates of non-O1/non-O139 V. cholerae to 19 antibiotics was established using a standardised disc diffusion method which specified incubation of Mueller Hinton agar plates at 35°C. Epidemiological cut-off values were calculated by analysis of the zone size data with the statistically based normalised resistance interpretation method. Cut-off values for 17 agents were calculated by analysis of the aggregated data from all 4 laboratories participating in this study. The cut-off values calculated were ≥18 mm for amoxicillin/clavulanate, ≥18 mm for amikacin, ≥19 mm for ampicillin, ≥27 mm for cefepime, ≥31 mm for cefotaxime, ≥24 mm for ceftazidime, ≥24 mm for chloramphenicol, ≥31 mm for ciprofloxacin, ≥16 mm for erythromycin, ≥ 27 mm for florfenicol, ≥16 mm for gentamicin, ≥23 mm for imipenem, ≥25 mm for meropenem, ≥29 mm for nalidixic acid, ≥28 mm for norfloxacin, ≥13 mm for streptomycin and ≥23 mm for tetracycline. For the other 2 agents the data from 1 laboratory was excluded from the censored aggregation because the data from that laboratory was considered excessively imprecise. The cut-off values for these 2 agents calculated for the aggregation of the data from 3 laboratories were ≥23 mm for trimethoprim and ≥24 mm for trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. These zone size data will be submitted to the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) for their consideration in setting international consensus epidemiological cut-off values for non O1/non-O139 V. cholerae.