Search

Background: It is uncertain if medical masks offer similar protection against COVID-19 compared with N95 respirators. Objective: To determine whether medical masks are noninferior to N95 respirators to prevent COVID-19 in health care workers providing routine care. Design: Multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04296643). Setting: 29 health care facilities in Canada, Israel, Pakistan, and Egypt from 4 May 2020 to 29 March 2022. Participants: 1009 health care workers who provided direct care to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Intervention: Use of medical masks versus fit-tested N95 respirators for 10 weeks, plus universal masking, which was the policy implemented at each site. Measurements: The primary outcome was confirmed COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. Results: In the intention-to-treat analysis, RT-PCR–confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 52 of 497 (10.46%) participants in the medical mask group versus 47 of 507 (9.27%) in the N95 respirator group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.69]). An unplanned subgroup analysis by country found that in the medical mask group versus the N95 respirator group RT-PCR–confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 8 of 131 (6.11%) versus 3 of 135 (2.22%) in Canada (HR, 2.83 [CI, 0.75 to 10.72]), 6 of 17 (35.29%) versus 4 of 17 (23.53%) in Israel (HR, 1.54 [CI, 0.43 to 5.49]), 3 of 92 (3.26%) versus 2 of 94 (2.13%) in Pakistan (HR, 1.50 [CI, 0.25 to 8.98]), and 35 of 257 (13.62%) versus 38 of 261 (14.56%) in Egypt (HR, 0.95 [CI, 0.60 to 1.50]). There were 47 (10.8%) adverse events related to the intervention reported in the medical mask group and 59 (13.6%) in the N95 respirator group. Limitation: Potential acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 through household and community exposure, heterogeneity between countries, uncertainty in the estimates of effect, differences in self-reported adherence, differences in baseline antibodies, and between-country differences in circulating variants and vaccination. Conclusion: Among health care workers who provided routine care to patients with COVID-19, the overall estimates rule out a doubling in hazard of RT-PCR–confirmed COVID-19 for medical masks when compared with HRs of RT-PCR–confirmed COVID-19 for N95 respirators. The subgroup results varied by country, and the overall estimates may not be applicable to individual countries because of treatment effect heterogeneity. Primary Funding Source: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, World Health Organization, and Juravinski Research Institute.

COVID-19 is a global pandemic that has currently infected >300,000 globally. Fever and cough are the most common symptoms of the disease, and it is important to remember that the virus can even be transmitted by individuals who test positive for the disease but do not have any symptoms. Currently reported mortality rates vary because of the rapid spread of the disease and different approaches to calculating this estimate, but it is clear that the risk of death is associated with age and the presence of underlying conditions. Risk mitigation techniques (i.e., hand washing, social distancing, and self-isolation) have already been emphasized across major news outlets. It is essential that we continue these practices, as the outbreak is currently expected to last for many more months and we must be mindful of the lessons learned from past pandemics to prevent a second wave from occurring.

Exercise and spirometry testing are associated with coughing, exhaled respiratory droplets and aerosol generation. The risk of SARS-CoV2 transmission associated with these procedures are unknown. We developed a SARS-CoV2-specific consensus guidance document involving key stakeholders for restoring pulmonary diagnostic services, incorporating a patient and community-level risk stratified approach.

We present a case of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) in a previously immunocompetent patient. At the time of presentation, he was co-infected with Cryptococcus neoformans. This case demonstrates how infectious diseases besides human immunodeficiency virus can lead to immunosuppression for patients, placing them at risk of opportunistic infections.

Background Assessment of the safety and efficacy of vaccines against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in different populations is essential, as is investigation of the efficacy of the vaccines against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including the B.1.351 (501Y.V2) variant first identified in South Africa. Methods We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) in people not infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in South Africa. Participants 18 to less than 65 years of age were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses of vaccine containing 5×1010 viral particles or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride solution) 21 to 35 days apart. Serum samples obtained from 25 participants after the second dose were tested by pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization assays against the original D614G virus and the B.1.351 variant. The primary end points were safety and efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic coronavirus 2019 illness (Covid-19) more than 14 days after the second dose. Results Between June 24 and November 9, 2020, we enrolled 2026 HIV-negative adults (median age, 30 years); 1010 and 1011 participants received at least one dose of placebo or vaccine, respectively. Both the pseudovirus and the live-virus neutralization assays showed greater resistance to the B.1.351 variant in serum samples obtained from vaccine recipients than in samples from placebo recipients. In the primary end-point analysis, mild-to-moderate Covid-19 developed in 23 of 717 placebo recipients (3.2%) and in 19 of 750 vaccine recipients (2.5%), for an efficacy of 21.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], −49.9 to 59.8). Among the 42 participants with Covid-19, 39 cases (92.9%) were caused by the B.1.351 variant; vaccine efficacy against this variant, analyzed as a secondary end point, was 10.4% (95% CI, −76.8 to 54.8). The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the vaccine and placebo groups. Conclusions A two-dose regimen of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine did not show protection against mild-to-moderate Covid-19 due to the B.1.351 variant. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04444674; Pan African Clinical Trials Registry number, PACTR202006922165132).

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). While detection of SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction with reverse transcription (RT-PCR) is currently used to diagnose acute COVID-19 infection, serological assays are needed to study the humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (Ig)G/A/M antibodies against spike (S) protein and its receptor-binding domain (RBD) were characterized in recovered subjects who were RT-PCR-positive (n = 153) and RT-PCR-negative (n = 55) using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). These antibodies were also further assessed for their ability to neutralize live SARS-CoV-2 virus. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were detected in 90.9% of resolved subjects up to 180 days post-symptom onset. Anti-S protein and anti-RBD IgG titers correlated (r= 0.5157 and r= 0.6010, respectively) with viral neutralization. Of the RT-PCR-positive subjects, 22 (14.3%) did not have anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and of those, 17 had RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values &gt, 27. These high Ct values raise the possibility that these indeterminate results are from individuals who were not infected or had mild infection that failed to elicit an antibody response. This study highlights the importance of serological surveys to determine population-level immunity based on infection numbers as determined by RT-PCR.

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. Methods In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. Results A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. Conclusions A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)

Concerns for anaphylaxis may hamper severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunization efforts. We convened a multidisciplinary group of international experts in anaphylaxis composed of allergy, infectious disease, emergency medicine, and front-line clinicians to systematically develop recommendations regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immediate allergic reactions. Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, the World Health Organizstion (WHO) global coronavirus database, and the gray literature (inception, March 19, 2021) were systematically searched. Paired reviewers independently selected studies addressing anaphylaxis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate allergy, and accuracy of allergy testing for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allergy. Random effects models synthesized the data to inform recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, agreed upon using a modified Delphi panel. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine anaphylaxis is 7.91 cases per million (n = 41,000,000 vaccinations; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.02-15.59; 26 studies, moderate certainty), the incidence of 0.15 cases per million patient-years (95% CI 0.11-0.2), and the sensitivity for PEG skin testing is poor, although specificity is high (15 studies, very low certainty). We recommend vaccination over either no vaccination or performing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient screening allergy testing for individuals without history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient, and a shared decision-making paradigm in consultation with an allergy specialist for individuals with a history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient. We recommend further research to clarify SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/vaccine excipient testing utility in individuals potentially allergic to SARS-CoV2 vaccines or their excipients.

Background Use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially in combination with azithromycin, has raised safety concerns. Here, we report safety data from 3 outpatient randomized clinical trials. Methods We conducted 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials investigating hydroxychloroquine as pre-exposure prophylaxis, postexposure prophylaxis, and early treatment for COVID-19 using an internet-based design. We excluded individuals with contraindications to hydroxychloroquine. We collected side effects and serious adverse events. We report descriptive analyses of our findings. Results We enrolled 2795 participants. The median age of research participants (interquartile range) was 40 (34–49) years, and 59% (1633/2767) reported no chronic medical conditions. Overall 2544 (91%) participants reported side effect data, and 748 (29%) reported at least 1 medication side effect. Side effects were reported in 40% with once-daily, 36% with twice-weekly, 31% with once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, compared with 19% with placebo. The most common side effects were upset stomach or nausea (25% with once-daily, 19% with twice-weekly, and 18% with once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, vs 11% for placebo), followed by diarrhea, vomiting, or abdominal pain (23% for once-daily, 17% twice-weekly, and 13% once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, vs 7% for placebo). Two individuals were hospitalized for atrial arrhythmias, 1 on placebo and 1 on twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine. No sudden deaths occurred. Conclusions Data from 3 outpatient COVID-19 trials demonstrated that gastrointestinal side effects were common but mild with the use of hydroxychloroquine, while serious side effects were rare. No deaths occurred related to hydroxychloroquine. Randomized clinical trials, in cohorts of healthy outpatients, can safely investigate whether hydroxychloroquine is efficacious for COVID-19. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04308668 for postexposure prophylaxis and early treatment trials; NCT04328467 for pre-exposure prophylaxis trial.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). While detection of SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction with reverse transcription (RT-PCR) is currently used to diagnose acute COVID-19 infection, serological assays are needed to study the humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 IgG/A/M antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein and its receptor-binding domain (RBD) were characterized using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and assessed for their ability to neutralize live SARS-CoV-2 virus in recovered subjects who were RT-PCR-positive (n=153), RT-PCR-negative (n=55), and control samples collected pre-COVID-19 (n=520). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were detected in 90.9% of resolved subjects up to 180 days post-symptom onset. Anti-S protein and anti-RBD IgG titers correlated (r= 0.5157 and r = 0.6010, respectively) with viral neutralization. Of the RT-PCR-positive subjects, 22 (14.3%) did not have anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies; and of those, 17 had RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values >27, raising the possibility that these indeterminate results are from individuals who were not infected, or had mild infection that failed to elicit an antibody response. This study highlights the importance of serological surveys to determine population-level immunity based on infection numbers as determined by RT-PCR.

Necrotizing fasciitis of an extremity due to Haemophilus influenzae is exceptionally uncommon in adults, particularly since the advent of widespread vaccination with conjugated H. influenzae type b (Hib). We report a previously vaccinated, 39-year-old male with a history of common variable immunodeficiency (CVID), poorly compliant with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy, who required emergent treatment for left leg necrotizing fasciitis. The patient was initially treated with piperacillin-tazobactam, vancomycin, and clindamycin, in tandem with surgical debridement and wash-out. The patient responded well and completed a 2-week course of ceftriaxone following blood culture results that demonstrated beta-lactamase–positive Hib. This is the fifth documented case of necrotizing fasciitis caused by H. influenzae, and the first affecting an adult with prior Hib vaccination. This case highlights the importance of IVIG compliance for CVID patients and advocates considering encapsulated organisms as part of the differential diagnosis for severe skin and soft tissue infections in this patient population.

IMPORTANCE: Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IL-6 antagonists in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have variously reported benefit, no effect, and harm. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: In this prospective meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I(2) statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance–weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days. RESULTS: A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]; P = .003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P

This cohort study examines the burden of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern among frontline essential workers and by income in the City of Toronto and Region of Peel, Canada.

Background As evidence rapidly changes, a need for consensus in hospital policy and management aspects of COVID-19 patient care are needed. This study describes areas where consensus exists and is needed in infection control, and occupational health policy. Methods An online survey was sent to the membership of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease (n~700). The survey included questions about COVID-19 patient and outbreak management, personal protective equipment (PPE), and occupational health considerations. Results Our preliminary results (n=24) were from infectious disease MD/NP or infection control medical directors. All respondents agreed treatment of COVID-19 patients should only occur in the context of a clinical trial. Of 18 centers with neonatal populations, the majority (64.2%) did not have any neonatal specific treatment guidelines. Well-babies born to COVID-19 positive moms, are all being tested (10 of 10 respondents). Variation in practice on when to remove a patient from additional precautions and potential aerosol generating medical procedures (Table 1, 2). Universal masking is in place for all clinical staff (100%), non-clinical staff (70.8%), essential visitors or patient caregivers (70.8%), and universal eye protection is in place for clinical staff (93.3%), but there was a lack of consensus in PPE conservation strategies (Table 3). Most staff do not use neck PPE (68.2%), however there was comments of it being requested by anesthesiologists at 2 sites (Table 2). Healthcare trainees or workers in these groups were restricted from caring for COVID-19 patients; Age >65 years (54.5%) and immunocompromised status (54.5%). COVID-19 positive staff can return to work 14 days after symptom onset (84.2%). Table 1. Areas of COVID-19 management lacking consensus. Not all respondents answered every question. The percentage in brackets was calculated with the number of respondents per question as the denominator. Table 2. Procedures considered as aerosol generating medical procedures (AGMPs). Respondents (n=24) were allowed to select more than one option. Table 3. Personal protective equipment (PPE) conservation strategies (n=24). Not all respondents answered every question. The percentage in brackets was calculated with the number of respondents per question as the denominator. NA corresponds to the question not asked in the survey. Conclusion Across Canada, while there are areas of consensus in outbreak definitions, universal masking of clinical staff. There is significant variation in practice with respect to discontinuing additional precautions or outbreak measures, asymptomatic testing, AGMP definitions, PPE conservation strategies including reprocessing. As evidence evolves, national infection control guidelines will be important to improve standardization of practice and optimize patient care and staff safety. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

This case report describes a 56-year-old woman with multi-drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventriculitis secondary to external ventricular drain insertion who was successfully treated with intrathecal colistin, intravenous colistin, and intravenous meropenem. A review of the English-language literature found six similar cases. While the patient did not experience side effects, self-limited paresthesias of the arm were noted in one case report. Intrathecal colistin should be considered as a therapy for ventriculitis when antibiotic choices are limited by resistant organisms. Patients should be monitored for neurological side effects during therapy.

SOURCE CITATION: Voysey M, Clemens SA, Madhi SA, et al. Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK. Lancet. 2021;397:99-111. 33306989.

Background. Namibia regards hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection as a public health problem and introduced hepatitis B vaccinations for infants during 2009. However, information on HBV infection in the country remains limited, and effective public health interventions may be compromised in the absence of adequate evidence-based data. Available data from the World Health Organization (WHO) estimate that 15 - 60% of the normal population in many African countries may be positive for one or more of the HBV serological markers. Objective. To investigate the distribution of HBV infection in Namibia, using available laboratory data for 2013. Methods. A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted using pre-existing electronic laboratory data on HBV infection. The data were retrieved from the central Namibia Institute of Pathology laboratory in Windhoek during January - December 2013. Tests were done on the following three main groups: (i) pregnant women during routine antenatal care (ANC) visits; (ii) patients with HIV/AIDS during antiretroviral therapy clinic visits; and (iii) any other individual suspected of having HBV infection. Results. Of a total of 77 238 hepatitis B surface antigen test results retrieved countrywide, 9 087 (11.8%) were positive. Of the positive results, 246/9 087 (2.7%) were in children aged 0 - 14 years, with the sexes equally affected. HBV infections increased markedly, particularly among females, in the age group 15 - 39 years, reaching a peak in the age group 30 - 34 years. Routine screening of pregnant women for HBV during ANC visits was found to be systematically conducted in only two regions, Ohangwena and Khomas. Conclusions. This study showed high proportions of positive results in pregnant women, patients with HIV/AIDS and individuals suspected of having HBV infection. The Ministry of Health and Social Services and stakeholders may wish to consider improving the routine and surveillance reporting systems for viral hepatitis and uptake of screening for pregnant women in all regions, and expanding HBV screening to other population groups. Population-based or similar studies are therefore required to determine the HBV prevalence and risk factors. This will assist Namibia in developing appropriate national viral hepatitis strategies as per WHO recommendations.S Afr Med J 2017;107(10):882-886

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is an endemic infection worldwide. Among healthy individuals, infections are usually asymptomatic. An infectious mononucleosis-type syndrome is classically described. More serious manifestations, such as pneumonitis, hepatitis, and meningoencephalitis have been described in otherwise healthy populations. Disseminated intravascular coagulation is a life-threatening complication that is extremely rare in competent hosts. We describe a case of pneumonitis and DIC associated with acute CMV infection that resolved with antiviral therapy.

Disseminated cryptococcal infection carries a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Typical patients include HIV individuals with advanced immunosuppression or solid organ or hematopoietic transplant recipients. We report a case of disseminated cryptococcal disease in a 72-year-old male who was immunocompromised with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and ongoing chemotherapy. The patient presented with a subacute history of constitutional symptoms and headache after he received five cycles of FCR chemotherapy (fludarabine/cyclophosphamide/rituximab). Diagnosis of disseminated cryptococcal disease was made based on fungemia in peripheral blood cultures with subsequent involvement of the brain, lungs, and eyes. Treatment was started with liposomal amphotericin, flucytosine, and fluconazole as induction. He was discharged after 4 weeks of hospitalization on high dose fluconazole for consolidation for 2 months, followed by maintenance therapy.

Necrotizing fasciitis, caused byStreptococcus pneumoniae, is an extremely rare and life-threatening bacterial soft tissue infection. We report a case of early necrotizing fasciitis associated withStreptococcus pneumoniaeinfection in a 26-year-old man who was immunocompromised with mixed connective tissue disease. The patient presented with acute, painful, erythematous, and edematous skin lesions of his right lower back, which rapidly progressed to the right knee. The patient underwent surgical exploration, and a diagnosis of necrotizing fasciitis was confirmed by pathological evidence of necrosis of the fascia and neutrophil infiltration in tissue biopsies. Cultures of fascial tissue biopsies and blood samples were positive forStreptococcus pneumoniae. To our knowledge, this is the first report of necrotizing fasciitis resulting fromStreptococcus pneumoniaediagnosed at early phase; the patient recovered well without surgical debridement.

Norovirus infection causes a significant burden of morbidity and (in the developing world) mortality. In immunocompromised hosts, norovirus infection can become chronic, with devastating consequences. Unfortunately, therapeutic options for chronic disease are unproven, and treatment is largely supportive. We report a case of norovirus infection causing debilitating chronic gastroenteritis in a transplant patient that responded to a short course of enterally administered human immune globulin.

Melioidosis is an infection endemic to Southeast Asia and Northern Australia, and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The present report describes a case of chronic melioidosis in a returning traveller from the Philippines. Clinical suspicion of this illness is warranted in individuals with a history of travel to endemic regions. Safety in handling clinical specimens is paramount because laboratory transmission has been described.

To the Editor: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in hospital populations (1). The number of MRSA infections that are community-acquired (CA) is increasing in North America, and occurring with greater frequency among individuals who lack the risk profile associated with hospital-acquired (HA) MRSA (2,3). Using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), the National Microbiology Laboratory has identified four strains of S aureus that are responsible for most Canadian CA-MRSA infections: CMRSA10 (USA300), CMRSA7 (USA400), European CA-MRSA and USA1100 (4).