A practical approach to screening for carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales- views of a group of multidisciplinary experts from English hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) are an important public health threat, with costly operational and economic consequences for NHS Integrated Care Systems and NHS Trusts. UK Health Security Agency guidelines recommend that Trusts use locally developed risk assessments to accurately identify high-risk individuals for screening, and implement the most appropriate method of testing, but this presents many challenges. METHODS: A convenience sample of cross-specialty experts from across England met to discuss the barriers and practical solutions to implementing UK Health Security Agency framework into operational and clinical workflows. The group derived responses to six key questions that are frequently asked about screening for CPE. KEY FINDINGS: Four patient groups were identified for CPE screening: high-risk unplanned admissions, high-risk elective admissions, patients in high-risk units, and known positive contacts. Rapid molecular testing is a preferred screening method for some of these settings, offering faster turnaround times and more accurate results than culture-based testing. It is important to stimulate action now, as several lessons can be learnt from screening during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as from CPE outbreaks. CONCLUSION: Further decisive and instructive information is needed to establish CPE screening protocols based on local epidemiology and risk factors. Local management should continually evaluate local epidemiology, analysing data and undertaking frequent prevalence studies to understand risks, and prepare resources- such as upscaled screening- to prevent increasing prevalence, clusters or outbreaks. Rapid molecular-based methods will be a crucial part of these considerations, as they can reduce unnecessary isolation and opportunity costs.

Early identification and optimal management of carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative infection.

BACKGROUND: Carbapenem resistance in Gram-negative bacteria is associated with severe infections in the hospital setting. No uniform screening policy or agreed set of criteria exists within the EU to inform treatment decisions for infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. AIM: To develop a range of consensus statements to survey experts in carbapenem resistance, to identify potential similarities and differences across the EU and across specialties. METHODS: The survey contained 43 statements, covering six key topics relating to carbapenem-resistant organisms: microbiological screening; diagnosis; infection control implementation; antibiotic stewardship; use of resources; and influencing policy. FINDINGS: In total, 136 survey responses were received (66% infectious disease specialists, 18% microbiologists, 11% intensive care specialists, 4% other/unknown) from France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, and the UK. High, or very high, levels of agreement were seen for all 43 consensus statements, indicating good alignment concerning early identification and optimal management of infection due to carbapenem-resistant organisms. CONCLUSION: We offer the following recommendations: (1) screening is required when a patient may have been exposed to the healthcare system in countries/hospitals where carbapenem-resistant organisms are endemic; (2) rapid diagnostic tools should be available in every institution; (3) all institutions should have a specific policy for the control of carbapenem-resistant organisms, which is routinely audited; (4) clear strategies are required to define both appropriate and inappropriate use of carbapenems; (5) priority funding should be allocated to the management of infections due to carbapenem-resistant organisms; and (6) international co-operation is required to reduce country-to-country transmission of carbapenem-resistant organisms.

Evaluation of the NucliSENS EasyQ KPC assay for detection of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae.

The NucliSENS EasyQ KPC assay (bioMérieux SA, Marcy l'Etoile, France) was compared with a routinely used phenotypic method for detection of Enterobacteriaceae producing Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-type carbapenemases, using 806 stool samples and rectal swabs. Compared with the phenotypic method, the EasyQ KPC assay had a sensitivity and specificity of 93.3% and 99.0%, respectively, in this setting, with diverse KPC producers not limited to ST258 Klebsiella pneumoniae.

Rapid identification of uropathogenic Escherichia coli of the O25:H4-ST131 clonal lineage using the DiversiLab repetitive sequence-based PCR system.

Several recent studies have highlighted the emergence of a globally disseminated clone of uropathogenic and invasive Escherichia coli isolates of serotype O25:H4 and sequence type 131. The ability to characterize rapidly E. coli isolates of this lineage would facilitate enhanced surveillance for this pathogen. We have used the semi-automated DiversiLab repetitive PCR-based system to analyse a collection of 35 clinical isolates of uropathogenic E. coli from across the UK, with particular focus on the O25:H4-ST131 lineage. All isolates had been characterized using multilocus sequence typing (MLST), and 14 had previously been typed using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). The DiversiLab system allowed discrimination of O25:H4-ST131 isolates from those of other E. coli lineages. It was slightly more discriminatory than MLST, but was less discriminatory than PFGE. With an analysis time of <4 h between receipt of a cultured organism and provision of a typing result, the system offers information on a real-time basis, a major advantage over current practice. We suggest that introduction of the DiversiLab system would be useful for rapid exclusion of E. coli isolates during outbreak investigations, and that the approach could be employed for surveillance for pathogenic or antibiotic-resistant clones of this organism.