ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Chronic care facility residents are at risk of severe influenza infection and death. Adamantanes have been used by chronic care facilities for influenza A prophylaxis; however, genotypic resistance has altered prophylaxis recommendations. An outbreak of influenza A (H3N2) in a chronic care facility housing neurologically impaired children and young adults and subsequent control measures are described. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Resident charts were retrospectively reviewed. Isolates were characterized by strain identification and pyrosequencing. RESULTS: Although 95 (97%) of 98 residents had been immunized against influenza at the start of the influenza season, 16 (84%) of 19 case patients were identified on the first floor. However, following implementation of enhanced infection control practices and adamantane prophylaxis, only 10 (13%) of 79 case patients were identified on the second floor. Subsequent pyrosequencing studies revealed a serine to asparagine mutation at position 31 of the M2 protein. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced infection control precautions and adamantane prophylaxis were used to control spread of influenza in a chronic care facility. This outbreak demonstrates the importance of timely and consistent implementation of infection control measures in controlling influenza outbreaks in long term care facilities and raises questions about a possible role for adamantanes in preventing transmission of adamantane-resistant influenza A viruses.
Subject(s)
Adamantane/therapeutic use , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Drug Resistance, Viral , Infection Control , Influenza A Virus, H3N2 Subtype/drug effects , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Adolescent , Adult , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Influenza A Virus, H3N2 Subtype/genetics , Influenza A Virus, H3N2 Subtype/isolation & purification , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Male , Mutation , Nursing Homes , Retrospective Studies , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Invasive group A streptococcal (GAS) infections are a cause of serious morbidity and high mortality. There is a need for a simple, effective antimicrobial regimen that could be used to prevent invasive GAS disease in high risk situations. To assess azithromycin as a chemoprophylactic agent, we evaluated its efficacy for eradication of oropharyngeal (OP) GAS and its impact on the nasopharyngeal (NP) colonization rate of macrolide-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. METHODS: We obtained OP and NP swabs for GAS and pneumococcus culture, respectively, from 300 schoolmates of a child with an invasive GAS infection. GAS culture-positive students were treated with daily azithromycin (12 mg/kg/day) for 5 days. We obtained follow-up OP and NP swabs at 9 (Day 17) and 24 (Day 32) days post-treatment from those students identified as GAS carriers on Day 0 and determined macrolide susceptibility of GAS and pneumococcal isolates. RESULTS: Of the 300 students swabbed 152 (50%) carried GAS in their oropharynx. On Day 17, efficacy of azithromycin for GAS eradication was 95% (140 of 147) for all students. NP colonization rates for pneumococci decreased from 46% (67 of 146) to 12% (17 of 144; P < 0.001) by Day 17 and to 20% (27 of 137; P < 0.001) by Day 32. The prevalence of erythromycin-resistant pneumococcal isolates increased from 2% (3 of 146) to 4% (6 of 144) by Day 17 and to 8% (11 of 137; P = 0.04) by Day 32. CONCLUSIONS: Azithromycin is an effective short course regimen for eradication of oropharyngeal GAS. However, azithromycin selected for macrolide-resistant strains of pneumococci. These findings highlight the importance of determining the appropriate circumstances for antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent invasive GAS infections.
