An unusual outbreak in the Netherlands: community-onset impetigo caused by a meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with additional resistance to fusidic acid, June 2018 to January 2020.

In this retrospective observational study, we analysed a community outbreak of impetigo with meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), with additional resistance to fusidic acid (first-line treatment). The outbreak occurred between June 2018 and January 2020 in the eastern part of the Netherlands with an epidemiological link to three cases from the north-western part. Forty nine impetigo cases and eight carrier cases were identified, including 47 children. All but one impetigo case had community-onset of symptoms. Pharmacy prescription data for topical mupirocin and fusidic acid and GP questionnaires suggested an underestimated outbreak size. The 57 outbreak isolates were identified by the Dutch MRSA surveillance as MLVA-type MT4627 and sequence type 121, previously reported only once in 2014. Next-generation sequencing revealed they contained a fusidic acid resistance gene, exfoliative toxin genes and an epidermal cell differentiation inhibitor gene. Whole-genome multilocus sequence typing revealed genetic clustering of all 19 sequenced isolates from the outbreak region and isolates from the three north-western cases. The allelic distances between these Dutch isolates and international isolates were high. This outbreak shows the appearance of community-onset MRSA strains with additional drug resistance and virulence factors in a country with a low prevalence of antimicrobial resistance.

Malaria diagnosis in a malaria non-endemic high-resource country: high variation of diagnostic strategy in clinical laboratories in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Microscopic examination of thick and thin blood films is the gold standard in current guidelines for the diagnosis of malaria, but guidelines do not uniformly agree on which combination of other methods should be used and when. METHODS: Three questionnaires were sent between March 2018 and September 2019 to laboratories subscribing to the external quality assessment scheme for the diagnosis of blood and intestinal parasites of the Dutch Foundation for Quality Assessment in Medical Laboratories in order to investigate how much variation in the laboratory diagnosis of malaria between different clinical laboratories is present in the Netherlands. RESULTS: The questionnaires were partially or fully completed by 67 of 77 (87%) laboratories. Only 9 laboratories reported 10 or more malaria positive patients per year. Most laboratories use a different diagnostic strategy, within office versus outside office hours depending on the screening assay result. Within office hours, 62.5% (35/56) of the responding laboratories perform an immunochromatographic test (ICT) in combination with microscopic examination of thick and thin blood films without additional examinations, such as Quantitative Buffy Coat and/or rtPCR analysis. Outside office hours 85.7% (48/56) of laboratories use an ICT as single screening assay and positive results are immediately confirmed by thick and thin blood films without additional examinations (89.6%, 43/48). In case of a negative ICT result outside office hours, 70.8% (34/48) of the laboratories perform microscopic examination of the thick film the next morning and 22.9% (11/48) confirm the negative ICT result immediately. Furthermore, substantial differences were found in the microscopic examinations of thick and thin blood films; the staining, theoretical sensitivity of the thick film and determination of parasitaemia. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a remarkably high variation between laboratories in both their diagnostic strategy as well as their methods for microscopic examination for the diagnosis of malaria in a clinical setting, despite existing national and international guidelines. While the impact of these variations on the accuracy of the diagnosis of malaria is yet unknown, these findings should stimulate clinical laboratories to critically review their own diagnostic strategy.

Changing epidemiology of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in 42 hospitals in the Dutch-German border region, 2012 to 2016: results of the search-and-follow-policy.

IntroductionMeticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a major cause of healthcare-associated infections.AimWe describe MRSA colonisation/infection and bacteraemia rate trends in Dutch-German border region hospitals (NL-DE-BRH) in 2012-16.MethodsAll 42 NL-DE BRH (8 NL-BRH, 34 DE-BRH) within the cross-border network EurSafety Health-net provided surveillance data (on average ca 620,000 annual hospital admissions, of these 68.0% in Germany). Guidelines defining risk for MRSA colonisation/infection were reviewed. MRSA-related parameters and healthcare utilisation indicators were derived. Medians over the study period were compared between NL- and DE-BRH.ResultsMeasures for MRSA cases were similar in both countries, however defining patients at risk for MRSA differed. The rate of nasopharyngeal MRSA screening swabs was 14 times higher in DE-BRH than in NL-BRH (42.3 vs 3.0/100 inpatients; p < 0.0001). The MRSA incidence was over seven times higher in DE-BRH than in NL-BRH (1.04 vs 0.14/100 inpatients; p < 0.0001). The nosocomial MRSA incidence-density was higher in DE-BRH than in NL-BRH (0.09 vs 0.03/1,000 patient days; p = 0.0002) and decreased significantly in DE-BRH (p = 0.0184) during the study. The rate of MRSA isolates from blood per 100,000 patient days was almost six times higher in DE-BRH than in NL-BRH (1.55 vs 0.26; p = 0.0041). The patients had longer hospital stays in DE-BRH than in NL-BRH (6.8 vs 4.9; p < 0.0001). DE-BRH catchment area inhabitants appeared to be more frequently hospitalised than their Dutch counterparts.ConclusionsOngoing IPC efforts allowed MRSA reduction in DE-BRH. Besides IPC, other local factors, including healthcare systems, could influence MRSA epidemiology.