CoV2-ID, a MIQE-compliant sub-20-min 5-plex RT-PCR assay targeting SARS-CoV-2 for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Accurate, reliable and rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 is essential not only for correct diagnosis of individual COVID-19 disease but also for the development of a rational strategy aimed at lifting confinement restrictions and preparing for possible recurrent waves of viral infections. We have used the MIQE guidelines to develop two versions of a unique five plex RT-qPCR test, termed CoV2-ID, that allows the detection of three viral target genes, a human internal control for confirming the presence of human cells in a sample and a control artificial RNA for quality assessment and potential quantification. Viral targets can be detected either individually with separate fluorophores or jointly using the same fluorophore, thus increasing the test's reliability and sensitivity. It is robust, can consistently detect two copies of viral RNA, with a limit of detection of a single copy and can be completed in around 15 min. It was 100% sensitive and 100% specific when tested on 23 RNA samples extracted from COVID-19 positive patients and five COVID-19 negative patients. We also propose using multiple cycle fluorescence detection, rather than real-time PCR to reduce significantly the time taken to complete the assay as well as assuage the misunderstandings underlying the use of quantification cycles (Cq). Finally, we have designed an assay for the detection of the D614G mutation and show that all of the samples isolated in the Chelmsford, Essex area between mid-April and June 2020, have the mutant genotype whereas a sample originating in Australia was infected with the wild type genotype.

Protocol for the development of a core indicator set for reporting burn wound infection in trials: ICon-B study.

INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews of high-quality randomised controlled trials are necessary to identify effective interventions to impact burn wound infection (BWI) outcomes. Evidence synthesis requires that BWI is reported in a consistent manner. Cochrane reviews investigating interventions for burns report that the indicators used to diagnose BWI are variable or not described, indicating a need to standardise reporting. BWI is complex and diagnosed by clinician judgement, informed by patient-reported symptoms, clinical signs, serum markers of inflammation and bacteria in the wound. Indicators for reporting BWI should be important for diagnosis, frequently observed in patients with BWI and assessed as part of routine healthcare. A minimum (core) set of indicators of BWI, reported consistently, will facilitate evidence synthesis and support clinical decision-making. AIMS: The Infection Consensus in Burns study aims to identify a core indicator set for reporting the diagnosis of BWI in research studies. METHODS: (1) Evidence review: a systematic review of indicators used in trials and observational studies reporting BWI outcomes to identify a long list of candidate indicators; (2) refinement of the long list into a smaller set of survey questions with an expert steering group; (3) a two-round Delphi survey with 100 multidisciplinary expert stakeholders, to achieve consensus on a short list of indicators; (4) a consensus meeting with expert stakeholders to agree on the BWI core indicator set. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Participants will be recruited through professional bodies, such that ethical approval from the National Health Service (NHS) Health Research Authority (HRA) is not needed. The core indicator set will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication, co-production with journal editors, research funders and professional bodies, and presentation at national conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018096647.

National observational study to evaluate the "cleanyourhands" campaign (NOSEC): a questionnaire based study of national implementation.

INTRODUCTION: The number of national hand-hygiene campaigns has increased recently, following the World Health Organisation's (WHO) "Save Lives: clean your hands" initiative (2009), which offers hospitals a multi-component hand-hygiene intervention. The number of campaigns to be evaluated remains small. Most evaluations focus on consumption of alcohol hand rub (AHR). We are not aware of any evaluation reporting implementation of all campaign components. In a previously published report, we evaluated the effects of the English and Welsh cleanyourhands campaign (2004-8) on procurement of AHR and soap, and on selected healthcare associated infections. We now report on the implementation of each individual campaign component: provision of bedside AHR, ward posters, patient empowerment materials, audit and feedback, and guidance to secure institutional engagement. SETTING: all 189 acute National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England and Wales (December 2005-June 2008). Six postal questionnaires (five voluntary, one mandatory) were distributed to infection control teams six-monthly from 6 to 36 months post roll-out. Selection and attrition bias were measured. RESULTS: Response rates fell from 134 (71 %) at 6 months to 82 (44 %) at 30 months, rising to 167 (90 %) for the final mandatory one (36 months). There was no evidence of attrition or selection bias. Hospitals reported widespread early implementation of bedside AHR and posters and a gradual rise in audit. At 36 months, 90 % of respondents reported the campaign to be a top hospital priority, with implementation of AHR, posters and audit reported by 96 %, 97 % and 91 % respectively. Patient empowerment was less successful. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that all campaign components, apart from patient empowerment, were widely implemented and sustained. It supports previous work suggesting that adequate piloting, strong governmental support, refreshment of campaigns, and sufficient time to engage institutions help secure sustained implementation of a campaign's key components. The results should encourage countries wishing to launch coordinated national campaigns for hospitals to participate in the WHO's "Save Lives" initiative, which offers hospitals a similar multi-component intervention.

The Feedback Intervention Trial (FIT)--improving hand-hygiene compliance in UK healthcare workers: a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Achieving a sustained improvement in hand-hygiene compliance is the WHO's first global patient safety challenge. There is no RCT evidence showing how to do this. Systematic reviews suggest feedback is most effective and call for long term well designed RCTs, applying behavioural theory to intervention design to optimise effectiveness. METHODS: Three year stepped wedge cluster RCT of a feedback intervention testing hypothesis that the intervention was more effective than routine practice in 16 English/Welsh Hospitals (16 Intensive Therapy Units [ITU]; 44 Acute Care of the Elderly [ACE] wards) routinely implementing a national cleanyourhands campaign). Intervention-based on Goal & Control theories. Repeating 4 week cycle (20 mins/week) of observation, feedback and personalised action planning, recorded on forms. Computer-generated stepwise entry of all hospitals to intervention. Hospitals aware only of own allocation. PRIMARY OUTCOME: direct blinded hand hygiene compliance (%). RESULTS: All 16 trusts (60 wards) randomised, 33 wards implemented intervention (11 ITU, 22 ACE). Mixed effects regression analysis (all wards) accounting for confounders, temporal trends, ward type and fidelity to intervention (forms/month used). INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS: Estimated odds ratio (OR) for hand hygiene compliance rose post randomisation (1.44; 95% CI 1.18, 1.76;p<0.001) in ITUs but not ACE wards, equivalent to 7-9% absolute increase in compliance. PER-PROTOCOL ANALYSIS FOR IMPLEMENTING WARDS: OR for compliance rose for both ACE (1.67 [1.28-2.22]; p<0.001) & ITUs (2.09 [1.55-2.81]; p<0.001) equating to absolute increases of 10-13% and 13-18% respectively. Fidelity to intervention closely related to compliance on ITUs (OR 1.12 [1.04, 1.20]; p = 0.003 per completed form) but not ACE wards. CONCLUSION: Despite difficulties in implementation, intention-to-treat, per-protocol and fidelity to intervention, analyses showed an intervention coupling feedback to personalised action planning produced moderate but significant sustained improvements in hand-hygiene compliance, in wards implementing a national hand-hygiene campaign. Further implementation studies are needed to maximise the intervention's effect in different settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN65246961.

Evaluation of the national Cleanyourhands campaign to reduce Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia and Clostridium difficile infection in hospitals in England and Wales by improved hand hygiene: four year, prospective, ecological, interrupted time series study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the Cleanyourhands campaign on rates of hospital procurement of alcohol hand rub and soap, report trends in selected healthcare associated infections, and investigate the association between infections and procurement. DESIGN: Prospective, ecological, interrupted time series study from 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2008. SETTING: 187 acute trusts in England and Wales. INTERVENTION: Installation of bedside alcohol hand rub, materials promoting hand hygiene and institutional engagement, regular hand hygiene audits, rolled out nationally from 1 December 2004. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quarterly (that is, every three months) rates for each trust of hospital procurement of alcohol hand rub and liquid soap; Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (meticillin resistant (MRSA) and meticillin sensitive (MSSA)) and Clostridium difficile infection for each trust. Associations between procurement and infection rates assessed by mixed effect Poisson regression model (which also accounted for effect of bed occupancy, hospital type, and timing of other national interventions targeting these infections). RESULTS: Combined procurement of soap and alcohol hand rub tripled from 21.8 to 59.8 mL per patient bed day; procurement rose in association with each phase of the campaign. Rates fell for MRSA bacteraemia (1.88 to 0.91 cases per 10,000 bed days) and C difficile infection (16.75 to 9.49 cases). MSSA bacteraemia rates did not fall. Increased procurement of soap was independently associated with reduced C difficile infection throughout the study (adjusted incidence rate ratio for 1 mL increase per patient bed day 0.993, 95% confidence interval 0.990 to 0.996; P < 0.0001). Increased procurement of alcohol hand rub was independently associated with reduced MRSA bacteraemia, but only in the last four quarters of the study (0.990, 0.985 to 0.995; P < 0.0001). Publication of the Health Act 2006 was strongly associated with reduced MRSA bacteraemia (0.86, 0.75 to 0.98; P = 0.02) and C difficile infection (0.75, 0.67 to 0.84; P < 0.0001). Trust visits by Department of Health improvement teams were also associated with reduced MRSA bacteraemia (0.91, 0.83 to 0.99; P=0.03) and C difficile infection (0.80, 0.71 to 0.90; P=0.01), for at least two quarters after each visit. CONCLUSIONS: The Cleanyourhands campaign was associated with sustained increases in hospital procurement of alcohol rub and soap, which the results suggest has an important role in reducing rates of some healthcare associated infections. National interventions for infection control undertaken in the context of a high profile political drive can reduce selected healthcare associated infections.

Toxoplasmosis presenting as a swelling in the axillary tail of the breast and a palpable axillary lymph node mimicking malignancy: a case report.

INTRODUCTION: Lymphadenopathy is a common finding in toxoplasmosis. A breast mass due to toxoplasmosis is very rare, and only a few cases have been reported. We present a case of toxoplasmosis that presented as a swelling in the axillary tail of the breast with a palpable axillary lymph node which mimicked breast cancer. CASE PRESENTATION: A 45-year-old otherwise healthy Caucasian woman presented with a lump on the lateral aspect of her left breast. Her mother had breast cancer that was diagnosed at the age of 66 years. During an examination, we discovered that our patient had a discrete, firm lump in the axillary tail of her left breast and an enlarged, palpable lymph node in her left axilla. Her right breast and axilla were normal. The clinical diagnosis was malignancy in the left breast. Ultrasound and mammographic examinations of her breast suggested a pathological process but were not conclusive. She had targeted fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) and core biopsy of the lesions. FNAC was indeterminate (C3) but suggested a possibility of toxoplasmosis. The core biopsy was not suggestive of malignancy but showed granulomatous inflammation. She had a wide local excision of the breast lump and an axillary lymph node biopsy. Histopathology and immunohistochemical studies excluded carcinoma or lymphoma but suggested the possibility of intramammary and axillary toxoplasmic lymphadenopathy. The results of Toxoplasma gondii IgM and IgG serology tests were positive, supporting a diagnosis of toxoplasmosis. CONCLUSIONS: Toxoplasmosis rarely presents as a pseudotumor of the breast. FNAC and histology are valuable tools for a diagnosis of toxoplasmosis, and serology is an important adjunct for confirmation.

Linezolid-resistant enterococci: report of the first isolates in the United Kingdom.

Linezolid, the first oxazolidinone antibacterial agent to be developed for clinical use, was licensed in the UK in early 2001. We report the first three examples of resistant enterococci (two isolates of Enterococcus faecium and one Enterococcus faecalis) isolated in the UK, which were obtained from patients who had received linezolid. The linezolid MICs for the resistant isolates were 64 mg/L. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) analysis of the linezolid-susceptible and -resistant isolates from two of the patients, combined with sequence analysis of rRNA, indicated that resistance developed in previously susceptible strains, most probably via a point mutation in the 23S rRNA.

Helicobacter pylori susceptibility testing by disc diffusion.

The bacterium Helicobacter pylori is found in c. 40% of the population and is responsible for the development of duodenal disease. Triple treatment with a proton-pump inhibitor or bismuth salt plus two antibiotics is now commonplace in all patients diagnosed. As antibiotic resistance reduces treatment efficacy, it is time to consider routine susceptibility testing to guide individual patient treatment and surveillance of antibiotic resistance. There are no published nationally agreed standards for disc diffusion testing of H. pylori. After reviewing the literature, we recommend the following method for disc diffusion tests. A suspension of cultures < or = 4 days old equivalent to McFarland Standard no. 4 (10(8) cfu/mL) should be used on Mueller-Hinton or Columbia agar base with 5-10% blood, using a metronidazole disc strength of 5 Ig and a clarithromycin disc strength of 2 microg. Anaerobic pre-incubation of plates is unnecessary. A H. pylori control susceptible to metronidazole (e.g. NCTC 12822) should be used. Zone sizes with the Mueller-Hinton agar base for metronidazole testing are <16 mm resistant, 16-21 mm intermediate and >21 mm susceptible. We suggest that isolates in the intermediate zone should be re-tested by Etest. Zone sizes with the Columbia agar base for metronidazole testing are <10 mm resistant and > or = 10 mm susceptible. Co-infection with two strains, which may be a mixture of isolates susceptible and resistant to metronidazole leading to conflicting susceptibility results, occurs in 5-10% of patients. Zone sizes with Mueller-Hinton agar and Columbia blood agar for clarithromycin testing are resistant no zone and susceptible any zone.