55 research outputs found
Screening to select patients carrying extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae for isolation in Flemish intensive care units: a Swiss cheese strategy?
No full textItem does not contain fulltex
Reusable endoscopic water bottles: is daily renewal really necessary?
No full textMost guidelines recommend replacing endoscopic water bottles at least daily with newly sterilized or high-level disinfected water bottles. All these recommendations, however, are mainly based on expert opinions and outbreak reports. We tested the water quality from water bottles used in a gastrointestinal endoscopy unit where water bottles were used up to five days. The results show that the reuse of water bottles for more than one day is inadequate. The expert opinion in favour of changing water bottles daily rather than after five days is a sensible and safer option. (C) 2018 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved
Follow-up testing of borderline SARS-CoV-2 patients by rRT-PCR allows early diagnosis of COVID-19
No full textDetection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal samples using the real-time reverse transcription polymer-ase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) is the gold standard for diagnosing COVID-19. Determination of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by rRT-PCR sometimes results in an inconclusive test result due to a high cycle threshold-value.We retrospectively analyzed 30,851 SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR test results. Borderline positivity was considered as the presence of <= 25 viral copies per milliliter, while no amplification was considered as a negative test result. Of all test results, 204 were answered as borderline, of which 107 were accompanied by a follow-up test within 96 hours. Of the 107 follow-up samples, 10 (9.35%) were found positive for SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 symptoms were not predictive for testing positive in the follow-up test.The positive SARS-CoV-2 samples in the follow-up group represented 0.92% of all positive test results, highlighting the need for retesting and increased hygienic measures for borderline SARS-CoV-2 patients [NCT04636294].(c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.We thank all medical laboratory technologists for their commitment during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agencyin the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector
Multicenter interlaboratory study of routine systems for the susceptibility testing of temocillin using a challenge panel of multidrug-resistant strains
No full textAccurate susceptibility result of temocillin (TMO) is important for treating infections caused by multidrug-resistant Enterobacterales. This multicenter study aimed to investigate the performance of routine temocillin testing assays against Enterobacterales challenging strains. Forty-seven selected clinical isolates were blindly analyzed by 12 Belgian laboratories using VITEK® 2 (n = 5) and BD Phoenix™ (n = 3) automated systems, ETEST® gradient strip (n = 3), and disk (3 brands) diffusion method (DD; n = 6) for temocillin susceptibility using standardized methodology. Results were interpreted using EUCAST 2023 criteria and compared to the broth microdilution (BMD; Sensititre™ panel) method used as gold standard. Methods' reproducibility was assessed by testing 3 reference strains in triplicate. A total of 702 organism-drug results were obtained against 33 TMO-susceptible and 14 TMO-resistant isolates. Excluding Proteae species (P. mirabilis and M. morganii), the essential agreement rates were excellent (91.5-100%) for all MIC-based methods. The highest category agreement was achieved by ETEST® (97.5%) followed by VITEK® 2 (93.2%), disk diffusion (91.6%), and BD Phoenix™ (88.5%). BD Phoenix™ and paper disk diffusion overcalled resistance (11.5% and 6.8% of major discrepancies, respectively), while ROSCO tablets diffusion and VITEK® 2 generated higher very major discrepancies (7.1% and 4.2% respectively). Inter-assay reproducibility was unsatisfactory using recommended E. coli ATCC 25922 strain but was excellent with E. coli ATCC 35218 and K. pneumoniae ATCC 700603 strains. This interlaboratory study suggests that routine testing methods provide accurate and reproducible TMO categorization results except for Proteae species.Funding
The study was funded by a specifc budget allocated by the National Antibiogram Committee through Federal Public Service. The Belgian National Reference Center is supported in part by the Belgian Ministry of Social Afairs through a fund within the national health insurance system (INAMI-RIZIV).
Acknowledgements
We thank the staf of the laboratories who participated this study and the members of the Belgian National Antimicrobial susceptibility testing Committee for their scientifc and logistic support: Jerina Boelens, Laetitia Brassinne, Lucy Catteau
[Sciensano], Pieter-Jan Ceyssens, Julie Descy, Stefanie Desmet, Sarah Gils, Katrien Latour [Sciensano], Bénédicte Lissoir, Koen Magerman, Veerle Matheeussen, Cécile Meex, Hector Rodriguez-Villalobos, Sarah Vandamme [Universitaire Ziekenhuis Antwerpen], Anne-Marie Van den Abeele, Aline Vilain [Sciensano], Kris Vernelen, Ingrid Wybo [Universitaire Ziekenhuis Brussels], Harun Yaras [Belgian Antibiotic Policy Coordination Commission], Nicolas Yin [Laboratoire Hospitalier Universitaire de Bruxelles]
Evaluation of a comprehensive pre-procedural screening protocol for COVID-19 in times of a high SARS CoV-2 prevalence: a prospective cross-sectional study
No full textBACKGROUND: To minimise the risk of COVID-19 transmission, an ambulant screening protocol for COVID-19 in patients before admission to the hospital was implemented, combining the SARS CoV-2 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on a nasopharyngeal swab, a chest computed tomography (CT) and assessment of clinical symptoms. The aim of this study was to evaluatethe diagnostic yield and the proportionality of this pre-procedural screeningprotocol. METHODS: In this mono-centre, prospective, cross-sectional study, all patients admitted to the hospital between 22nd April 2020 until 14th May 2020 for semi-urgent surgery, haematological or oncological treatment, or electrophysiological investigationunderwent a COVID-19 screening 2 days before their procedure. At a 2-week follow-up, the presence of clinical symptoms was evaluated by telephone as a post-hoc evaluation of the screening approach.Combined positive RT-PCR assay and/or positive chest CT was used as gold standard. Post-procedural outcomes of all patients diagnosed positive for COVID-19 were assessed. RESULTS: In total,528 patients were included of which 20 (3.8%) were diagnosed as COVID-19 positive and 508 (96.2%) as COVID-19 negative. 11 (55.0%) of COVID-19 positive patients had only a positive RT-PCR assay, 3 (15.0%) had only a positive chest CT and 6 (30%) had both a positive RT-PCR assay and chest CT. 10 out of 20 (50.0%) COVID-19 positive patients reported no single clinical symptom at the screening. At 2 week follow-up, 50% of these patients were still asymptomatic. 37.5% of all COVID-19 negative patients were symptomatic at screening. In the COVID-19 negative group without symptoms at screening, 78 (29.3%) patients developed clinical symptoms at a 2-week follow-up. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that routine chest CT and assessment of self-reported symptoms have limited value in the preprocedural COVID-19 screening due to low sensitivity and/or specificity.status: Publishe
Q fever across the Dutch border in Limburg province, Belgium.
No full textItem does not contain fulltex
Systematic Molecular Influenza A/B Screening Upon Hospital Admission in Belgium, January-April 2022: Positivity Ratios and Viral Loads According to Symptomatology, Age, and Vaccination Status
No full textThree hospitals implemented molecular point-of-care tests (POCTs) to screen patients for SARS-CoV-2 infection upon admission during the 2021/2022 influenza season, which in Belgium lasted from January to April 2022. The samples were simultaneously tested for influenza A/B. Influenza positivity at admission was examined in relation to patient characteristics and symptomatology. Influenza POCTs were performed on all patients requiring urgent hospitalization, regardless of the admission reason. A total of 9327 patients were included in the study, of which 411 (4.4%) tested positive for influenza A/B. Asymptomatic infection and mild illness accounted for respectively 11.2% (95% CI: 8.5%-14.6%), and 43.3% (95% CI: 38.6%-48.1%) of the cases. A total of 66% (95% CI: 60%-72%) of all patients in these symptom categories (asymptomatic and mild illness) showed a high viral load (cycle threshold [Ct] < 24). Only in 30 (7.3%, 95% CI: 5.2%-10.2%) of all cases and in two (4.4%, 95% CI: 1.2%-14.5%) of the asymptomatic cases, the symptomatology worsened during hospital stay. Coinfections with both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 35 patients (8.5% of all influenza positive patients). There was no difference in symptomatology between patients with co-infections and those with an influenza mono-infection. Patients could not be reliably categorized into carriers with low versus high viral loads based on symptomatology, age, and vaccination status. More than half of the influenza-positive individuals were either asymptomatic or had mild symptoms upon admission, while often carrying high viral loads. Our results show that without screening of patients at hospital admission, a considerable number of patients with a high viral load may be incorrectly classified as being not infectious
- …
