RESULTS: The genome size of LM115 and LM41 was 2,959,041 and 2,963,111 bp, respectively. These two strains shared approximately 90% homologous genes. Comparative genomics and phylogenomic analyses revealed that LM115 and LM41 were more closely related to the reference strains F2365 and EGD-e, respectively. Our virulence profiling indicated a total of 31 virulence genes shared by both analysed strains. These shared genes included those that encode for internalins and L. monocytogenes pathogenicity island 1 (LIPI-1). Both the Malaysian L. monocytogenes strains also harboured several genes associated with stress tolerance to counter the adverse conditions. Seven antibiotic and efflux pump related genes which may confer resistance against lincomycin, erythromycin, fosfomycin, quinolone, tetracycline, and penicillin, and macrolides were identified in the genomes of both strains.
CONCLUSIONS: Whole genome sequencing and comparative genomics analyses revealed two virulent L. monocytogenes strains isolated from ready-to-eat foods in Malaysia. The identification of strains with pathogenic, persistent, and antibiotic resistant potentials from minimally processed food warrant close attention from both healthcare and food industry.
Materials and Methods: The research question was developed by using Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome and Study design framework. Literature search was performed using 3 electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost until October 2019. Two reviewers were independently involved in the selection of the articles and data extraction process. Risk of bias of the studies was independently appraised using revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0) based on 5 domains.
Results: Thirteen studies fulfilled the selection criteria. The overall risk of bias was moderate. QMix was found to have better smear layer removal ability than mixture of tetracycline isonomer, an acid and a detergent (MTAD), sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), and phytic acid. The efficacy was less effective than 7% maleic acid and 10% citric acid. No conclusive results could be drawn between QMix and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid due to conflicting results. QMix was more effective when used for 3 minutes than 1 minute.
Conclusions: QMix has better smear layer removal ability compared to MTAD, NaOCl, Tubulicid Plus, and Phytic acid. In order to remove the smear layer more effectively with QMix, it is recommended to use it for a longer duration.
OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the effects of different antibiotic regimens for treatment of scrub typhus.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 8 January 2018: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group specialized trials register; CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library (2018, Issue 1); MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT). We checked references and contacted study authors for additional data. We applied no language or date restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing antibiotic regimens in people with the diagnosis of scrub typhus based on clinical symptoms and compatible laboratory tests (excluding the Weil-Felix test).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, two review authors re-extracted all data and assessed the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes when appropriate, and elsewhere tabulated data to facilitate narrative analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs and one quasi-RCT with 548 participants; they took place in the Asia-Pacific region: Korea (three trials), Malaysia (one trial), and Thailand (three trials). Only one trial included children younger than 15 years (N = 57). We judged five trials to be at high risk of performance and detection bias owing to inadequate blinding. Trials were heterogenous in terms of dosing of interventions and outcome measures. Across trials, treatment failure rates were low.Two trials compared doxycycline to tetracycline. For treatment failure, the difference between doxycycline and tetracycline is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). Doxycycline compared to tetracycline may make little or no difference in resolution of fever within 48 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.44, 55 participants; one trial; low-certainty evidence) and in time to defervescence (116 participants; one trial; low-certainty evidence). We were unable to extract data for other outcomes.Three trials compared doxycycline versus macrolides. For most outcomes, including treatment failure, resolution of fever within 48 hours, time to defervescence, and serious adverse events, we are uncertain whether study results show a difference between doxycycline and macrolides (very low-certainty evidence). Macrolides compared to doxycycline may make little or no difference in the proportion of patients with resolution of fever within five days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.10; 185 participants; two trials; low-certainty evidence). Another trial compared azithromycin versus doxycycline or chloramphenicol in children, but we were not able to disaggregate date for the doxycycline/chloramphenicol group.One trial compared doxycycline versus rifampicin. For all outcomes, we are uncertain whether study results show a difference between doxycycline and rifampicin (very low-certainty evidence). Of note, this trial deviated from the protocol after three out of eight patients who had received doxycycline and rifampicin combination therapy experienced treatment failure.Across trials, mild gastrointestinal side effects appeared to be more common with doxycycline than with comparator drugs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Tetracycline, doxycycline, azithromycin, and rifampicin are effective treatment options for scrub typhus and have resulted in few treatment failures. Chloramphenicol also remains a treatment option, but we could not include this among direct comparisons in this review.Most available evidence is of low or very low certainty. For specific outcomes, some low-certainty evidence suggests there may be little or no difference between tetracycline, doxycycline, and azithromycin as treatment options. Given very low-certainty evidence for rifampicin and the risk of inducing resistance in undiagnosed tuberculosis, clinicians should not regard this as a first-line treatment option. Clinicians could consider rifampicin as a second-line treatment option after exclusion of active tuberculosis.Further research should consist of additional adequately powered trials of doxycycline versus azithromycin or other macrolides, trials of other candidate antibiotics including rifampicin, and trials of treatments for severe scrub typhus. Researchers should standardize diagnostic techniques and reporting of clinical outcomes to allow robust comparisons.
METHOD: Electronic search (PubMed, Scopus and Google scholar) was conducted using the following search terms: "MRSA OR Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus AND Nigeria." Reference list of selected studies was scanned to identify more studies. Studies published between 2007 and 2017 that tested at least 30 non-duplicate S. aureus isolates were selected. An independent reviewer extracted data from the studies using a standardized form.
RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in this review. Overall, prevalence of MRSA infection increased from 18.3% (2009) to 42.3% (2013). The prevalence of MRSA infection was less than 50% in all the regions during the period under review. There was a decline in the prevalence of MRSA infection in the North-East (from 12.5% to 8.0%) between 2007 and 2012, and an increase in the South-West (from 20.2% to 47.4%) between 2006 and 2010. Wound, blood and urine specimens had the highest proportion of MRSA isolates. Non-susceptibility of MRSA strains to cotrimoxazole and tetracycline was greater than 85%.
CONCLUSION: Prevalence of MRSA infection in Nigeria is rising, albeit regional variations. Non-susceptibility to commonly prescribed, orally available and inexpensive antibiotics was high. Antimicrobial resistance surveillance system, infection control, and antimicrobial stewardship interventions are recommended.