METHODS: In total, 7541 organisms causing documented infections were consecutively collected in 66 centres in 33 countries, excluding the USA. Susceptibility testing was performed by broth microdilution. Isolates displaying linezolid MIC results of ≥4 mg/L were molecularly characterized.
RESULTS: Linezolid inhibited all Staphylococcus aureus at ≤2 mg/L, with MIC50 results of 1 mg/L, regardless of methicillin resistance. A similar linezolid MIC50 result (i.e. 0.5 mg/L) was observed against CoNS, with the vast majority of isolates (99.4%) also inhibited at ≤2 mg/L. Six CoNS that exhibited elevated linezolid MIC values were found to contain alterations in the 23S rRNA and/or L3 ribosomal protein. Linezolid exhibited consistent modal MIC and MIC50 results (1 mg/L) against enterococci, regardless of species or vancomycin resistance. Three Enterococcus faecalis from Galway and Dublin (Ireland) and Kelantan (Malaysia) showed MIC results of 4 to 8 mg/L and carried optrA. All Streptococcus pneumoniae, viridans-group streptococci and β-haemolytic streptococci were inhibited by linezolid at ≤2, ≤2 and ≤1 mg/L, respectively, with equivalent MIC90 results (1 mg/L for all groups).
CONCLUSIONS: These results document the continued long-term and stable in vitro potency of linezolid and reveal a limited number of isolates with decreased susceptibility to linezolid (i.e. MIC ≥4 mg/L). The latter isolates primarily showed mutations in the 23S rRNA gene and/or L3 protein, but cfr was not detected. Moreover, this study shows that isolates carrying the newly described ABC transporter optrA are not restricted to China.
METHODS: Using the keyword 'melioidosis' in the ProMED search engine, all of the information from the reports and collected data was reviewed using a structured form, including the year, country, gender, occupation, number of infected individuals, and number of fatal cases.
RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-four entries reported between January 1995 and October 2014 were identified. A total of 4630 cases were reported, with death reported in 505 cases, suggesting a misleadingly low overall case fatality rate (CFR) of 11%. Of 20 cases for which the gender was reported, 12 (60%) were male. Most of the cases were reported from Australia, Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam, and Malaysia, with sporadic reports from other countries.
CONCLUSIONS: Internet-based reporting systems such as ProMED are useful to gather information and synthesize knowledge on emerging infections. Although certain areas need to be improved, ProMED provided good information about melioidosis.
METHODS: Data from existing country surveillance systems on diarrhea, acute watery diarrhea, suspected cholera and/or confirmed cholera in nine selected Asian countries (Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam) from 2011 to 2015 (or 2016, when available) were collated. We reviewed annual cholera reports from WHO and searched PubMed and/or ProMED to complement data, where information is not completely available.
RESULTS: From 2011 to 2016, confirmed cholera cases were identified in at least one year of the 5- or 6-year period in the countries included. Surveillance for cholera exists in most countries, but cases are not always reported. India reported the most number of confirmed cases with a mean of 5964 cases annually. The mean number of cases per year in the Philippines, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Nepal and Thailand were 760, 592, 285, 264, 148 and 88, respectively. Cambodia and Vietnam reported 51 and 3 confirmed cholera cases in 2011, with no subsequent reported cases.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: We present consolidated results of available surveillance in nine Asian countries and supplemented these with publication searches. There is paucity of readily accessible data on cholera in these countries. We highlight the continuing existence of the disease even in areas with improved sanitation and access to safe drinking water. Continued vigilance and improved surveillance in countries should be strongly encouraged.
METHODS: Two real-time PCR methods currently used in Sabah for confirmatory malaria diagnosis and surveillance reporting were evaluated: the QuantiFast™ Multiplex PCR kit (Qiagen, Germany) targeting the P. knowlesi 18S SSU rRNA; and the abTES™ Malaria 5 qPCR II kit (AITbiotech, Singapore), with an undisclosed P. knowlesi gene target. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using 52 P. knowlesi, 25 Plasmodium vivax, 21 Plasmodium falciparum, and 10 Plasmodium malariae clinical isolates, and 26 malaria negative controls, and compared against a validated reference nested PCR assay. The limit of detection (LOD) for each PCR method and Plasmodium species was also evaluated.
RESULTS: The sensitivity of the QuantiFast™ and abTES™ assays for detecting P. knowlesi was comparable at 98.1% (95% CI 89.7-100) and 100% (95% CI 93.2-100), respectively. Specificity of the QuantiFast™ and abTES™ for P. knowlesi was high at 98.8% (95% CI 93.4-100) for both assays. The QuantiFast™ assay demonstrated falsely-positive mixed Plasmodium species at low parasitaemias in both the primary and LOD analysis. Diagnostic accuracy of both PCR kits for detecting P. vivax, P. falciparum, and P. malariae was comparable to P. knowlesi. The abTES™ assay demonstrated a lower LOD for P. knowlesi of ≤ 0.125 parasites/µL compared to QuantiFast™ with a LOD of 20 parasites/µL. Hospital microscopy demonstrated a sensitivity of 78.8% (95% CI 65.3-88.9) and specificity of 80.4% (95% CI 67.6-89.8) compared to reference PCR for detecting P. knowlesi.
CONCLUSION: The QuantiFast™ and abTES™ commercial PCR kits performed well for the accurate detection of P. knowlesi infections. Although the QuantiFast™ kit is cheaper, the abTES™ kit demonstrated a lower LOD, supporting its use as a second-line referral-laboratory diagnostic tool in Sabah, Malaysia.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A COVID-19 healthcare worker surveillance programme was implemented in University Malaya Medical Centre. The programme involved four teams: contact tracing, risk assessment, surveillance and outbreak investigation. Daily symptom surveillance was conducted over fourteen days for healthcare workers who were assessed to have low-, moderate- and high-risk of contracting COVID-19. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted for data collected over 24 weeks, from the 6th of March 2020 to the 20th of August 2020.
RESULTS: A total of 1,174 healthcare workers were placed under surveillance. The majority were females (71.6%), aged between 25 and 34 years old (64.7%), were nursing staff (46.9%) and had no comorbidities (88.8%). A total of 70.9% were categorised as low-risk, 25.7% were moderate-risk, and 3.4% were at high risk of contracting COVID-19. One-third (35.2%) were symptomatic, with the sore throat (23.6%), cough (19.8%) and fever (5.0%) being the most commonly reported symptoms. A total of 17 healthcare workers tested positive for COVID-19, with a prevalence of 0.3% among all the healthcare workers. Risk category and presence of symptoms were associated with a positive COVID-19 test (p<0.001). Fever (p<0.001), cough (p = 0.003), shortness of breath (p = 0.015) and sore throat (p = 0.002) were associated with case positivity.
CONCLUSION: COVID-19 symptom surveillance and risk-based assessment have merits to be included in a healthcare worker surveillance programme to safeguard the health of the workforce.