Search

Objectives: Antibiotic susceptibility of Legionella pneumophila is poorly understood, with treatment of Legionnaires' disease often based on empirical choice. The aim of this study was to determine the antibiotic susceptibility of L. pneumophila strains.Methods: Antibiotic susceptibility of 92 L. pneumophila strains isolated in England and Wales between 2007 and 2017 was determined using a microbroth dilution methodology for each agent tested. MICs and MBCs were determined and compared with published intracellular concentrations of each agent tested.Results: The MIC range of erythromycin was 0.06-1 mg/L, the MIC range of rifampicin was 0.0001 mg/L, the MIC range of ciprofloxacin was 0.004-0.25 mg/L and the MIC range of levofloxacin and moxifloxacin was 0.03-0.25 mg/L. The MBC range of erythromycin was 1-32 mg/L, but the MBC range of ciprofloxacin was the same as the MIC range. For levofloxacin and moxifloxacin the MBC range was elevated by one dilution and two dilutions, respectively. Typically, intracellular bronchial secretion concentrations of erythromycin might be expected to reach a suitable level to exceed the MIC range; however, 91 of 92 (98.9%) isolates had an MBC below the expected intracellular concentrations, which indicated erythromycin may have variable efficacy. MIC and MBC values of ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin and moxifloxacin were below achievable intracellular levels within bronchial secretions. Comparison of the MIC/MBC correlation showed very little clustering for erythromycin, but strong clustering for levofloxacin and to a lesser extent ciprofloxacin.Conclusions: Use of the MIC/MBC linkage analysis seems an appropriate way forward for antimicrobial susceptibility testing and supports current guidance recommending levofloxacin for the treatment of Legionnaires' disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Real-time PCR was employed to detect a conserved region of the P1 cytadhesin gene of Mycoplasma pneumoniae in combined nose and throat swabs collected from patients attending GP surgeries during 2005-2009 with symptoms of respiratory tract infection (RTI). Samples were collected as part of an annual winter epidemiological and virological linked study in England and Wales. A total of 3,987 samples were tested, 65 (1.7%, 95%CI 1.3-2.1) had detectable M. pneumoniae DNA. Positive patients were detected of both gender, aged from 9 months to 78 years, who had clinical signs of upper RTI, fever and/or myalgia, an influenza-like illness to lower RTI. Mixed infections were identified in four cases, two with influenza A H1, one with H3 and one with influenza B. Children aged 5-14 years were more likely to have detectable M. pneumoniae in samples than all other age groups (Fishers p = 0.03), attributed to the 2005-2006 season in which 6.0% (12/200, 95%CI 3.4-10.3) of 5-14 year olds had detectable M. pneumoniae in comparison to 2.2% in 2006-2007 (3/141 95%CI 0.5-6.4), 2.2% in 2007-2008 (2/89 95%CI 0.1-8.3) and 0% in 2008-2009 (0/151 95%CI 0-2.9). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An outbreak of an uncommon emm type (emm66.0) of group A streptococcus (GAS) occurred in England and Wales between January 2016 and May 2017, involving 52 individuals who were homeless or injecting drugs users. In order to investigate the outbreak, epidemiological and network analysis were performed; moreover 55 isolates (32 outbreak, 5 non-outbreak and 13 historical - 2005-2015) were tested with whole genome sequencing (WGS), antimicrobial resistance determination, Bayesian evolutionary analysis (BEAST). Forty one isolates (including 32 outbreak strains) belonged to a single emm66.0 clade (average SNP difference 6.6; range 0-16 SNPs) separate from the other isolates and two strains previously considered part of the outbreak (SNP average: 5876; range 93-8417 SNPs). Antibiotic resistance was not detected in the outbreak clone. No common source of infection was identified. WGS confirmed expansion of an emm66.0 clone in a hard-to-reach population and enabled refinement of the initial case definition., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: After decades of decreasing scarlet fever incidence, a dramatic increase was seen in England beginning in 2014. Investigations were launched to assess clinical and epidemiological patterns and identify potential causes., Methods: In this population-based surveillance study, we analysed statutory scarlet fever notifications held by Public Health England from 1911 to 2016 in England and Wales to identify periods of sudden escalation of scarlet fever. Characteristics of cases and outbreaks in England including frequency of complications and hospital admissions were assessed and compared with the pre-upsurge period. Isolates from throat swabs were obtained and were emm typed., Findings: Data were retrieved for our analysis between Jan 1, 1911, and Dec 31, 2016. Population rates of scarlet fever increased by a factor of three between 2013 and 2014 from 8·2 to 27·2 per 100 000 (rate ratio [RR] 3·34, 95% CI 3·23-3·45; p<0·0001); further increases were observed in 2015 (30·6 per 100 000) and in 2016 (33·2 per 100 000), which reached the highest number of cases (19 206) and rate of scarlet fever notifcation since 1967. The median age of cases in 2014 was 4 years (IQR 3-7) with an incidence of 186 per 100 000 children under age 10 years. All parts of England saw an increase in incidence, with 620 outbreaks reported in 2016. Hospital admissions for scarlet fever increased by 97% between 2013 and 2016; one in 40 cases were admitted for management of the condition or potential complications. Analysis of strains (n=303) identified a diversity of emm types with emm3 (43%), emm12 (15%), emm1 (11%), and emm4 (9%) being the most common. Longitudinal analysis identified 4-yearly periodicity in population incidence of scarlet fever but of consistently lower magnitude than the current escalation., Interpretation: England is experiencing an unprecedented rise in scarlet fever with the highest incidence for nearly 50 years. Reasons for this escalation are unclear and identifying these remains a public health priority., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)