Nitrite-negative results in urinary tract infection by Enterobacterales: does the nitrite dipstick test have low sensitivity?

Urinary tract infection (UTI) is one of the most common bacterial infections among humans. Urine culture is the gold standard diagnostic method for UTI; however, the dipstick test for nitrite is a widely used method signalling the presence of urinary nitrate-reducing bacteria. Unlike the gold standard, the dipstick test is easy to perform, while it is also less time-consuming and less expensive, and produces a result in a few minutes. This study investigates the sensitivity of the dipstick test for nitrite compared with the Griess test in urine samples from UTI caused by Enterobacterales species. We used the Griess test, which is the gold standard in nitrite measurement, to determine the sensitivity of the nitrite dipstick test. Semiquantitative urine culture was performed using standard procedures, and Enterobacterales identification was performed by manual conventional biochemical tests. In the first sample selection, 3 % (8/267) of urine samples suspected of UTI, analysed from March to April 2016, were nitrite-negative by dipstick test but positive for Enterobacterales in the urine culture. In the second sample selection, 5 % (2/44) of urine samples from October to December 2022 were also nitrite-negative but showed urine Enterobacterales isolation. All nitrite-negative dipstick results were consistent with the Griess test. Escherichia coli was the most prevalent bacterium, followed by Klebsiella pneumoniae, independent of sample selection. The dipstick test is a safe alternative for investigating nitrite in urine samples. We believe that the cause of nitrite-negative results is a lack of dietary nitrate, dilution of urine and exogenous interference (e.g. ascorbic acid). These findings support the idea that standard urine culture is necessary to rule out UTI.

Long-term impacts of MenC vaccination campaign in the Salvador, Brazil metropolitan region: A comparison of pre- and post-vaccine periods.

The Meningococcal Serogroup C Conjugate Vaccine (MenC) was introduced into the Brazilian Immunization Program in 2010. However, in Salvador, the fourth largest capital in Brazil, an extended catch-up campaign was conducted earlier in that year, which focused on adolescents and young adults aged 10-24 years. To evaluate the long-term impact of MenC vaccination, we analyzed hospital-based surveillance data on cases of meningococcal disease in the Salvador metropolitan region during the pre-vaccine (2005-2009) and post-vaccine (2011-2016) campaign periods. Six years after the introduction of the MenC vaccine, the mean incidence rate decreased from 3.20 to 0.93 cases per 100,000 individuals (71% reduction, 95% CI [58.7-83.3]) in children <4 years. Reductions of 25.6% and 21.1% were also observed for the age groups of 5-9 and 10-14 years, respectively. On the other hand, incidence increased in the 15-24-year age group from 0.72 to 1.11, and from 0.31 to 0.60 in individuals aged >25 years (p < 0.05). At the end of the study period, serogroup C was the most prevalent (65.7%), followed by serogroups B (9.8%), W (2.3%), Y (1.6%) and A (1.0%); serogrouping was not possible in 19.6% of the cases, or adequate material was not available for serogroup identification. The use of real-time PCR from 2010 onwards increased detection rates of meningococcal meningitis by 29.6%. The long-term impact of the MenC vaccination campaign was associated with a significant reduction in MenC disease in children aged 0-4 years, yet no effect was observed in adolescents and adults, as evidenced by increasing trends in infection rates. In addition, the emergence of meningococcal serogroup A was identified, which should serve as an alert to public health officials and deserves further investigation.