[Invasive group A streptococcal infections in the Netherlands]. / Invasieve groep A-streptokokkeninfecties in Nederland.

Group A streptococcal (GAS) infections are caused by the Gram-positive bacterium Streptococcus pyogenes. Infection can occur via droplet infection from the throat and via (in)direct contact with infected people. GAS can cause a wide variety of diseases, ranging from superficial skin infections, pharyngitis and scarlet fever, to serious invasive diseases such as puerperal sepsis, pneumonia, necrotising soft tissue infections (NSTI) (also known as necrotising fasciitis/myositis), meningitis and streptococcal toxic shock syndrome (STSS). In invasive GAS infections, the bacteria has penetrated into a sterile body compartment (such as the bloodstream, deep tissues, or the central nervous system). Invasive GAS infections are rare but serious, with high morbidity and mortality. Since March 2022, the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) reported a national increase in notifiable invasive GAS infections (NSTI, STSS and puerperal fever). Particularly NSTI has increased compared to the years before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Remarkably, the proportion of children aged 0 to 5 years with invasive GAS-infections is higher in 2022 than in the previous years (12% compared to 4%). While seasonal peaks occur, the current elevation exceeds this variation. To promote early recognition and diagnosis of invasive GAS infections different clinical cases are presented.

Short report: The potential of PCR on skin flakes from bed linens for diagnosis of scabies in an outbreak.

BACKGROUND: Scabies outbreaks are common in nursing homes in the Netherlands. In October 2018, a local public health service (PHS) in The Hague was notified of a new scabies outbreak in a nursing home in that region. The PHS initiated an outbreak investigation. Cases were defined as: possible (reported symptoms), probable (scabies-like lesions) and confirmed (PCR or microscopy in skin flakes). Head-to-toe examinations were performed of all residents and those staff members who reported symptoms suggestive of scabies. Skin scrapings of lesions were tested either with microscopy or by PCR. Experimentally for case finding, skin flakes from bed linens of residents who reported symptoms of itchiness but did not have primary lesions were sent for PCR testing. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: All residents (41) and 37/44 staff were included in this outbreak investigation. We identified 30 possible, four probable and six confirmed cases. The overall attack rate for probable/confirmed cases was 10/78 (13%). Of the six confirmed cases, two were confirmed by PCR, three by microscopy, and one showed positive findings with both techniques. Two out of the three bed-linen specimens were PCR-positive. CONCLUSIONS: In this outbreak of scabies in a nursing home, PCR was used on skin flakes from bed linens, which led to the detection of two additional cases. This illustrates the potential of PCR during the investigation of scabies outbreaks.

Interventions for unexplained infertility: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical management for unexplained infertility includes expectant management as well as active treatments, including ovarian stimulation (OS), intrauterine insemination (IUI), OS-IUI,  and in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).Existing systematic reviews have conducted head-to-head comparisons of these interventions using pairwise meta-analyses. As this approach allows only the comparison of two interventions at a time and is contingent on the availability of appropriate primary evaluative studies, it is difficult to identify the best intervention in terms of effectiveness and safety. Network meta-analysis compares multiple treatments simultaneously by using both direct and indirect evidence and provides a hierarchy of these treatments, which can potentially better inform clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different approaches to clinical management (expectant management, OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF/ICSI) in couples with unexplained infertility. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We searched electronic databases including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL, up to 6 September 2018, as well as reference lists, to identify eligible studies. We also searched trial registers for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing at least two of the following clinical management options in couples with unexplained infertility: expectant management, OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF (or combined with ICSI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts identified by the search strategy. We obtained the full texts of potentially eligible studies to assess eligibility and extracted data using standardised forms. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of cumulative live birth or ongoing pregnancy, and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. We performed a network meta-analysis within a random-effects multi-variate meta-analysis model. We presented treatment effects by using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For the network meta-analysis, we used Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA) to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 RCTs (4349 couples) in this systematic review and 24 RCTs (3983 couples) in a subsequent network meta-analysis. Overall, the certainty of evidence was low to moderate: the main limitations were imprecision and/or heterogeneity.Ten RCTs including 2725 couples reported on live birth. Evidence of differences between OS, IUI, OS-IUI, or IVF/ICSI versus expectant management was insufficient (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.98; low-certainty evidence; OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.43; low-certainty evidence; OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.94; low-certainty evidence; OR 1.88, 95 CI 0.81 to 4.38; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following expectant management is assumed to be 17%, the chance following OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF would be 9% to 28%, 11% to 33%, 15% to 37%, and 14% to 47%, respectively. When only including couples with poor prognosis of natural conception (3 trials, 725 couples) we found OS-IUI and IVF/ICSI increased live birth rate compared to expectant management (OR 4.48, 95% CI 2.00 to 10.1; moderate-certainty evidence; OR 4.99, 95 CI 2.07 to 12.04; moderate-certainty evidence), while there was insufficient evidence of a difference between IVF/ICSI and OS-IUI (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.60; low-certainty evidence).Eleven RCTs including 2564 couples reported on multiple pregnancy. Compared to expectant management/IUI, OS (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 9.41; low-certainty evidence) and OS-IUI (OR 3.34 95% CI 1.09 to 10.29; moderate-certainty evidence) increased the odds of multiple pregnancy, and there was insufficient evidence of a difference between IVF/ICSI and expectant management/IUI (OR 2.66, 95% CI 0.68 to 10.43; low-certainty evidence). These findings suggest that if the chance of multiple pregnancy following expectant management or IUI is assumed to be 0.6%, the chance following OS, OS-IUI, and IVF/ICSI would be 0.6% to 5.0%, 0.6% to 5.4%, and 0.4% to 5.5%, respectively.Trial results show insufficient evidence of a difference between IVF/ICSI and OS-IUI for moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (OR 2.50, 95% CI 0.92 to 6.76; 5 studies; 985 women; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of moderate/severe OHSS following OS-IUI is assumed to be 1.1%, the chance following IVF/ICSI would be between 1.0% and 7.2%. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence of differences in live birth between expectant management and the other four interventions (OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF/ICSI). Compared to expectant management/IUI, OS may increase the odds of multiple pregnancy, and OS-IUI probably increases the odds of multiple pregnancy. Evidence on differences between IVF/ICSI and expectant management for multiple pregnancy is insufficient, as is evidence of a difference for moderate or severe OHSS between IVF/ICSI and OS-IUI.

Unexplained infertility: Is it over-diagnosed and over-treated?

Unexplained infertility is defined as the absence of conception despite 12 months of unprotected intercourse, not explained by anovulation, poor sperm quality, tubal pathology or any known cause of infertility. The two most applied treatments for unexplained infertility are intra-uterine insemination and in vitro fertilisation. As these treatments do not target a specific mechanism but rather increase the probability of conception as compared to natural conception chances, they should be weighed against the prognosis of natural conception. The use of prognostic models could facilitate in identifying who benefits from treatment and who can delay treatment for 6 months, thus aiming for natural conception. This is important, as treatments can have side effects for the woman and her offspring, and their cost may jeopardise access to care.

Dropout rates in couples undergoing in vitro fertilization and intrauterine insemination.

OBJECTIVE: To compare dropout rates in couples undergoing conventional in vitro fertilization with single embryo transfer (IVF-SET), in vitro fertilization in a modified natural cycle (IVF-MNC) or intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS). STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a multicentre randomized controlled trial between January 2009 and February 2012. 602 couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility, allocated to IVF-SET (N=201), IVF-MNC (N=194) and IUI-OS (N=207). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dropouts, defined as couples who discontinued their allocated three cycles of IVF-SET, six cycles of IVF-MNC or IUI-OS, without having achieved a pregnancy. We classified dropouts as "following medical advice" or "patient initiated". RESULT(S): Thirty couples (15%) allocated to IVF-SET dropped out and 45 couples (23%) allocated to IVF-MNC, compared to 26 couples (13%) allocated to IUI-OS; relative risk (RR) 1.2 (95%CI; 0.73-1.9) for IVF-SET and 1.9 (95%CI; 1.2-2.9) for IVF-MNC, both compared to IUI-OS. Nine couples (4.5%) allocated to IVF-SET, 14 (7.2%) allocated to IVF-MNC and 14 (6.8%) allocated to IUI-OS dropped out following medical advice; RR of 0.51 (95%CI; 0.21-1.2) for IVF-SET and 0.84 (95%CI; 0.39-1.80) for IVF-MNC, both versus IUI-OS. Twenty-one couples (10%) allocated to IVF-SET were patient initiated dropouts, as were 31 (16%) allocated to IVF-MNC and 12 (5.8%) allocated to IUI-COS; RR 1.8 (95%CI; 0.91-3.6) for IVF-SET and 2.8 (95%CI; 1.5-5.2) for IVF-MNC both versus IUI-OS. CONCLUSION(S): IVF-SET and IUI-OS result in comparable drop-out rates, while drop-out rates after IVF-MNC are almost twice as high, mainly driven by patient preferences.

Can we identify subfertile couples that benefit from immediate in vitro fertilisation over intrauterine insemination?

OBJECTIVE: Available treatment options in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility are intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH) and in vitro fertilisation (IVF). IUI-COH is a less invasive treatment that is often used before proceeding with IVF. Yet as the IVF success rates might be higher and time to pregnancy shorter, expedited access to IVF might be the preferred option. To identify couples that could benefit from immediate IVF over IUI-COH, we assessed whether female age, duration of subfertility or prewash total motile count (TMC) can help to identify couples that would benefit from IVF over IUI-COH. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a secondary data-analysis of a multicentre open-label randomised controlled trial in three university and six teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. 116 couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility were randomised to one cycle of IVF with elective single embryo transfer with subsequent frozen-thawed embryo transfers or 3 cycles of IUI-COH. The primary outcome was an ongoing pregnancy within 4 months after randomisation. Our aim was to explore a possible differential effect of specific markers on the effectiveness of treatment. We chose to therefore assess female age, duration of subfertility and TMC as these have previously been identified as predictors. For each prognostic factor we developed a logistic regression model to predict ongoing pregnancy with that prognostic factor, treatment and a factor-by-treatment interaction term. RESULTS: Female age and duration of subfertility were not associated with better ongoing pregnancy chances after IVF compared to IUI-COH (p-value for interaction=0.65 and 0.26, respectively). Only when TMC was lower than 110 (×10(6)spermatozoa/mL), the probability of ongoing pregnancy was higher in women allocated to IVF (p-value for interaction=0.06). CONCLUSION: In couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility, a low TMC might lead to higher pregnancy rates after IVF than after IUI-COH. This finding needs to be validated in a larger trial before it can be applied in clinical practice.

The potential risks and impact of the start of the 2015-2016 influenza season in the WHO European Region: a rapid risk assessment.

BACKGROUND: Countries in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region are reporting more severe influenza activity in the 2015-2016 season compared to previous seasons. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a rapid risk assessment to provide interim information on the severity of the current influenza season METHODS: Using the WHO manual for rapid risk assessment of acute public health events and surveillance data available from Flu News Europe, an assessment of the current influenza season from 28 September 2015 (week 40/2015) up to 31 January 2016 (week 04/2016) was made compared with the 4 previous seasons. RESULTS: The current influenza season started around week 51/2015 with higher influenza activity reported in eastern Europe compared to Western Europe. There is a strong predominance of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 compared to previous seasons, but the virus is antigenically similar to the strain included in the seasonal influenza vaccine. Compared to the 2014/2015 season, there was a rapid increase in the number of severe cases in eastern European countries with the majority of such cases occurring among adults aged <65 years. CONCLUSIONS: The current influenza season is characterised by an early start in eastern European countries, with indications of a more severe season. Currently circulating influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses are similar antigenically to those included in the seasonal influenza vaccine and the vaccine is expected to be effective. Authorities should provide information to the public and health providers about the current influenza season, recommendations for treatment of severe disease and effective public health measures to prevent influenza transmission. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.