Guideline for Urine Culture and Biochemical Identification of Bacterial Urinary Pathogens in Low-Resource Settings.

Medical diagnosis in low-resource settings is confronted by the lack of suitable guidelines, protocols and checklists. Online-accessible procedural documents are difficult to find, might be mistranslated or interpreted and usually do not address the needs of developing countries. Urinalysis, one of the most frequently performed diagnostic examinations worldwide, involves a series of tests aiming to detect particular disorders, such as urinary tract infections, kidney disease and diabetes. In this guideline, we present an alternative approach for clinical laboratories with limited resources to identify common bacterial uropathogens. We propose dividing the identification plan into two levels. The implicated pathogen will first be assigned into a bacterial group, basic identification, against which a suitable panel of antimicrobial agents shall be selected for the antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST). Characterization of the pathogen to the genus or species level, advanced identification, will then be performed to ensure correct reading of the AST results and determine the epidemiology of clinically significant pathogens. Most of the proposed steps in our guideline are tailored to meet the needs of clinical laboratories in low-resource settings. Such guidelines are needed to strengthen the capacity of regional pathology laboratories and to enhance international initiatives on antimicrobial resistance and health equity.

Hepatitis delta virus testing, epidemiology and management: a multicentre cross-sectional study of patients in London.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis delta virus (HDV) testing is recommended for all patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. HDV infection is associated with severe liver disease and interferon is the only available treatment. OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate of anti-HDV antibody testing in HBV patients; and to describe the epidemiology, clinical characteristics and management of HDV-infected patients at four hospitals in London. STUDY DESIGN: The anti-HDV testing rate was estimated by reviewing clinical and laboratory data. Cross-sectional data collection identified HDV-infected patients who had attended the study centres between 2005 and 2012. RESULTS: At a centre with clinic-led anti-HDV testing, 40% (67/168) of HBV patients were tested. Recently diagnosed HBV patients were more likely to be screened than those under long-term follow-up (62% vs 36%, P=0.01). At a centre with reflex laboratory testing, 99.4% (3543/3563) of first hepatitis B surface antigen positive samples were tested for anti-HDV. Across the four study centres there were 55 HDV-infected patients, of whom 50 (91%) had immigrated to the UK and 27 (49%) had evidence of cirrhosis. 31 patients received interferon therapy for HDV with an end of treatment virological response observed in 10 (32%). CONCLUSIONS: The anti-HDV testing rate was low in a centre with clinic-led testing, but could not be evaluated in all centres. The HDV-infected patients were of diverse ethnicity, with extensive histological evidence of liver disease and poor therapeutic responses. Future recommendations include reflex laboratory testing algorithms and a prospective cohort study to optimise the investigation and management of these patients.