Cost Effectiveness of Rectal Culture-based Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: The Results from a Randomized, Nonblinded, Multicenter Trial.

Background: Culture-based antibiotic prophylaxis is a plausible strategy to reduce infections after transrectal prostate biopsy (PB) related to fluoroquinolone-resistant pathogens. Objective: To assess the cost effectiveness of rectal culture-based prophylaxis compared with empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis. Design setting and participants: The study was performed alongside a trial in 11 Dutch hospitals investigating the effectiveness of culture-based prophylaxis in transrectal PB between April 2018 and July 2021 (trial registration number: NCT03228108). Intervention: Patients were 1:1 randomized for empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis (oral) or culture-based prophylaxis. Costs for both prophylactic strategies were determined for two scenarios: (1) all infectious complications within 7 d after biopsy and (2) culture-proven Gram-negative infections within 30 d after biopsy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Differences in costs and effects (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) were analyzed from a healthcare and societal perspective (including productivity losses, and travel and parking costs) using a bootstrap procedure presenting uncertainty surrounding the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in a cost-effectiveness plane and acceptability curve. Results and limitations: For the 7-d follow-up period, culture-based prophylaxis (n = 636) was €51.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.52-96.63) more expensive from a healthcare perspective and €16.95 (95% CI -54.29 to 88.18) from a societal perspective than empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis (n = 652). Ciprofloxacin-resistant bacteria were detected in 15.4%. Extrapolating our data, from a healthcare perspective, 40% ciprofloxacin resistance would lead to equal cost for both strategies. Results were similar for the 30-d follow-up period. No significant differences in QALYs were observed. Conclusions: Our results should be interpreted in the context of local ciprofloxacin resistance rates. In our setting, from a healthcare perspective, culture-based prophylaxis was significantly more expensive than empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis. From a societal perspective, culture-based prophylaxis was somewhat more cost effective against the threshold value customary for the Netherlands (€80.000). Patient summary: Culture-based prophylaxis in transrectal prostate biopsy was not associated with reduced costs compared with empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis.

Rectal Culture-Based Versus Empirical Antibiotic Prophylaxis to Prevent Infectious Complications in Men Undergoing Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Randomized, Nonblinded Multicenter Trial.

BACKGROUND: An increase in infections after transrectal prostate biopsy (PB), related to an increasing number of patients with ciprofloxacin-resistant rectal flora, necessitates the exploration of alternatives for the traditionally used empirical prophylaxis of ciprofloxacin. We compared infectious complication rates after transrectal PB using empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis versus culture-based prophylaxis. METHODS: In this nonblinded, randomized trial, between 4 April 2018 and 30 July 2021, we enrolled 1538 patients from 11 Dutch hospitals undergoing transrectal PB. After rectal swab collection, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive empirical prophylaxis with oral ciprofloxacin (control group [CG]) or culture-based prophylaxis (intervention group [IG]). Primary outcome was any infectious complication within 7 days after biopsy. Secondary outcomes were infectious complications within 30 days, and bacteremia and bacteriuria within 7 and 30 days postbiopsy. For primary outcome analysis, the χ2 test stratified for hospitals was used. Trial registration number: NCT03228108. RESULTS: Data from 1288 patients (83.7%) were available for analysis (CG, 652; IG, 636). Infection rates within 7 days postbiopsy were 4.3% (n = 28) (CG) and 2.5% (n = 16) (IG) (P value = .08; reduction: -1.8%; 95% confidence interval, -.004 to .040). Ciprofloxacin-resistant bacteria were detected in 15.2% (n = 1288). In the CG, the presence of ciprofloxacin-resistant rectal flora resulted in a 6.2-fold higher risk of early postbiopsy infection. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the use of culture-based prophylaxis to reduce infectious complications after transrectal PB. Despite adequate prophylaxis, postbiopsy infections can still occur. Therefore, culture-based prophylaxis must be weighed against other strategies that could reduce postbiopsy infections. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03228108.

SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persist up to 12 months after natural infection in healthy employees working in non-medical contact-intensive professions.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate dynamics of antibody levels after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 for 12 months in Dutch non-vaccinated hairdressers and hospitality staff. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, blood samples were collected every 3 months for 1 year and analyzed using a qualitative total antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and a quantitative immunoglobulin (Ig)G antibody ELISA. Participants completed questionnaires, providing information on demographics, health, and work. Differences in antibody levels were evaluated using Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Beta coefficients (ß) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using linear regression. RESULTS: Ninety-five of 497 participants (19.1%) had ≥1 seropositive measurement before their last visit using the qualitative ELISA. Only 2.1% (2/95) seroreverted during follow-up. Of 95 participants, 82 (86.3%) tested IgG seropositive in the quantitative ELISA too. IgG antibody levels significantly decreased in the first months (P <0.01) but remained detectable for up to 12 months in all participants. Older age (ß, 10-years increment: 24.6, 95% CI: 5.7-43.5) and higher body mass index (ß, 5kg/m² increment: 40.0, 95% CI: 2.9-77.2) were significantly associated with a higher peak of antibody levels. CONCLUSION: In this cohort, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persisted for up to 1 year after initial seropositivity, suggesting long-term natural immunity.

Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the omicron period: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the performances of three commonly used antigen rapid diagnostic tests used as self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy study in the Omicron period in three public health service COVID-19 test sites in the Netherlands, including 3600 asymptomatic individuals aged ≥ 16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing for any reason except confirmatory testing after a positive self-test. Participants were sampled for RT-PCR (reference test) and received one self-test (either Acon Flowflex [Flowflex], MP Biomedicals (MPBio), or Siemens-Healthineers CLINITEST [CLINITEST]) to perform unsupervised at home. Diagnostic accuracies of each self-test were calculated. RESULTS: Overall sensitivities were 27.5% (95% CI, 21.3-34.3%) for Flowflex, 20.9% (13.9-29.4%) for MPBio, and 25.6% (19.1-33.1%) for CLINITEST. After applying a viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL), sensitivities increased to 48.3% (37.6-59.2%), 37.8% (22.5-55.2%), and 40.0% (29.5-51.2%), respectively. Specificities were >99% for all tests in most analyses. DISCUSSION: The sensitivities of three commonly used SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests when used as self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period were very low. Antigen rapid diagnostic test self-testing in asymptomatic individuals may only detect a minority of infections at that point in time. Repeated self-testing in case of a negative self-test is advocated to improve the diagnostic yield, and individuals should be advised to re-test when symptoms develop.

SARS-CoV-2 Alpha-Variant Outbreak Amongst a Partially Vaccinated Long-Term Care Facility Population in The Netherlands-Phylogenetic Analysis and Infection Control Observations.

Despite extensive vaccination and booster programs, SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in long-term care facilities (LTCF) continue to occur. We retrospectively describe a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak amongst a partially vaccinated LTCF population in The Netherlands which occurred in March 2021. The facility comprised three floors functioning as separate wards. Nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR were obtained from residents and staff presenting with COVID-19-like symptoms and from all residents and staff during two point prevalence screenings (PPS). Samples meeting technical criteria were included for phylogenetic analysis. Positive SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR were obtained from 11 (18%) of 61 residents and 8 (7%) of 110 staff members between March 8 and March 25. Seven (37%) cases and five (63%) vaccinated cases were diagnosed through PPS. Cases were found on all wards. Phylogenetic analysis (n = 11) showed a maximum difference of four nucleotides between sequences on the outer branches of the tree, but identified two identical sequences on the root differing maximum two nucleotides from all other sequences, suggesting all did belong to the same cluster. Our results imply that PPS is useful in containing SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks amongst (vaccinated) LTCF populations, as an entire LTCF might behave as a single epidemiological unit and it is preferable to maximize the number of samples included for phylogenetic analysis.

Head-to-head comparison of the accuracy of saliva and nasal rapid antigen SARS-CoV-2 self-testing: cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic accuracy of unsupervised self-testing with rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) is mostly unknown. We studied the diagnostic accuracy of a self-performed SARS-CoV-2 saliva and nasal Ag-RDT in the general population. METHODS: This large cross-sectional study consecutively included unselected individuals aged ≥ 16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing at three public health service test sites. Participants underwent molecular test sampling and received two self-tests (the Hangzhou AllTest Biotech saliva self-test and the SD Biosensor nasal self-test by Roche Diagnostics) to perform themselves at home. Diagnostic accuracy of both self-tests was assessed with molecular testing as reference. RESULTS: Out of 2819 participants, 6.5% had a positive molecular test. Overall sensitivities were 46.7% (39.3-54.2%) for the saliva Ag-RDT and 68.9% (61.6-75.6%) for the nasal Ag-RDT. With a viral load cut-off (≥ 5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL) as a proxy of infectiousness, these sensitivities increased to 54.9% (46.4-63.3%) and 83.9% (76.9-89.5%), respectively. For the nasal Ag-RDT, sensitivities were 78.5% (71.1-84.8%) and 22.6% (9.6-41.1%) in those symptomatic and asymptomatic at the time of sampling, which increased to 90.4% (83.8-94.9%) and 38.9% (17.3-64.3%) after applying the viral load cut-off. In those with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, sensitivities were 36.8% (16.3-61.6%) and 72.7% (65.1-79.4%). Specificities were > 99% and > 99%, positive predictive values > 70% and > 90%, and negative predictive values > 95% and > 95%, for the saliva and nasal Ag-RDT, respectively, in most analyses. Most participants considered the self-performing and result interpretation (very) easy for both self-tests. CONCLUSIONS: The Hangzhou AllTest Biotech saliva self Ag-RDT is not reliable for SARS-CoV-2 detection, overall, and in all studied subgroups. The SD Biosensor nasal self Ag-RDT had high sensitivity in individuals with symptoms and in those without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection but low sensitivity in asymptomatic individuals and those with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection which warrants further investigation.

Diagnostic accuracy of covid-19 rapid antigen tests with unsupervised self-sampling in people with symptoms in the omicron period: cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of rapid antigen tests with unsupervised nasal and combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling during the omicron period. DESIGN: Prospective cross sectional diagnostic test accuracy study. SETTING: Three public health service covid-19 test sites in the Netherlands, 21 December 2021 to 10 February 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 6497 people with covid-19 symptoms aged ≥16 years presenting for testing. INTERVENTIONS: Participants had a swab sample taken for reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR, reference test) and received one rapid antigen test to perform unsupervised using either nasal self-sampling (during the emergence of omicron, and when omicron accounted for >90% of infections, phase 1) or with combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling in a subsequent (phase 2; when omicron accounted for >99% of infections). The evaluated tests were Flowflex (Acon Laboratories; phase 1 only), MPBio (MP Biomedicals), and Clinitest (Siemens-Healthineers). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of each self-test, with RT-PCR testing as the reference standard. RESULTS: During phase 1, 45.0% (n=279) of participants in the Flowflex group, 29.1% (n=239) in the MPBio group, and 35.4% ((n=257) in the Clinitest group were confirmatory testers (previously tested positive by a self-test at own initiative). Overall sensitivities with nasal self-sampling were 79.0% (95% confidence interval 74.7% to 82.8%) for Flowflex, 69.9% (65.1% to 74.4%) for MPBio, and 70.2% (65.6% to 74.5%) for Clinitest. Sensitivities were substantially higher in confirmatory testers (93.6%, 83.6%, and 85.7%, respectively) than in those who tested for other reasons (52.4%, 51.5%, and 49.5%, respectively). Sensitivities decreased from 87.0% to 80.9% (P=0.16 by χ2 test), 80.0% to 73.0% (P=0.60), and 83.1% to 70.3% (P=0.03), respectively, when transitioning from omicron accounting for 29% of infections to >95% of infections. During phase 2, 53.0% (n=288) of participants in the MPBio group and 44.4% (n=290) in the Clinitest group were confirmatory testers. Overall sensitivities with combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling were 83.0% (78.8% to 86.7%) for MPBio and 77.3% (72.9% to 81.2%) for Clinitest. When combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling was compared with nasal self-sampling, sensitivities were found to be slightly higher in confirmatory testers (87.4% and 86.1%, respectively) and substantially higher in those testing for other reasons (69.3% and 59.9%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivities of three rapid antigen tests with nasal self-sampling decreased during the emergence of omicron but was only statistically significant for Clinitest. Sensitivities appeared to be substantially influenced by the proportion of confirmatory testers. Sensitivities of MPBio and Clinitest improved after the addition of oropharyngeal to nasal self-sampling. A positive self-test result justifies prompt self-isolation without the need for confirmatory testing. Individuals with a negative self-test result should adhere to general preventive measures because a false negative result cannot be ruled out. Manufacturers of MPBio and Clinitest may consider extending their instructions for use to include combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling, and other manufacturers of rapid antigen tests should consider evaluating this as well.

Duration of rectal colonization with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli: results of an open, dynamic cohort study in Dutch nursing home residents (2013-2019).

BACKGROUND: In 2016, a study in a Dutch nursing home showed prolonged colonization duration of extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing (ESBL)-ST131 compared to ESBL-non-ST131. In this study, we assessed the duration of rectal ESBL-producing E. coli (ESBL-EC) colonization in residents in the same nursing home for an extended period of six years. We aimed to estimate the influence of a possible bias when follow up is started during an outbreak. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2019, repetitive point prevalence surveys were performed by culturing rectal or faecal swabs from all residents. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to calculate the median time to clearance of ESBL-EC with a log-rank analysis to test for differences between ESBL-ST131 and ESBL-non-ST131. RESULTS: The study showed a median time to clearance of 13.0 months (95% CI 0.0-27.9) for ESBL-ST131 compared to 11.2 months (95% CI 4.8-17.6) for ESBL-non-ST131 (p = 0.044). In the subgroup analysis of residents who were ESBL-EC positive in their first survey, the median time to clearance for ST131 was 59.7 months (95% CI 23.7-95.6) compared to 16.2 months (95% CI 2.1-30.4) for ESBL-non-ST131 (p = 0.036). In the subgroup analysis of residents who acquired ESBL-EC, the median time to clearance for ST131 was 7.2 months (95% CI 2.1-12.2) compared to 7.9 months (95% CI 0.0-18.3) for ESBL-non-ST131 (p = 0.718). The median time to clearance in the ESBL-ST131 group was significantly longer in residents who were ESBL-ST131 colonised upon entering the study than in residents who acquired ESBL-ST131 during the study (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: A prolonged colonization with ESBL-ST131 was only found in the subgroup who was ESBL-EC positive upon entering the study. The prolonged duration with ESBL-ST131 in the previous study was probably biased by factors that occured during (the start of) the outbreak.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population by three prevailing rapid antigen tests: cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are the most widely used point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Since the accuracy may have altered by changes in SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology, indications for testing, sampling and testing procedures, and roll-out of COVID-19 vaccination, we evaluated the performance of three prevailing SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we consecutively enrolled individuals aged >16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing at three Dutch public health service COVID-19 test sites. In the first phase, participants underwent either BD-Veritor System (Becton Dickinson), PanBio (Abbott), or SD-Biosensor (Roche Diagnostics) testing with routine sampling procedures. In a subsequent phase, participants underwent SD-Biosensor testing with a less invasive sampling method (combined oropharyngeal-nasal [OP-N] swab). Diagnostic accuracies were assessed against molecular testing. RESULTS: Six thousand nine hundred fifty-five of 7005 participants (99%) with results from both an Ag-RDT and a molecular reference test were analysed. SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and overall sensitivities were 13% (188/1441) and 69% (129/188, 95% CI 62-75) for BD-Veritor, 8% (173/2056) and 69% (119/173, 61-76) for PanBio, and 12% (215/1769) and 74% (160/215, 68-80) for SD-Biosensor with routine sampling and 10% (164/1689) and 75% (123/164, 68-81) for SD-Biosensor with OP-N sampling. In those symptomatic or asymptomatic at sampling, sensitivities were 72-83% and 54-56%, respectively. Above a viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL), sensitivities were 86% (125/146, 79-91) for BD-Veritor, 89% (108/121, 82-94) for PanBio, and 88% (160/182, 82-92) for SD-Biosensor with routine sampling and 84% (118/141, 77-89) with OP-N sampling. Specificities were >99% for all tests in most analyses. Sixty-one per cent of false-negative Ag-RDT participants returned for testing within 14 days (median: 3 days, interquartile range 3) of whom 90% tested positive. CONCLUSIONS: Overall sensitivities of three SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs were 69-75%, increasing to ≥86% above a viral load cut-off. The decreased sensitivity among asymptomatic participants and high positivity rate during follow-up in false-negative Ag-RDT participants emphasise the need for education of the public about the importance of re-testing after an initial negative Ag-RDT should symptoms develop. For SD-Biosensor, the diagnostic accuracy with OP-N and deep nasopharyngeal sampling was similar; adopting the more convenient sampling method might reduce the threshold for professional testing.

Regional Impact of COVID-19-Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis (CAPA) during the First Wave.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill COVID-19 patients have proven to be at risk for developing invasive fungal infections. However, the incidence and impact of possible/probable COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) in severe COVID-19 patients varies between cohorts. We aimed to assess the incidence, risk factors, and clinical outcome of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in a regional cohort of COVID-19 intensive care patients. METHODS: We performed a regional, multicentre, retrospective cohort study in the intensive care units (ICUs) in North Brabant, The Netherlands. We included adult patients with rt-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19), requiring mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Demographics, clinical course, biomarker value, and treatment outcomes were compared between the groups with possible/probable CAPA from the main study centre and the regional centres, and without signs of CAPA from the main study centre as controls. The primary aim was to assess the regional impact of possible/probable CAPA in COVID-19 ICU patients, measured as all-cause mortality at 30 days after ICU admission. Secondary outcomes were risk factors for developing CAPA, based on underlying host factors and to identify the value of the mycological arguments for the diagnosing of CAPA. RESULTS: Between 1 March and 30 April 2020, we included 123 patients with severe COVID-19: 29 patients (30.9%) in the main ICU with possible/probable CAPA, and 65 (69.1%) with no signs of CAPA; 29 patients in the regional ICUs with signs of CAPA. Patients' characteristics and risk factors did not differ for CAPA and non-CAPA patients. Patients with COPD and/or chronic steroid medication developed CAPA more frequently, although this was not statistically significant. CAPA patients were admitted to the ICU earlier, had lower PF-ratios, and more often required renal replacement therapy. All-cause 30-day mortality was significantly higher in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients with possible/probable CAPA 39.7% (23/58) compared to patients without evidence for CAPA 16.9% (11/65) (OR 3.2 [95% CI 1.4-7.4] p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: The high incidence of possible and probable CAPA in critically ill COVID-19 patients is alarming. The increase in 30-day mortality in CAPA highlights the need for active surveillance and management strategies in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Self-testing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection with rapid antigen tests for people with suspected COVID-19 in the community.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of nasal mid-turbinate self-testing using rapid antigen detection tests (RDT) for persons with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the community. Self-testing for COVID-19 infection with lateral flow assay severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RDT, provides rapid results and could enable frequent and extensive testing in the community, thereby improving the control of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Participants visiting a municipal SARS-CoV-2 testing centre, received self-testing kits containing either the BD Veritor System (BD-RDT) or Roche SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test (Roche-RDT). Oro-nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from the participants for quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) testing. As a proxy for contagiousness, viral culture was performed on a selection of qRT-PCR positive samples to determine the Ct-value at which the chance of a positive culture dropped below 0.5 (Ct-value cut-off). Sensitivity and specificity of self-testing were compared to qRT-PCR with a Ct-value below the Ct value cut-off. Determinants independently associated with a false-negative self-test result were determined. RESULTS: A total of 3201 participants were included (BD-RDT n = 1595; Roche-RDT n = 1606). Sensitivity and specificity of self-testing compared with the qRT-PCR results with a Ct-value below the Ct-value cut-off were 78.4% (95% CI 73.2%-83.5%) and 99.4% (95% CI 99.1%-99.7%), respectively. A higher age was independently associated with a false-negative self-testing result with an odds ratio of 1.024 (95% CI 1.003-1.044). CONCLUSIONS: Self-testing using currently available RDT has a high specificity and relatively high sensitivity to identify individuals with a high probability of contagiousness.

Fosfomycin Vs Ciprofloxacin as Oral Step-Down Treatment for Escherichia coli Febrile Urinary Tract Infections in Women: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Multicenter Trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the noninferiority of fosfomycin compared to ciprofloxacin as an oral step-down treatment for Escherichia coli febrile urinary tract infections (fUTIs) in women. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial in 15 Dutch hospitals. Adult women who were receiving 2-5 days of empirical intravenous antimicrobials for E. coli fUTI were assigned to step-down treatment with once-daily 3g fosfomycin or twice-daily 0.5g ciprofloxacin for 10 days of total antibiotic treatment. For the primary end point, clinical cure at days 6-10 post-end of treatment (PET), a noninferiority margin of 10% was chosen. The trial was registered on Trialregister.nl (NTR6449). RESULTS: After enrollment of 97 patients between 2017 and 2020, the trial ended prematurely because of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The primary end point was met in 36 of 48 patients (75.0%) assigned to fosfomycin and 30 of 46 patients (65.2%) assigned to ciprofloxacin (risk difference [RD], 9.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.8% to 28.0%). In patients assigned to fosfomycin and ciprofloxacin, microbiological cure at days 6-10 PET occurred in 29 of 37 (78.4%) and 33 of 35 (94.3%; RD, -16.2%; 95% CI: -32.7 to -0.0%). Any gastrointestinal adverse event was reported in 25 of 48 (52.1%) and 14 of 46 (30.4%) patients (RD, 20.8%; 95% CI: 1.6% to 40.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Fosfomycin is noninferior to ciprofloxacin as oral step-down treatment for fUTI caused by E. coli in women. Fosfomycin use is associated with more gastrointestinal events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial NL6275 (NTR6449).

[A new definition of the I-category in the antibiogram: I-category antibiotics no longer an option to avoid]. / Nieuwe definitie van I-categorie in het antibiogram.

Currently, the meaning of the I-category of the antibiogram in culture results is changing in The Netherlands. Before, the I-category was called 'intermediate' and included combinations of antibiotics and micro-organisms in which the chance of therapeutic success was doubtful. Therefore, in clinical practice this category was mostly avoided and considered as 'in this case not clear'. From now on, the definition of I has changed to 'susceptible, increased exposure' and can be considered as a valid treatment option when adequate (higher) dosing is applied. Because of the large-scale implementation, not all microbiological laboratories may be able to implement the new I at the same moment and the way they may execute this may differ in detail. When considering treating a patient with 'susceptible, increased exposure' and you are in doubt whether your microbiological laboratory already has implemented the new definition of I or about the correct dosage, consult your clinical microbiologist or Antimicrobial Stewardship Team.

SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in employees working in non-medical contact-intensive professions in the Netherlands: Baseline data from the prospective COco-study.

COVID-19 has made a global impact since early 2020, requiring characterization of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including transmission risk. The COco-study aims to evaluate the risk for COVID-19 infections in two non-medical contact-intensive professions. COco is a prospective cohort study evaluating SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in hairdressers and hospitality personnel in the province of North-Brabant in the Netherlands, using a total antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Baseline data from June/July 2020 were analyzed. Participants filled out a questionnaire, providing information on demographics, health, work situation, and risk factors for COVID-19. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using logistic regression. In June/July 2020, 497 participants were enrolled: 236 hairdressers, 259 hospitality employees, and two participants worked in both industries. Hospitality staff was more frequently seropositive than hairdressers (14.2% versus 8.0%, respectively; OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.4). Furthermore, a high education level (OR 3.0, 95% CI: 1.7-5.6) and increased alcohol use (OR, 7 glasses per week increment: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1-1.5) were associated with seropositivity. Of the 56 seropositive participants, 18 (32%) had not experienced any COVID-19 symptoms. The symptoms anosmia/ageusia differed most evidently between seropositive and seronegative participants (53.6% versus 5.7%, respectively; P < 0.001 (chi-squared test)). In conclusion, four months after the first identified COVID-19 patient in the Netherlands, employees in the hospitality industry had significantly more frequently detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies than hairdressers.

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts of individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection: cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic test accuracy of two rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection on day 5 after exposure. DESIGN: Prospective cross sectional study. SETTING: Four public health service covid-19 test sites in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 4274 consecutively included close contacts (identified through test-and-trace programme or contact tracing app) aged 16 years or older and asymptomatic for covid-19 when requesting a test. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of Veritor System (Beckton Dickinson) and Biosensor (Roche Diagnostics) rapid antigen tests, with reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing as reference standard. The viral load cut-off above which 95% of people with a positive RT-PCR test result were virus culture positive was used as a proxy of infectiousness. RESULTS: Of 2678 participants tested with Veritor, 233 (8.7%) had a RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 149 were also detected by the rapid antigen test (sensitivity 63.9%, 95% confidence interval 57.4% to 70.1%). Of 1596 participants tested with Biosensor, 132 (8.3%) had a RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 83 were detected by the rapid antigen test (sensitivity 62.9%, 54.0% to 71.1%). In those who were still asymptomatic at the time of sampling, sensitivity was 58.7% (51.1% to 66.0%) for Veritor (n=2317) and 59.4% (49.2% to 69.1%) for Biosensor (n=1414), and in those who developed symptoms were 84.2% (68.7% to 94.0%; n=219) for Veritor and 73.3% (54.1% to 87.7%; n=158) for Biosensor. When a viral load cut-off was applied for infectiouness (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E gene copies/mL), the overall sensitivity was 90.1% (84.2% to 94.4%) for Veritor and 86.8% (78.1% to 93.0%) for Biosensor, and 88.1% (80.5% to 93.5%) for Veritor and 85.1% (74.3% to 92.6%) for Biosensor, among those who remained asymptomatic throughout. Specificities were >99%, and positive and negative predictive values were >90% and >95%, for both rapid antigen tests in all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivities of both rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts tested on day 5 onwards after close contact with an index case were more than 60%, increasing to more than 85% after a viral load cut-off was applied as a proxy for infectiousness.

Evaluation of the test accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in symptomatic community dwelling individuals in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) is well suited for the diagnosis of clinically ill patients requiring treatment. Application for community testing of symptomatic individuals for disease control purposes however raises challenges. SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests might offer an alternative, but quality evidence on their performance is limited. METHODS: We conducted an evaluation of the test accuracy of the 'BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2' (VRD) compared to qRT-PCR on combined nose/throat swabs obtained from symptomatic individuals at Municipal Health Service (MHS) COVID-19 test centers in the Netherlands. In part one of the study, with the primary objective to evaluate test sensitivity and specificity, all adults presenting at one MHS test center were eligible for inclusion. In part two, with the objective to evaluate test sensitivity stratified by Ct (cycle threshold)-value and time since symptom onset, adults who had a positive qRT-PCR obtained at a MHS test center were eligible. FINDINGS: In part one (n = 352) SARS-CoV-2 prevalence was 4.8%, overall specificity 100% (95%CI: 98·9%-100%) and sensitivity 94·1% (95%CI: 71·1%-100%). In part two (n = 123) the sensitivity was 78·9% (95%CI: 70·6%-85·7%) overall, 89·4% (95% CI: 79·4%-95·6%) for specimen obtained within seven days after symptom onset and 93% (95% CI: 86%-97.1%) for specimen with a Ct-value below 30. INTERPRETATION: The VRD is a promising diagnostic for COVID-19 testing of symptomatic community-dwelling individuals within seven days after symptom onset in context of disease control. Further research on practical applicability and the optimal position within the testing landscape is needed.

COVID-19 in health-care workers in three hospitals in the south of the Netherlands: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: 10 days after the first reported case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the Netherlands (on Feb 27, 2020), 55 (4%) of 1497 health-care workers in nine hospitals located in the south of the Netherlands had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. We aimed to gain insight in possible sources of infection in health-care workers. METHODS: We did a cross-sectional study at three of the nine hospitals located in the south of the Netherlands. We screened health-care workers at the participating hospitals for SARS-CoV-2 infection, based on clinical symptoms (fever or mild respiratory symptoms) in the 10 days before screening. We obtained epidemiological data through structured interviews with health-care workers and combined this information with data from whole-genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples taken from health-care workers and patients. We did an in-depth analysis of sources and modes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in health-care workers and patients. FINDINGS: Between March 2 and March 12, 2020, 1796 (15%) of 12 022 health-care workers were screened, of whom 96 (5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. We obtained complete and near-complete genome sequences from 50 health-care workers and ten patients. Most sequences were grouped in three clusters, with two clusters showing local circulation within the region. The noted patterns were consistent with multiple introductions into the hospitals through community-acquired infections and local amplification in the community. INTERPRETATION: Although direct transmission in the hospitals cannot be ruled out, our data do not support widespread nosocomial transmission as the source of infection in patients or health-care workers. FUNDING: EU Horizon 2020 (RECoVer, VEO, and the European Joint Programme One Health METASTAVA), and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

Prevalence and Clinical Presentation of Health Care Workers With Symptoms of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in 2 Dutch Hospitals During an Early Phase of the Pandemic.

Importance: On February 27, 2020, the first patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported in the Netherlands. During the following weeks, at 2 Dutch teaching hospitals, 9 health care workers (HCWs) received a diagnosis of COVID-19, 8 of whom had no history of travel to China or northern Italy, raising the question of whether undetected community circulation was occurring. Objective: To determine the prevalence and clinical presentation of COVID-19 among HCWs with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was performed in 2 teaching hospitals in the southern part of the Netherlands in March 2020, during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Health care workers employed in the participating hospitals who experienced fever or respiratory symptoms were asked to voluntarily participate in a screening for infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Data analysis was performed in March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was determined by semiquantitative real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction on oropharyngeal samples. Structured interviews were conducted to document symptoms for all HCWs with confirmed COVID-19. Results: Of 9705 HCWs employed (1722 male [18%]), 1353 (14%) reported fever or respiratory symptoms and were tested. Of those, 86 HCWs (6%) were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (median age, 49 years [range, 22-66 years]; 15 [17%] male), representing 1% of all HCWs employed. Most HCWs experienced mild disease, and only 46 (53%) reported fever. Eighty HCWs (93%) met a case definition of fever and/or coughing and/or shortness of breath. Only 3 (3%) of the HCWs identified through the screening had a history of travel to China or northern Italy, and 3 (3%) reported having been exposed to an inpatient with a known diagnosis of COVID-19 before the onset of symptoms. Conclusions and Relevance: Within 2 weeks after the first Dutch case was detected, a substantial proportion of HCWs with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, likely as a result of acquisition of the virus in the community during the early phase of local spread. The high prevalence of mild clinical presentations, frequently not including fever, suggests that the currently recommended case definition for suspected COVID-19 should be used less stringently.

Rapid assessment of regional SARS-CoV-2 community transmission through a convenience sample of healthcare workers, the Netherlands, March 2020.

To rapidly assess possible community transmission in Noord-Brabant, the Netherlands, healthcare workers (HCW) with mild respiratory complaints and without epidemiological link (contact with confirmed case or visited areas with active circulation) were tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Within 2 days, 1,097 HCW in nine hospitals were tested; 45 (4.1%) were positive. Of six hospitals with positive HCW, two accounted for 38 positive HCW. The results informed local and national risk management.

[Gastroenteritis at sporting events with water and mud: an example to illustrate outbreak investigation methods]. / Gastro-enteritis bij sportevenementen met water en modder.

OBJECTIVE To determine the size and causative pathogen of the outbreak and to identify risk factors for developing gastroenteritis among participants of the Survivalrun in Udenhout in September 2016. Design Retrospective cohort study. METHODS We sent an invitation to go to an online questionnaire to participants and volunteers of the Survivalrun by email. The link to the questionnaire was also shared on the Facebook page and website of the Survivalrun. We calculated attack rates (AR) and relative risks (RR) for several exposures to identify risk factors for developing diarrhoea and/or vomiting within 3 days after the run. In addition, stool samples of six participants were tested for common gastrointestinal pathogens. RESULTS A total of 444 people completed the questionnaire. Symptoms of gastroenteritis were reported by 163 study participants (37%). Five participants reported symptoms of gastroenteritis in the week before and three participants during the Survivalrun. Multivariate analysis identified the following risk factors for developing gastroenteritis: participation on the second day of the run(RR 2.4: 95% CI 1.1-5.3), ingesting water (RR 1.7: 95% CI 1.3-2.3) and ingesting mud (RR 1.3: 95% CI 1.1-1.6). Four out of six stool samples tested positive for norovirus (various types). CONCLUSION This outbreak investigation shows that pathogens, such as norovirus, can easily spread during sporting events where participants have to move through water and mud. Specific methods and knowledge of the circumstances are essential for a thorough outbreak investigation.