[Mandatory reporting of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. What should, what can be achieved? : assessment related to the particular facility seems crucial]

Geographical differences of carbapenem non-susceptible Enterobacterales and Acinetobacter spp. in Germany from 2017 to 2019

Background

Since May 2016, infection and colonisation with carbapenem non-susceptible Acinetobacter spp. (CRA) and Enterobacterales (CRE) have to be notified to health authorities in Germany. The aim of our study was to assess the epidemiology of CRA and CRE from 2017 to 2019 in Germany, to identify risk groups and to determine geographical differences of CRA and CRE notifications.

Methods

Cases were notified from laboratories to local public health authorities and forwarded to state and national level. Non-susceptibility was defined as intermediate or resistant to ertapenem, imipenem, or meropenem excluding intrinsic bacterial resistance or the detection of a carbapenemase gene. We analysed CRA and CRE notifications from 2017, 2018 and 2019 per 100,000 inhabitants (notification incidence), regarding their demographic, clinical and laboratory information. The effect of regional hospital-density on CRA and CRE notification incidence was estimated using negative binomial regression.

Results

From 2017 to 2019, 2278 CRA and 12,282 CRE cases were notified in Germany. CRA and CRE cases did not differ regarding demographic and clinical information, e.g. proportion infected. The notification incidence of CRA declined slightly from 0.95 in 2017 to 0.86 in 2019, whereas CRE increased from 4.23 in 2017 to 5.72 in 2019. The highest CRA and CRE notification incidences were found in the age groups above 70 years. Infants below 1 year showed a high CRE notification incidence, too. Notification incidences varied between 0.10 and 2.86 for CRA and between 1.49 and 9.99 for CRE by federal state. The notification incidence of CRA and CRE cases increased with each additional hospital per district.

Conclusion

The notification incidence of CRA and CRE varied geographically and was correlated with the number of hospitals.The results support the assumption that hospitals are the main driver for higher CRE and CRA incidence. Preventive strategies and early control measures should target older age groups and newborns and areas with a high incidence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13756-021-01045-z.

[Mandatory notification of infectious diseases and agents in Germany: development and suggestions for improvement]

Mit Inkrafttreten des Infektionsschutzgesetzes (IfSG) im Jahr 2001 wurden die Meldepflichten für Infektionskrankheiten und Infektionserreger auf eine neue Basis gestellt. Erstmals wurde zwischen einer Arztmeldepflicht für Infektionskrankheiten und einer Labormeldepflicht für Infektionserreger unterschieden. Ziel war es, durch die Labormeldepflicht Ärzte zu entlasten und dadurch die Meldemoral zu verbessern. Seither ist eine Vielzahl neuer Meldepflichten hinzugekommen.

Ziele dieser Arbeit sind es, die Meldepflichten und die Anzahl der gemeldeten Fälle in Deutschland anhand ihrer Entwicklung darzulegen und zu diskutieren – auch vor dem Hintergrund der vorherigen Regelungen in Deutschland (Bundesseuchengesetz) sowie internationaler und europaweiter Empfehlungen (IHR; EU-Kommissions-Beschlüsse 1999, 2018) – und Verbesserungsvorschläge zu unterbreiten.

Angesichts der erheblichen Zunahme der Meldepflichten und der Meldungen in den letzten Jahren sowie der Möglichkeiten des IfSG, das neben der Meldepflicht weitere Surveillance-Systeme vorsieht, sollte das Meldewesen auf notwendige Meldepflichten fokussiert werden. Die vorgeschlagene Abschaffung der Meldepflicht für Nachweise von Noroviren und Rotaviren könnte in einem ersten Schritt sowohl die Meldenden als auch die Gesundheitsämter entlasten und so ein effizienteres Meldewesen und eine intensivere und bessere Ermittlungsarbeit der Gesundheitsämter ermöglichen.

Carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria - analysis of the data obtained through a mandatory reporting system in the Rhine-Main region, Germany, 2012-2015

Background: Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MRGN) and the infections they cause are a serious threat and a challenge to the healthcare system. This particularly applies to carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (CRGN). Currently, the introduction of a nationwide mandatory notification system for CRGN in Germany is under consideration. Against this background, this paper presents an analysis of the mandatory reporting system for CRGN in effect since November 2011 in the federal state of Hesse (Germany).

Materials and methods: All carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria and the detected carbapenemases reported to the public health department of the city of Frankfurt am Main, Hesse, Germany, on the basis of the mandatory notification system were analyzed.

Results: 827 CRGN cases were reported to the public health department of Frankfurt/Main between April 2012 and December 2015. The following bacterial species were reported: Pseudomonas spp. (n=268), Acinetobacter spp. (n=183), Klebsiella spp. (n=195), Enterobacter spp. (n=77), Escherichia coli (n=75) and others (n=29). Between 2012 and 2015, a reduction of the CRGN reports was noticed, mainly due to changes in the reporting of Pseudomonas spp. Between 2012 and 2015, the total number of notifications decreased slightly, although the number of reported CRGN in screening samples increased, thus giving no indication of a decreased testing frequency. For 10.5% of the patients, the place of residence was not Germany, 18.0% of the patients had previously stayed in hospitals abroad, often in countries with a high CRGN prevalence. CRGN bacteria were reported from all of Frankfurt’s hospitals, and 3.9% were reported from out-patient care facilities. Carbapenemases were detected and reported in 251 CRGN bacteria, including 73 OXA-48, 76 OXA-23, 56 NDM subtypes, and 21 KPC subtypes. There have been no major epidemiological signs of outbreak scenarios.

Discussion: CRGN bacteria are already widespread in patients from hospitals and out-patient care facilities. Clearly, infection control measurements should therefore not only include hospital patients but also those receiving out-patient care. Screening strategies focused on patients from foreign countries with high MRGN prevalence is not sufficient, as only 10.5% of MRGN patients resided in those countries, and only 18% of the patients had been previously treated in a foreign hospital. In a public health context, infection control measures should therefore encompass broader screening strategies.