Biocide Susceptibility and Antimicrobial Resistance of Escherichia coli Isolated from Swine Feces, Pork Meat and Humans in Germany

Phenotypic susceptibility testing of Escherichia (E.) coli is an essential tool to gain a better understanding of the potential impact of biocide selection pressure on antimicrobial resistance. We, therefore, determined the biocide and antimicrobial susceptibility of 216 extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing (ESBL) and 177 non-ESBL E. coli isolated from swine feces, pork meat, voluntary donors and inpatients and evaluated associations between their susceptibilities. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) and minimum bactericidal concentrations (MBCs) of benzalkonium chloride, chlorhexidine digluconate (CHG), chlorocresol (PCMC), glutaraldehyde (GDA), isopropanol (IPA), octenidine dihydrochloride and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) showed unimodal distributions, indicating the absence of bacterial adaptation to biocides due to the acquisition of resistance mechanisms. Although MIC₉₅ and MBC₉₅ did not vary more than one doubling dilution step between isolates of porcine and human origin, significant differences in MIC and/or MBC distributions were identified for GDA, CHG, IPA, PCMC and NaOCl. Comparing non-ESBL and ESBL E. coli, significantly different MIC and/or MBC distributions were found for PCMC, CHG and GDA. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing revealed the highest frequency of resistant E. coli in the subpopulation isolated from inpatients. We observed significant but weakly positive correlations between biocide MICs and/or MBCs and antimicrobial MICs. In summary, our data indicate a rather moderate effect of biocide use on the susceptibility of E. coli to biocides and antimicrobials.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the aetiological agents of non-malarial febrile illnesses in Africa

Background

The awareness of non-malarial febrile illnesses (NMFIs) has been on the rise over the last decades. Therefore, we undertook a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of causative agents of non-malarial fevers on the African continent.

Methodology

We searched for literature in African Journals Online, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify aetiologic agents that had been reported and to determine summary estimates of the proportional morbidity rates (PMr) associated with these pathogens among fever patients.

Findings

A total of 133 studies comprising 391,835 patients from 25 of the 54 African countries were eligible. A wide array of aetiologic agents were described with considerable regional differences among the leading agents. Overall, bacterial pathogens tested from blood samples accounted for the largest proportion. The summary estimates from the meta-analysis were low for most of the agents. This may have resulted from a true low prevalence of the agents, the failure to test for many agents or the low sensitivity of the diagnostic methods applied. Our meta-regression analysis of study and population variables showed that diagnostic methods determined the PMr estimates of typhoidal Salmonella and Dengue virus. An increase in the PMr of Klebsiella spp. infections was observed over time. Furthermore, the status of patients as either inpatient or outpatient predicted the PMr of Haemophilus spp. infections.

Conclusion

The small number of epidemiological studies and the variety of NMFI agents on the African continent emphasizes the need for harmonized studies with larger sample sizes. In particular, diagnostic procedures for NMFIs should be standardized to facilitate comparability of study results and to improve future meta-analyses. Reliable NMFI burden estimates will inform regional public health strategies.

Previous systematic reviews have highlighted the research priorities of causative agents for non-malarial febrile illnesses by counting the number of publications attributed to an agent. However, proportional morbidity rates are calculated by dividing the number of cases with a specific disease (numerator) by the total number of diagnosed fever cases (denominator) and are better indicators of the relative importance of aetiological agents in a population. Therefore, we present the leading causes of non-malarial febrile illnesses in African patients in both healthcare and community settings. Preference is given to HIV-negative patients when data could be found. We also determined summary estimates of Brucella spp., Chikungunya virus, Dengue virus, Haemophilus spp., Klebsiella spp., Leptospira spp., non-typhoidal Salmonella spp., typhoidal Salmonella spp., Staphylococcus spp., and Streptococcus spp.

The wide array of aetiological agents causing febrile illnesses on the African continent does not only complicate malaria control programs but may also hamper response to epidemic and pandemic illnesses such as Ebola and COVID-19. The harmonisation of diagnostics and study designs will reduce between-study differences, which may result in better estimates of disease burden on the continent and in the different African regions. This information is important for Pan-African surveillance and control efforts.

Comparison between tests for tuberculosis diagnosis in slaughtered bovines

ABSTRACT: Our goal for this article is to compare several different diagnosis tests for bovine tuberculosis identification. We have performed bacterial isolation, histopathological characterization, acid-fast bacilli (AFB) identification and M. bovis DNA detection. Lesions suggestive of Tuberculosis were sampled from bovine lymph nodes during slaughtering of bovines at an abattoir that operates under federal inspection. The bacterial isolation was performed in solid culture mediums, the histopathological characterization was made by Hematoxylin-eosinstaining, and AFB identification by Ziehl-Neelsen staining. Bacterial DNA detection was performed by Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) using DNA from two different sources, directly collected from the tuberculosis-like lesions (PCR followed by nested PCR) and from isolated bacteria. We have concluded that the multi-step approach, including histopathological characterization, bacterial isolation and AFB identification, is strongly recommended to diagnose tuberculosis in bovines. Furthermore, PCR assays using specimens of lesions suggestive of tuberculosis are a faster and more promising way to diagnose the disease. However, it should not be used alone due to the low sensitivity shown in this study.