What is behind phylogenetic analysis of hospital‐, community‐ and livestock‐associated methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus?

Methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has been shown to be the predominant life‐threatening pathogen in Egypt. MRSA is a major cause of severe healthcare‐associated (HA) infections. During the last decades, the incidence of community‐associated (CA) MRSA infections has a complex epidemiology arising from the circulation of different strains in the general population. Moreover, livestock‐associated (LA) MRSA emerged recently becomes an emerging threat to public health. Therefore, it is important to illuminate the differences between CA‐, HA‐ and LA‐MRSA to shed light on their genetic diversity and evolution. This study presents the first data on analysing the correlation between CA‐, LA‐ and HA‐MRSA using antibiogram typing, molecular characteristics and antimicrobial resistance and virulence genes’ profiles. Overall, HA‐MRSA strains tended to be multidrug resistant and less virulent than both LA‐ and CA‐MRSA strains. Importantly, CA‐MRSA strains had a high homology with each of HA‐ and LA‐MRSA. However, no similarity was observed between HA‐ and LA‐MRSA. Our findings suggest that the epidemiological changes in genetic behaviour between HA‐ and LA‐MRSA are due to the presence of CA‐MRSA confirming that CA‐MRSA has created a public health crisis worldwide.     

Tetanus in patients with chronic wounds – are we aware?

The incidence of tetanus in patients with wounds is unknown; however, recently concern has been raised over the proportion of tetanus cases in which a chronic wound is the portal of entry for Clostridium tetani. Varicose ulcers, dermatosis and necrosed tumours are estimated to be the point of entry for C. tetani spores in 11-14% of three cases. Of diabetic patients in the USA who contracted tetanus, a diabetic foot ulcer was responsible in 25% of cases despite this chronic wounds have yet to be considered as a risk factor for tetanus. An audit was undertaken and a survey devised to form the basis of the data collection to assess if patients with chronic wounds are up-to-date in accordance with the tetanus immunisation programme. Over a 5-day period, the data were prospectively collected and the tetanus status of a 100 patients retrospectively analysed. The status was then compared with general practitioner (GP) records via telephone follow-up. One hundred patients (n = 100) were available in the audit period, with the majority being male (n = 51). The age range was 22-91 years old (median 70 years). Nearly half of the samples (n = 48) were diabetic, with the majority of patients (n = 35) having venous leg ulcers. Only 15% had a biopsy of their wound. The duration of wounds varied from 1 to 480 months. Patients were asked to confirm their tetanus status. Almost half of the patients were unsure of their tetanus status 48% (n = 48), almost a third 30% (n = 30) thought they were not covered and 22% (n = 22) thought they were up-to-date. After confirming with the GP records, the results were as follows: almost half of the patients, 43% (n = 43) were not covered, 33% (n = 33) were up-to-date, 13% had no immunisation records available at the GPs, 10% had no GP contact details and 1% no contact was possible. Currently, tetanus prophylaxis is given based on the vaccination history of the patient but as identified that this can prove to be unreliable. With the burden of chronic wound and ageing population set to increase, levels of protection amplify the risk of tetanus faced by those suffering from chronic wounds. Strict caution should be taken in those patients who were born before the national childhood vaccination programme, implemented in 1961. Moreover, every effort should be made to ensure that such individuals complete their primary course. By ensuring each patient is actively immunised, protection against tetanus, a potential killer, is provided.     

Methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus and beyond: what's new in the world of the ‘golden staph’?

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) continues to plague our hospitals. With the appearance of isolates that are resistant to vancomycin, now, more than ever, we must direct our efforts to controlling its development and spread. New antimicrobials have become available for treatment, but may only be a short-term answer. Our efforts towards control must be directed towards infection control measures such as improved hand hygiene with user-friendly products, such as alcohol-based hand disinfectants. Intranasal mupirocin may have a place in prevention of surgical site infection, although this role has not yet been clearly defined. Other areas where MRSA control may be effected include prudent controlled use of antibiotics, including surgical prophylaxis.     

Chronic wounds – is cellular ‘reception’ at fault? Examining integrins and intracellular signalling

As with all physiologic processes, chronic wounds are associated with unique intracellular and cellular/extracellular matrix (ECM) receptor types and signalling messages. These cellular receptors mediate responses of the epidermis to provisional wound matrix and change in form and number in cases of impaired wound healing. Integrins are the major cell‐surface receptors for cell adhesion and migration and epidermal keratinocytes express several integrins that bind ECM ligands in provisional wound ECM. Integrin receptors and more particularly integrin clusters and focal adhesion points appear to influence epidermal and dermal cell matrix interactions, cell motility, cell phenotype and ultimate healing trajectory. In chronic wounds, a variety of changes in receptors have been identified: decreased integrin α5β1 receptors affect the integration of fibronectin and subsequent keratinocyte migration; integrin αvβ6 stimulate transforming growth factor (TGF)‐β and may increase the susceptibility to ulceration and fibrosis; however, TGF‐β signal receptors have been found to be dysfunctional in many chronic wounds; additionally receptor interactions result in increased senescent cells including fibroblasts, myofibroblasts and even keratinocytes – this produces a degradative ECM and wound bed and corrosive chronic wound fluid. The activation or inhibition of integrin receptors by various agents may provide an excellent means of influencing wound healing. This process offers an earlier intervention into the wound healing cascade promoting intrinsic healing and elaboration of growth factors and ECM proteins, which may be more cost effective than the traditional attempts at extrinsic addition of these agents.     

Genetic testing in inherited polyposis syndromes – how and why?

There have been recent advances in genetic testing enabling accurate diagnosis of polyposis syndromes by identifying causative gene mutations, which is essential in the management of individuals with polyposis syndrome and predictive genetic testing of their extended families. There are some similarities in clinical presentation of various polyposis syndromes, which may pose a challenge to diagnosis. In this review, we discuss the clinical presentation of the main polyposis syndromes and the process of genetic testing, including the latest advancement and future of genetic testing. We aim to reiterate the importance of genetic testing in the management of polyposis syndromes, potential pitfalls associated with genetic testing and recommendations for healthcare professionals involved with the care of polyposis patients.     

Liver alone or simultaneous liver–kidney transplant? Pretransplant chronic kidney disease and post‐transplant outcome – a retrospective study

The new Organ Procurement and Transplant Network/United Organ Sharing Network (OPTN/UNOS) simultaneous liver–kidney transplant (SLK) policy has been implemented. The aim of this study was to review liver transplant outcomes utilizing the new SLK policy. Liver transplant alone (LTA) and SLK patients between 2009 and 2015 were reviewed. Graft survival and post‐transplant kidney function were investigated among LTA patients meeting the chronic kidney disease (CKD) criteria of the new policy (LTA‐CKD group). To validate our findings, we reviewed and applied our analysis to the OPTN/UNOS registry. A total of 535 patients were eligible from our series. The LTA‐CKD group (n = 27) showed worse 1‐year graft survival, compared with the SLK group (n = 44), but not significant (81% vs. 93%, P = 0.15). The LTA‐CKD group significantly increased a risk of post‐transplant dialysis (odds ratio = 5.59 [95% CI = 1.27–24.7], P = 0.02 [Ref. normal kidney function]). Post‐transplant dialysis was an independent risk factor for graft loss (hazard ratio = 7.25, 95% CI = 3.3–15.91, P < 0.001 [Ref. SLK]). In the validation analysis based on the OPTN/UNOS registry, the hazard of 1‐year‐graft loss in the LTA‐CKD group (n = 751) was 34.8% higher than the SLK group (n = 2856) (hazard ratio = 1.348, 95% CI = 1.157–1.572, P < 0.001). Indicating SLK for patients who meet the CKD criteria may significantly improve transplant outcomes.     

Use of SARS‐CoV‐2‐infected deceased organ donors: Should we always “just say no?”

In the context of a rapidly evolving pandemic, multiple organizations have released guidelines stating that all organs from potential deceased donors with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection should be deferred, including from otherwise medically eligible donors found to have mild or asymptomatic SARS‐CoV‐2 discovered on routine donor screening. In this article, we critically examine the available data on the risk of transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 through organ transplantation. The isolation of SARS‐CoV‐2 from nonlung clinical specimens, the detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 in autopsy specimens, previous experience with the related coronaviruses SARS‐CoV and MERS‐CoV, and the vast experience with other common RNA respiratory viruses are all addressed. Taken together, these data provide little evidence to suggest the presence of intact transmissible SARS‐CoV in organs that can potentially be transplanted, specifically liver and heart. Other considerations including ethical, financial, societal, and logistical concerns are also addressed. We conclude that, for selected patients with high waitlist mortality, transplant programs should consider accepting heart or liver transplants from deceased donors with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.