School of Pathology (Journal Articles)

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/10539/37877

Browse

Filters

20142

Settings

Has files: YesSubject: search.filters.subject.South Africa

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    National sentinel site surveillance for antimicrobial resistance in Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates in South Africa, 2010-2012
    (South African Medical Association, 2014-08) Perovic, O.; Singh- Moodley, A.; Duse, A.; Elliott, G.; Bamford, C.; Swe Swe-Han, K.; R Kularatne, R.; Lowman, W.; Whitelaw, A.; Nana, T.; Wadula, J.; Lekalakala, R.; Saif, A.; Marais, E.
    Background: The increasing rates of antimicrobial resistance observed in the nosocomial pathogen Klebsiella pneumoniae are of major public health concern worldwide. Objectives: To describe the antibiotic susceptibility profiles of K. pneumoniae isolates from bacteraemic patients submitted by sentinel laboratories in five regions of South Africa from mid-2010 to mid-2012. Molecular methods were used to detect the most commonly found extended-spectrum beta lactamase (ESBL) and carbapenemase resistance genes. Methods: Thirteen academic centres serving the public healthcare sector in Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Free State, Limpopo and Western Cape provinces submitted K. pneumoniae isolates from patients with bloodstream infections. Vitek 2 and MicroScan instruments were used for organism identification and susceptibility testing. Multiplex polymerase chain reactions (PCRs) were used to detect blaCTX-M, blaSHV and blaTEM genes in a proportion of the ESBL isolates. All isolates exhibiting reduced susceptibility to carbapenems were PCR tested for blaKPC and blaNDM-1 resistance genes. Results: Overall, 68.3% of the 2 774 isolates were ESBL-positive, showing resistance to cefotaxime, ceftazidime and cefepime. Furthermore, 46.5% of all isolates were resistant to ciprofloxacin and 33.1% to piperacillin-tazobactam. The major ESBL genes were abundantly present in the sample analysed. Most isolates (95.5%) were susceptible to the carbapenems tested, and no isolates were positive for blaKPC or blaNDM-1. There was a trend towards a decrease in susceptibility to most antibiotics. Conclusion: The high proportion of ESBL-producing K. pneumoniae isolates observed, and the prevalence of ESBL genes, are of great concern. Our findings represent a baseline for further surveillance in SA, and can be used for policy and treatment decisions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Critical value reporting : a survey of 36 clinical laboratories in South Africa
    (2014-01) Schapkaitz, E.; Mafika, Z.
    Objective: Critical value policies are used by clinical laboratories to decide when to notify caregivers of life-threatening results. Despite their widespread use, critical value policies have not been published locally. A survey was designed to determine critical value policies for haematology tests in South Africa. Methods: A survey was carried out on 136 identified laboratories across South Africa in January 2013. Of these, 36 responded. Data collected included critical value policies, critical values for haematology parameters, and critical value reporting. Results: Of the 36 laboratories surveyed, 11.1% (n=4) were private, 33.3% (n=12) were affiliated to academic institutions and 55.6% (n=20) were peripheral or regional National Health Laboratory Service laboratories. All the laboratories confirmed that they had a critical value policy, and 83.3% of such policies were derived from local clinical opinion. Mean low and high critical limits for the most frequently listed tests were as follows: haemoglobin <6 and >20 g/dl, platelet count <41 and >1 000 ×109 /l, white cell count <2 and >46×109 /l, activated partial thromboplastin time >101 seconds, and international normalised ratio >6. In almost all cases critical value reporting was performed by the technologist on duty (97.2%). The majority of laboratories required that the person notified of the critical value be the doctor who ordered the test or the caregiver directly involved in the patient’s care (83.3%); 73.3% of laboratories indicated that they followed an algorithm if the doctor/caregiver could not be reached. Conclusion: Each laboratory is responsible for establishing clinically relevant critical limits. Clinicians should be involved in developing the laboratory’s critical value policy. The findings of this survey may be of value to local laboratories that are in the process of establishing or reviewing critical value policies