Abstract
Background Increased numbers of cases of Corynebacterium diphtheriae infections were diagnosed in migrant-related facilities of Europe since summer 2022. Most cases involved cutaneous diphtheria, although some respiratory cases and fatalities were reported. A pan-European consortium was created to assess the clinical, epidemiological and microbiological features of this outbreak.
Methods All 363 toxigenic C. diphtheriae infection cases from ten European countries were included. Data from case interviews regarding countries of origin and transit routes of migrants were collected. Bacterial isolates underwent whole genome sequencing and antibiotic susceptibility testing. Phylogenetic relationships of outbreak isolates and their antimicrobial resistance genes were studied.
Results Four major genomic clusters were identified, revealing the multiclonal nature of the outbreak. Genes ermX, coding for erythromycin resistance, and genes pbp2m and blaOXA-2 for beta-lactam resistance, were detected in a subset of isolates. Isolates harboring ermX were resistant to erythromycin, and isolates carrying pbp2m were resistant to penicillin, but susceptible to amoxicillin, whereas those carrying blaOXA-2 remained susceptible to beta-lactams. Genomic variation within the four genomic clusters led to estimate their most recent common ancestors between 2017 and 2020.
Conclusions The multi-country distribution of each cluster demonstrated repeated cross-border spread. The increased number of C. diphtheriae cases among migrants is a cause for concern, particularly considering antimicrobial resistance phenotypes that threaten the efficacy of first-line treatments. This work provides important knowledge on modern C. diphtheriae infections, useful for addressing the reemergence of diphtheria in vulnerable populations and to guide clinical management and measures to control further dissemination.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The sequencing was funded via the following grants. AE unrestricted grant by the University of Zurich; The Swiss Pathogen Surveillance Platform funded via an NRP72 Swiss National Science Foundation grant; The French National Reference Center for diphtheria is supported by Institut Pasteur and Sante publique France; The German National Consiliary Laboratory for Diphtheria was partly supported by the Bavarian State Ministry of the Health & Care and by the German Federal Ministry of Health via the Robert Koch-Institute and its National Reference Laboratories Network (09-47, FKZ 1369-359).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
France: Diphtheria is a notifiable disease in France. Phenotypic and genotypic analyses of bacterial isolates were carried out within the framework of the mandate given to the National Reference Center for Corynebacteria of the Diphtheriae Complex by the Ministry of Health (Public Health France). All French bacteriological samples and associated clinical data are collected, coded, shipped, managed and analyzed according to the French National Reference Center protocols that received approval by French supervisory ethics authority (CNIL, number 1474671). Switzerland: In Switzerland, there is a nationwide ethical approval for outbreak investigation via the Swiss Pathogen Surveillance Platform (SPSP, www.spsp.ch; EKNZ 2019-01291). Germany: Analyses were part of the tasks as National reference center legally covered by the German Infectious Diseases Protection Act (IfSG). Austria: In Austria, outbreak investigation is part of the reference laboratory assignment for mandatory notifiable diseases, including diphtheria, by the Ministry of health. Since all Data gained for this study has been anonymized and gained according to Austrian law (Epidemiegesetz 1. Abs.2, 4, 4a Abs.1. and Abs. 5), no ethical committee approval is needed. UK: The UK Health Security Agency (and its predecessor organization Public Health England), has legal permission, provided by Regulation 3 of The Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002, to process confidential patient information for national surveillance of communicable diseases (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/1438/regulation/3/made) and, as such, ethics committee approval is not required. Netherlands: The bacterial isolates belong to the medical microbiology laboratory and were obtained as part of routine clinical care. Since diphtheria is a notifiable disease in the Netherlands, additional phenotypic and genotypic analyses on these isolates were carried out to support outbreak management. To ensure privacy, person identifiers were anonymized before release of any type of data. Furthermore, only the patient age in years (not birthdate) and a residential region identifier based on the four digits of the zip code only were collected. Only bacterial isolates and not clinical specimensobtained from patients were used for this study. Since no identifiable personal data was collected and data were analyzed and processed anonymously, written or verbal patient consent was not required. According to the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO), this study was therefore exempt from review by an Institutional Review Board. Norway: Diphtheria is a notifiable disease in Norway and all the human cases are reported by physicians to the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases (MSIS). Ethical approval was not required as the study was initiated within the legal mandate of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH) to investigate and report on infectious disease epidemiology. Belgium: All data accessed in the context of the present study were collected as part of the routine data collection for epidemiological surveillance, as stated in the Public Register dated 25/04/1997. In accordance with paragraph 9 of the latter authorization, article 6, paragraph 1 and article 9, paragraph 2, of the General Data Protection Regulation, no written informed consent from the patients is required for the collection and analysis of epidemiological data and treatment success when processing of personal data is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public (health) interest. Spain: Diphtheria is a notifiable disease in Spain. Analyzes were carried out within the tasks trusted to the National Center of Microbiology as stated in Ley General de Sanidad (Law 14/1986, of April 25) and the statute of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (RD 375 /2001, of April 6 and its subsequent reform, RD 1672/2009, of November 6). Italy: Diphtheria is a notifiable disease in Italy and all human case are reported to the Sistema di Sorveglianza delle Malattie Infettive (PREMAL, https://www.seremi.it/sites/default/files/DPAScan0000_1466.pdf), the system for infectious disease surveillance and public health activities of the National Health Service. Analyses (diagnostic confirmation of species and toxicity assay by phenotypic and genotypic methods) of the bacterial isolates, sent by hospital laboratories as part of routine clinical care, are part of the tasks as National Reference Laboratory for Diphtheria, legally covered by the Italian regulation. In this study, only bacterial isolates and not clinical specimens obtained from patients were used and all data were received in an anonymized form. Ethical approval or informed consent were not required as the study was conducted within the legal mandate to investigate and report on infectious disease epidemiology.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Accession numbers of genomic data are provided in Table S2.
