RESUMEN
Importance: Infections due to multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, length of hospitalization, and health care costs. Regional interventions may be advantageous in mitigating MDROs and associated infections. Objective: To evaluate whether implementation of a decolonization collaborative is associated with reduced regional MDRO prevalence, incident clinical cultures, infection-related hospitalizations, costs, and deaths. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study was conducted from July 1, 2017, to July 31, 2019, across 35 health care facilities in Orange County, California. Exposures: Chlorhexidine bathing and nasal iodophor antisepsis for residents in long-term care and hospitalized patients in contact precautions (CP). Main Outcomes and Measures: Baseline and end of intervention MDRO point prevalence among participating facilities; incident MDRO (nonscreening) clinical cultures among participating and nonparticipating facilities; and infection-related hospitalizations and associated costs and deaths among residents in participating and nonparticipating nursing homes (NHs). Results: Thirty-five facilities (16 hospitals, 16 NHs, 3 long-term acute care hospitals [LTACHs]) adopted the intervention. Comparing decolonization with baseline periods among participating facilities, the mean (SD) MDRO prevalence decreased from 63.9% (12.2%) to 49.9% (11.3%) among NHs, from 80.0% (7.2%) to 53.3% (13.3%) among LTACHs (odds ratio [OR] for NHs and LTACHs, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.40-0.57), and from 64.1% (8.5%) to 55.4% (13.8%) (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.93) among hospitalized patients in CP. When comparing decolonization with baseline among NHs, the mean (SD) monthly incident MDRO clinical cultures changed from 2.7 (1.9) to 1.7 (1.1) among participating NHs, from 1.7 (1.4) to 1.5 (1.1) among nonparticipating NHs (group × period interaction reduction, 30.4%; 95% CI, 16.4%-42.1%), from 25.5 (18.6) to 25.0 (15.9) among participating hospitals, from 12.5 (10.1) to 14.3 (10.2) among nonparticipating hospitals (group × period interaction reduction, 12.9%; 95% CI, 3.3%-21.5%), and from 14.8 (8.6) to 8.2 (6.1) among LTACHs (all facilities participating; 22.5% reduction; 95% CI, 4.4%-37.1%). For NHs, the rate of infection-related hospitalizations per 1000 resident-days changed from 2.31 during baseline to 1.94 during intervention among participating NHs, and from 1.90 to 2.03 among nonparticipating NHs (group × period interaction reduction, 26.7%; 95% CI, 19.0%-34.5%). Associated hospitalization costs per 1000 resident-days changed from $64â¯651 to $55â¯149 among participating NHs and from $55â¯151 to $59â¯327 among nonparticipating NHs (group × period interaction reduction, 26.8%; 95% CI, 26.7%-26.9%). Associated hospitalization deaths per 1000 resident-days changed from 0.29 to 0.25 among participating NHs and from 0.23 to 0.24 among nonparticipating NHs (group × period interaction reduction, 23.7%; 95% CI, 4.5%-43.0%). Conclusions and Relevance: A regional collaborative involving universal decolonization in long-term care facilities and targeted decolonization among hospital patients in CP was associated with lower MDRO carriage, infections, hospitalizations, costs, and deaths.
Asunto(s)
Antiinfecciosos Locales , Infecciones Bacterianas , Infección Hospitalaria , Farmacorresistencia Bacteriana Múltiple , Instituciones de Salud , Control de Infecciones , Anciano , Humanos , Administración Intranasal , Antiinfecciosos Locales/administración & dosificación , Antiinfecciosos Locales/uso terapéutico , Infecciones Bacterianas/economía , Infecciones Bacterianas/microbiología , Infecciones Bacterianas/mortalidad , Infecciones Bacterianas/prevención & control , Baños/métodos , California/epidemiología , Clorhexidina/administración & dosificación , Clorhexidina/uso terapéutico , Infección Hospitalaria/economía , Infección Hospitalaria/microbiología , Infección Hospitalaria/mortalidad , Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & control , Instituciones de Salud/economía , Instituciones de Salud/normas , Instituciones de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Hospitalización/economía , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Hospitales/normas , Hospitales/estadística & datos numéricos , Control de Infecciones/métodos , Yodóforos/administración & dosificación , Yodóforos/uso terapéutico , Casas de Salud/economía , Casas de Salud/normas , Casas de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Transferencia de Pacientes , Mejoramiento de la Calidad/economía , Mejoramiento de la Calidad/estadística & datos numéricos , Cuidados de la Piel/métodos , Precauciones UniversalesRESUMEN
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Colonization by MRSA increases the risk of infection and transmission, underscoring the importance of decolonization efforts. However, success of these decolonization protocols varies, raising the possibility that some MRSA strains may be more persistent than others. Here, we studied how the persistence of MRSA colonization correlates with genomic presence of antibiotic resistance genes. Our analysis using a Bayesian mixed effects survival model found that genetic determinants of high-level resistance to mupirocin was strongly associated with failure of the decolonization protocol. However, we did not see a similar effect with genetic resistance to chlorhexidine or other antibiotics. Including strain-specific random effects improved the predictive performance, indicating that some strain characteristics other than resistance also contributed to persistence. Study subject-specific random effects did not improve the model. Our results highlight the need to consider the properties of the colonizing MRSA strain when deciding which treatments to include in the decolonization protocol.
Asunto(s)
Antiinfecciosos Locales , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina , Infecciones Estafilocócicas , Humanos , Teorema de Bayes , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Portador Sano , Antibacterianos/farmacología , Farmacorresistencia MicrobianaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Nursing home residents are at high risk for infection, hospitalization, and colonization with multidrug-resistant organisms. METHODS: We performed a cluster-randomized trial of universal decolonization as compared with routine-care bathing in nursing homes. The trial included an 18-month baseline period and an 18-month intervention period. Decolonization entailed the use of chlorhexidine for all routine bathing and showering and administration of nasal povidone-iodine twice daily for the first 5 days after admission and then twice daily for 5 days every other week. The primary outcome was transfer to a hospital due to infection. The secondary outcome was transfer to a hospital for any reason. An intention-to-treat (as-assigned) difference-in-differences analysis was performed for each outcome with the use of generalized linear mixed models to compare the intervention period with the baseline period across trial groups. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 28 nursing homes with a total of 28,956 residents. Among the transfers to a hospital in the routine-care group, 62.2% (the mean across facilities) were due to infection during the baseline period and 62.6% were due to infection during the intervention period (risk ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 1.04). The corresponding values in the decolonization group were 62.9% and 52.2% (risk ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.88), for a difference in risk ratio, as compared with routine care, of 16.6% (95% CI, 11.0 to 21.8; P<0.001). Among the discharges from the nursing home in the routine-care group, transfer to a hospital for any reason accounted for 36.6% during the baseline period and for 39.2% during the intervention period (risk ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.12). The corresponding values in the decolonization group were 35.5% and 32.4% (risk ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88 to 0.96), for a difference in risk ratio, as compared with routine care, of 14.6% (95% CI, 9.7 to 19.2). The number needed to treat was 9.7 to prevent one infection-related hospitalization and 8.9 to prevent one hospitalization for any reason. CONCLUSIONS: In nursing homes, universal decolonization with chlorhexidine and nasal iodophor led to a significantly lower risk of transfer to a hospital due to infection than routine care. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Protect ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03118232.).
Asunto(s)
Antiinfecciosos Locales , Infecciones Asintomáticas , Clorhexidina , Infección Hospitalaria , Casas de Salud , Povidona Yodada , Humanos , Administración Cutánea , Administración Intranasal , Antiinfecciosos Locales/administración & dosificación , Antiinfecciosos Locales/uso terapéutico , Baños , Clorhexidina/administración & dosificación , Clorhexidina/uso terapéutico , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & control , Infección Hospitalaria/terapia , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Casas de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Transferencia de Pacientes/estadística & datos numéricos , Povidona Yodada/administración & dosificación , Povidona Yodada/uso terapéutico , Cuidados de la Piel/métodos , Infecciones Asintomáticas/terapiaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Severe cases of COVID-19 pneumonia can lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Release of interleukin (IL)-33, an epithelial-derived alarmin, and IL-33/ST2 pathway activation are linked with ARDS development in other viral infections. IL-22, a cytokine that modulates innate immunity through multiple regenerative and protective mechanisms in lung epithelial cells, is reduced in patients with ARDS. This study aimed to evaluate safety and efficacy of astegolimab, a human immunoglobulin G2 monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits the IL-33 receptor, ST2, or efmarodocokin alfa, a human IL-22 fusion protein that activates IL-22 signaling, for treatment of severe COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN: Phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (COVID-astegolimab-IL). SETTING: Hospitals. PATIENTS: Hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive IV astegolimab, efmarodocokin alfa, or placebo, plus standard of care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery, defined as time to a score of 1 or 2 on a 7-category ordinal scale by day 28. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study randomized 396 patients. Median time to recovery was 11 days (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01 d; p = 0.93) and 10 days (HR, 1.15 d; p = 0.38) for astegolimab and efmarodocokin alfa, respectively, versus 10 days for placebo. Key secondary endpoints (improved recovery, mortality, or prevention of worsening) showed no treatment benefits. No new safety signals were observed and adverse events were similar across treatment arms. Biomarkers demonstrated that both drugs were pharmacologically active. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with astegolimab or efmarodocokin alfa did not improve time to recovery in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria , Adulto , Humanos , Interleucina-33 , SARS-CoV-2 , Proteína 1 Similar al Receptor de Interleucina-1 , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The CLEAR Trial demonstrated that a multisite body decolonization regimen reduced post-discharge infection and hospitalization in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriers. Here, we describe decolonization efficacy. METHODS: We performed a large, multicenter, randomized clinical trial of MRSA decolonization among adult patients after hospital discharge with MRSA infection or colonization. Participants were randomized 1:1 to either MRSA prevention education or education plus decolonization with topical chlorhexidine, oral chlorhexidine, and nasal mupirocin. Participants were swabbed in the nares, throat, axilla/groin, and wound (if applicable) at baseline and 1, 3, 6, and 9 months after randomization. The primary outcomes of this study are follow-up colonization differences between groups. RESULTS: Among 2121 participants, 1058 were randomized to decolonization. By 1 month, MRSA colonization was lower in the decolonization group compared with the education-only group (odds ration [OR] = 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], .36-.54; P ≤ .001). A similar magnitude of reduction was seen in the nares (OR = 0.34; 95% CI, .27-.42; P < .001), throat (OR = 0.55; 95% CI, .42-.73; P < .001), and axilla/groin (OR = 0.57; 95% CI, .43-.75; P < .001). These differences persisted through month 9 except at the wound site, which had a relatively small sample size. Higher regimen adherence was associated with lower MRSA colonization (P ≤ .01). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized, clinical trial, a repeated post-discharge decolonization regimen for MRSA carriers reduced MRSA colonization overall and at multiple body sites. Higher treatment adherence was associated with greater reductions in MRSA colonization.
Asunto(s)
Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina , Infecciones Estafilocócicas , Adulto , Humanos , Mupirocina/uso terapéutico , Clorhexidina/uso terapéutico , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Antibacterianos/farmacología , Alta del Paciente , Cuidados Posteriores , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/prevención & control , Portador Sano/tratamiento farmacológico , Portador Sano/prevención & control , Farmacorresistencia Microbiana , HospitalesRESUMEN
The CLEAR Trial recently found that decolonization reduced infections and hospitalizations in MRSA carriers in the year following hospital discharge. In this secondary analysis, we explored whether decolonization had a similar benefit in the subgroup of trial participants who harbored USA300, using two different definitions for the USA300 strain-type.
Asunto(s)
Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina , Infecciones Estafilocócicas , Humanos , Cuidados Posteriores , Portador Sano/tratamiento farmacológico , Alta del Paciente , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/prevención & controlRESUMEN
Antibiotic-resistant pathogens cause over 35,000 preventable deaths in the United States every year, and multiple strategies could decrease morbidity and mortality. As antibiotic stewardship requirements are being deployed for the outpatient setting, community providers are facing systematic challenges in implementing stewardship programs. Given that the vast majority of antibiotics are prescribed in the outpatient setting, there are endless opportunities to make a smart and informed choice when prescribing and to move the needle on antibiotic stewardship. Antibiotic stewardship in the community, or "smart prescribing" as we suggest, should factor in antibiotic efficacy, safety, local resistance rates, and overall cost, in addition to patient-specific factors and disease presentation, to arrive at an appropriate therapy. Here, we discuss some of the challenges, such as patient/parent pressure to prescribe, lack of data or resources for implementation, and a disconnect between guidelines and real-world practice, among others. We have assembled an easy-to-use best practice guide for providers in the outpatient setting who lack the time or resources to develop a plan or consult lengthy guidelines. We provide specific suggestions for antibiotic prescribing that align real-world clinical practice with best practices for antibiotic stewardship for two of the most common bacterial infections seen in the outpatient setting: community-acquired pneumonia and skin and soft-tissue infection. In addition, we discuss many ways that community providers, payors, and regulatory bodies can make antibiotic stewardship easier to implement and more streamlined in the outpatient setting.
RESUMEN
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) can colonize multiple body sites, and carriage is a risk factor for infection. Successful decolonization protocols reduce disease incidence; however, multiple protocols exist, comprising diverse therapies targeting multiple body sites, and the optimal protocol is unclear. Standard methods cannot infer the impact of site-specific components on successful decolonization. Here, we formulate a Bayesian coupled hidden Markov model, which estimates interactions between body sites, quantifies the contribution of each therapy to successful decolonization, and enables predictions of the efficacy of therapy combinations. We applied the model to longitudinal data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an MRSA decolonization protocol consisting of chlorhexidine body and mouthwash and nasal mupirocin. Our findings (i) confirmed nares as a central hub for MRSA colonization and nasal mupirocin as the most crucial therapy and (ii) demonstrated all components contributed significantly to the efficacy of the protocol and the protocol reduced self-inoculation. Finally, we assessed the impact of hypothetical therapy improvements in silico and found that enhancing MRSA clearance at the skin would yield the largest gains. This study demonstrates the use of advanced modelling to go beyond what is typically achieved by RCTs, enabling evidence-based decision-making to streamline clinical protocols.
Asunto(s)
Antiinfecciosos Locales , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina , Infecciones Estafilocócicas , Antibacterianos/farmacología , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Antiinfecciosos Locales/uso terapéutico , Portador Sano/tratamiento farmacológico , Humanos , Mupirocina/farmacología , Mupirocina/uso terapéutico , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
In a prospective cohort study, we compared a 2-swabs-per-nostril 5% iodophor regimen with a 1-swab-per-nostril 10% iodophor regimen on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriage in nursing-home residents. Compared with baseline, both single-swab and double-swab regimens resulted in an identical 40% reduction in nasal carriage and 60% reduction in any carriage, skin or nasal.
Asunto(s)
Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina , Infecciones Estafilocócicas , Humanos , Clorhexidina/farmacología , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/prevención & control , Staphylococcus aureus , Estudios Prospectivos , YodóforosRESUMEN
Importance: Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) can spread across health care facilities in a region. Because of limited resources, certain interventions can be implemented in only some facilities; thus, decision-makers need to evaluate which interventions may be best to implement. Objective: To identify a group of target facilities and assess which MDRO intervention would be best to implement in the Shared Healthcare Intervention to Eliminate Life-threatening Dissemination of MDROs in Orange County, a large regional public health collaborative in Orange County, California. Design, Setting, and Participants: An agent-based model of health care facilities was developed in 2016 to simulate the spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) for 10 years starting in 2010 and to simulate the use of various MDRO interventions for 3 years starting in 2017. All health care facilities (23 hospitals, 5 long-term acute care hospitals, and 74 nursing homes) serving adult inpatients in Orange County, California, were included, and 42 target facilities were identified via network analyses. Exposures: Increasing contact precaution effectiveness, increasing interfacility communication about patients' MDRO status, and performing decolonization using antiseptic bathing soap and a nasal product in a specific group of target facilities. Main Outcomes and Measures: MRSA and CRE prevalence and number of new carriers (ie, transmission events). Results: Compared with continuing infection control measures used in Orange County as of 2017, increasing contact precaution effectiveness from 40% to 64% in 42 target facilities yielded relative reductions of 0.8% (range, 0.5%-1.1%) in MRSA prevalence and 2.4% (range, 0.8%-4.6%) in CRE prevalence in health care facilities countywide after 3 years, averting 761 new MRSA transmission events (95% CI, 756-765 events) and 166 new CRE transmission events (95% CI, 158-174 events). Increasing interfacility communication of patients' MDRO status to 80% in these target facilities produced no changes in the prevalence or transmission of MRDOs. Implementing decolonization procedures (clearance probability: 39% in hospitals, 27% in long-term acute care facilities, and 3% in nursing homes) yielded a relative reduction of 23.7% (range, 23.5%-23.9%) in MRSA prevalence, averting 3515 new transmission events (95% CI, 3509-3521 events). Increasing the effectiveness of antiseptic bathing soap to 48% yielded a relative reduction of 39.9% (range, 38.5%-41.5%) in CRE prevalence, averting 1435 new transmission events (95% CI, 1427-1442 events). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study highlight the ways in which modeling can inform design of regional interventions and suggested that decolonization would be the best strategy for the Shared Healthcare Intervention to Eliminate Life-threatening Dissemination of MDROs in Orange County.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones Bacterianas/prevención & control , Infecciones Bacterianas/transmisión , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa/prevención & control , Farmacorresistencia Bacteriana Múltiple , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Instituciones de Cuidados Especializados de Enfermería/normas , California , HumanosRESUMEN
We performed secondary analyses of a postdischarge decolonization trial of MRSA carriers that reduced MRSA infection and hospitalization by 30%. Hospitalized MRSA infection was associated with 7.9 days of non-MRSA antibiotics and CDI in 3.9%. Preventing MRSA infection and associated hospitalization may reduce antibiotic use and CDI incidence.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Clostridium , Infección Hospitalaria , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina , Infecciones Estafilocócicas , Cuidados Posteriores , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Infecciones por Clostridium/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones por Clostridium/epidemiología , Infecciones por Clostridium/prevención & control , Infección Hospitalaria/tratamiento farmacológico , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & control , Humanos , Alta del Paciente , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/epidemiología , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/prevención & controlRESUMEN
Finding medications or vaccines that may decrease the infectious period of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) could potentially reduce transmission in the broader population. We developed a computational model of the U.S. simulating the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the potential clinical and economic impact of reducing the infectious period duration. Simulation experiments found that reducing the average infectious period duration could avert a median of 442,852 [treating 25% of symptomatic cases, reducing by 0.5 days, reproductive number (R0) 3.5, and starting treatment when 15% of the population has been exposed] to 44.4 million SARS-CoV-2 cases (treating 75% of all infected cases, reducing by 3.5 days, R0 2.0). With R0 2.5, reducing the average infectious period duration by 0.5 days for 25% of symptomatic cases averted 1.4 million cases and 99,398 hospitalizations; increasing to 75% of symptomatic cases averted 2.8 million cases. At $500/person, treating 25% of symptomatic cases saved $209.5 billion (societal perspective). Further reducing the average infectious period duration by 3.5 days averted 7.4 million cases (treating 25% of symptomatic cases). Expanding treatment to 75% of all infected cases, including asymptomatic infections (R0 2.5), averted 35.9 million cases and 4 million hospitalizations, saving $48.8 billion (societal perspective and starting treatment after 5% of the population has been exposed). Our study quantifies the potential effects of reducing the SARS-CoV-2 infectious period duration.
Asunto(s)
Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , COVID-19/transmisión , Modelos Biológicos , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiología , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/uso terapéutico , Biología Computacional , Simulación por Computador , Humanos , Pandemias/prevención & control , Pandemias/estadística & datos numéricos , SARS-CoV-2/efectos de los fármacos , Factores de Tiempo , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Esparcimiento de Virus/efectos de los fármacosRESUMEN
Accurately identifying carbapenem resistant enterobacteriace (CRE) from fomites is critical for infection control practices, research, and assessing patient risk. We compared a commercial CRE agar intended for patient use with a modified MacConkey agar. We found that our modified MacConkey agar was more selective at identifying CRE from environmental sources.
Asunto(s)
Carbapenémicos , Infecciones por Enterobacteriaceae , Antibacterianos/farmacología , Carbapenémicos/farmacología , Fómites , Humanos , Pruebas de Sensibilidad MicrobianaRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Given the continuing COVID-19 pandemic and much of the U.S. implementing social distancing owing to the lack of alternatives, there has been a push to develop a vaccine to eliminate the need for social distancing. METHODS: In 2020, the team developed a computational model of the U.S. simulating the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus and vaccination. RESULTS: Simulation experiments revealed that to prevent an epidemic (reduce the peak by >99%), the vaccine efficacy has to be at least 60% when vaccination coverage is 100% (reproduction number=2.5-3.5). This vaccine efficacy threshold rises to 70% when coverage drops to 75% and up to 80% when coverage drops to 60% when reproduction number is 2.5, rising to 80% when coverage drops to 75% when the reproduction number is 3.5. To extinguish an ongoing epidemic, the vaccine efficacy has to be at least 60% when coverage is 100% and at least 80% when coverage drops to 75% to reduce the peak by 85%-86%, 61%-62%, and 32% when vaccination occurs after 5%, 15%, and 30% of the population, respectively, have already been exposed to COVID-19 coronavirus. A vaccine with an efficacy between 60% and 80% could still obviate the need for other measures under certain circumstances such as much higher, and in some cases, potentially unachievable, vaccination coverages. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the vaccine has to have an efficacy of at least 70% to prevent an epidemic and of at least 80% to largely extinguish an epidemic without any other measures (e.g., social distancing).
Asunto(s)
Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles , Simulación por Computador , Infecciones por Coronavirus , Pandemias , Neumonía Viral , Vacunación , Vacunas Virales/farmacología , Betacoronavirus/aislamiento & purificación , COVID-19 , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/métodos , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/estadística & datos numéricos , Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Infecciones por Coronavirus/prevención & control , Erradicación de la Enfermedad/métodos , Erradicación de la Enfermedad/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Evaluación de Necesidades , Pandemias/prevención & control , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Neumonía Viral/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Resultado del Tratamiento , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Vacunación/métodos , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Cobertura de Vacunación , Vacunas Virales/normasRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Given the continuing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and much of the U.S. implementing social distancing due to the lack of alternatives, there has been a push to develop a vaccine to eliminate the need for social distancing. METHODS: In 2020, we developed a computational model of the U.S. simulating the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus and vaccination. RESULTS: Simulation experiments revealed that when vaccine efficacy exceeded 70%, coverage exceeded 60%, and vaccination occurred on day 1, the attack rate dropped to 22% with daily cases not exceeding 3.2 million (reproductive rate, R0, 2.5). When R0 was 3.5, the attack rate dropped to 41% with daily cases not exceeding 14.4 million. Increasing coverage to 75% when vaccination occurred by day 90 resulted in 5% attack rate and daily cases not exceeding 258,029when R0 was 2.5 and a 26% attack rate and maximum daily cases of 22.6 million when R0 was 3.5. When vaccination did not occur until day 180, coverage (i.e., those vaccinated plus those otherwise immune) had to reach 100%. A vaccine with an efficacy between 40% and 70% could still obviate the need for other measures under certain circumstances such as much higher, and in some cases, potentially unachievable, vaccination coverages. CONCLUSION: Our study found that to either prevent or largely extinguish an epidemic without any other measures (e.g., social distancing), the vaccine has to have an efficacy of at least 70%.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Determine the prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. (VRE), extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing organisms (ESBLs), and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) among residents and in the environment of nursing homes (NHs). DESIGN: Point prevalence sampling of residents and environmental sampling of high-touch objects in resident rooms and common areas. SETTING: Twenty-eight NHs in Southern California from 2016 to 2017. PARTICIPANTS: NH participants in Project PROTECT, a cluster-randomized trial of enhanced bathing and decolonization vs routine care. METHODS: Fifty residents were randomly sampled per NH. Twenty objects were sampled, including 5 common room objects plus 5 objects in each of 3 rooms (ambulatory, total care, and dementia care residents). RESULTS: A total of 2797 swabs were obtained from 1400 residents in 28 NHs. Median prevalence of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) carriage per NH was 50% (range: 24%-70%). Median prevalence of specific MDROs were as follows: MRSA, 36% (range: 20%-54%); ESBL, 16% (range: 2%-34%); VRE, 5% (range: 0%-30%); and CRE, 0% (range: 0%-8%). A median of 45% of residents (range: 24%-67%) harbored an MDRO without a known MDRO history. Environmental MDRO contamination was found in 74% of resident rooms and 93% of common areas. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: In more than half of the NHs, more than 50% of residents were colonized with MDROs of clinical and public health significance, most commonly MRSA and ESBL. Additionally, the vast majority of resident rooms and common areas were MDRO contaminated. The unknown submerged portion of the iceberg of MDRO carriers in NHs may warrant changes to infection prevention and control practices, particularly high-fidelity adoption of universal strategies such as hand hygiene, environmental cleaning, and decolonization.
Asunto(s)
Infección Hospitalaria , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina , Enterococos Resistentes a la Vancomicina , Infección Hospitalaria/tratamiento farmacológico , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & control , Farmacorresistencia Bacteriana Múltiple , Humanos , Casas de Salud , PrevalenciaRESUMEN
With the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, one of the major concerns is the direct medical cost and resource use burden imposed on the US health care system. We developed a Monte Carlo simulation model that represented the US population and what could happen to each person who got infected. We estimated resource use and direct medical costs per symptomatic infection and at the national level, with various "attack rates" (infection rates), to understand the potential economic benefits of reducing the burden of the disease. A single symptomatic COVID-19 case could incur a median direct medical cost of $3,045 during the course of the infection alone. If 80 percent of the US population were to get infected, the result could be a median of 44.6 million hospitalizations, 10.7 million intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, 6.5 million patients requiring a ventilator, 249.5 million hospital bed days, and $654.0 billion in direct medical costs over the course of the pandemic. If 20 percent of the US population were to get infected, there could be a median of 11.2 million hospitalizations, 2.7 million ICU admissions, 1.6 million patients requiring a ventilator, 62.3 million hospital bed days, and $163.4 billion in direct medical costs over the course of the pandemic.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Coronavirus/economía , Brotes de Enfermedades/economía , Costos de la Atención en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Recursos en Salud/economía , Costos de Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Pandemias/economía , Neumonía Viral/economía , COVID-19 , Atención a la Salud/economía , Brotes de Enfermedades/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Recursos en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos/economía , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos/estadística & datos numéricos , Tiempo de Internación/economía , Masculino , Método de Montecarlo , Pandemias/estadística & datos numéricos , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Antibiotic treatment failure is common among patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) who are managed in the outpatient setting and is associated with higher mortality and increased health care costs. This study's objectives were to quantify the occurrence of antibiotic treatment failure (ATF) and to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes between CAP patients who experienced ATF relative to those who did not. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the MarketScan Commercial & Medicare Supplemental Databases was performed, identifying patients ≥18 years old, with a pneumonia diagnosis in the outpatient setting, and who received a fluoroquinolone, macrolides, beta-lactam, or tetracycline. ATF was defined as any of the following events within 30 days of initial antibiotic: antibiotic refill, antibiotic switch, emergency room visit, or hospitalization. Outcomes included 30-day all-cause mortality and CAP-related health care costs. RESULTS: During the study period, 251 947 unique patients met inclusion criteria. The mean age was 52.2 years, and 47.7% were male. The majority of patients received a fluoroquinolone (44.4%) or macrolide (43.6%). Overall, 22.1% were classified as ATFs. Among 18-64-year-old patients, 21.2% experienced treatment failure, compared with 25.7% in those >65 years old. All-cause mortality was greater in the antibiotic failure group relative to the non-antibiotic failure group (18.1% vs 4.6%, respectively), and the differences in 30-day mortality between antibiotic failure groups increased as a function of age. Mean 30-day CAP-related health care costs were also higher in the patients who experienced treatment failure relative to those who did not ($2140 vs $54, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment failure and poor outcomes from outpatient CAP are common with current guideline-concordant CAP therapies. Improvements in clinical management programs and therapeutic options are needed.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Clinical testing detects a fraction of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) carriers. Detecting a greater proportion could lead to increased use of infection prevention and control measures but requires resources. Therefore, it is important to understand the impact of detecting increasing proportions of CRE carriers. METHODS: We used our Regional Healthcare Ecosystem Analyst-generated agent-based model of adult inpatient healthcare facilities in Orange County, California, to explore the impact that detecting greater proportions of carriers has on the spread of CRE. RESULTS: Detecting and placing 1 in 9 carriers on contact precautions increased the prevalence of CRE from 0% to 8.0% countywide over 10 years. Increasing the proportion of detected carriers from 1 in 9 up to 1 in 5 yielded linear reductions in transmission; at proportions >1 in 5, reductions were greater than linear. Transmission reductions did not occur for 1, 4, or 5 years, varying by facility type. With a contact precautions effectiveness of ≤70%, the detection level yielding nonlinear reductions remained unchanged; with an effectiveness of >80%, detecting only 1 in 5 carriers garnered large reductions in the number of new CRE carriers. Trends held when CRE was already present in the region. CONCLUSION: Although detection of all carriers provided the most benefits for preventing new CRE carriers, if this is not feasible, it may be worthwhile to aim for detecting >1 in 5 carriers.
Asunto(s)
Enterobacteriaceae Resistentes a los Carbapenémicos/aislamiento & purificación , Portador Sano/diagnóstico , Infecciones por Enterobacteriaceae/transmisión , Control de Infecciones/métodos , Portador Sano/epidemiología , Portador Sano/transmisión , Trazado de Contacto , Infecciones por Enterobacteriaceae/diagnóstico , Infecciones por Enterobacteriaceae/epidemiología , Infecciones por Enterobacteriaceae/prevención & control , Hospitales/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Casas de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , PrevalenciaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To determine temporal associations of local measures of influenza morbidity and mortality by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) with influenza hospitalizations in nursing home residents. DESIGN: Retrospective, longitudinal panel study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Long-stay nursing home residents, aged 65 years or older in 823 nursing homes from 2011 to 2015. MEASURES: CDC-reported rates of influenza and pneumonia mortality and laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalizations. We compared the CDC measures to nursing home resident hospitalizations due to (1) all-cause, (2) a primary diagnosis of respiratory or circulatory illness, and (3) a primary diagnosis of pneumonia or influenza based on Medicare Part A Claims data. RESULTS: Our final sample included 273,743 unique residents in 819 nursing homes in 108 cities. National laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations for the group aged 65 and older occurred 0 to 1 week prior to nursing home resident influenza-related hospitalizations (Spearman ρ = 0.54). CDC-reported influenza hospitalizations occurred 3 weeks prior to CDC-reported influenza deaths (ρ = 0.59). Nursing home resident influenza hospitalizations occurred 2 weeks before local CDC-reported pneumonia and influenza deaths occurred (ρ = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Publicly reported CDC measures correlate well with nursing home hospitalizations for pneumonia and influenza. Rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalizations (as reported by the CDC) may be a useful surrogate for nursing home influenza outbreaks but should be considered along with local indicators of disease outbreaks. Early community signals could be clinically leveraged as a trigger for increased infection control measures in nursing homes.