Overcoming challenges in the economic evaluation of interventions to optimise antibiotic use.

Bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics, reducing our ability to treat infections and threatening to undermine modern health care. Optimising antibiotic use is a key element in tackling the problem. Traditional economic evaluation methods do not capture many of the benefits from improved antibiotic use and the potential impact on resistance. Not capturing these benefits is a major obstacle to optimising antibiotic use, as it fails to incentivise the development and use of interventions to optimise the use of antibiotics and preserve their effectiveness (stewardship interventions). Estimates of the benefits of improving antibiotic use involve considerable uncertainty as they depend on the evolution of resistance and associated health outcomes and costs. Here we discuss how economic evaluation methods might be adapted, in the face of such uncertainties. We propose a threshold-based approach that estimates the minimum resistance-related costs that would need to be averted by an intervention to make it cost-effective. If it is probable that without the intervention costs will exceed the threshold then the intervention should be deemed cost-effective.

The effectiveness and efficiency of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies for patient and healthcare workers within acute NHS hospitals during an omicron-like period.

BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing of hospitalised patients began in April-2020, with twice weekly healthcare worker (HCW) testing introduced in November-2020. Guidance recommending asymptomatic testing was withdrawn in August-2022. Assessing the impact of this decision from data alone is challenging due to concurrent changes in infection prevention and control practices, community transmission rates, and a reduction in ascertainment rate from reduced testing. Computational modelling is an effective tool for estimating the impact of this change. METHODS: Using a computational model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in an English hospital we estimate the effectiveness of several asymptomatic testing strategies, namely; (1) Symptomatic testing of patients and HCWs, (2) testing of all patients on admission with/without repeat testing on days 3 and 5-7, and (3) symptomatic testing plus twice weekly asymptomatic HCW testing with 70% compliance. We estimate the number of patient and HCW infections, HCW absences, number of tests, and tests per case averted or absence avoided, with differing community prevalence rates over a 12-week period. RESULTS: Testing asymptomatic patients on admission reduces the rate of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection by 8.1-21.5%. Additional testing at days 3 and 5-7 post admission does not significantly reduce infection rates. Twice weekly asymptomatic HCW testing can reduce the proportion of HCWs infected by 1.0-4.4% and monthly absences by 0.4-0.8%. Testing asymptomatic patients repeatedly requires up to 5.5 million patient tests over the period, and twice weekly asymptomatic HCW testing increases the total tests to almost 30 million. The most efficient patient testing strategy (in terms of tests required to prevent a single patient infection) was testing asymptomatic patients on admission across all prevalence levels. The least efficient was repeated testing of patients with twice weekly asymptomatic HCW testing in a low prevalence scenario, and in all other prevalence levels symptomatic patient testing with regular HCW testing was least efficient. CONCLUSIONS: Testing patients on admission can reduce the rate of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection but there is little benefit of additional post-admission testing. Asymptomatic HCW testing has little incremental benefit for reducing patient cases at low prevalence but has a potential role at higher prevalence or with low community transmission. A full health-economic evaluation is required to determine the cost-effectiveness of these strategies.

Excess resource use and cost of drug-resistant infections for six key pathogens in Europe: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Quantifying the resource use and cost of antimicrobial resistance establishes the magnitude of the problem and drives action. OBJECTIVES: Assessment of resource use and cost associated with infections with six key drug-resistant pathogens in Europe. METHODS: A systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Econlit databases, and grey literature for the period 1 January 1990, to 21 June 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Resource use and cost outcomes (including excess length of stay, overall costs, and other excess in or outpatient costs) were compared between patients with defined antibiotic-resistant infections caused by carbapenem-resistant (CR) Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii, CR or third-generation cephalosporin Escherichia coli (3GCREC) and Klebsiella pneumoniae, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium, and patients with drug-susceptible or no infection. PARTICIPANTS: All patients diagnosed with drug-resistant bloodstream infections (BSIs). INTERVENTIONS: NA. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: An adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute assessment tool, incorporating case-control, cohort, and economic assessment frameworks. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Hierarchical Bayesian meta-analyses were used to assess pathogen-specific resource use estimates. RESULTS: Of 5969 screened publications, 37 were included in the review. Data were sparse and heterogeneous. Most studies estimated the attributable burden by, comparing resistant and susceptible pathogens (32/37). Four studies analysed the excess cost of hospitalization attributable to 3GCREC BSIs, ranging from -€ 2465.50 to € 6402.81. Eight studies presented adjusted excess length of hospital stay estimates for methicillin-resistant S. aureus and 3GCREC BSIs (4 each) allowing for Bayesian hierarchical analysis, estimating means of 1.26 (95% credible interval [CrI], -0.72 to 4.17) and 1.78 (95% CrI, -0.02 to 3.38) days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on most cost and resource use outcomes and across most pathogen-resistance combinations was severely lacking. Given the importance of this evidence for rational policymaking, further research is urgently needed.

Developing a Modeling Framework for Quantifying the Health and Cost Implications of Antibiotic Resistance for Surgical Procedures.

Background. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global public health threat. The wider implications of AMR, such as the impact of antibiotic resistance (ABR) on surgical procedures, are yet to be quantified. The objective of this study was to produce a conceptual modeling framework to provide a basis for estimating the current and potential future consequences of ABR for surgical procedures in England. Design. A framework was developed using literature-based evidence and structured expert elicitation. This was applied to populations undergoing emergency repair of the neck of the femur and elective colorectal resection surgery. Results. The framework captures the implications of increasing ABR by allowing for higher rates of surgical site infection (SSI) as the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis wanes and worsened outcomes following SSIs to reflect reduced antibiotic treatment effectiveness. The expert elicitation highlights the uncertainty in quantifying the impact of ABR, reflected in the results. A hypothetical SSI rate increase of 14% in a person undergoing emergency repair of the femur could increase costs by 39% (-2% to 108% credible interval [CI]) and decrease quality-adjusted life-years by 11% (0.4% to 62% CI) over 15 y. Conclusions. The modeling framework is a starting point for addressing the implication of ABR on the outcomes and costs of surgeries. Due to clinical uncertainty highlighted in the expert elicitation process, the numerical outputs of the case studies should not be focused on but rather the framework itself, illustration of the evidence gaps, the benefit of expert elicitation in quantifying parameters with limited data, and the potential magnitude of the impact of ABR on surgical procedures. Implications. The framework can be used to support research surrounding the health and cost burden of ABR in England. Highlights: The modeling framework is a starting point for assessing the health and cost impacts of antibiotic resistance on surgeries in England.Formulating a framework and synthesizing evidence to parameterize data gaps provides targets for future research.Once data gaps are addressed, this modeling framework can be used to feed into overall estimates of the health and cost burden of antibiotic resistance and evaluate control policies.

Quantifying the economic cost of antibiotic resistance and the impact of related interventions: rapid methodological review, conceptual framework and recommendations for future studies.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance (ABR) poses a major threat to health and economic wellbeing worldwide. Reducing ABR will require government interventions to incentivise antibiotic development, prudent antibiotic use, infection control and deployment of partial substitutes such as rapid diagnostics and vaccines. The scale of such interventions needs to be calibrated to accurate and comprehensive estimates of the economic cost of ABR. METHODS: A conceptual framework for estimating costs attributable to ABR was developed based on previous literature highlighting methodological shortcomings in the field and additional deductive epidemiological and economic reasoning. The framework was supplemented by a rapid methodological review. RESULTS: The review identified 110 articles quantifying ABR costs. Most were based in high-income countries only (91/110), set in hospitals (95/110), used a healthcare provider or payer perspective (97/110), and used matched cohort approaches to compare costs of patients with antibiotic-resistant infections and antibiotic-susceptible infections (or no infection) (87/110). Better use of methods to correct biases and confounding when making this comparison is needed. Findings also need to be extended beyond their limitations in (1) time (projecting present costs into the future), (2) perspective (from the healthcare sector to entire societies and economies), (3) scope (from individuals to communities and ecosystems), and (4) space (from single sites to countries and the world). Analyses of the impact of interventions need to be extended to examine the impact of the intervention on ABR, rather than considering ABR as an exogeneous factor. CONCLUSIONS: Quantifying the economic cost of resistance will require greater rigour and innovation in the use of existing methods to design studies that accurately collect relevant outcomes and further research into new techniques for capturing broader economic outcomes.

The health and cost burden of antibiotic resistant and susceptible Escherichia coli bacteraemia in the English hospital setting: A national retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Antibiotic resistance poses a threat to public health and healthcare systems. Escherichia coli causes more bacteraemia episodes in England than any other bacterial species. This study aimed to estimate the burden of E. coli bacteraemia and associated antibiotic resistance in the secondary care setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study, with E. coli bacteraemia as the main exposure of interest. Adult hospital in-patients, admitted to acute NHS hospitals between July 2011 and June 2012 were included. English national surveillance and administrative datasets were utilised. Cox proportional hazard, subdistribution hazard and multistate models were constructed to estimate rate of discharge, rate of in-hospital death and excess length of stay, with a unit bed day cost applied to the latter to estimate cost burden from the healthcare system perspective. RESULTS: 14,042 E. coli bacteraemia and 8,919,284 non-infected inpatient observations were included. E. coli bacteraemia was associated with an increased rate of in-hospital death across all models, with an adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio of 5.88 (95% CI: 5.62-6.15). Resistance was not found to be associated with in-hospital mortality once adjusting for patient and hospital covariates. However, resistance was found to be associated with an increased excess length of stay. This was especially true for third generation cephalosporin (1.58 days excess length of stay, 95% CI: 0.84-2.31) and piperacillin/tazobactam resistance (1.23 days (95% CI: 0.50-1.95)). The annual cost of E. coli bacteraemia was estimated to be £14,346,400 (2012 £), with third-generation cephalosporin resistance associated with excess costs per infection of £420 (95% CI: 220-630). CONCLUSIONS: E. coli bacteraemia places a statistically significant burden on patient health and the hospital sector in England. Resistance to front-line antibiotics increases length of stay; increasing the cost burden of such infections in the secondary care setting.

Efficacy, safety and impact on antimicrobial resistance of duration and dose of amoxicillin treatment for young children with Community-Acquired Pneumonia: a protocol for a randomIsed controlled Trial (CAP-IT).

INTRODUCTION: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common indication for antibiotic treatment in young children. Data are limited regarding the ideal dose and duration of amoxicillin, leading to practice variation which may impact on treatment failure and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Community-Acquired Pneumonia: a randomIsed controlled Trial (CAP-IT) aims to determine the optimal amoxicillin treatment strategies for CAP in young children in relation to efficacy and AMR. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The CAP-IT trial is a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled 2×2 factorial non-inferiority trial of amoxicillin dose and duration. Children are enrolled in paediatric emergency and inpatient environments, and randomised to receive amoxicillin 70-90 or 35-50 mg/kg/day for 3 or 7 days following hospital discharge. The primary outcome is systemic antibacterial treatment for respiratory tract infection (including CAP) other than trial medication up to 4 weeks after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include adverse events, severity and duration of parent-reported CAP symptoms, adherence and antibiotic resistance. The primary analysis will be by intention to treat. Assuming a 15% primary outcome event rate, 8% non-inferiority margin assessed against an upper one-sided 95% CI, 90% power and 15% loss to follow-up, 800 children will be enrolled to demonstrate non-inferiority for the primary outcome for each of duration and dose. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The CAP-IT trial and relevant materials were approved by the National Research Ethics Service (reference: 16/LO/0831; 30 June 2016). The CAP-IT trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, and in a report published by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. Oral and poster presentations will be given to national and international conferences, and participating families will be notified of the results if they so wish. Key messages will be constructed in partnership with families, and social media will be used in their dissemination. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN76888927, EudraCT2016-000809-36.

The challenge of antimicrobial resistance: What economics can contribute.

As antibiotic consumption grows, bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to treatment. Antibiotic resistance undermines much of modern health care, which relies on access to effective antibiotics to prevent and treat infections associated with routine medical procedures. The resulting challenges have much in common with those posed by climate change, which economists have responded to with research that has informed and shaped public policy. Drawing on economic concepts such as externalities and the principal-agent relationship, we suggest how economics can help to solve the challenges arising from increasing resistance to antibiotics. We discuss solutions to the key economic issues, from incentivizing the development of effective new antibiotics to improving antibiotic stewardship through financial mechanisms and regulation.

Estimating the burden of antimicrobial resistance: a systematic literature review.

Background: Accurate estimates of the burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are needed to establish the magnitude of this global threat in terms of both health and cost, and to paramaterise cost-effectiveness evaluations of interventions aiming to tackle the problem. This review aimed to establish the alternative methodologies used in estimating AMR burden in order to appraise the current evidence base. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, EconLit, PubMed and grey literature were searched. English language studies evaluating the impact of AMR (from any microbe) on patient, payer/provider and economic burden published between January 2013 and December 2015 were included. Independent screening of title/abstracts followed by full texts was performed using pre-specified criteria. A study quality score (from zero to one) was derived using Newcastle-Ottawa and Philips checklists. Extracted study data were used to compare study method and resulting burden estimate, according to perspective. Monetary costs were converted into 2013 USD. Results: Out of 5187 unique retrievals, 214 studies were included. One hundred eighty-seven studies estimated patient health, 75 studies estimated payer/provider and 11 studies estimated economic burden. 64% of included studies were single centre. The majority of studies estimating patient or provider/payer burden used regression techniques. 48% of studies estimating mortality burden found a significant impact from resistance, excess healthcare system costs ranged from non-significance to $1 billion per year, whilst economic burden ranged from $21,832 per case to over $3 trillion in GDP loss. Median quality scores (interquartile range) for patient, payer/provider and economic burden studies were 0.67 (0.56-0.67), 0.56 (0.46-0.67) and 0.53 (0.44-0.60) respectively. Conclusions: This study highlights what methodological assumptions and biases can occur dependent on chosen outcome and perspective. Currently, there is considerable variability in burden estimates, which can lead in-turn to inaccurate intervention evaluations and poor policy/investment decisions. Future research should utilise the recommendations presented in this review. Trial registration: This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO (PROSPERO CRD42016037510).

Estimating the Hospital Burden of Norovirus-Associated Gastroenteritis in England and Its Opportunity Costs for Nonadmitted Patients.

Background: Norovirus places a substantial burden on healthcare systems, arising from infected patients, disease outbreaks, beds kept unoccupied for infection control, and staff absences due to infection. In settings with high rates of bed occupancy, opportunity costs arise from patients who cannot be admitted due to beds being unavailable. With several treatments and vaccines against norovirus in development, quantifying the expected economic burden is timely. Methods: The number of inpatients with norovirus-associated gastroenteritis in England was modeled using infectious and noninfectious gastrointestinal Hospital Episode Statistics codes and laboratory reports of gastrointestinal pathogens collected at Public Health England. The excess length of stay from norovirus was estimated with a multistate model and local outbreak data. Unoccupied bed-days and staff absences were estimated from national outbreak surveillance. The burden was valued conventionally using accounting expenditures and wages, which we contrasted to the opportunity costs from forgone patients using a novel methodology. Results: Between July 2013 and June 2016, 17.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.6%‒21.6%) of primary and 23.8% (95% CI, 20.6%‒29.9%) of secondary gastrointestinal diagnoses were norovirus attributable. Annually, the estimated median 290000 (interquartile range, 282000‒297000) occupied and unoccupied bed-days used for norovirus displaced 57800 patients. Conventional costs for the National Health Service reached £107.6 million; the economic burden approximated to £297.7 million and a loss of 6300 quality-adjusted life-years annually. Conclusions: In England, norovirus is now the second-largest contributor of the gastrointestinal hospital burden. With the projected impact being greater than previously estimated, improved capture of relevant opportunity costs seems imperative for diseases such as norovirus.

Estimating the opportunity costs of bed-days.

Opportunity costs of bed-days are fundamental to understanding the value of healthcare systems. They greatly influence burden of disease estimations and economic evaluations involving stays in healthcare facilities. However, different estimation techniques employ assumptions that differ crucially in whether to consider the value of the second-best alternative use forgone, of any available alternative use, or the value of the actually chosen alternative. Informed by economic theory, this paper provides a taxonomic framework of methodologies for estimating the opportunity costs of resources. This taxonomy is then applied to bed-days by classifying existing approaches accordingly. We highlight differences in valuation between approaches and the perspective adopted, and we use our framework to appraise the assumptions and biases underlying the standard approaches that have been widely adopted mostly unquestioned in the past, such as the conventional use of reference costs and administrative accounting data. Drawing on these findings, we present a novel approach for estimating the opportunity costs of bed-days in terms of health forgone for the second-best patient, but expressed monetarily. This alternative approach effectively re-connects to the concept of choice and explicitly considers net benefits. It is broadly applicable across settings and for other resources besides bed-days.

A Risk Assessment of Antibiotic Pan-Drug-Resistance in the UK: Bayesian Analysis of an Expert Elicitation Study.

To inform the UK antimicrobial resistance strategy, a risk assessment was undertaken of the likelihood, over a five-year time-frame, of the emergence and widespread dissemination of pan-drug-resistant (PDR) Gram-negative bacteria that would pose a major public health threat by compromising effective healthcare delivery. Subsequent impact over five- and 20-year time-frames was assessed in terms of morbidity and mortality attributable to PDR Gram-negative bacteraemia. A Bayesian approach, combining available data with expert prior opinion, was used to determine the probability of the emergence, persistence and spread of PDR bacteria. Overall probability was modelled using Monte Carlo simulation. Estimates of impact were also obtained using Bayesian methods. The estimated probability of widespread occurrence of PDR pathogens within five years was 0.2 (95% credibility interval (CrI): 0.07-0.37). Estimated annual numbers of PDR Gram-negative bacteraemias at five and 20 years were 6800 (95% CrI: 400-58,600) and 22,800 (95% CrI: 1500-160,000), respectively; corresponding estimates of excess deaths were 1900 (95% CrI: 0-23,000) and 6400 (95% CrI: 0-64,000). Over 20 years, cumulative estimates indicate 284,000 (95% CrI: 17,000-1,990,000) cases of PDR Gram-negative bacteraemia, leading to an estimated 79,000 (95% CrI: 0-821,000) deaths. This risk assessment reinforces the need for urgent national and international action to tackle antibiotic resistance.

Methods for estimating the burden of antimicrobial resistance: a systematic literature review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of the burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are needed to ascertain AMR impact, to evaluate interventions, and to allocate resources efficiently. Recent studies have estimated health, cost, and economic burden relating to AMR, with outcomes of interest ranging from drug-bug resistance impact on mortality in a hospital setting to total economic impact of AMR on the global economy. However, recent collation of this information has been largely informal, with no formal quality assessment of the current evidence base (e.g. with predefined checklists). This review therefore aims to establish what perspectives and resulting methodologies have been used in establishing the burden of AMR, whilst also ascertaining the quality of these studies. METHODS: The literature review will identify relevant literature using a systematic review methodology. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and EconLit will be searched utilising a predefined search string. Grey literature will be identified by searching within a predefined list of organisational websites. Independent screening of retrievals will be performed in a two-stage process (abstracts and full texts), utilising a pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data will be extracted into a data extraction table and descriptive examination will be performed. Study quality will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scales and the Philips checklists where appropriate. A narrative synthesis of the results will be presented. DISCUSSION: This review will provide an overview of previous health, cost and economic definitions of burden and the resultant impact of these different definitions on the burden of AMR estimated. The review will also explore the methods that have been used to calculate this burden and discuss resulting study quality. This review can therefore act as a guide to methods for future research in this area. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016037510.

Cost-effectiveness of national mandatory screening of all admissions to English National Health Service hospitals for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a mathematical modelling study.

BACKGROUND: In December, 2010, National Health Service (NHS) England introduced national mandatory screening of all admissions for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this policy, from a regional or national health-care decision makers' perspective, compared with alternative screening strategies. METHODS: We used an individual-based dynamic transmission model parameterised with national MRSA audit data to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of admission screening of patients in English NHS hospitals compared with five alternative strategies (including no screening, checklist-activated screening, and high-risk specialty-based screening), accompanied by patient isolation and decolonisation, over a 5 year time horizon. We evaluated strategies for different NHS hospital types (acute, teaching, and specialist), MRSA prevalence, and transmission potentials using probabilistic sensitivity analyses. FINDINGS: Compared with no screening, mean cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of screening all admissions was £89,000-148,000 (range £68,000-222,000), and this strategy was consistently more costly and less effective than alternatives for all hospital types. At a £30,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold and current prevalence, only the no-screening strategy was cost effective. The next best strategies were, in acute and teaching hospitals, targeting of high-risk specialty admissions (30-40% chance of cost-effectiveness; mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs] £45,200 [range £35,300-61,400] and £48,000/QALY [£34,600-74,800], respectively) and, in specialist hospitals, screening these patients plus risk-factor-based screening of low-risk specialties (a roughly 20% chance of cost-effectiveness; mean ICER £62,600/QALY [£48,000-89,400]). As prevalence and transmission increased, targeting of high-risk specialties became the optimum strategy at the NHS willingness-to-pay threshold (£30,000/QALY). Switching from screening all admissions to only high-risk specialty admissions resulted in a mean reduction in total costs per year (not considering uncertainty) of £2·7 million per acute hospital, £2·9 million per teaching, and £474,000 per specialist hospital for a minimum rise in infections (about one infection per year per hospital). INTERPRETATION: Our results show that screening all admissions for MRSA is unlikely to be cost effective in England at the current NHS willingness-to-pay threshold, and our findings informed modified guidance to NHS England in 2014. Screening admissions to high-risk specialties is likely to represent better resource use in terms of cost per QALY gained. FUNDING: UK Department of Health.

The national one week prevalence audit of universal meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) admission screening 2012.

INTRODUCTION: The English Department of Health introduced universal MRSA screening of admissions to English hospitals in 2010. It commissioned a national audit to review implementation, impact on patient management, admission prevalence and extra yield of MRSA identified compared to "high-risk" specialty or "checklist-activated" screening (CLAS) of patients with MRSA risk factors. METHODS: National audit May 2011. Questionnaires to infection control teams in all English NHS acute trusts, requesting number patients admitted and screened, new or previously known MRSA; MRSA point prevalence; screening and isolation policies; individual risk factors and patient management for all new MRSA patients and random sample of negatives. RESULTS: 144/167 (86.2%) trusts responded. Individual patient data for 760 new MRSA patients and 951 negatives. 61% of emergency admissions (median 67.3%), 81% (median 59.4%) electives and 47% (median 41.4%) day-cases were screened. MRSA admission prevalence: 1% (median 0.9%) emergencies, 0.6% (median 0.4%) electives, 0.4% (median 0%) day-cases. Approximately 50% all MRSA identified was new. Inpatient MRSA point prevalence: 3.3% (median 2.9%). 104 (77%) trusts pre-emptively isolated patients with previous MRSA, 63 (35%) pre-emptively isolated admissions to "high-risk" specialties; 7 (5%) used PCR routinely. Mean time to MRSA positive result: 2.87 days (±1.33); 37% (219/596) newly identified MRSA patients discharged before result available; 55% remainder (205/376) isolated post-result. In an average trust, CLAS would reduce screening by 50%, identifying 81% of all MRSA. "High risk" specialty screening would reduce screening by 89%, identifying 9% of MRSA. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of universal screening was poor. Admission prevalence (new cases) was low. CLAS reduced screening effort for minor decreases in identification, but implementation may prove difficult. Cost effectiveness of this and other policies, awaits evaluation by transmission dynamic economic modelling, using data from this audit. Until then trusts should seek to improve implementation of current policy and use of isolation facilities.

Estimating the effectiveness of isolation and decolonization measures in reducing transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in hospital general wards.

Infection control for hospital pathogens such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) often takes the form of a package of interventions, including the use of patient isolation and decolonization treatment. Such interventions, though widely used, have generated controversy because of their significant resource implications and the lack of robust evidence with regard to their effectiveness at reducing transmission. The aim of this study was to estimate the effectiveness of isolation and decolonization measures in reducing MRSA transmission in hospital general wards. Prospectively collected MRSA surveillance data from 10 general wards at Guy's and St. Thomas' hospitals, London, United Kingdom, in 2006-2007 were used, comprising 14,035 patient episodes. Data were analyzed with a Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm to model transmission dynamics. The combined effect of isolation and decolonization was estimated to reduce transmission by 64% (95% confidence interval: 37, 79). Undetected MRSA-positive patients were estimated to be the source of 75% (95% confidence interval: 67, 86) of total transmission events. Isolation measures combined with decolonization treatment were strongly associated with a reduction in MRSA transmission in hospital general wards. These findings provide support for active methods of MRSA control, but further research is needed to determine the relative importance of isolation and decolonization in preventing transmission.

Screening, isolation, and decolonisation strategies in the control of meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus in intensive care units: cost effectiveness evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of screening, isolation, and decolonisation strategies in the control of meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in intensive care units. DESIGN: Economic evaluation based on a dynamic transmission model. SETTING: England and Wales. Population Theoretical population of patients on an intensive care unit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Infections, deaths, costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost effectiveness ratios for alternative strategies, and net monetary benefits. RESULTS: All decolonisation strategies improved health outcomes and reduced costs. Although universal decolonisation (regardless of MRSA status) was the most cost effective in the short term, strategies using screening to target MRSA carriers may be preferred owing to the reduced risk of selecting for resistance. Among such targeted strategies, universal admission and weekly screening with polymerase chain reaction coupled with decolonisation using nasal mupirocin was the most cost effective. This finding was robust to the size of intensive care units, prevalence of MRSA on admission, proportion of patients classified as high risk, and precise value of willingness to pay for health benefits. All strategies using isolation but not decolonisation improved health outcomes but costs were increased. When the prevalence of MRSA on admission to the intensive care unit was 5% and the willingness to pay per QALY gained was between £20,000 (€23,000; $32,000) and £30,000, the best such strategy was to isolate only those patients at high risk of carrying MRSA (either pre-emptively or after identification by admission and weekly screening for MRSA using chromogenic agar). Universal admission and weekly screening using polymerase chain reaction based detection of MRSA coupled with isolation was unlikely to be cost effective unless prevalence was high (10% of patients colonised with MRSA on admission). CONCLUSIONS: MRSA control strategies that use decolonisation are likely to be cost saving in an intensive care unit setting provided resistance is lacking, and combining universal screening using polymerase chain reaction with decolonisation is likely to represent good value for money if untargeted decolonisation is considered unacceptable. In intensive care units where decolonisation is not implemented, evidence is insufficient to support universal screening for MRSA outside high prevalence settings.