Effect of State Immunization Information System Based Reminder/Recall for Influenza Vaccinations: A Randomized Trial of Autodialer, Text, and Mailed Messages.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of different modalities of centralized reminder/recall (autodialer, text, mailed reminders) on increasing childhood influenza vaccination. STUDY DESIGN: Two simultaneous randomized clinical trials conducted from October 2017 to April 1, 2018, in New York State and Colorado. There were 61 931 children in New York (136 practices) and 23 845 children in Colorado (42 practices) who were randomized to different centralized reminder/recall modalities-4 arms in New York (autodialer, text, mailed, and no reminder control) and 3 arms in Colorado (autodialer, mailed, and no reminder control). The message content was similar across modalities. Up to 3 reminders were sent for intervention arms. The main outcome measure was receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine. RESULTS: In New York, compared with the control arm (26.6%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates in the autodialer arm (28.0%) were 1.4 percentage points higher (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), but the rates for text (27.6%) and mail (26.8%) arms were not different from controls. In Colorado, compared with the control arm (29.9%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates for the autodialer (32.9%) and mail (31.5%) arms were 3.0 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12) and 1.6 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10) higher, respectively. Compared with the control arm, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was $20 (New York) and $16 (Colorado) for autodialer messages. CONCLUSIONS: Centralized reminder/recall for childhood influenza vaccine was most effective via autodialer, less effective via mail, and not effective via text messages. The impact of each modality was modest. Compared with no reminders, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was also modest for autodialer messages. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03294473 and NCT03246100.

Recommendations for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Prevention in Adult ICUs: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Patients in the ICU are at the greatest risk of contracting healthcare-associated infections like methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. This study calculates the cost-effectiveness of methicillin-resistant S aureus prevention strategies and recommends specific strategies based on screening test implementation. DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model from the hospital perspective was conducted to determine if the implementation costs of methicillin-resistant S aureus prevention strategies are justified by associated reductions in methicillin-resistant S aureus infections and improvements in quality-adjusted life years. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses determined the influence of input variation on the cost-effectiveness. SETTING: ICU. PATIENTS: Hypothetical cohort of adults admitted to the ICU. INTERVENTIONS: Three prevention strategies were evaluated, including universal decolonization, targeted decolonization, and screening and isolation. Because prevention strategies have a screening component, the screening test in the model was varied to reflect commonly used screening test categories, including conventional culture, chromogenic agar, and polymerase chain reaction. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Universal and targeted decolonization are less costly and more effective than screening and isolation. This is consistent for all screening tests. When compared with targeted decolonization, universal decolonization is cost-saving to cost-effective, with maximum cost savings occurring when a hospital uses more expensive screening tests like polymerase chain reaction. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with screening and isolation, the current standard practice in ICUs, targeted decolonization, and universal decolonization are less costly and more effective. This supports updating the standard practice to a decolonization approach.