Measuring the Direct Medical Costs of Hospital-Onset Infections Using an Analogy Costing Framework.

BACKGROUND: The majority of recent estimates on the direct medical cost attributable to hospital-onset infections (HOIs) has focused on device- or procedure-associated HOIs. The attributable costs of HOIs that are not associated with device use or procedures have not been extensively studied. OBJECTIVE: We developed simulation models of attributable cost for 16 HOIs and estimated the total direct medical cost, including nondevice-related HOIs in the USA for 2011 and 2015. DATA AND METHODS: We used total discharge costs associated with HOI-related hospitalization from the National Inpatient Sample and applied an analogy costing methodology to develop simulation models of the costs attributable to HOIs. The mean attributable cost estimate from the simulation analysis was then multiplied by previously published estimates of the number of HOIs for 2011 and 2015 to generate national estimates of direct medical costs. RESULTS: After adjusting all estimates to 2017 US dollars, attributable cost estimates for select nondevice-related infections attributable cost estimates ranged from $7661 for ear, eye, nose, throat, and mouth (EENTM) infections to $27,709 for cardiovascular system infections in 2011; and from $8394 for EENTM to $26,445 for central nervous system infections in 2016 (based on 2015 incidence data). The national direct medical costs for all HOIs were $14.6 billion in 2011 and $12.1 billion in 2016. Nondevice- and nonprocedure-associated HOIs comprise approximately 26-28% of total HOI costs. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that nondevice- and nonprocedure-related HOIs result in considerable costs to the healthcare system.

A Trial of Automated Outbreak Detection to Reduce Hospital Pathogen Spread.

BACKGROUND: Detection and containment of hospital outbreaks currently depend on variable and personnel-intensive surveillance methods. Whether automated statistical surveillance for outbreaks of health care-associated pathogens allows earlier containment efforts that would reduce the size of outbreaks is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial in 82 community hospitals within a larger health care system. All hospitals followed an outbreak response protocol when outbreaks were detected by their infection prevention programs. Half of the hospitals additionally used statistical surveillance of microbiology data, which alerted infection prevention programs to outbreaks. Statistical surveillance was also applied to microbiology data from control hospitals without alerting their infection prevention programs. The primary outcome was the number of additional cases occurring after outbreak detection. Analyses assessed differences between the intervention period (July 2019 to January 2022) versus baseline period (February 2017 to January 2019) between randomized groups. A post hoc analysis separately assessed pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and Covid-19 pandemic intervention periods. RESULTS: Real-time alerts did not significantly reduce the number of additional outbreak cases (intervention period versus baseline: statistical surveillance relative rate [RR]=1.41, control RR=1.81; difference-in-differences, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 1.52; P=0.46). Comparing only the prepandemic intervention with baseline periods, the statistical outbreak surveillance group was associated with a 64.1% reduction in additional cases (statistical surveillance RR=0.78, control RR=2.19; difference-in-differences, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.99). There was no similarly observed association between the pandemic versus baseline periods (statistical surveillance RR=1.56, control RR=1.66; difference-in-differences, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.92). CONCLUSIONS: Automated detection of hospital outbreaks using statistical surveillance did not reduce overall outbreak size in the context of an ongoing pandemic. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04053075. Support for HCA Healthcare's participation in the study was provided in kind by HCA.).

The advisory committee on immunization practices' interim recommendation for use of Pfizer-Biontech Covid-19 vaccine in children aged 5­11 years: United States, november 2021

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 (BNT162b2) vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle­formulated, nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine encoding the prefusion spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. On August 23, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a Biologics License Application (BLA) for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, marketed as Comirnaty (Pfizer, Inc.), in persons aged ≥16 years (1). The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is also recommended for adolescents aged 12­15 years under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) (1). All persons aged ≥12 years are recommended to receive 2 doses (30 µg, 0.3 mL each), administered 3 weeks apart (2,3). As of November 2, 2021, approximately 248 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine had been administered to persons aged ≥12 years in the United States.* On October 29, 2021, FDA issued an EUA amendment for a new formulation of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for use in children aged 5­11 years, administered as 2 doses (10 µg, 0.2 mL each), 3 weeks apart (Table) (1). On November 2, 2021, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation† for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 5­11 years for the prevention of COVID-19. To guide its deliberations regarding recommendations for the vaccine, ACIP used the Evidence to Recommendation (EtR) Framework§ and incorporated a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.¶ The ACIP recommendation for the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 5­11 years under an EUA is interim and will be updated as additional information becomes available. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine has high efficacy (>90%) against COVID-19 in children aged 5­11 years, and ACIP determined benefits outweigh risks for vaccination. Vaccination is important to protect children against COVID-19 and reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.