Estimating the return on investment of selected infection prevention and control interventions in healthcare settings for preparing against novel respiratory viruses: modelling the experience from SARS-CoV-2 among health workers.

Background: Insufficient infection prevention and control (IPC) practices in healthcare settings increase the SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among health workers. This study aimed to examine the level of preparedness for future outbreaks. Methods: We modelled the experience from the COVID-19 pandemic and assessed the return on investment on a global scale of three IPC interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections among health workers: enhancing hand hygiene; increasing access to personal protective equipment (PPE); and combining PPE, with a scale-up of IPC training and education (PPE+). Our analysis covered seven geographic regions, representing a combination of World Health Organization (WHO) regions and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Across all regions, we focused on the first 180 days of the pandemic in 2020 between January 1st and June 30th. We used an extended version of a susceptible-infectious-recovered compartmental model to measure the level of IPC preparedness. Data were sourced from the WHO COVID-19 Detailed Surveillance Database. Findings: In all regions, the PPE + intervention would have averted the highest number of new SARS-CoV-2 infections compared to the other two interventions, ranging from 6562 (95% CI 4873-8779) to 38,170 (95% CI 33,853-41,901) new infections per 100,000 health workers in OECD countries and in the South-East Asia region, respectively. Countries in the South-East Asia region and non-OECD countries in the Western Pacific region were poised to achieve the highest level of savings by scaling up the PPE + intervention. Interpretation: Our results not only support efforts to make an economic case for continuing investments in IPC interventions to halt the COVID-19 pandemic and protect health workers, but could also contribute to efforts to improve preparedness for future outbreaks. Funding: This work was funded by WHO, with support by the German Federal Ministry of Health for the WHOResearch and Development Blueprint for COVID-19.

Global knowledge gaps on antimicrobial resistance in the human health sector: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and summarize existing global knowledge gaps on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in human health, focusing on the World Health Organization (WHO) bacterial priority pathogens, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and selected fungi. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of gray and peer-reviewed literature, published in English from January 2012 through December 2021, that reported on the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and care of drug-resistant infections. We extracted relevant knowledge gaps and, through an iterative process, consolidated those into thematic research questions. RESULTS: Of 8409 publications screened, 1156 were included, including 225 (19.5%) from low- and middle-income countries. A total of 2340 knowledge gaps were extracted, in the following areas: antimicrobial research and development, AMR burden and drivers, resistant tuberculosis, antimicrobial stewardship, diagnostics, infection prevention and control, antimicrobial consumption and use data, immunization, sexually transmitted infections, AMR awareness and education, policies and regulations, fungi, water sanitation and hygiene, and foodborne diseases. The knowledge gaps were consolidated into 177 research questions, including 78 (44.1%) specifically relevant to low- and middle-income countries and 65 (36.7%) targeting vulnerable populations. CONCLUSION: This scoping review presents the most comprehensive compilation of AMR-related knowledge gaps to date, informing a priority-setting exercise to develop the WHO Global AMR Research Agenda for the human health sector.

Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection among health workers in India: a case control study.

Background: COVID-19 was declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 30th January 2020. Compared to the general population, healthcare workers and their families have been identified to be at a higher risk of getting infected with COVID-19. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the risk factors responsible for the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection among health workers in different hospital settings and to describe the range of clinical presentations of SARS-CoV-2 infection among them. Methodology: A nested case-control study was conducted among healthcare workers who were involved in the care of COVID-19 cases for assessing the risk factors associated with it. To get a holistic perspective, the study was conducted in 19 different hospitals from across 7 states (Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Rajasthan) of India covering the major government and private hospitals that were actively involved in COVID-19 patient care. The study participants who were not vaccinated were enrolled using the incidence density sampling technique from December 2020 to December 2021. Results: A total of 973 health workers consisting of 345 cases and 628 controls were recruited for the study. The mean age of the participants was observed to be 31.17 ± 8.5 years, with 56.3% of them being females. On multivariate analysis, the factors that were found to be significantly associated with SARS-CoV-2 were age of more than 31 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.407 [95% CI 1.53-1.880]; p = 0.021), male gender (aOR 1.342 [95% CI 1.019-1.768]; p = 0.036), practical mode of IPC training on personal protective equipment (aOR 1. 1.935 [95% CI 1.148-3.260]; p = 0.013), direct exposure to COVID-19 patient (aOR 1.413 [95% CI 1.006-1.985]; p = 0.046), presence of diabetes mellitus (aOR 2.895 [95% CI 1.079-7.770]; p = 0.035) and those received prophylactic treatment for COVID-19 in the last 14 days (aOR 1.866 [95% CI 0.201-2.901]; p = 0.006). Conclusion: The study was able to highlight the need for having a separate hospital infection control department that implements IPC programs regularly. The study also emphasizes the need for developing policies that address the occupational hazards faced by health workers.

Associated deaths and disability-adjusted life-years caused by infections with antibiotic-resistant bacteria in Switzerland, 2010 to 2019.

BackgroundCassini et al. (2019) estimated that, in 2015, infections with 16 different antibiotic-resistant bacteria resulted in ca 170 disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) per 100,000 population in the European Union and European Economic area (EU/EEA). The corresponding estimate for Switzerland was about half of this (87.8 DALYs per 100,000 population) but still higher than that of several EU/EEA countries (e.g. neighbouring Austria (77.2)).AimIn this study, the burden caused by the same infections due to antibiotic-resistant bacteria ('AMR burden') in Switzerland from 2010 to 2019 was estimated and the effect of the factors 'linguistic region' and 'hospital type' on this estimate was examined.MethodsNumber of infections, DALYs and deaths were estimated according to Cassini et al. (2019) whereas separate models were built for each linguistic region/hospital type combination.ResultsDALYs increased significantly from 3,995 (95% uncertainty interval (UI): 3;327-4,805) in 2010 to 6,805 (95% UI: 5,820-7,949) in 2019. Linguistic region and hospital type stratifications significantly affected the absolute values and the slope of the total AMR burden estimates. DALYs per population were higher in the Latin part of Switzerland (98 DALYs per 100,000 population; 95% UI: 83-115) compared with the German part (57 DALYs per 100,000 population; 95% UI: 49-66) and in university hospitals (165 DALYs per 100,000 hospitalisation days; 95% UI: 140-194) compared with non-university hospitals (62 DALYs per 100,000 hospitalisation days; 95% UI: 53-72).ConclusionsThe AMR burden estimate in Switzerland has increased significantly between 2010 and 2019. Considerable differences depending on the linguistic region and the hospital type were identified - a finding which affects the nationwide burden estimation.

Economic evaluations of interventions to prevent and control health-care-associated infections: a systematic review.

Almost 9 million health-care-associated infections have been estimated to occur each year in European hospitals and long-term care facilities, and these lead to an increase in morbidity, mortality, bed occupancy, and duration of hospital stay. The aim of this systematic review was to review the cost-effectiveness of interventions to limit the spread of health-care-associated infections), framed by WHO infection prevention and control core components. The Embase, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment, Cinahl, Scopus, Pediatric Economic Database Evaluation, and Global Index Medicus databases, plus grey literature were searched for studies between Jan 1, 2009, and Aug 10, 2022. Studies were included if they reported interventions including hand hygiene, personal protective equipment, national-level or facility-level infection prevention and control programmes, education and training programmes, environmental cleaning, and surveillance. The British Medical Journal checklist was used to assess the quality of economic evaluations. 67 studies were included in the review. 25 studies evaluated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus outcomes. 31 studies evaluated screening strategies. The assessed studies that met the minimum quality criteria consisted of economic models. There was some evidence that hand hygiene, environmental cleaning, surveillance, and multimodal interventions were cost-effective. There were few or no studies investigating education and training, personal protective equipment or monitoring, and evaluation of interventions. This Review provides a map of cost-effectiveness data, so that policy makers and researchers can identify the relevant data and then assess the quality and generalisability for their setting.

Antimicrobial resistance in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Frequent use of antibiotics in patients with COVID-19 threatens to exacerbate antimicrobial resistance. We aimed to establish the prevalence and predictors of bacterial infections and antimicrobial resistance in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of bacterial co-infections (identified within ≤48 h of presentation) and secondary infections (>48 h after presentation) in outpatients or hospitalised patients with COVID-19. We searched the WHO COVID-19 Research Database to identify cohort studies, case series, case-control trials, and randomised controlled trials with populations of at least 50 patients published in any language between Jan 1, 2019, and Dec 1, 2021. Reviews, editorials, letters, pre-prints, and conference proceedings were excluded, as were studies in which bacterial infection was not microbiologically confirmed (or confirmed via nasopharyngeal swab only). We screened titles and abstracts of papers identified by our search, and then assessed the full text of potentially relevant articles. We reported the pooled prevalence of bacterial infections and antimicrobial resistance by doing a random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression. Our primary outcomes were the prevalence of bacterial co-infection and secondary infection, and the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens among patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and bacterial infections. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021297344). FINDINGS: We included 148 studies of 362 976 patients, which were done between December, 2019, and May, 2021. The prevalence of bacterial co-infection was 5·3% (95% CI 3·8-7·4), whereas the prevalence of secondary bacterial infection was 18·4% (14·0-23·7). 42 (28%) studies included comprehensive data for the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among bacterial infections. Among people with bacterial infections, the proportion of infections that were resistant to antimicrobials was 60·8% (95% CI 38·6-79·3), and the proportion of isolates that were resistant was 37·5% (26·9-49·5). Heterogeneity in the reported prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in organisms was substantial (I2=95%). INTERPRETATION: Although infrequently assessed, antimicrobial resistance is highly prevalent in patients with COVID-19 and bacterial infections. Future research and surveillance assessing the effect of COVID-19 on antimicrobial resistance at the patient and population level are urgently needed. FUNDING: WHO.

Infection prevention and control risk factors in health workers infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Jordan: A case control study.

BACKGROUND: Despite under-reporting, health workers (HWs) accounted for 2 to 30% of the reported COVID-19 cases worldwide. In line with data from other countries, Jordan recorded multiple case surges among HWs. METHODS: Based on the standardized WHO UNITY case-control study protocol on assessing risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection in HWs, HWs with confirmed COVID-19 were recruited as cases from eight hospitals in Jordan. HWs exposed to COVID-19 patients in the same setting but without infection were recruited as controls. The study lasted approximately two months (from early January to early March 2021). Regression models were used to analyse exposure risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection in HWs; conditional logistic regressions were utilized to estimate odds ratios (ORs) adjusted for the confounding variables. RESULTS: A total of 358 (102 cases and 256 controls) participants were included in the analysis. The multivariate analysis showed that being exposed to COVID-19 patients within 1 metre for more than 15 minutes increased three-fold the odds of infection (OR 2.92, 95% CI 1.25-6.86). Following IPC standard precautions when in contact with patients was a significant protective factor. The multivariate analysis showed that suboptimal adherence to hand hygiene increased the odds of infection by three times (OR 3.18; 95% CI 1.25-8.08). CONCLUSION: Study findings confirmed the role of hand hygiene as one of the most cost-effective measures to combat the spreading of viral infections. Future studies based on the same protocol will enable additional interpretations and confirmation of the Jordan experience.

Developing a priority global research agenda for antimicrobial resistance in the human health sector: protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: To accelerate the response to the public health threat by antimicrobial resistance (AMR), the WHO is developing a Global Research Agenda for AMR in the human health sector that aims to provide a global and transparent assessment of priority knowledge gaps related to critical bacteria-including Mycobacterium tuberculosis-and fungi that inform control and response strategies to tackle AMR by 2030. A literature scoping review represents the first phase in a stepwise process, and we hereby outline the protocol to review current knowledge gaps and research questions on AMR in the human health sector. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This literature scoping review will follow the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) methodology and will include: (1) a hand search to identify relevant WHO guidelines and documents suggested by the WHO Steering Group for the AMR Global Research Agenda; (2) a grey literature search through a stakeholder mapping process and google searches of organisational websites; (3) a systematic search of relevant systematic reviews through bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase and Web of Science); (4) screening of the reference lists of included studies. We will include relevant publications from the last 10 years (January 2012 to December 2021). Two researchers separately will review the yielded citations to determine eligibility based on predefined criteria. Relevant research questions with attributes will be extracted using a tool developed through an iterative process by the research team. Each identified research question will be classified and aggregated according to a conceptual framework (ie, 'knowledge matrix'), composed of three themes (ie, Prevention, Diagnosis and Care & Treatment) and four cross-cutting domains (ie, Descriptive, Discovery, Development, Delivery). We will present numerical and thematic summaries of the knowledge matrix. A qualitative content analysis is out of the scope of this protocol. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The scoping review process will only involve identification, selection and analysis of documents available for use in the public domain, and will not include any personal information on individuals, therefore ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and stakeholder meetings.

The first WHO global survey on infection prevention and control in health-care facilities.

BACKGROUND: WHO core components for infection prevention and control (IPC) are important building blocks for effective IPC programmes. To our knowledge, we did the first WHO global survey to assess implementation of these programmes in health-care facilities. METHODS: In this cross-sectional survey, IPC professionals were invited through global outreach and national coordinated efforts to complete the online WHO IPC assessment framework (IPCAF). The survey was created in English and was then translated into ten languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Russian, Spanish, and Thai. Post-stratification weighting was applied and countries with low response rates were excluded to improve representativeness. Weighted median scores and IQRs as well as weighted proportions (Nw) meeting defined IPCAF minimum requirements were reported. Indicators associated with the IPCAF score were assessed using a generalised estimating equation. FINDINGS: From Jan 16 to Dec 31, 2019, 4440 responses were received from 81 countries. The overall weighted IPCAF median score indicated an advanced level of implementation (605, IQR 450·4-705·0), but significantly lower scores were found in low-income (385, 279·7-442·9) and lower-middle-income countries (500·4, 345·0-657·5), and public facilities (515, 385-637·8). Core component 8 (built environment; 90·0, IQR 75·0-100·0) and core component 2 (guidelines; 87·5, 70·0-97·5) scored the highest, and core component 7 (workload, staffing, and bed occupancy; 70·0, 50-90) and core component 3 (education and training; 70 ·0, 50·0-85·0) scored the lowest. Overall, only 15·2% (Nw: 588 of 3873) of facilities met all IPCAF minimum requirements, ranging from 0% (0 of 417) in low-income countries to 25·6% (278 of 1087) in primary facilities, 9% (24 of 268) in secondary facilities, and 19% (18 of 95) in tertiary facilities in high-income countries. INTERPRETATION: Despite an overall high IPCAF score globally, important gaps in IPC facility implementation and core components across income levels hinder IPC progress. Increased support for more effective and sustainable IPC programmes is crucial to reduce risks posed by outbreaks to global health security and to ensure patient and health worker safety. FUNDING: WHO and the Infection Control Programme, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine. TRANSLATIONS: For the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Implementation of hand hygiene in health-care facilities: results from the WHO Hand Hygiene Self-Assessment Framework global survey 2019.

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene is at the core of effective infection prevention and control (IPC) programmes. 10 years after the development of the WHO Multimodal Hand Hygiene Improvement Strategy, we aimed to ascertain the level of hand hygiene implementation and its drivers in health-care facilities through a global WHO survey. METHODS: From Jan 16 to Dec 31, 2019, IPC professionals were invited through email and campaigns to complete the online Hand Hygiene Self-Assessment Framework (HHSAF). A geospatial clustering algorithm selected unique health-care facilities responses and post-stratification weighting was applied to improve representativeness. Weighted median HHSAF scores and IQR were reported. Drivers of the HHSAF score were determined through a generalised estimation equation. FINDINGS: 3206 unique responses from 90 countries (46% WHO Member States) were included. The HHSAF score indicated an intermediate hand hygiene implementation level (350 points, IQR 248-430), which was positively associated with country income level and health-care facility funding structure. System Change had the highest score (85 points, IQR 55-100), whereby alcohol-based hand rub at the point of care has become standard practice in many health-care facilities, especially in high-income countries. Institutional Safety Climate had the lowest score (55 points, IQR 35-75). From 2015 to 2019, the median HHSAF score in health-care facilities participating in both HHSAF surveys (n=190) stagnated. INTERPRETATION: Most health-care facilities had an intermediate level of hand hygiene implementation or higher, for which health-care facility funding and country income level were important drivers. Availability of resources, leadership, and organisational support are key elements to further improve quality of care and provide access to safe care for all. FUNDING: WHO, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, and WHO Collaborating Center on Patient Safety, Geneva, Switzerland.

Early epidemiological investigations: World Health Organization UNITY protocols provide a standardized and timely international investigation framework during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The declaration of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on 30 January 2020 required rapid implementation of early investigations to inform appropriate national and global public health actions. METHODS: The suite of existing pandemic preparedness generic epidemiological early investigation protocols was rapidly adapted for COVID-19, branded the 'UNITY studies' and promoted globally for the implementation of standardized and quality studies. Ten protocols were developed investigating household (HH) transmission, the first few cases (FFX), population seroprevalence (SEROPREV), health facilities transmission (n = 2), vaccine effectiveness (n = 2), pregnancy outcomes and transmission, school transmission, and surface contamination. Implementation was supported by WHO and its partners globally, with emphasis to support building surveillance and research capacities in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). RESULTS: WHO generic protocols were rapidly developed and published on the WHO website, 5/10 protocols within the first 3 months of the response. As of 30 June 2021, 172 investigations were implemented by 97 countries, of which 62 (64%) were LMIC. The majority of countries implemented population seroprevalence (71 countries) and first few cases/household transmission (37 countries) studies. CONCLUSION: The widespread adoption of UNITY protocols across all WHO regions indicates that they addressed subnational and national needs to support local public health decision-making to prevent and control the pandemic.

Global incidence and mortality of neonatal sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neonates are at major risk of sepsis, but data on neonatal sepsis incidence are scarce. We aimed to assess the incidence and mortality of neonatal sepsis worldwide. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. 13 databases were searched for the period January 1979-May 2019, updating the search of a previous systematic review and extending it in order to increase data inputs from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We included studies on the population-level neonatal sepsis incidence that used a clinical sepsis definition, such as the 2005 consensus definition, or relevant ICD codes. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis on neonatal sepsis incidence and mortality, stratified according to sepsis onset, birth weight, prematurity, study setting, WHO region and World Bank income level. RESULTS: The search yielded 4737 publications, of which 26 were included. They accounted for 2 797 879 live births and 29 608 sepsis cases in 14 countries, most of which were middle-income countries. Random-effects estimator for neonatal sepsis incidence in the overall time frame was 2824 (95% CI 1892 to 4194) cases per 100 000 live births, of which an estimated 17.6% 9 (95% CI 10.3% to 28.6%) died. In the last decade (2009-2018), the incidence was 3930 (95% CI 1937 to 7812) per 100 000 live births based on four studies from LMICs. In the overall time frame, estimated incidence and mortality was higher in early-onset than late-onset neonatal sepsis cases. There was substantial between-study heterogeneity in all analyses. Studies were at moderate to high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Neonatal sepsis is common and often fatal. Its incidence remains unknown in most countries and existing studies show marked heterogeneity, indicating the need to increase the number of epidemiological studies, harmonise neonatal sepsis definitions and improve the quality of research in this field. This can help to design and implement targeted interventions, which are urgently needed to reduce the high incidence of neonatal sepsis worldwide.

Epidemiology and burden of sepsis acquired in hospitals and intensive care units: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Sepsis is recognized as a global public health problem, but the proportion due to hospital-acquired infections remains unclear. We aimed to summarize the epidemiological evidence related to the burden of hospital-acquired (HA) and ICU-acquired (ICU-A) sepsis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Global Index Medicus from 01/2000 to 03/2018. We included studies conducted hospital-wide or in intensive care units (ICUs), including neonatal units (NICUs), with data on the incidence/prevalence of HA and ICU-A sepsis and the proportion of community and hospital/ICU origin. We did random-effects meta-analyses to obtain pooled estimates; inter-study heterogeneity and risk of bias were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 13,239 studies identified, 51 met the inclusion criteria; 22 were from low- and middle-income countries. Twenty-eight studies were conducted in ICUs, 13 in NICUs, and ten hospital-wide. The proportion of HA sepsis among all hospital-treated sepsis cases was 23.6% (95% CI 17-31.8%, range 16-36.4%). In the ICU, 24.4% (95% CI 16.7-34.2%, range 10.3-42.5%) of cases of sepsis with organ dysfunction were acquired during ICU stay and 48.7% (95% CI 38.3-59.3%, range 18.7-69.4%) had a hospital origin. The pooled hospital incidence of HA sepsis with organ dysfunction per 1000 patients was 9.3 (95% CI 7.3-11.9, range 2-20.6)). In the ICU, the pooled incidence of HA sepsis with organ dysfunction per 1000 patients was 56.5 (95% CI 35-90.2, range 9.2-254.4) and it was particularly high in NICUs. Mortality of ICU patients with HA sepsis with organ dysfunction was 52.3% (95% CI 43.4-61.1%, range 30.1-64.6%). There was a significant inter-study heterogeneity. Risk of bias was low to moderate in ICU-based studies and moderate to high in hospital-wide and NICU studies. CONCLUSION: HA sepsis is of major public health importance, and the burden is particularly high in ICUs. There is an urgent need to improve the implementation of global and local infection prevention and management strategies to reduce its high burden among hospitalized patients.

Adjusting for comorbidity in incidence-based DALY calculations: an individual-based modeling approach.

BACKGROUND: The co-occurrence of two or more medical conditions in the same individual is not uncommon. If disability-adjusted life year (DALY) calculations are carried out for each condition separately, multimorbidity may lead to an overestimation of the morbidity component, the Years Lived with Disability (YLD). Adjusting for comorbidity may be straightforward if all symptoms have same onset and duration; however, when the comorbid health states occur at different time points, an analytical solution to the comorbidity problem becomes more complex. The aim of this study was to develop an individual-based modelling (IBM) approach to adjust incidence-based disease burden estimation for multimorbidity that allows simulating hypothetical individuals and tracking their disease history, including possible comorbidities, over time. METHODS: We demonstrated the IBM approach using an example of external comorbidity, i.e., colon cancer comorbid with healthcare-associated pneumonia (HAP) and by assuming an independent multiplicative model. First, each cumulative progression probabilities were converted to a daily transition probabilities. Second, disability weights for simultaneously experienced health states and duration in each health state were determined. Third, YLD, adjusted for comorbidity, was calculated at every time step. We simulated a cohort of 1000 colorectal cancer patients aged 65 years. Ninety-five percent uncertainty intervals around median YLD values were estimated by Monte Carlo methods. RESULTS: The median estimated YLD per 1000 cases (due to both cancer and HAP) adjusted for co-morbidity was 545 YLD/1000 (95% interval: 513-585). The impact of not adjusting disability weights for co-existent health states varied from minimal to small; YLD for colorectal cancer would be overestimated only slightly - by 1.6 YLD/1000 - by not adjusting for concurrent HAP. YLD for those HAP patients who have concurrent early-stage colorectal cancer would be overestimated by 2.3 YLD/1000. CONCLUSIONS: The computation of disease burden in the presence of multimorbidity using the incidence-based DALY approach can be handled through IBM. Our approach can be extended to other, more complicated multimorbidity scenarios which are responsible for a high current global disease burden, such as tuberculosis and HIV infection.

Application of a new methodology and R package reveals a high burden of healthcare-associated infections (HAI) in Germany compared to the average in the European Union/European Economic Area, 2011 to 2012.

BackgroundHealthcare-associated infections (HAIs) pose a major challenge to health systems. Burden of disease estimations in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) are useful for comparing and ranking HAIs.AimTo estimate the number of five common HAIs, their attributable number of deaths and burden for Germany.MethodsWe developed a new method and R package that builds on the approach used by the Burden of Communicable Diseases in Europe (BCoDE) project to estimate the burden of HAIs for individual countries. We used data on healthcare-associated Clostridioides difficile infection, healthcare-associated pneumonia, healthcare-associated primary bloodstream infection, healthcare-associated urinary tract infection and surgical-site infection, which were collected during the point prevalence survey of HAIs in European acute-care hospitals between 2011 and 2012.ResultsWe estimated 478,222 (95% uncertainty interval (UI): 421,350-537,787) cases for Germany, resulting in 16,245 (95% UI: 10,863-22,756) attributable deaths and 248,920 (95% UI: 178,693-336,239) DALYs. Despite the fact that Germany has a relatively low hospital prevalence of HAIs compared with the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) average, the burden of HAIs in Germany (308.2 DALYs/100,000 population; 95% UI: 221.2-416.3) was higher than the EU/EEA average (290.0 DALYs/100,000 population; 95% UI: 214.9-376.9). Our methodology is applicable to other countries in or outside of the EU/EEA. An R package is available from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BHAI.ConclusionThis is the first study to estimate the burden of HAIs in DALYs for Germany. The large number of hospital beds may be a contributing factor for a relatively high burden of HAIs in Germany. Further focus on infection prevention control, paired with reduction of avoidable hospital stays, is needed to reduce the burden of HAIs in Germany.

A governance framework for development and assessment of national action plans on antimicrobial resistance.

Strengthening governance is an essential strategy to tackling antimicrobial resistance (AMR) at all levels: global, national, regional, and local. To date, no systematic approach to governance of national action plans on AMR exists. To address this issue, we aimed to develop the first governance framework to offer guidance for both the development and assessment of national action plans on AMR. We reviewed health system governance framework reviews to inform the basic structure of our framework, international guidance documents from WHO, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Organisation for Animal Health, and the European Commission, and sought the input of 25 experts from international organisations, government ministries, policy institutes, and academic institutions to develop and refine our framework. The framework consists of 18 domains with 52 indicators that are contained within three governance areas: policy design, implementation tools, and monitoring and evaluation. To consider the dynamic nature of AMR, the framework is conceptualised as a cyclical process, which is responsive to the context and allows for continuous improvement and adaptation of national action plans on AMR.

Resistance proportions for eight priority antibiotic-bacterium combinations in OECD, EU/EEA and G20 countries 2000 to 2030: a modelling study.

BackgroundAntimicrobial resistance is widely considered an urgent global health issue due to associated mortality and disability, societal and healthcare costs.AimTo estimate the past, current and projected future proportion of infections resistant to treatment for eight priority antibiotic-bacterium combinations from 2000 to 2030 for 52 countries.MethodsWe collated data from a variety of sources including ResistanceMap and World Bank. Feature selection algorithms and multiple imputation were used to produce a complete historical dataset. Forecasts were derived from an ensemble of three models: exponential smoothing, linear regression and random forest. The latter two were informed by projections of antibiotic consumption, out-of-pocket medical spending, populations aged 64 years and older and under 15 years and real gross domestic product. We incorporated three types of uncertainty, producing 150 estimates for each country-antibiotic-bacterium-year.ResultsAverage resistance proportions across antibiotic-bacterium combinations could grow moderately from 17% to 18% within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD; growth in 64% of uncertainty sets), from 18% to 19% in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA; growth in 87% of uncertainty sets) and from 29% to 31% in Group of Twenty (G20) countries (growth in 62% of uncertainty sets) between 2015 and 2030. There is broad heterogeneity in levels and rates of change across countries and antibiotic-bacterium combinations from 2000 to 2030.ConclusionIf current trends continue, resistance proportions are projected to marginally increase in the coming years. The estimates indicate there is significant heterogeneity in resistance proportions across countries and antibiotic-bacterium combinations.