Decolonization in Nursing Homes to Prevent Infection and Hospitalization.

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.).

High Prevalence of Multidrug-Resistant Organism Colonization in 28 Nursing Homes: An "Iceberg Effect".

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.

Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Detection Practices in California: What Are We Missing?

Background: The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) revised the carbapenem breakpoints for Enterobacteriaceae in 2010. The number of hospitals that adopted revised breakpoints and the clinical impact of delayed adoption has not been explored. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional, voluntary survey of microbiology laboratories from California acute care hospitals and long-term acute care hospitals (LTAC) to determine use of revised CLSI breakpoints. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) clinical isolates from a single tertiary-care hospital from 2013 to 2017 were examined. All isolates with an elevated minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC; ≥2 µg/mL) to imipenem or meropenem were tested for the presence of carbapenemase genes by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Results: We received responses from 128 laboratories that serve 264/393 (67%) of hospitals and LTACs. Current CLSI carbapenem breakpoints for Enterobacteriaceae were used by 92/128 (72%) laboratories. Among laboratories that used current breakpoints, time to implementation varied from 0 to 68 months (mean, 41 months; median, 55 months). Application of historical breakpoints to isolates with a carbapenemase gene detected by PCR resulted in susceptibility rates of 8.9%, 18.6%, and 18.6% to ertapenem, imipenem, and meropenem, respectively. By current breakpoints, <1% of these isolates were susceptible to ertapenem or imipenem and 2.6% to meropenem. Conclusion: Clinicians and epidemiologists should be aware that use of outdated MIC breakpoints for Enterobacteriaceae remains common and can result in reports of false susceptibility to carbapenems and missed identification of carbapenemase producers. This misclassification could have consequences for patient care and infection control efforts to address carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae.