Search

Objectives To perform a model-based cost-effectiveness evaluation of a rapid antimicrobial susceptibility test.Design A Markov model of a cohort of hospital inpatients with urinary tract infection (with inpatient numbers based on national administrative data from 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2019).Setting Urinary tract infections (UTI) in acute National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England, from the perspective of the NHS Healthcare system, at a national level.Participants A simulated cohort of approximately 280 000 non-pregnant adult inpatients within secondary care with a clinical suspicion of UTI.Interventions Evaluation of the implementation of a fast bacterial impedance cytometry test (BICT) compared with current practice.Primary and secondary outcome measures Incremental cost, quality-adjusted life years, net monetary benefit, and bed days and appropriateness of antibiotic use per patient. Costs are presented in 2022 GBP.Results Considering benefits arising from reduced time on inappropriate treatment, BICT gives an average net monetary benefit (NMB) over the simulation period of approximately £4.3 million and dominates culture methods (from the healthcare system perspective and with a willingness to pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life year). Total inappropriate prescribing days due to the BICT test are reduced by 57%. The extent of the benefit from BICT implementation was strongly dependent on prevalence of resistance, with the NMB increasing sevenfold to over £30 million in a high (40%) resistance prevalence scenario. At the population level, the patient groups with the highest cost and quality-adjusted life year impacts were 65–100-year-old females, followed by males, with uncomplicated UTIs. At an individual patient level, however, 16–64-year-old females with complicated UTIs with oral treatment, followed by 65–100-year-old males with complicated UTIs with oral treatment, were impacted to the greatest degree by the rapid BICT.Conclusions Under conservative assumptions and for wide parameter sensitivity, the implementation of BICT would be cost-effective from the NHS healthcare system perspective.

Abstract Background Prior to September 2021, 55,000–90,000 hospital inpatients in England were identified as having a potentially nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection. This includes cases that were likely missed due to pauci- or asymptomatic infection. Further, high numbers of healthcare workers (HCWs) are thought to have been infected, and there is evidence that some of these cases may also have been nosocomially linked, with both HCW to HCW and patient to HCW transmission being reported. From the start of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic interventions in hospitals such as testing patients on admission and universal mask wearing were introduced to stop spread within and between patient and HCW populations, the effectiveness of which are largely unknown. Materials/methods Using an individual-based model of within-hospital transmission, we estimated the contribution of individual interventions (together and in combination) to the effectiveness of the overall package of interventions implemented in English hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. A panel of experts in infection prevention and control informed intervention choice and helped ensure the model reflected implementation in practice. Model parameters and associated uncertainty were derived using national and local data, literature review and formal elicitation of expert opinion. We simulated scenarios to explore how many nosocomial infections might have been seen in patients and HCWs if interventions had not been implemented. We simulated the time period from March-2020 to July-2022 encompassing different strains and multiple doses of vaccination. Results Modelling results suggest that in a scenario without inpatient testing, infection prevention and control measures, and reductions in occupancy and visitors, the number of patients developing a nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection could have been twice as high over the course of the pandemic, and over 600,000 HCWs could have been infected in the first wave alone. Isolation of symptomatic HCWs and universal masking by HCWs were the most effective interventions for preventing infections in both patient and HCW populations. Model findings suggest that collectively the interventions introduced over the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in England averted 400,000 (240,000 – 500,000) infections in inpatients and 410,000 (370,000 – 450,000) HCW infections. Conclusions Interventions to reduce the spread of nosocomial infections have varying impact, but the package of interventions implemented in England significantly reduced nosocomial transmission to both patients and HCWs over the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Abstract Background Globally, detections of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) colonisations and infections are increasing. The spread of these highly resistant bacteria poses a serious threat to public health. However, understanding of CPE transmission and evidence on effectiveness of control measures is severely lacking. This paper provides evidence to inform effective admission screening protocols, which could be important in controlling nosocomial CPE transmission. Methods CPE transmission within an English hospital setting was simulated with a data-driven individual-based mathematical model. This model was used to evaluate the ability of the 2016 England CPE screening recommendations, and of potential alternative protocols, to identify patients with CPE-colonisation on admission (including those colonised during previous stays or from elsewhere). The model included nosocomial transmission from colonised and infected patients, as well as environmental contamination. Model parameters were estimated using primary data where possible, including estimation of transmission using detailed epidemiological data within a Bayesian framework. Separate models were parameterised to represent hospitals in English areas with low and high CPE risk (based on prevalence). Results The proportion of truly colonised admissions which met the 2016 screening criteria was 43% in low-prevalence and 54% in high-prevalence areas respectively. Selection of CPE carriers for screening was improved in low-prevalence areas by adding readmission as a screening criterion, which doubled how many colonised admissions were selected. A minority of CPE carriers were confirmed as CPE positive during their hospital stay (10 and 14% in low- and high-prevalence areas); switching to a faster screening test pathway with a single-swab test (rather than three swab regimen) increased the overall positive predictive value with negligible reduction in negative predictive value. Conclusions Using a novel within-hospital CPE transmission model, this study assesses CPE admission screening protocols, across the range of CPE prevalence observed in England. It identifies protocol changes—adding readmissions to screening criteria and a single-swab test pathway—which could detect similar numbers of CPE carriers (or twice as many in low CPE prevalence areas), but faster, and hence with lower demand on pre-emptive infection-control resources. Study findings can inform interventions to control this emerging threat, although further work is required to understand within-hospital transmission sources.

IntroductionDuring the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic 293,204 inpatients in England tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. It is estimated that 1% of these cases were hospital-associated using European centre for disease prevention and control (ECDC) and Public Health England (PHE) definitions. Guidelines for preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals have developed over time but the effectiveness and efficiency of testing strategies for preventing nosocomial transmission has not been explored.MethodsUsing an individual-based model, parameterised using multiple datasets, we simulated the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to patients and healthcare workers between March and August 2020 and evaluated the efficacy of different testing strategies. These strategies were: 0) Testing only symptomatic patients on admission; 1) Testing all patients on admission; 2) Testing all patients on admission and again between days 5 and 7, and 3) Testing all patients on admission, and again at days 3, and 5-7. In addition to admissions testing, patients that develop a symptomatic infection while in hospital were tested under all strategies. We evaluated the impact of testing strategy, test characteristics and hospital-related factors on the number of nosocomial patient infections.ResultsModelling suggests that 84.6% (95% CI: 84.3, 84.7) of community-acquired and 40.8% (40.3, 41.3) of hospital-associated SARS-CoV-2 infections are detectable before a patient is discharged from hospital. Testing all patients on admission and retesting after 3 or 5 days increases the proportion of nosocomial cases detected by 9.2%. Adding discharge testing increases detection by a further 1.5% (relative increase). Increasing occupancy rates, number of beds per bay, or the proportion of admissions wrongly suspected of having COVID-19 on admission and therefore incorrectly cohorted with COVID-19 patients, increases the rate of nosocomial transmission. Over 30,000 patients in England could have been discharged while incubating a non-detected SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, of which 3.3% could have been identified by discharge screening. There was no significant difference in the rates of nosocomial transmission between testing strategies or when the turnaround time of the test was increased.DiscussionThis study provides insight into the efficacy of testing strategies in a period unbiased by vaccines and variants. The findings are relevant as testing programs for SARS-CoV-2 are scaled back, and possibly if a new vaccine escaping variant emerges.

Abstract Background SARS-CoV-2 is known to transmit in hospital settings, but the contribution of infections acquired in hospitals to the epidemic at a national scale is unknown. Methods We used comprehensive national English datasets to determine the number of COVID-19 patients with identified hospital-acquired infections (with symptom onset > 7 days after admission and before discharge) in acute English hospitals up to August 2020. As patients may leave the hospital prior to detection of infection or have rapid symptom onset, we combined measures of the length of stay and the incubation period distribution to estimate how many hospital-acquired infections may have been missed. We used simulations to estimate the total number (identified and unidentified) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections, as well as infections due to onward community transmission from missed hospital-acquired infections, to 31st July 2020. Results In our dataset of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in acute English hospitals with a recorded symptom onset date (n = 65,028), 7% were classified as hospital-acquired. We estimated that only 30% (range across weeks and 200 simulations: 20–41%) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections would be identified, with up to 15% (mean, 95% range over 200 simulations: 14.1–15.8%) of cases currently classified as community-acquired COVID-19 potentially linked to hospital transmission. We estimated that 26,600 (25,900 to 27,700) individuals acquired a symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in an acute Trust in England before 31st July 2020, resulting in 15,900 (15,200–16,400) or 20.1% (19.2–20.7%) of all identified hospitalised COVID-19 cases. Conclusions Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to hospitalised patients likely caused approximately a fifth of identified cases of hospitalised COVID-19 in the “first wave” in England, but less than 1% of all infections in England. Using time to symptom onset from admission for inpatients as a detection method likely misses a substantial proportion (> 60%) of hospital-acquired infections.

Summary: Many infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions have been adopted by hospitals to limit nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this systematic review is to identify evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions. We conducted a literature search of five databases (OVID MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, COVID-19 Portfolio (pre-print), Web of Science). SWIFT ActiveScreener software was used to screen English titles and abstracts published between 1st January 2020 and 6th April 2021. Intervention studies, defined by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care, that evaluated IPC interventions with an outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in either patients or healthcare workers were included. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was excluded as this intervention had been previously reviewed. Risks of bias were assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised trials (RoB2) and non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I). From 23,156 screened articles, we identified seven articles that met the inclusion criteria, all of which evaluated interventions to prevent infections in healthcare workers and the majority of which were focused on effectiveness of prophylaxes. Due to heterogeneity in interventions, we did not conduct a meta-analysis. All agents used for prophylaxes have little to no evidence of effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections. We did not find any studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions including but not limited to screening, isolation and improved ventilation. There is limited evidence from interventional studies, excluding PPE, evaluating IPC measures for SARS-CoV-2. This review calls for urgent action to implement such studies to inform policies to protect our most vulnerable populations and healthcare workers.