Search

SummaryReducing antibiotic treatment duration is a key stewardship intervention to mitigate antimicrobial resistance (AMR). We performed a systematic review of antibiotic duration randomised controlled trials for treatment or prevention of bacterial infections in humans, appraised their methodologies and identified gaps in evidence. All randomised trials indexed in MEDLINE and EMBASE up to October 2022 which compared different treatment durations were included. We found 296 trials, of which 85% showed equivalence or non-inferiority. The majority (73%) considered treatment for respiratory tract infections, genitourinary infections, and post-surgical prophylaxis. Few trials studied severe infections, such as bloodstream infections and ventilator-associated pneumonia. Trial designs shifted from superiority (74%, 178/242 before 2016) to non-inferiority (74%, 40/54 after 2016). 94% of the trials that defined a per- protocol population reported non-adherence, which may increase the probability of concluding non-inferiority. Only 9 trials collected data to demonstrate the effect of antibiotic duration on AMR colonisation.RegistrationPROSPERO 2021 CRD42021276209FundingNational Research Foundation Singapore Central Gap Fund; National Medical Research Council, Singapore; Medical Research Council, UK

BackgroundGood hand hygiene compliance amongst healthcare workers is critical for patient safety and plays a central role in preventing healthcare-associated infections. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a multimodal strategy to improve healthcare worker hand hygiene. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of this strategy in a middle-income country using a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial.MethodsThe trial was conducted between 2013 and 2015 in 58 wards in a 1000-bed hospital in Thailand. The intervention was adapted from the WHO’s Hand Hygiene Improvement Strategy and implemented by the hospital’s infection control team. The primary outcome was observed hand hygiene compliance among healthcare workers in the study wards. This study was registered atClinicalTrials.gov(NCT01933087).FindingsDuring 4,230 observation sessions, 54,073 hand hygiene opportunities were identified. Hand hygiene compliance increased from 10.0% (2,660/26,482) to 11.0% (3,048/27,591) after the intervention (odds ratio [OR] 1.12; 95% CI: 1.01-1.24). Among the five moments for hand hygiene, the greatest improvement in compliance was observed in hand hygiene before patient contact (OR 1.52; 95% CI: 1.21, 1.91).InterpretationWhile hand hygiene compliance improved slightly, the intervention failed to achieve the substantial improvements that were needed. There is a need for new strategies to ensure that all hospitals in low and middle-income countries can achieve and maintain acceptable levels of hand hygiene.FundingOak Foundation, MRC

Delays in treating bacteremias with antibiotics to which the causative organism is susceptible are expected to adversely affect patient outcomes. Quantifying the impact of such delays to concordant treatment is important for decision-making about interventions to reduce the delays and for quantifying the burden of disease due to antimicrobial resistance. There are, however, potentially important biases to be addressed, including immortal time bias. We aimed to estimate the impact of delays in appropriate antibiotic treatment of patients with Acinetobacter species hospital-acquired bacteremia in Thailand on 30-day mortality by emulating a target trial using retrospective cohort data from Sunpasitthiprasong Hospital in 2003–2015. For each day, we defined treatment as concordant if the isolated organism was susceptible to at least 1 antibiotic given. Among 1,203 patients with Acinetobacter species hospital-acquired bacteremia, 682 had 1 or more days of delays to concordant treatment. Surprisingly, crude 30-day mortality was lower in patients with delays of ≥3 days compared with those who had 1–2 days of delays. Accounting for confounders and immortal time bias resolved this paradox. Emulating a target trial, we found that these delays were associated with an absolute increase in expected 30-day mortality of 6.6% (95% confidence interval: 0.2, 13.0), from 33.8% to 40.4%.

Introductory paragraph Infections caused by carbapenemase-producing enterobacteria (CPE) are a major concern in clinical settings worldwide. Two fundamentally different processes shape the epidemiology of CPE in hospitals: the dissemination of CPE clones from patient to patient (between-patient transfer), and the transfer of carbapenemase-encoding plasmids between enterobacteria in the gut microbiota of individual patients (within-patient transfer). The relative contribution of each process to the overall dissemination of carbapenem resistance in hospitals remains poorly understood. Here, we used mechanistic models combining epidemiological data from more than 9,000 patients with whole genome sequence information from 250 enterobacteria clones to characterise the dissemination routes of a pOXA-48-like carbapenemase-encoding plasmid in a hospital setting over a two-year period. Our results revealed frequent between-patient transmission of high-risk pOXA-48-carrying clones, mostly of Klebsiella pneumoniae and sporadically Escherichia coli. The results also identified pOXA-48 dissemination hotspots within the hospital, such as specific wards and individual rooms within wards. Using high-resolution plasmid sequence analysis, we uncovered the pervasive within-patient transfer of pOXA-48, suggesting that horizontal plasmid transfer occurs in the gut of virtually every colonised patient. The complex and multifaceted epidemiological scenario exposed by this study provides insights for the development of intervention strategies to control the in-hospital spread of CPE.

Objectives The magnitude of impact caused by low blood culture utilization on estimates of the proportions and incidence rates of antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) bacterial infections is largely unknown. Methods We used routine electronic databases of microbiology, hospital admission and drug prescription at Sunpasitthiprasong Hospital, Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand, from 2011 to 2015, and bootstrap simulations. Results The proportions of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteraemias caused by 3rd generation cephalosporin resistant isolates (3GCREC and 3GCRKP) were estimated to increase by 13 and 24 percentage points (from 44% to 57% and from 51% to 75%), respectively, if blood culture utilization rate was reduced from 82 to 26 blood culture specimens per 1,000 patient-days. Among patients with hospital-origin bloodstream infections, the proportion of 3GCREC and 3GCRKP whose first positive blood culture was taken within ±1 calendar day of the start of a parenteral antibiotic at the study hospital was substantially lower than those whose first positive blood culture was taken later into parenteral antibiotic treatment (30% versus 79%, p Conclusion Impacts of low blood culture utilization rate on the estimated proportions and incidence rates of AMR infections could be high. We recommend that AMR surveillance reports should additionally include blood culture utilization rate and stratification by exposure to a parenteral antibiotic at the hospital.

Increased hand hygiene amongst the general public has been widely promoted as one of the most important non-pharmaceutical interventions for reducing transmission during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and is likely to continue to play a key role in long-term efforts to suppress transmission before a vaccine can be deployed. For other respiratory tract infections community hand hygiene interventions are supported by evidence from randomised trials, but information on how effectiveness in reducing transmission scales with achieved changes in hand hygiene behaviour is lacking. This information is of critical importance when considering the potential value of substantially enhancing community hand hygiene frequency to help suppress COVID-19. Here, we developed a simple model-based framework for understanding the key determinants of the effectiveness of changes in hand hygiene behaviour in reducing transmission and use it to explore the potential impact of interventions aimed at achieving large-scale population-wide changes in hand hygiene behaviour. Our analyses show that the effect of hand hygiene is highly dependent on the duration of viral persistence on hands and that hand washing needs to be performed very frequently or immediately after hand contamination events in order to substantially reduce the probability of infection. Hand washing at a lower frequency, such as every 30 minutes or with a delay of 15 minutes after contamination events, may be adequate to reduce the probability of infection when viral survival on hands is longer, such as when hands are contaminated with mucus. Immediate hand washing after contamination is more effective than hand washing at fixed-time intervals even when the total number of hand washing events is similar. This event-prompted hand washing strategy is consistently more effective than fixed-time strategy regardless of hand contamination rates and should be highlighted in hand hygiene campaigns.

Objectives To estimate the transmission rate of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) in households with recently hospitalized CPE carriers. Methods We conducted a prospective case-ascertained cohort study. We identified the presence of CPE in stool samples from index subjects, household contacts and companion animals and environmental samples at regular intervals. Linked transmissions were identified by WGS. A Markov model was constructed to estimate the household transmission potential of CPE. Results Ten recently hospitalized index patients and 14 household contacts were included. There were seven households with one contact, two households with two contacts, and one household with three contacts. Index patients were colonized with blaOXA-48-like (n = 4), blaKPC-2 (n = 3), blaIMP (n = 2), and blaNDM-1 (n = 1), distributed among divergent species of Enterobacteriaceae. After a cumulative follow-up time of 9.0 years, three family members (21.4%, 3/14) acquired four different types of CPE in the community (hazard rate of 0.22/year). The probability of CPE transmission from an index patient to a household contact was 10% (95% CI 4%–26%). Conclusions We observed limited transmission of CPE from an index patient to household contacts. Larger studies are needed to understand the factors associated with household transmission of CPE and identify preventive strategies.

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.

Hospital-based transmission played a dominant role in MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV epidemics but large-scale studies of its role in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic are lacking. Such transmission risks spreading the virus to the most vulnerable individuals and can have wider-scale impacts through hospital-community interactions. Using data from acute hospitals in England we quantify within-hospital transmission, evaluate likely pathways of spread and factors associated with heightened transmission risk, and explore the wider dynamical consequences. We show that hospital transmission is likely to have been a major contributor to the burden of COVID-19 in England. We estimate that between June 2020 and March 2021 between 95,000 and 167,000 patients acquired SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals with nosocomially-infected patients likely to have been the main sources of transmission to other patients. Increased transmission to patients was associated with hospitals having fewer single rooms and lower heated volume per bed. Moreover, we show that reducing hospital transmission could substantially enhance the efficiency of punctuated lockdown measures in suppressing community transmission. These findings reveal the previously unrecognised scale of hospital transmission, have direct implications for targeting of hospital control measures, and highlight the need to design hospitals better-equipped to limit the transmission of future high consequence pathogens.

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.

Background Nosocomial spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been widely reported, but the transmission pathways among patients and healthcare workers (HCWs) are unclear. Identifying the risk factors and drivers for these nosocomial transmissions is critical for infection prevention and control interventions. The main aim of our study was to quantify the relative importance of different transmission pathways of SARS-CoV-2 in the hospital setting. Methods and findings This is an observational cohort study using data from 4 teaching hospitals in Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, from January to October 2020. Associations between infectious SARS-CoV-2 individuals and infection risk were quantified using logistic, generalised additive and linear mixed models. Cases were classified as community- or hospital-acquired using likely incubation periods of 3 to 7 days. Of 66,184 patients who were hospitalised during the study period, 920 had a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test within the same period (1.4%). The mean age was 67.9 (±20.7) years, 49.2% were females, and 68.5% were from the white ethnic group. Out of these, 571 patients had their first positive PCR tests while hospitalised (62.1%), and 97 of these occurred at least 7 days after admission (10.5%). Among the 5,596 HCWs, 615 (11.0%) tested positive during the study period using PCR or serological tests. The mean age was 39.5 (±11.1) years, 78.9% were females, and 49.8% were nurses. For susceptible patients, 1 day in the same ward with another patient with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 was associated with an additional 7.5 infections per 1,000 susceptible patients (95% credible interval (CrI) 5.5 to 9.5/1,000 susceptible patients/day) per day. Exposure to an infectious patient with community-acquired Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) or to an infectious HCW was associated with substantially lower infection risks (2.0/1,000 susceptible patients/day, 95% CrI 1.6 to 2.2). As for HCW infections, exposure to an infectious patient with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 or to an infectious HCW were both associated with an additional 0.8 infection per 1,000 susceptible HCWs per day (95% CrI 0.3 to 1.6 and 0.6 to 1.0, respectively). Exposure to an infectious patient with community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 was associated with less than half this risk (0.2/1,000 susceptible HCWs/day, 95% CrI 0.2 to 0.2). These assumptions were tested in sensitivity analysis, which showed broadly similar results. The main limitations were that the symptom onset dates and HCW absence days were not available. Conclusions In this study, we observed that exposure to patients with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 is associated with a substantial infection risk to both HCWs and other hospitalised patients. Infection control measures to limit nosocomial transmission must be optimised to protect both staff and patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection., In a cohort study, Mo Yin and colleagues investigate transmission of community- and hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 in hospital settings in the UK., Author summary Why was this study done? Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the hospital setting has been widely reported, but little is known about the incidence and pathways of transmission. Hospitalised patients are especially vulnerable to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated complications, and infected patients may contribute to the further spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the community and nursing homes upon discharge. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are disproportionately infected with SARS-CoV-2, and a reduced staff workforce due to SARS-CoV-2 infection may compromise the clinical management of patients and infection prevention and control measures. Improved understanding of the drivers of hospital-acquired SARS-CoV2 infection is important to prevent and control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals. What did the researchers do and find? We collected data from 4 teaching hospitals in Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, from January to October 2020. The data were analysed to find the associations between infectious SARS-CoV-2 individuals (classified as community- or hospital-acquired) and infection risk posed to the susceptible individuals using statistical models. For susceptible patients, 1 day in the same ward with another patient with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 was associated with an additional 8 infections per 1,000 susceptible patients, while exposure to an infectious patient with community-acquired COVID-19 or to an infectious HCW was associated with substantially lower infection risks of 2 per 1,000 susceptible patients. As for HCW infections, exposure to an infectious patient with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 or to an infectious HCW were both associated with an additional 1 infection per 1,000 susceptible HCWs per day, while exposure to an infectious patient with community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 was associated with less than half this risk. What do these findings mean? Our data provide strong evidence that newly infected COVID-19 patients are associated with a high risk of onward transmission to patients and HCWs in hospital. Our findings support enhanced strategies to prevent and identify early hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection among hospitalised patients, for example, regular screening and prompt testing to identify these patients. Measures to ensure infected staff are not at work, including regular staff screening and adequate sick pay arrangements, are vital. The relatively low risk of transmission associated with patients with suspected community-acquired COVID-19 suggests that for these patients, the peak of their infectivity may have passed such that existing infection prevention and control policies including universal use of personal protective equipment, prompt testing, and isolation of suspected or known cases are sufficient to mitigate most of the remaining infectiousness. The main limitations were that the symptom onset dates and HCW absence days were not available, which may affect the estimation of the transmission pathways.

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 spreads in hospitals, but the contribution of these settings to the overall COVID-19 burden at a national level is unknown.MethodsWe used comprehensive national English datasets and simulation modelling to determine the total burden (identified and unidentified) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections. Those unidentified would either be 1) discharged before symptom onset (“missed”), or 2) have symptom onset 7 days or fewer from admission (“misclassified”). We estimated the contribution of “misclassified” cases and transmission from “missed” symptomatic infections to the English epidemic before 31st July 2020.FindingsIn our dataset of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in acute English Trusts with a recorded symptom onset date (n = 65,028), 7% were classified as hospital-acquired (with symptom onset 8 or more days after admission and before discharge). We estimated that only 30% (range across weeks and 200 simulations: 20-41%) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections would be identified. Misclassified cases and onward transmission from missed infections could account for 15% (mean, 95% range over 200 simulations: 14·1%-15·8%) of cases currently classified as community-acquired COVID-19.From this, 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.ConclusionsTransmission of SARS-CoV-2 to hospitalised patients likely caused approximately a fifth of identified cases of hospitalised COVID-19 in the “first wave”, but fewer than 1% of all SARS-CoV-2 infections in England. Using symptom onset as a detection method for hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 likely misses a substantial proportion (>60%) of hospital-acquired infections.FundingNational Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, Society for Laboratory Automation and Screening, UKRI, Wellcome Trust, Singapore National Medical Research Council.Research in contextEvidence before this studyWe searched PubMed with the terms “((national OR country) AND (contribution OR burden OR estimates) AND (“hospital-acquired” OR “hospital-associated” OR “nosocomial”)) AND Covid-19” for articles published in English up to July 1st 2021. This identified 42 studies, with no studies that had aimed to produce comprehensive national estimates of the contribution of hospital settings to the COVID-19 pandemic. Most studies focused on estimating seroprevalence or levels of infection in healthcare workers only, which were not our focus. Removing the initial national/country terms identified 120 studies, with no country level estimates. Several single hospital setting estimates exist for England and other countries, but the percentage of hospital-associated infections reported relies on identified cases in the absence of universal testing.Added value of this studyThis study provides the first national-level estimates of all symptomatic hospital-acquired infections with SARS-CoV-2 in England up to the 31st July 2020. Using comprehensive data, we calculate how many infections would be unidentified and hence can generate a total burden, impossible from just notification data. Moreover, our burden estimates for onward transmission suggest the contribution of hospitals to the overall infection burden.Implications of all the available evidenceLarge numbers of patients may become infected with SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals though only a small proportion of such infections are identified. Further work is needed to better understand how interventions can reduce such transmission and to better understand the contributions of hospital transmission to mortality.

Background Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Enterobacterales is a global health threat. Capacity for individual-level surveillance remains limited in many countries, whilst population-level surveillance approaches could inform empiric antibiotic treatment guidelines. Methods In this exploratory study, a novel approach to population-level prediction of AMR in Enterobacterales clinical isolates using metagenomic (Illumina) profiling of pooled DNA extracts from human faecal samples was developed and tested. Taxonomic and AMR gene profiles were used to derive taxonomy-adjusted population-level AMR metrics. Bayesian modelling, and model comparison based on cross-validation, were used to evaluate the capacity of each metric to predict the number of resistant Enterobacterales invasive infections at a population-level, using available bloodstream/cerebrospinal fluid infection data. Findings Population metagenomes comprised samples from 177, 157, and 156 individuals in Kenya, the UK, and Cambodia, respectively, collected between September 2014 and April 2016. Clinical data from independent populations included 910, 3356 and 197 bacterial isolates from blood/cerebrospinal fluid infections in Kenya, the UK and Cambodia, respectively (samples collected between January 2010 and May 2017). Enterobacterales were common colonisers and pathogens, and faecal taxonomic/AMR gene distributions and proportions of antimicrobial-resistant Enterobacterales infections differed by setting. A model including terms reflecting the metagenomic abundance of the commonest clinical Enterobacterales species, and of AMR genes known to either increase the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) or confer clinically-relevant resistance, had a higher predictive performance in determining population-level resistance in clinical Enterobacterales isolates compared to models considering only AMR gene information, only taxonomic information, or an intercept-only baseline model (difference in expected log predictive density compared to best model, estimated using leave-one-out cross-validation: intercept-only model = -223 [95% credible interval (CI): -330,-116]; model considering only AMR gene information = -186 [95% CI: -281,-91]; model considering only taxonomic information = -151 [95% CI: -232,-69]). Interpretation Whilst our findings are exploratory and require validation, intermittent metagenomics of pooled samples could represent an effective approach for AMR surveillance and to predict population-level AMR in clinical isolates, complementary to ongoing development of laboratory infrastructures processing individual samples. Funding The study was funded by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (grant agreement OPP1160974) and was sponsored by University of Oxford. The study was also supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, and NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare-associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance (a partnership between the University of Oxford and Public Health England [PHE]). Kenyan samples were collected in a study funded by the MRC/DfID/Wellcome Joint Clinical Trials scheme: MR/M007367/1.

IntroductionVentilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is the most common nosocomial infection in intensive care units (ICUs). Using short-course antibiotics to treat VAP caused by Gram-negative non-fermenting bacteria has been reported to be associated with excess pneumonia recurrences. The “REducinG Antibiotic tReatment Duration for Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia” (REGARD-VAP) trial aims to provide evidence for using a set of reproducible clinical criteria to shorten antibiotic duration for individualised treatment duration of VAP.Methods and analysisThis is a randomised controlled hierarchical non-inferiority–superiority trial being conducted in ICUs across Nepal, Thailand and Singapore. The primary outcome is a composite endpoint of death and pneumonia recurrence at day 60. Secondary outcomes include ventilator-associated events, multidrug-resistant organism infection or colonisation, total duration of antibiotic exposure, mechanical ventilation and hospitalisation. Adult patients who satisfy the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Healthcare Safety Network VAP diagnostic criteria are enrolled. Participants are assessed daily until fever subsides for >48 hours and have stable blood pressure, then randomised to a short duration treatment strategy or a standard-of-care duration arm. Antibiotics may be stopped as early as day 3 if respiratory cultures are negative, and day 5 if respiratory cultures are positive in the short-course arm. Participants receiving standard-of-care will receive antibiotics for at least 8 days. Study participants are followed for 60 days after enrolment. An estimated 460 patients will be required to achieve 80% power to determine non-inferiority with a margin of 12%. All outcomes are compared by absolute risk differences. The conclusion of non-inferiority, and subsequently superiority, will be based on unadjusted and adjusted analyses in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations.Ethics and disseminationThe study has received approvals from the Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee and the respective study sites. Results will be disseminated to patients, their caregivers, physicians, the funders, the critical care societies and other researchers.Trial registration numberNCT03382548.

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 can spread efficiently in hospitals, but the transmission pathways amongst patients and healthcare workers are unclear.MethodsWe analysed data from four teaching hospitals in Oxfordshire, UK, from January to October 2020. Associations between infectious SARS-CoV-2 individuals and infection risk were quantified using logistic, generalised additive and linear mixed models. Cases were classified as community- or hospital-acquired using likely incubation periods.ResultsNine-hundred and twenty of 66184 patients who were hospitalised during the study period had a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test within the same period (1%). Out of these, 571 patients had their first positive PCR tests while hospitalised (62%), and 97 of these occurred at least seven days after admission (11%). Amongst the 5596 healthcare workers, 615 (11%) tested positive during the study period using PCR or serological tests. For susceptible patients, one day in the same ward with another patient with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 was associated with an additional eight infections per 1000 susceptible patients (95%CrI 6-10). Exposure to an infectious patient with community-acquired COVID-19 or to an infectious healthcare worker was associated with substantially lower infection risks (2/1000 susceptible patients/day, 95%CrI 1-2). As for healthcare worker infections, exposure to an infectious patient with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 or to an infectious healthcare worker were both associated with an additional one infection per 1000 susceptible healthcare workers per day (95%CrI 1-2). Exposure to an infectious patient with community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 was associated with half this risk (0.5/1000 susceptible healthcare workers/day, 95%CrI 0.3-0.7).InterpretationExposure to patients with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 poses a substantial infection risk. Infection control measures to limit nosocomial transmission must be optimised to protect both staff and patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at Oxford University in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) (NIHR200915). Medical Research Council, Nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (MR/V028456/1).Research in contextEvidence before this studyWe searched the PubMed database using the search terms (”COVID-19” OR ”SARS-CoV-2”) AND (”nosocomial” OR ”hospital”) AND (”transmission”) in either the abstracts or titles, for English-language articles published up to March 31, 2021. This returned 748 results, out of which ten reported transmission events in the hospital setting quantitatively. These publications can be broadly categorised to epidemiological descriptions of isolated outbreaks (5) or contact tracing of patients exposed to infected healthcare workers (1), retrospective cohort studies involving a particular group of patients, e.g., patients who underwent surgical procedures (2), and using genomic sequencing to identify transmission clusters (2). None of the studies reported the comparative transmission rates of SARS-CoV-2 amongst patients and staff.Added value of this studyThis study reports the analysis of a large observational dataset collected from a group of hospitals in the UK over eight months, consisting of both hospitalised patients and healthcare workers. Based on these detailed individual-level data, we quantified the associations between patient and healthcare worker characteristics and risks for acquiring nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection after adjusting for their exposures to SARS-CoV-2. Over the study period, we describe how risk of acquisition changes both with calendar time and over a patient’s hospital stay. By linking the presence of infected and susceptible patients and healthcare workers by time and ward locations, we quantify the relative importance of the transmission pathways for both the susceptible patients and healthcare workers.Implications of all the available evidenceNosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is common. Identifying the drivers of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions in the hospital setting is essential for designing infection prevention and control policies to minimise the added pressure from such events on our health systems. We found that newly infected patients who acquired SARS-CoV-2 in the hospital pose the highest risk of onward transmission to other patients and healthcare workers. Infection control and prevention efforts need to be enhanced around these patients to prevent further transmissions and studies assessing the effectiveness of these policies are needed.

Circulatory shock, caused by severe intravascular volume depletion resulting from gastrointestinal losses and profound capillary leak, is a common clinical feature of viral hemorrhagic fevers, including Ebola virus disease, Marburg hemorrhagic fever, and Lassa fever. These conditions are associated with high case fatality rates, and they carry a significant risk of infection for treating personnel. Optimized fluid therapy is the cornerstone of management of these diseases, but there are few data on the extent of fluid losses and the severity of the capillary leak in patients with VHFs, and no specific guidelines for fluid resuscitation and hemodynamic monitoring exist. We propose an innovative approach for monitoring VHF patients, in particular suited for low-resource settings, facilitating optimizing fluid therapy through remote-controlled and pulse pressure–guided fluid resuscitation. This strategy would increase the capacity for adequate supportive care, while decreasing the risk for virus transmission to health personnel.

Carriage dynamics of drug-resistant bacteria, especially within households, are poorly understood. This limits the ability to develop effective interventions for controlling the spread of antimicrobial resistance in the community. Two groups consisting of: (i) patients with urinary tract infection requiring antimicrobial treatment; and (ii) patients who were not prescribed antimicrobial treatment were prospectively recruited at three European sites: Antwerp (Belgium), Geneva (Switzerland) and Lodz (Poland). Each index patient and up to three additional household members provided faecal samples at baseline, completion of antimicrobial therapy (or 7-10 days after the first sample for the non-exposed) and 28 days after the second sample. We analysed household-level and individual-level fluoroquinolone resistant Enterobacteriaceae (FQR-E) acquisition and carriage data using Bayesian multi-state Markov models. At the individual level, we estimated a median baseline FQR-E acquisition rate of 0.006 (95%CrI = [0.004, 0.01]) per day, and a median duration of carriage of 24.4 days (95% CrI=[15.23,41.38]). Nitrofurantoin exposure was associated with a reduced rate of FQR-E acquisition (HR=0.28, 95%CrI=[0.14,0.56]), while fluoroquinolone exposure had no clear association with rates of FQR-E acquisition (HR=1.43, 95% CrI=[0.81,2.53]) at individual level. There was evidence that rates of FQR-E acquisition varied by site, and coming from Lodz was associated with a higher acquisition rate (HR=3.56, 95% CrI=[1.92, 6.34]). Prolonged duration of carriage was associated with exposure to fluoroquinolone or nitrofurantoin during the study, use of any antimicrobial agent in the prior 12 months and travel to endemic regions. At household level, we found strong evidence of positive association between FQR-E acquisition and fluoroquinolone exposure (HR=3.43, 95% CrI=[1.51,7.74]). There was weak evidence of negative association between FQR-E acquisition and nitrofurantoin exposure (HR=0.42, 95%CrI=[0.12, 1.24]. Similar to the individual level, carriage duration was also associated with antimicrobial exposure at the household level. Our study has identified within household contacts as an important route for FQR-E transmission and highlights the need for prioritising household focused interventions to control FQR-E spread.

Antibiotic-induced perturbation of the human gut flora is expected to play an important role in mediating the relationship between antibiotic use and the population prevalence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, but little is known about how antibiotics affect within-host resistance dynamics. Here we develop a data-driven model of the within-host dynamics of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing Enterobacteriaceae. We use blaCTX-M (the most widespread ESBL gene family) and 16S rRNA (a proxy for bacterial load) abundance data from 833 rectal swabs from 133 ESBL-positive patients followed up in a prospective cohort study in three European hospitals. We find that cefuroxime and ceftriaxone are associated with increased blaCTX-M abundance during treatment (21% and 10% daily increase, respectively), while treatment with meropenem, piperacillin-tazobactam, and oral ciprofloxacin is associated with decreased blaCTX-M (8% daily decrease for all). The model predicts that typical antibiotic exposures can have substantial long-term effects on blaCTX-M carriage duration., eLife digest Bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics are a growing global health crisis. One type of antibiotic resistance arises when certain bacteria that can produce enzymes called extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (or ESBLs for short) become more common in the gut. These enzymes stop important antibiotics, like penicillin, from working. However, exactly which antibiotics and treatment durations contribute to the emergence of this antibiotic resistance remain unknown. Now, Niehus et al. find certain antibiotics that are associated with an increase in the number of gut bacteria carrying antibiotic resistance genes for ESBL enzymes. First, rectal swabs collected from 133 patients from three European hospitals were analysed to measure the total gut bacteria and the number of genes for ESBL enzymes. These samples had been collected at several time points including when the patient was first admitted to hospital, then every two to three days during their stay, and finally when they were discharged. Combining the analysis of the samples with details of the patients’ charts showed that treatment with two antibiotics: cefuroxime and ceftriaxone, was linked to an increase in ESBL genes in the gut bacteria. Other antibiotics – namely, meropenem, piperacillin-tazobactam and oral ciprofloxacin – were associated with a decrease in the number of bacteria with ESBL genes. Niehus et al. then performed further analysis to see if different treatment regimens affected how long patients were carrying gut bacteria with ESBL genes. This predicted that a longer course of meropenem, 14 days rather than 5 days, would shorten the length of time patients carried ESBL-resistant bacteria in their guts by 70%, although this effect will likely depend on the location of the hospital and the local prevalence of other types of antibiotic resistance. This analysis reveals new details about how antibiotic treatment can affect ESBL resistance genes. More studies are needed to understand how antibiotics affect other antibiotic resistance genes and how resistant bacteria spread. This will help scientists understand how much specific antibiotic regimens contribute to antibiotic resistance. It may also help scientists develop new antibiotic treatment strategies that reduce antibiotic resistance.

Non-adherence in non-inferiority trials can affect treatment effect estimates and often increases the chance of claiming non-inferiority under the standard intention-to-treat analysis. This article discusses the implications of different patterns of non-adherence in non-inferiority trials and offers practical recommendations for trial design, alternative analysis strategies, and outcome reporting to reduce bias in treatment estimates and improve transparency in reporting.