Search

Background: The CLEAR Trial demonstrated that a multisite body decolonization regimen reduced post-discharge infection and hospitalization in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriers. Here, we describe decolonization efficacy., Methods: We performed a large, multicenter, randomized clinical trial of MRSA decolonization among adult patients after hospital discharge with MRSA infection or colonization. Participants were randomized 1:1 to either MRSA prevention education or education plus decolonization with topical chlorhexidine, oral chlorhexidine, and nasal mupirocin. Participants were swabbed in the nares, throat, axilla/groin, and wound (if applicable) at baseline and 1, 3, 6, and 9 months after randomization. The primary outcomes of this study are follow-up colonization differences between groups., Results: Among 2121 participants, 1058 were randomized to decolonization. By 1 month, MRSA colonization was lower in the decolonization group compared with the education-only group (odds ration [OR] = 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], .36-.54; P ≤ .001). A similar magnitude of reduction was seen in the nares (OR = 0.34; 95% CI, .27-.42; P < .001), throat (OR = 0.55; 95% CI, .42-.73; P < .001), and axilla/groin (OR = 0.57; 95% CI, .43-.75; P < .001). These differences persisted through month 9 except at the wound site, which had a relatively small sample size. Higher regimen adherence was associated with lower MRSA colonization (P ≤ .01)., Conclusions: In a randomized, clinical trial, a repeated post-discharge decolonization regimen for MRSA carriers reduced MRSA colonization overall and at multiple body sites. Higher treatment adherence was associated with greater reductions in MRSA colonization., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. L. G. M. has served as a consultant or has received grants from Gilead Science, Achaogen, Merck, Abbott, Medline, and Cepheid and has received financial or material support from Medline, Sage, and Xttrium. R. S. has received financial or material support from Medline, Molnlycke, Sage, and Xttrium. L. H. has received financial or material support from Medline, Molnlycke, Sage, and Xttrium. J. A. M. has received research funding from Achaogen, Theravance Biopharma, Allergan, Cempra, Melinta Therapeutics, Menarini Group, Medline, and Thermo Fisher Scientific and has received financial or material support from Medline, Sage, and Xttrium. S. S. Huang has received financial or material support from Medline, Molnlycke, Sage, and Xttrium. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

In a prospective cohort study, we compared a 2-swabs-per-nostril 5% iodophor regimen with a 1-swab-per-nostril 10% iodophor regimen on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriage in nursing-home residents. Compared with baseline, both single-swab and double-swab regimens resulted in an identical 40% reduction in nasal carriage and 60% reduction in any carriage, skin or nasal.

Background: Early evaluations of healthcare professional (HCP) COVID-19 risk occurred during insufficient personal protective equipment and disproportionate testing, contributing to perceptions of high patient-care related HCP risk. We evaluated HCP COVID-19 seropositivity after accounting for community factors and coworker outbreaks., Methods: Prior to universal masking, we conducted a single-center retrospective cohort plus cross-sectional study. All HCP (1) seen by Occupational Health for COVID-like symptoms (regardless of test result) or assigned to (2) dedicated COVID-19 units, (3) units with a COVID-19 HCP outbreak, or (4) control units from 01/01/2020 to 04/15/2020 were offered serologic testing by an FDA-authorized assay plus a research assay against 67 respiratory viruses, including 11 SARS-CoV-2 antigens. Multivariable models assessed the association of demographics, job role, comorbidities, care of a COVID-19 patient, and geocoded socioeconomic status with positive serology., Results: Of 654 participants, 87 (13.3%) were seropositive; among these 60.8% (N = 52) had never cared for a COVID-19 patient. Being male (OR 1.79, CI 1.05-3.04, p = 0.03), working in a unit with a HCP-outbreak unit (OR 2.21, CI 1.28-3.81, p < 0.01), living in a community with low owner-occupied housing (OR = 1.63, CI = 1.00-2.64, p = 0.05), and ethnically Latino (OR 2.10, CI 1.12-3.96, p = 0.02) were positively-associated with COVID-19 seropositivity, while working in dedicated COVID-19 units was negatively-associated (OR 0.53, CI = 0.30-0.94, p = 0.03). The research assay identified 25 additional seropositive individuals (78 [12%] vs. 53 [8%], p < 0.01)., Conclusions: Prior to universal masking, HCP COVID-19 risk was dominated by workplace and community exposures while working in a dedicated COVID-19 unit was protective, suggesting that infection prevention protocols prevent patient-to-HCP transmission. Prior to universal masking, HCP COVID-19 risk was dominated by workplace and community exposures while working in a dedicated COVID-19 unit was protective, suggesting that infection prevention protocols prevent patient-to-HCP transmission., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objective: To assess the impact of a newly developed Central-Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score on the incidence of local inflammation or infection for CLABSI prevention., Design: A pre- and postintervention, quasi-experimental quality improvement study., Setting and Participants: Adult inpatients with central venous catheters (CVCs) hospitalized in an intensive care unit or oncology ward at a large academic medical center., Methods: We evaluated CLISA score impact on insertion site inflammation and infection (CLISA score of 2 or 3) incidence in the baseline period (June 2014-January 2015) and the intervention period (April 2015-October 2017) using interrupted times series and generalized linear mixed-effects multivariable analyses. These were run separately for days-to-line removal from identification of a CLISA score of 2 or 3. CLISA score interrater reliability and photo quiz results were evaluated., Results: Among 6,957 CVCs assessed 40,846 times, percentage of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 in the baseline and intervention periods decreased by 78.2% (from 22.0% to 4.7%), with a significant immediate decrease in the time-series analysis (P < .001). According to the multivariable regression, the intervention was associated with lower percentage of lines with a CLISA score of 2 or 3, after adjusting for age, gender, CVC body location, and hospital unit (odds ratio, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.34; P < .001). According to the multivariate regression, days to removal of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 was 3.19 days faster after the intervention (P < .001). Also, line dwell time decreased 37.1% from a mean of 14 days (standard deviation [SD], 10.6) to 8.8 days (SD, 9.0) (P < .001). Device utilization ratios decreased 9% from 0.64 (SD, 0.08) to 0.58 (SD, 0.06) (P = .039)., Conclusions: The CLISA score creates a common language for assessing line infection risk and successfully promotes high compliance with best practices in timely line removal.

Background: The east-to-west spread of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) represents an opportunity to explore strategies to limit spread in nonendemic areas. We evaluated CRE emergence and regional support for containment strategies., Methods: A 17-question cross-sectional survey was administered to infection prevention programs in Orange County, CA (31 hospitals serving 3 million residents), between January and September 2014. Questions addressed newly detected hospital- and community-onset CRE cultures (2008-2013), current CRE control strategies, and support for prevention strategies for a hypothetical regional intervention., Results: Among 31 hospitals, 21 (68%, representing 17 infection prevention programs) completed the survey. CRE was scarcely detected between 2009-2010; within 4 years, 90% of hospitals reported CRE, with 2.5-fold higher community-onset than hospital-onset CRE. Between 2011 and 2013, annual CRE incidence increased 4.7-fold (1.4-6.3 cases/10,000 admissions). Support for a regional CRE prevention bundle was unanimous. Although 22% bathed patients positive for CRE with chlorhexidine gluconate and 11% actively screened for CRE, 86% and 57%, respectively, would consider these strategies in a regional intervention., Conclusions: CRE epidemiology in Orange County parallels early progression previously seen in now-endemic areas, representing an opportunity to consider interventions to prevent endemic spread. Many facilities would consider proactive strategies, such as chlorhexidine bathing, in the setting of a regional collaborative., (Copyright © 2017 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Nursing home residents are at risk for acquiring and transmitting MDROs. A serial point-prevalence study of 605 residents in 3 facilities using random sampling found MDRO colonization in 45% of residents: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA, 26%); extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL, 17%); vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. (VRE, 16%); carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE, 1%). MDRO colonization was associated with history of MDRO, care needs, incontinence, and catheters. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;1485-1488.