Search

ImportanceUrinary tract infection (UTI) is the second most common infection leading to hospitalization and is often associated with gram-negative multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). Clinicians overuse extended-spectrum antibiotics although most patients are at low risk for MDRO infection. Safe strategies to limit overuse of empiric antibiotics are needed.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether computerized provider order entry (CPOE) prompts providing patient- and pathogen-specific MDRO risk estimates could reduce use of empiric extended-spectrum antibiotics for treatment of UTI.Design, setting, and participantsCluster-randomized trial in 59 US community hospitals comparing the effect of a CPOE stewardship bundle (education, feedback, and real-time and risk-based CPOE prompts; 29 hospitals) vs routine stewardship (n = 30 hospitals) on antibiotic selection during the first 3 hospital days (empiric period) in noncritically ill adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with UTI with an 18-month baseline (April 1, 2017-September 30, 2018) and 15-month intervention period (April 1, 2019-June 30, 2020).InterventionsCPOE prompts recommending empiric standard-spectrum antibiotics in patients ordered to receive extended-spectrum antibiotics who have low estimated absolute risk (

ImportancePneumonia is the most common infection requiring hospitalization and is a major reason for overuse of extended-spectrum antibiotics. Despite low risk of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) infection, clinical uncertainty often drives initial antibiotic selection. Strategies to limit empiric antibiotic overuse for patients with pneumonia are needed.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether computerized provider order entry (CPOE) prompts providing patient- and pathogen-specific MDRO infection risk estimates could reduce empiric extended-spectrum antibiotics for non-critically ill patients admitted with pneumonia.Design, setting, and participantsCluster-randomized trial in 59 US community hospitals comparing the effect of a CPOE stewardship bundle (education, feedback, and real-time MDRO risk-based CPOE prompts; n = 29 hospitals) vs routine stewardship (n = 30 hospitals) on antibiotic selection during the first 3 hospital days (empiric period) in non-critically ill adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with pneumonia. There was an 18-month baseline period from April 1, 2017, to September 30, 2018, and a 15-month intervention period from April 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020.InterventionCPOE prompts recommending standard-spectrum antibiotics in patients ordered to receive extended-spectrum antibiotics during the empiric period who have low estimated absolute risk (

BackgroundDetection and containment of hospital outbreaks currently depend on variable and personnel-intensive surveillance methods. Whether automated statistical surveillance for outbreaks of health care-associated pathogens allows earlier containment efforts that would reduce the size of outbreaks is unknown.MethodsWe conducted a cluster-randomized trial in 82 community hospitals within a larger health care system. All hospitals followed an outbreak response protocol when outbreaks were detected by their infection prevention programs. Half of the hospitals additionally used statistical surveillance of microbiology data, which alerted infection prevention programs to outbreaks. Statistical surveillance was also applied to microbiology data from control hospitals without alerting their infection prevention programs. The primary outcome was the number of additional cases occurring after outbreak detection. Analyses assessed differences between the intervention period (July 2019 to January 2022) versus baseline period (February 2017 to January 2019) between randomized groups. A post hoc analysis separately assessed pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and Covid-19 pandemic intervention periods.ResultsReal-time alerts did not significantly reduce the number of additional outbreak cases (intervention period versus baseline: statistical surveillance relative rate [RR]=1.41, control RR=1.81; difference-in-differences, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 1.52; P=0.46). Comparing only the prepandemic intervention with baseline periods, the statistical outbreak surveillance group was associated with a 64.1% reduction in additional cases (statistical surveillance RR=0.78, control RR=2.19; difference-in-differences, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.99). There was no similarly observed association between the pandemic versus baseline periods (statistical surveillance RR=1.56, control RR=1.66; difference-in-differences, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.92).ConclusionsAutomated detection of hospital outbreaks using statistical surveillance did not reduce overall outbreak size in the context of an ongoing pandemic. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04053075. Support for HCA Healthcare's participation in the study was provided in kind by HCA.).

While the early effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the United States labor market are well-established, less is known about the long-term impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection and Long COVID on employment. To address this gap, we analyzed self-reported data from a prospective, national cohort study to estimate the effects of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms at three months post-infection on missed workdays and return to work. The analysis included 2,939 adults in the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE) study who tested positive for their initial SARS-CoV-2 infection at the time of enrollment, were employed before the pandemic, and completed a baseline and three-month electronic survey. At three months post-infection, 40.8% of participants reported at least one SARS-CoV-2 symptom and 9.6% of participants reported five or more SARS-CoV-2 symptoms. When asked about missed work due to their SARS-CoV-2 infection at three months, 7.2% of participants reported missing ≥10 workdays and 13.9% of participants reported not returning to work since their infection. At three months, participants with ≥5 symptoms had a higher adjusted odds ratio of missing ≥10 workdays (2.96, 95% CI 1.81-4.83) and not returning to work (2.44, 95% CI 1.58-3.76) compared to those with no symptoms. Prolonged SARS-CoV-2 symptoms were common, affecting 4-in-10 participants at three-months post-infection, and were associated with increased odds of work loss, most pronounced among adults with ≥5 symptoms at three months. Despite the end of the federal Public Health Emergency for COVID-19 and efforts to return to normal, policymakers must consider the clinical and economic implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on peoples employment status and work absenteeism, particularly as data characterizing the numerous health and well-being impacts of Long COVID continue to emerge. Improved understanding of risk factors for lost work time may guide efforts to support people in returning to work.

ImportanceUniversal nasal mupirocin plus chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing in intensive care units (ICUs) prevents methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections and all-cause bloodstream infections. Antibiotic resistance to mupirocin has raised questions about whether an antiseptic could be advantageous for ICU decolonization.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of iodophor vs mupirocin for universal ICU nasal decolonization in combination with CHG bathing.Design, setting, and participantsTwo-group noninferiority, pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial conducted in US community hospitals, all of which used mupirocin-CHG for universal decolonization in ICUs at baseline. Adult ICU patients in 137 randomized hospitals during baseline (May 1, 2015-April 30, 2017) and intervention (November 1, 2017-April 30, 2019) were included.InterventionUniversal decolonization involving switching to iodophor-CHG (intervention) or continuing mupirocin-CHG (baseline).Main outcomes and measuresICU-attributable S aureus clinical cultures (primary outcome), MRSA clinical cultures, and all-cause bloodstream infections were evaluated using proportional hazard models to assess differences from baseline to intervention periods between the strategies. Results were also compared with a 2009-2011 trial of mupirocin-CHG vs no decolonization in the same hospital network. The prespecified noninferiority margin for the primary outcome was 10%.ResultsAmong the 801 668 admissions in 233 ICUs, the participants' mean (SD) age was 63.4 (17.2) years, 46.3% were female, and the mean (SD) ICU length of stay was 4.8 (4.7) days. Hazard ratios (HRs) for S aureus clinical isolates in the intervention vs baseline periods were 1.17 for iodophor-CHG (raw rate: 5.0 vs 4.3/1000 ICU-attributable days) and 0.99 for mupirocin-CHG (raw rate: 4.1 vs 4.0/1000 ICU-attributable days) (HR difference in differences significantly lower by 18.4% [95% CI, 10.7%-26.6%] for mupirocin-CHG, P

To further the understanding of post-COVID conditions, and provide a more nuanced description of symptom progression, resolution, emergence, and reemergence after SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-like illness, analysts examined data from the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE), a prospective multicenter cohort study. This report includes analysis of data on self-reported symptoms collected from 1,296 adults with COVID-like illness who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using a Food and Drug Administration-approved polymerase chain reaction or antigen test at the time of enrollment and reported symptoms at 3-month intervals for 12 months. Prevalence of any symptom decreased substantially between baseline and the 3-month follow-up, from 98.4% to 48.2% for persons who received a positive SARS-CoV-2 test results (COVID test-positive participants) and from 88.2% to 36.6% for persons who received negative SARS-CoV-2 test results (COVID test-negative participants). Persistent symptoms decreased through 12 months; no difference between the groups was observed at 12 months (prevalence among COVID test-positive and COVID test-negative participants = 18.3% and 16.1%, respectively; p>0.05). Both groups reported symptoms that emerged or reemerged at 6, 9, and 12 months. Thus, these symptoms are not unique to COVID-19 or to post-COVID conditions. Awareness that symptoms might persist for up to 12 months, and that many symptoms might emerge or reemerge in the year after COVID-like illness, can assist health care providers in understanding the clinical signs and symptoms associated with post-COVID-like conditions.

BackgroundWhile prior work examining severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern focused on hospitalization and death, less is known about differences in clinical presentation. We compared the prevalence of acute symptoms across pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron.MethodsWe conducted an analysis of the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE), a cohort study enrolling symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive participants. We determined the association between the pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron time periods and the prevalence of 21 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute symptoms.ResultsWe enrolled 4113 participants from December 2020 to June 2022. Pre-Delta vs Delta vs Omicron participants had increasing sore throat (40.9%, 54.6%, 70.6%; P < .001), cough (50.9%, 63.3%, 66.7%; P < .001), and runny noses (48.9%, 71.3%, 72.9%; P < .001). We observed reductions during Omicron in chest pain (31.1%, 24.2%, 20.9%; P < .001), shortness of breath (42.7%, 29.5%, 27.5%; P < .001), loss of taste (47.1%, 61.8%, 19.2%; P < .001), and loss of smell (47.5%, 55.6%, 20.0%; P < .001). After adjustment, those infected during Omicron had significantly higher odds of sore throat vs pre-Delta (odds ratio [OR], 2.76; 95% CI, 2.26-3.35) and Delta (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.69-2.28).ConclusionsParticipants infected during Omicron were more likely to report symptoms of common respiratory viruses, such as sore throat, and less likely to report loss of smell and taste.Trial registrationNCT04610515.

BackgroundThe prevalence, incidence, and interrelationships of persistent symptoms after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection vary. There are limited data on specific phenotypes of persistent symptoms. Using latent class analysis (LCA) modeling, we sought to identify whether specific phenotypes of COVID-19 were present 3 months and 6 months post-infection.MethodsThis was a multicenter study of symptomatic adults tested for SARS-CoV-2 with prospectively collected data on general symptoms and fatigue-related symptoms up to 6 months postdiagnosis. Using LCA, we identified symptomatically homogenous groups among COVID-positive and COVID-negative participants at each time period for both general and fatigue-related symptoms.ResultsAmong 5963 baseline participants (4504 COVID-positive and 1459 COVID-negative), 4056 had 3-month and 2856 had 6-month data at the time of analysis. We identified 4 distinct phenotypes of post-COVID conditions (PCCs) at 3 and 6 months for both general and fatigue-related symptoms; minimal-symptom groups represented 70% of participants at 3 and 6 months. When compared with the COVID-negative cohort, COVID-positive participants had higher occurrence of loss of taste/smell and cognition problems. There was substantial class-switching over time; those in 1 symptom class at 3 months were equally likely to remain or enter a new phenotype at 6 months.ConclusionsWe identified distinct classes of PCC phenotypes for general and fatigue-related symptoms. Most participants had minimal or no symptoms at 3 and 6 months of follow-up. Significant proportions of participants changed symptom groups over time, suggesting that symptoms present during the acute illness may differ from prolonged symptoms and that PCCs may have a more dynamic nature than previously recognized. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04610515.

BackgroundMost research on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants focuses on initial symptomatology with limited longer-term data. We characterized prevalences of prolonged symptoms 3 months post-SARS-CoV-2 infection across 3 variant time-periods (pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron).MethodsThis multicenter prospective cohort study of adults with acute illness tested for SARS-CoV-2 compared fatigue severity, fatigue symptoms, organ system-based symptoms, and ≥3 symptoms across variants among participants with a positive ("COVID-positive") or negative SARS-CoV-2 test ("COVID-negative") at 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 testing. Variant periods were defined by dates with ≥50% dominant strain. We performed multivariable logistic regression modeling to estimate independent effects of variants adjusting for sociodemographics, baseline health, and vaccine status.ResultsThe study included 2402 COVID-positive and 821 COVID-negative participants. Among COVID-positives, 463 (19.3%) were pre-Delta, 1198 (49.9%) Delta, and 741 (30.8%) Omicron. The pre-Delta COVID-positive cohort exhibited more prolonged severe fatigue (16.7% vs 11.5% vs 12.3%; P = .017) and presence of ≥3 prolonged symptoms (28.4% vs 21.7% vs 16.0%; P < .001) compared with the Delta and Omicron cohorts. No differences were seen in the COVID-negatives across time-periods. In multivariable models adjusted for vaccination, severe fatigue and odds of having ≥3 symptoms were no longer significant across variants.ConclusionsProlonged symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection were more common among participants infected during pre-Delta than with Delta and Omicron; however, these differences were no longer significant after adjusting for vaccination status, suggesting a beneficial effect of vaccination on risk of long-term symptoms. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04610515.

BACKGROUND: Long-term symptoms following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are a major concern, yet their prevalence is poorly understood. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study comparing adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection (coronavirus disease-positive [COVID+]) with adults who tested negative (COVID-), enrolled within 28 days of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved SARS-CoV-2 test result for active symptoms. Sociodemographic characteristics, symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection (assessed with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] Person Under Investigation Symptom List), and symptoms of post-infectious syndromes (ie, fatigue, sleep quality, muscle/joint pains, unrefreshing sleep, and dizziness/fainting, assessed with CDC Short Symptom Screener for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) were assessed at baseline and 3 months via electronic surveys sent via text or email. RESULTS: Among the first 1000 participants, 722 were COVID+ and 278 were COVID-. Mean age was 41.5 (SD 15.2); 66.3% were female, 13.4% were Black, and 15.3% were Hispanic. At baseline, SARS-CoV-2 symptoms were more common in the COVID+ group than the COVID- group. At 3 months, SARS-CoV-2 symptoms declined in both groups, although were more prevalent in the COVID+ group: upper respiratory symptoms/head/eyes/ears/nose/throat (HEENT; 37.3% vs 20.9%), constitutional (28.8% vs 19.4%), musculoskeletal (19.5% vs 14.7%), pulmonary (17.6% vs 12.2%), cardiovascular (10.0% vs 7.2%), and gastrointestinal (8.7% vs 8.3%); only 50.2% and 73.3% reported no symptoms at all. Symptoms of post-infectious syndromes were similarly prevalent among the COVID+ and COVID- groups at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of COVID+ participants, as compared with one-quarter of COVID- participants, had at least 1 SARS-CoV-2 symptom at 3 months, highlighting the need for future work to distinguish long COVID. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04610515.

INTRODUCTION: Data on ethnic and racial differences in symptoms and health-related impacts following SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited. We aimed to estimate the ethnic and racial differences in symptoms and health-related impacts 3 and 6 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Participants included adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection enrolled in a prospective multicenter US study between 12/11/2020 and 7/4/2022 as the primary cohort of interest, as well as a SARS-CoV-2-negative cohort to account for non-SARS-CoV-2-infection impacts, who completed enrollment and 3-month surveys (N = 3,161; 2,402 SARS-CoV-2-positive, 759 SARS-CoV-2-negative). Marginal odds ratios were estimated using GEE logistic regression for individual symptoms, health status, activity level, and missed work 3 and 6 months after COVID-19 illness, comparing each ethnicity or race to the referent group (non-Hispanic or white), adjusting for demographic factors, social determinants of health, substance use, pre-existing health conditions, SARS-CoV-2 infection status, COVID-19 vaccination status, and survey time point, with interactions between ethnicity or race and time point, ethnicity or race and SARS-CoV-2 infection status, and SARS-CoV-2 infection status and time point. RESULTS: Following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the majority of symptoms were similar over time between ethnic and racial groups. At 3 months, Hispanic participants were more likely than non-Hispanic participants to report fair/poor health (OR: 1.94; 95%CI: 1.36-2.78) and reduced activity (somewhat less, OR: 1.47; 95%CI: 1.06-2.02; much less, OR: 2.23; 95%CI: 1.38-3.61). At 6 months, differences by ethnicity were not present. At 3 months, Other/Multiple race participants were more likely than white participants to report fair/poor health (OR: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.25-2.88), reduced activity (somewhat less, OR: 1.72; 95%CI: 1.21-2.46; much less, OR: 2.08; 95%CI: 1.18-3.65). At 6 months, Asian participants were more likely than white participants to report fair/poor health (OR: 1.88; 95%CI: 1.13-3.12); Black participants reported more missed work (OR, 2.83; 95%CI: 1.60-5.00); and Other/Multiple race participants reported more fair/poor health (OR: 1.83; 95%CI: 1.10-3.05), reduced activity (somewhat less, OR: 1.60; 95%CI: 1.02-2.51; much less, OR: 2.49; 95%CI: 1.40-4.44), and more missed work (OR: 2.25; 95%CI: 1.27-3.98). DISCUSSION: Awareness of ethnic and racial differences in outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection may inform clinical and public health efforts to advance health equity in long-term outcomes.

BackgroundReports on medium and long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infections largely lack quantification of incidence and relative risk. We describe the rationale and methods of the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Registry (INSPIRE) that combines patient-reported outcomes with data from digital health records to understand predictors and impacts of SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsINSPIRE is a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal study of individuals with symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection in eight regions across the US. Adults are eligible for enrollment if they are fluent in English or Spanish, reported symptoms suggestive of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and if they are within 42 days of having a SARS-CoV-2 viral test (i.e., nucleic acid amplification test or antigen test), regardless of test results. Recruitment occurs in-person, by phone or email, and through online advertisement. A secure online platform is used to facilitate the collation of consent-related materials, digital health records, and responses to self-administered surveys. Participants are followed for up to 18 months, with patient-reported outcomes collected every three months via survey and linked to concurrent digital health data; follow-up includes no in-person involvement. Our planned enrollment is 4,800 participants, including 2,400 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 2,400 SARS-CoV-2 negative participants (as a concurrent comparison group). These data will allow assessment of longitudinal outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection and comparison of the relative risk of outcomes in individuals with and without infection. Patient-reported outcomes include self-reported health function and status, as well as clinical outcomes including health system encounters and new diagnoses.ResultsParticipating sites obtained institutional review board approval. Enrollment and follow-up are ongoing.ConclusionsThis study will characterize medium and long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection among a diverse population, predictors of sequelae, and their relative risk compared to persons with similar symptomatology but without SARS-CoV-2 infection. These data may inform clinical interventions for individuals with sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

ObjectiveDetermine 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).DesignPoint prevalence sampling of residents and environmental sampling of high-touch objects in resident rooms and common areas.SettingTwenty-eight NHs in Southern California from 2016 to 2017.ParticipantsNH participants in Project PROTECT, a cluster-randomized trial of enhanced bathing and decolonization vs routine care.MethodsFifty 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).ResultsA 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 implicationsIn 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.

Distinguished Oral Background: Shared Healthcare Intervention to Eliminate Life-threatening Dissemination of MDROs in Orange County, California (SHIELD OC) was a CDC-funded regional decolonization intervention from April 2017 through July 2019 involving 38 hospitals, nursing homes (NHs), and long-term acute-care hospitals (LTACHs) to reduce MDROs. Decolonization in NH and LTACHs consisted of universal antiseptic bathing with chlorhexidine (CHG) for routine bathing and showering plus nasal iodophor decolonization (Monday through Friday, twice daily every other week). Hospitals used universal CHG in ICUs and provided daily CHG and nasal iodophor to patients in contact precautions. We sought to evaluate whether decolonization reduced hospitalization and associated healthcare costs due to infections among residents of NHs participating in SHIELD compared to nonparticipating NHs. Methods: Medicaid insurer data covering NH residents in Orange County were used to calculate hospitalization rates due to a primary diagnosis of infection (counts per member quarter), hospital bed days/member-quarter, and expenditures/member quarter from the fourth quarter of 2015 to the second quarter of 2019. We used a time-series design and a segmented regression analysis to evaluate changes attributable to the SHIELD OC intervention among participating and nonparticipating NHs. Results: Across the SHIELD OC intervention period, intervention NHs experienced a 44% decrease in hospitalization rates, a 43% decrease in hospital bed days, and a 53% decrease in Medicaid expenditures when comparing the last quarter of the intervention to the baseline period (Fig. 1). These data translated to a significant downward slope, with a reduction of 4% per quarter in hospital admissions due to infection (P < .001), a reduction of 7% per quarter in hospitalization days due to infection (P < .001), and a reduction of 9% per quarter in Medicaid expenditures (P = .019) per NH resident. Conclusions: The universal CHG bathing and nasal decolonization intervention adopted by NHs in the SHIELD OC collaborative resulted in large, meaningful reductions in hospitalization events, hospitalization days, and healthcare expenditures among Medicaid-insured NH residents. The findings led CalOptima, the Medicaid provider in Orange County, California, to launch an NH incentive program that provides dedicated training and covers the cost of CHG and nasal iodophor for OC NHs that enroll. Funding: None Disclosures: Gabrielle M. Gussin, University of California, Irvine, Stryker (Sage Products): Conducting studies in which contributed antiseptic product is provided to participating hospitals and nursing homes. Clorox: Conducting studies in which contributed antiseptic product is provided to participating hospitals and nursing homes. Medline: Conducting studies in which contributed antiseptic product is provided to participating hospitals and nursing homes. Xttrium: Conducting studies in which contributed antiseptic product is provided to participating hospitals and nursing homes.

Abstract Background Patient movement between hospitals, nursing homes (NH), and long-term acute care facilities (LTACs) contributes to MDRO spread. SHIELD OC is a regional decolonization collaborative among adult facilities with high patient sharing designed to reduce countywide MDRO prevalence. We report pre- and post-intervention MDRO colonization prevalence. Methods Decolonization included chlorhexidine bath (CHG) (4% liquid or 2% cloth) and twice-daily nasal swab 10% povidone–iodine (PI). LTAC and NH used CHG for all baths and PI 5 days on admission and Monday–Friday every other week. Patients in contact precautions (CP) at hospitals had daily CHG and 5-days PI on admission. Point-prevalence screening for MRSA, VRE, ESBL, and CRE using nares, axilla/groin, and peri-rectal swabs was conducted pre-intervention (September 2016–March 2017) and post-intervention (August 2018–April 2019); 50 random LTAC and 50 CP hospitalized patients were sampled; for NH up to 50 were sampled at baseline and all residents post-intervention. Raw impact of the intervention was assessed by the average change in colonization prevalence, with each facility carrying equal weight. Generalized linear mixed models (GLM) stratified by facility type were used to assess the impact on MDRO colonization when clustering by facility. Results Across 35 facilities (16 hospitals, 16 NHs, 3 LTACs), the overall MDRO prevalence was reduced 22% in NHs (OR 0.58, P < 0.001), 34% LTACs (OR = 0.27, P < 0.001), and 11% CP patients (OR = 0.67, P < 0.001, Table 1). For MRSA, raw reductions were 31% NHs (OR = 0.58, P < 0.001), 39% LTACs (OR = 0.51, P = 0.01), and 3% CP patients (OR = 0.88, P = NS). For VRE, raw reductions were 40% NHs (OR = 0.62, P = 0.001), 55% LTACs (OR = 0.26, P < 0.001), and 15% CP patients (OR = 0.67, P = 0.004). For ESBLs, raw reductions were 24% NHs (OR = 0.65, P < 0.001), 34% LTACs (OR = 0.53, P = 0.01), and 26% CP patients (OR = 0.64, P < 0.001). For CRE, raw reductions were 24% NHs (OR = 0.70, P = NS), and 23% LTACs (OR = 0.75, P = NS). CRE increased by 26% in CP averaged across hospitals, although patient -level CRE declined 2.4% to 1.8% (OR = 0.74, P = NS). Conclusion MDRO carriage was common in highly inter-connected NHs, LTACs and hospitals. A regional collaborative of universal decolonization in long-term care and targeted decolonization of CP patients in hospitals led to sizeable reductions in MDRO carriage. Disclosures All Authors: No reported Disclosures.

BackgroundMultidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) spread between hospitals, nursing homes (NHs), and long-term acute care facilities (LTACs) via patient transfers. The Shared Healthcare Intervention to Eliminate Life-threatening Dissemination of MDROs in Orange County is a regional public health collaborative involving decolonization at 38 healthcare facilities selected based on their high degree of patient sharing. We report baseline MDRO prevalence in 21 NHs/LTACs.MethodsA random sample of 50 adults for 21 NHs/LTACs (18 NHs, 3 LTACs) were screened for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. (VRE), extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing organisms (ESBL), and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) using nares, skin (axilla/groin), and peri-rectal swabs. Facility and resident characteristics associated with MDRO carriage were assessed using multivariable models clustering by person and facility.ResultsPrevalence of MDROs was 65% in NHs and 80% in LTACs. The most common MDROs in NHs were MRSA (42%) and ESBL (34%); in LTACs they were VRE (55%) and ESBL (38%). CRE prevalence was higher in facilities that manage ventilated LTAC patients and NH residents (8% vs

BACKGROUND:Universal skin and nasal decolonisation reduces multidrug-resistant pathogens and bloodstream infections in intensive care units. The effect of universal decolonisation on pathogens and infections in non-critical-care units is unknown. The aim of the ABATE Infection trial was to evaluate the use of chlorhexidine bathing in non-critical-care units, with an intervention similar to one that was found to reduce multidrug-resistant organisms and bacteraemia in intensive care units. METHODS:The ABATE Infection (active bathing to eliminate infection) trial was a cluster-randomised trial of 53 hospitals comparing routine bathing to decolonisation with universal chlorhexidine and targeted nasal mupirocin in non-critical-care units. The trial was done in hospitals affiliated with HCA Healthcare and consisted of a 12-month baseline period from March 1, 2013, to Feb 28, 2014, a 2-month phase-in period from April 1, 2014, to May 31, 2014, and a 21-month intervention period from June 1, 2014, to Feb 29, 2016. Hospitals were randomised and their participating non-critical-care units assigned to either routine care or daily chlorhexidine bathing for all patients plus mupirocin for known methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriers. The primary outcome was MRSA or vancomycin-resistant enterococcus clinical cultures attributed to participating units, measured in the unadjusted, intention-to-treat population as the HR for the intervention period versus the baseline period in the decolonisation group versus the HR in the routine care group. Proportional hazards models assessed differences in outcome reductions across groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02063867. FINDINGS:There were 189 081 patients in the baseline period and 339 902 patients (156 889 patients in the routine care group and 183 013 patients in the decolonisation group) in the intervention period across 194 non-critical-care units in 53 hospitals. For the primary outcome of unit-attributable MRSA-positive or VRE-positive clinical cultures (figure 2), the HR for the intervention period versus the baseline period was 0·79 (0·73-0·87) in the decolonisation group versus 0·87 (95% CI 0·79-0·95) in the routine care group. No difference was seen in the relative HRs (p=0·17). There were 25 (

BackgroundHospitalized patients who are colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are at high risk for infection after discharge.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of postdischarge hygiene education, as compared with education plus decolonization, in patients colonized with MRSA (carriers). Decolonization involved chlorhexidine mouthwash, baths or showers with chlorhexidine, and nasal mupirocin for 5 days twice per month for 6 months. Participants were followed for 1 year. The primary outcome was MRSA infection as defined according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria. Secondary outcomes included MRSA infection determined on the basis of clinical judgment, infection from any cause, and infection-related hospitalization. All analyses were performed with the use of proportional-hazards models in the per-protocol population (all participants who underwent randomization, met the inclusion criteria, and survived beyond the recruitment hospitalization) and as-treated population (participants stratified according to adherence).ResultsIn the per-protocol population, MRSA infection occurred in 98 of 1063 participants (9.2%) in the education group and in 67 of 1058 (6.3%) in the decolonization group; 84.8% of the MRSA infections led to hospitalization. Infection from any cause occurred in 23.7% of the participants in the education group and 19.6% of those in the decolonization group; 85.8% of the infections led to hospitalization. The hazard of MRSA infection was significantly lower in the decolonization group than in the education group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.96; P=0.03; number needed to treat to prevent one infection, 30; 95% CI, 18 to 230); this lower hazard led to a lower risk of hospitalization due to MRSA infection (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.99). The decolonization group had lower likelihoods of clinically judged infection from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.99) and infection-related hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.93); treatment effects for secondary outcomes should be interpreted with caution owing to a lack of prespecified adjustment for multiple comparisons. In as-treated analyses, participants in the decolonization group who adhered fully to the regimen had 44% fewer MRSA infections than the education group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.86) and had 40% fewer infections from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.78). Side effects (all mild) occurred in 4.2% of the participants.ConclusionsPostdischarge MRSA decolonization with chlorhexidine and mupirocin led to a 30% lower risk of MRSA infection than education alone. (Funded by the AHRQ Healthcare-Associated Infections Program and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01209234 .).

Atherosclerosis and osteoporosis are epidemiologically linked and oxidation specific epitopes (OSEs), such as phosphocholine (PC) of oxidized phospholipids (PC-OxPL) and malondialdehyde (MDA), are pathogenic in both. The proatherogenic effects of OSEs are opposed by innate immune antibodies. Here we show that high-fat diet (HFD)-induced bone loss is attenuated in mice expressing a single chain variable region fragment of the IgM E06 (E06-scFv) that neutralizes PC-OxPL, by increasing osteoblast number and stimulating bone formation. Similarly, HFD-induced bone loss is attenuated in mice expressing IK17-scFv, which neutralizes MDA. Notably, E06-scFv also increases bone mass in mice fed a normal diet. Moreover, the levels of anti-PC IgM decrease in aged mice. We conclude that OSEs, whether produced chronically or increased by HFD, restrain bone formation, and that diminished defense against OSEs may contribute to age-related bone loss. Anti-OSEs, therefore, may represent a novel therapeutic approach against osteoporosis and atherosclerosis simultaneously.

BACKGROUND Bathing intensive care unit (ICU) patients with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)-impregnated cloths decreases the risk of healthcare-associated bacteremia and multidrug-resistant organism transmission. Hospitals employ different methods of CHG bathing, and few studies have evaluated whether those methods yield comparable results. OBJECTIVE To determine whether 3 different CHG skin cleansing methods yield similar residual CHG concentrations and bacterial densities on skin. DESIGN Prospective, randomized 2-center study with blinded assessment. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING Healthcare personnel in surgical ICUs at 2 tertiary-care teaching hospitals in Chicago, Illinois, and Boston, Massachusetts, from July 2015 to January 2016. INTERVENTION Cleansing skin of one forearm with no-rinse 2% CHG-impregnated polyester cloth (method A) versus 4% CHG liquid cleansing with rinsing on the contralateral arm, applied with either non-antiseptic-impregnated cellulose/polyester cloth (method B) or cotton washcloth dampened with sterile water (method C). RESULTS In total, 63 participants (126 forearms) received method A on 1 forearm (n=63). On the contralateral forearm, 33 participants received method B and 30 participants received method C. Immediately and 6 hours after cleansing, method A yielded the highest residual CHG concentrations (2500 µg/mL and 1250 µg/mL, respectively) and lowest bacterial densities compared to methods B or C (P

Abstract Background MDROs can spread between hospitals, nursing homes (NH), and long-term acute care facilities (LTACs) via shared patients. SHIELD OC is a regional decolonization collaborative involving 38 of 104 countywide adult facilities identified by their high degree of direct and indirect patient sharing with one another. We report baseline MDRO prevalence in these facilities. Methods Adult patients in 38 facilities (17 hospitals, 18 NHs, 3 LTACs) underwent point-prevalence screening between September 2016–April 2017 for MRSA, VRE, ESBL, and CRE using nares, skin (axilla/groin), and peri-rectal swabs. In NHs and LTACs, residents were randomly selected until 50 sets of swabs were obtained. Swabbing in hospitals involved all patients in contact precautions. An additional set of swabs were also performed for all LTAC admissions from November 2016–February 2017. Results The overall prevalence of any MDRO among patients was 64% (44%–88%) in NHs, 80% (range 72%–86%) in LTACs, and 64% (54–84%) in hospitals (contact precaution patients) (Table 1). Only 25%, 64%, and 81% of patients were already known to harbor an MDRO in NHs, LTACs, and hospitals, respectively. Known MDRO patients also harbored another MDRO 49%, 63%, and 34% of the time for NHs, LTACs, and hospitals, respectively. In LTACs, MDRO point prevalence was 38% higher than the usual admission prevalence (65% higher for MRSA, 34% higher for VRE, 95% higher for ESBL, and 50% higher for CRE). Conclusion MDRO carriage in highly inter-connected NHs and LTACs was widespread, rivaling that found in hospitalized patients on contact precautions. MRSA, VRE, and ESBL carriage far outnumbered CRE carriage. A history of MDRO was insensitive for identifying MDRO carriers, and many patients carried multiple MDROs. The extensive MDRO burden and transmission in long-term care settings suggests that regional MDRO prevention efforts must include MDRO control in long-term care facilities. Disclosures R. D. Singh, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; J. A. McKinnell, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; L. G. Miller, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; K. Kleinman, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Molnlycke: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; L. Heim, Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; T. D. Dutciuc, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; M. Estevez, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; G. Gussin, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; L’Oreal: Consultant, Consulting fee; J. Chang, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; E. M. Peterson, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; B. Y. Lee, GSK: Consultant, Consulting fee; R. A. Weinstein, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Molnlycke: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; OpGen Company: Study support, Provided services at no charge; M. K. Hayden, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Sage is contributing product to healthcare facilities participating in a regional collaborative on which I am a co-investigator. Neither I nor my hospital receive product.; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Research support; CDC: Grant Investigator and Receipt of contributed product, Research grant; Molnlycke: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; OpGen Company: Study support, Provided services at no charge for studies; S. K. Gohil, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; S. Park, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; S. Tam, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; R. Saavedra, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; S. Yamaguchi, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; H. Custodio, Xttrium Laboratories: Study coordination, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Sage Products: Study coordination, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Study coordination, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; J. Nguyen, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; T. Tjoa, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; J. He, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; M. H. Coady, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Molnlycke: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; R. Platt, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting clinical studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting clinical studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting clinical studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product; receive research funds from Clorox, but Clorox has no role in the design; Molnlycke: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; S. S. Huang, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product (no contribution in submitted abstract), Participating healthcare facilities in my studies received contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product (no contribution in submitted abstract), Participating healthcare facilities in my studies received contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product (no contribution in submitted abstract), Participating healthcare facilities in my studies received contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product (no contribution in submitted abstract), Participating healthcare facilities in my studies received contributed product; Molnlycke: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product (no contribution in submitted abstract), Participating healthcare facilities in my studies received contributed product

Whether targeted or universal decolonization strategies for the control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) select for resistance to decolonizing agents is unresolved. The REDUCE-MRSA trial (ClinicalTrials registration no. NCT00980980) provided an opportunity to investigate this question. REDUCE-MRSA was a 3-arm, cluster-randomized trial of either screening and isolation without decolonization, targeted decolonization with chlorhexidine and mupirocin, or universal decolonization without screening to prevent MRSA infection in intensive-care unit (ICU) patients. Isolates from the baseline and intervention periods were collected and tested for susceptibility to chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) by microtiter dilution; mupirocin susceptibility was tested by Etest. The presence of the qacA or qacB gene was determined by PCR and DNA sequence analysis. A total of 3,173 isolates were analyzed; 2 were nonsusceptible to CHG (MICs, 8 μg/ml), and 5/814 (0.6%) carried qacA or qacB At baseline, 7.1% of MRSA isolates expressed low-level mupirocin resistance, and 7.5% expressed high-level mupirocin resistance. In a mixed-effects generalized logistic regression model, the odds of mupirocin resistance among clinical MRSA isolates or MRSA isolates acquired in an ICU in intervention versus baseline periods did not differ across arms, although estimates were imprecise due to small numbers. Reduced susceptibility to chlorhexidine and carriage of qacA or qacB were rare among MRSA isolates in the REDUCE-MRSA trial. The odds of mupirocin resistance were no different in the intervention versus baseline periods across arms, but the confidence limits were broad, and the results should be interpreted with caution.

BackgroundUrinary tract infections (UTIs) are common health-care-associated infections. Bacteriuria commonly precedes UTI and is often treated with antibiotics, particularly in hospital intensive care units (ICUs). In 2013, a cluster-randomised trial (REDUCE MRSA Trial [Randomized Evaluation of Decolonization vs Universal Clearance to Eradicate MRSA]) showed that body surface decolonisation reduced all-pathogen bloodstream infections. We aim to further assess the effect of decolonisation on bacteriuria and candiduria in patients admitted to ICUs.MethodsWe did a secondary analysis of a three-group, cluster-randomised trial of 43 hospitals (clusters) with patients in 74 adult ICUs. The three groups included were either meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) screening and isolation, targeted decolonisation (screening, isolation, and decolonisation of MRSA carriers) with chlorhexidine and mupirocin, and universal decolonisation (no screening, all patients decolonised) with chlorhexidine and mupirocin. Protocol included chlorhexidine cleansing of the perineum and proximal 6 inches (15·24 cm) of urinary catheters. ICUs within the same hospital were assigned the same strategy. Outcomes included high-level bacteriuria (≥50 000 colony forming units [CFU]/mL) with any uropathogen, high-level candiduria (≥50 000 CFU/mL), and any bacteriuria with uropathogens. Sex-specific analyses were specified a priori. Proportional hazards models assessed differences in outcome reductions across groups, comparing an 18-month intervention period to a 12-month baseline period.Findings122 646 patients (48 390 baseline, 74 256 intervention) were enrolled. Intervention versus baseline hazard ratios (HRs) for high-level bacteriuria were 1·02 (95% CI 0·88-1·18) for screening or isolation, 0·88 (0·76-1·02) for targeted decolonisation, and 0·87 (0·77-1·00) for universal decolonisation (no difference between groups, p=0·26), with no sex-specific reductions (HRs for men: 1·09 [95% CI 0·85-1·40] for screening or isolation, 1·01 [0·79-1·29] for targeted decolonisation, and 0·78 [0·63-0·98] for universal decolonisation, p=0·12; HRs for women: 0·97 [0·80-1·17] for screening and isolation, 0·83 [0·70-1·00] for targeted decolonisation, and 0·93 [0·79-1·09] for universal decolonisation, p=0·49). HRs for high-level candiduria were 1·14 (0·95-1·37) for screening and isolation, 0·99 (0·83-1·18) for targeted decolonisation, and 0·83 (0·70-0·99) for universal decolonisation (p=0·05). Differences between sexes were due to reductions in men in the universal decolonisation group (HRs: 1·21 [95% CI 0·88-1·68] for screening or isolation, 1·01 [0·73-1·39] for targeted decolonisation, and 0·63 [0·45-0·89] for universal decolonisation, p=0·02). Bacteriuria with any CFU/mL was also reduced in men in the universal decolonisation group (HRs 1·01 [0·81-1·25] for screening or isolation, 1·04 [0·83-1·30] for targeted decolonisation, and 0·74 [0·61-0·90] for universal decolonisation, p=0·04).InterpretationUniversal decolonisation of patients in the ICU with once a day chlorhexidine baths and short-course nasal mupirocin could be a potential preventive strategy in male patients because it significantly decreases candiduria and any bacteriuria, but not for women.FundingHAI Program from AHRQ, US Department of Health and Human Services as part of the Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions about Effectiveness (DEcIDE) program, CDC Prevention Epicenters Program.

ObjectiveTo estimate and compare the impact on healthcare costs of 3 alternative strategies for reducing bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit (ICU): methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nares screening and isolation, targeted decolonization (ie, screening, isolation, and decolonization of MRSA carriers or infections), and universal decolonization (ie, no screening and decolonization of all ICU patients).DesignCost analysis using decision modeling.MethodsWe developed a decision-analysis model to estimate the health care costs of targeted decolonization and universal decolonization strategies compared with a strategy of MRSA nares screening and isolation. Effectiveness estimates were derived from a recent randomized trial of the 3 strategies, and cost estimates were derived from the literature.ResultsIn the base case, universal decolonization was the dominant strategy and was estimated to have both lower intervention costs and lower total ICU costs than either screening and isolation or targeted decolonization. Compared with screening and isolation, universal decolonization was estimated to save $171,000 and prevent 9 additional bloodstream infections for every 1,000 ICU admissions. The dominance of universal decolonization persisted under a wide range of cost and effectiveness assumptions.ConclusionsA strategy of universal decolonization for patients admitted to the ICU would both reduce bloodstream infections and likely reduce healthcare costs compared with strategies of MRSA nares screening and isolation or screening and isolation coupled with targeted decolonization.

ObjectiveTo determine rates of blood culture contamination comparing 3 strategies to prevent intensive care unit (ICU) infections: screening and isolation, targeted decolonization, and universal decolonization.DesignPragmatic cluster-randomized trial.SettingForty-three hospitals with 74 ICUs; 42 of 43 were community hospitals.PatientsPatients admitted to adult ICUs from July 1, 2009, to September 30, 2011.MethodsAfter a 6-month baseline period, hospitals were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 strategies, with all participating adult ICUs in a given hospital assigned to the same strategy. Arm 1 implemented methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nares screening and isolation, arm 2 targeted decolonization (screening, isolation, and decolonization of MRSA carriers), and arm 3 conducted no screening but universal decolonization of all patients with mupirocin and chlorhexidine (CHG) bathing. Blood culture contamination rates in the intervention period were compared to the baseline period across all 3 arms.ResultsDuring the 6-month baseline period, 7,926 blood cultures were collected from 3,399 unique patients: 1,099 sets in arm 1, 928 in arm 2, and 1,372 in arm 3. During the 18-month intervention period, 22,761 blood cultures were collected from 9,878 unique patients: 3,055 sets in arm 1, 3,213 in arm 2, and 3,610 in arm 3. Among all individual draws, for arms 1, 2, and 3, the contamination rates were 4.1%, 3.9%, and 3.8% for the baseline period and 3.3%, 3.2%, and 2.4% for the intervention period, respectively. When we evaluated sets of blood cultures rather than individual draws, the contamination rate in arm 1 (screening and isolation) was 9.8% (N = 108 sets) in the baseline period and 7.5% (N = 228) in the intervention period. For arm 2 (targeted decolonization), the baseline rate was 8.4% (N = 78) compared to 7.5% (N = 241) in the intervention period. Arm 3 (universal decolonization) had the greatest decrease in contamination rate, with a decrease from 8.7% (N = 119) contaminated blood cultures during the baseline period to 5.1% (N = 184) during the intervention period. Logistic regression models demonstrated a significant difference across the arms when comparing the reduction in contamination between baseline and intervention periods in both unadjusted (P = .02) and adjusted (P = .02) analyses. Arm 3 resulted in the greatest reduction in blood culture contamination rates, with an unadjusted odds ratio (OR) of 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.044-0.71) and an adjusted OR of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.43-0.71).ConclusionIn this large cluster-randomized trial, we demonstrated that universal decolonization with CHG bathing resulted in a significant reduction in blood culture contamination.

BackgroundBoth targeted decolonization and universal decolonization of patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are candidate strategies to prevent health care-associated infections, particularly those caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).MethodsWe conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial. Hospitals were randomly assigned to one of three strategies, with all adult ICUs in a given hospital assigned to the same strategy. Group 1 implemented MRSA screening and isolation; group 2, targeted decolonization (i.e., screening, isolation, and decolonization of MRSA carriers); and group 3, universal decolonization (i.e., no screening, and decolonization of all patients). Proportional-hazards models were used to assess differences in infection reductions across the study groups, with clustering according to hospital.ResultsA total of 43 hospitals (including 74 ICUs and 74,256 patients during the intervention period) underwent randomization. In the intervention period versus the baseline period, modeled hazard ratios for MRSA clinical isolates were 0.92 for screening and isolation (crude rate, 3.2 vs. 3.4 isolates per 1000 days), 0.75 for targeted decolonization (3.2 vs. 4.3 isolates per 1000 days), and 0.63 for universal decolonization (2.1 vs. 3.4 isolates per 1000 days) (P=0.01 for test of all groups being equal). In the intervention versus baseline periods, hazard ratios for bloodstream infection with any pathogen in the three groups were 0.99 (crude rate, 4.1 vs. 4.2 infections per 1000 days), 0.78 (3.7 vs. 4.8 infections per 1000 days), and 0.56 (3.6 vs. 6.1 infections per 1000 days), respectively (P

ObjectiveTo evaluate whether longitudinal insurer claims data allow reliable identification of elevated hospital surgical site infection (SSI) rates.DesignWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in US hospitals performing at least 80 procedures in 2005. Hospitals were assigned to deciles by using case mix-adjusted probabilities of having an SSI-related inpatient or outpatient claim code within 60 days of surgery. We then reviewed medical records of randomly selected patients to assess whether chart-confirmed SSI risk was higher in hospitals in the worst deciles compared with the best deciles.ParticipantsFee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries who underwent CABG in these hospitals in 2005.ResultsWe evaluated 114,673 patients who underwent CABG in 671 hospitals. In the best decile, 7.8% (958/12,307) of patients had an SSI-related code, compared with 24.8% (2,747/11,068) in the worst decile ([Formula: see text]). Medical record review confirmed SSI in 40% (388/980) of those with SSI-related codes. In the best decile, the chart-confirmed annual SSI rate was 3.2%, compared with 9.4% in the worst decile, with an adjusted odds ratio of SSI of 2.7 (confidence interval, 2.2-3.3; [Formula: see text]) for CABG performed in a worst-decile hospital compared with a best-decile hospital.ConclusionsClaims data can identify groups of hospitals with unusually high or low post-CABG SSI rates. Assessment of claims is more reproducible and efficient than current surveillance methods. This example of secondary use of routinely recorded electronic health information to assess quality of care can identify hospitals that may benefit from prevention programs.

National recommendations for health care-associated infection and transmission metrics have arisen to address the diversity of health care measures in use today. Many of these recommendations include valuable proxy measures, which are simplifications of formal epidemiologic definitions. These proxies provide feasible real-time metrics for ongoing infection control programs. However, the maximum value of these measures is derived from understanding their benefits and limitations when applied to specific populations. Proxy measures should not be dismissed solely because they are imprecise; rather, the source and magnitude of imprecision should be evaluated on the basis of the likelihood that they adversely affect interpretive judgment and subsequent action. This review provides examples of common proxies used in infection control and prevention programs to discuss differences between proxies and exact epidemiologic measures, the value of those differences, and how to assess when exact measures should be used to supplement or replace proxy measures.

The assessment of MDRO infection and colonization should include the identification of known carriers, the detection of hospital-specific and healthcare-associated acquisition, an estimation of the burden of serious infection, an understanding of the reservoir affecting the transmission of MDROs, and an evaluation of the effect of intervention. Several strategies can be used to obtain data that aid in this assessment. We have defined and categorized the recommended metrics for each of these aspects of measuring MDRO infection and colonization, for use by healthcare facilities. © 2008 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.