Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Spread of extensively drug-resistant bacteria (XDR) such as carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) is a major public health problem. Various prevention and control interventions are implemented to limit the transmission of XDR but they are expensive and often disrupt hospital organization. In this study, a mathematical model will be used to study the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of control strategies to limit the spread of CPE in a general hospital ward. A case-control study will be conducted to estimate the excess length of stay and mortality attributable to CPE colonisation or infection.
Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) are increasingly common in hospitals and represent a serious health problem. These multidrug-resistant organisms colonise the gastrointestinal tract after direct (person-to-person) or indirect (via contaminated surfaces) transmission and are a common cause of urinary tract infections, ventilator-associated pneumonia and bloodstream infections in healthcare settings. Treatment options for patients infected with CPE are limited leading to high mortality, increased length of hospital stay and hospital costs. The successful implementation of cost-effective infection control measures to prevent CPE spread and infections is key for infection control preventionists and hospital managers.
Recommendations to limit the transmission of CPE in healthcare facilities are based on the early detection of asymptomatic carriers, implementation of contact precautions and isolation in single room. In practice, strategies combining various interventions are employed according to the risk assessment and available resources: 1) universal or targeted rectal screening on admission, 2) standard precautions (SP), applied to all patients regardless of their infectious status, 3) contact precautions (CP) for identified carriers or infected patients, 4) isolation in a single room, 5) environmental cleaning, 6) rectal screening of contact patients, i.e. those whose care was provided by the same team as the CPE patient, and/or 7) isolation of carriers in a dedicated area with dedicated nursing staff (DNS), thereafter designated as cohorting.
However, these control measures pose challenges such as the high cost of patient's screening and cohorting, requirement for single room isolation or staff shortage for implementing precautions. Moreover, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of various CPE control strategies is under-documented.
OBJECTIVES:
Primary:
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different strategies combining screening and contact precaution measures to control the spread of CPE in a general medicine ward (GW) using a mathematical model.
Secondary:
METHODS AND TOOLS:
A dynamic, stochastic model simulates the transmission of CPE by the hands of healthcare workers (HCWs) and the environment in a hypothetical GW. Input parameters are based on data from APHP hospitals and from the literature.
12 strategies are compared to the baseline (no control) and combined different prevention and control interventions: targeted or universal screening at admission (TS or US), contact precautions (CP), isolation in a single room, dedicated nursing staff (DNS) for carriers and weekly screening of contact patients (WS). Time horizon is one year.
A hospital perspective is adopted to estimate costs, which included laboratory costs, single room, contact precautions, staff time, i.e. infection control nurse and/or nurses for cohorting, and lost bed-days due to prolonged hospital stay of identified carriers.
A case-control study will be conducted to assess the impact of CPE colonization / infection on patient's outcomes. Cases will be the patients newly identified as CPE colonized or infected during the first semester 2016 in the APHP hospital network, i.e. around 450 cases. In the case of hospital CPE outbreak, index and secondary cases will be included. Cases will be followed until discharge from the hospital setting, including rehabilitation or home care. Since all discharges in France, either from public or private HCFs, are registered in the single national hospital discharge database PMSI (HDD), it is possible to link all hospital stays and retrieve the entire hospital course.
Controls will be selected in the national HDD on a 1:1 ratio, based on the following matching criteria: absence of known colonization with CPE, age, gender, hospital stay in the same unit as the corresponding case during the 1st semester 2016, same DRG and duration of hospital stays at least as long at the time to colonization in the case.
The following information will be collected in cases and controls:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| cases | Patients colonized or infected with CPE | ||
| controls | Patients not colonized or infected with CPE |
Not provided
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| ICER- the ratio of the difference in costs to difference in health benefits | The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) calculated as the extra annual cost of one strategy relative to another divided by CPE cases avoided by that strategy relative to the other strategy | 12 months |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Number of CPE acquisitions | Number of CPE acquisitions observed for each strategy simulated in the model | 6 months after the end of the data collection |
| Costs of strategies | Description: costs associated with each strategy (e.g. laboratory costs, cost of single room, contact precautions, staff time) |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The study is based on numerical simulations and data collected from APHP hospitals. We will model the transmission of CPEs and the interventions implemented against these bacteria in a 25-bed non-intensive care unit. Transmission between patients is considered to occur through caregivers, nurses and orderlies.
We will conduct a case-control study in patients colonized or infected with CEP, hospitalized at APHP hospitals between January and June 2019.
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jean Christophe Pr Lucet, Professor | Contact | +33 140 256 194 | jean-christophe.lucet@aphp.fr | |
| Isabelle Pr Durand-Zaleski, Professor | Contact | +33 140 274 143 | isabelle.durand-zaleski@aphp.fr |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| 6 months after the end of the data collection |
| Number of days when hospital admissions interrupted | Number of days when the presence of EPC in a ward leads to the interruption of new admissions | 6 months after the end of the data collection |
| Number of days when hospital transfers interrupted | Description: Number of days when the presence of EPC in a ward leads to the interruption of transfers | 6 months after the end of the data collection |
| frequency of employment of dedicated staff | % of situations where dedicated staff were employed for the management of CPE cases | 6 months after the end of the data collection |
| length of hospital stay of patients | length of hospital stay for cases (CPE infected or colonised patients) and controls | 6 months after the end of the data collection |
| risk of death | risk of in-hospital death for cases (CPE infected or colonised patients) and controls | 6 months after the end of the data collection |