Three surveillance strategies for vancomycin-resistant enterococci in hospitalized patients: detection of colonization efficiency and a cost-effectiveness model

Costs-effectiveness and cost components of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions affecting antibiotic resistance outcomes in hospital patients: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Limited information on costs and the cost-effectiveness of hospital interventions to reduce antibiotic resistance (ABR) hinder efficient resource allocation.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review for studies evaluating the costs and cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions aimed at reducing, monitoring and controlling ABR in patients. Articles published until 12 December 2023 were explored using EconLit, EMBASE and PubMed. We focused on critical or high-priority bacteria, as defined by the WHO, and intervention costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis guidelines, we extracted unit costs, ICERs and essential study information including country, intervention, bacteria-drug combination, discount rates, type of model and outcomes. Costs were reported in 2022 US dollars ($), adopting the healthcare system perspective. Country willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds from Woods et al 2016 guided cost-effectiveness assessments. We assessed the studies reporting checklist using Drummond's method.

RESULTS

Among 20 958 articles, 59 (32 pharmaceutical and 27 non-pharmaceutical interventions) met the inclusion criteria. Non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as hygiene measures, had unit costs as low as $1 per patient, contrasting with generally higher pharmaceutical intervention costs. Several studies found that linezolid-based treatments for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus were cost-effective compared with vancomycin (ICER up to $21 488 per treatment success, all 16 studies' ICERs

CONCLUSION

Robust information on ABR interventions is critical for efficient resource allocation. We highlight cost-effective strategies for mitigating ABR in hospitals, emphasising substantial knowledge gaps, especially in low-income and middle-income countries. Our study serves as a resource for guiding future cost-effectiveness study design and analyses.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020341827 and CRD42022340064.

Collapse

Key Words

• Control strategies
• Infections, diseases, disorders, injuries
• Prevention strategies
• Public Health
• Systematic review

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Humans
• Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
• Checklist
• Drug Resistance, Microbial
• Hospitals
• Pharmaceutical Preparations

Collapse

Grants

• FONDECYT
• Asociación Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID)
• Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo ANID/FONDAP CIGIDEN
• National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Kasim Allel Disease Control Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK Department of Health and Community Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
María José Hernández-Leal Department of Community, Maternity and Paediatric Nursing, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain Millennium Nucleus on Sociomedicine, Santiago, Chile
Nichola R Naylor Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK HCAI, Fungal, AMR, AMU & Sepsis Division, UK Health Security Agency, London, UK
Eduardo A Undurraga Escuela de Gobierno, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile CIFAR Azrieli Global Scholars program, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gerard Joseph Abou Jaoude Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK
Priyanka Bhandari Disease Control Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
Ellen Flanagan Disease Control Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
Hassan Haghparast-Bidgoli Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK
Koen B Pouwels Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK The National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Laith Yakob Disease Control Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Collapse

Costs associated with implementation of a strict policy for controlling spread of highly resistant microorganisms in France

OBJECTIVE

To assess costs associated with implementation of a strict 'search and isolate' strategy for controlling highly drug-resistant organisms (HDRO).

DESIGN

Review of data from 2-year prospective surveillance (01/2012 to 12/2013) of HDRO.

SETTING

Three university hospitals located in northern Paris.

METHODS

Episodes were defined as single cases or outbreaks of glycopeptide-resistant enterococci (GRE) or carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriacae (CPE) colonisation. Costs were related to staff reinforcement, costs of screening cultures, contact precautions and interruption of new admissions. Univariate analysis, along with simple and multiple linear regression analyses, was conducted to determine variables associated with cost of HDRO management.

RESULTS

Overall, 41 consecutive episodes were included, 28 single cases and 13 outbreaks. The cost (mean ± SD) associated with management of a single case identified within and/or 48 h after admission was €4443 ± 11,552 and €11,445 ± 15,743, respectively (p<0.01). In an outbreak, the total cost varied from €14,864 ± 17,734 for an episode with one secondary case (€7432 ± 8867 per case) to €136,525 ± 151,231 (€12,845 ± 5129 per case) when more than one secondary case occurred. In episodes of single cases, contact precautions and microbiological analyses represented 51% and 30% of overall cost, respectively. In outbreaks, cost related to interruption of new admissions represented 77-94% of total costs, and had the greatest financial impact (R(2)=0.98, p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In HDRO episodes occurring at three university hospitals, interruption of new admissions constituted the most costly measure in an outbreak situation.

Evaluation of multiple real-time PCR tests on nasal samples in a large MRSA surveillance program

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the LightCycler MRSA Advanced Test (Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Pleasanton, CA), the BD MAX MRSA assay (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ), and the Xpert MRSA assay (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA) on nasal samples using the same population.

METHODS

Admission and discharge nasal swabs were collected from inpatients using a double-headed swab. One swab was plated onto CHROMagar MRSA (CMA; Becton Dickinson, Sparks, MD) and then broken off into tryptic soy broth (TSB) for enrichment. TSB was incubated for 24 hours and then plated to CMA. The molecular tests were performed on the second swab. We analyzed the cost benefit of testing to evaluate what parameters affect hospital resources.

RESULTS

A total of 27,647 specimens were enrolled. The sensitivity/specificity was 98.3%/98.9% for the LightCycler MRSA Advanced Test and 95.7%/98.8% for the Xpert MRSA assay, but the difference was not significant. The positive predictive value was 86.7% for the LightCycler MRSA Advanced Test, 82.7% for the Xpert MRSA assay (P > .1), and 72.2% and for the BD MAX MRSA test (P < .001 compared with the LightCycler MRSA Advanced Test). All three assays were cost-effective, with the LightCycler MRSA Advanced Test having the highest economic return.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the performance of the three commercial assays is similar. When assessing economic cost benefit of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening, the two measures with the most impact are the cost of the test and the specificity of the assay results.

Controlling the spread of vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Is active screening worthwhile?

Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are significant causes of healthcare-acquired infections. Active screening, i.e. the use of rectal swabs or faeces to detect carriage in at-risk patients, has been described as contributing to prevention by identifying previously unrecognized cases. The aim of this review was to determine the impact of screening for VRE on prevention and control, its cost-effectiveness and recent approaches to laboratory detection. A review of published studies in English from 2000 was undertaken. Whereas various guidelines were accessed and reviewed, the emphasis was on original reports and studies. It was determined that the patient groups who may need screening are those admitted to critical care units, haematology/oncology and transplant wards, patients on chronic dialysis and patients admitted to acute hospitals from long-stay units. Active screening is associated with reduced VRE colonization and infection and cost savings in some studies, even if these fall short of randomized trials. Selective media increase sensitivity and reduce the time to detection but the role of molecular methods remains to be determined. In conclusion, active screening contributes to VRE prevention probably by heightening awareness of control measures, including isolation. However, further studies are required to: better define high-risk groups that warrant screening; quantify the clinical and economic benefit; and determine the optimal laboratory methods in a range of different patient populations.

Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection can molecular amplification methods move us out of uncertainty?

The laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) continues to be challenging. Recent guidelines from professional societies in the United States note that enzyme immunoassays for toxins A and B do not have adequate sensitivity to be used alone for detecting CDI, yet the optimal method for diagnosing this infection remains unclear. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) that target chromosomal toxin genes (usually the toxin B gene, tcdB) show high sensitivity and specificity, provide rapid results, and are amenable to both batch and on-demand testing, but these tests were not universally recommended for routine use in the recent guidelines. Rather, two-step algorithms that use glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) assays to screen for C. difficile in stool specimens, followed by either direct cytotoxin testing or culture to identify toxin-producing C. difficile isolates, were recommended in one guideline and either GDH algorithms or NAATs were recommended in another guideline. Unfortunately, neither culture nor direct cytotoxin testing is widely available. In addition, this two-step approach requires 48 to 92 hours to complete, which may delay the initiation of therapy and critical infection control measures. Recent studies also show the sensitivity of several GDH assays to be <90%. This review considers the role of NAATs for diagnosing CDI and explores their potential advantages over two-step algorithms, including shorter time to results, while providing comparable, if not superior, accuracy.

Diagnostic accuracy of the Cepheid GeneXpert vanA/vanB assay ver. 1.0 to detect the vanA and vanB vancomycin resistance genes in Enterococcus from perianal specimens

Rapid detection of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) carriers could be useful to health care facilities to minimize transmission. To that end, we compared the performance of the Cepheid GeneXpert vanA/vanB assay with that of direct and broth-enriched culture methods for detection of VRE from perianal swabs. Enterococci were cultivated on Enterococcosel™ agar with 8 μg/mL vancomycin, Bile Esculin Azide Agar with 6 μg/mL vancomycin, and Bile Esculin Azide Enterococcosel Broth. Compared to the reference standard (combination of direct agar plating, broth-enriched culture, and clinical chart review), the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the vanA/vanB assay were 96.4%, 93.0%, 92.0%, and 96.9%, respectively (n=184). The 95% limit of detection was 100 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL for vanA and 114 CFU/mL for vanB. In summary, the GeneXpert vanA/vanB assay is a rapid and accurate method to identify vanA/vanB-colonized patients for VRE screening programs that use perianal swab specimens.

Prospective, multicenter evaluation of the BD GeneOhm VanR assay for direct, rapid detection of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus species in perianal and rectal specimens

The BD GeneOhm VanR assay (BD Diagnostics, San Diego, CA), a qualitative test for the rapid detection of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) from rectal and/or perianal swabs, combines integrated nucleic acid extraction and automated polymerase chain reaction for the detection of vanA and/or vanB gene sequences. We studied 1,027 perianal and rectal swab specimens from 3 geographically distinct US sites (prevalence rates, 13.1%-25.8%). Direct swab specimens were tested by the assay and compared with direct culture. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the assay were 93.2%, 81.9%, 54.4%, and 98.1%, respectively. The specificity was limited largely due to false-positives in the vanB portion of the assay. Specificity with perianal swabs was significantly greater than with rectal swabs, 87.1% vs 74.7%, respectively (P < .0001). When used only to detect resistance conferred by vanA, the assay was 88.3% (158/179) sensitive and 95.8% (802/837) specific, with positive and negative predictive values of 81.9% and 97.4%, respectively. The assay is a simple, rapid, and acceptable method for screening for VRE in a variety of populations in which vanA is the predominant genotype. Samples positive for the vanB genotype should be confirmed by culture owing to the apparent high number of false-positive results.

Effectiveness of universal screening for vancomycin-resistant enterococcus and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus on admission to a burn-trauma step-down unit

Vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are significant healthcare-associated pathogens. We sought to identify factors that could be used to predict which patients carry or are infected with VRE or MRSA on admission so that we could obtain cultures selectively from high-risk patients on our burn-trauma unit. We conducted a case-control study of patients admitted to our burn-trauma unit from September 2000 to March 2005 who were colonized or infected with either VRE or MRSA (cases) and patients who were not colonized or infected with one of these organisms (controls). We used logistic regression to construct a model that we subsequently validated based on data collected prospectively from patients admitted from September 2006 to August 2007. In the case-control study, colonization or infection with MRSA or VRE on admission were independently associated with the total days of antimicrobial treatment, age, prior hospitalization, prior operations, and admitting diagnosis (admission for a burn injury was protective). In the cohort study, a prior hospitalization with a length of stay>or=7 days and operations within the past 6 months were significantly associated with colonization or infection on admission. The latter model was 59.3% sensitive. If, we used this model to identify which patients should be cultured on admission, we would have missed 24 (39.3%) of the colonized or infected patients. These patients would not have been placed in isolation (434 missed isolation days, 71.0%) and may have been the source of transmission to other patients. Our model lacked the sensitivity to identify patients colonized or infected with VRE or MRSA. We recommend that units, which care for patients who are at high risk of hospital-acquired infection and having prevalence and transmission rates of VRE or MRSA similar to those in our study, screen all patients for these organisms on admission to the unit.

Intensified strategies to control vancomycin-resistant enterococci in immunocompromised patients

Increasing colonization and infection with vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) in immunocompromised patients are associated with increased mortality. Despite contact precautions for VRE control, rapid limitation of its spread is often impossible. We report on a VRE outbreak in a hematologic/oncologic unit including 33 patients. Although 28 of the patients had only VRE colonization, VRE-related infection was probable in 4 patients, and VRE infection of the bloodstream occurred in 1 case. Two patients were identified by VRE screening on admission, 20 were identified by weekly routine VRE screening, and 6 were identified from specimens taken to clarify infections (eg, urine, bronchoalveolar lavage). Five individuals acquired VRE colonization as inpatients (contact patients). Multiple-locus variable-number tandem repeat analysis (MLVA) proved that the outbreak was caused by VanA gene-positive Enterococcus faecium belonging to MLVA genogroup C1(MLVA types 1, 7, 12). The outbreak strains exhibited the potential virulence factor esp(enterococcus surface protein). The outbreak was terminated within 2 months by intensified infection-control measures, including quarantine and the cohorting of patients who tested positive for VRE; however, VRE spread recurred after the measures were discontinued but was again limited by resuming the measures. We conclude that intensive infection-control strategies enable the timely termination of VRE outbreaks, even those involving VRE strains with high epidemic potential on "high-risk wards" (eg, hematologic/oncologic units). Premature discontinuation of infection-control measures may cause recurrence of the VRE spread.

Predictors of Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) Carriage in the First Major VRE Outbreak in Singapore

Introduction: Until recently, vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE) infection or colonisation was a rare occurrence in Singapore. The first major VRE outbreak involving a 1500-bed tertiary care institution in March 2005 presented major challenges in infection control and came at high costs. This study evaluates the predictors of VRE carriage based on patients’ clinical and demographic profiles. Materials and Methods: Study patients were selected from the hospital inpatient census population during the VRE outbreak (aged 16 years or more). Clinical information from 84 cases and 377 controls were analysed. Results: Significant predictors of VRE carriage included: age >65 years [Odds ratio (OR), 1.98; 95% CI (confidence interval), 1.14 to 3.43); female gender (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.27 to 3.65); history of diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.14 to 3.30), and staying in a crowded communal ward (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.60 to 4.74). Each additional day of recent hospital stay also posed increased risk (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.04). Conclusion: Elderly diabetic females with prolonged hospitalisation in crowded communal wards formed the profile that significantly predicted VRE carriage in this major hospital-wide outbreak of VRE in Singapore. It is imperative that active VRE surveillance and appropriate infection control measures be maintained in these wards to prevent future VRE outbreaks. Key words: Colonisation, Hospital-acquired, Infection

Prävention und Kontrolle der Ausbreitung von Vancomycin-resistenten Enterokokken

The incidence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), especially E. faecium, is increasing in several German hospitals and some facilities have experienced VRE outbreaks. The German National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance System has also noticed a sharp increase in the incidence of nosocomial VRE infections per 10,000 patients from 0.5 in 2003 to 11.0 in 2005 accompanied by a rise in VRE-associated mortality. However, the reasons of this increase remain unknown. As VRE may cause severe nosocomial infections, transmission must be restricted. This article provides the guidelines as defined by the workshop of the German Society for Hygiene and Microbiology for the prevention of VRE transmission in both, endemic and epidemic, settings. The following topics are discussed: indication for VRE screening, microbiological diagnostics, general infection control measures (isolation precautions and use of protective clothing) and additional hygiene measures in the nosocomial VRE outbreak setting.