Discontinuation of Systematic Surveillance and Contact Precautions for Vancomycin-ResistantEnterococcus(VRE) and Its Impact on the Incidence of VREfaeciumBacteremia in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 398-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolaos G. Almyroudis ◽  
Ryosuke Osawa ◽  
George Samonis ◽  
M. Wetzler ◽  
Eunice S. Wang ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVETo study the effect of discontinuation of systematic surveillance for vancomycin-resistantEnterococcus(VRE) and contact isolation of colonized patients on the incidence of VRE bacteremiaSETTINGA hematology-oncology unit with high prevalence of VRE colonization characterized by predominantly sporadic molecular epidemiologyPARTICIPANTSInpatients with hematologic malignancies and recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantationMETHODSThe incidence of VRE bacteremia was measured prospectively during 2 different 3-year time periods; the first during active VRE surveillance and contact precautions and the second after discontinuation of these policies. We assessed the collateral impact of this policy change on the incidence of bacteremia due to methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA) andClostridium difficileinfection even though we maintained contact precautions for these organisms. Incidence of infectious events was measured as number of events per 1,000 patients days per month. Time series analysis was used to evaluate trends.RESULTSThe incidence of VRE bacteremia remained stable after discontinuation of VRE surveillance and contact precautions. The incidence of MRSA bacteremia andClostridium difficileinfection for which we continued contact precautions also remained stable. Aggregated antibiotic utilization and nursing hours per patient days were similar between the 2 study periods.CONCLUSIONActive surveillance and contact precautions for VRE colonization did not appear to prevent VRE bacteremia in patients with hematologic malignancies and recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with high prevalence of VRE characterized by predominantly sporadic molecular epidemiology.Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.2016;37(4):398–403

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11020-11020
Author(s):  
Raheel Sufian Siddiqui ◽  
Moazzam Shahzad ◽  
Mahrukh Majeed ◽  
Ali Hussain ◽  
Faryal Murtaza ◽  
...  

11020 Background: Gender inequality in research funding has been studied extensively; however, the literature lacks evidence in Hematology. We investigated trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for hematologic malignancies (HM), hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and cellular therapeutics (CT). Methods: The data on Hematology funding was retrieved from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) Categorical Spending for fiscal years 2018 and 2019. A total of 6351 entries were reported. Only grants (n=1834) that were related to HM, HSCT, and CT were included. After excluding non-relevant, 975 principal investigators (PIs) were included in the analysis. Additional data regarding PIs was ascertained from the Scopus database, LinkedIn, Doximity, and departmental websites, including the number of publications, number of years of active research, H-index, highest degree, gender, and institution. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 21. Bivariate analyses, using chi-square and t-test, and linear regression analyses were performed. Results: In 2018 and 2019, 1834 grants totaling $799.4 million were awarded by the NIH for malignant hematology research (men 1301, 71% vs women 533, 29%). Of 975 PIs, 680 (70%) were men and 295 (30%) were women. Table highlights gender disparities in NIH funding and associated factors. Most of the grant recipients were Ph.D. or M.D./Ph.D. About 70% of total funding was awarded to male PIs. There were no gender differences in the mean number of grants and mean grant amount. Women had significantly lower years of active research and academic productivity. Conclusions: Although the gender gap in academic hematology has decreased in recent years, the latest trend suggests significant gender inequality in NIH funding for malignant hematology, transplantation, and cellular therapy.[Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document