Use of a Victorian statewide surveillance program to evaluate the burden of healthcare‐associated Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia and Clostridioides difficile infection in patients with cancer

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jake C. Valentine ◽  
Lisa Hall ◽  
Karin M. Verspoor ◽  
Elizabeth Gillespie ◽  
Leon J. Worth
Author(s):  
Jona Gjevori ◽  
Kahina Abdesselam

Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is among the most prevalent nosocomial pathogens globally, causing significant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. MRSA bloodstream infection (BSI) incidence rates in Canadian hospitals have significantly risen by almost 60% and have a mortality of over 20% upon Intensive Care Unit admission. MRSA is believed to be spread through healthcare workers; thus, high hand hygiene compliancy in addition to environmental cleaning are the cornerstone countermeasures to disrupting its transmission. The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), in collaboration with the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program (CNISP), conducts national, sentinel surveillance on healthcare-associated infections like MRSA. As a Student Epidemiologist, I developed a research proposal detailing two study objectives: 1) develop a regression model to predict all incident MRSA BSI rates among acute-care hospitals in Canada using CNISP MRSA BSI incident cases from 2000 to 2019, and 2) create a compartmental (Susceptible-Infected-Recovered-Deceased) model to determine the impact of various Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) measures on the risk of healthcare-associated MRSA BSI transmission specifically. This study hopes to demonstrate that proper IPC compliance is associated with lower incident MRSA BSI rates with the goal being to produce a manuscript draft by 2021. MRSA poses a serious threat to patient safety globally and is becoming a growing national public health concern in Canada; determining which IPC strategy is most effective at disrupting MRSA transmission is essential to reducing incidence and mortality rates.


2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (7) ◽  
pp. 662-668 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn Chan ◽  
Noreen H. Chan-Tompkins ◽  
James Como ◽  
Anthony J. Guarascio

Background: Nafcillin or cefazolin are drugs of choice for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infections. Prior studies indicate a higher incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) with nafcillin, although AKI classification and time to occurrence is not well described. Objective: To characterize the incidence and time to adverse drug events for nafcillin versus cefazolin in the inpatient setting. Methods: A retrospective cohort study evaluated hospitalized, adult patients receiving intravenous nafcillin or cefazolin for treatment of MSSA infection. Incidence and time to AKI based on RIFLE criteria were measured. Secondary end points included antibiotic discontinuation and incidence of neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, elevated transaminases, and Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). Results: Of 324 patients who received nafcillin (n = 119) or cefazolin (n = 205), higher rates of AKI were found for nafcillin versus cefazolin (19% vs 2%, respectively; P < 0.0001). Median time to AKI with nafcillin was 6.5 days (range, 3-14 days). The majority of patients were classified as RIFLE “Risk” stratum. Nafcillin treatment discontinuations were more frequent than for cefazolin (17.6% vs 0.9%, respectively; P < 0.0001). Nafcillin was an independent predictor of AKI (odds ratio = 12.4; 95% CI = 4.14-47.60, P < 0.0001). No differences in neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, elevated transaminases, or CDI were observed. Conclusion and Relevance: Nafcillin displayed higher rates of AKI at a median of 1 week of therapy, which provides a framework for clinician monitoring and consideration of antibiotic modification. Most patients developed “Risk” class AKI (RIFLE classification), which may be reversible with prompt intervention.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S811-S812 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna Sandlund ◽  
Joel Estis ◽  
Phoebe Katzenbach ◽  
Niamh Nolan ◽  
Kirstie Hinson ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is one of the most common healthcare-associated infections, resulting in significant morbidity, mortality, and economic burden. Diagnosis of CDI relies on the assessment of clinical presentation and laboratory tests. We have evaluated the clinical performance of ultrasensitive Single Molecule Counting technology for detection of C. difficile toxins A and B. Methods Stool specimens from 298 patients with suspected CDI were tested with nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT; BD MAX™ Cdiff assay or Xpert® C. difficile assay) and Singulex Clarity® C. difficile toxins A/B assay. Specimens with discordant results were tested with cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA), and results were correlated with disease severity and outcome. Results There were 64 NAAT-positive and 234 NAAT-negative samples. Of the 32 NAAT+/Clarity− and 4 NAAT-/Clarity+ samples, there were 26 CCNA− and 4 CCNA- samples, respectively. CDI relapse or overall death was more common in NAAT+/toxin+ patients than in NAAT+/toxin− and NAAT−/toxin− patients, and NAAT+/toxin+ patients were 3.7 times more likely to experience relapse or death (Figure 1). The clinical specificity of Clarity and NAAT was 97.4% and 89.0%, respectively, and overdiagnosis was over three times more common in NAAT+/toxin− than in NAAT+/toxin+ patients (Figure 2). Negative percent agreement between NAAT and Clarity was 98.3%, and positive percent agreement increased from 50.0% to effective 84.2% and 94.1% after CCNA testing and clinical assessment. Conclusion The Clarity assay was superior to NAATs in diagnosis of CDI, by reducing overdiagnosis and thereby increasing clinical specificity, and presence of toxins was associated with disease severity and outcome. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 175628482110481
Author(s):  
Adam Ressler ◽  
Joyce Wang ◽  
Krishna Rao

In the United States, Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is the leading cause of healthcare-associated infection, affecting nearly half a million people and resulting in more than 20,000 in-hospital deaths every year. It is therefore imperative to better characterize the intricate interplay between C. difficile microbial factors, host immunologic signatures, and clinical features that are associated with adverse outcomes of severe CDI. In this narrative review, we discuss the implications of C. difficile genetics and virulence factors in the molecular epidemiology of CDI, and the utility of early biomarkers in predicting the clinical trajectory of patients at risk of developing severe CDI. Furthermore, we identify associations between host immune factors and CDI outcomes in both animal models and human studies. Next, we highlight clinical factors including renal dysfunction, aging, blood biomarkers, level of care, and chronic illnesses that can affect severe CDI diagnosis and outcome. Finally, we present our perspectives on two specific treatments pertinent to patient outcomes: metronidazole administration and surgery. Together, this review explores the various venues of CDI research and highlights the importance of integrating microbial, host, and clinical data to help clinicians make optimal treatment decisions based on accurate prediction of disease progression.


2020 ◽  
pp. 11-21

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a leading cause of a healthcare-associated diarrhea worldwide. Recently, an increased number of new cases and growing mortality due to CDI have been observed. Patients suffering from end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are most exposed to CDI. It has been proven that CDI in patients receiving renal replacement therapy (RRT) significantly increases mortality, prolongs hospitalization and increases the cost of treatment. Important risk factors of CDI in ERSD patients include hospitalization or stay in an intensive care unit in the last 90 days, HIV infection, bacteremia, prolonged antibiotic therapy and hypoalbuminemia. Cirrhosis, age over 65 years, hypoalbuminemia, longer hospitalization time and use of antibiotics are significant risk factors of death. Effective methods of preventing CDI include hand hygiene with soap and water, isolation of infected patients in a private room with a dedicated toilet, the use of masks, gloves, disinfection of the environment and systematic education and control of medical personnel, as well as rational antibiotic policy. In addition, it is important to avoid antibiotics with a proven risk of CDI, caution use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and H2 receptor antagonists. It is also important in the prevention of CDI in people with ERSD, to apply a fast diagnostic since the onset of the first symptoms. The use of probiotics and bile acids in the primary prevention of CDI requires further research. It seems that knowledge of these factors and methods of prevention will significantly reduce morbidity and mortality due to CDI.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S473-S474
Author(s):  
John Sahrmann ◽  
Dustin Stwalley ◽  
Margaret A Olsen ◽  
Holly Yu ◽  
Erik R Dubberke

Abstract Background CDI imposes a major burden on the U.S. healthcare system. Obtaining accurate estimates of economic costs is critical to determining the cost-effectiveness of preventive measures. This task is complicated by differences in epidemiology, mortality, and baseline health status of infected and uninfected individuals, and by the statistical properties of costs data (e.g., right-skewed, excess of zeros costs). Methods Incident CDI cases were identified from Medicare 5% fee-for-service data between 2011 and 2017 and classified into standard surveillance definitions: hospital-onset (HO); other healthcare facility-onset (OHFO); community-onset, healthcare-associated (CO-HCFA); or community-associated (CA). Cases were frequency matched 1:4 to uninfected controls based on age, sex, and year of CDI. Controls were assigned to surveillance definitions based on location at index dates. Medicare allowed costs were summed in 30-day intervals up to 3 years following index. One- and 3-year cumulative costs attributable to CDI were computed using a 3-part estimator consisting of a parametric survival model and a pair of 2-part models predicting costs separately in intervals where death did and did not occur, adjusting for underlying acute and chronic conditions. Results 60,492 CDI cases (Figure 1) were matched to 241,968 controls. Three-year mortality was higher among CDI cases compared to matched controls for HO (45% vs 26%) and OHFO (42% vs 36%), whereas mortality was slightly lower for CDI cases compared to controls for those with community onset (CO-HCFA: 28% vs 32%; CA: 10% vs 11%). One- and 3-year attributable costs due to CDI are shown in Figure 2. Adjusted 1-year attributable costs amounted to &26,954 (95% CI: &26,154–&27,939) for HO; &10,539 (&9,564–&11,518) for OHFO; &6,525 (&5,012–&8,171) for CO-HCFA; and &3,171 (&1,841–&4,200) for CA. Adjusted 3-year attributable costs were &44,736 (&43,063–&46,483) for HO; &13,994 (&12,529–&15,975) for OHFO; &7,349 (&4,738–&10,246) for CO-HCFA; and &2,377 (&166–&4,722) for CA. Figure 1. Proportion of Cases by CDI Surveillance Definitions Abbreviations: HO: hospital-onset; OHFO: other healthcare facility-onset; CO-HCFA: community-onset, healthcare-associated; CA: community-associated. Figure 2. Estimates of Costs Attributable to CDI by CDI Surveillance Definitions at One and Three Years after Onset Top panels: One-year cost estimates. Bottom panels: Three-year cost estimates. Abbreviations: HO: hospital-onset; OHFO: other healthcare facility-onset; CO-HCFA:community-onset, healthcare-associated; CA:community-associated. Conclusion CDI was associated with increased healthcare costs across surveillance definitions in Medicare fee-for-service patients after adjusting for survival and underlying conditions. Disclosures Dustin Stwalley, MA, AbbVie Inc (Shareholder)Bristol-Myers Squibb (Shareholder) Margaret A. Olsen, PhD, MPH, Pfizer (Consultant, Research Grant or Support) Holly Yu, MSPH, Pfizer (Employee) Erik R. Dubberke, MD, MSPH, Ferring (Grant/Research Support)Merck (Consultant)Pfizer (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Seres (Consultant)Summit (Consultant)


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document