Cost-effectiveness of strategies to control the spread of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales in hospitals: a modelling study.
Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales
Control strategies
Cost-effectiveness
Cross-transmission
France
Hand disinfection
Mathematical model
Journal
Antimicrobial resistance and infection control
ISSN: 2047-2994
Titre abrégé: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101585411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 09 2022
19 09 2022
Historique:
received:
19
01
2022
accepted:
03
08
2022
entrez:
18
9
2022
pubmed:
19
9
2022
medline:
21
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Spread of resistant bacteria causes severe morbidity and mortality. Stringent control measures can be expensive and disrupt hospital organization. In the present study, we assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of control strategies to prevent the spread of Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) in a general hospital ward (GW). A dynamic, stochastic model simulated the transmission of CPE by the hands of healthcare workers (HCWs) and the environment in a hypothetical 25-bed GW. Input parameters were based on published data; we assumed the prevalence at admission of 0.1%. 12 strategies were 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 (WSC). Time horizon was one year. Outcomes were the number of CPE acquisitions, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). A hospital perspective was adopted to estimate costs, which included laboratory costs, single room, contact precautions, staff time, i.e. infection control nurse and/or dedicated nursing staff, and lost bed-days due to prolonged hospital stay of identified carriers. The model was calibrated on actual datasets. Sensitivity analyses were performed. The baseline scenario resulted in 0.93 CPE acquisitions/1000 admissions and costs 32,050 €/1000 admissions. All control strategies increased costs and improved the outcome. The efficiency frontier was represented by: (1) TS with DNS at a 17,407 €/avoided CPE case, (2) TS + DNS + WSC at a 30,700 €/avoided CPE case and (3) US + DNS + WSC at 181,472 €/avoided CPE case. Other strategies were dominated. Sensitivity analyses showed that TS + CP might be cost-effective if CPE carriers are identified upon admission or if the cases have a short hospital stay. However, CP were effective only when high level of compliance with hand hygiene was obtained. Targeted screening at admission combined with DNS for identified CPE carriers with or without weekly screening were the most cost-effective options to limit the spread of CPE. These results support current recommendations from several high-income countries.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Spread of resistant bacteria causes severe morbidity and mortality. Stringent control measures can be expensive and disrupt hospital organization. In the present study, we assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of control strategies to prevent the spread of Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) in a general hospital ward (GW).
METHODS
A dynamic, stochastic model simulated the transmission of CPE by the hands of healthcare workers (HCWs) and the environment in a hypothetical 25-bed GW. Input parameters were based on published data; we assumed the prevalence at admission of 0.1%. 12 strategies were 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 (WSC). Time horizon was one year. Outcomes were the number of CPE acquisitions, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). A hospital perspective was adopted to estimate costs, which included laboratory costs, single room, contact precautions, staff time, i.e. infection control nurse and/or dedicated nursing staff, and lost bed-days due to prolonged hospital stay of identified carriers. The model was calibrated on actual datasets. Sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS
The baseline scenario resulted in 0.93 CPE acquisitions/1000 admissions and costs 32,050 €/1000 admissions. All control strategies increased costs and improved the outcome. The efficiency frontier was represented by: (1) TS with DNS at a 17,407 €/avoided CPE case, (2) TS + DNS + WSC at a 30,700 €/avoided CPE case and (3) US + DNS + WSC at 181,472 €/avoided CPE case. Other strategies were dominated. Sensitivity analyses showed that TS + CP might be cost-effective if CPE carriers are identified upon admission or if the cases have a short hospital stay. However, CP were effective only when high level of compliance with hand hygiene was obtained.
CONCLUSIONS
Targeted screening at admission combined with DNS for identified CPE carriers with or without weekly screening were the most cost-effective options to limit the spread of CPE. These results support current recommendations from several high-income countries.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36117231
doi: 10.1186/s13756-022-01149-0
pii: 10.1186/s13756-022-01149-0
pmc: PMC9484055
doi:
Substances chimiques
Bacterial Proteins
0
beta-Lactamases
EC 3.5.2.6
carbapenemase
EC 3.5.2.6
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
117Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Am J Infect Control. 2012 Jun;40(5):421-5
pubmed: 21906844
Lancet Infect Dis. 2014 Jan;14(1):31-39
pubmed: 24161233
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011 Jul;32(7):673-8
pubmed: 21666398
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015 Jul;70(7):2133-43
pubmed: 25900159
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013 May;19(5):451-6
pubmed: 22563800
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016 May 23;60(6):3832-7
pubmed: 27021332
Lancet Infect Dis. 2019 Jan;19(1):56-66
pubmed: 30409683
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Jun 8;96(12):6908-13
pubmed: 10359812
Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Apr 1;52(7):848-55
pubmed: 21317398
Emerg Infect Dis. 2014 Jul;20(7):1170-5
pubmed: 24959688
J Clin Microbiol. 2016 Jul;54(7):1814-1819
pubmed: 27122379
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2020 Feb 11;9(1):29
pubmed: 32046775
J Hosp Infect. 2019 Oct;103(2):115-120
pubmed: 31279758
BMJ Open. 2016 Jan 29;6(1):e009029
pubmed: 26826145
JAMA. 2013 Oct 16;310(15):1571-80
pubmed: 24097234
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2018 Dec;24(12):1311-1314
pubmed: 29549056
Euro Surveill. 2014 May 15;19(19):
pubmed: 24852956
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2020 Sep 1;75(9):2670-2676
pubmed: 32479615
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017 Mar;23(3):188-196
pubmed: 27746394
J Infect Dis. 2005 Dec 1;192(11):2004-11
pubmed: 16267774
J Hosp Infect. 2009 Mar;71(3):280-2
pubmed: 19162370
Med Mal Infect. 2014 Jul;44(7):321-6
pubmed: 25022890
JAMA. 1999 Nov 10;282(18):1745-51
pubmed: 10568647
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 11;8(9):e73970
pubmed: 24040129
PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e41068
pubmed: 22859965
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010 Dec;16(12):1729-35
pubmed: 20673257
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013 Aug;34(8):809-17
pubmed: 23838221
PLoS One. 2018 May 14;13(5):e0197111
pubmed: 29758063
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014 Sep;20(9):862-72
pubmed: 24890393
Am J Infect Control. 2021 Oct;49(10):1281-1286
pubmed: 34146625
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2017 Nov 15;6:113
pubmed: 29163939
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012 Apr;56(4):2108-13
pubmed: 22252816
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2017 Jun;49(6):774-777
pubmed: 28411078
Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Jul 15;65(2):342-347
pubmed: 28379311
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016 Dec;71(12):3556-3561
pubmed: 27516471
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016 Mar;37(3):272-80
pubmed: 26708383
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015 Oct;36(10):1148-54
pubmed: 26204992
Emerg Infect Dis. 2017 Sep;23(9):1574-1576
pubmed: 28820386
BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 03;7(11):e017402
pubmed: 29102989
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015 Aug;36(8):957-62
pubmed: 25903555
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2020 Jan 17;9(1):18
pubmed: 31988746
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 May;20(5):575-584
pubmed: 32087113
Am J Infect Control. 2020 Jun;48(6):644-649
pubmed: 31757476
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014 Nov;35(11):1427-9
pubmed: 25333442
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017 Jun;36(6):1047-1055
pubmed: 28078557
PLoS Comput Biol. 2019 May 30;15(5):e1006496
pubmed: 31145725
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Aug 2;4(8):e2119212
pubmed: 34347060
BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Dec;23(12):974-80
pubmed: 25002555
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012 Jun;67(6):1525-36
pubmed: 22441577
BMC Med. 2018 Aug 16;16(1):141
pubmed: 30111322
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017 Jan;23(1):48.e9-48.e16
pubmed: 27642178
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016 Apr;71(4):1088-97
pubmed: 26755492