Unique Footprint in the scl1.3 Locus Affects Adhesion and Biofilm Formation of the Invasive M3-Type Group A Streptococcus

The streptococcal collagen-like proteins 1 and 2 (Scl1 and Scl2) are major surface adhesins that are ubiquitous among group A Streptococcus (GAS). Invasive M3-type strains, however, have evolved two unique conserved features in the scl1 locus: (i) an IS1548 element insertion in the scl1 promoter region and (ii) a nonsense mutation within the scl1 coding sequence. The scl1 transcript is drastically reduced in M3-type GAS, contrasting with a high transcription level of scl1 allele in invasive M1-type GAS. This leads to a lack of Scl1 expression in M3 strains. In contrast, while scl2 transcription and Scl2 production are elevated in M3 strains, M1 GAS lack Scl2 surface expression. M3-type strains were shown to have reduced biofilm formation on inanimate surfaces coated with cellular fibronectin and laminin, and in human skin equivalents. Repair of the nonsense mutation and restoration of Scl1 expression on M3-GAS cells, restores biofilm formation on cellular fibronectin and laminin coatings. Inactivation of scl1 in biofilm-capable M28 and M41 strains results in larger skin lesions in a mouse model, indicating that lack of Scl1 adhesin promotes bacterial spread over localized infection. These studies suggest the uniquely evolved scl1 locus in the M3-type strains, which prevents surface expression of the major Scl1 adhesin, contributed to the emergence of the invasive M3-type strains. Furthermore these studies provide insight into the molecular mechanisms mediating colonization, biofilm formation, and pathogenesis of group A streptococci

Provider Interaction With an Electronic Health Record Notification to Identify Eligible Patients for a Cluster Randomized Trial of Advance Care Planning in Primary Care: Secondary Analysis

BackgroundAdvance care planning (ACP) improves patient-provider communication and aligns care to patient values, preferences, and goals. Within a multisite Meta-network Learning and Research Center ACP study, one health system deployed an electronic health record (EHR) notification and algorithm to alert providers about patients potentially appropriate for ACP and the clinical study. ObjectiveThe aim of the study is to describe the implementation and usage of an EHR notification for referring patients to an ACP study, evaluate the association of notifications with study referrals and engagement in ACP, and assess provider interactions with and perspectives on the notifications. MethodsA secondary analysis assessed provider usage and their response to the notification (eg, acknowledge, dismiss, or engage patient in ACP conversation and refer patient to the clinical study). We evaluated all patients identified by the EHR algorithm during the Meta-network Learning and Research Center ACP study. Descriptive statistics compared patients referred to the study to those who were not referred to the study. Health care utilization, hospice referrals, and mortality as well as documentation and billing for ACP and related legal documents are reported. We evaluated associations between notifications with provider actions (ie, referral to study, ACP not documentation, and ACP billing). Provider free-text comments in the notifications were summarized qualitatively. Providers were surveyed on their satisfaction with the notification. ResultsAmong the 2877 patients identified by the EHR algorithm over 20 months, 17,047 unique notifications were presented to 45 providers in 6 clinics, who then referred 290 (10%) patients. Providers had a median of 269 (IQR 65-552) total notifications, and patients had a median of 4 (IQR 2-8). Patients with more (over 5) notifications were less likely to be referred to the study than those with fewer notifications (57/1092, 5.2% vs 233/1785, 13.1%; P<.001). The most common free-text comment on the notification was lack of time. Providers who referred patients to the study were more likely to document ACP and submit ACP billing codes (P<.001). In the survey, 11 providers would recommend the notification (n=7, 64%); however, the notification impacted clinical workflow (n=9, 82%) and was difficult to navigate (n=6, 55%). ConclusionsAn EHR notification can be implemented to remind providers to both perform ACP conversations and refer patients to a clinical study. There were diminishing returns after the fifth EHR notification where additional notifications did not lead to more trial referrals, ACP documentation, or ACP billing. Creation and optimization of EHR notifications for study referrals and ACP should consider the provider user, their workflow, and alert fatigue to improve implementation and adoption. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03577002; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT0357700