Impact of environmental hygiene interventions on healthcare-associated infections and patient colonization: a systematic review

BACKGROUND Healthcare-associated infections (HAI) are one of the gravest threats to patient safety worldwide. The importance of the hospital environment has recently been revalued in infection prevention and control. Though the literature is evolving rapidly, many institutions still do not consider healthcare environmental hygiene (HEH) very important for patient safety. The evidence for interventions in the healthcare environment on patient colonization and HAI with multidrug-resistant microorganisms (MDROs) or other epidemiologically relevant pathogens was reviewed. METHODS We performed a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines using the PubMed and Web of Science databases. All original studies were eligible if published before December 31, 2019, and if the effect of an HEH intervention on HAI or patient colonization was measured. Studies were not eligible if they were conducted in vitro, did not include patient colonization or HAI as an outcome, were bundled with hand hygiene interventions, included a complete structural rebuild of the healthcare facility or were implemented during an outbreak. The primary outcome was the comparison of the intervention on patient colonization or HAI compared to baseline or control. Interventions were categorized by mechanical, chemical, human factors, or bundles. Study quality was assessed using a specifically-designed tool that considered study design, sample size, control, confounders, and issues with reporting. The effect of HEH interventions on environmental bioburden was studied as a secondary outcome. FINDINGS After deduplication, 952 records were scrutinized, of which 44 were included for full text assessment. A total of 26 articles were included in the review and analyzed. Most studies demonstrated a reduction of patient colonization or HAI, and all that analyzed bioburden demonstrated a reduction following the HEH intervention. Studies tested mechanical interventions (n = 8), chemical interventions (n = 7), human factors interventions (n = 3), and bundled interventions (n = 8). The majority of studies (21/26, 81%) analyzed either S. aureus, C. difficile, and/or vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Most studies (23/26, 88%) reported a decrease of MDRO-colonization or HAI for at least one of the tested organisms, while 58% reported a significant decrease of MDRO-colonization or HAI for all tested microorganisms. Forty-two percent were of good quality according to the scoring system. The majority (21/26, 81%) of study interventions were recommended for application by the authors. Studies were often not powered adequately to measure statistically significant reductions. INTERPRETATION Improving HEH helps keep patients safe. Most studies demonstrated that interventions in the hospital environment were related with lower HAI and/or patient colonization. Most of the studies were not of high quality; additional adequately-powered, high-quality studies are needed. Systematic registration number: CRD42020204909

Comparison of clinical outcomes over time of inpatients with healthcare-associated or community-acquired coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A multicenter, prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE To compare clinical outcomes over time of inpatients with healthcare-associated coronavirus disease 2019 (HA-COVID-19) versus community-acquired COVID-19 (CA-COVID-19). DESIGN We conducted a multicenter, prospective observational cohort study of inpatients with COVID-19. SETTING The study was conducted across 16 acute-care hospitals in Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS We compared HA-COVID-19 cases, defined as patients with a positive severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test > 5 days after hospital admission, with hospitalized CA-COVID-19 cases, defined as those who tested positive within 5 days of admission. The composite primary outcome was patient transfer to an intensive care unit (ICU) or an intermediate care unit (IMCU) and/or all-cause in-hospital mortality. We used cause-specific Cox regression and Fine-Gray regression to model the time to the composite clinical outcome, adjusting for confounders and accounting for the competing event of discharge from hospital. We compared our results to those from a conventional approach using an adjusted logistic regression model where time-varying effects and competitive risk were ignored. RESULTS Between February 19, 2020, and December 31, 2020, we included 1,337 HA-COVID-19 cases and 9,068 CA-COVID-19 cases. HA-COVID-19 patients were significantly older: median, 80 (interquartile range [IQR], 71-87) versus median 70 (IQR, 57-80) (P < .001). A greater proportion of HA-COVID-19 patients had a Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 5 (79% vs 55%; P < .001) than did CA-COVID-19 patients. In time-varying analyses, between day 0 and 8, HA-COVID-19 cases had a decreased risk of death or ICU or IMCU transfer compared to CA-COVID-19 cases (cause-specific hazard ratio [csHR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-0.56). In contrast, from day 8 to 30, HA-COVID-19 cases had an increased risk of death or ICU or IMCU transfer (csHR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.20-1.85), with no significant effect on the rate of discharge (csHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.61-1.14). In the conventional logistic regression model, HA-COVID-19 was protective against transfer to an ICU or IMCU and/or all-cause in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.79, 95% CI, 0.67-0.93). CONCLUSIONS The risk of adverse clinical outcomes for HA-COVID-19 cases increased substantially over time in hospital and exceeded that for CA-COVID-19. Using approaches that do not account for time-varying effects or competing events may not fully capture the true risk of HA-COVID-19 compared to CA-COVID-19

Household acquisition and transmission of extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) -producing Enterobacteriaceae after hospital discharge of ESBL-positive index patients

MODERN WP2 study group: Caroline Brossier, Elodie von Dach, Gesuele Renzi, Jacques Schrenzel, Stefanie Bunk, Siri Goepel, Florian Hölzl, Michael Eib, Ingo B.Autenrieth, Álvaro Pascual, Xavier Bertrand, Jelle Scharringa, Patrick Musicha.[Objectives] This study aimed to determine rates and risk factors of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-PE) acquisition and transmission within households after hospital discharge of an ESBL-PE-positive index patient.[Methods] Two-year prospective cohort study in five European cities. Patients colonized with ESBL-producing Escherichia coli (ESBL-Ec) or Klebsiella pneumoniae (ESBL-Kp), and their household contacts were followed up for 4 months after hospital discharge of the index case. At each follow up, participants provided a faecal sample and personal information. ESBL-PE whole-genome sequences were compared using pairwise single nucleotide polymorphism-based analysis.[Results] We enrolled 71 index patients carrying ESBL-Ec (n = 45), ESBL-Kp (n = 20) or both (n = 6), and 102 household contacts. The incidence of any ESBL-PE acquisition among household members initially free of ESBL-PE was 1.9/100 participant-weeks at risk. Nineteen clonally related household transmissions occurred (case to contact: 13; contact to case: 6), with an overall rate of 1.18 transmissions/100 participant-weeks at risk. Most of the acquisition and transmission events occurred within the first 2 months after discharge. The rate of ESBL-Kp household transmission (1.16/100 participant-weeks) was higher than of ESBL-Ec (0.93/100 participant-weeks), whereas more acquisitions were noted for ESBL-Ec (1.06/100 participant-weeks) compared with ESBL-Kp (0.65/100 participant-weeks). Providing assistance for urinary and faecal excretion to the index case by household members increased the risk of ESBL-PE transmission (adjusted prevalence ratio 4.3; 95% CI 1.3–14.1).[Conclusions] ESBL-PE cases discharged from the hospital are an important source of ESBL-PE transmission within households. Most acquisition and transmission events occurred during the first 2 months after hospital discharge and were causally related to care activities at home, highlighting the importance of hygiene measures in community settings.[Clinical study registration] German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS-ID: DRKS00013250.This study was part of a Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance collaborative research project, under the 2016 Joint Call framework (Transnational Research Projects on the Transmission Dynamics of Antibacterial Resistance). It received funding from the following national research agencies: Instituto de Salud Carlos III (grant no. AC16/00076), Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (grant no. AC681055), Swiss National Science Foundation (grant no. 40AR40-173608), German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant no. 01KI1830) and Agence Nationale de la Recherche (grant no. ANR-16-JPEC-0007-03). As part of a separate research project, Marlieke de Kraker has received support from the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking under grant agreement nos 115523, 115620 and 115737 (Combatting Bacterial Resistance in Europe projects (COMBACTE)), resources of which are composed of financial contribution from the European Union's 7th Framework Programme (FP7/2007±2013) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and associations companies' in-kind contribution. Also, Elena Salamanca, Mercedes Delgado and Jesús Rodríguez-Baño received support for research from by the Plan Nacional de I+D+i 2013-2016 and Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Subdirección General de Redes y Centros de Investigación Cooperativa, Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases (REIPI RD16/0016/0001), co-financed by the European Development Regional Fund ‘A way to achieve Europe’, Operative Programme Intelligence Growth 2014-2020.Peer reviewe

An emerging clone, KPC-2-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae ST16, associated with high mortality rates in a CC258 endemic setting

Background Carbapenemase-producing K. pneumoniae have become a global priority, not least in low-middle income countries. Here, we report the emergence and clinical impact of a novel KPC-K. pneumoniae ST16 clone in a Clonal Complex (CC)258 endemic setting. Methods In a teaching Brazilian hospital, a retrospective cohort of adult KPC-KP bloodstream infections (BSI) cases (January 2014 to December 2016) was established to study the molecular epidemiology and its impact on outcome (30-day all-cause mortality). KPC-KP isolates were MLST-typed. Survival analysis between ST/CC groups and risk factors for fatal outcome (logistic regression) were evaluated. Representative isolates underwent whole genome sequencing (WGS), and had their virulence tested in a Galleria larvae model. Results One hundred sixty-five unique KPC-KP BSI cases were identified. CC258 was predominant (66%), followed by ST16 (12%). The overall 30-day mortality rate was 60%; in contrast, 95% of ST16 cases were fatal. Patient’s severity scores were high and baseline clinical variables were not statistically different across ST’s. In multivariate analysis, ST16 (OR 21.4; CI95% 2.3-202.8; p=0,008) and septic shock (OR 11.9; CI95% 4.2-34.1; p<0,001) were independent risk factors for fatal outcome. ST16 clone carried up to 14 resistance genes, including blaKPC-2 in an IncFIBpQIL plasmid, KL51 capsule and Yersiniabactin virulence determinants. ST16 clone was highly pathogenic in the larvae model. Conclusions Mortality rates were high in this KPC-KP BSI cohort, where CC258 is endemic. An emerging ST16 clone was associated with high mortality. Our results suggest that even in endemic settings, highly virulent clones can rapidly emerge demanding constant monitoring

Tolerability and acceptability of three alcohol-based handrub gel formulations: a randomized crossover study

Background: Healthcare workers often experience skin dryness and irritation from performing hand hygiene frequently. Tolerability and acceptability are barriers to hand hygiene compliance, but there is little in the literature about exactly which types of alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHRs) have a higher dermal tolerance. Aim: To compare the tolerability and acceptability of three different ABHR gel formulations in a population of adult volunteers. Methods: Thirty-eight participants were randomized to three different sequences, testing three hand-rub gel formulations: isopropanol-based (Hopigel®); ethanol-based (World Health Organization (WHO) gel formulation); and ethanol-based containing superfatting agents (Saniswiss Sanitizer Hands H1). Participants tested each of the formulations over a series of three five-day interventions, followed by a nine-day washout period. At the end of each intervention, skin condition was assessed and feedback was collected. Findings: Whereas no statistically significant difference was observed regarding tolerability between the three ABHR gel formulations tested, there were differences in acceptability. Participants preferred the smell of the H1 and WHO gel formulations (P = 0.003 and P = 0.040, respectively); H1 had a better texture than the WHO gel formulation (P &lt; 0.001); and H1 was considered more pleasant overall than Hopigel (P = 0.037). Overall preference varied, but H1 was rated the favourite most often among participants, and the least favourite least often. Conclusion: A high variability was observed in the participants' reactions to the different formulations tested. These results highlight the importance of giving healthcare workers a choice between different high-quality hand rubs to ensure maximum acceptability.</p

Acceptability of an alcohol-based handrub gel with superfatting agents among healthcare workers: a randomized crossover controlled study

Introduction: Healthcare workers often experience skin dryness and irritation from performing hand hygiene frequently. Low acceptability and tolerability of a formulation are barriers to hand hygiene compliance, though little research has been conducted on what specific types of formulation have higher acceptability than others. Objective: To compare the acceptability and tolerability of an ethanol-based handrub gel with superfatting agents to the isopropanol-based formulations (a rub and a gel formulation) currently used by healthcare workers at the University of Geneva Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. Methods: Forty-two participants were randomized to two sequences, testing the isopropanol-based formulation that they are using currently (Hopirub® or Hopigel®), and the ethanol-based formulation containing superfatting agents (Saniswiss Sanitizer Hands H1). Participants tested each of the formulations over 7-10 day work shifts, after which skin condition was assessed and feedback was collected. Results: H1 scored significantly better than the control formulations for skin dryness (P = 0.0209), and participants felt less discomfort in their hands when using that formulation (P = 0.0448). H1 caused less skin dryness than Hopirub®/Hopigel® (P = 0.0210). Though overall preference was quite polarized, 21 participants preferred H1 intervention formulation and 17 preferred the Hopirub®/Hopigel® formulation that they normally used in their care activities. Conclusion: We observed a difference in acceptability and strongly polarized preferences among the participants' reactions to the formulations tested. These results indicate that giving healthcare workers a choice between different high-quality products is important to ensure maximum acceptability.</p