Trends in bacterial sepsis incidence and mortality in France between 2015 and 2019 based on National Health Data System (Système National des données de Santé (SNDS)): a retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to provide a case definition of sepsis of presumed bacterial aetiology based on 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) codes, to assess trends in sepsis incidence and mortality between 2015 and 2019 in France, and to describe the characteristics of affected patients and hospital stays. DESIGN: Nationwide, population-based, retrospective observational study. SETTING: Metropolitan France between 2015 and 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Between 2015 and 2019, 1 224 433 patients with sepsis of presumed bacterial aetiology were selected from the French National Hospital Discharge Database (Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d'Information) and were identified from corresponding ICD-10 codes for explicit sepsis or implicit sepsis. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Annual overall and age-specific and gender-specific incidence and 95% CI, as well as trends in sepsis incidence and mortality, were estimated. Comorbidities, length of hospital stay and outcomes were described. RESULTS: The sex-standardised and age-standardised incidence per 100 000 (95% CI) increased from 357 (356.0 to 359.0) in 2015 to 403 (401.9 to 405.0) in 2019 and remained higher for males compared with females. Children under 1 year and patients over 75 years consistently had the highest incidence. The most common comorbidities were cancer and chronic heart failure. The median hospital length of stay was 12 days. Most patients came from home, but only half returned home after their hospital stay and approximately 15% were discharged to long-term care. In-hospital mortality was about 25% and declined along the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Medico-administrative databases can be used to provide nationwide estimates of the in-hospital burden of bacterial sepsis. The results confirm the high burden of sepsis in France. These data should be complemented by estimating the additional burden associated with fungal and viral infections during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lockdown impact on age-specific contact patterns and behaviours, France, April 2020.

BackgroundMany countries implemented national lockdowns to contain the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 and avoid overburdening healthcare capacity.AimWe aimed to quantify how the French lockdown impacted population mixing, contact patterns and behaviours.MethodsWe conducted an online survey using convenience sampling and collected information from participants aged 18 years and older between 10 April and 28 April 2020.ResultAmong the 42,036 survey participants, 72% normally worked outside their home, and of these, 68% changed to telework during lockdown and 17% reported being unemployed during lockdown. A decrease in public transport use was reported from 37% to 2%. Participants reported increased frequency of hand washing and changes in greeting behaviour. Wearing masks in public was generally limited. A total of 138,934 contacts were reported, with an average of 3.3 contacts per individual per day; 1.7 in the participants aged 65 years and older compared with 3.6 for younger age groups. This represented a 70% reduction compared with previous surveys, consistent with SARS-CoV2 transmission reduction measured during the lockdown. For those who maintained a professional activity outside home, the frequency of contacts at work dropped by 79%.ConclusionThe lockdown affected the population's behaviour, work, risk perception and contact patterns. The frequency and heterogeneity of contacts, both of which are critical factors in determining how viruses spread, were affected. Such surveys are essential to evaluate the impact of lockdowns more accurately and anticipate epidemic dynamics in these conditions.

A Conceptual Discussion About the Basic Reproduction Number of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Healthcare Settings.

To date, no specific estimate of R0 for SARS-CoV-2 is available for healthcare settings. Using interindividual contact data, we highlight that R0 estimates from the community cannot translate directly to healthcare settings, with pre-pandemic R0 values ranging 1.3-7.7 in 3 illustrative healthcare institutions. This has implications for nosocomial COVID-19 control.

Optimizing COVID-19 surveillance in long-term care facilities: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are vulnerable to outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Timely epidemiological surveillance is essential for outbreak response, but is complicated by a high proportion of silent (non-symptomatic) infections and limited testing resources. METHODS: We used a stochastic, individual-based model to simulate transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) along detailed inter-individual contact networks describing patient-staff interactions in a real LTCF setting. We simulated distribution of nasopharyngeal swabs and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests using clinical and demographic indications and evaluated the efficacy and resource-efficiency of a range of surveillance strategies, including group testing (sample pooling) and testing cascades, which couple (i) testing for multiple indications (symptoms, admission) with (ii) random daily testing. RESULTS: In the baseline scenario, randomly introducing a silent SARS-CoV-2 infection into a 170-bed LTCF led to large outbreaks, with a cumulative 86 (95% uncertainty interval 6-224) infections after 3 weeks of unmitigated transmission. Efficacy of symptom-based screening was limited by lags to symptom onset and silent asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission. Across scenarios, testing upon admission detected just 34-66% of patients infected upon LTCF entry, and also missed potential introductions from staff. Random daily testing was more effective when targeting patients than staff, but was overall an inefficient use of limited resources. At high testing capacity (> 10 tests/100 beds/day), cascades were most effective, with a 19-36% probability of detecting outbreaks prior to any nosocomial transmission, and 26-46% prior to first onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Conversely, at low capacity (< 2 tests/100 beds/day), group testing strategies detected outbreaks earliest. Pooling randomly selected patients in a daily group test was most likely to detect outbreaks prior to first symptom onset (16-27%), while pooling patients and staff expressing any COVID-like symptoms was the most efficient means to improve surveillance given resource limitations, compared to the reference requiring only 6-9 additional tests and 11-28 additional swabs to detect outbreaks 1-6 days earlier, prior to an additional 11-22 infections. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 surveillance is challenged by delayed or absent clinical symptoms and imperfect diagnostic sensitivity of standard RT-PCR tests. In our analysis, group testing was the most effective and efficient COVID-19 surveillance strategy for resource-limited LTCFs. Testing cascades were even more effective given ample testing resources. Increasing testing capacity and updating surveillance protocols accordingly could facilitate earlier detection of emerging outbreaks, informing a need for urgent intervention in settings with ongoing nosocomial transmission.