Impact of interventions to reduce nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in English NHS Trusts: a computational modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Prior to September 2021, 55,000-90,000 hospital inpatients in England were identified as having a potentially nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection. This includes cases that were likely missed due to pauci- or asymptomatic infection. Further, high numbers of healthcare workers (HCWs) are thought to have been infected, and there is evidence that some of these cases may also have been nosocomially linked, with both HCW to HCW and patient to HCW transmission being reported. From the start of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic interventions in hospitals such as testing patients on admission and universal mask wearing were introduced to stop spread within and between patient and HCW populations, the effectiveness of which are largely unknown. MATERIALS/METHODS: Using an individual-based model of within-hospital transmission, we estimated the contribution of individual interventions (together and in combination) to the effectiveness of the overall package of interventions implemented in English hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. A panel of experts in infection prevention and control informed intervention choice and helped ensure the model reflected implementation in practice. Model parameters and associated uncertainty were derived using national and local data, literature review and formal elicitation of expert opinion. We simulated scenarios to explore how many nosocomial infections might have been seen in patients and HCWs if interventions had not been implemented. We simulated the time period from March-2020 to July-2022 encompassing different strains and multiple doses of vaccination. RESULTS: Modelling results suggest that in a scenario without inpatient testing, infection prevention and control measures, and reductions in occupancy and visitors, the number of patients developing a nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection could have been twice as high over the course of the pandemic, and over 600,000 HCWs could have been infected in the first wave alone. Isolation of symptomatic HCWs and universal masking by HCWs were the most effective interventions for preventing infections in both patient and HCW populations. Model findings suggest that collectively the interventions introduced over the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in England averted 400,000 (240,000 - 500,000) infections in inpatients and 410,000 (370,000 - 450,000) HCW infections. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to reduce the spread of nosocomial infections have varying impact, but the package of interventions implemented in England significantly reduced nosocomial transmission to both patients and HCWs over the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Model-based evaluation of admission screening strategies for the detection and control of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales in the English hospital setting.

BACKGROUND: Globally, detections of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) colonisations and infections are increasing. The spread of these highly resistant bacteria poses a serious threat to public health. However, understanding of CPE transmission and evidence on effectiveness of control measures is severely lacking. This paper provides evidence to inform effective admission screening protocols, which could be important in controlling nosocomial CPE transmission. METHODS: CPE transmission within an English hospital setting was simulated with a data-driven individual-based mathematical model. This model was used to evaluate the ability of the 2016 England CPE screening recommendations, and of potential alternative protocols, to identify patients with CPE-colonisation on admission (including those colonised during previous stays or from elsewhere). The model included nosocomial transmission from colonised and infected patients, as well as environmental contamination. Model parameters were estimated using primary data where possible, including estimation of transmission using detailed epidemiological data within a Bayesian framework. Separate models were parameterised to represent hospitals in English areas with low and high CPE risk (based on prevalence). RESULTS: The proportion of truly colonised admissions which met the 2016 screening criteria was 43% in low-prevalence and 54% in high-prevalence areas respectively. Selection of CPE carriers for screening was improved in low-prevalence areas by adding readmission as a screening criterion, which doubled how many colonised admissions were selected. A minority of CPE carriers were confirmed as CPE positive during their hospital stay (10 and 14% in low- and high-prevalence areas); switching to a faster screening test pathway with a single-swab test (rather than three swab regimen) increased the overall positive predictive value with negligible reduction in negative predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Using a novel within-hospital CPE transmission model, this study assesses CPE admission screening protocols, across the range of CPE prevalence observed in England. It identifies protocol changes-adding readmissions to screening criteria and a single-swab test pathway-which could detect similar numbers of CPE carriers (or twice as many in low CPE prevalence areas), but faster, and hence with lower demand on pre-emptive infection-control resources. Study findings can inform interventions to control this emerging threat, although further work is required to understand within-hospital transmission sources.

Evaluating the impact of testing strategies for the detection of nosocomial COVID-19 in English hospitals through data-driven modeling.

Introduction: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic 293,204 inpatients in England tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. It is estimated that 1% of these cases were hospital-associated using European centre for disease prevention and control (ECDC) and Public Health England (PHE) definitions. Guidelines for preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals have developed over time but the effectiveness and efficiency of testing strategies for preventing nosocomial transmission has not been explored. Methods: Using an individual-based model, parameterised using multiple datasets, we simulated the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to patients and healthcare workers between March and August 2020 and evaluated the efficacy of different testing strategies. These strategies were: 0) Testing only symptomatic patients on admission; 1) Testing all patients on admission; 2) Testing all patients on admission and again between days 5 and 7, and 3) Testing all patients on admission, and again at days 3, and 5-7. In addition to admissions testing, patients that develop a symptomatic infection while in hospital were tested under all strategies. We evaluated the impact of testing strategy, test characteristics and hospital-related factors on the number of nosocomial patient infections. Results: Modelling suggests that 84.6% (95% CI: 84.3, 84.7) of community-acquired and 40.8% (40.3, 41.3) of hospital-associated SARS-CoV-2 infections are detectable before a patient is discharged from hospital. Testing all patients on admission and retesting after 3 or 5 days increases the proportion of nosocomial cases detected by 9.2%. Adding discharge testing increases detection by a further 1.5% (relative increase). Increasing occupancy rates, number of beds per bay, or the proportion of admissions wrongly suspected of having COVID-19 on admission and therefore incorrectly cohorted with COVID-19 patients, increases the rate of nosocomial transmission. Over 30,000 patients in England could have been discharged while incubating a non-detected SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, of which 3.3% could have been identified by discharge screening. There was no significant difference in the rates of nosocomial transmission between testing strategies or when the turnaround time of the test was increased. Discussion: This study provides insight into the efficacy of testing strategies in a period unbiased by vaccines and variants. The findings are relevant as testing programs for SARS-CoV-2 are scaled back, and possibly if a new vaccine escaping variant emerges.

The burden and dynamics of hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 in England.

Hospital-based transmission had a dominant role in Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) epidemics1,2, but large-scale studies of its role in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic are lacking. Such transmission risks spreading the virus to the most vulnerable individuals and can have wider-scale impacts through hospital-community interactions. Using data from acute hospitals in England, we quantify within-hospital transmission, evaluate likely pathways of spread and factors associated with heightened transmission risk, and explore the wider dynamical consequences. We estimate that between June 2020 and March 2021 between 95,000 and 167,000 inpatients acquired SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals (1% to 2% of all hospital admissions in this period). Analysis of time series data provided evidence that patients who themselves acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospital were the main sources of transmission to other patients. Increased transmission to inpatients was associated with hospitals having fewer single rooms and lower heated volume per bed. Moreover, we show that reducing hospital transmission could substantially enhance the efficiency of punctuated lockdown measures in suppressing community transmission. These findings reveal the previously unrecognized scale of hospital transmission, have direct implications for targeting of hospital control measures and highlight the need to design hospitals better equipped to limit the transmission of future high-consequence pathogens.

Burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers during second wave in England and impact of vaccines: prospective multicentre cohort study (SIREN) and mathematical model.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the incidence of, risk factors for, and impact of vaccines on primary SARS-CoV-2 infection during the second wave of the covid-19 pandemic in susceptible hospital healthcare workers in England. DESIGN: Multicentre prospective cohort study. SETTING: National Health Service secondary care health organisations (trusts) in England between 1 September 2020 and 30 April 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Clinical, support, and administrative staff enrolled in the SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation (SIREN) study with no evidence of previous infection. Vaccination status was obtained from national covid-19 vaccination registries and self-reported. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction. Mixed effects logistic regression was conducted to determine demographic and occupational risk factors for infection, and an individual based mathematical model was used to predict how large the burden could have been if vaccines had not been available from 8 December 2020 . RESULTS: During England's second wave, 12.9% (2353/18 284) of susceptible SIREN participants became infected with SARS-CoV-2. Infections peaked in late December 2020 and decreased from January 2021, concurrent with the cohort's rapid vaccination coverage and a national lockdown. In multivariable analysis, factors increasing the likelihood of infection in the second wave were being under 25 years old (20.3% (132/651); adjusted odds ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.69), living in a large household (15.8% (282/1781); 1.54, 1.23 to 1.94, for participants from households of five or more people), having frequent exposure to patients with covid-19 (19.2% (723/3762); 1.79, 1.56 to 2.06, for participants with exposure every shift), working in an emergency department or inpatient ward setting (20.8% (386/1855); 1.76, 1.45 to 2.14), and being a healthcare assistant (18.1% (267/1479); 1.43, 1.16 to 1.77). Time to first vaccination emerged as being strongly associated with infection (P<0.001), with each additional day multiplying a participant's adjusted odds ratio by 1.02. Mathematical model simulations indicated that an additional 9.9% of all patient facing hospital healthcare workers would have been infected were it not for the rapid vaccination coverage. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid covid-19 vaccine rollout from December 2020 averted infection in a large proportion of hospital healthcare workers in England: without vaccines, second wave infections could have been 69% higher. With booster vaccinations being needed for adequate protection from the omicron variant, and perhaps the need for further boosters for future variants, ensuring equitable delivery to healthcare workers is essential. The findings also highlight occupational risk factors that persisted in healthcare workers despite vaccine rollout; a greater understanding of the transmission dynamics responsible for these is needed to help to optimise the infection prevention and control policies that protect healthcare workers from infection and therefore to support staffing levels and maintain healthcare provision. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN11041050.

The contribution of hospital-acquired infections to the COVID-19 epidemic in England in the first half of 2020.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is known to transmit in hospital settings, but the contribution of infections acquired in hospitals to the epidemic at a national scale is unknown. METHODS: We used comprehensive national English datasets to determine the number of COVID-19 patients with identified hospital-acquired infections (with symptom onset > 7 days after admission and before discharge) in acute English hospitals up to August 2020. As patients may leave the hospital prior to detection of infection or have rapid symptom onset, we combined measures of the length of stay and the incubation period distribution to estimate how many hospital-acquired infections may have been missed. We used simulations to estimate the total number (identified and unidentified) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections, as well as infections due to onward community transmission from missed hospital-acquired infections, to 31st July 2020. RESULTS: In our dataset of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in acute English hospitals with a recorded symptom onset date (n = 65,028), 7% were classified as hospital-acquired. We estimated that only 30% (range across weeks and 200 simulations: 20-41%) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections would be identified, with up to 15% (mean, 95% range over 200 simulations: 14.1-15.8%) of cases currently classified as community-acquired COVID-19 potentially linked to hospital transmission. We estimated that 26,600 (25,900 to 27,700) individuals acquired a symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in an acute Trust in England before 31st July 2020, resulting in 15,900 (15,200-16,400) or 20.1% (19.2-20.7%) of all identified hospitalised COVID-19 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to hospitalised patients likely caused approximately a fifth of identified cases of hospitalised COVID-19 in the "first wave" in England, but less than 1% of all infections in England. Using time to symptom onset from admission for inpatients as a detection method likely misses a substantial proportion (> 60%) of hospital-acquired infections.

The contribution of hospital-acquired infections to the COVID-19 epidemic in England in the first half of 2020.

Background SARS-CoV-2 is known to transmit in hospital settings, but the contribution of infections acquired in hospitals to the epidemic at a national scale is unknown. Methods We used comprehensive national English datasets to determine the number of COVID-19 patients with identified hospital-acquired infections (with symptom onset >7 days after admission and before discharge) in acute English hospitals up to August 2020. As patients may leave the hospital prior to detection of infection or have rapid symptom onset, we combined measures of the length of stay and the incubation period distribution to estimate how many hospital-acquired infections may have been missed. We used simulations to estimate the total number (identified and unidentified) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections, as well as infections due to onward community transmission from missed hospital-acquired infections, to 31 st July 2020. Results In our dataset of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in acute English hospitals with a recorded symptom onset date (n = 65,028), 7% were classified as hospital-acquired. We estimated that only 30% (range across weeks and 200 simulations: 20-41%) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections would be identified, with up to 15% (mean, 95% range over 200 simulations: 14.1%-15.8%) of cases currently classified as community-acquired COVID-19 potentially linked to hospital transmission. We estimated that 26,600 (25,900 to 27,700) individuals acquired a symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in an acute Trust in England before 31st July 2020, resulting in 15,900 (15,200-16,400) or 20.1% (19.2%-20.7%) of all identified hospitalised COVID-19 cases. Conclusions Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to hospitalised patients likely caused approximately a fifth of identified cases of hospitalised COVID-19 in the "first wave" in England, but less than 1% of all infections in England. Using time to symptom onset from admission for inpatients as a detection method likely misses a substantial proportion (>60%) of hospital-acquired infections.

Effectiveness of infection prevention and control interventions, excluding personal protective equipment, to prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and call for action.

Many infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions have been adopted by hospitals to limit nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this systematic review is to identify evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions. We conducted a literature search of five databases (OVID MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, COVID-19 Portfolio (pre-print), Web of Science). SWIFT ActiveScreener software was used to screen English titles and abstracts published between 1st January 2020 and 6th April 2021. Intervention studies, defined by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care, that evaluated IPC interventions with an outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in either patients or healthcare workers were included. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was excluded as this intervention had been previously reviewed. Risks of bias were assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised trials (RoB2) and non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I). From 23,156 screened articles, we identified seven articles that met the inclusion criteria, all of which evaluated interventions to prevent infections in healthcare workers and the majority of which were focused on effectiveness of prophylaxes. Due to heterogeneity in interventions, we did not conduct a meta-analysis. All agents used for prophylaxes have little to no evidence of effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections. We did not find any studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions including but not limited to screening, isolation and improved ventilation. There is limited evidence from interventional studies, excluding PPE, evaluating IPC measures for SARS-CoV-2. This review calls for urgent action to implement such studies to inform policies to protect our most vulnerable populations and healthcare workers.

Quantifying the contribution of pathways of nosocomial acquisition of COVID-19 in English hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of the nosocomial transmission of novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in hospitals worldwide, the contributions of the pathways of transmission are poorly quantified. METHODS: We analysed national records of hospital admissions and discharges, linked to data on SARS-CoV-2 testing, using an individual-based model that considers patient-to-patient, patient-to-healthcare worker (HCW), HCW-to-patient and HCW-to-HCW transmission. RESULTS: Between 1 March 2020 and 31 December 2020, SARS-CoV-2 infections that were classified as nosocomial were identified in 0.5% (0.34-0.74) of patients admitted to an acute National Health Service trust. We found that the most likely route of nosocomial transmission to patients was indirect transmission from other infected patients, e.g. through HCWs acting as vectors or contaminated fomites, followed by direct transmission between patients in the same bay. The risk of transmission to patients from HCWs over this time period is low, but can contribute significantly when the number of infected inpatients is low. Further, the risk of a HCW acquiring SARS-CoV-2 in hospital is approximately equal to that in the community, thereby doubling their overall risk of infection. The most likely route of transmission to HCWs is transmission from other infected HCWs. CONCLUSIONS: Current control strategies have successfully reduced the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 between patients and HCWs. In order to reduce the burden of nosocomial COVID-19 infections on health services, stricter measures should be enforced that would inhibit the spread of the virus between bays or wards in the hospital. There should also be a focus on inhibiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2 between HCWs. The findings have important implications for infection-control procedures in hospitals.

A systemic approach to assess the potential and risks of wildlife culling for infectious disease control.

The maintenance of infectious diseases requires a sufficient number of susceptible hosts. Host culling is a potential control strategy for animal diseases. However, the reduction in biodiversity and increasing public concerns regarding the involved ethical issues have progressively challenged the use of wildlife culling. Here, we assess the potential of wildlife culling as an epidemiologically sound management tool, by examining the host ecology, pathogen characteristics, eco-sociological contexts, and field work constraints. We also discuss alternative solutions and make recommendations for the appropriate implementation of culling for disease control.

Modeling the role of environmental variables on the population dynamics of the malaria vector Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto.

BACKGROUND: The impact of weather and climate on malaria transmission has attracted considerable attention in recent years, yet uncertainties around future disease trends under climate change remain. Mathematical models provide powerful tools for addressing such questions and understanding the implications for interventions and eradication strategies, but these require realistic modeling of the vector population dynamics and its response to environmental variables. METHODS: Published and unpublished field and experimental data are used to develop new formulations for modeling the relationships between key aspects of vector ecology and environmental variables. These relationships are integrated within a validated deterministic model of Anopheles gambiae s.s. population dynamics to provide a valuable tool for understanding vector response to biotic and abiotic variables. RESULTS: A novel, parsimonious framework for assessing the effects of rainfall, cloudiness, wind speed, desiccation, temperature, relative humidity and density-dependence on vector abundance is developed, allowing ease of construction, analysis, and integration into malaria transmission models. Model validation shows good agreement with longitudinal vector abundance data from Tanzania, suggesting that recent malaria reductions in certain areas of Africa could be due to changing environmental conditions affecting vector populations. CONCLUSIONS: Mathematical models provide a powerful, explanatory means of understanding the role of environmental variables on mosquito populations and hence for predicting future malaria transmission under global change. The framework developed provides a valuable advance in this respect, but also highlights key research gaps that need to be resolved if we are to better understand future malaria risk in vulnerable communities.