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.

Overcoming challenges in the economic evaluation of interventions to optimise antibiotic use.

Bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics, reducing our ability to treat infections and threatening to undermine modern health care. Optimising antibiotic use is a key element in tackling the problem. Traditional economic evaluation methods do not capture many of the benefits from improved antibiotic use and the potential impact on resistance. Not capturing these benefits is a major obstacle to optimising antibiotic use, as it fails to incentivise the development and use of interventions to optimise the use of antibiotics and preserve their effectiveness (stewardship interventions). Estimates of the benefits of improving antibiotic use involve considerable uncertainty as they depend on the evolution of resistance and associated health outcomes and costs. Here we discuss how economic evaluation methods might be adapted, in the face of such uncertainties. We propose a threshold-based approach that estimates the minimum resistance-related costs that would need to be averted by an intervention to make it cost-effective. If it is probable that without the intervention costs will exceed the threshold then the intervention should be deemed cost-effective.

Antimicrobial resistance prevalence in bloodstream infection in 29 European countries by age and sex: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic usage, contact with high transmission healthcare settings as well as changes in immune system function all vary by a patient's age and sex. Yet, most analyses of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) ignore demographic indicators and provide only country-level resistance prevalence values. This study aimed to address this knowledge gap by quantifying how resistance prevalence and incidence of bloodstream infection (BSI) varied by age and sex across bacteria and antibiotics in Europe. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used patient-level data collected as part of routine surveillance between 2015 and 2019 on BSIs in 29 European countries from the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network (EARS-Net). A total of 6,862,577 susceptibility results from isolates with age, sex, and spatial information from 944,520 individuals were used to characterise resistance prevalence patterns for 38 different bacterial species and antibiotic combinations, and 47% of these susceptibility results were from females, with a similar age distribution in both sexes (mean of 66 years old). A total of 349,448 isolates from 2019 with age and sex metadata were used to calculate incidence. We fit Bayesian multilevel regression models by country, laboratory code, sex, age, and year of sample to quantify resistant prevalence and provide estimates of country-, bacteria-, and drug-family effect variation. We explore our results in greater depths for 2 of the most clinically important bacteria-antibiotic combinations (aminopenicillin resistance in Escherichia coli and methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus) and present a simplifying indicative index of the difference in predicted resistance between old (aged 100) and young (aged 1). At the European level, we find distinct patterns in resistance prevalence by age. Trends often vary more within an antibiotic family, such as fluroquinolones, than within a bacterial species, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Clear resistance increases by age for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) contrast with a peak in resistance to several antibiotics at approximately 30 years of age for P. aeruginosa. For most bacterial species, there was a u-shaped pattern of infection incidence with age, which was higher in males. An important exception was E. coli, for which there was an elevated incidence in females between the ages of 15 and 40. At the country-level, subnational differences account for a large amount of resistance variation (approximately 38%), and there are a range of functional forms for the associations between age and resistance prevalence. For MRSA, age trends were mostly positive, with 72% (n = 21) of countries seeing an increased resistance between males aged 1 and 100 years and a greater change in resistance in males. This compares to age trends for aminopenicillin resistance in E. coli which were mostly negative (males: 93% (n = 27) of countries see decreased resistance between those aged 1 and 100 years) with a smaller change in resistance in females. A change in resistance prevalence between those aged 1 and 100 years ranged up to 0.51 (median, 95% quantile of model simulated prevalence using posterior parameter ranges 0.48, 0.55 in males) for MRSA in one country but varied between 0.16 (95% quantile 0.12, 0.21 in females) to -0.27 (95% quantile -0.4, -0.15 in males) across individual countries for aminopenicillin resistance in E. coli. Limitations include potential bias due to the nature of routine surveillance and dependency of results on model structure. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that the prevalence of resistance in BSIs in Europe varies substantially by bacteria and antibiotic over the age and sex of the patient shedding new light on gaps in our understanding of AMR epidemiology. Future work is needed to determine the drivers of these associations in order to more effectively target transmission and antibiotic stewardship interventions.

A systematic review on the excess health risk of antibiotic-resistant bloodstream infections for six key pathogens in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance is a global threat, which requires novel intervention strategies, for which priority pathogens and settings need to be determined. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated pathogen-specific excess health burden of drug-resistant bloodstream infections (BSIs) in Europe. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and grey literature for the period January 1990 to May 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies that reported burden data for six key drug-resistant pathogens: carbapenem-resistant (CR) Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii, third-generation cephalosporin or CR Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. Excess health outcomes compared with drug-susceptible BSIs or uninfected patients. For MRSA and third-generation cephalosporin E. coli and K. pneumoniae BSIs, five or more European studies were identified. For all others, the search was extended to high-income countries. PARTICIPANTS: Paediatric and adult patients diagnosed with drug-resistant BSI. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: An adapted version of the Joanna-Briggs Institute assessment tool. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effect models were used to pool pathogen-specific burden estimates. RESULTS: We screened 7154 titles, 1078 full-texts and found 56 studies on BSIs. Most studies compared outcomes of drug-resistant to drug-susceptible BSIs (46/56, 82.1%), and reported mortality (55/56 studies, 98.6%). The pooled crude estimate for excess all-cause mortality of drug-resistant versus drug-susceptible BSIs ranged from OR 1.31 (95% CI 1.03-1.68) for CR P. aeruginosa to OR 3.44 (95% CI 1.62-7.32) for CR K. pneumoniae. Pooled crude estimates comparing mortality to uninfected patients were available for vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus and MRSA BSIs (OR of 11.19 [95% CI 6.92-18.09] and OR 6.18 [95% CI 2.10-18.17], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Drug-resistant BSIs are associated with increased mortality, with the magnitude of the effect influenced by pathogen type and comparator. Future research should address crucial knowledge gaps in pathogen- and infection-specific burdens to guide development of novel interventions.

Excess resource use and cost of drug-resistant infections for six key pathogens in Europe: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Quantifying the resource use and cost of antimicrobial resistance establishes the magnitude of the problem and drives action. OBJECTIVES: Assessment of resource use and cost associated with infections with six key drug-resistant pathogens in Europe. METHODS: A systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Econlit databases, and grey literature for the period 1 January 1990, to 21 June 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Resource use and cost outcomes (including excess length of stay, overall costs, and other excess in or outpatient costs) were compared between patients with defined antibiotic-resistant infections caused by carbapenem-resistant (CR) Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii, CR or third-generation cephalosporin Escherichia coli (3GCREC) and Klebsiella pneumoniae, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium, and patients with drug-susceptible or no infection. PARTICIPANTS: All patients diagnosed with drug-resistant bloodstream infections (BSIs). INTERVENTIONS: NA. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: An adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute assessment tool, incorporating case-control, cohort, and economic assessment frameworks. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Hierarchical Bayesian meta-analyses were used to assess pathogen-specific resource use estimates. RESULTS: Of 5969 screened publications, 37 were included in the review. Data were sparse and heterogeneous. Most studies estimated the attributable burden by, comparing resistant and susceptible pathogens (32/37). Four studies analysed the excess cost of hospitalization attributable to 3GCREC BSIs, ranging from -€ 2465.50 to € 6402.81. Eight studies presented adjusted excess length of hospital stay estimates for methicillin-resistant S. aureus and 3GCREC BSIs (4 each) allowing for Bayesian hierarchical analysis, estimating means of 1.26 (95% credible interval [CrI], -0.72 to 4.17) and 1.78 (95% CrI, -0.02 to 3.38) days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on most cost and resource use outcomes and across most pathogen-resistance combinations was severely lacking. Given the importance of this evidence for rational policymaking, further research is urgently needed.

Evaluating pooled testing for asymptomatic screening of healthcare workers in hospitals.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that during the COVID pandemic, a number of patient and HCW infections were nosocomial. Various measures were put in place to try to reduce these infections including developing asymptomatic PCR (polymerase chain reaction) testing schemes for healthcare workers. Regularly testing all healthcare workers requires many tests while reducing this number by only testing some healthcare workers can result in undetected cases. An efficient way to test as many individuals as possible with a limited testing capacity is to consider pooling multiple samples to be analysed with a single test (known as pooled testing). METHODS: Two different pooled testing schemes for the asymptomatic testing are evaluated using an individual-based model representing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a 'typical' English hospital. We adapt the modelling to reflect two scenarios: a) a retrospective look at earlier SARS-CoV-2 variants under lockdown or social restrictions, and b) transitioning back to 'normal life' without lockdown and with the omicron variant. The two pooled testing schemes analysed differ in the population that is eligible for testing. In the 'ward' testing scheme only healthcare workers who work on a single ward are eligible and in the 'full' testing scheme all healthcare workers are eligible including those that move across wards. Both pooled schemes are compared against the baseline scheme which tests only symptomatic healthcare workers. RESULTS: Including a pooled asymptomatic testing scheme is found to have a modest (albeit statistically significant) effect, reducing the total number of nosocomial healthcare worker infections by about 2[Formula: see text] in both the lockdown and non-lockdown setting. However, this reduction must be balanced with the increase in cost and healthcare worker isolations. Both ward and full testing reduce HCW infections similarly but the cost for ward testing is much less. We also consider the use of lateral flow devices (LFDs) for follow-up testing. Considering LFDs reduces cost and time but LFDs have a different error profile to PCR tests. CONCLUSIONS: Whether a PCR-only or PCR and LFD ward testing scheme is chosen depends on the metrics of most interest to policy makers, the virus prevalence and whether there is a lockdown.

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.

Impact of testing on Clostridioides difficile infection in hospitals across Europe: a mathematical model.

OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) has been shown to vary markedly between European countries, both in hospitals and in the community. Determining the true prevalence has proven challenging. Without systematic testing in hospitals, the unchecked transmission of CDI can lead to large outbreaks in more susceptible cohorts. We investigate the success of CDI surveillance and control measures across Europe, by examining the dynamics of disease spread from the community into a hospital setting. We focus on national differences, such as variability in testing and sampling, disease prevalence in communities and hospitals, and antimicrobial usage. METHODS: We developed a stochastic, compartmental, dynamic mathematical model parameterized using sampling and testing rate data from COMBACTE-CDI, a multicountry study in which all diarrhoeal stool samples (N = 3163) from European laboratories were tested for CDI, and data for antimicrobial usage and incidence of hospital cases sourced from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. RESULTS: The framework estimates the prevalence of CDI among hospital patients across European countries and explores how national differences impact the dynamics, transmission, and relative incidence of CDI within the hospital setting. The model illustrates the mechanisms influencing these national differences, namely, antimicrobial usage rates, national sampling and testing rates, and community prevalence of CDI. DISCUSSION: Differential costs for testing and practicalities of scaling up testing mean every country needs to consider balancing CDI testing costs against the costs of treatment and care of patients with CDI.

Developing a Modeling Framework for Quantifying the Health and Cost Implications of Antibiotic Resistance for Surgical Procedures.

Background. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global public health threat. The wider implications of AMR, such as the impact of antibiotic resistance (ABR) on surgical procedures, are yet to be quantified. The objective of this study was to produce a conceptual modeling framework to provide a basis for estimating the current and potential future consequences of ABR for surgical procedures in England. Design. A framework was developed using literature-based evidence and structured expert elicitation. This was applied to populations undergoing emergency repair of the neck of the femur and elective colorectal resection surgery. Results. The framework captures the implications of increasing ABR by allowing for higher rates of surgical site infection (SSI) as the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis wanes and worsened outcomes following SSIs to reflect reduced antibiotic treatment effectiveness. The expert elicitation highlights the uncertainty in quantifying the impact of ABR, reflected in the results. A hypothetical SSI rate increase of 14% in a person undergoing emergency repair of the femur could increase costs by 39% (-2% to 108% credible interval [CI]) and decrease quality-adjusted life-years by 11% (0.4% to 62% CI) over 15 y. Conclusions. The modeling framework is a starting point for addressing the implication of ABR on the outcomes and costs of surgeries. Due to clinical uncertainty highlighted in the expert elicitation process, the numerical outputs of the case studies should not be focused on but rather the framework itself, illustration of the evidence gaps, the benefit of expert elicitation in quantifying parameters with limited data, and the potential magnitude of the impact of ABR on surgical procedures. Implications. The framework can be used to support research surrounding the health and cost burden of ABR in England. Highlights: The modeling framework is a starting point for assessing the health and cost impacts of antibiotic resistance on surgeries in England.Formulating a framework and synthesizing evidence to parameterize data gaps provides targets for future research.Once data gaps are addressed, this modeling framework can be used to feed into overall estimates of the health and cost burden of antibiotic resistance and evaluate control policies.

Estimation of the impact of hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infections on length of stay in English hospitals using causal inference.

BACKGROUND: From March 2020 through August 2021, 97,762 hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infections were detected in English hospitals. Resulting excess length of stay (LoS) created a potentially substantial health and economic burden for patients and the NHS, but we are currently unaware of any published studies estimating this excess. METHODS: We implemented appropriate causal inference methods to determine the extent to which observed additional hospital stay is attributable to the infection rather than the characteristics of the patients. Hospital admissions records were linked to SARS-CoV-2 test data to establish the study population (7.5 million) of all non-COVID-19 admissions to English hospitals from 1st March 2020 to 31st August 2021 with a stay of at least two days. The excess LoS due to hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection was estimated as the difference between the mean LoS observed and in the counterfactual where infections do not occur. We used inverse probability weighted Kaplan-Meier curves to estimate the mean survival time if all hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infections were to be prevented, the weights being based on the daily probability of acquiring an infection. The analysis was carried out for four time periods, reflecting phases of the pandemic differing with respect to overall case numbers, testing policies, vaccine rollout and prevalence of variants. RESULTS: The observed mean LoS of hospital-onset cases was higher than for non-COVID-19 hospital patients by 16, 20, 13 and 19 days over the four phases, respectively. However, when the causal inference approach was used to appropriately adjust for time to infection and confounding, the estimated mean excess LoS caused by hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 was: 2.0 [95% confidence interval 1.8-2.2] days (Mar-Jun 2020), 1.4 [1.2-1.6] days (Sep-Dec 2020); 0.9 [0.7-1.1] days (Jan-Apr 2021); 1.5 [1.1-1.9] days (May-Aug 2021). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 is associated with a small but notable excess LoS, equivalent to 130,000 bed days. The comparatively high LoS observed for hospital-onset COVID-19 patients is mostly explained by the timing of their infections relative to admission. Failing to account for confounding and time to infection leads to overestimates of additional length of stay and therefore overestimates costs of infections, leading to inaccurate evaluations of control strategies.

Quantifying the primary and secondary effects of antimicrobial resistance on surgery patients: Methods and data sources for empirical estimation in England.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) may negatively impact surgery patients through reducing the efficacy of treatment of surgical site infections, also known as the "primary effects" of AMR. Previous estimates of the burden of AMR have largely ignored the potential "secondary effects," such as changes in surgical care pathways due to AMR, such as different infection prevention procedures or reduced access to surgical procedures altogether, with literature providing limited quantifications of this potential burden. Former conceptual models and approaches for quantifying such impacts are available, though they are often high-level and difficult to utilize in practice. We therefore expand on this earlier work to incorporate heterogeneity in antimicrobial usage, AMR, and causative organisms, providing a detailed decision-tree-Markov-hybrid conceptual model to estimate the burden of AMR on surgery patients. We collate available data sources in England and describe how routinely collected data could be used to parameterise such a model, providing a useful repository of data systems for future health economic evaluations. The wealth of national-level data available for England provides a case study in describing how current surveillance and administrative data capture systems could be used in the estimation of transition probability and cost parameters. However, it is recommended that such data are utilized in combination with expert opinion (for scope and scenario definitions) to robustly estimate both the primary and secondary effects of AMR over time. Though we focus on England, this discussion is useful in other settings with established and/or developing infectious diseases surveillance systems that feed into AMR National Action Plans.

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.

Role of locum GPs in antibiotic prescribing and stewardship: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Most antibiotics are prescribed in primary care. Locum or sessional GPs (locums) are perceived as contributing to higher prescribing and may face barriers to engaging with antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). AIM: To identify how locums' antibiotic prescribing compares with other general practice prescribers, and how they perceive their role in antibiotic prescribing and AMS. DESIGN AND SETTING: Mixed-methods study in primary care. METHOD: Data on antibiotic prescribing, diagnoses, and patient and prescriber characteristics were extracted from The Health Improvement Network database. A mixed-effects logistic model was used to compare locums' and other prescribers' antibiotic prescribing for conditions that do not usually benefit from antibiotics. Nineteen semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with locums in England and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Locums accounted for 11% of consultations analysed. They prescribed antibiotics more often than other GPs and nurse prescribers for acute cough, sore throat, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations, and acute bronchitis. The number of patients receiving antibiotics for these conditions was 4% higher (on absolute scale) when consulting with locums compared with when they consulted with other GPs. Four themes capture the perceived influences on prescribing antibiotics and AMS: antibiotic prescribing as a complex but individual issue, nature and patterns of locum work, relationships between practices and locums, and professional isolation. CONCLUSION: Locums contribute to higher antibiotic prescribing compared with their peers. They experience challenges but also opportunities for contributing to AMS, which should be better addressed. With an increasing proportion of locums in general practice, they have an important role in antibiotic optimisation and AMS.

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.

Public preferences for delayed or immediate antibiotic prescriptions in UK primary care: A choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Delayed (or "backup") antibiotic prescription, where the patient is given a prescription but advised to delay initiating antibiotics, has been shown to be effective in reducing antibiotic use in primary care. However, this strategy is not widely used in the United Kingdom. This study aimed to identify factors influencing preferences among the UK public for delayed prescription, and understand their relative importance, to help increase appropriate use of this prescribing option. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted an online choice experiment in 2 UK general population samples: adults and parents of children under 18 years. Respondents were presented with 12 scenarios in which they, or their child, might need antibiotics for a respiratory tract infection (RTI) and asked to choose either an immediate or a delayed prescription. Scenarios were described by 7 attributes. Data were collected between November 2018 and February 2019. Respondent preferences were modelled using mixed-effects logistic regression. The survey was completed by 802 adults and 801 parents (75% of those who opened the survey). The samples reflected the UK population in age, sex, ethnicity, and country of residence. The most important determinant of respondent choice was symptom severity, especially for cough-related symptoms. In the adult sample, the probability of choosing delayed prescription was 0.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.56, p < 0.001) for a chesty cough and runny nose compared to 0.30 (0.28 to 0.33, p < 0.001) for a chesty cough with fever, 0.47 (0.44 to 0.50, p < 0.001) for sore throat with swollen glands, and 0.37 (0.34 to 0.39, p < 0.001) for sore throat, swollen glands, and fever. Respondents were less likely to choose delayed prescription with increasing duration of illness (odds ratio (OR) 0.94 (0.92 to 0.96, p < 0.001)). Probabilities of choosing delayed prescription were similar for parents considering treatment for a child (44% of choices versus 42% for adults, p = 0.04). However, parents differed from the adult sample in showing a more marked reduction in choice of the delayed prescription with increasing duration of illness (OR 0.83 (0.80 to 0.87) versus 0.94 (0.92 to 0.96) for adults, p for heterogeneity p < 0.001) and a smaller effect of disruption of usual activities (OR 0.96 (0.95 to 0.97) versus 0.93 (0.92 to 0.94) for adults, p for heterogeneity p < 0.001). Females were more likely to choose a delayed prescription than males for minor symptoms, particularly minor cough (probability 0.62 (0.58 to 0.66, p < 0.001) for females and 0.45 (0.41 to 0.48, p < 0.001) for males). Older people, those with a good understanding of antibiotics, and those who had not used antibiotics recently showed similar patterns of preferences. Study limitations include its hypothetical nature, which may not reflect real-life behaviour; the absence of a "no prescription" option; and the possibility that study respondents may not represent the views of population groups who are typically underrepresented in online surveys. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that delayed prescription appears to be an acceptable approach to reducing antibiotic consumption. Certain groups appear to be more amenable to delayed prescription, suggesting particular opportunities for increased use of this strategy. Prescribing choices for sore throat may need additional explanation to ensure patient acceptance, and parents in particular may benefit from reassurance about the usual duration of these illnesses.

Ct threshold values, a proxy for viral load in community SARS-CoV-2 cases, demonstrate wide variation across populations and over time.

Background: Information on SARS-CoV-2 in representative community surveillance is limited, particularly cycle threshold (Ct) values (a proxy for viral load). Methods: We included all positive nose and throat swabs 26 April 2020 to 13 March 2021 from the UK's national COVID-19 Infection Survey, tested by RT-PCR for the N, S, and ORF1ab genes. We investigated predictors of median Ct value using quantile regression. Results: Of 3,312,159 nose and throat swabs, 27,902 (0.83%) were RT-PCR-positive, 10,317 (37%), 11,012 (40%), and 6550 (23%) for 3, 2, or 1 of the N, S, and ORF1ab genes, respectively, with median Ct = 29.2 (~215 copies/ml; IQR Ct = 21.9-32.8, 14-56,400 copies/ml). Independent predictors of lower Cts (i.e. higher viral load) included self-reported symptoms and more genes detected, with at most small effects of sex, ethnicity, and age. Single-gene positives almost invariably had Ct > 30, but Cts varied widely in triple-gene positives, including without symptoms. Population-level Cts changed over time, with declining Ct preceding increasing SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Of 6189 participants with IgG S-antibody tests post-first RT-PCR-positive, 4808 (78%) were ever antibody-positive; Cts were significantly higher in those remaining antibody negative. Conclusions: Marked variation in community SARS-CoV-2 Ct values suggests that they could be a useful epidemiological early-warning indicator. Funding: Department of Health and Social Care, National Institutes of Health Research, Huo Family Foundation, Medical Research Council UK; Wellcome Trust.