Compliance with good practice guidelines for the prevention of vascular access infections: the multi-centre PHYDEL survey in French haemodialysis units.

BACKGROUND: French guidelines for the prevention of vascular access infections in a haemodialysis setting were released in 2005. Compliance with these guidelines is currently unknown. The aim of this study was to assess compliance with the guidelines for vascular access infection prevention in French haemodialysis units, and to describe the difficulties reported. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted between March and December 2019 in 200 haemodialysis units in France, selected at random. Data were collected via questionnaire, completed by telephone interview with an infection control practitioner. A practice was deemed compliant when >85% of units declared that they always complied with the guidelines. RESULTS: In total, 103 units (51.5%) agreed to participate. Most practices complied with the guidelines; however, some practices did not reach the 85% compliance threshold for working in pairs when connecting central venous catheter (CVC) lines, performing hand hygiene before disconnecting lines, rinsing antiseptic soap before painting CVC exit site or arteriovenous fistula (AVF) puncture site, allowing antiseptic paint to dry, handling CVC branches with antiseptic impregnated gauze, performing hand hygiene after AVF compression with gloves, wearing protective eyewear when connecting/disconnecting CVC or when puncturing AVF, and wearing a gown when puncturing AVF. The most frequently reported difficulties were understaffing, difficulties with skin preparation because of exit site skin damage, and lack of buttonhole technical expertise. CONCLUSIONS: Despite good overall compliance, this survey highlights some shortcomings in compliance with infection prevention guidelines, which could be associated with either higher risk of vascular access infection or increased blood-borne virus transmission.

Delayed care for patients with newly diagnosed cancer due to COVID-19 and estimated impact on cancer mortality in France.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the first coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) wave on cancer patient management was measured within the nationwide network of the Unicancer comprehensive cancer centers in France. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The number of patients diagnosed and treated within 17 of the 18 Unicancer centers was collected in 2020 and compared with that during the same periods between 2016 and 2019. Unicancer centers treat close to 20% of cancer patients in France yearly. The reduction in the number of patients attending the Unicancer centers was analyzed per regions and cancer types. The impact of delayed care on cancer-related deaths was calculated based on different hypotheses. RESULTS: A 6.8% decrease in patients managed within Unicancer in the first 7 months of 2020 versus 2019 was observed. This reduction reached 21% during April and May, and was not compensated in June and July, nor later until November 2020. This reduction was observed only for newly diagnosed patients, while the clinical activity for previously diagnosed patients increased by 4% similar to previous years. The reduction was more pronounced in women, in breast and prostate cancers, and for patients without metastasis. Using an estimated hazard ratio of 1.06 per month of delay in diagnosis and treatment of new patients, we calculated that the delays observed in the 5-month period from March to July 2020 may result in an excess mortality due to cancer of 1000-6000 patients in coming years. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the delays in cancer patient management were observed only for newly diagnosed patients, more frequently in women, for breast cancer, prostate cancer, and nonmetastatic cancers. These delays may result is an excess risk of cancer-related deaths in the coming years.

Lack of effect of a poster-based intervention to reduce the number of blood culture samples collected.

OBJECTIVE: To reduce the number of blood culture samples collected. PATIENTS AND METHOD: We performed a cluster randomized controlled trial in adult acute care, and subacute care and rehabilitation wards in a university hospital in France. A poster associating an image of eyes looking at the reader with a summary of blood culture sampling guidelines was displayed in hospital wards in the intervention group. The incidence rate of blood cultures per 1000 days during pre- and post-intervention periods was calculated. RESULTS: Thirty-one wards participated in the study. The median difference in blood cultures/1000 days between periods was -1.863 [-11.941; 1.007] in the intervention group and -5.824 [-14.763; -2.217] in the control group (P=0.27). CONCLUSION: The intervention did not show the expected effect, possibly due to the choice of blood cultures as a target of good practice, but also to confounding factors such as the stringent policy of decreasing unnecessary costly testing.

Comparison of real costs in the French healthcare system in newly diagnosed patients with pemphigus for first-line treatment with rituximab vs. standard corticosteroid regimen: data from a national multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Rituximab has been demonstrated to be highly effective as a first-line treatment for moderate-to-severe pemphigus; however, its high cost can be considered a limitation of this treatment. OBJECTIVES: To compare direct costs of two regimens, rituximab + short-term prednisone vs. prednisone alone, tested in the Ritux3 trial. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive 2 g of rituximab and two 500-mg maintenance infusions at month 12 and month 18 along with low doses of prednisone for 3-6 months, or high doses of prednisone alone tapered over 12-18 months. We estimated the direct costs related to (i) protocol (treatments, consultations, hospitalizations); (ii) unfavourable disease course (relapse); and (iii) adverse events in both treatment groups during a 3-year follow-up. RESULTS: Annual individual cost discrepancies related to drugs decreased from +€3597 to -€1589 from the first to the third year, which corresponded to an initially higher cost in the rituximab group, counterbalanced during follow-up by costs related to treatment of patients with persistent disease activity/relapses in the standard corticosteroid (CS) group. Individual costs relating to treatment of adverse events were higher in the standard CS group (€4352) than in the rituximab group (€2468). Overall, mean individual total cost over the 3 years of follow-up was €13 997 in the standard CS arm vs. €14 818 in the rituximab arm, corresponding to a difference of €821 more per patient (+6%). CONCLUSIONS: First-line treatment of pemphigus with rituximab results in a slightly greater cost compared with a standard CS regimen. What's already known about this topic Rituximab is the most effective treatment for moderate-to-severe pemphigus. Rituximab cost might be considered as a limitation of this treatment. What does this study add? After 3 years of follow-up, mean individual total cost for a patient with first-line treatment with rituximab was €14 818 vs. €13 997 with standard corticosteroids (CS), resulting in a slightly higher cost of €821 (+6%). The initially greater cost of rituximab was counterbalanced by costs related to management of flares/relapses in patients treated with a standard CS regimen.