Characteristics of healthcare personnel with SARS-CoV-2 infection: 10 emerging infections program sites in the United States, April 2020-December 2021.

BACKGROUND: Understanding characteristics of healthcare personnel (HCP) with SARS-CoV-2 infection supports the development and prioritization of interventions to protect this important workforce. We report detailed characteristics of HCP who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from April 20, 2020 through December 31, 2021. METHODS: CDC collaborated with Emerging Infections Program sites in 10 states to interview HCP with SARS-CoV-2 infection (case-HCP) about their demographics, underlying medical conditions, healthcare roles, exposures, personal protective equipment (PPE) use, and COVID-19 vaccination status. We grouped case-HCP by healthcare role. To describe residential social vulnerability, we merged geocoded HCP residential addresses with CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) values at the census tract level. We defined highest and lowest SVI quartiles as high and low social vulnerability, respectively. RESULTS: Our analysis included 7,531 case-HCP. Most case-HCP with roles as certified nursing assistant (CNA) (444, 61.3%), medical assistant (252, 65.3%), or home healthcare worker (HHW) (225, 59.5%) reported their race and ethnicity as either non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic. More than one third of HHWs (166, 45.2%), CNAs (283, 41.7%), and medical assistants (138, 37.9%) reported a residential address in the high social vulnerability category. The proportion of case-HCP who reported using recommended PPE at all times when caring for patients with COVID-19 was lowest among HHWs compared with other roles. CONCLUSIONS: To mitigate SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in healthcare settings, infection prevention, and control interventions should be specific to HCP roles and educational backgrounds. Additional interventions are needed to address high social vulnerability among HHWs, CNAs, and medical assistants.

Residential social vulnerability among healthcare personnel with and without severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in Five US states, May-December 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize residential social vulnerability among healthcare personnel (HCP) and evaluate its association with severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: This study analyzed data collected in May-December 2020 through sentinel and population-based surveillance in healthcare facilities in Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, and Oregon. PARTICIPANTS: Data from 2,168 HCP (1,571 cases and 597 controls from the same facilities) were analyzed. METHODS: HCP residential addresses were linked to the social vulnerability index (SVI) at the census tract level, which represents a ranking of community vulnerability to emergencies based on 15 US Census variables. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 infection, confirmed by positive antigen or real-time reverse-transcriptase- polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test on nasopharyngeal swab. Significant differences by SVI in participant characteristics were assessed using the Fisher exact test. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between case status and SVI, controlling for HCP role and patient care activities, were estimated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Significantly higher proportions of certified nursing assistants (48.0%) and medical assistants (44.1%) resided in high SVI census tracts, compared to registered nurses (15.9%) and physicians (11.6%). HCP cases were more likely than controls to live in high SVI census tracts (aOR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.37-2.26). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that residing in more socially vulnerable census tracts may be associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among HCP and that residential vulnerability differs by HCP role. Efforts to safeguard the US healthcare workforce and advance health equity should address the social determinants that drive racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic health disparities.

Effectiveness of a Messenger RNA Vaccine Booster Dose Against Coronavirus Disease 2019 Among US Healthcare Personnel, October 2021-July 2022.

Background: Protection against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) can limit transmission and the risk of post-COVID conditions, and is particularly important among healthcare personnel. However, lower vaccine effectiveness (VE) has been reported since predominance of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant. Methods: We evaluated the VE of a monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) booster dose against COVID-19 from October 2021 to June 2022 among US healthcare personnel. After matching case-participants with COVID-19 to control-participants by 2-week period and site, we used conditional logistic regression to estimate the VE of a booster dose compared with completing only 2 mRNA doses >150 days previously, adjusted for multiple covariates. Results: Among 3279 case-participants and 3998 control-participants who had completed 2 mRNA doses, we estimated that the VE of a booster dose against COVID-19 declined from 86% (95% confidence interval, 81%-90%) during Delta predominance to 65% (58%-70%) during Omicron predominance. During Omicron predominance, VE declined from 73% (95% confidence interval, 67%-79%) 14-60 days after the booster dose, to 32% (4%-52%) ≥120 days after a booster dose. We found that VE was similar by age group, presence of underlying health conditions, and pregnancy status on the test date, as well as among immunocompromised participants. Conclusions: A booster dose conferred substantial protection against COVID-19 among healthcare personnel. However, VE was lower during Omicron predominance, and waning effectiveness was observed 4 months after booster dose receipt during this period. Our findings support recommendations to stay up to date on recommended doses of COVID-19 vaccines for all those eligible.

Epidemiology of Pulmonary and Extrapulmonary Nontuberculous Mycobacteria Infections at 4 US Emerging Infections Program Sites: A 6-Month Pilot.

BACKGROUND: Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) cause pulmonary (PNTM) and extrapulmonary (ENTM) disease. Infections are difficult to diagnose and treat, and exposures occur in healthcare and community settings. In the United States, NTM epidemiology has been described largely through analyses of microbiology data from health departments, electronic health records, and administrative data. We describe findings from a multisite pilot of active, laboratory- and population-based NTM surveillance. METHODS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Emerging Infections Program conducted NTM surveillance at 4 sites (Colorado, 5 counties; Minnesota, 2 counties; New York, 2 counties; and Oregon, 3 counties [PNTM] and statewide [ENTM]) from 1 October 2019 through 31 March 2020. PNTM cases were defined using published microbiologic criteria. ENTM cases required NTM isolation from a nonpulmonary specimen, excluding stool and rectal swabs. Patient data were collected via medical record review. RESULTS: Overall, 299 NTM cases were reported (PNTM: 231, 77%); Mycobacterium avium complex was the most common species group. Annualized prevalence was 7.5/100 000 population (PNTM: 6.1/100 000; ENTM: 1.4/100 000). Most patients had signs or symptoms in the 14 days before positive specimen collection (ENTM: 62, 91.2%; PNTM: 201, 87.0%). Of PNTM cases, 145 (62.8%) were female and 168 (72.7%) had underlying chronic lung disease. Among ENTM cases, 29 (42.6%) were female, 21 (30.9%) did not have documented underlying conditions, and 26 (38.2%) had infection at the site of a medical device or procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Active, population-based NTM surveillance will provide data for monitoring the burden of disease and characterize affected populations to inform interventions.

Low Sensitivity of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision Coding for Culture-Confirmed Candidemia Cases in an Active Surveillance System: United States, 2019-2020.

We evaluated healthcare facility use of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes for culture-confirmed candidemia cases detected by active public health surveillance during 2019-2020. Most cases (56%) did not receive a candidiasis code, suggesting that studies relying on ICD-10 codes likely underestimate disease burden.

Risk Factors for SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among US Healthcare Personnel, May-December 2020.

To determine risk factors for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) among US healthcare personnel (HCP), we conducted a case-control analysis. We collected data about activities outside the workplace and COVID-19 patient care activities from HCP with positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test results (cases) and from HCP with negative test results (controls) in healthcare facilities in 5 US states. We used conditional logistic regression to calculate adjusted matched odds ratios and 95% CIs for exposures. Among 345 cases and 622 controls, factors associated with risk were having close contact with persons with COVID-19 outside the workplace, having close contact with COVID-19 patients in the workplace, and assisting COVID-19 patients with activities of daily living. Protecting HCP from COVID-19 may require interventions that reduce their exposures outside the workplace and improve their ability to more safely assist COVID-19 patients with activities of daily living.

Practices and activities among healthcare personnel with severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection working in different healthcare settings-ten Emerging Infections Program sites, April-November 2020.

Healthcare personnel with severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were interviewed to describe activities and practices in and outside the workplace. Among 2,625 healthcare personnel, workplace-related factors that may increase infection risk were more common among nursing-home personnel than hospital personnel, whereas selected factors outside the workplace were more common among hospital personnel.

The Landscape of Candidemia During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented healthcare challenges, and COVID-19 has been linked to secondary infections. Candidemia, a fungal healthcare-associated infection, has been described in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. However, studies of candidemia and COVID-19 coinfection have been limited in sample size and geographic scope. We assessed differences in patients with candidemia with and without a COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS: We conducted a case-level analysis using population-based candidemia surveillance data collected through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Emerging Infections Program during April-August 2020 to compare characteristics of candidemia patients with and without a positive test for COVID-19 in the 30 days before their Candida culture using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Of the 251 candidemia patients included, 64 (25.5%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Liver disease, solid-organ malignancies, and prior surgeries were each >3 times more common in patients without COVID-19 coinfection, whereas intensive care unit-level care, mechanical ventilation, having a central venous catheter, and receipt of corticosteroids and immunosuppressants were each >1.3 times more common in patients with COVID-19. All-cause in-hospital fatality was 2 times higher among those with COVID-19 (62.5%) than without (32.1%). CONCLUSIONS: One-quarter of candidemia patients had COVID-19. These patients were less likely to have certain underlying conditions and recent surgery commonly associated with candidemia and more likely to have acute risk factors linked to COVID-19 care, including immunosuppressive medications. Given the high mortality, it is important for clinicians to remain vigilant and take proactive measures to prevent candidemia in patients with COVID-19.

Effectiveness of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine among U.S. Health Care Personnel.

BACKGROUND: The prioritization of U.S. health care personnel for early receipt of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), allowed for the evaluation of the effectiveness of these new vaccines in a real-world setting. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative case-control study involving health care personnel across 25 U.S. states. Cases were defined on the basis of a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) or antigen-based test for SARS-CoV-2 and at least one Covid-19-like symptom. Controls were defined on the basis of a negative PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms, and were matched to cases according to the week of the test date and site. Using conditional logistic regression with adjustment for age, race and ethnic group, underlying conditions, and exposures to persons with Covid-19, we estimated vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination (assessed 14 days after receipt of the first dose through 6 days after receipt of the second dose) and complete vaccination (assessed ≥7 days after receipt of the second dose). RESULTS: The study included 1482 case participants and 3449 control participants. Vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination was 77.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.9 to 82.7) with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 88.9% (95% CI, 78.7 to 94.2) with the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna); for complete vaccination, vaccine effectiveness was 88.8% (95% CI, 84.6 to 91.8) and 96.3% (95% CI, 91.3 to 98.4), respectively. Vaccine effectiveness was similar in subgroups defined according to age (<50 years or ≥50 years), race and ethnic group, presence of underlying conditions, and level of patient contact. Estimates of vaccine effectiveness were lower during weeks 9 through 14 than during weeks 3 through 8 after receipt of the second dose, but confidence intervals overlapped widely. CONCLUSIONS: The BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were highly effective under real-world conditions in preventing symptomatic Covid-19 in health care personnel, including those at risk for severe Covid-19 and those in racial and ethnic groups that have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).

Treatment Practices for Adults With Candidemia at 9 Active Surveillance Sites-United States, 2017-2018.

BACKGROUND: Candidemia is a common opportunistic infection causing substantial morbidity and mortality. Because of an increasing proportion of non-albicans Candida species and rising antifungal drug resistance, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) changed treatment guidelines in 2016 to recommend echinocandins over fluconazole as first-line treatment for adults with candidemia. We describe candidemia treatment practices and adherence to the updated guidelines. METHODS: During 2017-2018, the Emerging Infections Program conducted active population-based candidemia surveillance at 9 US sites using a standardized case definition. We assessed factors associated with initial antifungal treatment for the first candidemia case among adults using multivariable logistic regression models. To identify instances of potentially inappropriate treatment, we compared the first antifungal drug received with species and antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST) results from initial blood cultures. RESULTS: Among 1835 patients who received antifungal treatment, 1258 (68.6%) received an echinocandin and 543 (29.6%) received fluconazole as initial treatment. Cirrhosis (adjusted odds ratio = 2.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-3.29) was the only underlying medical condition significantly associated with initial receipt of an echinocandin (versus fluconazole). More than one-half (n = 304, 56.0%) of patients initially treated with fluconazole grew a non-albicans species. Among 265 patients initially treated with fluconazole and with fluconazole AFST results, 28 (10.6%) had a fluconazole-resistant isolate. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of patients with candidemia were initially treated with fluconazole, resulting in potentially inappropriate treatment for those involving non-albicans or fluconazole-resistant species. Reasons for nonadherence to IDSA guidelines should be evaluated, and clinician education is needed.

Interim Estimates of Vaccine Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 Vaccines Among Health Care Personnel - 33 U.S. Sites, January-March 2021.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, health care personnel (HCP) have been at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, through patient interactions and community exposure (1). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended prioritization of HCP for COVID-19 vaccination to maintain provision of critical services and reduce spread of infection in health care settings (2). Early distribution of two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) to HCP allowed assessment of the effectiveness of these vaccines in a real-world setting. A test-negative case-control study is underway to evaluate mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic illness among HCP at 33 U.S. sites across 25 U.S. states. Interim analyses indicated that the VE of a single dose (measured 14 days after the first dose through 6 days after the second dose) was 82% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 74%-87%), adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and underlying medical conditions. The adjusted VE of 2 doses (measured ≥7 days after the second dose) was 94% (95% CI = 87%-97%). VE of partial (1-dose) and complete (2-dose) vaccination in this population is comparable to that reported from clinical trials and recent observational studies, supporting the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic disease in adults, with strong 2-dose protection.

Antimicrobial Use in a Cohort of US Nursing Homes, 2017.

Importance: Controlling antimicrobial resistance in health care is a public health priority, although data describing antimicrobial use in US nursing homes are limited. Objective: To measure the prevalence of antimicrobial use and describe antimicrobial classes and common indications among nursing home residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional, 1-day point-prevalence surveys of antimicrobial use performed between April 2017 and October 2017, last survey date October 31, 2017, and including 15 276 residents present on the survey date in 161 randomly selected nursing homes from selected counties of 10 Emerging Infections Program (EIP) states. EIP staff reviewed nursing home records to collect data on characteristics of residents and antimicrobials administered at the time of the survey. Nursing home characteristics were obtained from nursing home staff and the Nursing Home Compare website. Exposures: Residence in one of the participating nursing homes at the time of the survey. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of antimicrobial use per 100 residents, defined as the number of residents receiving antimicrobial drugs at the time of the survey divided by the total number of surveyed residents. Multivariable logistic regression modeling of antimicrobial use and percentages of drugs within various classifications. Results: Among 15 276 nursing home residents included in the study (mean [SD] age, 77.6 [13.7] years; 9475 [62%] women), complete prevalence data were available for 96.8%. The overall antimicrobial use prevalence was 8.2 per 100 residents (95% CI, 7.8-8.8). Antimicrobial use was more prevalent in residents admitted to the nursing home within 30 days before the survey date (18.8 per 100 residents; 95% CI, 17.4-20.3), with central venous catheters (62.8 per 100 residents; 95% CI, 56.9-68.3) or with indwelling urinary catheters (19.1 per 100 residents; 95% CI, 16.4-22.0). Antimicrobials were most often used to treat active infections (77% [95% CI, 74.8%-79.2%]) and primarily for urinary tract infections (28.1% [95% CI, 15.5%-30.7%]). While 18.2% (95% CI, 16.1%-20.1%) were for medical prophylaxis, most often use was for the urinary tract (40.8% [95% CI, 34.8%-47.1%]). Fluoroquinolones were the most common antimicrobial class (12.9% [95% CI, 11.3%-14.8%]), and 33.1% (95% CI, 30.7%-35.6%) of antimicrobials used were broad-spectrum antibiotics. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional survey of a cohort of US nursing homes in 2017, prevalence of antimicrobial use was 8.2 per 100 residents. This study provides information on the patterns of antimicrobial use among these nursing home residents.

Documentation of acute change in mental status in nursing homes highlights opportunity to augment infection surveillance criteria.

Acute change in mental status (ACMS), defined by the Confusion Assessment Method, is used to identify infections in nursing home residents. A medical record review revealed that none of 15,276 residents had an ACMS documented. Using the revised McGeer criteria with a possible ACMS definition, we identified 296 residents and 21 additional infections. The use of a possible ACMS definition should be considered for retrospective nursing home infection surveillance.

Burden of Candidemia in the United States, 2017.

BACKGROUND: Candidemia is a common healthcare-associated bloodstream infection with high morbidity and mortality. There are no current estimates of candidemia burden in the United States (US). METHODS: In 2017, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted active population-based surveillance for candidemia through the Emerging Infections Program in 45 counties in 9 states encompassing approximately 17 million persons (5% of the national population). Laboratories serving the catchment area population reported all blood cultures with Candida, and a standard case definition was applied to identify cases that occurred in surveillance area residents. Burden of cases and mortality were estimated by extrapolating surveillance area cases to national numbers using 2017 national census data. RESULTS: We identified 1226 candidemia cases across 9 surveillance sites in 2017. Based on this, we estimated that 22 660 (95% confidence interval [CI], 20 210-25 110) cases of candidemia occurred in the US in 2017. Overall estimated incidence was 7.0 cases per 100 000 persons, with highest rates in adults aged ≥ 65 years (20.1/100 000), males (7.9/100 000), and those of black race (12.3/100 000). An estimated 3380 (95% CI, 1318-5442) deaths occurred within 7 days of a positive Candida blood culture, and 5628 (95% CI, 2465-8791) deaths occurred during the hospitalization with candidemia. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis highlights the substantial burden of candidemia in the US. Because candidemia is only one form of invasive candidiasis, the true burden of invasive infections due to Candida is higher. Ongoing surveillance can support future burden estimates and help assess the impact of prevention interventions.

Epidemiology of Antibiotic Use for Urinary Tract Infection in Nursing Home Residents.

OBJECTIVES: Describe antibiotic use for urinary tract infection (UTI) among a large cohort of US nursing home residents. DESIGN: Analysis of data from a multistate, 1-day point prevalence survey of antimicrobial use performed between April and October 2017. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Residents of 161 nursing homes in 10 US states of the Emerging Infections Program (EIP). METHODS: EIP staff reviewed nursing home medical records to collect data on systemic antimicrobial drugs received by residents, including therapeutic site, rationale for use, and planned duration. For drugs with the therapeutic site documented as urinary tract, pooled mean and nursing home-specific prevalence rates were calculated per 100 nursing home residents, and proportion of drugs by selected characteristics were reported. Data were analyzed in SAS, version 9.4. RESULTS: Among 15,276 residents, 407 received 424 antibiotics for UTI. The pooled mean prevalence rate of antibiotic use for UTI was 2.66 per 100 residents; nursing home-specific rates ranged from 0 to 13.6. One-quarter of antibiotics were prescribed for UTI prophylaxis, with a median planned duration of 111 days compared with 7 days when prescribed for UTI treatment (P < .001). Fluoroquinolones were the most common (18%) drug class used. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: One in 38 residents was receiving an antibiotic for UTI on a given day, and nursing home-specific prevalence rates varied by more than 10-fold. UTI prophylaxis was common with a long planned duration, despite limited evidence to support this practice among older persons in nursing homes. The planned duration was ≥7 days for half of antibiotics prescribed for treatment of a UTI. Fluoroquinolones were the most commonly used antibiotics, despite their association with significant adverse events, particularly in a frail and older adult population. These findings help to identify priority practices for nursing home antibiotic stewardship.

The Changing Epidemiology of Candidemia in the United States: Injection Drug Use as an Increasingly Common Risk Factor-Active Surveillance in Selected Sites, United States, 2014-2017.

BACKGROUND: Injection drug use (IDU) is a known, but infrequent risk factor on candidemia; however, the opioid epidemic and increases in IDU may be changing the epidemiology of candidemia. METHODS: Active population-based surveillance for candidemia was conducted in selected US counties. Cases of candidemia were categorized as IDU cases if IDU was indicated in the medical records in the 12 months prior to the date of initial culture. RESULTS: During 2017, 1191 candidemia cases were identified in patients aged >12 years (incidence: 6.9 per 100 000 population); 128 (10.7%) had IDU history, and this proportion was especially high (34.6%) in patients with candidemia aged 19-44. Patients with candidemia and IDU history were younger than those without (median age, 35 vs 63 years; P < .001). Candidemia cases involving recent IDU were less likely to have typical risk factors including malignancy (7.0% vs 29.4%; relative risk [RR], 0.2 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .1-.5]), abdominal surgery (3.9% vs 17.5%; RR, 0.2 [95% CI, .09-.5]), and total parenteral nutrition (3.9% vs 22.5%; RR, 0.2 [95% CI, .07-.4]). Candidemia cases with IDU occurred more commonly in smokers (68.8% vs 18.5%; RR, 3.7 [95% CI, 3.1-4.4]), those with hepatitis C (54.7% vs 6.4%; RR, 8.5 [95% CI, 6.5-11.3]), and in people who were homeless (13.3% vs 0.8%; RR, 15.7 [95% CI, 7.1-34.5]). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should consider injection drug use as a risk factor in patients with candidemia who lack typical candidemia risk factors, especially in those with who are 19-44 years of age and have community-associated candidemia.

Candida Bloodstream Infections Among Persons Who Inject Drugs - Denver Metropolitan Area, Colorado, 2017-2018.

Candidemia, a bloodstream infection caused by Candida species, is typically considered a health care-associated infection, with known risk factors including the presence of a central venous catheter, receipt of total parenteral nutrition or broad-spectrum antibiotics, recent abdominal surgery, admission to an intensive care unit, and prolonged hospitalization (1,2). Injection drug use (IDU) is not a common risk factor for candidemia; however, in the context of the ongoing opioid epidemic and corresponding IDU increases, IDU has been reported as an increasingly common condition associated with candidemia (3) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (4). Little is known about the epidemiology of candidemia among persons who inject drugs. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) conducts population-based surveillance for candidemia in the five-county Denver metropolitan area, encompassing 2.7 million persons, through CDC's Emerging Infections Program (EIP). As part of candidemia surveillance, CDPHE collected demographic, clinical, and IDU behavior information for persons with Candida-positive blood cultures during May 2017-August 2018. Among 203 candidemia cases reported, 23 (11%) occurred in 22 patients with a history of IDU in the year preceding their candidemia episode. Ten (43%) of the 23 cases were considered community-onset infections, and four (17%) cases were considered community-onset infections with recent health care exposures. Seven (32%) of the 22 patients had disseminated candidiasis with end-organ dysfunctions; four (18%) died during their hospitalization. In-hospital IDU was reported among six (27%) patients, revealing that IDU can be a risk factor in the hospital setting as well as in the community. In addition to community interventions, opportunities to intervene during health care encounters to decrease IDU and unsafe injection practices might prevent infections, including candidemia, among persons who inject drugs.

The Estimated Health and Economic Benefits of Three Decades of Polio Elimination Efforts in India.

OBJECTIVE: In March 2014, India, the country with historically the highest burden of polio, was declared polio free, with no reported cases since January 2011. We estimate the health and economic benefits of polio elimination in India with the oral polio vaccine (OPV) during 1982-2012. METHODS: Based on a pre-vaccine incidence rate, we estimate the counterfactual burden of polio in the hypothetical absence of the national polio elimination program in India. We attribute differences in outcomes between the actual (adjusted for under-reporting) and hypothetical counterfactual scenarios in our model to the national polio program. We measure health benefits as averted polio incidence, deaths, and disability adjusted life years (DALYs). We consider two methods to measure economic benefits: the value of statistical life approach, and equating one DALY to the Gross National Income (GNI) per capita. RESULTS: We estimate that the National Program against Polio averted 3.94 million (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.89-3.99 million) paralytic polio cases, 393,918 polio deaths (95% CI: 388,897- 398,939), and 1.48 billion DALYs (95% CI: 1.46-1.50 billion). We also estimate that the program contributed to a $1.71 trillion (INR 76.91 trillion) gain (95% CI: $1.69-$1.73 trillion [INR 75.93-77.89 trillion]) in economic productivity between 1982 and 2012 in our base case analysis. Using the GNI and DALY method, the economic gain from the program is estimated to be $1.11 trillion (INR 50.13 trillion) (95% CI: $1.10-$1.13 trillion [INR 49.50-50.76 trillion]) over the same period. CONCLUSION: India accrued large health and economic benefits from investing in polio elimination efforts. Other programs to control/eliminate more vaccine-preventable diseases are likely to contribute to large health and economic benefits in India.

Potential burden of antibiotic resistance on surgery and cancer chemotherapy antibiotic prophylaxis in the USA: a literature review and modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The declining efficacy of existing antibiotics potentially jeopardises outcomes in patients undergoing medical procedures. We investigated the potential consequences of increases in antibiotic resistance on the ten most common surgical procedures and immunosuppressing cancer chemotherapies that rely on antibiotic prophylaxis in the USA. METHODS: We searched the published scientific literature and identified meta-analyses and reviews of randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials (allocation done on the basis of a pseudo-random sequence-eg, odd/even hospital number or date of birth, alternation) to estimate the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing infections and infection-related deaths after surgical procedures and immunosuppressing cancer chemotherapy. We varied the identified effect sizes under different scenarios of reduction in the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis (10%, 30%, 70%, and 100% reductions) and estimated the additional number of infections and infection-related deaths per year in the USA for each scenario. We estimated the percentage of pathogens causing infections after these procedures that are resistant to standard prophylactic antibiotics in the USA. FINDINGS: We estimate that between 38·7% and 50·9% of pathogens causing surgical site infections and 26·8% of pathogens causing infections after chemotherapy are resistant to standard prophylactic antibiotics in the USA. A 30% reduction in the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis for these procedures would result in 120,000 additional surgical site infections and infections after chemotherapy per year in the USA (ranging from 40,000 for a 10% reduction in efficacy to 280,000 for a 70% reduction in efficacy), and 6300 infection-related deaths (range: 2100 for a 10% reduction in efficacy, to 15,000 for a 70% reduction). We estimated that every year, 13,120 infections (42%) after prostate biopsy are attributable to resistance to fluoroquinolones in the USA. INTERPRETATION: Increasing antibiotic resistance potentially threatens the safety and efficacy of surgical procedures and immunosuppressing chemotherapy. More data are needed to establish how antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations should be modified in the context of increasing rates of resistance. FUNDING: DRIVE-AB Consortium.

The cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based regimens for treatment of hepatitis C virus genotype 2 or 3 infection.

BACKGROUND: Chronic infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 2 or 3 can be treated with sofosbuvir without interferon. Because sofosbuvir is costly, its benefits should be compared with the additional resources used. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based treatments for HCV genotype 2 or 3 infection in the United States. DESIGN: Monte Carlo simulation, including deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. DATA SOURCES: Randomized trials, observational cohorts, and national health care spending surveys. TARGET POPULATION: 8 patient types defined by HCV genotype (2 vs. 3), treatment history (naive vs. experienced), and cirrhosis status (noncirrhotic vs. cirrhotic). TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Payer. INTERVENTION: Sofosbuvir-based therapies, pegylated interferon-ribavirin, and no therapy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: The ICER of sofosbuvir-based treatment was less than $100,000 per QALY in cirrhotic patients (genotype 2 or 3 and treatment-naive or treatment-experienced) and in treatment-experienced noncirrhotic patients but was greater than $200,000 per QALY in treatment-naive noncirrhotic patients. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: The ICER of sofosbuvir-based therapy for treatment-naive noncirrhotic patients with genotype 2 or 3 infection was less than $100,000 per QALY when the cost of sofosbuvir was reduced by approximately 40% and 60%, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, cost-effectiveness conclusions were robust to uncertainty in treatment efficacy. LIMITATION: The analysis did not consider possible benefits of preventing HCV transmission. CONCLUSION: Sofosbuvir provides good value for money for treatment-experienced patients with HCV genotype 2 or 3 infection and those with cirrhosis. At their current cost, sofosbuvir-based regimens for treatment-naive noncirrhotic patients exceed willingness-to-pay thresholds commonly cited in the United States. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.