The efficacy and safety of daptomycin vs. vancomycin for the treatment of cellulitis and erysipelas.

BACKGROUND: Results from previous trials suggest that daptomycin may result in faster clinical improvement than penicillinase-resistant penicillins or vancomycin for patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate whether daptomycin treatment of cellulitis or erysipelas would result in faster resolution compared with vancomycin. DESIGN: The study was a prospective, evaluator-blinded, multi-centre trial. Patients were randomised to receive daptomycin 4 mg/kg once daily or vancomycin according to standard of care for 7-14 days. PATIENTS: Adults diagnosed with cellulitis or erysipelas requiring hospitalisation and intravenous antibiotic therapy were eligible for enrolment. RESULTS: The clinical success rates were 94.0% for daptomycin and 90.2% for vancomycin (95% confidence interval for the difference, -6.7%, 14.3%). There were no statistically significant differences between treatment arms in the time to resolution or improvement in any of the predefined clinical end-points. Both daptomycin and vancomycin were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the rate of resolution of cellulitis or erysipelas among patients treated with daptomycin or vancomycin. Daptomycin 4 mg/kg once daily appeared to be effective and safe for treating cellulitis or erysipelas.

Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy with daptomycin: insights from a patient registry.

AIM: To compare and contrast the characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients who have received daptomycin as outpatients and inpatients. METHODS: The Cubicin Outcomes Registry and Experience (CORE) is a retrospective chart review of patients who have received daptomycin in participating institutions. Patients treated in 2005 were included in this analysis. Demographic characteristics and clinical outcomes (success = cured + improved) were compared among patients who received outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) and patients who had received inpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (IPAT). RESULTS: Of 1172 patients reported by 52 CORE 2005 participating institutions/investigators, 949 (81.0%) patients were evaluable: 539 (56.8%) received OPAT (OPAT patients), and 410 (43.2%) received only IPAT (IPAT patients). Of the 539 OPAT patients, 273 (50.6%) also received some IPAT, usually preceding OPAT therapy. Successful outcomes [no. of successes/(no. of successes + no. of failures)] for OPAT patients vs. IPAT patients were 94.6% and 86.3% respectively (chi-square test, p < 0.001). OPAT patients were younger, had fewer underlying diseases, were clinically stable, and had fewer adverse events than IPAT patients. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy use was common (539/949 or 56.8%) among patients in CORE 2005. Clinical outcomes among OPAT patients appeared at least as good as or better than IPAT patients. Better outcomes among OPAT patients were most likely because of patient selection for OPAT. Additional studies should focus on clinical characteristics of patients who would be ideal candidates for daptomycin OPAT.

A pilot study of high-dose short duration daptomycin for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by gram-positive bacteria.

BACKGROUND: Methicillin-susceptible and -resistant (MRSA) Staphylococcus aureus are significant causes of complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI). The bactericidal antibiotic daptomycin is approved for gram-positive cSSSI at 4 mg/kg/day for 7-14 days, but the optimal dose level and duration of therapy have not been firmly established. This pilot study evaluated the efficacy and safety of daptomycin at 10 mg/kg every 24 h for 4 days [high-dose short duration (HDSD) regimen] vs. standard of care therapy with vancomycin or semi-synthetic penicillin for the treatment of cSSSI. METHODS: This was a semi-single blind, randomised, multicentre, comparative trial. The primary efficacy end-point was the clinical response 7-14 days posttherapy. RESULTS: One hundred patients were randomised; 48 in each arm were treated. The treatment groups were well balanced with respect to demographics, comorbidities and the type of infection (75% because of MRSA). Overall, clinical success rates were 75.0% (36/48) for daptomycin and 87.5% (42/48) for comparator (95% confidence interval for the difference: -27.9, 2.9). The median duration of comparator therapy was 8 days. Two comparator patients and no daptomycin patients experienced treatment-related serious adverse events requiring hospitalisation. CONCLUSION: We found that the HDSD regimen had a safety profile similar to that seen in previous studies. Although the differences were not statistically significant, clinical success rates for comparator were higher than for daptomycin. In post hoc analyses HDSD daptomycin performed better in some subgroups (e.g. outpatients) than in others (e.g. certain MRSA infections). These observations require confirmation in larger trials.

SHEA conference on antimicrobial resistance. Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

Antimicrobial resistance is an increasing problem in healthcare institutions and in the community. Public concern about resistance is also increasing. The issue is broad and complex and not readily addressed by government, industry, or professional societies alone. On October 29-30, 1998, 19 representatives of various professional societies and governmental agencies met under the auspices of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) at Brook Lodge Conference Center in Augusta, Michigan. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the current status of antimicrobial resistance in the United States and Canada, including present society and governmental efforts to address the problem. Representatives exchanged experiences through presentations and discussions on the first day, then on the second day held a brainstorming session to address future needs and priorities in addressing the resistance problem. It was agreed that a national coordinated effort was needed. As part of this national effort, representatives called for the creation of a National Coalition on Antibiotic Resistance (NCAR) to combat antibiotic resistance through education, research, prevention, and advocacy. Priorities for NCAR were focused in four areas: (1) education of the public and professionals; (2) support of basic and applied research; (3) provision of an information resource and clearinghouse; and (4) advocacy initiatives. At the recommendation of the SHEA Board, discussions with the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases for the joint development of NCAR have begun.

Spread of vancomycin-resistant enterococci: why did it happen in the United States?

The question of why vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) became epidemic in the United States can be answered on at least three basic levels: (1) molecular and genetic, (2) factors affecting host-microbe interactions, and (3) epidemiological. This article will address the epidemiological issues and seek to defend the assertion that, once VRE had evolved, its spread throughout hospitals in the United States was all but assured. Nosocomial VRE outbreaks were reported first in the mid- and late-1980s. Since that time, scientific reports of VRE have increased over 20-fold. Among hospitals participating in the National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance System from 1989 to 1997, the percentage of enterococci reported as resistant to vancomycin increased from 0.4% to 23.2% in intensive-care settings and from 0.3% to 15.4% in non-intensive-care settings. Factors leading to the spread of VRE in US hospitals include (1) antimicrobial pressure, (2) sub-optimal clinical laboratory recognition and reporting, (3) unrecognized "silent" carriage and prolonged fecal carriage, (4) environmental contamination and survival, (5) intrahospital and interhospital transfer of colonized patients, (6) introduction of unrecognized carriers from community settings such as nursing homes, and (7) inadequate compliance with hand washing and barrier precautions. Guidelines developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee address each of these factors. The impact of these guidelines on the spread of VRE within individual institutions has been variable, and the overall impact of the guidelines nationally is unknown.

Requirements for infrastructure and essential activities of infection control and epidemiology in hospitals: a consensus panel report. Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

The scientific basis for claims of efficacy of nosocomial infection surveillance and control programs was established by the Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control project. Subsequent analyses have demonstrated nosocomial infection prevention and control programs to be not only clinically effective but also cost-effective. Although governmental and professional organizations have developed a wide variety of useful recommendations and guidelines for infection control, and apart from general guidance provided by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, there are surprisingly few recommendations on infrastructure and essential activities for infection control and epidemiology programs. In April 1996, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America established a consensus panel to develop recommendations for optimal infrastructure and essential activities of infection control and epidemiology programs in hospitals. The following report represents the consensus panel's best assessment of needs for a healthy and effective hospital-based infection control and epidemiology program. The recommendations fall into eight categories: managing critical data and information; setting and recommending policies and procedures; compliance with regulations, guidelines, and accreditation requirements; employee health; direct intervention to prevent transmission of infectious diseases; education and training of healthcare workers; personnel resources; and nonpersonnel resources. The consensus panel used an evidence-based approach and categorized recommendations according to modifications of the scheme developed by the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee.

Requirements for infrastructure and essential activities of infection control and epidemiology in hospitals: A consensus panel report. Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

The scientific basis for claims of efficacy of nosocomial infection surveillance and control programs was established by the Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control project. Subsequent analyses have demonstrated nosocomial infection prevention and control programs to be not only clinically effective but also cost-effective. Although governmental and professional organizations have developed a wide variety of useful recommendations and guidelines for infection control, and apart from general guidance provided by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, there are surprisingly few recommendations on infrastructure and essential activities for infection control and epidemiology programs. In April 1996, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America established a consensus panel to develop recommendations for optimal infrastructure and essential activities of infection control and epidemiology programs in hospitals. The following report represents the consensus panel's best assessment of needs for a healthy and effective hospital-based infection control and epidemiology program. The recommendations fall into eight categories: managing critical data and information; setting and recommending policies and procedures; compliance with regulations, guidelines, and accreditation requirements; employee health; direct intervention to prevent transmission of infectious diseases; education and training of healthcare workers; personnel resources; and nonpersonnel resources. The consensus panel used an evidence-based approach and categorized recommendations according to modifications of the scheme developed by the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee.

Nosocomial infections in HIV-infected patients: preliminary results from a multicenter surveillance system (1989-1995).

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of and trends in nosocomial infection among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients. DESIGN: Multicenter prospective cohort study. SETTING/PATIENTS: HIV-infected patients were enrolled at time of first inpatient admission at five Veterans' Administration Medical Centers (VAMCs). RESULTS: As of March 1995, 2,541 patients with 6,625 inpatient admissions had been monitored in the five VAMCs. A total of 530 nosocomial infections were detected using standard Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definitions. Overall distribution by infection site was 31% for primary bloodstream infections (BSIs), 28% for urinary tract infections, 15% for pneumonia, and 26% for all other sites. Of BSIs, 63% were central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABs). The rate of CLABs per 1,000 central line days was 6.5 (range, 2.3-8.3) for all patients from participating hospitals, similar to the median CLAB rate of 6.0 for patients in medical intensive-care units (ICUs) of National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System hospitals from January 1990 through September 1994. For ICU-specific CLABs, the rate from hospitals reporting at least one ICU CLAB was 12.7 (range, 12.1-13.1), comparable to the 90th percentile of NNIS hospital medical ICUs (13.1). Staphylococcus aureus, associated with 35% of BSIs, was the most common nosocomial BSI pathogen. Our data demonstrated the following: 13 (10%) of 134 patients with CD4 counts > or = 200 cells/mm3 had a CLAB, compared with 61 (6%) of 1,011 patients with CD4 counts < 200 cells/mm3, P = .08; the per-day risk of CLABs did not change with increased duration of catheterization (P = .4); and the per-day risk of a temporary (ie, short-term) CLAB was greater than that of a permanent CLAB (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that HIV-infected patients were at higher risk of acquiring a BSI than were patients in the NNIS population; patients with CD4 counts > or = 200 cell/mm3 and temporary central lines were at increased risk for BSI, perhaps reflecting widespread prophylaxis with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole among patients with CD4 counts < 200 cells/mm3, and, in contrast to most studies, S aureus, not coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, was the most common BSI pathogen.

Evidence of interhospital transmission of extended-spectrum beta-lactam-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in the United States, 1986 to 1993. The National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System.

BACKGROUND: In addition to single-hospital outbreaks, interhospital transmission of extended-spectrum beta-lactam-resistant (ESBLR) Klebsiella pneumoniae has been suspected in some reports. However, these studies lacked sufficient epidemiological information to confirm such an occurrence. METHODS: We reviewed the surveillance data reported to the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System during 1986 to 1993 for K pneumoniae isolates and their susceptibility to either ceftazidime, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, or aztreonam. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) was used to study available ESBLR K pneumoniae isolates. RESULTS: Among 8,319 K pneumoniae isolates associated with nosocomial infections, 727 (8.7%) were resistant or had intermediate-level resistance to at least one of these antibiotics. One hospital (hospital A) accounted for 321 isolates (44.2%) of ESBLR K pneumoniae. During 1986 to 1993, the percentage of K pneumoniae isolates that were ESBLR increased from 0 to 57.7% in hospital A, from 0 to 35.6% in NNIS hospitals 0 to 20 miles from hospital A (area B), and from 1.6 to 7.3% in NNIS hospitals more than 20 miles from hospital A, including hospitals located throughout the United States. Analysis of PFGE restriction profiles showed a genetic relationship between a cluster of isolates from hospital A and some isolates from one hospital in area B, and consecutive admission in these two hospitals was confirmed for two patients from whom isolates were available. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide evidence of interhospital transmission of ESBLR K pneumoniae in one region of the United States and stress the interrelationship between hospitals when trying to control antimicrobial resistance.

Outbreak investigations.

Epidemic nosocomial infections are defined as hospital-acquired infections that represent an increase in incidence over expected rates. Epidemic-associated infections usually are clustered temporally or geographically, suggesting that the infections are from a common source or are secondary to increased person-to-person transmission. Epidemics are important, because they account for a substantial percentage of nosocomial infections. Furthermore, if infection control personnel thoroughly investigate outbreaks of nosocomial infections, they may identify new agents, reservoirs, or modes of transmission.

Nosocomial infections among neonates in high-risk nurseries in the United States. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System.

BACKGROUND: Nosocomial infections result in considerable morbidity and mortality among neonates in high-risk nurseries (HRNs). PURPOSE: To examine the epidemiology of nosocomial infections among neonates in level III HRNs. METHODS: Data were collected from 99 hospitals with HRNs participating in the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance system, which uses standard surveillance protocols and nosocomial infection site definitions. The data included information on maternal acquisition of and risk factors for infection, such as device exposure, birth weight category (< or = 1000, 1001 through 1500, 1501 through 2500, and > 2500 g), mortality, and the relationship of the nosocomial infection to death. RESULTS: From October 1986 through September 1994, these hospitals submitted data on 13 179 nosocomial infections. The bloodstream was the most frequent site of nosocomial infection in all birth weight groups. Nosocomial pneumonia was the second most common infection site, followed by the gastrointestinal and eye, ear, nose, and throat sites. The most common nosocomial pathogens among all neonates were coagulase-negative staphylococci, Staphylococcus aureus, enterococci, Enterobacter sp, and Escherichia coli. Group B streptococci were associated with 46% of bloodstream infections that were maternally acquired; coagulase-negative staphylococci were associated with 58% of bloodstream infections that were not maternally acquired, most of which (88%) were associated with umbilical or central intravenous catheters. CONCLUSIONS: Bloodstream infections, the most frequent nosocomial infections in all birth weight groups, should be a major focus of surveillance and prevention efforts in HRNs. For bloodstream infections, stratification of surveillance data by maternal acquisition will help focus prevention efforts for group B streptococci outside the HRN. Within the nursery, bloodstream infection surveillance should focus on umbilical or central intravenous catheter use, a major risk factor for infection.

Strategies to Prevent and Control the Emergence and Spread of Antimicrobial-Resistant Microorganisms in Hospitals. A challenge to hospital leadership.

OBJECTIVE: To provide hospital leaders with strategic goals or actions likely to have a significant impact on antimicrobial resistance, outline outcome and process measures for evaluating progress toward each goal, describe potential barriers to success, and suggest countermeasures and novel improvement strategies. PARTICIPANTS: A multidisciplinary group of experts was drawn from the following areas: hospital epidemiology and infection control, infectious diseases (including graduate training programs), clinical practice (including nursing, surgery, internal medicine, and pediatrics), pharmacy, administration, quality improvement, appropriateness evaluation, behavior modification, practice guideline development, medical informatics, and outcomes research. Representatives from appropriate federal agencies, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, and the pharmaceutical industry also participated. EVIDENCE: Published literature, guidelines, expert opinion, and practical experience regarding efforts to improve antibiotic utilization and prevent and control the emergence and dissemination of antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms in hospitals. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Participants were divided into two quality improvement teams: one focusing on improving antimicrobial usage and the other on preventing and controlling transmission of resistant microorganisms. The teams modeled the process a hospital might use to develop and implement a strategic plan to combat antimicrobial resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Ten strategic goals and related process and outcome measures were agreed on. The five strategic goals to optimize antimicrobial use were as follows: optimizing antimicrobial prophylaxis for operative procedures; optimizing choice and duration of empiric therapy; improving antimicrobial prescribing by educational and administrative means; monitoring and providing feedback regarding antibiotic resistance; and defining and implementing health care delivery system guidelines for important types of antimicrobial use. The five strategic goals to detect, report, and prevent transmission of antimicrobial resistant organisms were as follows: to develop a system to recognize and report trends in antimicrobial resistance within the institution; develop a system to rapidly detect and report resistant microorganisms in individual patients and ensure a rapid response by caregivers; increase adherence to basic infection control policies and procedures; incorporate the detection, prevention, and control of antimicrobial resistance into institutional strategic goals and provide the required resources; and develop a plan for identifying, transferring, discharging, and readmitting patients colonized with specific antimicrobial-resistant pathogens.

Quality standard for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical procedures. Infectious Diseases Society of America.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this quality standard are (1) to provide an implementation mechanism that will facilitate the reliable administration of prophylactic antimicrobial agents to patients undergoing operative procedures in which such a practice is judged to be beneficial and (2) to provide a guideline that will help local hospital committees formulate policies and set up mechanisms for their implementation. Although standards in the medical literature spell out recommendations for specific procedures, agents, schedules, and doses, other reports document that these standards frequently are not followed in practice. OPTIONS: We have specified the procedures in which the administration of prophylactic antimicrobial agents has been shown to be beneficial, those in which this practice is widely thought to be beneficial but in which compelling evidence is lacking, and those in which this practice is controversial. We have examined the evidence regarding the optimal timing of drug administration, the optimal dose, and the optimal duration of prophylaxis. OUTCOMES: The intended outcome is more uniform and reliable administration of prophylactic antibiotics in those circumstances where their value has been demonstrated or their use has been judged by the local practicing medical community to be desirable. The result should be a reduction in rates of postoperative wound infection in conjunction with a limitation on the quantities of antimicrobial agents used in circumstances where they are not likely to help. EVIDENCE: Many prospective, randomized, controlled trials comparing placebo with antibiotic and comparing one antibiotic with another have been conducted. In addition, some trials have compared the efficacy of different doses or methods of administration. Other papers have reported on the apparent efficacy of administration at different times and on actual practice in specific communities. Only a small group of relevant articles found through 1993 are cited herein. When authoritative reviews are available, these--rather than an exhaustive list of original references--are cited. VALUES: We assumed that reducing rates of postoperative infection was valuable but that reducing the total amount of antimicrobial agents employed was also worthwhile. The cost of and morbidity attributable to postoperative wound infections should be weighted against the cost and potential morbidity associated with excessive use of antimicrobial agents. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: More reliable administration of antimicrobial agents according to recognized guidelines should prevent some postoperative wound infections while lowering the total quantity of these drugs used. No harms are anticipated. The costs involved are those of the efforts needed on a local basis to design and implement the mechanism that supports uniform and reliable administration of prophylactic antibiotics. RECOMMENDATIONS: All patients for whom prophylactic antimicrobial agents are recommended should receive them. The agents given should be appropriate in light of published guidelines. A short duration of prophylaxis (usually < 24 hours) is recommended. VALIDATION: More than 50 experts in infectious diseases and 10 experts in surgical infectious diseases and surgical subspecialties reviewed the standard. In addition, the methods for its implementation were reviewed by the American Society of Hospital Pharmacists. SPONSORS: The Quality Standards Subcommittee of the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed the standard. The subcommittee was composed of representatives of the IDSA (P.A.G. and J.E.M.), the Society for Hospital Epidemiology of America (R.P.W.), the Surgical Infection Society (E.P.D.), the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (P.J.K.), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (W.J.M.), the Obstetrics and Gynecology Infectious Diseases Society (R.L.S.), and the Association of Practitioners of Infection Control (T.

Quality standard for the treatment of bacteremia. Infectious Diseases Society of America.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this quality standard is to optimize the treatment of bacteremia in hospitalized patients by ensuring that the antibiotic given is appropriate in terms of the blood culture susceptibility of the pathogen. Although this standard may appear to be minimal in scope, it is needed because appropriate antimicrobial treatment is not given in 5%-17% of cases. To implement the standard, physicians, pharmacists, and microbiologists will need to devise a coordinated strategy. OPTIONS: We considered criteria for appropriate dosing, most cost-effective selection, proper antibiotic levels in serum, least toxicity, narrowest spectrum, specific clinical indications, and optimal duration of treatment. All these criteria were rejected as the basis for the standard because they were too controversial and too difficult to be applied by a nonphysician chart reviewer. In contrast, the selection of an antibiotic to which the pathogen is sensitive is a noncontroversial criterion that is easy for a chart reviewer to apply. OUTCOMES: The standard is designed to reduce the incidence of adverse outcomes of septicemia, such as renal failure, prolonged hospitalization, and death. EVIDENCE: Several well-designed clinical trials without randomization as well as case-controlled studies have confirmed the benefit of using an antibiotic that is appropriate in light of the susceptibility of the isolate in blood culture. Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trials are not available. VALUES: Our premise is that the presence of bacteremia is a risk factor for serious adverse outcomes. We also believe that the administration of antibiotics must always be guided by the susceptibility report for the pathogen(s) obtained from blood cultures. This concern is more critical for pathogens from the blood than for those from most other body sites. We had evidence that susceptibility reports for pathogens from positive blood cultures were not always used properly. We used group discussion to reach a consensus among the members of the Quality Standards Subcommittee. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: Through the implementation of this standard, at least 5% of cases of bacteremia could be treated more appropriately. An unknown number of deaths would likely be prevented, and mortality from bacteremia treated inappropriately would probably be reduced. The primary undesirable feature of the standard is an increased workload for pharmacists and microbiologists. RECOMMENDATIONS: Treatment of bacteremia with an antibiotic that is appropriate in terms of the pathogen's blood-culture susceptibility is a minimal standard of care for all patients. VALIDATION: We consulted more than 50 experts in infectious diseases from the fields of medicine, surgery, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, nursing, epidemiology, pharmacology, and government. In addition, the methods for its implementation were reviewed by the American Society of Hospital Pharmacists and were tested by one of the members of the Quality Standards Subcommittee. SPONSORS: The Quality Standards Subcommittee of the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed the standard. The subcommittee was composed of representatives of the IDSA (P.A.G. and J.E.M.), the Society for Hospital Epidemiology of America (R.P.W.), the Surgical Infection Society (E.P.D.), the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (P.J.K.), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (W.J.M.), the Obstetrics and Gynecology Infectious Diseases Society (R.L.S.), and the Association of Practitioners of Infection Control (T.L.B.). Funding was provided by the IDSA and the other cooperating organizations. The standard is endorsed by the IDSA.

Quality standard for assurance of measles immunity among health care workers. Infectious Diseases Society of America.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this quality standard is to prevent nosocomial transmission of measles by assuring universal measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination of all health care workers who lack immunity to measles. Although the primary emphasis is on health care workers in hospitals, those at other sites, such as clinics, nursing homes, and schools, are also included. It will be the responsibility of designated individuals at these institutions to implement the standard. OPTIONS: We considered advocating the use of measles vaccine rather than MMR vaccine but chose the latter because it also protects against mumps and rubella and because it is more readily available. OUTCOMES: The desired outcome is a reduction in the nosocomial transmission of measles. EVIDENCE: Although direct comparative studies are lacking, nosocomial outbreaks of measles have been reported (as recently as 1992) in institutions where measles immunization of nonimmune health care workers is not universal, whereas such outbreaks have not been reported in institutions with universal immunization. VALUES AND VALIDATION: We consulted more than 50 infectious-disease experts from the fields of epidemiology, government, medicine, nursing, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, and surgery. In light of disagreement regarding the implementation of the standard, we used group discussions to reach a consensus. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: The consequences of the transmission of measles (and of mumps and rubella) in a health care institution include not only the morbidity and mortality attributable to the disease but also the significant cost of evaluating and containing an outbreak and the serious disruption of regular hospital routines when control measures are instituted. The potential harm to health care workers after the implementation of the standard consists of untoward effects of MMR vaccine, although the reactions of vaccinees should be minimal with adherence to recommended vaccination procedures. Implementation of the standard should entail no expense to health care workers; the precise cost to institutions is unknown, but the expense would be mitigated by the prevention of measles outbreaks. RECOMMENDATIONS: We recommend MMR vaccination of all health care workers who lack immunity to measles. SPONSORS: The Quality Standards Subcommittee of the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed the standard. The subcommittee was composed of representatives of the IDSA (P.A.G. and J.E.M.), the Society for Hospital Epidemiology of America (R.P.W.), the Surgical Infection Society (E.P.D.), the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (P.J.K.), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (W.J.M.), the Obstetrics and Gynecology Infectious Diseases Society (R.L.S.), and the Association of Practitioners of Infection Control (T.L.B.). Funding was provided by the IDSA and the other cooperating organizations. The standard is endorsed by the IDSA.