Karim Khader1,2, Alun Thomas2, W Charles Huskins3, Vanessa Stevens1,2, Lindsay T Keegan1,2, Lindsay Visnovsky1,2, Matthew H Samore1,2. 1. Informatics, Decision-Enhancement, and Analytical Sciences Center of Innovation, VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 2. Division of Epidemiology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 3. Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contact precautions for endemic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are under increasing scrutiny, in part due to limited clinical trial evidence. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from the Strategies to Reduce Transmission of Antimicrobial Resistant Bacteria in Intensive Care Units (STAR*ICU) trial to model the use of contact precautions in individual intensive care units (ICUs). Data included admission and discharge times and surveillance test results. We used a transmission model to estimate key epidemiological parameters, including the effect of contact precautions on transmission. Finally, we performed multivariate meta-regression to identify ICU-level factors associated with contact precaution effects. RESULTS: We found that 21% of admissions (n = 2194) were placed on contact precautions, with most for MRSA and VRE. We found little evidence that contact precautions reduced MRSA transmission. The estimated change in transmission attributed to contact precautions was -16% (95% credible interval, -38% to 15%). VRE transmission was higher than MRSA transmission due to contact precautions, but not significantly. In our meta-regression, we did not identify associations between ICU-level factors and estimated contact precaution effects. Importation and transmission were higher for VRE than for MRSA, but clearance rates were lower for VRE than for MRSA. CONCLUSIONS: We found little evidence that contact precautions implemented during the STAR*ICU trial reduced transmission of MRSA or VRE. We did find important differences in the transmission dynamics between MRSA and VRE. Differences in organism and healthcare setting may impact the efficacy of contact precautions.
BACKGROUND: Contact precautions for endemic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are under increasing scrutiny, in part due to limited clinical trial evidence. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from the Strategies to Reduce Transmission of Antimicrobial Resistant Bacteria in Intensive Care Units (STAR*ICU) trial to model the use of contact precautions in individual intensive care units (ICUs). Data included admission and discharge times and surveillance test results. We used a transmission model to estimate key epidemiological parameters, including the effect of contact precautions on transmission. Finally, we performed multivariate meta-regression to identify ICU-level factors associated with contact precaution effects. RESULTS: We found that 21% of admissions (n = 2194) were placed on contact precautions, with most for MRSA and VRE. We found little evidence that contact precautions reduced MRSA transmission. The estimated change in transmission attributed to contact precautions was -16% (95% credible interval, -38% to 15%). VRE transmission was higher than MRSA transmission due to contact precautions, but not significantly. In our meta-regression, we did not identify associations between ICU-level factors and estimated contact precaution effects. Importation and transmission were higher for VRE than for MRSA, but clearance rates were lower for VRE than for MRSA. CONCLUSIONS: We found little evidence that contact precautions implemented during the STAR*ICU trial reduced transmission of MRSA or VRE. We did find important differences in the transmission dynamics between MRSA and VRE. Differences in organism and healthcare setting may impact the efficacy of contact precautions.
Authors: Martin E Evans; Stephen M Kralovic; Loretta A Simbartl; Ron W Freyberg; D Scott Obrosky; Gary A Roselle; Rajiv Jain Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: W Charles Huskins; Charmaine M Huckabee; Naomi P O'Grady; Patrick Murray; Heather Kopetskie; Louise Zimmer; Mary Ellen Walker; Ronda L Sinkowitz-Cochran; John A Jernigan; Matthew Samore; Dennis Wallace; Donald A Goldmann Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-04-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Yinghui Wei; Theodore Kypraios; Philip D O'Neill; Susan S Huang; Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman; Ben S Cooper Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: Alun Thomas; Karim Khader; Andrew Redd; Molly Leecaster; Yue Zhang; Makoto Jones; Tom Greene; Matthew Samore Journal: Math Med Biol Date: 2018-03-16 Impact factor: 1.854
Authors: Colin J Worby; Dakshika Jeyaratnam; Julie V Robotham; Theodore Kypraios; Philip D O'Neill; Daniela De Angelis; Gary French; Ben S Cooper Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 4.897