Ashleigh Myall1, James R Price2, Robert L Peach3, Mohamed Abbas4, Sid Mookerjee2, Nina Zhu5, Isa Ahmad5, Damien Ming5, Farzan Ramzan5, Daniel Teixeira6, Christophe Graf7, Andrea Y Weiße8, Stephan Harbarth6, Alison Holmes5, Mauricio Barahona9. 1. Department of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, London, UK; Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, London, UK; National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in HCAI and AMR, Imperial College London, London, UK. Electronic address: a.myall19@imperial.ac.uk. 2. National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in HCAI and AMR, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Imperial College London, London, UK. 3. Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, London, UK; Department of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK; Department of Neurology, University Hospital of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany. 4. MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London, London, UK; Infection Control Programme, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. 5. Department of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, London, UK; National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in HCAI and AMR, Imperial College London, London, UK. 6. Infection Control Programme, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. 7. Department of Rehabilitation and Geriatrics, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. 8. School of Biological Sciences and School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 9. Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, London, UK. Electronic address: m.barahona@imperial.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Real-time prediction is key to prevention and control of infections associated with health-care settings. Contacts enable spread of many infections, yet most risk prediction frameworks fail to account for their dynamics. We developed, tested, and internationally validated a real-time machine-learning framework, incorporating dynamic patient-contact networks to predict hospital-onset COVID-19 infections (HOCIs) at the individual level. METHODS: We report an international retrospective cohort study of our framework, which extracted patient-contact networks from routine hospital data and combined network-derived variables with clinical and contextual information to predict individual infection risk. We trained and tested the framework on HOCIs using the data from 51 157 hospital inpatients admitted to a UK National Health Service hospital group (Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust) between April 1, 2020, and April 1, 2021, intersecting the first two COVID-19 surges. We validated the framework using data from a Swiss hospital group (Department of Rehabilitation, Geneva University Hospitals) during a COVID-19 surge (from March 1 to May 31, 2020; 40 057 inpatients) and from the same UK group after COVID-19 surges (from April 2 to Aug 13, 2021; 43 375 inpatients). All inpatients with a bed allocation during the study periods were included in the computation of network-derived and contextual variables. In predicting patient-level HOCI risk, only inpatients spending 3 or more days in hospital during the study period were examined for HOCI acquisition risk. FINDINGS: The framework was highly predictive across test data with all variable types (area under the curve [AUC]-receiver operating characteristic curve [ROC] 0·89 [95% CI 0·88-0·90]) and similarly predictive using only contact-network variables (0·88 [0·86-0·90]). Prediction was reduced when using only hospital contextual (AUC-ROC 0·82 [95% CI 0·80-0·84]) or patient clinical (0·64 [0·62-0·66]) variables. A model with only three variables (ie, network closeness, direct contacts with infectious patients [network derived], and hospital COVID-19 prevalence [hospital contextual]) achieved AUC-ROC 0·85 (95% CI 0·82-0·88). Incorporating contact-network variables improved performance across both validation datasets (AUC-ROC in the Geneva dataset increased from 0·84 [95% CI 0·82-0·86] to 0·88 [0·86-0·90]; AUC-ROC in the UK post-surge dataset increased from 0·49 [0·46-0·52] to 0·68 [0·64-0·70]). INTERPRETATION: Dynamic contact networks are robust predictors of individual patient risk of HOCIs. Their integration in clinical care could enhance individualised infection prevention and early diagnosis of COVID-19 and other nosocomial infections. FUNDING: Medical Research Foundation, WHO, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Swiss National Science Foundation, and German Research Foundation.
BACKGROUND: Real-time prediction is key to prevention and control of infections associated with health-care settings. Contacts enable spread of many infections, yet most risk prediction frameworks fail to account for their dynamics. We developed, tested, and internationally validated a real-time machine-learning framework, incorporating dynamic patient-contact networks to predict hospital-onset COVID-19 infections (HOCIs) at the individual level. METHODS: We report an international retrospective cohort study of our framework, which extracted patient-contact networks from routine hospital data and combined network-derived variables with clinical and contextual information to predict individual infection risk. We trained and tested the framework on HOCIs using the data from 51 157 hospital inpatients admitted to a UK National Health Service hospital group (Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust) between April 1, 2020, and April 1, 2021, intersecting the first two COVID-19 surges. We validated the framework using data from a Swiss hospital group (Department of Rehabilitation, Geneva University Hospitals) during a COVID-19 surge (from March 1 to May 31, 2020; 40 057 inpatients) and from the same UK group after COVID-19 surges (from April 2 to Aug 13, 2021; 43 375 inpatients). All inpatients with a bed allocation during the study periods were included in the computation of network-derived and contextual variables. In predicting patient-level HOCI risk, only inpatients spending 3 or more days in hospital during the study period were examined for HOCI acquisition risk. FINDINGS: The framework was highly predictive across test data with all variable types (area under the curve [AUC]-receiver operating characteristic curve [ROC] 0·89 [95% CI 0·88-0·90]) and similarly predictive using only contact-network variables (0·88 [0·86-0·90]). Prediction was reduced when using only hospital contextual (AUC-ROC 0·82 [95% CI 0·80-0·84]) or patient clinical (0·64 [0·62-0·66]) variables. A model with only three variables (ie, network closeness, direct contacts with infectious patients [network derived], and hospital COVID-19 prevalence [hospital contextual]) achieved AUC-ROC 0·85 (95% CI 0·82-0·88). Incorporating contact-network variables improved performance across both validation datasets (AUC-ROC in the Geneva dataset increased from 0·84 [95% CI 0·82-0·86] to 0·88 [0·86-0·90]; AUC-ROC in the UK post-surge dataset increased from 0·49 [0·46-0·52] to 0·68 [0·64-0·70]). INTERPRETATION: Dynamic contact networks are robust predictors of individual patient risk of HOCIs. Their integration in clinical care could enhance individualised infection prevention and early diagnosis of COVID-19 and other nosocomial infections. FUNDING: Medical Research Foundation, WHO, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Swiss National Science Foundation, and German Research Foundation.
Authors: Emanuela Estera Boncea; Paul Expert; Kate Honeyford; Anne Kinderlerer; Colin Mitchell; Graham S Cooke; Luca Mercuri; Céire E Costelloe Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2021-01-25 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Sam Abbott; Rosanna C Barnard; Christopher I Jarvis; Adam J Kucharski; James D Munday; Carl A B Pearson; Timothy W Russell; Damien C Tully; Alex D Washburne; Tom Wenseleers; Nicholas G Davies; Amy Gimma; William Waites; Kerry L M Wong; Kevin van Zandvoort; Justin D Silverman; Karla Diaz-Ordaz; Ruth Keogh; Rosalind M Eggo; Sebastian Funk; Mark Jit; Katherine E Atkins; W John Edmunds Journal: Science Date: 2021-03-03 Impact factor: 63.714
Authors: Christopher Jr Illingworth; William L Hamilton; Ben Warne; Matthew Routledge; Ashley Popay; Chris Jackson; Tom Fieldman; Luke W Meredith; Charlotte J Houldcroft; Myra Hosmillo; Aminu S Jahun; Laura G Caller; Sarah L Caddy; Anna Yakovleva; Grant Hall; Fahad A Khokhar; Theresa Feltwell; Malte L Pinckert; Iliana Georgana; Yasmin Chaudhry; Martin D Curran; Surendra Parmar; Dominic Sparkes; Lucy Rivett; Nick K Jones; Sushmita Sridhar; Sally Forrest; Tom Dymond; Kayleigh Grainger; Chris Workman; Mark Ferris; Effrossyni Gkrania-Klotsas; Nicholas M Brown; Michael P Weekes; Stephen Baker; Sharon J Peacock; Ian G Goodfellow; Theodore Gouliouris; Daniela de Angelis; M Estée Török Journal: Elife Date: 2021-08-24 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Stephen A Lauer; Kyra H Grantz; Qifang Bi; Forrest K Jones; Qulu Zheng; Hannah R Meredith; Andrew S Azman; Nicholas G Reich; Justin Lessler Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: G Kampf; Y Brüggemann; H E J Kaba; J Steinmann; S Pfaender; S Scheithauer; E Steinmann Journal: J Hosp Infect Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 3.926