IMPORTANCE: Multiplex molecular syndromic panels for diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) lack clinical data supporting their use in routine clinical care. They also have the potential to exacerbate inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency of unspecified multiplex testing in administrative claims with a primary diagnosis of UTI in the Medicare population over time, to assess costs, and to characterize the health care professionals (eg, clinicians, laboratories, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners) and patient populations using these tests. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study used Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) claims data for Medicare beneficiaries. The study included older community-dwelling adults and nursing home residents with fee-for-service Medicare Part A and Part B benefits from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2023. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Multiplex syndromic panels were identified using carrier claims (ie, claims for clinician office or laboratory services). The annual rate of claims was measured for multiplex syndromic panels with a primary diagnosis of UTI per 10 000 eligible Medicare beneficiaries. The performing and referring specialties of health care professionals listed on claims of interest and the proportion of claims that occurred among beneficiaries residing in a nursing home were described. RESULTS: Between 31 110 656 and 36 175 559 Medicare beneficiaries with fee-for-service coverage annually (2016-2023) were included in this study. In this period, 1 679 328 claims for UTI multiplex testing were identified. The median age of beneficiaries was 77 (IQR, 70-84) years; 34% of claims were from male beneficiaries and 66% were from female beneficiaries. From 2016 to 2023, the observed rate of UTI multiplex testing increased from 2.4 to 148.1 claims per 10 000 fee-for-service beneficiaries annually, and the proportion of claims that occurred among beneficiaries residing in a nursing home ranged from 1% in 2016 to 12% in 2020. In addition to laboratories or pathologists, urology was the most common clinician specialty conducting this testing. The CMS-assigned referring clinician specialty was most frequently urology or advanced practice clinician for claims among community-dwelling beneficiaries compared with internal medicine or family medicine for claims among nursing home residents. In 2023, the median cost of a multiplex test in the US was $585 (IQR, $516-$695 for Q1-Q3), which was more than 70 times higher than the median cost of $8 for a urine culture (IQR, $8-$16 for Q1-Q3). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with fee-for-service coverage from 2016 to 2023 found increasing use of emerging multiplex testing for UTI coupled with high costs to the Medicare program. Monitoring and research are needed to determine the effects of multiplex testing on antimicrobial use and whether there are clinical situations in which this testing may benefit patients.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, mathematical modeling has been widely used to understand epidemiological burden, trends, and transmission dynamics, to facilitate policy decisions, and, to a lesser extent, to evaluate infection prevention and control (IPC) measures. This review highlights the added value of using conventional epidemiology and modeling approaches to address the complexity of healthcare-associated infections (HAI) and antimicrobial resistance. It demonstrates how epidemiological surveillance data and modeling can be used to infer transmission dynamics in healthcare settings and to forecast healthcare impact, how modeling can be used to improve the validity of interpretation of epidemiological surveillance data, how modeling can be used to estimate the impact of IPC interventions, and how modeling can be used to guide IPC and antimicrobial treatment and stewardship decision-making. There are several priority areas for expanding the use of modeling in healthcare epidemiology and IPC. Importantly, modeling should be viewed as complementary to conventional healthcare epidemiological approaches, and this requires collaboration and active coordination between IPC, healthcare epidemiology, and mathematical modeling groups.

BACKGROUND: Residents of nursing homes remain an epidemiologically important population for COVID-19 prevention efforts, including vaccination. We aim to understand effectiveness of bivalent vaccination for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections in this population. METHODS: We used a retrospective cohort of nursing home residents from November 1, 2022, through March 31, 2023, to identify new SARS-CoV-2 infections. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios comparing residents with a bivalent vaccination compared with residents not up to date with vaccination recommendations. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as (1 - Hazard Ratio) * 100. RESULTS: Among 6,916 residents residing in 76 nursing homes included in our cohort, 3,211 (46%) received a bivalent vaccine 7 or more days prior to censoring. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness against laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection comparing receipt of a bivalent vaccine versus not up to date vaccine status was 29% (95% Confidence interval 18% to 39%). Vaccine effectiveness for receipt of a bivalent vaccine against residents who were unvaccinated or vaccinated more than a year prior was 32% (95% CI: 20% to 42%,) and was 25% compared with residents who were vaccinated with a monovalent vaccine in the past 61-365 days (95% CI:10% to 37%). CONCLUSIONS: Bivalent COVID-19 vaccines provided additional protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections in nursing home residents during our study time-period, compared to both no vaccination or vaccination more than a year ago and monovalent vaccination 60 - 365 days prior. Ensuring nursing home residents stay up to date with vaccine recommendations remains a critical tool for COVID-19 prevention efforts.

BACKGROUND: The majority of recent estimates on the direct medical cost attributable to hospital-onset infections (HOIs) has focused on device- or procedure-associated HOIs. The attributable costs of HOIs that are not associated with device use or procedures have not been extensively studied. OBJECTIVE: We developed simulation models of attributable cost for 16 HOIs and estimated the total direct medical cost, including nondevice-related HOIs in the USA for 2011 and 2015. DATA AND METHODS: We used total discharge costs associated with HOI-related hospitalization from the National Inpatient Sample and applied an analogy costing methodology to develop simulation models of the costs attributable to HOIs. The mean attributable cost estimate from the simulation analysis was then multiplied by previously published estimates of the number of HOIs for 2011 and 2015 to generate national estimates of direct medical costs. RESULTS: After adjusting all estimates to 2017 US dollars, attributable cost estimates for select nondevice-related infections attributable cost estimates ranged from $7661 for ear, eye, nose, throat, and mouth (EENTM) infections to $27,709 for cardiovascular system infections in 2011; and from $8394 for EENTM to $26,445 for central nervous system infections in 2016 (based on 2015 incidence data). The national direct medical costs for all HOIs were $14.6 billion in 2011 and $12.1 billion in 2016. Nondevice- and nonprocedure-associated HOIs comprise approximately 26-28% of total HOI costs. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that nondevice- and nonprocedure-related HOIs result in considerable costs to the healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Detection and containment of hospital outbreaks currently depend on variable and personnel-intensive surveillance methods. Whether automated statistical surveillance for outbreaks of health care-associated pathogens allows earlier containment efforts that would reduce the size of outbreaks is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial in 82 community hospitals within a larger health care system. All hospitals followed an outbreak response protocol when outbreaks were detected by their infection prevention programs. Half of the hospitals additionally used statistical surveillance of microbiology data, which alerted infection prevention programs to outbreaks. Statistical surveillance was also applied to microbiology data from control hospitals without alerting their infection prevention programs. The primary outcome was the number of additional cases occurring after outbreak detection. Analyses assessed differences between the intervention period (July 2019 to January 2022) versus baseline period (February 2017 to January 2019) between randomized groups. A post hoc analysis separately assessed pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and Covid-19 pandemic intervention periods. RESULTS: Real-time alerts did not significantly reduce the number of additional outbreak cases (intervention period versus baseline: statistical surveillance relative rate [RR]=1.41, control RR=1.81; difference-in-differences, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 1.52; P=0.46). Comparing only the prepandemic intervention with baseline periods, the statistical outbreak surveillance group was associated with a 64.1% reduction in additional cases (statistical surveillance RR=0.78, control RR=2.19; difference-in-differences, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.99). There was no similarly observed association between the pandemic versus baseline periods (statistical surveillance RR=1.56, control RR=1.66; difference-in-differences, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.92). CONCLUSIONS: Automated detection of hospital outbreaks using statistical surveillance did not reduce overall outbreak size in the context of an ongoing pandemic. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04053075. Support for HCA Healthcare's participation in the study was provided in kind by HCA.).

IMPORTANCE: Pneumonia is the most common infection requiring hospitalization and is a major reason for overuse of extended-spectrum antibiotics. Despite low risk of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) infection, clinical uncertainty often drives initial antibiotic selection. Strategies to limit empiric antibiotic overuse for patients with pneumonia are needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether computerized provider order entry (CPOE) prompts providing patient- and pathogen-specific MDRO infection risk estimates could reduce empiric extended-spectrum antibiotics for non-critically ill patients admitted with pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cluster-randomized trial in 59 US community hospitals comparing the effect of a CPOE stewardship bundle (education, feedback, and real-time MDRO risk-based CPOE prompts; n = 29 hospitals) vs routine stewardship (n = 30 hospitals) on antibiotic selection during the first 3 hospital days (empiric period) in non-critically ill adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with pneumonia. There was an 18-month baseline period from April 1, 2017, to September 30, 2018, and a 15-month intervention period from April 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020. INTERVENTION: CPOE prompts recommending standard-spectrum antibiotics in patients ordered to receive extended-spectrum antibiotics during the empiric period who have low estimated absolute risk (<10%) of MDRO pneumonia, coupled with feedback and education. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was empiric (first 3 days of hospitalization) extended-spectrum antibiotic days of therapy. Secondary outcomes included empiric vancomycin and antipseudomonal days of therapy and safety outcomes included days to intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and hospital length of stay. Outcomes compared differences between baseline and intervention periods across strategies. RESULTS: Among 59 hospitals with 96 451 (51 671 in the baseline period and 44 780 in the intervention period) adult patients admitted with pneumonia, the mean (SD) age of patients was 68.1 (17.0) years, 48.1% were men, and the median (IQR) Elixhauser comorbidity count was 4 (2-6). Compared with routine stewardship, the group using CPOE prompts had a 28.4% reduction in empiric extended-spectrum days of therapy (rate ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.66-0.78]; P < .001). Safety outcomes of mean days to ICU transfer (6.5 vs 7.1 days) and hospital length of stay (6.8 vs 7.1 days) did not differ significantly between the routine and CPOE intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Empiric extended-spectrum antibiotic use was significantly lower among adults admitted with pneumonia to non-ICU settings in hospitals using education, feedback, and CPOE prompts recommending standard-spectrum antibiotics for patients at low risk of MDRO infection, compared with routine stewardship practices. Hospital length of stay and days to ICU transfer were unchanged. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03697070.

IMPORTANCE: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the second most common infection leading to hospitalization and is often associated with gram-negative multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). Clinicians overuse extended-spectrum antibiotics although most patients are at low risk for MDRO infection. Safe strategies to limit overuse of empiric antibiotics are needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether computerized provider order entry (CPOE) prompts providing patient- and pathogen-specific MDRO risk estimates could reduce use of empiric extended-spectrum antibiotics for treatment of UTI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cluster-randomized trial in 59 US community hospitals comparing the effect of a CPOE stewardship bundle (education, feedback, and real-time and risk-based CPOE prompts; 29 hospitals) vs routine stewardship (n = 30 hospitals) on antibiotic selection during the first 3 hospital days (empiric period) in noncritically ill adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with UTI with an 18-month baseline (April 1, 2017-September 30, 2018) and 15-month intervention period (April 1, 2019-June 30, 2020). INTERVENTIONS: CPOE prompts recommending empiric standard-spectrum antibiotics in patients ordered to receive extended-spectrum antibiotics who have low estimated absolute risk (<10%) of MDRO UTI, coupled with feedback and education. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was empiric (first 3 days of hospitalization) extended-spectrum antibiotic days of therapy. Secondary outcomes included empiric vancomycin and antipseudomonal days of therapy. Safety outcomes included days to intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and hospital length of stay. Outcomes were assessed using generalized linear mixed-effect models to assess differences between the baseline and intervention periods. RESULTS: Among 127 403 adult patients (71 991 baseline and 55 412 intervention period) admitted with UTI in 59 hospitals, the mean (SD) age was 69.4 (17.9) years, 30.5% were male, and the median Elixhauser Comorbidity Index count was 4 (IQR, 2-5). Compared with routine stewardship, the group using CPOE prompts had a 17.4% (95% CI, 11.2%-23.2%) reduction in empiric extended-spectrum days of therapy (rate ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.77-0.89]; P < .001). The safety outcomes of mean days to ICU transfer (6.6 vs 7.0 days) and hospital length of stay (6.3 vs 6.5 days) did not differ significantly between the routine and intervention groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Compared with routine stewardship, CPOE prompts providing real-time recommendations for standard-spectrum antibiotics for patients with low MDRO risk coupled with feedback and education significantly reduced empiric extended-spectrum antibiotic use among noncritically ill adults admitted with UTI without changing hospital length of stay or days to ICU transfers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03697096.

IMPORTANCE: Infections due to multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, length of hospitalization, and health care costs. Regional interventions may be advantageous in mitigating MDROs and associated infections. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether implementation of a decolonization collaborative is associated with reduced regional MDRO prevalence, incident clinical cultures, infection-related hospitalizations, costs, and deaths. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This quality improvement study was conducted from July 1, 2017, to July 31, 2019, across 35 health care facilities in Orange County, California. EXPOSURES: Chlorhexidine bathing and nasal iodophor antisepsis for residents in long-term care and hospitalized patients in contact precautions (CP). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Baseline and end of intervention MDRO point prevalence among participating facilities; incident MDRO (nonscreening) clinical cultures among participating and nonparticipating facilities; and infection-related hospitalizations and associated costs and deaths among residents in participating and nonparticipating nursing homes (NHs). RESULTS: Thirty-five facilities (16 hospitals, 16 NHs, 3 long-term acute care hospitals [LTACHs]) adopted the intervention. Comparing decolonization with baseline periods among participating facilities, the mean (SD) MDRO prevalence decreased from 63.9% (12.2%) to 49.9% (11.3%) among NHs, from 80.0% (7.2%) to 53.3% (13.3%) among LTACHs (odds ratio [OR] for NHs and LTACHs, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.40-0.57), and from 64.1% (8.5%) to 55.4% (13.8%) (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.93) among hospitalized patients in CP. When comparing decolonization with baseline among NHs, the mean (SD) monthly incident MDRO clinical cultures changed from 2.7 (1.9) to 1.7 (1.1) among participating NHs, from 1.7 (1.4) to 1.5 (1.1) among nonparticipating NHs (group × period interaction reduction, 30.4%; 95% CI, 16.4%-42.1%), from 25.5 (18.6) to 25.0 (15.9) among participating hospitals, from 12.5 (10.1) to 14.3 (10.2) among nonparticipating hospitals (group × period interaction reduction, 12.9%; 95% CI, 3.3%-21.5%), and from 14.8 (8.6) to 8.2 (6.1) among LTACHs (all facilities participating; 22.5% reduction; 95% CI, 4.4%-37.1%). For NHs, the rate of infection-related hospitalizations per 1000 resident-days changed from 2.31 during baseline to 1.94 during intervention among participating NHs, and from 1.90 to 2.03 among nonparticipating NHs (group × period interaction reduction, 26.7%; 95% CI, 19.0%-34.5%). Associated hospitalization costs per 1000 resident-days changed from $64 651 to $55 149 among participating NHs and from $55 151 to $59 327 among nonparticipating NHs (group × period interaction reduction, 26.8%; 95% CI, 26.7%-26.9%). Associated hospitalization deaths per 1000 resident-days changed from 0.29 to 0.25 among participating NHs and from 0.23 to 0.24 among nonparticipating NHs (group × period interaction reduction, 23.7%; 95% CI, 4.5%-43.0%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A regional collaborative involving universal decolonization in long-term care facilities and targeted decolonization among hospital patients in CP was associated with lower MDRO carriage, infections, hospitalizations, costs, and deaths.

The ongoing multi-country cholera outbreaks deserve greater attention and higher prioritisation globally.1 Since the early 1800s, there have been seven characterised global outbreaks of cholera. The seventh and current pandemic has been causing considerable illness effects since the early 1960s.2 Most recently, floods, droughts, natural disasters, and conflicts have displaced millions of people who have restricted access to clean water and live in settings with poor sewage management and increasing disease risk, further increasing the devasting effect of cholera around the globe.3 Currently, 1 billion people are at risk of contracting cholera and, concerningly, 28 countries with outbreaks in 2023, and 24 countries with active outbreaks were recorded by WHO by Sept 10, 2023 alone.4 In addition, recent outbreaks have had a high case fatality rate.5 The average cholera case fatality rate reported globally in 2021 was 1·9% (2·9% in Africa), a significant increase above the accepted target rate (<1%) and the highest recorded in over a decade.1, 5 Preliminary data suggest a similar trend for 2022 and 2023.1 Cholera is an old adversary that is both preventable and treatable.5 Despite widespread calls for strengthened pandemic preparedness and response, the global public health community are failing to apply lessons learned from COVID-19 to old challenges such as cholera. A key lesson learned from the COVID-19 pandemic is that early, rapid, and aggressive action is crucial in implementing public health interventions and countermeasure development.6

IMPORTANCE: Universal nasal mupirocin plus chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing in intensive care units (ICUs) prevents methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections and all-cause bloodstream infections. Antibiotic resistance to mupirocin has raised questions about whether an antiseptic could be advantageous for ICU decolonization. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of iodophor vs mupirocin for universal ICU nasal decolonization in combination with CHG bathing. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Two-group noninferiority, pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial conducted in US community hospitals, all of which used mupirocin-CHG for universal decolonization in ICUs at baseline. Adult ICU patients in 137 randomized hospitals during baseline (May 1, 2015-April 30, 2017) and intervention (November 1, 2017-April 30, 2019) were included. INTERVENTION: Universal decolonization involving switching to iodophor-CHG (intervention) or continuing mupirocin-CHG (baseline). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: ICU-attributable S aureus clinical cultures (primary outcome), MRSA clinical cultures, and all-cause bloodstream infections were evaluated using proportional hazard models to assess differences from baseline to intervention periods between the strategies. Results were also compared with a 2009-2011 trial of mupirocin-CHG vs no decolonization in the same hospital network. The prespecified noninferiority margin for the primary outcome was 10%. RESULTS: Among the 801 668 admissions in 233 ICUs, the participants' mean (SD) age was 63.4 (17.2) years, 46.3% were female, and the mean (SD) ICU length of stay was 4.8 (4.7) days. Hazard ratios (HRs) for S aureus clinical isolates in the intervention vs baseline periods were 1.17 for iodophor-CHG (raw rate: 5.0 vs 4.3/1000 ICU-attributable days) and 0.99 for mupirocin-CHG (raw rate: 4.1 vs 4.0/1000 ICU-attributable days) (HR difference in differences significantly lower by 18.4% [95% CI, 10.7%-26.6%] for mupirocin-CHG, P < .001). For MRSA clinical cultures, HRs were 1.13 for iodophor-CHG (raw rate: 2.3 vs 2.1/1000 ICU-attributable days) and 0.99 for mupirocin-CHG (raw rate: 2.0 vs 2.0/1000 ICU-attributable days) (HR difference in differences significantly lower by 14.1% [95% CI, 3.7%-25.5%] for mupirocin-CHG, P = .007). For all-pathogen bloodstream infections, HRs were 1.00 (2.7 vs 2.7/1000) for iodophor-CHG and 1.01 (2.6 vs 2.6/1000) for mupirocin-CHG (nonsignificant HR difference in differences, -0.9% [95% CI, -9.0% to 8.0%]; P = .84). Compared with the 2009-2011 trial, the 30-day relative reduction in hazards in the mupirocin-CHG group relative to no decolonization (2009-2011 trial) were as follows: S aureus clinical cultures (current trial: 48.1% [95% CI, 35.6%-60.1%]; 2009-2011 trial: 58.8% [95% CI, 47.5%-70.7%]) and bloodstream infection rates (current trial: 70.4% [95% CI, 62.9%-77.8%]; 2009-2011 trial: 60.1% [95% CI, 49.1%-70.7%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Nasal iodophor antiseptic did not meet criteria to be considered noninferior to nasal mupirocin antibiotic for the outcome of S aureus clinical cultures in adult ICU patients in the context of daily CHG bathing. In addition, the results were consistent with nasal iodophor being inferior to nasal mupirocin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03140423.

IMPORTANCE: Characterizing the scale and factors associated with hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infections could help inform hospital and public health policies regarding prevention and surveillance needs for these infections. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate associations of hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection rates with different periods of the COVID-19 pandemic, hospital characteristics, and testing practices. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study of US hospitals reporting SARS-CoV-2 testing data in the PINC AI Healthcare Database COVID-19 special release files was conducted from July 2020 through June 2022. Data were collected from hospitals that reported at least 1 SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction or antigen test during hospitalizations discharged that month. For each hospital-month where the hospital reported sufficient data, all hospitalizations discharged in that month were included in the cohort. SARS-CoV-2 viral tests and results reported in the microbiology files for all hospitalizations in the study period by discharge month were identified. Data analysis was conducted from September 2022 to March 2023. EXPOSURE: Hospitalizations discharged in an included hospital-month. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Multivariable generalized estimating equation negative-binomial regression models were used to assess associations of monthly rates of hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infections per 1000 patient-days (defined as a first positive SARS-CoV-2 test during after hospitalization day 7) with the phase of the pandemic (defined as the predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant in circulation), admission testing rates, and hospital characteristics (hospital bed size, teaching status, urban vs rural designation, Census region, and patient distribution variables). RESULTS: A total of 5687 hospital-months from 288 distinct hospitals were included, which contributed 4 421 268 hospitalization records. Among 171 564 hospitalizations with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, 7591 (4.4%) were found to be hospital onset and 6455 (3.8%) were indeterminate onset. The mean monthly hospital-onset infection rate per 1000 patient-days was 0.27 (95 CI, 0.26-0.29). Hospital-onset infections occurred in 2217 of 5687 hospital-months (39.0%). The monthly percentage of discharged patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at admission varied; 1673 hospital-months (29.4%) had less than 25% of hospitalizations tested at admission; 2199 hospital-months (38.7%) had 25% to 50% of all hospitalizations tested, and 1815 hospital months (31.9%) had more than 50% of all hospitalizations tested at admission. Postadmission testing rates and community-onset infection rates increased with admission testing rates. In multivariable models restricted to hospital-months testing at least 25% of hospitalizations at admission, a 10% increase in community-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was associated with a 178% increase in the hospital-onset infection rate (rate ratio, 2.78; 95% CI, 2.52-3.07). Additionally, the phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, the admission testing rate, Census region, and bed size were all significantly associated with hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection rates. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study of hospitals reporting SARS-CoV-2 infections, there was an increase of hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infections when community-onset infections were higher, indicating a need for ongoing and enhanced surveillance and prevention efforts to reduce in-hospital transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infections, particularly when community-incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections is high.

Background SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in nursing homes can be large with high case fatality. Identifying asymptomatic individuals early through serial testing is recommended to control COVID-19 in nursing homes, both in response to an outbreak (“outbreak testing” of residents and healthcare personnel) and in facilities without outbreaks (“non-outbreak testing” of healthcare personnel). The effectiveness of outbreak testing and isolation with or without non-outbreak testing was evaluated.Methods Using published SARS-CoV-2 transmission parameters, the fraction of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions prevented through serial testing (weekly, every three days, or daily) and isolation of asymptomatic persons compared to symptom-based testing and isolation was evaluated through mathematical modeling using a Reed-Frost model to estimate the percentage of cases prevented (i.e., “effectiveness”) through either outbreak testing alone or outbreak plus non-outbreak testing. The potential effect of simultaneous decreases (by 10%) in the effectiveness of isolating infected individuals when instituting testing strategies was also evaluated.Results Modeling suggests that outbreak testing could prevent 54% (weekly testing with 48-hour test turnaround) to 92% (daily testing with immediate results and 50% relative sensitivity) of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Adding non-outbreak testing could prevent up to an additional 8% of SARS-CoV-2 infections (depending on test frequency and turnaround time). However, added benefits of non-outbreak testing were mostly negated if accompanied by decreases in infection control practice.Conclusions When combined with high-quality infection control practices, outbreak testing could be an effective approach to preventing COVID-19 in nursing homes, particularly if optimized through increased test frequency and use of tests with rapid turnaround.Summary Mathematical modeling evaluated the effectiveness of serially testing asymptomatic persons in a nursing home in response to a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak with or without serial testing of asymptomatic staff in the absence of known SARS-CoV-2 infections.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding was received. All work was conducted as part of government duties.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This activity was reviewed by CDC and was conducted consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy (see e.g., 45 C.F.R. part 46, 21 C.F.R. part 56; 42 U.S.C. 241(d); 5 U.S.C 552a; 44 U.S.C. 351 et seq.).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData provided in supplemental materials or publicly available through links in the manuscript. https://github.com/cdcepi/Nursing-home-SARS-CoV-2-testing-model/

Importance: There are limited data describing SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses and their durability following infection and vaccination in nursing home residents. Objective(s): To evaluate the quantitative titers and durability of binding antibodies detected after SARSCoV-2 infection and subsequent COVID-19 vaccination. Design(s): A prospective longitudinal evaluation included nine visits over 150 days; visits included questionnaire administration, blood collection for serology, and paired anterior nasal specimen collection for testing by BinaxNOWTM COVID-19 Ag Card (BinaxNOW), reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and viral culture. Setting(s): A nursing home during and after a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. Participant(s): 11 consenting SARS-CoV-2-positive nursing home residents. Main Outcomes and Measures: SARS-CoV-2 testing (BinaxNOWTM, RT-PCR, viral culture); quantitative titers of binding SARS-CoV-2 antibodies post-infection and post-vaccination (beginning after the first dose of the primary series). Result(s): Of 10 participants with post-infection serology results, 9 (90%) had detectable Pan-Ig, IgG, and IgA antibodies and 8 (80%) had detectable IgM antibodies. At first antibody detection post-infection, two-thirds (6/9, 67%) of participants were RT-PCR-positive but none were culture positive. Ten participants received vaccination; all had detectable Pan-Ig, IgG, and IgA antibodies through their final observation <=90 days post-first dose. Post-vaccination geometric means of IgG titers were 10-200-fold higher than post-infection. Conclusions and Relevance: Nursing home residents in this cohort mounted robust immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 post-infection and post-vaccination. The augmented antibody responses post-vaccination are potential indicators of enhanced protection that vaccination may confer on previously infected nursing home residents. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also made available for use under a CC0 license.

BACKGROUND: Nursing home residents and staff were included in the first phase of COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. Because the primary trial endpoint was vaccine efficacy (VE) against symptomatic disease, there are limited data on the extent to which vaccines protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection and the ability to infect others (infectiousness). Assumptions about VE against infection and infectiousness have implications for possible changes to infection prevention guidance for vaccinated populations, including testing strategies. METHODS: We use a stochastic agent-based SEIR model of a nursing home to simulate SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We model three scenarios, varying VE against infection, infectiousness, and symptoms, to understand the expected impact of vaccination in nursing homes, increasing staff vaccination coverage, and different screening testing strategies under each scenario. RESULTS: Increasing vaccination coverage in staff decreases total symptomatic cases in each scenario. When there is low VE against infection and infectiousness, increasing staff coverage reduces symptomatic cases among residents. If vaccination only protects against symptoms, but asymptomatic cases remain infectious, increased staff coverage increases symptomatic cases among residents through exposure to asymptomatic but infected staff. High frequency testing is needed to reduce total symptomatic cases if the vaccine has low efficacy against infection and infectiousness, or only protects against symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Encouraging staff vaccination is not only important for protecting staff, but might also reduce symptomatic cases in residents if a vaccine confers at least some protection against infection or infectiousness. SUMMARY: The extent of efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines against infection, infectiousness, or disease, impacts strategies for vaccination and testing in nursing homes. If vaccines confer some protection against infection or infectiousness, encouraging vaccination in staff may reduce symptomatic cases in residents.

One in six nursing home residents and staff with positive SARS-CoV-2 tests 90 days after initial infection had specimen cycle thresholds (Ct) <30. Individuals with specimen Ct<30 were more likely to report symptoms but were not different from individuals with high Ct value specimens by other clinical and testing data.

The authors reply: We thank Calbo and colleagues for highlighting the need to better understand the role of asymptomatic shedding in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in health care settings. Our study focused on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from asymptomatic and presymptomatic residents in a skilled nursing facility. As we noted, health care personnel with undetected infection probably contributed to transmission in this facility, but we could not document this because we were unable to test asymptomatic health care personnel as part of this investigation owing to limited testing resources at the time. Since that investigation, the CDC has provided guidance on testing strategies in nursing homes.1 In addition, the CDC recommends universal source control in all health care settings to help prevent transmission from health care personnel with unrecognized SARS-CoV-2 infection.2 | | The data provided by Calbo et al. suggest important hypotheses about the role of patients and health care personnel with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in ongoing transmission in acute care facilities, a setting that is distinct from the residential skilled nursing facility described in our article. Further studies may help to better quantify the benefit of active surveillance (including laboratory testing) when added to active symptom screening and universal source control in various health care settings.

This article summarizes what is currently known about the 2019 novel coronavirus and offers interim guidance.

SARS-CoV-2 infections among vaccinated nursing home residents increased after the Omicron variant emerged. Data on booster dose effectiveness in this population are limited. During July 2021-March 2022, nursing home outbreaks in 11 US jurisdictions involving >3 infections within 14 days among residents who had received at least the primary COVID-19 vaccine(s) were monitored. Among 2,188 nursing homes, 1,247 outbreaks were reported in the periods of Delta (n = 356, 29%), mixed Delta/Omicron (n = 354, 28%), and Omicron (n = 536, 43%) predominance. During the Omicron-predominant period, the risk for infection within 14 days of an outbreak start was lower among boosted residents than among residents who had received the primary vaccine series alone (risk ratio [RR] 0.25, 95% CI 0.19-0.33). Once infected, boosted residents were at lower risk for all-cause hospitalization (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.40-0.49) and death (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34-0.59) than primary vaccine-only residents.

As the SARS-CoV-2 virus (the causative agent of COVID-19) began rapidly spreading around the globe in the spring of 2020, existing surveillance systems were not robust or comprehensive enough to meet the tremendous need for real-time, representative characterization of both pathogen and disease. Confronted with these challenges in England, as described by Elliott et al. in this issue of AJPH (p. 545), an alternative, novel, and broadly applicable surveillance platform was established—the Real-time Assessment of Community Transmission-1 (REACT-1) study. This system was designed and purpose-built through a collaboration of public health officials, health care providers, academic modelers, mathematicians, statisticians, logisticians, and epidemiologists. The methods and execution of REACT-1 proved successful in maintaining situational awareness as reported in more than 15 publications and numerous public health reports, leading to meaningful policies and mitigations with significant positive public health impact. Several design and methodological factors contributed to REACT-1’s success and serve as examples for improving surveillance going forward.

A network of global respiratory disease surveillance systems and partnerships has been built over decades as a direct response to the persistent threat of seasonal, zoonotic, and pandemic influenza. These efforts have been spearheaded by the World Health Organization, country ministries of health, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nongovernmental organizations, academic groups, and others. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention worked closely with ministries of health in partner countries and the World Health Organization to leverage influenza surveillance systems and programs to respond to SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Countries used existing surveillance systems for severe acute respiratory infection and influenza-like illness, respiratory virus laboratory resources, pandemic influenza preparedness plans, and ongoing population-based influenza studies to track, study, and respond to SARS-CoV-2 infections. The incorporation of COVID-19 surveillance into existing influenza sentinel surveillance systems can support continued global surveillance for respiratory viruses with pandemic potential.

BACKGROUND: Descriptions of changes in invasive bacterial disease (IBD) epidemiology during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States are limited. METHODS: We investigated changes in the incidence of IBD due to Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, group A Streptococcus (GAS), and group B Streptococcus (GBS). We defined the COVID-19 pandemic period as March 1-December 31, 2020. We compared observed IBD incidences during the pandemic to expected incidences, consistent with January 2014-February 2020 trends. We conducted secondary analysis of a healthcare database to assess changes in testing by blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) culture during the pandemic. RESULTS: Compared with expected incidences, the observed incidences of IBD due to S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, GAS, and GBS were 58%, 60%, 28%, and 12% lower during the pandemic period of 2020, respectively. Declines from expected incidences corresponded closely with implementation of COVID-19-associated non-pharmaceutical-interventions (NPIs). Significant declines were observed across all age, race groups and surveillance sites for S pneumoniae and H influenzae. Blood and CSF culture testing rates during the pandemic were comparable to previous years. CONCLUSIONS: NPIs likely contributed to the decline in IBD incidence in the United States in 2020; observed declines were unlikely to be driven by reductions in testing.

Introduction of monovalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in late 2020 helped to mitigate disproportionate COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality in U.S. nursing homes (1); however, reduced effectiveness of monovalent vaccines during the period of Omicron variant predominance led to recommendations for booster doses with bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that include an Omicron BA.4/BA.5 spike protein component to broaden immune response and improve vaccine effectiveness against circulating Omicron variants (2). Recent studies suggest that bivalent booster doses provide substantial additional protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19-associated disease among immunocompetent adults who previously received only monovalent vaccines (3).* The immunologic response after receipt of bivalent boosters among nursing home residents, who often mount poor immunologic responses to vaccines, remains unknown. Serial testing of anti-spike protein antibody binding and neutralizing antibody titers in serum collected from 233 long-stay nursing home residents from the time of their primary vaccination series and including any subsequent booster doses, including the bivalent vaccine, was performed. The bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccine substantially increased anti-spike and neutralizing antibody titers against Omicron sublineages, including BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5, irrespective of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or previous receipt of 1 or 2 booster doses. These data, in combination with evidence of low uptake of bivalent booster vaccination among residents and staff members in nursing homes (4), support the recommendation that nursing home residents and staff members receive a bivalent COVID-19 booster dose to reduce associated morbidity and mortality (2).

Among nursing home outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with ≥3 breakthrough infections when the predominant severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant circulating was the SARS-CoV-2 δ (delta) variant, fully vaccinated residents were 28% less likely to be infected than were unvaccinated residents. Once infected, they had approximately half the risk for all-cause hospitalization and all-cause death compared with unvaccinated infected residents.

There are limited data describing SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses and their durability following infection and vaccination in nursing home residents. We conducted a prospective longitudinal evaluation of 11 consenting SARS-CoV-2-positive nursing home residents to evaluate the quantitative titers and durability of binding antibodies detected after SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent COVID-19 vaccination. The evaluation included nine visits over 150 days from October 25, 2020, through April 1, 2021. Visits included questionnaire administration, blood collection for serology, and paired anterior nasal specimen collection for testing by BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Ag Card (BinaxNOW), reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and viral culture. We evaluated quantitative titers of binding SARS-CoV-2 antibodies post-infection and post-vaccination (beginning after the first dose of the primary series). The median age among participants was 74 years; one participant was immunocompromised. Of 10 participants with post-infection serology results, 9 (90%) had detectable Pan-Ig, IgG, and IgA antibodies, and 8 (80%) had detectable IgM antibodies. At first antibody detection post-infection, two-thirds (6/9, 67%) of participants were RT-PCR-positive, but none were culture- positive. Ten participants received vaccination; all had detectable Pan-Ig, IgG, and IgA antibodies through their final observation ≤90 days post-first dose. Post-vaccination geometric means of IgG titers were 10-200-fold higher than post-infection. Nursing home residents in this cohort mounted robust immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 post-infection and post-vaccination. The augmented antibody responses post-vaccination are potential indicators of enhanced protection that vaccination may confer on previously infected nursing home residents.

A SARS-CoV-2 P.1 (Gamma) variant outbreak occurred at a skilled nursing facility in Washington, USA, in April 2021. Effectiveness of 2 doses of mRNA vaccines against P.1 infection among residents in this outbreak was 75.0% (95% CI 44.5%-88.7%), similar to effectiveness for other pre-Delta variants among long-term care residents.

Nursing home residents continue to experience significant COVID-19 morbidity and mortality (1). On March 29, 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended a second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster dose for adults aged ≥50 years and all immunocompromised persons who had received a first booster ≥4 months earlier.* On September 1, 2022, ACIP voted to recommend bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine boosters for all persons aged ≥12 years who had completed the primary series using monovalent vaccines ≥2 months earlier (2). Data on COVID-19 booster dose vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the nursing home population are limited (3). For this analysis, academic, federal, and private partners evaluated routine care data collected from 196 U.S. community nursing homes to estimate VE of a second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster dose among nursing home residents who had received 3 previous COVID-19 vaccine doses (2 primary series doses and 1 booster dose). Residents who received second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster doses during March 29-June 15, 2022, with follow-up through July 25, 2022, were found to have 60-day VE of 25.8% against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19 infection), 73.9% against severe COVID-19 outcomes (a combined endpoint of COVID-19-associated hospitalizations or deaths), and 89.6% against COVID-19-associated deaths alone. During this period, subvariants BA.2 and BA.2.12.1 (March-June 2022), and BA.4 and BA.5 (July 2022) of the B.1.1.529 and BA.2 (Omicron) variant were predominant. These findings suggest that among nursing home residents, second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster doses provided additional protection over first booster doses against severe COVID-19 outcomes during a time of emerging Omicron variants. Facilities should continue to ensure that nursing home residents remain up to date with COVID-19 vaccination, including bivalent vaccine booster doses, to prevent severe COVID-19 outcomes.

The disruptions of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impacted the delivery and utilization of healthcare services with potential long-term implications for population health and the hospital workforce. Using electronic health record data from over 700 USacute care hospitals, we documented changes in admissions to hospital service areas (inpatient, observation, emergency room [ER], and same-day surgery) during 2019-2020 and examined whether surges of COVID-19 hospitalizations corresponded with increased inpatient disease severity and death rate. We found that in 2020, hospitalizations declined by 50% in April, with greatest declines occurring in same-day surgery (-73%). The youngest patients (0-17) experienced largest declines in ER, observation, and same-day surgery admissions; inpatient admissions declined the most among the oldest patients (65+). Infectious disease admissions increased by 52%. The monthly measures of inpatient case mix index, length of stay, and non-COVID death rate were higher in all months in 2020 compared with respective months in 2019.

BACKGROUND: Residents of nursing homes experience disproportionate morbidity and mortality related to COVID-19 and were prioritized for vaccine introduction. We evaluated COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections among nursing home residents. METHODS: We used a retrospective cohort of 4,315 nursing home residents during December 14, 2020 - November 9, 2021. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios comparing residents with a completed vaccination series to unvaccinated among those with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (identified using positive SARS-CoV-2 tests and/or diagnosis codes), by vaccine product, and by period (before and during Delta variant predominance). VE was estimated as one minus the hazard ratio times 100%. RESULTS: Overall adjusted VE for the completed vaccination series was 58% (95%CI: 44%, 69%) among residents without a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. During the pre-Delta period, the VE within 150 days of receipt of the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech (67%, 95%CI: 40%, 82%) and Moderna (75%, 95%CI: 32%, 91%) was similar. During the Delta period, VE measured >150 days after the second dose was 33% (95%CI: -2%, 56%) for Pfizer-BioNTech and 77% (95%CI: 48%, 91%) for Moderna. Rates of infection were 78% lower (95%CI: 67%, 85%) among residents with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and completed vaccination series compared to unvaccinated residents without a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccines were effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections among nursing home residents and history of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection provided additional protection. Maintaining high coverage of recommended doses of COVID-19 vaccines remains a critical tool for preventing infections in nursing homes.