bioMérieux.

ObjectiveTo compare the effect of two strategies (enhanced hand hygiene vs meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) screening and decolonisation) alone and in combination on MRSA rates in surgical wards.DesignProspective, controlled, interventional cohort study, with 6-month baseline, 12-month intervention and 6-month washout phases.Setting33 surgical wards of 10 hospitals in nine countries in Europe and Israel.ParticipantsAll patients admitted to the enrolled wards for more than 24 h.InterventionsThe two strategies compared were (1) enhanced hand hygiene promotion and (2) universal MRSA screening with contact precautions and decolonisation (intranasal mupirocin and chlorhexidine bathing) of MRSA carriers. Four hospitals were assigned to each intervention and two hospitals combined both strategies, using targeted MRSA screening.Outcome measuresMonthly rates of MRSA clinical cultures per 100 susceptible patients (primary outcome) and MRSA infections per 100 admissions (secondary outcome). Planned subgroup analysis for clean surgery wards was performed.ResultsAfter adjusting for clustering and potential confounders, neither strategy when used alone was associated with significant changes in MRSA rates. Combining both strategies was associated with a reduction in the rate of MRSA clinical cultures of 12% per month (adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.98). In clean surgery wards, strategy 2 (MRSA screening, contact precautions and decolonisation) was associated with decreasing rates of MRSA clinical cultures (15% monthly decrease, aIRR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.97) and MRSA infections (17% monthly decrease, aIRR 0.83, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.99).ConclusionsIn surgical wards with relatively low MRSA prevalence, a combination of enhanced standard and MRSA-specific infection control approaches was required to reduce MRSA rates. Implementation of single interventions was not effective, except in clean surgery wards where MRSA screening coupled with contact precautions and decolonisation was associated with significant reductions in MRSA clinical culture and infection rates.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00685867

Extended-spectrum b-lactamaseIncidence rate Machine learning a b s t r a c t Objectives: The aim of the study was to measure the impact of antibiotic exposure on the acquisition of colonization with extended-spectrum b-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacteria (ESBL-GNB) accounting for individual-and group-level confounding using machine-learning methods. Methods: Patients hospitalized between September 2010 and June 2013 at six medical and six surgical wards in Italy, Serbia and Romania were screened for ESBL-GNB at hospital admission, discharge, antibiotic start, and after 3, 7, 15 and 30 days. Primary outcomes were the incidence rate and predictive factors of new ESBL-GNB colonization. Random forest algorithm was used to rank antibiotics according to the risk of selection of ESBL-GNB colonization in patients not colonized before starting antibiotics. Results: We screened 10 034 patients collecting 28 322 rectal swab samples. New ESBL-GNB colonization incidence with and without antibiotic treatment was 22/1000 and 9/1000 exposure-days, respectively. In the adjusted regression analyses, antibiotic exposure (hazard ratio (HR) 2.38; 95% CI 1.29e4.40), age 60 e69 years (HR 1.19; 95% CI 1.05e1.34), and spring season (HR 1.25; 95% CI 1.14e1.38) were independently associated with new colonization. Monotherapy ranked higher als combination therapy in promoting ESBL-GNB colonization. Among monotherapy, cephalosporins ranked first followed by tetracycline (second), macrolide (fourth) and cotrimoxazole (seventh). Overall the ranking of cephalosporins was lower when used in combination. Among combinations not including cephalosporins, quinolones plus carbapenems ranked highest (eighth). Among sequential therapies, quinolones ranked highest (tenth) when prescribed within 30 days of therapy with cephalosporins. Conclusions: Impact of antibiotics on selecting ESBL-GNB at intestinal level varies if used in monotherapy or combination and according to previous antibiotic exposure. These finding should be explored in future clinical trials on antibiotic stewardship interventions.

We surveyed European medical schools regarding teaching of prudent antibiotic prescribing in the undergraduate curriculum. We performed a cross-sectional survey in 13 European countries (Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom) in 2013. Proportional sampling was used, resulting in the selection of two to four medical schools per country. A standardized questionnaire based on literature review and validated by a panel of experts was sent to lecturers in infectious diseases, medical microbiology and clinical pharmacology. In-depth interviews were conducted with four lecturers. Thirty-five of 37 medical schools were included in the study. Prudent antibiotic use principles were taught in all but one medical school, but only four of 13 countries had a national programme. Interactive teaching formats were used less frequently than passive formats. The teaching was mandatory for 53% of the courses and started before clinical training in 71%. We observed wide variations in exposure of students to important principles of prudent antibiotic use among countries and within the same country. Some major principles were poorly covered (e.g. reassessment and duration of antibiotic therapy, communication skills). Whereas 77% of the respondents fully agreed that the teaching of these principles should be prioritized, lack of time, mainly due to rigid curriculum policies, was the main reported barrier to implementation. Given the study design, these are probably optimistic results. Teaching of prudent antibiotic prescribing principles should be improved. National and European programmes for development of specific learning outcomes or competencies are urgently needed.