Eurosurveillance - Volume 24, Issue 11, 14 March 2019

Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are important locations of antimicrobial consumption. Of particular concern is inappropriate prescribing of prophylactic antimicrobials.

We aimed to explore factors related to antimicrobial prophylaxis in LTCFs in Ireland.

The point prevalence surveys of Healthcare-Associated Infections in Long-Term Care Facilities (HALT) were performed in Ireland in May 2013 and 2016. Data were collected on facility (type and stewardship initiatives) and resident characteristics (age, sex, antimicrobial and indication) for those meeting the surveillance definition for a HAI and/or prescribed an antimicrobial.

In 2013, 9,318 residents (in 190 LTCFs) and in 2016, 10,044 residents (in 224 LTCFs) were included. Of the 10% of residents prescribed antimicrobials, 40% were on prophylaxis, most of which was to prevent urinary tract infection. The main prophylactic agents were: nitrofurantoin (39%) and trimethoprim (41%) for urinary tract (UT); macrolides (47%) for respiratory tract and macrolides and tetracycline (56%) for skin or wounds. More than 50% of the prophylaxis was prescribed in intellectual disability facilities and around 40% in nursing homes. Prophylaxis was recorded more often for females, residents living in LTCFs for more than 1 year and residents with a urinary catheter. No difference in prophylactic prescribing was observed when comparing LTCFs participating and not participating in both years.

Forty per cent of antimicrobial prescriptions in Irish LTCFs were prophylactic. This practice is not consistent with national antimicrobial prescribing guidelines. Addressing inappropriate prophylaxis prescribing in Irish LTCFs should be a key objective of antimicrobial stewardship initiatives.

In 2007, a new federal legislation in Belgium prohibited non-biosafety level 3 laboratories to process culture tubes suspected of containing mycobacteria.

To present mycobacterial surveillance/diagnosis data from the Belgian National Reference Centre for mycobacteria (NRC) from 2007 to 2016.

This retrospective observational study investigated the numbers of analyses at the NRC and false positive cultures (interpreted as containing mycobacteria at referring clinical laboratories, but with no mycobacterial DNA detected by PCR in the NRC). We reviewed mycobacterial species identified and assessed trends over time of proportions of nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) vs Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBc), and false positive cultures vs NTM.

From 2007 to 2016, analyses requests to the NRC doubled from 12.6 to 25.3 per 100,000 inhabitants. A small but significant increase occurred in NTM vs MTBc proportions, from 57.9% (587/1,014) to 60.3% (867/1,437) (p < 0.001). Although NTM infection notification is not mandatory in Belgium, we annually received up to 8.6 NTM per 100,000 inhabitants. M. avium predominated (ca 20% of NTM cultures), but M. intracellulare culture numbers rose significantly, from 13.0% (74/587) of NTM cultures in 2007 to 21.0% (178/867) in 2016 (RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.03–1.07). The number of false positive cultures also increased, reaching 43.3% (1,097/2,534) of all samples in 2016.

We recommend inclusion of NTM in sentinel programmes. The large increase of false positive cultures is hypothesised to result from processing issues prior to arrival at the NRC, highlighting the importance of sample decontamination/transport and equipment calibration in peripheral laboratories.

Given that measles is eliminated in Canada and measles immunisation coverage in Ontario is high, it has been questioned whether Ontario’s measles outbreak response is worthwhile.

Our objective was to determine cost-effectiveness of measles containment protocols in Ontario from the healthcare payer perspective.

We developed a decision-analysis model comparing Ontario’s measles containment strategy (based on actual 2015 outbreak data) with a hypothetical ‘modified response’. The modified scenario assumed 10% response costs with reduced case and contact tracing and no outbreak-associated vaccinations; it was based on local and provincial administrative and laboratory data and parameters from peer-reviewed literature. Short- and long-term health outcomes, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs discounted at 1.5%, were estimated. We conducted one- and two-way sensitivity analyses.

The 2015 outbreak in Ontario comprised 16 measles cases and an estimated 3,369 contacts. Predictive modelling suggested that the outbreak response prevented 16 outbreak-associated cases at a cost of CAD 1,213,491 (EUR 861,579). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was CAD 739,063 (EUR 524,735) per QALY gained for the outbreak response vs modified response. To meet the commonly accepted cost-effectiveness threshold of CAD 50,000 (EUR 35,500) per QALY gained, the outbreak response would have to prevent 94 measles cases. In sensitivity analyses, the findings were robust.

Ontario’s measles outbreak response exceeds generally accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds and may not be the most efficient use of public health resources from a healthcare payer perspective. These findings should be balanced against benefits of increased vaccine coverage and maintaining elimination status.