Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Mathematical Modeling of the Transmission Dynamics of Clostridium difficile Infection and Colonization in Healthcare Settings: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background

We conducted a systematic review of mathematical models of transmission dynamic of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in healthcare settings, to provide an overview of existing models and their assessment of different CDI control strategies.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science up to February 3, 2016 for transmission-dynamic models of Clostridium difficile in healthcare settings. The models were compared based on their natural history representation of Clostridium difficile, which could include health states (S-E-A-I-R-D: Susceptible-Exposed-Asymptomatic-Infectious-Resistant-Deceased) and the possibility to include healthcare workers and visitors (vectors of transmission). Effectiveness of interventions was compared using the relative reduction (compared to no intervention or current practice) in outcomes such as incidence of colonization, CDI, CDI recurrence, CDI mortality, and length of stay.

Results

Nine studies describing six different models met the inclusion criteria. Over time, the models have generally increased in complexity in terms of natural history and transmission dynamics and number/complexity of interventions/bundles of interventions examined. The models were categorized into four groups with respect to their natural history representation: S-A-I-R, S-E-A-I, S-A-I, and S-E-A-I-R-D. Seven studies examined the impact of CDI control strategies. Interventions aimed at controlling the transmission, lowering CDI vulnerability and reducing the risk of recurrence/mortality were predicted to reduce CDI incidence by 3–49%, 5–43% and 5–29%, respectively. Bundles of interventions were predicted to reduce CDI incidence by 14–84%.

Conclusions

Although CDI is a major public health problem, there are very few published transmission-dynamic models of Clostridium difficile. Published models vary substantially in the interventions examined, the outcome measures used and the representation of the natural history of Clostridium difficile, which make it difficult to synthesize results and provide a clear picture of optimal intervention strategies. Future modeling efforts should pay specific attention to calibration, structural uncertainties, and transparent reporting practices.

Citation: Gingras G, Guertin M-H, Laprise J-F, Drolet M, Brisson M (2016) Mathematical Modeling of the Transmission Dynamics of Clostridium difficile Infection and Colonization in Healthcare Settings: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 11(9): e0163880. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163880

Editor: Gayatri Vedantam, University of Arizona, UNITED STATES

Received: June 27, 2016; Accepted: September 15, 2016; Published: September 30, 2016

Copyright: © 2016 Gingras et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This work was supported by the Canada Research Chairs program (http://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/), (support for MB), an operating grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/), (grant no. MOP-136830), and a foundation scheme grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant no. FDN-143283). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: In the past 3 years, MD has consulted for GlaxoSmithKline (herpes zoster vaccine). This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Introduction

Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) is a major public health problem that directly affects patient safety and disrupts hospital operations, causing significant health and economic consequences to the healthcare system [1–3]. C. difficile is an endospore-forming bacterium, which is spread mainly through the fecal-oral route. C. difficile can colonize the small intestine and the colon following the disturbance of the gut flora, typically caused by the exposure to antimicrobials. Proliferation of C. difficile can cause a broad range of clinical manifestations, varying from asymptomatic carriage, to diarrhea (C. difficile infection (CDI)), to pseudomembranous colitis and, in some cases, death. The greatest incidence of CDI is among individuals exposed to antimicrobial therapy, proton-pumps inhibitors and the elderly with a past medical history of hospitalization [4]. In hospital settings, three main pathways of C. difficile transmission have been documented: 1) contacts with infectious patients (asymptomatically colonized and symptomatic) [5, 6]; 2) exposure following contacts with healthcare workers (HCW) [7]; and 3) exposure caused by the environmental contamination [8, 9].

Over the past two decades, the incidence and severity of CDI and its related health care costs have increased dramatically in high income countries, mainly because of the emergence of a more virulent strain (BI/NAP1/027) [10]. Fortunately, new technologies and control strategies (e.g., rapid diagnostic tests [11], vaccines [12], introduction of antimicrobial stewardship programs [13–15] and enhanced infection control practices [16]) offer tremendous promise for the reduction of hospital-associated CDI. However, randomized clinical trials examining the optimal use and the combinations of these strategies are lacking because of: 1) their prohibitive costs; 2) challenges in comparing and isolating the benefit of multiple interventions within one study; 3) ethical issues (e.g., randomizing patients into experimental groups during outbreaks); and 4) limited generalizability because of differences in patient populations, hospital characteristics, and antimicrobial use can have an important impact on study findings. Hence, evidence on the efficacy of individual interventions or groups of interventions (bundles) are based mostly on observational studies [17] and remain very limited.

Mathematical models of infectious disease transmission dynamics have proven extremely valuable to address questions that are unfeasible or unethical in a clinical trial setting [18–20]. For healthcare-associated CDI, modeling can provide a formal framework to test and compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a large number of prevention and control strategies considering different hospital/patient characteristics and to address many possible assumptions about the natural history of C. difficile. However, predicting the impact of interventions against communicable diseases is particularly challenging since prevention, treatment or contact precautions in an individual can indirectly protect others by reducing transmission. The non-linear dynamics produced by this indirect protection (e.g., herd immunity) has played an important role in the success of vaccines against infectious diseases (e.g., eradication of smallpox [21]) and screening for sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., reduction of HIV by screening sex workers) [22]. It is particularly important to use transmission dynamic models (which inherently capture indirect effects), when examining the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of C. difficile prevention and control strategies, such as screening and vaccination, as an anticipated major benefit of such strategies is the reduction of C. difficile transmission within hospitals.

We conducted a systematic review of mathematical models of transmission dynamics of healthcare-associated C. difficile infection and colonization in order to provide an overview of current models and their predictions of the effectiveness of CDI control strategies. Specific aims were to describe and compare: 1) the models’ structure and assumptions about C. difficile natural history and transmission dynamics; and 2) C. difficile prevention and control strategies investigated by the models and their predictions of effectiveness.

Methods

Search strategy and selection criteria

We performed a systematic review of the literature, which we report according to PRISMA guidelines [23] (see S1 Table). The studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review if they included a mathematical model of transmission dynamics for hospital-acquired C. difficile infection or colonization. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and Web of Science databases, with no restriction on the language of the articles, document type or year of publication. The last search was performed on February 3, 2016. We developed the search strategy by ensuring equivalent design and terminology in each database (with the use of Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) or Emtree terms used in PubMed and EMBASE respectively). The search strategy was divided into four groups of keywords concerning: #1) Clostridium difficile; AND #2) mathematical modeling; AND #3) hospitals and healthcare-associated infection; NOT #4) animals (see S1 Appendix for a detailed list of keywords). GG and MHG independently 1) identified eligible studies through review of titles and abstracts; 2) retrieved the full-text studies; and 3) assessed the eligibility of studies. To identify additional studies, we also reviewed the references of the selected articles.

Data extraction for description of models

We extracted the data for the description of the models using an extraction form containing the following components: 1) model objectives and specifications; 2) natural history assumptions; 3) transmission pathways; 4) parameterization methods, calibration and uncertainty/sensitivity analysis; 5) C. difficile prevention and control strategies examined; and 6) model output/outcomes. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers (GG and MHG) using the predefined form. We contacted the authors of the studies to request further specific clarifications when information was lacking or unclear.

Assessment of the quality of reporting

To our knowledge, no checklist or formal assessment tools are available to evaluate the quality of reporting for transmission-dynamic models. However, guidelines have been published concerning best modeling research practices. To assess the quality of the reporting of the models included in this systematic review, we developed a questionnaire-based grid, considering the recommendations from various modeling practice guidelines [24–41]. The questionnaire consisted of the following categories: 1) research question; 2) natural history representation and the transmission dynamics; 3) parameter estimates and data sources; 4) modeling approaches and mathematical methods; 5) outcomes of models; 6) uncertainty and sensitivity analyses; 7) validation and quality of documentation (see S2 Appendix for details). For all studies, every question was assessed in order to establish if the items defined in the question were fully/partially/not addressed by the study or if the items were not applicable. The quality of the reporting was assessed independently by two reviewers (GG and MHG).

Representation of natural history and transmission dynamics

Natural history refers to the progression of the disease between health states in an individual over time. It can be represented schematically by a set of health state compartments linked by arrows indicating the possible transitions (progression/regression) between the health states. To compare the natural history representation of the models, we developed an epidemic model template that divides the natural history representations of C. difficile into six possible health states (S-E-A-I-R-D: Susceptible-Exposed-Asymptomatic-Infectious-Resistant-Deceased) (see S3 Appendix for details). For each model, the template allowed us to: 1) stratify every health state, according to modeled population characteristics; 2) clearly identify every health state transition defined in the natural history representation of the models; and 3) identify each transmission pathway.

Effectiveness of C. difficile control strategies

For each primary health outcome defined, we extracted the effect of interventions and we reported its effectiveness. The outcomes of interest were the relative reduction in: 1) C. difficile colonization (incidence or ratio of colonized patients discharged to the colonized patients admitted); 2) CDI incidence; 3) incidence of recurrence of CDI; 4) CDI mortality; and 5) length of stay. We extracted the relative reduction in each outcome either directly from the studys’ text and tables, by using a graphical approach or by retrieving the simulation data from an author’s website [42]. In a second step, we categorized each of these interventions into one of the three groups according to their principal aim: 1) reducing the transmission; 2) reducing vulnerability to CDI; 3) reducing the risk of CDI recurrence or CDI mortality. Also, we reported the effectiveness of modeled bundles of interventions which can comprise any combination of the previous items.

Results

Study Selection

We identified 2,566 records (articles and abstracts) after duplicates were removed. After screening of titles and abstract, 47 studies were selected for a full-text review (Fig 1). Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Within these nine studies, we identified six independent models (three studies were based on adaptations of previously published models). The studies were published between 2001 and 2015 and originate from three countries (the US, the UK, and Australia) (Table 1).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Flowchart of study selection.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163880.g001

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Characteristics of studies included in the systematic review.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163880.t001

Study & model characteristics

Settings.

The hospital setting was very variable between the modeling studies. The models either included one or more hospital wards (n = 5) or an entire hospital (n = 4) (Table 1).

Natural history representation and transmission dynamics.

Natural history representations were categorized into four groups of models (see Fig 2 and Table 1 and S3 Appendix for a detailed representation of the natural history of each model).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Natural history representations.

Only the principal transitions are presented and stratifications were omitted from this figure for simplicity (e.g., heterogeneities related to the exposure to antibiotics). Patients can only be in one of the mutually exclusive health states at a given time (S-E-A-I-R-D: Susceptible-Exposed-Asymptomatic-Infectious-Resistant-Deceased). Two compartments (C and U) are included for interactions between patients and HCWs/visitors. See S3 Appendix for the full description of the natural history assumptions and transmission pathways included in each model.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163880.g002

All models included Susceptible (S), Asymptomatically colonized (A) and Infectious symptomatic (I) health states. Two studies included at least two C. difficile strain types in their framework. Key differences in the natural history between models were whether or not they included latent Exposed (E) and/or Resistant/Immune (R) health states. The Exposed (E) health state refers to the acquisition of the pathogen through the ingestion of C. difficile spores and it represents a latent period of non-infectivity where the spores germinate into vegetative cells. For the five models that include resistance states (R), type and duration of resistance varied dramatically. Studies either assumed temporary resistance to colonization (related to the barrier protection provided by a healthy gut microbiota, n = 4) or natural immunity following clearance of C. difficile colonization/infection (n = 1).

Transmission.

The majority of studies (n = 7) included transmission between patients (exposure to infectious patients (symptomatic and colonized)) (Table 1). However, a subgroup of studies (n = 5) also included indirect transmission pathways (exposure from a contaminated HCW/visitor/environment). Environment as a source of transmission was incorporated explicitly in four studies, three of which also included the layout of the healthcare services (wards, rooms, beds) when modeling transmission dynamics. For the other studies, the transmission was independent of the location of C. difficile infected patients in the hospital. All studies used stochastic mathematical methods for transmission dynamics. Two approaches were used to model transmission: 1) homogeneous mixing between individuals of the population (the force of infection is based upon the mass-action assumption) (n = 6); or 2) contact patterns/networks between individuals/agents (n = 3). In the first case, the force of infection is determined by: 1) the prevalence of asymptomatically colonized and/or symptomatic patients, and/or contaminated HCW; 2) the effective contact rates between infectious individuals (patients/HCW); and/or 3) a static background of environmental contamination. The second method relies on properties of agent-based modeling, which accounts for contacts between individuals or between individuals and the environment. This requires modeling: 1) patient spatial heterogeneities; 2) mobility of agents (patient, HCW/visitor); and/or 3) contact patterns or contact rates.

Parameter estimation/calibration and uncertainty analyses.

Only two modeling studies clearly stated that they used calibration methods, identifying parameter values by fitting their models to empirical data (Table 1). For the other studies, most parameters were directly inferred from the literature. The majority of studies reported using parametric sensitivity analysis. However, no study reported examining structural uncertainties related to the natural history representation, transmission pathways or contact patterns/networks.

Quality assessment of models reporting

Generally, the studies provided a clear description of: 1) research question; 2) model assumptions about natural history and transmission; and 3) modeling approaches and mathematical methods (S2 Appendix). On the other hand, the main limitations of study reporting were in the description of: 1) model outcomes, including their comparators (e.g., absence or partial reporting of the baseline values of health outcomes) or the denominators used (e.g., unknown time horizon or patient population considered); and 2) the uncertainty and sensitivity analyses. Indeed, for the great majority of studies, uncertainty analysis was limited to a few parameters without assessment of structural uncertainty. Finally, two studies reported model validation.

Study results

Two main objectives were addressed in the modeling studies: 1) to increase the understanding of C. difficile natural history and transmission dynamics (n = 2); and 2) to assess the impact of interventions (n = 7) (Table 1).

Understanding Clostridium difficile natural history.

Both studies examining C. difficile natural history and transmission dynamics suggested that transmission between hospitalized patients is a key determinant of CDI incidence. Starr et al. [43], highlighted that hospital outbreaks are driven by transmission between patients, and are not caused by an environmental reservoir. Lanzas et al. [45] suggested that antibiotics play a smaller role on hospital acquired CDI compared to C. difficile transmission from colonized patients and the length of stay of patients (which increases their risk of exposure to C. difficile during their hospitalization).

Interventions for the prevention and control of CDI.

The predictions of models regarding the impacts of CDI prevention and control strategies are presented in Table 2. The measure of the impact of interventions is assessed using a comparison to current practices (n = 3) or no intervention (n = 2). Five studies examined targeted approaches to reduce C. difficile transmission within hospitals including: 1) reduction of average length of stay (n = 2); 2) screening on admission followed by isolation of colonized patients (n = 2); 3) hand hygiene with soap and water (n = 1); 4) enhancement of the environmental decontamination (n = 1); and 5) improvement of adherence to contact precautions in isolation rooms (n = 1). These interventions showed a reduction of CDI incidence ranging from 3% to 49%. Four studies analyzed interventions aimed at reducing patients’ vulnerability to CDI: 1) antimicrobial stewardship (n = 3); 2) administration of probiotics (n = 2); and 3) prophylactic use of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) (n = 2). The models predicted that these interventions could reduce the incidence of CDI by 5% to 43%. Two studies investigated interventions designed to reduce the risk of recurrence or mortality: 1) oral vancomycin as an initial treatment for CDI (n = 1); and 2) use of FMT for all patients with CDI (n = 1). For these interventions, the predicted reductions in CDI recurrence were 42% and 90% respectively. Moreover, the vancomycin therapy provided up to 69% reduction in CDI-related mortality and the greatest reduction in length of stay (22%). Finally, five studies evaluated the impact of bundles of interventions. These multi-pronged interventions strategies predicted the largest reductions in CDI incidence (between 14% and 84%) as well as in new colonizations by C. difficile (42% to 89%), CDI-related mortality (93%) and length of stay (22%).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Relative reduction (%) in CDI outcomes resulting from interventions of CDI prevention and/or control.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163880.t002

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of transmission-dynamic mathematical models of C. difficile infection and colonization in healthcare settings. Only six distinct models were identified in the literature, despite: 1) the important health and economic burden of C. difficile infections on healthcare systems; and 2) the extensive use of such models to predict effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prevention and control strategies for other infectious diseases to inform policy decisions [19, 52–54]. The models differed substantially in their natural history representations, healthcare settings modeled, outcome measures and interventions examined, which made it impossible to draw specific conclusions about optimal CDI prevention and control strategies. However, generally, the models suggested that individual or groups of interventions aimed at reducing C. difficile transmission within healthcare settings were more effective than interventions aimed at reducing CDI vulnerability, CDI recurrence or CDI mortality. Finally, the more recent models tended to be more complex, by integrating greater patient heterogeneity (e.g., local contamination levels depending on the spatial location of patients in the hospital or differential risks of colonization/CDI by level of antibiotic exposure), and more elaborate contact patterns/networks and interventions.

According to good modeling practice guidelines [25–27, 32, 35], model validation should include a between-model corroboration (convergent validity) and, when possible, external and predictive validation. Our systematic review shows that there is important variability in the predictions of the effectiveness of CDI control and prevention strategies which are due to the significant heterogeneity of interventions assessed through various natural history representation structures. C. difficile transmission-dynamic models examined three main categories of interventions for which we can consider external validity: 1) measures aimed at cutting transmission paths (mostly by environmental decontamination); 2) practices to prevent colonization/infection (e.g., antimicrobial stewardship programs); and 3) bundles of interventions. Firstly, the predicted effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing CDI incidence through transmission control were generally in line with results from epidemiological studies. For example, these studies have shown that enhancing environmental decontamination (daily/terminal cleaning of hospital rooms) can reduce CDI incidence by 38–85% [55–61], which is similar to the model predictions of the effectiveness of environmental decontamination (43% compared to no intervention [51]) and hand hygiene and sanitation (49% compared to standard care [46]). Secondly, only two models investigated the impact of antimicrobial stewardship as an intervention. When examined, antimicrobial stewardship practices were indirectly incorporated into the models through an overall rate of antibiotic prescription without taking into account the differential risks of CDI according to antimicrobial classes. Both models predicted moderate (43% [44]) or little impact (11% [46]) of antibiotic use on CDI incidence, which contrasts with the moderate to high empirical effectiveness of antimicrobial stewardship programs at reducing CDI incidence (by 36–79% [14, 15, 62–68]). Thirdly, the models predicted that the effectiveness of bundles of interventions in preventing CDI incidence is 15–84%, which is similar to reductions reported by observational and intervention studies (31–71%) [69–73]. However, given the wide intervals and variability in the interventions included in the bundles, it is very difficult to conclude that the models are accurately predicting empirical outcomes.

There are three main uncertainties about the natural history, transmission and overall epidemiology of C. difficile in healthcare settings, which make it very difficult to model CDI control and prevention strategies. Firstly, the role of asymptomatically colonized patients in the transmission dynamics of C. difficile remains unclear (e.g., their contributions to new infections/colonizations and their period of incubation have not been precisely measured). However, evidence strongly suggests that asymptomatically colonized patients play an important role in C. difficile transmission within healthcare settings. Asymptomatically colonized patients are a source of importation of toxigenic C. difficile strains [74] and form a large reservoir for horizontal transmission [5, 75]. Furthermore, routine screening and isolation/cohorting of asymptomatic patients has been shown to be effective in decreasing CDI incidence [76]. Secondly, empirical data on the role/contribution of HCWs on overall transmission of C. difficile, especially due to their contact patterns/networks with patients and others HCWs, are lacking. The third key knowledge gap is the level of immunity/resistance to C. difficile colonization and development of disease. The basic resistance to C. difficile relies primarily on the presence of commensal bacteria, which confer protection against colonization. As depicted in the majority of C. difficile models, the use of antibiotics can disrupt these protective bacterial populations, which can lead to colonization of the intestinal tract by C. difficile and a higher risk of CDI. However, other forms of immunity/resistance have not been explored by the models, such as, for example, the effect of an anamnestic immune response after clearance of infection from a first episode on the risk of CDI recurrences.

We identified four modeling gaps. Firstly, antimicrobial stewardship programs modeled should include more mechanistic elements in order to examine the impact of various stewardship strategies, which would be informative for decision makers. In particular, future models could include differential risks of CDI associated with antibiotic classes or could examine how CDI health outcomes are affected by treatment duration and antimicrobial consumption. Secondly, none of the transmission-dynamic models have examined the cost-effectiveness of CDI interventions, although such analyses are currently a crucial element in policy decisions. Thirdly, structural uncertainty analysis should be included and reported more systematically, and the model should be cross-validated with observational studies. The variability in model predictions of effectiveness found in this review could be explained by the wide variety of model structures and interventions examined. Examining the impact of structural assumptions would provide insights on which assumptions have the greatest impact on model predictions, and allow better assessment of the validity of the models. For example, it would be important to examine whether specific assumptions about transmission, due to the focus on transmission dynamics, could explain why interventions aimed at reducing transmission were more effective than antibiotic stewardship (which does not seem to be consistent with the results from epidemiological studies). Fourthly, the emergence of more virulent strains has changed the epidemiology of C. difficile during the last decade. However, although significantly higher risk of colonization/CDI/recurrence has been linked with some specific hypervirulent C. difficile strains (e.g., BI/NAP1/027 [4, 77] or BK/NAP7/078 [78]), this has not systematically been included in published C. difficile transmission-dynamic models. Including strain-specific transition rates would allow models to capture the differential risk of CDI morbidity (e.g., severe infection, complications, ICU admission, treatment failure due to antimicrobial resistance) and mortality between historic and hypervirulent strains [79–81]. Finally, the review highlights key features that modelers should consider including in their models to increase their usefulness and validity. Models should preferably be agent-based, allowing an easier integration of environmental heterogeneity of the healthcare settings and consequently of the transmission pathways between patients and other agents such as healthcare workers (e.g., Rubin et al. [47] and Codella et al. [51] use such models). More importantly, models should be calibrated to epidemiological data and model fit should be shown/described.

Conclusions

Mathematical models of transmission dynamics of Clostridium difficile in healthcare settings are scarce considering the significant burden generated by this pathogen on healthcare systems. Current models vary substantially in their natural history assumptions, outcome measures presented and interventions examined, which lead to an unclear picture of the optimal intervention strategies to control and prevent C. difficile infections. Future modeling efforts should pay specific attention to calibration, structural uncertainties, cost-effectiveness and good transparency practices.

Supporting Information

S1 Table. PRISMA checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163880.s001

(PDF)

S1 Appendix. Search strategy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163880.s002

(PDF)

S2 Appendix. Assessment of the quality of reporting of the transmission dynamics mathematical models.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163880.s003

(PDF)

S3 Appendix. Analysis of the natural history representations and transmission dynamics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163880.s004

(PDF)

Author Contributions

  1. Conceptualization: GG MHG JFL MD MB.
  2. Formal analysis: GG MHG.
  3. Funding acquisition: MB.
  4. Investigation: GG MHG.
  5. Methodology: GG MHG JFL MD MB.
  6. Visualization: GG MHG.
  7. Writing – original draft: GG MHG.
  8. Writing – review & editing: GG MHG JFL MD MB.

References

  1. 1. Scott, RD 2nd. The Direct Medical Costs of Healthcare-Associated Infections in U.S. Hospitals and the Benefits of Prevention. Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion National Center for Preparedness, Detection, and Control of Infectious Diseases; 2009 [cited 2016 Apr 11]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/HAI/pdfs/hai/Scott_CostPaper.pdf.
    • 2. Ghantoji SS, Sail K, Lairson DR, DuPont HL, Garey KW. Economic healthcare costs of Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review. J Hosp Infect. 2010;74(4):309–318. pmid:20153547
    • 3. Levy AR, Szabo SM, Lozano-Ortega G, Lloyd-Smith E, Leung V, Lawrence R, et al. Incidence and Costs of Clostridium difficile Infections in Canada. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2015;2(3):ofv076. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4503917. pmid:26191534
    • 4. Loo VG, Bourgault AM, Poirier L, Lamothe F, Michaud S, Turgeon N, et al. Host and Pathogen Factors for Clostridium difficile Infection and Colonization. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(18):1693–1703. pmid:22047560
    • 5. Clabots CR, Johnson S, Olson MM, Peterson LR, Gerding DN. Acquisition of Clostridium difficile by Hospitalized Patients: Evidence for Colonized New Admissions as a Source of Infection. J Infect Dis. 1992;166(3):561–7. pmid:1323621
    • 6. Eyre DW, Cule ML, Wilson DJ, Griffiths D, Vaughan A, O’Connor L, et al. Diverse Sources of C. difficile Infection Identified on Whole-Genome Sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(13):1195–205. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3868928. pmid:24066741
    • 7. Landelle C, Verachten M, Legrand P, Girou E, Barbut F, Brun-Buisson C. Contamination of Healthcare Workers’ Hands with Clostridium difficile Spores after Caring for Patients with C. difficile Infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(1):10–5. pmid:24334792
    • 8. Fekety R, Kim KH, Brown D, Batts DH, Cudmore M, Silva J Jr. Epidemiology of Antibiotic-Associated Colitis: Isolation of Clostridium Difficile from the Hospital Environment. Am J Med. 1981;70(4):906–908. pmid:7211925
    • 9. Weber DJ, Rutala WA. The Role of the Environment in Transmission of Clostridium difficile Infection in Healthcare Facilities. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32(3):207–9. pmid:21460504
    • 10. Warny M, Pepin J, Fang A, Killgore G, Thompson A, Brazier J, et al. Toxin production by an emerging strain of Clostridium difficile associated with outbreaks of severe disease in North America and Europe. Lancet. 2005;366(9491):1079–84. pmid:16182895
    • 11. Catanzaro M, Cirone J. Real-time polymerase chain reaction testing for Clostridium difficile reduces isolation time and improves patient management in a small community hospital. Am J Infect Control. 2012;40:663–666. pmid:22153847
    • 12. National Institutes of Health. Study of a Candidate Clostridium Difficile Toxoid Vaccine (Cdiffense) in Subjects at Risk for C. Difficile Infection. 2014 [cited 2016 Apr 11];Available from: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01887912?term=clostridium+difficile&rank=5.
      • 13. Davey P, Brown E, Charani E, Fenelon L, Gould IM, Holmes A, et al. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(4). pmid:23633313
      • 14. Wenisch JM, Equiluz-Bruck S, Fudel M, Reiter I, Schmid A, Singer E, et al. Decreasing Clostridium difficile Infections by an Antimicrobial Stewardship Program That Reduces Moxifloxacin Use. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(9):5079–5083. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4135825. pmid:24936597
      • 15. Sarma JB, Marshall B, Cleeve V, Tate D, Oswald T, Woolfrey S. Effects of fluoroquinolone restriction (from 2007 to 2012) on Clostridium difficile infections: interrupted time-series analysis. J Hosp Infect. 2015;91(1):74–80. pmid:26169793
      • 16. Hughes GJ, Nickerson E, Enoch DA, Ahluwalia J, Wilkinson C, Ayers R, et al. Impact of cleaning and other interventions on the reduction of hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infections in two hospitals in England assessed using a breakpoint model. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013;84(3):227–234. pmid:23787167
      • 17. Khanafer N, Voirin N, Barbut F, Kuijper E, Vanhems P. Hospital management of Clostridium difficile infection: a review of the literature. J Hosp Infect. 2015;90(2):91–101. pmid:25913648
      • 18. Boily MC, Abu-Raddad L, Desai K, Masse B, Self S, Anderson R. Measuring the public-health impact of candidate HIV vaccines as part of the licensing process. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008;8(3):200–7. pmid:18291341
      • 19. Heesterbeek H, Anderson RM, Andreasen V, Bansal S, De Angelis D, Dye C, et al. Modeling infectious disease dynamics in the complex landscape of global health. Science. 2015;347 (6227). PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4445966. pmid:25766240
      • 20. Kiskowski M, Chowell G. Modeling household and community transmission of Ebola virus disease: epidemic growth, spatial dynamics and insights for epidemic control. Virulence. 2015;p. 1–11. pmid:26399855
      • 21. Henderson DA. Lessons from the eradication campaigns. Vaccine. 1999;17, Supplement 3:S53–S55. pmid:10559535
      • 22. Steen R, Dallabetta G. Sexually Transmitted Infection Control with Sex Workers: Regular Screening and Presumptive Treatment Augment Efforts to Reduce Risk and Vulnerability. Reprod Health Matters. 2003;11(22):74–90. pmid:14708399
      • 23. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies that Evaluate Healthcare Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2714672. pmid:19622552
      • 24. US Environmental Protection Agency, Science Policy Council. White Paper on the Nature and Scope of Issues on Adoption of Model Use Acceptability Guidance; 1999 [cited 2016 Mar 18]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-02/documents/whitepaper_1999.pdf.
        • 25. Weinstein MC, Toy EL, Sandberg EA, Neumann PJ, Evans JS, Kuntz KM, et al. Modeling for Health Care and Other Policy Decisions: Uses, Roles, and Validity. Value Health. 2001;4(5):348–361. pmid:11705125
        • 26. Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, Jackson J, Johannesson M, McCabe C, et al. Principles of Good Practice for Decision Analytic Modeling in Health-Care Evaluation: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices–Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003;6(1):9–17. pmid:12535234
        • 27. Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(36):172. pmid:15361314
        • 28. Thacker BH, Doebling SW, Hemez FM, Anderson MC, Pepin JE, Rodriguez EA. Concepts of Model Verification and Validation. Los Alamos National Laboratory; 2004 [cited 2016 Mar 17]. Available from: http://www.ltas-vis.ulg.ac.be/cmsms/uploads/File/LosAlamos_VerificationValidation.pdf.
          • 29. Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S. Good Practice Guidelines for Decision-Analytic Modelling in Health Technology Assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(4):355–371. pmid:16605282
          • 30. Committee on Models in the Regulatory Decision Process, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council. Models in Environmental Regulatory Decision Making. National Academies Press; 2007 [cited 2016 Mar 15]. Availaible from: http://www2.lbl.gov/today/2007/Jun/22-Fri/Models-report.pdf.
            • 31. The US Environmental Protection Agency, Council of Regulatory Environmental Modeling, Office of the Science Advisor. Guidance on the Development, Evaluation, and Application of Environmental Models; 2009 [cited 2015 Mar 15]. Available from: http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1003E4R.PDF.
              • 32. Kopec J, Fines P, Manuel D, Buckeridge D, Flanagan W, Oderkirk J, et al. Validation of population-based disease simulation models: a review of concepts and methods. BMC Public Health. 2010;10(1):710. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3001435. pmid:21087466
              • 33. Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EAL, Karnon J, Sculpher MJ, Paltiel AD. Model Parameter Estimation and Uncertainty: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-6. Value Health. 2012;15(6):835–842. pmid:22999133
              • 34. Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM. Modeling Good Research Practices-Overview: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-1. Value Health. 2012;15(6):796–803. pmid:22999128
              • 35. Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, Tsevat J, McDonald KM, Wong JB. Model Transparency and Validation: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-7. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):733–743. pmid:22990088
              • 36. Pitman R, Fisman D, Zaric GS, Postma M, Kretzschmar M, Edmunds J, et al. Dynamic Transmission Modeling: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-5. Value Health. 2012;15(6):828–834. pmid:22999132
              • 37. Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, Chambers M, McEwan P, Krahn M. Conceptualizing a Model: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-2. Value Health. 2012;15(6):804–811. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4207095. pmid:22999129
              • 38. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)-Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(2):231–250. pmid:23538175
              • 39. Kuntz K, Sainfort F, Butler M, Taylor B, Kulasingam S, Gregory S, et al. Decision and Simulation Modeling in Systematic Reviews. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013 [cite 2016 Mar 15]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK127482/.
                • 40. Jaime Caro J, Eddy DM, Kan H, Kaltz C, Patel B, Eldessouki R, et al. Questionnaire to Assess Relevance and Credibility of Modeling Studies for Informing Health Care Decision Making: An ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force Report. Value Health. 2014;17(2):174–182. pmid:24636375
                • 41. Peñaloza Ramos MC, Barton P, Jowett S, Sutton AJ. A Systematic Review of Research Guidelines in Decision-Analytic Modeling. Value Health. 2015;18(4):512–529. pmid:26091606
                • 42. Lofgren ET. Fecal Transplant—Simulation and analysis code for stochastic compartmental models of fecal transplant for the prevention of Clostridium difficile in intensive care units.; 2014 [cited 2016 Mar 31]. Available from: https://github.com/elofgren/FecalTransplant.
                  • 43. Starr JM, Campbell A. Mathematical modeling of Clostridium difficile infection. Clinical Microbiol and Infect. 2001;7(8):432–437. pmid:11591207
                  • 44. Starr JM, Campbell A, Renshaw E, Poxton IR, Gibson GJ. Spatio-temporal stochastic modelling of Clostridium difficile. J Hosp Infect. 2009;71(1):49–56. pmid:19013677
                  • 45. Lanzas C, Dubberke ER, Lu Z, Reske KA, Gröhn YT. Epidemiological Model for Clostridium difficile Transmission in Healthcare Settings. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32(6):553–561. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3645005. pmid:21558767
                  • 46. Yakob L, Riley T, Paterson D, Clements A. Clostridium difficile exposure as an insidious source of infection in healthcare settings: an epidemiological model. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13(1):376. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3751620. pmid:23947736
                  • 47. Rubin MA, Jones M, Leecaster M, Khader K, Ray W, Huttner A, et al. A Simulation-Based Assessment of Strategies to Control Clostridium Difficile Transmission and Infection. PLoS One;8(11):e80671. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3836736. pmid:24278304
                  • 48. Lofgren ET, Moehring RW, Anderson DJ, Weber DJ, Fefferman NH. A Mathematical Model to Evaluate the Routine Use of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation to Prevent Incident and Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(1):18–27. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3977703. pmid:24334794
                  • 49. Yakob L, Riley TV, Paterson DL, Marquess J, Clements ACA. Assessing control bundles for Clostridium difficile: a review and mathematical model. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2014;3:e43. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4078791. pmid:26038744
                  • 50. Lanzas C, Dubberke ER. Effectiveness of Screening Hospital Admissions to Detect Asymptomatic Carriers of Clostridium difficile: A Modeling Evaluation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(08):1043–1050. pmid:25026622
                  • 51. Codella J, Safdar N, Heffernan R, Alagoz O. An Agent-based Simulation Model for Clostridium difficile Infection Control. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(2):211–29. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4311776. pmid:25112595
                  • 52. Jit M, Brisson M. Modelling the Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases for Decision Analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;29(5):371–386. pmid:21504239
                  • 53. van Kleef E, Robotham J, Jit M, Deeny S, Edmunds W. Modelling the transmission of healthcare associated infections: a systematic review. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13(1):294. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3701468. pmid:23809195
                  • 54. Watson CH, Edmunds WJ. A review of typhoid fever transmission dynamic models and economic evaluations of vaccination. Vaccine. 2015;33, Suppl 3:C42–C54. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4504000. pmid:25921288
                  • 55. Struelens MJ, Maas A, Nonhoff C, Deplano A, Rost F, Serruys E, et al. Control of Nosocomial Transmission of Clostridium difficile Based on Sporadic Case Surveillance. Am J Med. 1991;91(3, Supplement 2):S138–S144. pmid:1928155
                  • 56. Mayfield JL, Leet T, Miller J, Mundy LM. Environmental Control to Reduce Transmission of Clostridium difficile. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;31(4):995–1000. pmid:11049782
                  • 57. Boyce JM, Havill NL, Otter JA, McDonald LC, Adams NMT, Cooper T, et al. Impact of Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor Room Decontamination on Clostridium difficile Environmental Contamination and Transmission in a Healthcare Setting. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29(8):723–729. pmid:18636950
                  • 58. Hacek DM, Ogle AM, Fisher A, Robicsek A, Peterson LR. Significant impact of terminal room cleaning with bleach on reducing nosocomial Clostridium difficile. Am J Infect Control. 2010;38(5):350–353. pmid:20123150
                  • 59. Orenstein R, Aronhalt KC, McManus JE, Fedraw LA. A Targeted Strategy to Wipe Out Clostridium difficile. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32(11):1137–1139. pmid:22011546
                  • 60. Manian FA, Griesnauer S, Bryant A. Implementation of hospital-wide enhanced terminal cleaning of targeted patient rooms and its impact on endemic Clostridium difficile infection rates. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41(6):537–541. pmid:23219675
                  • 61. Best EL, Parnell P, Thirkell G, Verity P, Copland M, Else P, et al. Effectiveness of deep cleaning followed by hydrogen peroxide decontamination during high Clostridium difficile infection incidence. J Hosp Infect. 2014;87(1):25–33. pmid:24746230
                  • 62. Carling P, Fung T, Killion A, Terrin N, Barza M. Favorable Impact of a Multidisciplinary Antibiotic Management Program Conducted During 7 Years. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24(9):699–706. pmid:14510254
                  • 63. Fowler S, Webber A, Cooper BS, Phimister A, Price K, Carter Y, et al. Successful use of feedback to improve antibiotic prescribing and reduce Clostridium difficile infection: a controlled interrupted time series. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;59(5):990–995. pmid:17387117
                  • 64. Valiquette L, Cossette B, Garant MP, Diab H, Pepin J. Impact of a Reduction in the Use of High-Risk Antibiotics on the Course of an Epidemic of Clostridium difficile -Associated Disease Caused by the Hypervirulent NAP1/027 Strain. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45 Suppl 2:S112–21. pmid:17683015
                  • 65. Price J, Cheek E, Lippett S, Cubbon M, Gerding DN, Sambol SP, et al. Impact of an intervention to control Clostridium difficile infection on hospital- and community-onset disease; an interrupted time series analysis. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010;16(8):1297–1302. pmid:19832710
                  • 66. Talpaert MJ, Gopal Rao G, Cooper BS, Wade P. Impact of guidelines and enhanced antibiotic stewardship on reducing broad-spectrum antibiotic usage and its effect on incidence of Clostridium difficile infection. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66(9):2168–2174. pmid:21676904
                  • 67. Dancer SJ, Kirkpatrick P, Corcoran DS, Christison F, Farmer D, Robertson C. Approaching zero: temporal effects of a restrictive antibiotic policy on hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile, extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing coliforms and meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2013;41(2):137–142. pmid:23276500
                  • 68. Beaulac K, Corcione S, Epstein L, Davidson LE, Doron S. Antimicrobial Stewardship in a Long-Term Acute Care Hospital Using Offsite Electronic Medical Record Audit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016;37(04):433–439. pmid:26752662
                  • 69. Muto CA, Blank MK, Marsh JW, Vergis EN, O’Leary MM, Shutt KA, et al. Control of an Outbreak of Infection with the Hypervirulent Clostridium difficile BI Strain in a University Hospital Using a Comprehensive “Bundle” Approach. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45(10):1266–1273. pmid:17968819
                  • 70. Salgado CD, Mauldin PD, Fogle PJ, Bosso JA. Analysis of an outbreak of Clostridium difficile infection controlled with enhanced infection control measures. Am J Infect Control. 2009;37(6):458–464. pmid:19243859
                  • 71. Weiss K, Boisvert A, Chagnon M, Duchesne C, Habash S, Lepage Y, et al. Multipronged Intervention Strategy to Control an Outbreak of Clostridium difficile Infection (CDI) and Its Impact on the Rates of CDI from 2002 to 2007. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009;30(2):156–162. pmid:19125681
                  • 72. Bishop J, Parry MF, Hall T. Decreasing Clostridium difficile Infections in Surgery: Impact of a Practice Bundle Incorporating a Resident Rounding Protocol. Conn Med. 2013 [cited 2016 Apr 13];77(2):69–75. Available from: MEDLINE with Full Text. pmid:23513633
                  • 73. You E, Song H, Cho J, Lee J. Reduction in the incidence of hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection through infection control interventions other than the restriction of antimicrobial use. Int J Infect Dis. 2014;22:9–10. pmid:24583565
                  • 74. Zacharioudakis IM, Zervou FN, Pliakos EE, Ziakas PD, Mylonakis E. Colonization With Toxinogenic C. difficile Upon Hospital Admission, and Risk of Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am J Gastroenterol;110(3):381–390. pmid:25732416
                  • 75. Curry SR, Muto CA, Schlackman JL, Pasculle AW, Shutt KA, Marsh JW, et al. Use of Multilocus Variable Number of Tandem Repeats Analysis Genotyping to Determine the Role of Asymptomatic Carriers in Clostridium difficile Transmission. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;57(8):1094–1102. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3783061. pmid:23881150
                  • 76. Longtin Y, Paquet-Bolduc B, Gilca R, Garenc C, Fortin E, Longtin J, et al. Effect of Detecting and Isolating Clostridium difficile Carriers at Hospital Admission on the Incidence of C difficile Infections: A Quasi-Experimental Controlled Study. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;. pmid:27111806
                  • 77. Vardakas KZ, Konstantelias AA, Loizidis G, Rafailidis PI, Falagas ME. Risk factors for development of Clostridium difficile infection due to BI/NAP1/027 strain: a meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2012;16(11):e768–73. pmid:22921930
                  • 78. Goorhuis A, Bakker D, Corver J, Debast SB, Harmanus C, Notermans DW, et al. Emergence of Clostridium difficile Infection Due to a New Hypervirulent Strain, Polymerase Chain Reaction Ribotype 078. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47(9):1162–1170. pmid:18808358
                  • 79. Miller M, Gravel D, Mulvey M, Taylor G, Boyd D, Simor A, et al. Health Care-Associated Clostridium difficile Infection in Canada: Patient Age and Infecting Strain Type Are Highly Predictive of Severe Outcome and Mortality. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(2):194–201. pmid:20025526
                  • 80. See I, Mu Y, Cohen J, Beldavs ZG, Winston LG, Dumyati G, et al. NAP1 Strain Type Predicts Outcomes From Clostridium difficile Infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(10):1394–1400. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4697926. pmid:24604900
                  • 81. Rao K, Micic D, Natarajan M, Winters S, Kiel MJ, Walk ST, et al. Clostridium difficile Ribotype 027: Relationship to Age, Detectability of Toxins A or B in Stool With Rapid Testing, Severe Infection, and Mortality. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(2):233–241. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4565993. pmid:25828993