Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-569ts Total loading time: 0.873 Render date: 2022-10-01T06:17:38.999Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Whole-genome sequencing surveillance and machine learning for healthcare outbreak detection and investigation: A systematic review and summary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2022

Alexander J. Sundermann
Affiliation:
Microbial Genomic Epidemiology Laboratory, Center for Genomic Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Jieshi Chen
Affiliation:
Auton Lab, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
James K. Miller
Affiliation:
Auton Lab, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Elise M. Martin
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Department of Infection Prevention and Hospital Epidemiology, UPMC Presbyterian, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Graham M. Snyder
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Department of Infection Prevention and Hospital Epidemiology, UPMC Presbyterian, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Daria Van Tyne
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Jane W. Marsh
Affiliation:
Microbial Genomic Epidemiology Laboratory, Center for Genomic Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Artur Dubrawski
Affiliation:
Auton Lab, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Lee H. Harrison*
Affiliation:
Microbial Genomic Epidemiology Laboratory, Center for Genomic Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
*
Author for correspondence: Lee H. Harrison, University of Pittsburgh, A530 Crabtree Hall, 130 Desoto Street, Pittsburgh, PA15261. E-mail: lharriso@pitt.edu

Abstract

Background:

Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) has traditionally been used in infection prevention to confirm or refute the presence of an outbreak after it has occurred. Due to decreasing costs of WGS, an increasing number of institutions have been utilizing WGS-based surveillance. Additionally, machine learning or statistical modeling to supplement infection prevention practice have also been used. We systematically reviewed the use of WGS surveillance and machine learning to detect and investigate outbreaks in healthcare settings.

Methods:

We performed a PubMed search using separate terms for WGS surveillance and/or machine-learning technologies for infection prevention through March 15, 2021.

Results:

Of 767 studies returned using the WGS search terms, 42 articles were included for review. Only 2 studies (4.8%) were performed in real time, and 39 (92.9%) studied only 1 pathogen. Nearly all studies (n = 41, 97.6%) found genetic relatedness between some isolates collected. Across all studies, 525 outbreaks were detected among 2,837 related isolates (average, 5.4 isolates per outbreak). Also, 35 studies (83.3%) only utilized geotemporal clustering to identify outbreak transmission routes. Of 21 studies identified using the machine-learning search terms, 4 were included for review. In each study, machine learning aided outbreak investigations by complementing methods to gather epidemiologic data and automating identification of transmission pathways.

Conclusions:

WGS surveillance is an emerging method that can enhance outbreak detection. Machine learning has the potential to identify novel routes of pathogen transmission. Broader incorporation of WGS surveillance into infection prevention practice has the potential to transform the detection and control of healthcare outbreaks.

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) for infection prevention has traditionally been used in reaction to a suspected outbreak, usually at the end of an investigation to confirm or to refute the presence of an outbreak. In contrast, WGS surveillance of selected healthcare-associated pathogens regardless of whether an outbreak is suspected can be used to identify outbreaks that are not detected by traditional hospital epidemiologic methods. High costs and needed infrastructure for implementation have been historic barriers to widespread use of WGS surveillance. However, the cost of WGS has fallen, and the expansion of genomic surveillance due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may enable healthcare institutions to establish WGS surveillance programs for other pathogens. Additionally, our work and studies from Australia have identified cost benefits to implementing a WGS surveillance program with effective intervention. Reference Gordon, Elliott and Forde1

Although WGS surveillance is effective in identifying transmission, it does not provide information on the responsible transmission route, which is crucial for interrupting an outbreak. Traditional epidemiologic methods for identifying where transmission occurs have relied on geotemporal clustering within the hospital, which is inadequate for identifying more complex patterns of transmission. Reference Sherry, Lee and Gorrie2,Reference Ward, Hoss and Kolde3 Automated analysis of electronic health records (EHRs) creates an opportunity to use machine learning or statistical modeling approaches for determining the outbreak transmission routes identified by WGS surveillance. Reference Sundermann, Babiker and Marsh4Reference Miller, Chen and Sundermann8 These automated approaches would assist hospital infection prevention departments by providing systematic methods to investigate outbreaks and identify transmission routes.

In this systematic review, we provide a summary of prior studies utilizing WGS surveillance in healthcare settings for outbreak detection, as well as the use of machine learning and statistical modeling technologies to identify transmission routes. The purposes of this review were to summarize the current literature in this field, to identify barriers to widespread implementation, and to synthesize current knowledge on this topic to help guide decision making about implementation of WGS surveillance.

Methods

Two search terms were utilized in PubMed from inception until March 15, 2021 (Figs. 1 and 2). The WGS surveillance terms “(whole genome sequenc*) AND (surveillance OR routine) AND (healthcare OR hospital) AND transmission” returned 767 results. Article abstracts were screened to exclude studies that were solely community based, non–infection related, utilized non-WGS methods (eg, older molecular subtyping methods such as pulsed-field gel electrophoresis), or only utilized reactive WGS in response to suspected outbreaks. Genomic and epidemiologic data on organisms, number of isolates sequenced, percentage of isolates that were related, number of outbreaks, and epidemiological links were extracted and summarized. Articles were excluded if the data were not sufficiently detailed for extraction.

Fig. 1. Search terms in PubMed for whole-genome sequencing surveillance.

Fig. 2. Search terms in PubMed for machine learning and modeling.

The machine-learning search terms utilized were “(“electronic health record” OR “electronic medical record” OR “artificial intelligence” OR “AI” OR “ML” OR “model”) AND (outbreak OR transmission) AND (“data mining” OR “machine learning”) AND (infection OR infectious) AND (“healthcare-associated” OR “hospital-associated” OR “healthcare-acquired” OR “hospital-acquired”)” and returned 21 results. Article abstracts were screened to exclude infection prediction and outcome studies. Data on the methodology and findings of outbreak and transmission detection models were extracted and summarized.

Results

In total, 42 articles on WGS surveillance were included in the final review. Reference Ward, Hoss and Kolde3Reference Sundermann, Chen and Miller5,Reference Tosas Auguet, Stabler and Betley9Reference Wendel, Malecki, Otchwemah, Tellez-Castillo, Sakka and Mattner47 Among these studies, only 2 employed machine learning or statistical modeling to investigate transmission, which were also captured in the machine learning search. From 2013 to 2016, there was only one article per year, with a substantial increase thereafter (Fig. 3). Moreover, 12 studies were from the United States; 10 were from the United Kingdom; 5 were from Australia; 4 were from Germany; 2 were from Japan; and 1 study came per country came from China, Denmark, Finland, France, India, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Thailand.

Fig. 3. Summary by year of 42 whole-genome sequencing (WGS) surveillance studies in PubMed through March 15, 2021. *Through March 15, 2021.

The duration of WGS surveillance varied substantially by study, with a median of 12 months and a range of 1–73 months (Supplementary Table S1). Only 2 (4.8%) studies were performed in real time; all other studies were performed retrospectively. Moreover, 39 studies included a single pathogen and 3 studies included multiple pathogens (Table 1). Staphylococcus aureus was the most commonly studied organism (12 studies, 28.6%), with 4 additional organisms present in >2 studies: 2 Klebsiella pneumoniae, 7 Clostridioides difficile, 6 Enterococcus faecium, and 3 Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Organisms selected for sequencing (eg, by anatomic site of infection, multilocus sequence type, and antibiotic resistance phenotype) were diverse across studies.

Table 1. Studies by Date, Organism, and Outbreaks Detected Utilizing WGS Surveillance

Criteria for defining genetic relatedness were also highly variable between studies and were generally based on the number of single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) differences between genomes (Supplementary Table S1 online). Among organisms present in >2 studies, C. difficile had the most consistent SNP cutoff at 2 SNPs, and 1 study used 10 SNPs to identify related isolates (Fig. 4). Furthermore, S. aureus had the widest distribution of SNP cutoffs, ranging from 7 to 50 SNPs.

Fig. 4. Distribution of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for defining genetic relatedness from 42 studies.

An analysis of the proportion of sequenced isolates that were determined to be genetically related to one another in each study revealed an average of 23.8% of isolates (range, 0%–61%). There were 525 outbreaks detected among 2,837 related isolates (average 5.4 isolates per outbreak). In addition, 41 studies (97.6%) found some level of genetic relatedness between the sequenced isolates.

We examined the methods employed to identify the responsible transmission routes for outbreaks that were detected by WGS. Overall, 35 studies (83.3%) restricted attempts to identify transmission routes to the same hospital unit during a defined period. Reference Tosas Auguet, Stabler and Betley9,Reference Coll, Harrison and Toleman11Reference Kossow, Kampmeier, Schaumburg, Knaack, Moellers and Mellmann27,Reference Leong, Cooley and Anderson29Reference Roach, Burton and Lee38,Reference Roy, Hartley, Dunn, Williams, Williams and Breuer40Reference Stenmark, Hellmark and Söderquist42,Reference Tsujiwaki, Hisata and Tohyama44Reference Wendel, Malecki, Otchwemah, Tellez-Castillo, Sakka and Mattner47 Only 7 studies (16.7%) examined other possible routes such as medical procedures or healthcare workers. Reference Ward, Hoss and Kolde3Reference Sundermann, Chen and Miller5,Reference Berbel Caban, Pak and Obla10,Reference Kwong, Lane and Romanes28,Reference Rose, Nolan and Moot39,Reference Sullivan, Altman and Chacko43

Several studies were notable for uncovering otherwise unidentified transmissions, which is the main goal of WGS surveillance. Sullivan et al Reference Sullivan, Altman and Chacko43 were prompted by an outbreak in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) to retrospectively investigate all MRSA bloodstream infections for 16 months. Their investigation uncovered isolates related to the NICU outbreak from adult patients in a separate tower. Further investigation revealed shared ventilators between the adult unit and the NICU, which was believed to have caused transmission. Separately, Roy et al Reference Roy, Hartley, Dunn, Williams, Williams and Breuer40 performed sequencing of influenza A H1N1for 6 months and found that traditional infection prevention practice falsely identified outbreaks, and WGS surveillance data were able to connect cases that were previously not believed to be epidemiologically related. Lastly, Berbel Caban et al Reference Berbel Caban, Pak and Obla10 utilized WGS surveillance of MRSA over 2 years and found multiple undetected outbreaks within 2 New York City hospitals. One cluster of 24 isolates from 16 patients spanned 21 months and 9 different hospital wards with patterns of shared healthcare workers. In this study, the authors emphasized the limitations of investigating only geotemporal clustering in outbreak detection and investigation.

Furthermore, 4 articles identified using the machine-learning search terms included in the final synthesis, 2 of which overlapped in the WGS surveillance search terms. Reference Sundermann, Chen and Miller5,Reference Kwong, Lane and Romanes28,Reference Julia, Vilankar, Kang, Brown, Mathers and Barnes48,Reference Stachel, Pinto and Stelling49 Table 2 lists the methods and limitations of each study. One study utilized imputation of cultures to model transmission dynamics from environmental sink contamination, 2 studies used Bayesian methods to model transmission, and 1 study combined WHONET and SaTScan tools to detect outbreaks. In all of these studies, tools were implemented to supplement outbreak detection or investigation, yet the importance of manual or expert input to further investigate the transmissions or outbreaks detected was noted in each of these studies. In the study by Satchel et al, Reference Stachel, Pinto and Stelling49 45 outbreaks were identified, but only 6 were confirmed by an IP investigation. However, these researchers stated that the tool helped to streamline investigation efforts, which reduced time spent by the IP team.

Table 2. Studies Utilizing Machine Learning or Modeling to Detect outbreaks Or Transmission

Discussion

In this systematic review, we synthesized studies that demonstrate the utility of WGS surveillance in finding cryptic outbreaks in healthcare settings. Nearly all studies (97.6%) identified outbreaks, but few (4.8%) utilized machine learning or statistical modeling methods to investigate transmission routes. WGS surveillance, while uncommon but increasingly utilized, aided infection prevention practice in these studies by uncovering outbreaks and enabling intervention.

Studies utilizing WGS surveillance have primarily relied on geotemporal linkage to identify transmission routes. Restricting investigations to geotemporal linkage fails to identify potential transmission by procedures that are performed in areas of the hospital other than patient nursing units or healthcare workers, as shown in some of the studies in this review. Some studies stated the limitations of relying solely on geotemporal parameters for identifying the transmission route for related isolates. Regardless, WGS surveillance enabled many of these studies to uncover substantial and significant previously undetected outbreaks that likely affected patient outcomes and associated healthcare costs.

Almost all of the studies reviewed were retrospective in nature, which limits the potential impact of WGS surveillance on healthcare epidemiology and infection prevention. If performed in real time, IP teams have an opportunity to perform an investigation (eg, audit practices, collect environmental cultures, and interview staff), which is not possible in retrospective studies. Furthermore, many studies focused on 1 pathogen, which is less sensitive for detecting outbreaks than WGS surveillance of multiple pathogens. For example, a single transmission route can lead to the spread of multiple pathogens.

Substantial investment and infrastructure are needed to establish real-time WGS surveillance. Healthcare institutions must have appropriate laboratory capacity, bioinformaticians, and genomic epidemiologists to interpret the data. A recent paper by Parcell et al Reference Parcell, Gillespie, Pettigrew and Holden50 discussed barriers to instituting a WGS surveillance program for outbreak detection from an economic and systemwide perspective. Indeed, it is often difficult to prove estimates of cost-effectiveness when considering prevention interventions, but 2 studies have demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of WGS surveillance programs. Reference Gordon, Elliott and Forde1,Reference Kumar, Sundermann and Martin7

We identified very few studies on the utility of machine learning or statistical modeling methods for identification of outbreak transmission routes by WGS surveillance. In our experience, machine learning adds value in detecting transmission routes that do not involve geotemporal clustering such as invasive procedures, healthcare workers, outbreaks separated by unit, and outbreaks of longer duration. Reference Sundermann, Chen and Miller5,Reference Sundermann, Miller and Marsh6,Reference Miller, Chen and Sundermann8 The use of machine learning in combination with WGS surveillance is clearly an understudied area of healthcare epidemiology and infection prevention. Barriers such as interoperability of electronic health records and adoption of WGS surveillance prevent the implementation of such programs. However, adoption of public health WGS surveillance for COVID-19 may expedite the use of this technology by healthcare institutions.

The combination of prospective WGS surveillance, EHR data, and machine learning has the potential to dramatically transform the paradigm of outbreak detection and investigation for infection prevention and control by identifying outbreaks quicker and enabling early intervention to halt transmission. This approach will both improve patient safety and reduce healthcare costs. However, healthcare institutional investment into establishing WGS surveillance programs will be key to expansion and implementation of this approach.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2021.241

Financial support

This study was funded in part by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health (NIH grant nos. R21Al109459 and R01AI127472).

Conflicts of interest

All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Footnotes

PREVIOUS PRESENTATION: Some of these findings were presented at the annual Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology (APIC) 2021 conference on June 28–30, 2021, in Austin, Texas.

References

Gordon, LG, Elliott, TM, Forde, B, et al. Budget impact analysis of routinely using whole-genomic sequencing of six multidrug-resistant bacterial pathogens in Queensland, Australia. BMJ Open 2021;11:e041968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherry, NL, Lee, RS, Gorrie, CL, et al. Pilot study of a combined genomic and epidemiologic surveillance program for hospital-acquired multidrug-resistant pathogens across multiple hospital networks in Australia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2021;42:573581.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, DV, Hoss, AG, Kolde, R, et al. Integration of genomic and clinical data augments surveillance of healthcare-acquired infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2019;40:649655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sundermann, AJ, Babiker, A, Marsh, JW, et al. Outbreak of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in interventional radiology: detection through whole-genome sequencing-based surveillance. Clin Infect Dis 2020;70:23362343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sundermann, AJ, Chen, J, Miller, JK, et al. Outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections from a contaminated gastroscope detected by whole-genome sequencing surveillance. Clin Infect Dis 2021;73:e638e642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sundermann, AJ, Miller, JK, Marsh, JW, et al. Automated data mining of the electronic health record for investigation of healthcare-associated outbreaks. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2019;40:314319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumar, P, Sundermann, AJ, Martin, EM, et al. Method for economic evaluation of bacterial whole genome sequencing surveillance compared to standard of care in detecting hospital outbreaks. Clin Infect Dis 2021;73:e9e18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, JK, Chen, J, Sundermann, A, et al. Statistical outbreak detection by joining medical records and pathogen similarity. J Biomed Inform 2019;91:103126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tosas Auguet, O, Stabler, RA, Betley, J, et al. Frequent undetected ward-based methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus transmission linked to patient sharing between hospitals. Clin Infect Dis 2018;66:840848.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berbel Caban, A, Pak, TR, Obla, A, et al. PathoSPOT genomic epidemiology reveals under-the-radar nosocomial outbreaks. Genome Med 2020;12:96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coll, F, Harrison, EM, Toleman, MS, et al. Longitudinal genomic surveillance of MRSA in the UK reveals transmission patterns in hospitals and the community. Sci Transl Med 2017;9(413):eaak9745.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cremers, AJH, Coolen, JPM, Bleeker-Rovers, CP, et al. Surveillance-embedded genomic outbreak resolution of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus in a neonatal intensive care unit. Sci Rep 2020;10:2619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donskey, CJ, Sunkesula, VCK, Stone, ND, et al. Transmission of Clostridium difficile from asymptomatically colonized or infected long-term care facility residents. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:909916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eigenbrod, T, Reuter, S, Gross, A, et al. Molecular characterization of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii using WGS revealed missed transmission events in Germany from 2012-15. J Antimicrob Chemother 2019;74:34733480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elbadawi, LI, Borlaug, G, Gundlach, KM, et al. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae transmission in healthcare facilities—Wisconsin, February–May 2015. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65:906909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyre, DW, Cule, ML, Wilson, DJ, et al. Diverse sources of C. difficile infection identified on whole-genome sequencing. N Engl J Med 2013;369:11951205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyre, DW, Fawley, WN, Rajgopal, A, et al. Comparison of control of Clostridium difficile Infection in six english hospitals using whole-genome sequencing. Clin Infect Dis 2017;65:433441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eyre, DW, Shaw, R, Adams, H, et al. WGS to determine the extent of Clostridioides difficile transmission in a high incidence setting in North Wales in 2015. J Antimicrob Chemother 2019;74:10921100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Fernández, S, Frentrup, M, Steglich, M, et al. Whole-genome sequencing reveals nosocomial Clostridioides difficile transmission and a previously unsuspected epidemic scenario. Sci Rep 2019;9:6959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gona, F, Comandatore, F, Battaglia, S, et al. Comparison of core-genome MLST, coreSNP and PFGE methods for Klebsiella pneumoniae cluster analysis. Microb Genom 2020;6(4). doi: 10.1099/mgen.0.000347.Google ScholarPubMed
Gorrie, CL, Mirceta, M, Wick, RR, et al. Gastrointestinal carriage is a major reservoir of Klebsiella pneumoniae infection in intensive care patients. Clin Infect Dis 2017;65:208215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, MD, Holden, MT, Srisomang, P, et al. Improved characterisation of MRSA transmission using within-host bacterial sequence diversity. Elife 2019;8:e46402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammerum, AM, Lauridsen, CAS, Blem, SL, et al. Investigation of possible clonal transmission of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae complex member isolates in Denmark using core genome MLST and National Patient Registry Data. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2020;55:105931.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harada, S, Aoki, K, Yamamoto, S, et al. Clinical and molecular characteristics of Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates causing bloodstream infections in Japan: occurrence of hypervirulent infections in health care. J Clin Microbiol 2019;57:e0120619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houldcroft, CJ, Roy, S, Morfopoulou, S, et al. Use of whole-genome sequencing of adenovirus in immunocompromised pediatric patients to identify nosocomial transmission and mixed-genotype infection. J Infect Dis 2018;218:12611271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jakharia, KK, Ilaiwy, G, Moose, SS, et al. Use of whole-genome sequencing to guide a Clostridioides difficile diagnostic stewardship program. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2019;40:804806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kossow, A, Kampmeier, S, Schaumburg, F, Knaack, D, Moellers, M, Mellmann, A. Whole-genome sequencing reveals a prolonged and spatially spread nosocomial outbreak of Panton-Valentine leucocidin-positive meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (USA300). J Hosp Infect 2019;101:327332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwong, JC, Lane, CR, Romanes, F, et al. Translating genomics into practice for real-time surveillance and response to carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae: evidence from a complex multi-institutional KPC outbreak. Peer J 2018;6:e4210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leong, KWC, Cooley, LA, Anderson, TL, et al. Emergence of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium at an Australian hospital: a whole-genome sequencing analysis. Sci Rep 2018;8:6274.Google ScholarPubMed
Long, SW, Beres, SB, Olsen, RJ, Musser, JM. Absence of patient-to-patient intrahospital transmission of Staphylococcus aureus as determined by whole-genome sequencing. mBio 2014;5(5):e0169201614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marmor, A, Daveson, K, Harley, D, Coatsworth, N, Kennedy, K. Two carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae outbreaks detected retrospectively by whole-genome sequencing at an Australian tertiary hospital. Infect Dis Health 2020;25:3033.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, JSH, Eyre, DW, Fawley, WN, et al. Patient and strain characteristics associated with Clostridium difficile transmission and adverse outcomes. Clin Infect Dis 2018;67:13791387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathur, P, Khurana, S, de Man, TJB, et al. Multiple importations and transmission of colistin-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in a hospital in northern India. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2019;40:13871393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meredith, LW, Hamilton, WL, Warne, B, et al. Rapid implementation of SARS-CoV-2 sequencing to investigate cases of health-care associated COVID-19: a prospective genomic surveillance study. Lancet Infect Dis 2020;20:12631271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miles-Jay, A, Weissman, SJ, Adler, AL, Baseman, JG, Zerr, DM. Whole-genome sequencing detects minimal clustering among Escherichia coli sequence type 131-H30 isolates collected from United States children’s hospitals. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc 2021;10:183187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neumann, B, Bender, JK, Maier, BF, et al. Comprehensive integrated NGS-based surveillance and contact-network modeling unravels transmission dynamics of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in a high-risk population within a tertiary-care hospital. PLoS One 2020;15:e0235160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raven, KE, Gouliouris, T, Brodrick, H, et al. Complex routes of nosocomial vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium transmission revealed by genome sequencing. Clin Infect Dis 2017;64:886893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roach, DJ, Burton, JN, Lee, C, et al. A year of infection in the intensive care unit: prospective whole-genome sequencing of bacterial clinical isolates reveals cryptic transmissions and novel microbiota. PLoS Genet 2015;11:e1005413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, R, Nolan, DJ, Moot, S, et al. Molecular surveillance of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus genomes in hospital unexpectedly reveals discordance between temporal and genetic clustering. Am J Infect Control 2021;49:5964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roy, S, Hartley, J, Dunn, H, Williams, R, Williams, CA, Breuer, J. Whole-genome sequencing provides data for stratifying infection prevention and control management of nosocomial influenza A. Clin Infect Dis 2019;69:16491656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherry, NL, Lane, CR, Kwong, JC, et al. Genomics for molecular epidemiology and detecting transmission of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales in Victoria, Australia, 2012 to 2016. J Clin Microbiol 2019;57:e0057319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenmark, B, Hellmark, B, Söderquist, B. Genomic analysis of Staphylococcus capitis isolated from blood cultures in neonates at a neonatal intensive care unit in Sweden. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2019;38:20692075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, MJ, Altman, DR, Chacko, KI, et al. A complete genome screening program of clinical methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates identifies the origin and progression of a neonatal intensive care unit outbreak. J Clin Microbiol 2019;57:e0126119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsujiwaki, A, Hisata, K, Tohyama, Y, et al. Epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a Japanese neonatal intensive care unit. Pediatr Int 2020;62:911919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Beek, J, Räisänen, K, Broas, M, et al. Tracing local and regional clusters of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae ST512 with whole-genome sequencing, Finland, 2013 to 2018. Euro Surveill 2019;24(38). doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.38.1800522 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X, Zhou, H, Chen, D, et al. Whole-genome sequencing reveals a prolonged and persistent intrahospital transmission of Corynebacterium striatum, an emerging multidrug-resistant pathogen. J Clin Microbiol 2019;57:e0068319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wendel, AF, Malecki, M, Otchwemah, R, Tellez-Castillo, CJ, Sakka, SG, Mattner, F. One-year molecular surveillance of carbapenem-susceptible A. baumannii on a German intensive care unit: diversity or clonality. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2018;7:145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Julia, L, Vilankar, K, Kang, H, Brown, DE, Mathers, A, Barnes, LE. Environmental reservoirs of nosocomial infection: imputation methods for linking clinical and environmental microbiological data to understand infection transmission. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2017;2017:11201129.Google ScholarPubMed
Stachel, A, Pinto, G, Stelling, J, et al. Implementation and evaluation of an automated surveillance system to detect hospital outbreak. Am J Infect Control 2017;45:13721377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parcell, BJ, Gillespie, SH, Pettigrew, KA, Holden, MTG. Clinical perspectives in integrating whole-genome sequencing into the investigation of healthcare and public health outbreaks—hype or help? J Hosp Infect 2021;109:19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Search terms in PubMed for whole-genome sequencing surveillance.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Search terms in PubMed for machine learning and modeling.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Summary by year of 42 whole-genome sequencing (WGS) surveillance studies in PubMed through March 15, 2021. *Through March 15, 2021.

Figure 3

Table 1. Studies by Date, Organism, and Outbreaks Detected Utilizing WGS Surveillance

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Distribution of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for defining genetic relatedness from 42 studies.

Figure 5

Table 2. Studies Utilizing Machine Learning or Modeling to Detect outbreaks Or Transmission

Supplementary material: File

Sundermann et al. supplementary material

Sundermann et al. supplementary material

Download Sundermann et al. supplementary material(File)
File 17 KB
You have Access Open access

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Whole-genome sequencing surveillance and machine learning for healthcare outbreak detection and investigation: A systematic review and summary
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Whole-genome sequencing surveillance and machine learning for healthcare outbreak detection and investigation: A systematic review and summary
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Whole-genome sequencing surveillance and machine learning for healthcare outbreak detection and investigation: A systematic review and summary
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *