Search

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus greatly affected healthcare workers and healthcare systems. It also challenged schools and universities worldwide negatively affecting in-person education. We conducted this study is to assess the evolution of SARs-CoV-2 virulence over the course of the pandemic., Methods: A combined cohort of University students in Spain and HCWs from the two hospitals in Spain, and one healthcare system in the Greater Boston area was followed prospectively from March 8th, 2020, to January 31st, 2022 for diagnosis with COVID-19 by PCR testing and related sequelae. Follow-up time was divided into four periods according to distinct waves of infection during the pandemic. Severity of COVID-19 was measured by case-hospitalization rate. Descriptive statistics and multivariable-adjusted statistics using the Poisson mixed-effects regression model were applied. As a sensitivity analysis, information on SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater and COVID-19 deaths through May 30, 2023 from the Boston area was collected., Results: For the last two periods of the study (January 1st to December 15th, 2021 and December 16th, 2021 to January 31st, 2022) and relative to the first period (March 8th to May 31st, 2020), the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of hospitalization were 0.08 (95% CI, 0.03-0.17) and 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01-0.15), respectively. In addition, a relative risk 0.012 CI95% (0.012-0.012) was observed when comparing COVID-19 mortality versus SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/mL in Boston-area wastewater over the period (16th December 2021 to 30th May 2023) and relative to the first period., Conclusions: The severity of COVID-19 and immunity of our populations evolved over time, resulting in a decrease in case severity. We found the case-hospitalization rate decreased more than 90% in our cohort despite an increase in incidence., (Copyright © 2024 Sociedad Española de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted the lack of agreement regarding the definition of aerosol-generating procedures and potential risk to healthcare personnel. We convened a group of Massachusetts healthcare epidemiologists to develop consensus through expert opinion in an area where broader guidance was lacking at the time., Competing Interests: All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article., (© The Author(s) 2023.)

Diagnosis of acute severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection relies on detection of viral antigens or amplified viral nucleic acids. Serology, although invaluable for epidemiology, is not routinely needed clinically. However, in some settings, serologic data may have direct clinical utility: for example, in evaluation of persistent symptoms in patients without a prior diagnosis of acute infection. In contrast, SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing is sometimes used or requested in situations in which existing data do not support it, such as determination of need for vaccination. In this study, we describe available methods of serologic testing and provide cases supported by clinical vignettes of where such tests can be helpful, as well as examples where they are not. These examples may help clarify clinical decision making in this rapidly evolving area., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. All authors: No reported conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Data on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) among healthcare workers (HCWs) during periods of delta variant predominance are limited., Methods: We followed a population of urban Massachusetts HCWs (45% non-White) subject to epidemiologic surveillance. We accounted for covariates such as demographics and community background infection incidence, as well as information bias regarding COVID-19 diagnosis and vaccination status., Results: During the study period (December 16, 2020 to September 30, 2021), 4615 HCWs contributed to a total of 1,152,486 person-days at risk (excluding 309 HCWs with prior infection) and had a COVID-19 incidence rate of 5.2/10,000 (114 infections out of 219,842 person-days) for unvaccinated person-days and 0.6/10,000 (49 infections out of 830,084 person-days) for fully vaccinated person-days, resulting in an adjusted VE of 82.3% (95% CI 75.1-87.4%). For the secondary analysis limited to the period of delta variant predominance in Massachusetts (i.e., July 1 to September 30, 2021), we observed an adjusted VE of 76.5% (95% CI 40.9-90.6%). Independently, we found no re-infection among those with prior COVID-19, contributing to 74,557 re-infection-free person-days, adding to the evidence base for the robustness of naturally acquired immunity., Conclusions: We found a VE of 76.5% against the delta variant. Our work also provides further evidence of naturally acquired immunity., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: To better understand coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmission among healthcare workers (HCWs), we investigated occupational and nonoccupational risk factors associated with cumulative COVID-19 incidence among a Massachusetts HCW cohort., Design, Setting, and Participants: The retrospective cohort study included adult HCWs in a single healthcare system from March 9 to June 3, 2020., Methods: The SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal RT-PCR results and demographics of the study participants were deidentified and extracted from an established occupational health, COVID-19 database at the healthcare system. HCWs from each particular job grouping had been categorized into frontline or nonfrontline workers. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and odds ratios (ORs) were used to compare subgroups after excluding HCWs involved in early infection clusters before universal masking began. A sensitivity analysis was performed comparing jobs with the greatest potential occupational risks with others., Results: Of 5,177 HCWs, 152 (2.94%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Affected HCWs resided in areas with higher community attack rates (median, 1,755.2 vs 1,412.4 cases per 100,000; P < .001; multivariate-adjusted IRR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.03-3.44 comparing fifth to first quintile of community rates). After multivariate adjustment, African-American and Hispanic HCWs had higher incidence of COVID-19 than non-Hispanic white HCWs (IRR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.78-4.33; and IRR, 2.41, 95% CI, 1.42-4.07, respectively). After adjusting for race and residential rates, frontline HCWs had a higher IRR (1.73, 95% CI, 1.16-2.54) than nonfrontline HCWs overall, but not within specific job categories nor when comparing the highest risk jobs to others., Conclusions: After universal masking was instituted, the strongest risk factors associated with HCW COVID-19 infection were residential community infection rate and race.

SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence among health-care workers (HCW) can assess past exposure and possible immunity, which varies across different regions, populations and times. We investigated the seroprevalence among HCW in Massachusetts (a region suffering high COVID-19 mortality) at the end of first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. All HCW at Cambridge Health Alliance were invited to participate in this cross-sectional survey in June 2020. Those who volunteered, consented and provided a blood sample were included. Dried blood specimens from finger-prick sampling collected either at home by each HCW or onsite by the study team were analyzed for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG to the virus' receptor binding domain, using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. IgM and IgG antibody abundance were categorized based on the number of standard deviations above the cross-reacting levels found in existing, pre-pandemic blood samples previously obtained by the Ragon Institute and analyzed by the Broad Institute (Cambridge, MA). Seroprevalence estimates were made based on 'positive' IgM or IgG using 'low' (>6 SD), 'medium' (>4.5 SD), and 'high' prevalence cutoffs (>3 SD).A total of 433 out of 5,204 eligible HCWs consented and provided samples. Participating HCWs had a lower cumulative incidence (from the start of the pandemic up to the bloodspot collections) of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity (1.85%) compared to non-participants (3.29%). The low, medium, and high seroprevalence estimates were 8.1%, 11.3%, and 14.5%, respectively. The weighted estimates based on past PCR positivity were 13.9%, 19.4%, and 24.9%, respectively, for the entire healthcare system population after accounting for participation bias.

Background: Indiscriminate orders for urinalysis and urine cultures (UC) drive inappropriate antibiotic treatment (Abx), especially in older adults with mental health disorders. Lack of data regarding the prevalence of and treatment for infections in acute geriatric psychiatric units (GPU) motivated us to initiate this project., Aim: Our goal was to improve urine test utilization and reduce unnecessary Abx for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) and contaminated UC. Methods: This retrospective review and prospective evaluation of bundled interventions was conducted in a 22- bed GPU in a community-based teaching hospital. Four hundred twenty-seven (427) patient records were reviewed for Abx and indication and 157 patients were assessed for the impact of bundled interventions., Results: Near 27% received Abx, primarily for a misdiagnosed urinary tract infection. Only 20% met clinical criteria; 80% were unnecessarily treated for ASB or contaminated cultures. Over two-thirds of the Abx consisted of fluoroquinolones or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, neither of which are recommended due to adverse events and/or resistance. The impact of bundled interventions was marginally effective., Conclusion: Urinalysis and UC are indiscriminately ordered in older adults, resulting in inappropriate Abx with non-recommended agents. Urinalysis should not be a requirement for admission in asymptomatic patients given the high prevalence of ASB and pyuria in older adults. There is an opportunity for more collaboration within referring networks to standardize best practice., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright: © 2021 International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research.)

Background: Coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) is caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2, transmissible both person-to-person and from contaminated surfaces. Early COVID-19 detection among healthcare workers (HCWs) is crucial for protecting patients and the healthcare workforce. Because of limited testing capacity, symptom-based screening may prioritize testing and increase diagnostic accuracy., Methods and Findings: We performed a retrospective study of HCWs undergoing both COVID-19 telephonic symptom screening and nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 assays during the period, March 9-April 15, 2020. HCWs with negative assays but progressive symptoms were re-tested for SARS-CoV-2. Among 592 HCWs tested, 83 (14%) had an initial positive SARS-CoV-2 assay. Fifty-nine of 61 HCWs (97%) who were asymptomatic or reported only sore throat/nasal congestion had negative SARS-CoV-2 assays (P = 0.006). HCWs reporting three or more symptoms had an increased multivariate-adjusted odds of having positive assays, 1.95 (95% CI: 1.10-3.64), which increased to 2.61 (95% CI: 1.50-4.45) for six or more symptoms. The multivariate-adjusted odds of a positive assay were also increased for HCWs reporting fever and a measured temperature ≥ 37.5°C (3.49 (95% CI: 1.95-6.21)), and those with myalgias (1.83 (95% CI: 1.04-3.23)). Anosmia/ageusia (i.e. loss of smell/loss of taste) was reported less frequently (16%) than other symptoms by HCWs with positive assays, but was associated with more than a seven-fold multivariate-adjusted odds of a positive test: OR = 7.21 (95% CI: 2.95-17.67). Of 509 HCWs with initial negative SARS-CoV-2 assays, nine had symptom progression and positive re-tests, yielding an estimated negative predictive value of 98.2% (95% CI: 96.8-99.0%) for the exclusion of clinically relevant COVID-19., Conclusions: Symptom and temperature reports are useful screening tools for predicting SARS-CoV-2 assay results in HCWs. Anosmia/ageusia, fever, and myalgia were the strongest independent predictors of positive assays. The absence of symptoms or symptoms limited to nasal congestion/sore throat were associated with negative assays., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Objective: To determine the thoroughness of terminal disinfection and cleaning of patient rooms in hospital intensive care units and to assess the value of a structured intervention program to improve the quality of cleaning as a means of reducing environmental transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms within the intensive care unit., Design: Prospective, multicenter, and pre- and postinterventional study., Setting: Intensive care unit rooms in 27 acute care hospitals. Hospitals ranged in size from 25 beds to 709 beds (mean, 206 beds)., Interventions: A fluorescent targeting method was used to objectively evaluate the thoroughness of terminal room cleaning before and after structured educational, procedural, and administrative interventions. Systematic covert monitoring was performed by infection control personnel to assure accuracy and lack of bias., Measurements and Main Results: In total, 3532 environmental surfaces (14 standardized objects) were assessed after terminal cleaning in 260 intensive care unit rooms. Only 49.5% (1748) of surfaces were cleaned at baseline (95% confidence interval, 42% to 57%). Thoroughness of cleaning at baseline did not correlate with hospital size, patient volume, case mix index, geographic location, or teaching status. After intervention and multiple cycles of objective performance feedback to environmental services staff, thoroughness of cleaning improved to 82% (95% confidence interval, 78% to 86%)., Conclusions: Significant improvements in intensive care unit room cleaning can be achieved in most hospitals by using a structured approach that incorporates a simple, highly objective surface targeting method and repeated performance feedback to environmental services personnel. Given the documented environmental transmission of a wide range of multidrug-resistant pathogens, our findings identify a substantial opportunity to enhance patient safety by improving the thoroughness of intensive care unit environmental hygiene.

Background: Norovirus infection outbreaks (NoVOs) occur frequently in closed populations, such as cruise ship passengers. Environmental contamination is believed to play an important role in NoVO propagation., Methods: Trained health care professionals covertly evaluated the thoroughness of disinfection cleaning (TDC) of 6 standardized objects (toilet seat, flush handle or button, toilet stall inner handhold, stall inner door handle, restroom inner door handle, and baby changing table surfaces) with high potential for fecal contamination in cruise ship public restrooms, by means of a previously validated novel targeting method., Results: Fifty-six cruise ships (approximately 30% of 180 vessels operated by 9 large cruise lines) were evaluated from July 2005 through August 2008. Overall, 37% (range, 4%-100%; 95% confidence interval, 29.2%-45.4%) of 8344 objects in 273 randomly selected public restrooms were cleaned daily. The TDC did not differ by cruise line and did not correlate with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Vessel Sanitation Program inspection scores (r(2), .002; P = .75). More than half the vessels had overall TDC scores <30%, although several of these low-scoring ships had near-perfect CDC sanitation scores. The mean TDC of the 3 ships evaluated within 4 months before a NoVO (10.3%) was substantially less than the mean TDC of the 40 ships that did not experience NoVOs (40.4%) (P < .004)., Conclusions: An objective evaluation of public restroom environmental hygiene on 56 cruise ships found that only 37% of selected toilet area objects were cleaned on a daily basis. Low TDC scores may predict subsequent NoVO-prone vessels. Enhanced public restroom cleaning may prevent or moderate NoVOs on cruise ships.

Bell's palsy is one of the most common neurologic disorders affecting the seventh cranial nerve. Several disease states have been associated with facial paralysis. Drugs, however, have been rarely implicated as an etiology. We describe a 49-year-old man who developed peripheral facial paralysis after 3 weeks of linezolid therapy, along with recurrence of symptoms on rechallenge. He had insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and a longstanding history of bilateral diabetes-related foot problems. After hospitalization, debridement, and vancomycin therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus osteomyelitis, the patient was discharged to home with oral linezolid therapy. On day 23 of linezolid therapy, he developed signs and symptoms that were consistent with Bell's palsy. Linezolid was discontinued; the Bell's palsy gradually improved, with complete resolution occurring at month 3. On rechallenge with linezolid for recurrent osteomyelitis, the patient developed a second episode of Bell's palsy within a similar time frame as in the first episode. Assessment of causality using the Naranjo adverse drug reaction probability scale revealed a probable relationship between this adverse drug event and linezolid therapy. Clinicians should be aware that Bell's palsy may be another neuropathic adverse effect associated with linezolid.

Objective: To assess the feasibility of a quarterly antibiotic cycling program at two community hospitals and to evaluate its safety and impact on antibiotic use, expenditures, and resistance., Design: Nonrandomized, longitudinal cohort study., Setting: Two community hospitals, one teaching and one non-teaching., Patients: Adult medical and surgical inpatients requiring empiric antibiotic therapy., Intervention: We developed and implemented a treatment protocol for the empiric therapy of common infections. Between July 2000 and June 2002, antibiotics were cycled quarterly; quinolones, beta-lactam-inhibitor combinations, and cephalosporins were used. Protocol adherence, adverse drug events, nosocomial infections, antibiotic use and expenditures, resistance among clinical isolates, and length of stay were assessed during eight quarters., Results: Physicians adhered to the protocol for more than 96% of 2,494 eligible patients. No increases in nosocomial infections or adverse drug events were attributed to the cycling protocol. Antibiotic acquisition costs increased 31%; there was a 14.7% increase in antibiotic use. Length of stay declined by 1 day. Quarterly variability in the prevalence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci and ceftazidime resistance among combined gram-negative organisms were noted., Conclusions: Implementation of an antibiotic cycling program is feasible in a community hospital setting. No adverse safety concerns were identified. Antibiotic cycling was more expensive, partly due to an increase in antibiotic use to optimize initial empiric therapy. Quarterly antibiogram patterns suggested that antibiotic cycling may have impacted resistance, although the small number of isolates precluded statistical analysis. Further assessment of this approach is necessary to determine its relationship to antimicrobial resistance.