Search

Background: Many hospitals have scaled back measures to prevent nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection given large decreases in the morbidity and mortality of SARS-CoV-2 infections for most people. Little is known, however, about the morbidity and mortality of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infections for hospitalized patients in the Omicron era., Objective: To estimate the effect of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection on hospitalized patients' outcomes during the pre-Omicron and Omicron periods., Design: Retrospective matched cohort study., Setting: 5 acute care hospitals in Massachusetts, December 2020 to April 2023., Patients: Adults testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 on or after hospital day 5, after negative SARS-CoV-2 test results on admission and on hospital day 3, were matched to control participants by hospital, service, time period, days since admission, and propensity scores that incorporated demographics, comorbid conditions, vaccination status, primary diagnosis category, vital signs, and laboratory test values., Measurements: Primary outcomes were hospital mortality and time to discharge. Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) admission, need for advanced oxygen support, discharge destination, hospital-free days, and 30-day readmissions., Results: There were 274 cases of hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection during the pre-Omicron period and 1037 cases during the Omicron period (0.17 vs. 0.49 cases per 100 admissions). Patients with hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection were older and had more comorbid conditions than those without. During the pre-Omicron period, hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased risk for ICU admission, increased need for high-flow oxygen, longer time to discharge (median difference, 4.7 days [95% CI, 2.9 to 6.6 days]), and higher mortality (risk ratio, 2.0 [CI, 1.1 to 3.8]) versus matched control participants. During the Omicron period, hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection remained associated with increased risk for ICU admission and increased time to discharge (median difference, 4.2 days [CI, 3.6 to 5.0 days]). The association with increased hospital mortality was attenuated but still significant (risk ratio, 1.6 [CI, 1.2 to 2.3])., Limitation: Residual confounding may be present., Conclusion: Hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Omicron period remains associated with increased morbidity and mortality., Primary Funding Source: Harvard Medical School Department of Population Medicine., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M24-0199.

Purpose of Review: COVID-19 has catalyzed a wealth of new data on the science of respiratory pathogen transmission and revealed opportunities to enhance infection prevention practices in healthcare settings., Recent Findings: New data refute the traditional division between droplet vs airborne transmission and clarify the central role of aerosols in spreading all respiratory viruses, including Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), even in the absence of so-called 'aerosol-generating procedures' (AGPs). Indeed, most AGPs generate fewer aerosols than talking, labored breathing, or coughing. Risk factors for transmission include high viral loads, symptoms, proximity, prolonged exposure, lack of masking, and poor ventilation. Testing all patients on admission and thereafter can identify early occult infections and prevent hospital-based clusters. Additional prevention strategies include universal masking, encouraging universal vaccination, preferential use of N95 respirators when community rates are high, improving native ventilation, utilizing portable high-efficiency particulate air filters when ventilation is limited, and minimizing room sharing when possible., Summary: Multifaceted infection prevention programs that include universal testing, masking, vaccination, and enhanced ventilation can minimize nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients and workplace infections in healthcare personnel. Extending these insights to other respiratory viruses may further increase the safety of healthcare and ready hospitals for novel respiratory viruses that may emerge in the future., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

We compared healthcare worker severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection rates between March and August 2020 in 2 similar hospitals with high vs low airborne infection isolation room utilization rates but otherwise identical infection control policies. We found no difference in healthcare worker infection rates between the 2 hospitals, nor between patient-facing vs non-patient-facing providers., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

We assessed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission between patients in shared rooms in an academic hospital between September 2020 and April 2021. In total, 11 290 patients were admitted to shared rooms, of whom 25 tested positive. Among 31 exposed roommates, 12 (39%) tested positive within 14 days. Transmission was associated with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) cycle thresholds ≤21., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

We describe 3 instances of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission despite medical masks and eye protection, including transmission despite the source person being masked, transmission despite the exposed person being masked, and transmission despite both parties being masked. Whole genome sequencing confirmed perfect homology between source and exposed persons' viruses in all cases., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Defining the duration of infectivity of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has major implications for public health and infection control practice in healthcare facilities. Early in the pandemic, most hospitals required 2 negative RT-PCR tests before discontinuing isolation in patients with Covid-19. Many patients, however, have persistently positive RT-PCR tests for weeks to months following clinical recovery, and multiple studies now indicate that these generally do not reflect replication-competent virus. SARS-CoV-2 appears to be most contagious around the time of symptom onset, and infectivity rapidly decreases thereafter to near-zero after about 10 days in mild-moderately ill patients and 15 days in severely-critically ill and immunocompromised patients. The longest interval associated with replication-competent virus thus far is 20 days from symptom onset. This review summarizes evidence-to-date on the duration of infectivity of SARS-CoV-2, and how this has informed evolving public health recommendations on when it is safe to discontinue isolation precautions., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Many US states published crisis standards of care (CSC) guidelines for allocating scarce critical care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the performance of these guidelines in maximizing their population benefit has not been well tested. In 2,272 adults with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation drawn from the Study of the Treatment and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 (STOP-COVID) multicenter cohort, we test the following three approaches to CSC algorithms: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores grouped into ranges, SOFA score ranges plus comorbidities, and a hypothetical approach using raw SOFA scores not grouped into ranges. We find that area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves for all three algorithms demonstrate only modest discrimination for 28-day mortality. Adding comorbidity scoring modestly improves algorithm performance over SOFA scores alone. The algorithm incorporating comorbidities has modestly worse predictive performance for Black compared to white patients. CSC algorithms should be empirically examined to refine approaches to the allocation of scarce resources during pandemics and to avoid potential exacerbation of racial inequities.

Among 495 patients who were immunocompromised and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, polymerase chain reaction cycle thresholds remained <33 beyond 20 days more frequently in patients with hematologic malignancies, particularly those receiving B-cell–depleting or Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy, as compared with those with solid organ malignancy (26% vs 5%). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Timely and accurate data on the epidemiology of sepsis is essential to inform public policy, clinical practice, and research priorities. Recent studies have illuminated several ongoing questions about sepsis epidemiology, including the incidence and outcomes of sepsis in non-Western countries and in specialized populations such as surgical patients, patients with cancer, and the elderly. There have also been new insights into the limitations of current surveillance methods using administrative data and increasing experience tracking sepsis incidence and outcomes using "big data" approaches that take advantage of detailed electronic health record data. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, has fundamentally changed the landscape of sepsis epidemiology. It has increased sepsis rates, helped highlight ongoing controversies about how to define sepsis, and intensified debate about the possible unintended consequences of overly rigid sepsis care bundles. Despite these controversies, there is a growing consensus that severe COVID-19 causing organ dysfunction is appropriate to label as sepsis, even though it is treated very differently from bacterial sepsis, and that surveillance strategies need to be modified to reliably identify these cases to fully capture and delineate the current burden of sepsis. This review will summarize recent insights into the epidemiology of sepsis and highlight several urgent questions and priorities catalyzed by COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The highly contagious severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Omicron variant increases risk for nosocomial transmission despite universal masking, admission testing, and symptom screening. We report large increases in hospital-onset infections and 2 unit-based clusters. The clusters rapidly abated after instituting universal N95 respirators and daily testing. Broader use of these strategies may prevent nosocomial transmissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Ventilator-associated event (VAE) surveillance provides an objective means to measure and compare complications that develop during mechanical ventilation by identifying patients with sustained increases in ventilator settings after a period of stable or decreasing ventilator settings. The impact of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on VAE rates and characteristics is unknown. Objectives: To compare the incidence, causes, and outcomes of VAE during the COVID-19 pandemic year versus prepandemic years and among ventilated patients with and without COVID-19. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated adults at four academic and community hospitals in Massachusetts, we compared VAE incidence rates between March 1 and August 31 for each year from 2017 to 2020 (corresponding to the time frame of the pandemic first wave in 2020) and among COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative patients in 2020. The medical records of 200 randomly selected patients with VAEs in 2020 (100 with COVID-19 and 100 without COVID-19) were analyzed to compare conditions precipitating VAEs in patients with versus without COVID-19. Results: VAEs per 100 episodes of mechanical ventilation were more common in 2020 than in prior years (11.2 vs. 6.7; P < 0.01) but the rate of VAEs per 1,000 ventilator-days was similar (14.2 vs. 12.7; P = 0.08). VAEs were more frequent in COVID-19-positive patients than in COVID-19-negative patients in 2020 (29.0 vs. 7.1 per 100 ventilator episodes [P < 0.01] and 17.2 vs. 12.2 per 1,000 ventilator-days [P < 0.01]). Compared with patients without COVID-19 with VAEs, patients with COVID-19 and VAEs had similar rates of infection-related ventilator-associated complications, longer median durations of mechanical ventilation (22 vs. 14 d; P < 0.01), and similar in-hospital mortality (30% vs. 38%; P = 0.15). Progressive acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) accounted for 53% of VAEs in patients with COVID-19, whereas it accounted for 14% of VAEs among patients without COVID-19. Conclusions: VAE rates per 100 episodes of mechanical ventilation and per 1,000 ventilator-days were higher among COVID-19-positive patients than among COVID-19-negative patients. Over 50% of VAEs in patients with COVID-19 were caused by progressive ARDS, whereas less than 15% of VAEs in patients without COVID-19 were caused by progressive ARDS. These findings provide insight into the natural history of COVID-19 in ventilated patients and may inform targeted strategies to mitigate complications in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early reports suggested increased mortality from COVID‐19 in patients with cancer but lacked rigorous comparisons to patients without cancer. We investigated whether a current cancer diagnosis or cancer history is an independent risk factor for death in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19. Patients and Methods: We identified patients with a history of cancer admitted to two large hospitals between March 13, 2020, and May 10, 2020, with laboratory‐confirmed COVID‐19 and matched them 1:2 to patients without a history of cancer. Results: Men made up 56.2% of the population, with a median age of 69 years (range, 30–96). The median time since cancer diagnosis was 35.6 months (range, 0.39–435); 80% had a solid tumor, and 20% had a hematologic malignancy. Among patients with cancer, 27.8% died or entered hospice versus 25.6% among patients without cancer. In multivariable analyses, the odds of death/hospice were similar (odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–1.82). The odds of intubation (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.28–0.78), shock (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32–0.91), and intensive care unit admission (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32–0.81) were lower for patients with a history of cancer versus controls. Patients with active cancer or who had received cancer‐directed therapy in the past 6 months had similar odds of death/hospice compared with cancer survivors (univariable OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.66–2.60; multivariable OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.69–3.16). Conclusion: Patients with a history of cancer hospitalized for COVID‐19 had similar mortality to matched hospitalized patients with COVID‐19 without cancer, and a lower risk of complications. In this population, patients with active cancer or recent cancer treatment had a similar risk for adverse outcomes compared with survivors of cancer. Implications for Practice: This study investigated whether a current cancer diagnosis or cancer history is an independent risk factor for death or hospice admission in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19. Active cancer, systemic cancer therapy, and a cancer history are not independent risk factors for death from COVID‐19 among hospitalized patients, and hospitalized patients without cancer are more likely to have severe COVID‐19. These findings provide reassurance to survivors of cancer and patients with cancer as to their relative risk of severe COVID‐19, may encourage oncologists to provide standard anticancer therapy in patients at risk of COVID‐19, and guide triage in future waves of infection. This article focuses on whether a current cancer diagnosis or cancer history is an independent risk factor for death or hospice admission in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We prospectively assessed 536 hospitalized patients with positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction tests for infectiousness based on symptoms, cycle thresholds, and SARS-CoV-2 history, with repeat testing and serologies in select cases. One hundred forty-eight (28%) patients were deemed noninfectious, most with evidence of prior infection, and managed on standard precautions without evidence of transmission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about clusters of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in acute care hospitals.Objective: To describe the detection, mitigation, and analysis of a large cluster of SARS-CoV-2 infections in an acute care hospital with mature infection control policies.Design: Descriptive study.Setting: Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.Participants: Patients and staff with cluster-related SARS-CoV-2 infections.Intervention: Close contacts of infected patients and staff were identified and tested every 3 days, patients on affected units were preemptively isolated and repeatedly tested, affected units were cleaned, room ventilation was measured, and specimens were sent for whole-genome sequencing. A case-control study was done to compare clinical interactions, personal protective equipment use, and breakroom and workroom practices in SARS-CoV-2-positive versus negative staff.Measurements: Description of the cluster, mitigation activities, and risk factor analysis.Results: Fourteen patients and 38 staff members were included in the cluster per whole-genome sequencing and epidemiologic associations. The index case was a symptomatic patient in whom isolation was discontinued after 2 negative results on nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction testing. The patient subsequently infected multiple roommates and staff, who then infected others. Seven of 52 (13%) secondary infections were detected only on second or subsequent tests. Eight of 9 (89%) patients who shared rooms with potentially contagious patients became infected. Potential contributing factors included high viral loads, nebulization, and positive pressure in the index patient's room. Risk factors for transmission to staff included presence during nebulization, caring for patients with dyspnea or cough, lack of eye protection, at least 15 minutes of exposure to case patients, and interactions with SARS-CoV-2-positive staff in clinical areas. Whole-genome sequencing confirmed that 2 staff members were infected despite wearing surgical masks and eye protection.Limitation: Findings may not be generalizable.Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 clusters can occur in hospitals despite robust infection control policies. Insights from this cluster may inform additional measures to protect patients and staff.Primary Funding Source: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Viewpoint discusses physical and epidemiological evidence supporting droplet vs aerosol transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and concludes on balance that aerosol transmission seems unlikely to be the dominant mode of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]