Assessing a safety climate tool adapted to address respiratory illnesses in Canadian hospitals.

Background: Studies have shown an association between workplace safety climate scores and patient outcomes. This study aimed to investigate (1) performance of the hospital safety climate scale that was adapted to assess acute respiratory illness safety climate, (2) factors associated with safety climate scores, and (3) whether the safety scores were associated with following recommended droplet and contact precautions. Methods: A survey of Canadian healthcare personnel participating in a cohort study of influenza during the 2010/2011-2013/2014 winter seasons. Factor analysis and structural equation modeling were used for analyses. Results: Of the 1359 participants eligible for inclusion, 88% were female and 52% were nurses. The adapted items loaded to the same factors as the original scale. Personnel working on higher risk wards, nurses, and younger staff rated their hospital's safety climate lower than other staff. Following guidelines for droplet and contact precautions was positively associated with ratings of management support and absence of job hindrances. Conclusion: The adapted tool can be used to assess hospital safety climates regarding respiratory pathogens. Management support and the absence of job hindrances are associated with hospital staff's propensity and ability to follow precautions against the transmission of respiratory illnesses.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of surgical site infections following colorectal surgery: protocol for network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections continue to be a significant challenge following colorectal surgery. These can result in extended hospital stays, hospital readmissions, increased treatment costs, and negative effects on patients' quality of life. Antibiotic prophylaxis plays a crucial role in preventing infection during surgery, specifically in preventing surgical site infections after colorectal surgery in adult patients. However, the optimal antibiotic regimen is still unclear based on current evidence. Considering the limitations of existing reviews, our goal is to conduct a comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the comparative benefits and harms of available antibiotic prophylaxis regimens for preventing surgical site infections following colorectal surgery in adult patients. METHODS: We will search the Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. We will include trials that (1) enrolled adults who underwent colorectal surgeries and (2) randomized them to any systemic administration of antibiotic (single or combined) prophylaxis before surgery compared to an alternative systemic antibiotic (single or combined antibiotic), placebo, control, or no prophylactic treatment. Pairs of reviewers will independently assess the risk of bias among eligible trials using a modified Cochrane risk of bias instrument for randomized trials. Our outcomes of interest include the rate of surgical site infection within 30 days of surgery, hospital length of stay, 30-day mortality, and treatment-related adverse effects. We will perform a contrast-based network meta-analysis using a frequentist random-effects model assuming a common heterogeneity parameter. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be utilized to assess the certainty of evidence for treatment effects. DISCUSSION: By synthesizing evidence from available RCTs, this study will provide valuable insight for clinicians, patients, and health policymakers on the most effective antibiotics for preventing surgical site infection. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023434544.

Canadian health care providers' and education workers' hesitance to receive original and bivalent COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: The demand for COVID-19 vaccines has diminished as the pandemic lingers. Understanding vaccine hesitancy among essential workers is important in reducing the impact of future pandemics by providing effective immunization programs delivered expeditiously. METHOD: Two surveys exploring COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in 2021 and 2022 were conducted in cohorts of health care providers (HCP) and education workers participating in prospective studies of COVID-19 illnesses and vaccine uptake. Demographic factors and opinions about vaccines (monovalent and bivalent) and public health measures were collected in these self-reported surveys. Modified multivariable Poisson regression was used to determine factors associated with hesitancy. RESULTS: In 2021, 3 % of 2061 HCP and 6 % of 3417 education workers reported hesitancy (p < 0.001). In December 2022, 21 % of 868 HCP and 24 % of 1457 education workers reported being hesitant to receive a bivalent vaccine (p = 0.09). Hesitance to be vaccinated with the monovalent vaccines was associated with earlier date of survey completion, later receipt of first COVID-19 vaccine dose, no influenza vaccination, and less worry about becoming ill with COVID-19. Factors associated with hesitance to be vaccinated with a bivalent vaccine that were common to both cohorts were receipt of two or fewer previous COVID-19 doses and lower certainty that the vaccines were safe and effective. CONCLUSION: Education workers were somewhat more likely than HCP to report being hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccines but reasons for hesitancy were similar. Hesitancy was associated with non-receipt of previous vaccines (i.e., previous behaviour), less concern about being infected with SARS-CoV-2, and concerns about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines for both cohorts. Maintaining inter-pandemic trust in vaccines, ensuring rapid data generation during pandemics regarding vaccine safety and effectiveness, and effective and transparent communication about these data are all needed to support pandemic vaccination programs.

COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among South Asians in Canada.

We evaluated the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines among South Asians living in Ontario, Canada compared to non-South Asians and compared the odds of symptomatic COVID-19 infection and related hospitalizations and deaths among non-vaccinated South Asians and non-South Asians. This was a test negative design study conducted in Ontario, Canada between December 14, 2020 and November 15, 2021. All eligible individuals >18 years with symptoms of COVID-19 were subdivided by ethnicity (South Asian vs other) and vaccination status (vaccinated versus not). The primary outcome was vaccine effectiveness as defined by COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and deaths, and secondary outcome was the odds of COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and death comparing non-vaccinated South Asians to non-vaccinated non-South Asians. 883,155 individuals were included. Among South Asians, two doses of COVID-19 vaccine prevented 93.8% (95% CI 93.2, 94.4) of COVID-19 infections and 97.5% (95% CI 95.2, 98.6) of hospitalizations and deaths. Among non-South Asians, vaccines prevented 86.6% (CI 86.3, 86.9) of COVID-19 infections and 93.1% (CI 92.2, 93.8) of hospitalizations and deaths. Non-vaccinated South Asians had higher odds of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to non-vaccinated non-South Asians (OR 2.35, 95% CI 2.3, 2.4), regardless of their immigration status. COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing infections, hospitalizations and deaths among South Asians living in Canada. The observation that non-vaccinated South Asians have higher odds of symptomatic COVID-19 infection warrants further investigation.

The role of influenza Hemagglutination-Inhibition antibody as a vaccine mediator in children.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination may protect through the humoral immune response, cellular immune response, or possibly both. Immunity after vaccination can be mediated through antibodies that may be detected by the rise of serum hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) titers. Our objective was to investigate the proportion of protection against influenza mediated through antibodies by measuring the rise of HAI titer (indirect effect) compared to that induced through other immune mechanisms (direct effect) for influenza A and B. METHODS: We analysed data from a cluster randomized trial conducted during the 2008-2009 season in which Canadian Hutterite children were vaccinated against influenza. We used inverse probability weighting to calculate the indirect and direct effect of vaccination against influenza A/H3N2 and influenza B/Brisbane using HAI titres and overall vaccine efficacy. RESULTS: We included data on 617 children from 46 Hutterite colonies, aged between 3 and 15 years who were vaccinated with either inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine or hepatitis A vaccine. Vaccine efficacy was 63 % for influenza A (H3N2) and 28 % for influenza B. The hazard ratio for protection against influenza A/H3N2 due to an indirect effect of vaccination was 0.96 (95 % confidence interval (CI) of 0.00 to 2.89) while for the direct effect it was 0.38 (95 % CI of 0.00 to 5.47). The hazard ratio for influenza B indirect effect was 0.75 (95 % CI of 0.07 to 1) and for the direct effect 0.96 (95 % CI of 0.00 to 12.02). In contrast, repeating the analysis using microneutralization in a subgroup of 488 children revealed that the protective effect for vaccination for A/H3N2 was entirely mediated by antibodies but only for 13 % for influenza B. CONCLUSIONS: Although vaccination provided higher protective effectiveness against influenza A than B, most of the influenza A vaccine efficacy likely occurred through antibodies other than what could be detected by HAI titres. In contrast, for influenza B, while the HAI titres appeared to mediate most of the vaccine effectiveness, this was not confirmed by microneutralization analysis.

Empiric antibiotic regimens in adults with non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The optimal empiric antibiotic regimen for non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of alternative empiric antibiotic regimens in HAP using a network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL from database inception to July 06, 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with clinical suspicion of HAP. INTERVENTIONS: Any empiric antibiotic regimen vs. another, placebo, or no treatment. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Paired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias using a modified Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Paired reviewers independently extracted data on trial and patient characteristics, antibiotic regimens, and outcomes of interest. We conducted frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses for treatment failure and all-cause mortality and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Thirty-nine RCTs proved eligible. Thirty RCTs involving 4807 participants found low certainty evidence that piperacillin-tazobactam (RR compared to all cephalosporins: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.42, 1.01) and carbapenems (RR compared to all cephalosporins: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.53, 1.11) might be among the most effective in reducing treatment failure. The findings were robust to the secondary analysis comparing piperacillin-tazobactam vs. antipseudomonal cephalosporins or antipseudomonal carbapenems vs. antipseudomonal cephalosporins. Eleven RCTs involving 2531 participants found low certainty evidence that ceftazidime and linezolid combination may not be convincingly different from cephalosporin alone in reducing all-cause mortality. Evidence on other antibiotic regimens is very uncertain. Data on other patient-important outcomes including adverse events was sparse, and we did not perform network or pairwise meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For empiric antibiotic therapy of adults with HAP, piperacillin-tazobactam might be among the most effective in reducing treatment failure. Empiric methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus coverage may not exert additional benefit in reducing mortality. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD 42022297224).

Clinical significance of cefazolin inoculum effect in serious MSSA infections: a systematic review.

Background: The cefazolin inoculum effect (CzIE) is a phenomenon whereby some MSSA isolates demonstrate resistance to cefazolin when a high bacterial inoculum is used for susceptibility testing. The clinical significance of this phenotypic phenomenon remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review to answer the following question: In patients with serious MSSA infection treated with cefazolin, does infection due to CzIE-positive MSSA isolates result in worse clinical outcomes than infection due to CzIE-negative MSSA isolates? Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, medRxiv and bioRxiv were searched from inception until 12 April 2023. Studies were included if they tested for CzIE in clinical isolates from MSSA infections in humans. Two independent reviewers extracted data and conducted risk-of-bias assessment. Main outcomes were treatment failure and mortality. Pooling of study estimates was not performed given the heterogeneity of patient populations and outcome definitions. Results: Twenty-three observational studies were included. CzIE presence amidst MSSA isolates ranged from 0% to 55%. There was no statistically significant mortality difference in two studies that compared MSSA infections with and without CzIE, with ORs ranging from 0.72 to 19.78. Of four studies comparing treatment failure, ORs ranged from 0.26 to 13.00. One study showed a significantly higher treatment failure for the CzIE group, but it did not adjust for potential confounders. Conclusions: The evidence on CzIE is limited by small observational studies. In these studies, CzIE did not predict higher mortality in MSSA infections treated with cefazolin. Our findings do not support CzIE testing in clinical practice currently.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Serologic Testing.

BACKGROUND: The role of serologic testing for SARS-CoV-2 has evolved during the pandemic as seroprevalence in global populations has increased. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serology literature and construct updated best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is an update to the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by IDSA. OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based recommendations and identify unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, decisions related to vaccination and administration of monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma in immunocompromised patients, and identification of a serologic correlate of immunity. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature reviewed, identified, and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS: The panel recommends against serologic testing to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first two weeks after symptom onset (strong recommendations, low certainty of evidence). Serologic testing should not be used to provide evidence of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients with a high clinical suspicion and repeatedly negative nucleic acid amplification test results (strong recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). Serologic testing may assist with the diagnosis of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (strong recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). To seek evidence for prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, the panel suggests testing for IgG, IgG/IgM, or total antibodies to nucleocapsid protein three to five weeks after symptom onset (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). In individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination, we suggest against routine serologic testing given no demonstrated benefit to improving patient outcomes (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence.) The panel acknowledges further that a negative spike antibody test may be a useful metric to identify immunocompromised patients who are candidates for immune therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The high seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 worldwide limits the utility of detecting anti-SARS CoV-2 antibody. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for diagnosis was graded as very low to low. Future studies should use serologic assays calibrated to a common reference standard.

WHO's essential medicines and AWaRe: recommendations on first- and second-choice antibiotics for empiric treatment of clinical infections.

The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) prioritizes medicines that have significant global public health value. The EML can also deliver important messages on appropriate medicine use. Since 2017, in response to the growing challenge of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics on the EML have been reviewed and categorized into three groups: Access, Watch, and Reserve, leading to a new categorization called AWaRe. These categories were developed taking into account the impact of different antibiotics and classes on antimicrobial resistance and the implications for their appropriate use. The 2023 AWaRe classification provides empirical guidance on 41 essential antibiotics for over 30 clinical infections targeting both the primary health care and hospital facility setting. A further 257 antibiotics not included on the EML have been allocated an AWaRe group for stewardship and monitoring purposes. This article describes the development of AWaRe, focussing on the clinical evidence base that guided the selection of Access, Watch, or Reserve antibiotics as first and second choices for each infection. The overarching objective was to offer a tool for optimizing the quality of global antibiotic prescribing and reduce inappropriate use by encouraging the use of Access antibiotics (or no antibiotics) where appropriate. This clinical evidence evaluation and subsequent EML recommendations are the basis for the AWaRe antibiotic book and related smartphone applications. By providing guidance on antibiotic prioritization, AWaRe aims to facilitate the revision of national lists of essential medicines, update national prescribing guidelines, and supervise antibiotic use. Adherence to AWaRe would extend the effectiveness of current antibiotics while helping countries expand access to these life-saving medicines for the benefit of current and future patients, health professionals, and the environment.

Risk factors for recognized and unrecognized SARS-CoV-2 infection: a seroepidemiologic analysis of the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study.

There are limited data on individual risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection (including unrecognized infection). In this seroepidemiologic substudy of an ongoing prospective cohort study of community-dwelling adults, participants were thoroughly characterized pre-pandemic. The SARS-CoV-2 infection was ascertained by serology. Among 8,719 participants from 11 high-, middle-, and low-income countries, 3,009 (35%) were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2. Characteristics independently associated with seropositivity were younger age (odds ratio, OR; 95% confidence interval, CI, per five-year increase: 0.95; 0.91-0.98) and body mass index >25 kg/m2 (OR, 95% CI: 1.16, 1.01-1.34). Smoking (as compared with never smoking, OR, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.70-0.97) and COVID-19 vaccination (OR, 95% CI: 0.70, 0.60-0.82) were associated with a reduced risk of seropositivity. Among seropositive participants, 83% were unaware of having been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Seropositivity and a lack of awareness of infection were more common in lower-income countries. The COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (including recognized and unrecognized infections). Overweight or obesity is an independent risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Infection and lack of infection awareness are more common in lower-income countries.IMPORTANCEIn this large, international study, evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was obtained by testing blood specimens from 8,719 community-dwelling adults from 11 countries. The key findings are that (i) the large majority (83%) of community-dwelling adults from several high-, middle-, and low-income countries with blood test evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection were unaware of this infection-especially in lower-income countries; and (ii) overweight/obesity predisposes to SARS-CoV-2 infection, while COVID-19 vaccination is associated with a reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These observations are not attributable to other individual characteristics, highlighting the importance of the COVID-19 vaccination to prevent not only severe infection but possibly any infection. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms by which overweight/obesity might increase the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

More Than a Decade Since the Latest CONSORT Non-inferiority Trials Extension: Do Infectious Diseases Trials Do Enough?

More than a decade after the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials group released a reporting items checklist for non-inferiority randomized controlled trials, the infectious diseases literature continues to underreport these items. Trialists, journals, and peer reviewers should redouble their efforts to ensure infectious diseases studies meet these minimum reporting standards.

Conduct and reporting of multivariate network meta-analyses: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Combining multivariate and network meta-analysis methods simultaneously in a multivariate network meta-analysis (MVNMA) provides the methodological framework to analyze the largest amount of evidence relevant to decision-makers (i.e., from indirect evidence and correlated outcomes). The objectives of this scoping review were to summarize the characteristics of MVNMAs published in the health sciences literature and map the methodological guidance available for MVNMA. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception to 28 August 2023, along with citations of included studies, for quantitative evidence syntheses that applied MVNMA and articles addressing MVNMA methods. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible studies. Collected data included bibliographic, methodological, and analytical characteristics of included studies. We reported results as total numbers, frequencies, and percentages for categorical variables and medians and interquartile ranges for continuous variables that were not normally distributed. RESULTS: After screening 1,075 titles and abstracts, and 112 full texts, we included 38 unique studies, of which, 10 were quantitative evidence syntheses that applied MVNMA and 28 were articles addressing MVNMA methods. Among the 10 MVNMAs, the first was published in 2013, four used studies identified from already published systematic reviews, and eight addressed pharmacological interventions, which were the most common interventions. They evaluated interventions for metastatic melanoma, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, oral hygiene, disruptive behavior disorders, rheumatoid arthritis, narcolepsy, type 2 diabetes, and overactive bladder syndrome. Five MVNMAs analyzed two outcomes simultaneously, and four MVNMAs analyzed three outcomes simultaneously. Among the articles addressing MVNMA methods, the first was published in 2007 and the majority provided methodological frameworks for conducting MVNMAs (26/28, 93%). One study proposed criteria to standardize reporting of MVNMAs and two proposed items relevant to the quality assessment of MVNMAs. Study authors used data from 18 different illnesses to provide illustrative examples within their methodological guidance. CONCLUSIONS: The application of MVNMA in the health sciences literature is uncommon. Many methodological frameworks are published; however, standardization and specific criteria to guide reporting and quality assessment are lacking. This overview of the current landscape may help inform future conduct of MVNMAs and research on MVNMA methods.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Molecular Diagnostic Testing (December 2023).

Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and for identifying asymptomatic carriage of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The number of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests continues to increase as does the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discuss nuances of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings, and highlight important unmet research needs related to COVID-19 diagnostic testing. IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel agreed on 12 diagnostic recommendations. Access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention, and the public health response to COVID-19 infection. Information on the clinical performance of available tests continues to grow, but the quality of evidence of the current literature to support this updated molecular diagnostic guideline remains moderate to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is suggested for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions. Evidence in support of rapid testing and testing of upper respiratory specimens other than nasopharyngeal swabs, which offer logistical advantages, is sufficient to warrant conditional recommendations in favor of these approaches.

Protocol for a longitudinal cohort study of Lyme disease with physical, mental and immunological assessment.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited data on the longitudinal impact of Lyme disease. Predictors of recovery have not been fully established using validated data collection instruments. There are sparse data on the immunological response to infection over time. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a longitudinal cohort study that will recruit 120 participants with Lyme disease in Ontario and Nova Scotia, Canada, with follow-up for up to 24 months. Data will be collected using the Short-Form 36 physical and mental component summaries, Depression and Anxiety Severity Scale Questionnaire, Fatigue Severity Scale and a battery of neuropsychological tests. Mononuclear cells, gene expression and cytokine profiling from blood samples will be used to assess immunological response. Analyses will include the use of non-linear mixed-effects modelling and proportional hazards models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from ethics boards at McMaster University (Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board) (7564), Queens University (EMD 315-20) and Nova Scotia Health Research Ethics Board (1027173), and the study is enrolling participants. Written informed consent is obtained from all participants. The results will be disseminated by publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant conference. A brief report will be provided to decision-makers and patient groups.

Vaccine Effectiveness of non-adjuvanted and adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines in the prevention of influenza-related hospitalization in older adults: A pooled analysis from the Serious Outcomes Surveillance (SOS) Network of the Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN).

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccines prevent influenza-related morbidity and mortality; however, suboptimal vaccine effectiveness (VE) of non-adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (naTIV) or quadrivalent formulations in older adults prompted the use of enhanced products such as adjuvanted TIV (aTIV). Here, the VE of aTIV is compared to naTIV for preventing influenza-associated hospitalization among older adults. METHODS: A test-negative design study was used with pooled data from the 2012 to 2015 influenza seasons. An inverse probability of treatment (IPT)-weighted logistic regression estimated the Odds Ratio (OR) for laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalization. VE was calculated as (1-OR)*100% with accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Of 7,101 adults aged ≥ 65, 3,364 received naTIV and 526 received aTIV. The overall VE against influenza hospitalization was 45.9% (95% CI: 40.2%-51.1%) for naTIV and 53.5% (42.8%-62.3%) for aTIV. No statistically significant differences in VE were found between aTIV and naTIV by age group or influenza season, though a trend favoring aTIV over naTIV was noted. Frailty may have impacted VE in aTIV recipients compared to those receiving naTIV, according to an exploratory analysis; VE adjusted by frailty was 59.1% (49.6%-66.8%) for aTIV and 44.8% (39.1%-50.0%) for naTIV. The overall relative VE of aTIV to naTIV against laboratory-confirmed influenza hospital admission was 25% (OR 0.75; 0.61-0.92), demonstrating statistically significant benefit favoring aTIV. CONCLUSIONS: Adjusting for frailty, aTIV showed statistically significantly better protection than naTIV against influenza-associated hospitalizations in older adults. In future studies, it is important to consider frailty as a significant confounder of VE.

The impact of respiratory infections and probiotic use on the nasal microbiota of frail residents in long-term care homes.

Background: Residents in long-term care homes, who tend to be of advanced age and frail, are at increased risk of respiratory infections. The respiratory microbiota is known to change with age, but whether these changes contribute to the risk of infection is not known. Our goal was to determine how the nasal microbiota of frail older adults changes during symptoms of influenza-like illness (ILI) and how this may be impacted by enrolment in a placebo-controlled trial testing the feasibility of administering a Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG probiotic to prevent respiratory infection (2014-2017). Methods: The microbiome of the nasal (mid-turbinate) of 150 residents of long-term care homes was interrogated using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Results: We identified a diverse and individualised microbiota which could be separated into nine distinct clusters based on Bray-Curtis distances. Samples collected during symptoms of ILI differed statistically from those collected pre- and post-cold and influenza season, and we observed decreased temporal stability (as measured by movement between clusters) in individuals who experienced ILI compared to those who did not. Conclusions: The use of probiotics decreased ILI-induced changes to the microbiota; however, it is not clear whether this decrease is sufficient to prevent respiratory illness.

Equity issues rarely addressed in the development of COVID-19 formal recommendations and good practice statements: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To identify COVID-19 actionable statements (e.g., recommendations) focused on specific disadvantaged populations in the living map of COVID-19 recommendations (eCOVIDRecMap) and describe how health equity was assessed in the development of the formal recommendations. METHODS: We employed the place of residence, race or ethnicity or culture, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socio-economic status, and social capital-Plus framework to identify statements focused on specific disadvantaged populations. We assessed health equity considerations in the evidence to decision frameworks (EtD) of formal recommendations for certainty of evidence and impact on health equity criteria according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria. RESULTS: We identified 16% (124/758) formal recommendations and 24% (186/819) good practice statements (GPS) that were focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Formal recommendations (40%, 50/124) and GPS (25%, 47/186) most frequently focused on children. Seventy-six percent (94/124) of the recommendations were accompanied with EtDs. Over half (55%, 52/94) of those considered indirectness of the evidence for disadvantaged populations. Considerations in impact on health equity criterion most frequently involved implementation of the recommendation for disadvantaged populations (17%, 16/94). CONCLUSION: Equity issues were rarely explicitly considered in the development COVID-19 formal recommendations focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Guidance is needed to support the consideration of health equity in guideline development during health emergencies.

Leveraging Influenza Virus Surveillance From 2012 to 2015 to Characterize the Burden of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Disease in Canadian Adults ≥50 Years of Age Hospitalized With Acute Respiratory Illness.

Background: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in older adults is undercharacterized. To help inform future immunization policies, this study aimed to describe the disease burden in Canadian adults aged ≥50 years hospitalized with RSV. Methods: Using administrative data and nasopharyngeal swabs collected from active surveillance among adults aged ≥50 years hospitalized with an acute respiratory illness (ARI) during the 2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015 influenza seasons, RSV was identified using a respiratory virus multiplex polymerase chain reaction test to describe the associated disease burden, incidence, and healthcare costs. Results: Of 7797 patients tested, 371 (4.8%) were RSV positive (2.2% RSV-A and 2.6% RSV-B). RSV prevalence varied by season from 4.2% to 6.2%. Respiratory virus coinfection was observed in 11.6% (43/371) of RSV cases, with influenza A being the most common. RSV hospitalization rates varied between seasons and increased with age, from 8-12 per 100 000 population in adults aged 50-59 years to 174-487 per 100 000 in adults aged ≥80 years. The median age of RSV cases was 74.9 years, 63.7% were female, and 98.1% of cases had ≥1 comorbidity. Among RSV cases, the mean length of hospital stay was 10.6 days, 13.7% were admitted to the intensive care unit, 6.4% required mechanical ventilation, and 6.1% died. The mean cost per RSV case was $13 602 (Canadian dollars) but varied by age and Canadian province. Conclusions: This study adds to the growing literature on adult RSV burden by showing considerable morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs in hospitalized adults aged ≥50 years with ARIs such as influenza.