SHEA position statement on pandemic preparedness for policymakers: building a strong and resilient healthcare workforce.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, many areas in the United States experienced healthcare personnel (HCP) shortages tied to a variety of factors. Infection prevention programs, in particular, faced increasing workload demands with little opportunity to delegate tasks to others without specific infectious diseases or infection control expertise. Shortages of clinicians providing inpatient care to critically ill patients during the early phase of the pandemic were multifactorial, largely attributed to increasing demands on hospitals to provide care to patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and furloughs.1 HCP shortages and challenges during later surges, including the Omicron variant-associated surges, were largely attributed to HCP infections and associated work restrictions during isolation periods and the need to care for family members, particularly children, with COVID-19. Additionally, the detrimental physical and mental health impact of COVID-19 on HCP has led to attrition, which further exacerbates shortages.2 Demands increased in post-acute and long-term care (PALTC) settings, which already faced critical staffing challenges difficulty with recruitment, and high rates of turnover. Although individual healthcare organizations and state and federal governments have taken actions to mitigate recurring shortages, additional work and innovation are needed to develop longer-term solutions to improve healthcare workforce resiliency. The critical role of those with specialized training in infection prevention, including healthcare epidemiologists, was well-demonstrated in pandemic preparedness and response. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the need to support growth in these fields.3 This commentary outlines the need to develop the US healthcare workforce in preparation for future pandemics.

SHEA position statement on pandemic preparedness for policymakers: introduction and overview.

Throughout history, pandemics and their aftereffects have spurred society to make substantial improvements in healthcare. After the Black Death in 14th century Europe, changes were made to elevate standards of care and nutrition that resulted in improved life expectancy.1 The 1918 influenza pandemic spurred a movement that emphasized public health surveillance and detection of future outbreaks and eventually led to the creation of the World Health Organization Global Influenza Surveillance Network.2 In the present, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed many of the pre-existing problems within the US healthcare system, which included (1) a lack of capacity to manage a large influx of contagious patients while simultaneously maintaining routine and emergency care to non-COVID patients; (2) a "just in time" supply network that led to shortages and competition among hospitals, nursing homes, and other care sites for essential supplies; and (3) longstanding inequities in the distribution of healthcare and the healthcare workforce. The decades-long shift from domestic manufacturing to a reliance on global supply chains has compounded ongoing gaps in preparedness for supplies such as personal protective equipment and ventilators. Inequities in racial and socioeconomic outcomes highlighted during the pandemic have accelerated the call to focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within our communities. The pandemic accelerated cooperation between government entities and the healthcare system, resulting in swift implementation of mitigation measures, new therapies and vaccinations at unprecedented speeds, despite our fragmented healthcare delivery system and political divisions. Still, widespread misinformation or disinformation and political divisions contributed to eroded trust in the public health system and prevented an even uptake of mitigation measures, vaccines and therapeutics, impeding our ability to contain the spread of the virus in this country.3 Ultimately, the lessons of COVID-19 illustrate the need to better prepare for the next pandemic. Rising microbial resistance, emerging and re-emerging pathogens, increased globalization, an aging population, and climate change are all factors that increase the likelihood of another pandemic.4.

Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America position statement on pandemic preparedness for policymakers: mitigating supply shortages.

The COVID-19 has had major direct (e.g., deaths) and indirect (e.g., social inequities) effects in the United States. While the public health response to the epidemic featured some important successes (e.g., universal masking ,and rapid development and approval of vaccines and therapeutics), there were systemic failures (e.g., inadequate public health infrastructure) that overshadowed these successes. Key deficiency in the U.S. response were shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) and supply chain deficiencies. Recommendations are provided for mitigating supply shortages and supply chain failures in healthcare settings in future pandemics. Some key recommendations for preventing shortages of essential components of infection control and prevention include increasing the stockpile of PPE in the U.S. National Strategic Stockpile, increased transparency of the Stockpile, invoking the Defense Production Act at an early stage, and rapid review and authorization by FDA/EPA/OSHA of non-U.S. approved products. Recommendations are also provided for mitigating shortages of diagnostic testing, medications and medical equipment.

SHEA position statement on pandemic preparedness for policymakers: pandemic data collection, maintenance, and release.

The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology in America (SHEA) strongly supports modernization of data collection processes and the creation of publicly available data repositories that include a wide variety of data elements and mechanisms for securely storing both cleaned and uncleaned data sets that can be curated as clinical and research needs arise. These elements can be used for clinical research and quality monitoring and to evaluate the impacts of different policies on different outcomes. Achieving these goals will require dedicated, sustained and long-term funding to support data science teams and the creation of central data repositories that include data sets that can be "linked" via a variety of different mechanisms and also data sets that include institutional and state and local policies and procedures. A team-based approach to data science is strongly encouraged and supported to achieve the goal of a sustainable, adaptable national shared data resource.

Confronting the Disruption of the Infectious Diseases Workforce by Artificial Intelligence: What This Means for Us and What We Can Do About It.

With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI), the field of infectious diseases (ID) faces both innovation and disruption. AI and its subfields including machine learning, deep learning, and large language models can support ID clinicians' decision making and streamline their workflow. AI models may help ensure earlier detection of disease, more personalized empiric treatment recommendations, and allocation of human resources to support higher-yield antimicrobial stewardship and infection prevention strategies. AI is unlikely to replace the role of ID experts, but could instead augment it. However, its limitations will need to be carefully addressed and mitigated to ensure safe and effective implementation. ID experts can be engaged in AI implementation by participating in training and education, identifying use cases for AI to help improve patient care, designing, validating and evaluating algorithms, and continuing to advocate for their vital role in patient care.

Immunomodulators for immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Although immunomodulators have established benefit against the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in general, it is uncertain whether such agents improve outcomes without increasing the risk of secondary infections in the specific subgroup of previously immunocompromised patients. We assessed the effect of immunomodulators on outcomes of immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods: The protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022335397). MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and references of relevant articles were searched up to 01-06-2022. Authors of potentially eligible randomized controlled trials were contacted to provide data on immunocompromised patients randomized to immunomodulators vs control (i.e., placebo or standard-of-care). Findings: Eleven randomized controlled trials involving 397 immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were included. Ten trials had low risk of bias. There was no difference between immunocompromised patients randomized to immunomodulators vs control regarding mortality [30/182 (16.5%) vs 41/215 (19.1%); RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61-1.41; p = 0.74], secondary infections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.64-1.58; p = 0.99) and change in World Health Organization ordinal scale from baseline to day 15 (weighed mean difference 0.27, 95% CI -0.09-0.63; p = 0.15). In subgroup analyses including only patients with hematologic malignancy, only trials with low risk of bias, only trials administering IL-6 inhibitors, or only trials administering immunosuppressants, there was no difference between comparators regarding mortality. Interpretation: Immunomodulators, compared to control, were not associated with harmful or beneficial outcomes, including mortality, secondary infections, and change in ordinal scale, when administered to immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Funding: Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation.

Severe COVID-19 in Vaccinated Adults With Hematologic Cancers in the Veterans Health Administration.

Importance: With SARS-CoV-2 transforming into an endemic disease and with antiviral treatments available, it is important to establish which patients remain at risk of severe COVID-19 despite vaccination. Objective: To quantify the associations of clinical and demographic variables with odds of severe COVID-19 among patients with hematologic cancers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control study included all patients with hematologic malignant neoplasms in the national Veterans Health Administration (VHA) who had documented SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination. Groups of patients with severe (cases) vs nonsevere (controls) COVID-19 were compared. Data were collected between January 1, 2020, and April 5, 2023, with data on infection collected between January 1, 2021, and September 30, 2022. All patients with diagnostic codes for hematologic malignant neoplasms who had documented vaccination followed by documented SARS-CoV-2 infection and for whom disease severity could be assessed were included. Data were analyzed from July 28 to December 30, 2023. Exposures: Clinical (comorbidities, predominant viral variant, treatment for malignant neoplasm, booster vaccination, and antiviral treatment) and demographic (age and sex) variables shown in prior studies to be associated with higher or lower rates of severe COVID-19. Comorbidities included Alzheimer disease or dementia, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart failure, and peripheral vascular disease. Main Outcome and Measures: The main outcome was severe COVID-19 compared with nonsevere SARS-CoV-2 infection. Severe COVID-19 was defined as death within 28 days, mechanical ventilation, or hospitalization with use of dexamethasone or evidence of hypoxemia or use of supplemental oxygen. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the associations of demographic and clinical variables with the odds of severe COVID-19, expressed as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% CIs. Results: Among 6122 patients (5844 [95.5%] male, mean [SD] age, 70.89 [11.57] years), 1301 (21.3%) had severe COVID-19. Age (aOR per 1-year increase, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.06), treatment with antineoplastic or immune-suppressive drugs (eg, in combination with glucocorticoids: aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.93-2.80), and comorbidities (aOR per comorbidity, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.29-1.43) were associated with higher odds of severe disease, whereas booster vaccination was associated with lower odds (aOR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.86). After oral antiviral drugs became widely used in March 2022, 20 of 538 patients (3.7%) with SARS-CoV-2 infection during this period had progression to severe COVID-19. Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study of patients with hematologic cancers, odds of severe COVID-19 remained high through mid-2022 despite vaccination, especially in patients requiring treatment.

Underuse of Antiviral Drugs to Prevent Progression to Severe COVID-19 - Veterans Health Administration, March-September 2022.

Antiviral drugs reduce the rate of progression to severe COVID-19 when given to patients with mild-to-moderate disease within 5 days of symptom onset. Despite being recommended for patients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 because of age or chronic conditions, reported antiviral use among the general adult population has been ≤35%. To ascertain reasons for underuse of antiviral medications to prevent severe COVID-19 and propose interventions accordingly, a detailed review was conducted of 110 Veterans Health Administration patients with mild-to-moderate infection at high risk for progression because of underlying conditions (organ transplantation or hematologic malignancies) who did not receive an antiviral drug. Among these 110 patients, all of whom had received COVID-19 vaccine, 22 (20.0%) were offered treatment but declined, and 88 (80.0%) were not offered treatment. Among the 88 patients not offered treatment, provider reasons included symptom duration of >5 days (22.7%), concern about possible drug interactions (5.7%), or absence of symptoms (22.7%); however, among nearly one half (43 of 88; 48.9%) of these patients, no reason other than mild symptoms was given. Among 24 (55.8%) of those 43 patients, follow-up was limited to telephone calls to report test results and inquire about symptom evolution, with no documentation of treatment being offered. These findings suggest that education of patients, providers, and medical personnel tasked with follow-up calls, combined with advance planning in the event of a positive test result, might improve the rate of recommended antiviral medication use to prevent severe COVID-19-associated illness, including death.

Risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 despite vaccination in patients requiring treatment with immune-suppressive drugs: A nationwide cohort study of US Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Patients taking immune-suppressive drugs are at increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), not fully ameliorated by vaccination. We assessed the contributions of clinical and demographic factors to the risk of severe disease despite vaccination in patients taking immune-suppressive medications for solid organ transplantation (SOT), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), or psoriasis. METHODS: Veterans Health Administration electronic health records were used to identify patients diagnosed with RA, IBD, psoriasis, or SOT who had been vaccinated against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, were subsequently infected, and had received immune-suppressive drugs within 3 months before infection. The association of severe (defined as hypoxemia, mechanical ventilation, dexamethasone use, or death) versus non-severe COVID-19 with the use of immune-suppressive and antiviral drugs and clinical covariates was assessed by multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Severe COVID-19 was more common in patients with SOT (230/1011, 22.7%) than RA (173/1355, 12.8%), IBD (51/742, 6.9%), or psoriasis (82/1125, 7.3%). Age was strongly associated with severe COVID-19, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 1.04 (CI 1.03-1.05) per year. Comorbidities indicating chronic brain, heart, lung, or kidney damage were also associated with severity, aOR 1.35-2.38. The use of glucocorticoids was associated with increased risk (aOR 1.66, CI 1.39-2.18). Treatment with antivirals was associated with reduced severity, for example, aOR 0.28 (CI 0.13-0.62) for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. CONCLUSION: The risk of severe COVID-19 despite vaccination is substantial in patients taking immune-suppressive drugs, more so in patients with SOT than in patients with inflammatory diseases. Age and severe comorbidities contribute to risk, as in the general population. Oral antivirals were very beneficial but not widely used.

Development and Validation of an Electronic Adverse Event Model for Patient Safety Surveillance in Interventional Radiology.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive adverse event (AE) surveillance programs in interventional radiology (IR) are rare. Our aim was to develop and validate a retrospective electronic surveillance model to identify outpatient IR procedures that are likely to have an AE, to support patient safety and quality improvement. METHODS: We identified outpatient IR procedures performed in the period from October 2017 to September 2019 from the Veterans Health Administration (n = 135,283) and applied electronic triggers based on posyprocedure care to flag cases with a potential AE. From the trigger-flagged cases, we randomly sampled n = 1,500 for chart review to identify AEs. We also randomly sampled n = 600 from the unflagged cases. Chart-reviewed cases were merged with patient, procedure, and facility factors to estimate a mixed-effects logistic regression model designed to predict whether an AE occurred. Using model fit and criterion validity, we determined the best predicted probability threshold to identify cases with a likely AE. We reviewed a random sample of 200 cases above the threshold and 100 cases from below the threshold from October 2019 to March 2020 (n = 20,849) for model validation. RESULTS: In our development sample of mostly trigger-flagged cases, 444 of 2,096 cases (21.8%) had an AE. The optimal predicted probability threshold for a likely AE from our surveillance model was >50%, with positive predictive value of 68.9%, sensitivity of 38.3%, and specificity of 95.3%. In validation, chart-reviewed cases with AE probability >50% had a positive predictive value of 63% (n = 203). For the period from October 2017 to March 2020, the model identified approximately 70 IR cases per month that were likely to have an AE. CONCLUSIONS: This electronic trigger-based approach to AE surveillance could be used for patient-safety reporting and quality review.

Harm reduction stories: leveraging graphic medicine to engage veterans in substance use services within the VA.

BACKGROUND: Harm reduction strategies can decrease morbidity and mortality associated with substance use. Various barriers limit conversation around substance use between clinicians and patients. Graphic medicine techniques can inform and encourage patient-centered conversations about substance use. We describe the co-development of a harm reduction-focused graphic medicine comic that depicts the infectious risks associated with injection drug use and patient-centered approaches to providing education about potential risk mitigation strategies. METHODS: We formed a co-design group of veterans with lived experience with substance use, physicians, health services researchers, and community-based harm reduction leaders. Over the course of ten sessions, the co-design team developed a storyline and key messages, reviewed draft content and worked with a graphic designer to develop a comic incorporating the veterans' input. During each session, co-design leads presented drafts of the comic and invited feedback from the group. The comic was edited and adapted via this iterative process. RESULTS: The comic depicts a fictionalized clinical vignette in which a patient develops an injection-related abscess and presents to their primary care provider. The dialogue highlights key healthcare principles, including patient autonomy and agency, and highlights strategies for safer use, rather than emphasizing abstinence. Feedback from co-design group participants highlights lessons learned during the development process. DISCUSSION: Graphic medicine is ideally suited for a patient-centered curriculum about harm reduction. This project is one of several interventions that will be integrated into VA facilities nationally to support incorporation of harm reduction principles into the care of persons who inject drugs.

Factors associated with uptake of guideline-recommended cardiovascular implantable electronic device management: a nationwide, retrospective cohort study.

Clinical guidelines recommend device removal for cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection management. In this retrospective, nationwide cohort, 60.8% of CIED infections received guideline-concordant care. One-year mortality was higher among those without procedural management (25% vs 16%). Factors associated with receipt of device procedures included pocket infections and positive microbiology.

Engaging patients in antimicrobial stewardship: co-designed educational tool to improve periprocedural care through de-implementation of guideline-discordant antimicrobial use.

Effective de-implementation models often include replacement of an ineffective practice with an alternative. We co-developed patient education materials as a replacement strategy for inappropriate post-procedural antibiotics in cardiac device procedures. Lessons learned and developed materials may be used to promote infection prevention in other periprocedural settings.

Pandemic scientific data sharing recommendations: examining and re-imagining pre-print servers after the end of the world-wide emergency.

Early in the pandemic, pre-print servers sped rapid evidence sharing. A collaborative of major medical journals supported their use to ensure equitable access to scientific advancements. In the intervening three years, we have made major advancements in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and learned about the benefits and limitations of pre-prints as a mechanism for sharing and disseminating scientific knowledge. Pre-prints increase attention, citations, and ultimately impact policy, often before findings are verified. Evidence suggests that pre-prints have more spin relative to peer-reviewed publications. Clinical trial findings posted on pre-print servers do not change substantially following peer-review, but other study types (e.g., modeling and observational studies) often undergo substantial revision or are never published. Nuanced policies about sharing results are needed to balance rapid implementation of true and important advancements with accuracy. Policies recommending immediate posting of COVID-19-related research should be re-evaluated, and standards for evaluation and sharing of unverified studies should be developed. These may include specifications about what information is included in pre-prints and requirements for certain data quality standards (e.g., automated review of images and tables); requirements for code release and sharing; and limiting early postings to methods, results, and limitations sections. Academic publishing needs to innovate and improve, but assessments of evidence quality remains a critical part of the scientific discovery and dissemination process.