Effectiveness of Heterologous Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine Booster Dosing in Brazilian Healthcare Workers, 2021.

BACKGROUND: Little is currently known about vaccine effectiveness (VE) for either 2 doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) viral vector vaccine or CoronaVac (Instituto Butantan) inactivated viral vaccine followed by a third dose of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech) among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil from January to December 2021. VE was defined as 1 - incidence rate ratio (IRR), with IRR determined using Poisson models with the occurrence of laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection as the outcome, adjusting for age, sex, and job type. We compared those receiving viral vector or inactivated viral primary series (2 doses) with those who received an mRNA booster. RESULTS: A total of 11 427 HCWs met the inclusion criteria. COVID-19 was confirmed in 31.5% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine versus 0.9% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001) and 9.8% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine versus 1% among HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated VE was 92.0% for 2 CoronaVac vaccines plus mRNA booster and 60.2% for 2 ChAdOx1 vaccines plus mRNA booster, when compared with those with no mRNA booster. Of 246 samples screened for mutations, 191 (77.6%) were Delta variants. CONCLUSIONS: While 2 doses of ChAdOx1 or CoronaVac vaccines prevent COVID-19, the addition of a Pfizer/BioNTech booster provided significantly more protection.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Serial Testing Among Hospitalized Patients in a Midwest Tertiary Medical Center, July-September 2020.

We implemented serial coronavirus disease 2019 testing for inpatients with a negative test on admission. The conversion rate (negative to positive) on repeat testing was 1%. We identified patients during their incubation period and hospital-onset cases, rapidly isolated them, and potentially reduced exposures. Serial testing and infectiousness determination were resource intensive.

Infectious complications of laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of the infectious complications of hysterectomy, comparing robotic-assisted hysterectomy to conventional laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy. METHODS: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, CDSR, and EMBASE through July 2018 for studies evaluating robotic-assisted hysterectomy, laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy, and infectious complications. We employed random-effect models to obtain pooled OR estimates. Heterogeneity was evaluated with I2 estimation and the Cochran Q statistic. Pooled ORs were calculated separately based on the reason for hysterectomy (eg, benign uterine diseases, endometrial cancer, and cervical cancer). RESULTS: Fifty studies were included in the final review for the meta-analysis with 176 016 patients undergoing hysterectomy. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of infectious complication events between robotic-assisted hysterectomy and laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy (pooled OR 0.97; 95 % CI 0.74 to 1.28). When we performed a stratified analysis, similar results were found with no statistically significant difference in infectious complications comparing robotic-assisted hysterectomy to laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy among patients with benign uterine disease (pooled OR 1.10; 95 % CI 0.70 to 1.73), endometrial cancer (pooled OR 0.97; 95 % CI 0.55 to 1.73), or cervical cancer (pooled OR 1.09; 95 % CI 0.60 to 1.97). CONCLUSION: In our meta-analysis the rate of infectious complications associated with robotic-assisted hysterectomy was no different than that associated with conventional laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCW use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type of full body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 15 July 2018), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 18 June 2019), Scopus (Scopus 18 June 2019), CINAHL (EBSCOhost 31 July 2018), and OSH-Update (up to 31 December 2018). We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all controlled studies that compared the effects of PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as Ebola or SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that used simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training in PPE use on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We planned to perform meta-analyses but did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies with 1950 participants evaluating 21 interventions. Ten studies are Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), one is a quasi RCT and six have a non-randomised controlled design. Two studies are awaiting assessment.Ten studies compared types of PPE but only six of these reported sufficient data. Six studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated different types of training. Fifteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless viruses. In simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 10% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study HCW were exposed to Ebola and in another to SARS.Evidence for all outcomes is based on single studies and is very low quality.Different types of PPEPPE made of more breathable material may not lead to more contamination spots on the trunk (Mean Difference (MD) 1.60 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.15 to 3.35) than more water repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46; 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5).Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (MD large patches -1.36 95% CI -1.78 to -0.94).The use of a powered air-purifying respirator may protect better than a simple ensemble of PPE without such respirator (Relative Risk (RR) 0.27; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.43).Five different PPE ensembles (such as gown vs. coverall, boots with or without covers, hood vs. cap, length and number of gloves) were evaluated in one study, but there were no event data available for compared groups.Alterations to PPE design may lead to less contamination such as added tabs to grab masks (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31), a sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), or a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55) compared to standard PPE.Different methods of donning and doffing proceduresDouble gloving may lead to less contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78).Following CDC recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (MD small patches -5.44; 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45).Alcohol-based hand rub used during the doffing process may not lead to less contamination than the use of a hypochlorite based solution (MD 4.00; 95% CI 0.47 to 34.24).Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4).Different types of trainingThe use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7).A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70; 95% CI 20.14,41.26) than a traditional lecture.Face to face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.There were no studies on effects of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence is very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in all studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. Alterations to PPE, such as tabs to grab may decrease contamination. Double gloving, following CDC doffing guidance, and spoken instructions during doffing may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than video or folder based training. Because data come from single small studies with high risk of bias, we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We still need randomised controlled trials to find out which training works best in the long term. We need better simulation studies conducted with several dozen participants to find out which PPE protects best, and what is the safest way to remove PPE. Consensus on the best way to conduct simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection in the field.

Evaluation of Influenza A H1N1 infection and antiviral utilization in a tertiary care hospital.

BACKGROUND: Influenza A H1N1 infections carry a significant mortality risk. This study describes inpatients with suspected and confirmed Influenza A H1N1 infection who were prescribed oseltamivir, the risk factors associated with infection, the association between infection and mortality, and the factors associated with in-hospital mortality in infected patients. METHODS: This study was a matched case-control study of hospitalized patients who underwent real-time polymerase chain reaction testing for Influenza A H1N1 and were treated with oseltamivir from 2009 to 2015 in a tertiary care hospital. Cases (patients with positive Influenza A H1N1 testing) were matched 1:1 to controls (patients with negative test results). RESULTS: A total of 1405 inpatients who underwent PCR testing and received treatment with oseltamivir were identified in our study and 157 patients confirmed Influenza A H1N1. Almost one third of patients with Influenza A H1N1 were diagnosed in the pandemic period. There was no difference in mortality between cases and controls. Immunocompromised status, requirement of vasoactive drugs, mechanical ventilation, acute hemodialysis, albumin administration, surgical procedures and thoracic procedures and length of stay were associated with increased risk of death in Influenza A H1N1 infected patients. CONCLUSIONS: We found no increased risk of mortality for patients with proven Influenza A H1N1 when compared to similar patients without confirmed Influenza.

Evaluation of Candida bloodstream infection and antifungal utilization in a tertiary care hospital.

BACKGROUND: Candida bloodstream infections carry a significant mortality risk, justifying the importance of adequate antifungal therapy. This study describes trends in antifungal consumption using the Defined Daily Dose (DDD) and Days of Therapy (DOT) metrics, identifies the microbiological profile, the time to initiation of empirical therapy, the adjustment after positive blood culture results for Candida, and the impact on in-hospital mortality rate in patients with candidemia. METHODS: An analysis of antifungal consumption from 2008 to 2016, and of candidemia cases from 2012 to 2016 was carried out in a private tertiary hospital. RESULTS: A total of 11,273 admissions were identified with a prescription for at least one type of antifungal therapy. Fluconazole was the most prescribed antifungal drug in terms of general consumption. Through the DDD and DOT metrics, we observed that over time, there was an increase in the consumption of liposomal amphotericin B, micafungin and voriconazole. Candida albicans was the most isolated species in blood cultures. Regarding candidemia, we analyzed samples from 115 patients. Empirical therapy was started within 24 h of blood culture in 44.3% of the cases, and in 81.7% of the cases, the antifungal was deemed to be adequate based in antifungal susceptibility testing, both of which were not associated with the in-hospital mortality rate. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reinforces the importance of monitoring the consumption of antifungal agents, which helps in proposing actions that lead to their rational use and, consequently, reduces the appearance of resistant strains.

Mycobacterium chimaera Infections Associated With Contaminated Heater-Cooler Devices for Cardiac Surgery: Outbreak Management.

The global outbreak of Mycobacterium chimaera infections associated with heater-cooler devices (HCDs) presents several important, unique challenges for the infection prevention community. The primary focus of this article is to assist hospitals in establishing a rapid response for identification, notification, and evaluation of exposed patients, and management of HCDs with regard to placement and containment, environmental culturing, and disinfection.

THE POWER OF POOP: FECAL MICROBIOTA TRANSPLANTATION FOR CLOSTRIDIUM DIFFICILE INFECTION.

The human gut is colonized with 200 to 1,000 bacterial species. Administration of antibiotics reduces the diversity of the intestinal microbiota, reduces colonization resistance, and can lead to infection with Clostridium difficile. These infections have become more prevalent and increasingly patients are experiencing multiple recurrences that are incurable with standard treatment. Although fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been used for centuries in human and veterinary medicine, only recently has it be shown to be highly effective for recurrent C. difficile infection. The goal of FMT is to re-introduce a complete, stable community of gut microorganisms to repair or replace the disrupted native microbiota. FMT can be delivered via nasoenteric tube, colonoscopy, or enema. Despite a cure rate approximating 90%, many barriers to FMT have limited its availability to patients. The recent development of a not-for-profit stool bank has helped to make this therapy more accessible. Additional indications for FMT are currently under investigation.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or SARS, healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCWs use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type or component of full-body PPE and which method of donning or removing (doffing) PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCWs, and which training methods most increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 8 January 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 20 January 2016), EMBASE (embase.com up to 8 January 2016), CINAHL (EBSCOhost up to 20 January 2016), and OSH-Update up to 8 January 2016. We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all eligible controlled studies that compared the effect of types or components of PPE in HCWs exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as EVD and SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or removing PPE, and the effects of various types of training in PPE use on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We intended to perform meta-analyses but we did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies with 1200 participants evaluating ten interventions. Of these, eight trials simulated the exposure with a fluorescent marker or virus or bacteria containing fluids. Five studies evaluated different types of PPE against each other but two did not report sufficient data. Another two studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated the effect of different types of training.None of the included studies reported a standardised classification of the protective properties against viral penetration of the PPE, and only one reported the brand of PPE used. None of the studies were conducted with HCWs exposed to EVD but in one study participants were exposed to SARS. Different types of PPE versus each otherIn simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 25% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study, PPE made of more breathable material did not lead to a statistically significantly different number of spots with contamination but did have greater user satisfaction (Mean Difference (MD) -0.46 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.84 to -0.08, range 1 to 5, very low quality evidence). In another study, gowns protected better than aprons. In yet another study, the use of a powered air-purifying respirator protected better than a now outdated form of PPE. There were no studies on goggles versus face shields, on long- versus short-sleeved gloves, or on the use of taping PPE parts together. Different methods of donning and doffing procedures versus each otherTwo cross-over simulation studies (one RCT, one CCT) compared different methods for donning and doffing against each other. Double gloving led to less contamination compared to single gloving (Relative Risk (RR) 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78, very low quality evidence) in one simulation study, but not to more noncompliance with guidance (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.67, very low quality evidence). Following CDC recommendations for doffing led to less contamination in another study (very low quality evidence). There were no studies on the use of disinfectants while doffing. Different types of training versus each otherIn one study, the use of additional computer simulation led to less errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7) and in another study additional spoken instruction led to less errors (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4). One retrospective cohort study assessed the effect of active training - defined as face-to-face instruction - versus passive training - defined as folders or videos - on noncompliance with PPE use and on noncompliance with doffing guidance. Active training did not considerably reduce noncompliance in PPE use (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.63; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.30) but reduced noncompliance with doffing procedures (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98, very low quality evidence). There were no studies on how to retain the results of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence was very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants. This means that it is likely that the true effect can be substantially different from the one reported here. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. We also found very low quality evidence that double gloving and CDC doffing guidance appear to decrease the risk of contamination and that more active training in PPE use may reduce PPE and doffing errors more than passive training. However, the data all come from single studies with high risk of bias and we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We need simulation studies conducted with several dozens of participants, preferably using a non-pathogenic virus, to find out which type and combination of PPE protects best, and what is the best way to remove PPE. We also need randomised controlled studies of the effects of one type of training versus another to find out which training works best in the long term. HCWs exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

An evaluation of the association between an antimicrobial stewardship score and antimicrobial usage.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an antimicrobial stewardship 'intensity' score predicts hospital antimicrobial usage. METHODS: An antimicrobial stewardship score for 44 academic medical centres was developed that comprised two main categories: resources (antimicrobial stewardship programme personnel and automated surveillance software) and strategies (preauthorization, audit with intervention and feedback, education, guidelines and clinical pathways, parenteral to oral therapy programmes, de-escalation of therapy, antimicrobial order forms and dose optimization). Multiple regression analyses were used to assess whether the composite score and also the categories were associated with either total or antimicrobial stewardship programme-target antimicrobial use as measured in days of therapy. RESULTS: The mean antimicrobial stewardship programme score was 55 (SD 21); the total composite score was not significantly associated with total or target antimicrobial use [estimate -0.49 (95% CI -2.30 to 0.89)], while the category strategies was significantly and negatively associated with target antimicrobial use [-5.91 (95% CI -9.51 to -2.31)]. CONCLUSIONS: The strategy component of a score developed to measure the intensity of antimicrobial stewardship was associated with the amount of antimicrobials used. Thus, the number and types of strategies employed by antimicrobial stewardship programmes may be of particular importance in programme effectiveness.

Academic I.D. in jeopardy: the erosion of time, professional values, and physician satisfaction.

The American public entrusts academic medicine with a varied portfolio of critical responsibilities: the thoughtful mentoring of future generations of doctors, the engagement of cutting edge discoveries, and the empathic treatment of patients with complicated illnesses. The erosion of time to perform these duties has led to an estrangement of our key professional values and thus a loss of public trust, the inability to recognize new diseases, reduced communication in our ranks, and physician dissatisfaction. Much of this is driven by an unbalanced focus on the business model of medicine, highlighting rapid patient transactions linked to professional income with financial incentives for high-volume care. Reversing the current trends requires a new type of leadership committed to long-held professional values and a recognition of what drives professional excellence. As internists and infectious diseases specialists without procedures in our practice, we are especially vulnerable to these trends.

Agreement on the prescription of antimicrobial drugs.

BACKGROUND: There is universal awareness of the difficulties faced by doctors when prescribing antimicrobials. METHODS: Over a six-month period patients hospitalized in the ICU and under treatment with antibiotics and/or antifungals were eligible to participate in the study. The data were assessed by two infectious diseases specialists. Once completed, all case forms were sent independently to both evaluators (TZSC and ARM) by e-mail. Based on the data received, the evaluator completed a form automatically generated on the e-mail and returned it to the original mailbox for further analysis. We assessed the level of agreement between infectious disease specialists and the physicians directly responsible for the decision to begin antimicrobial therapy, as well as to assess the appropriateness of the regimen prescribed. RESULTS: Among the antimicrobial regimens prescribed to the 177 patients, 36% were considered inappropriate by specialist #1 and 38% were considered inappropriate by specialist #2. We found 78% agreement by at least one of the infectious disease specialists with the prescribed antimicrobial regimen, and in 49% of cases both specialists agreed with the prescribed regimen. Both disagreed with the prescribed regimen in 22% of the cases and they disagreed between themselves in 29% of the cases. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the difficulties in prescribing effective empirical antimicrobial therapy--they are of such magnitude that even two specialists in infectious diseases, well acquainted with our hospital's resistance patterns and our patients' profiles have considerable disagreement.

The effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines in the prevention of post-COVID conditions in children and adolescents: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Objective: We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination against post-COVID conditions (long COVID) in the pediatric population. Design: Systematic literature review/meta-analysis. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 1, 2019, to August 14, 2023, for studies evaluating the COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against post-COVID conditions among vaccinated individuals < 21 years old who received at least 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine. A post-COVID condition was defined as any symptom that was present 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) (95% CI) for post-COVID conditions between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Results: Eight studies with 23,995 individuals evaluated the effect of vaccination on post-COVID conditions, of which 5 observational studies were included in the meta-analysis. The prevalence of children who did not receive COVID-19 vaccines ranged from 65% to 97%. The pooled prevalence of post-COVID conditions was 21.3% among those unvaccinated and 20.3% among those vaccinated at least once. The pooled DOR for post-COVID conditions among individuals vaccinated with at least 1 dose and those vaccinated with 2 doses were 1.07 (95% CI, 0.77-1.49) and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.63-1.08), respectively. Conclusions: A significant proportion of children and adolescents were unvaccinated, and the prevalence of post-COVID conditions was higher than reported in adults. While vaccination did not appear protective, conclusions were limited by the lack of randomized trials and selection bias inherent in observational studies.

Time to blood culture positivity as a predictor of clinical outcome in patients with Candida albicans bloodstream infection.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed the time to blood culture positivity as a predictor of clinical outcome in fungal bloodstream infections (BSIs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the time to positivity (TTP) of blood cultures in patients with Candida albicans BSIs and to assess its impact on clinical outcome. METHODS: A historical cohort study with 89 adults patients with C. albicans BSIs. TTP was defined as the time between the start of incubation and the time that the automated alert signal indicating growth in the culture bottle sounded. RESULTS: Patients with BSIs and TTPs of culture of ≤ 36 h (n=39) and >36 h (n=50) were compared. Septic shock occurred in 46.2% of patients with TTPs of ≤ 36 h and in 40.0% of patients with TTP of >36 h (p=0.56). A central venous catheter source was more common with a BSI TTP of ≤ 36 h (p=0.04). Univariate analysis revealed that APACHE II score ≥ 20 at BSI onset, the development of at least one organ system failure (respiratory, cardiovascular, renal, hematologic, or hepatic), SOFA at BSI onset, SAPS II at BSI onset, and time to positivity were associated with death. By using logistic regression analysis, the only independent predictor of death was time to positivity (1.04; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1, p=0.035), with the chance of the patient with C. albicans BSI dying increasing 4.0% every hour prior to culture positivity. CONCLUSION: A longer time to positivity was associated with a higher mortality for Candida albicans BSIs; therefore, initiating empiric treatment with antifungals may improve outcomes.

Improving the diagnosis of meningitis due to enterovirus and herpes simplex virus I and II in a tertiary care hospital.

BACKGROUND: Enterovirus and herpes simplex viruses are common causes of lymphocytic meningitis. The purpose of this study was to analyse the impact of the use molecular testing for Enteroviruses and Herpes simplex viruses I and II in all suspected cases of viral meningitis. METHODS: From November 18, 2008 to November 17, 2009 (phase II, intervention), all patients admitted with suspected viral meningitis (with pleocytosis) had a CSF sample tested using a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT). Data collected during this period were compared to those from the previous one-year period, i.e. November 18, 2007 to November 17, 2008 (phase I, observational), when such tests were available but not routinely used. RESULTS: In total, 2,536 CSF samples were assessed, of which 1,264 were from phase I, and 1,272 from phase II. Of this total, a NAAT for Enterovirus was ordered in 123 cases during phase I (9.7% of the total phase I sample) and in 221 cases in phase II (17.4% of the total phase II sample). From these, Enterovirus was confirmed in 35 (28.5%, 35/123) patients during phase I and 71 (32.1%, 71/221) patients during phase II (p = 0.107). The rate of diagnosis of meningitis by HSV I and II did not differ between the groups (13 patients, 6.5% in phase I and 13, 4.7% in phase II) (p = 1.0), from 200 cases in phase I and 274 cases in phase II. CONCLUSIONS: The number of cases diagnosed with enteroviral meningitis increased during the course of this study, leading us to believe that the strategy of performing NAAT for Enterovirus on every CSF sample with pleocytosis is fully justified.

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine in the prevention of post-COVID conditions: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of the latest research.

Objective: We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination against post-COVID conditions (long COVID) among fully vaccinated individuals. Design: Systematic literature review/meta-analysis. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 1, 2019, to June 2, 2023, for studies evaluating the COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against post-COVID conditions among fully vaccinated individuals who received two doses of COVID-19 vaccine. A post-COVID condition was defined as any symptom that was present four or more weeks after COVID-19 infection. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) (95% confidence interval) for post-COVID conditions between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1-DOR). Results: Thirty-two studies with 775,931 individuals evaluated the effect of vaccination on post-COVID conditions, of which, twenty-four studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for post-COVID conditions among fully vaccinated individuals was 0.680 (95% CI: 0.523-0.885) with an estimated VE of 32.0% (11.5%-47.7%). Vaccine effectiveness was 36.9% (23.1%-48.2%) among those who received two doses of COVID-19 vaccine before COVID-19 infection and 68.7% (64.7%-72.2%) among those who received three doses before COVID-19 infection. The stratified analysis demonstrated no protection against post-COVID conditions among those who received COVID-19 vaccination after COVID-19 infection. Conclusions: Receiving a complete COVID-19 vaccination prior to contracting the virus resulted in a significant reduction in post-COVID conditions throughout the study period, including during the Omicron era. Vaccine effectiveness demonstrated an increase when supplementary doses were administered.

Prevalence, predictors, and patient-reported outcomes of long COVID in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients from the city of São Paulo, Brazil.

Background: Robust data comparing long COVID in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients in middle-income countries are limited. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in Brazil, including hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients. Long COVID was diagnosed at 90-day follow-up using WHO criteria. Demographic and clinical information, including the depression screening scale (PHQ-2) at day 30, was compared between the groups. If the PHQ-2 score is 3 or greater, major depressive disorder is likely. Logistic regression analysis identified predictors and protective factors for long COVID. Results: A total of 291 hospitalized and 1,118 non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were included. The prevalence of long COVID was 47.1% and 49.5%, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression showed female sex (odds ratio [OR] = 4.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.51-8.37), hypertension (OR = 2.90, 95% CI 1.52-5.69), PHQ-2 > 3 (OR = 6.50, 95% CI 1.68-33.4) and corticosteroid use during hospital stay (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.20-5.04) as predictors of long COVID in hospitalized patients, while female sex (OR = 2.52, 95% CI 1.95-3.27) and PHQ-2 > 3 (OR = 3.88, 95% CI 2.52-6.16) were predictors in non-hospitalized patients. Conclusion: Long COVID was prevalent in both groups. Positive depression screening at day 30 post-infection can predict long COVID. Early screening of depression helps health staff to identify patients at a higher risk of long COVID, allowing an early diagnosis of the condition.

Effectiveness of two coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines (viral vector and inactivated viral vaccine) against severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in a cohort of healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated real-world vaccine effectiveness for Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and CoronaVac against laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil between January 1, 2021 and August 3, 2021, to assess vaccine effectiveness. We calculated vaccine effectiveness as 1 - rate ratio (RR), with RR determined by adjusting Poisson models with the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infection as the outcome and the vaccination status as the main variable. We used the logarithmic link function and simple models adjusting for sex, age, and job types. RESULTS: In total, 13,813 HCWs met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. Among them, 6,385 (46.2%) received the CoronaVac vaccine, 5,916 (42.8%) received the ChAdOx1 vaccine, and 1,512 (11.0%) were not vaccinated. Overall, COVID-19 occurred in 6% of unvaccinated HCWs, 3% of HCWs who received 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine, and 0.7% of HCWs who received 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine (P < .001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated vaccine effectiveness rates were 51.3% for CoronaVac, and 88.1% for ChAdOx1 vaccine. Both vaccines reduced the number of hospitalizations, the length of hospital stay, and the need for mechanical ventilation. In addition, 19 SARS-CoV-2 samples from 19 HCWs were screened for mutations of interest. Of 19 samples, 18 were the γ (gamma) variant. CONCLUSIONS: Although both COVID-19 vaccines (viral vector and inactivated virus) can significantly prevent COVID-19 among HCWs, CoronaVac was much less effective. The COVID-19 vaccines were also effective against the dominant γ variant.