The Tokyo 2020 and Beijing 2022 Olympic Games held during the COVID-19 pandemic: planning, outcomes, and lessons learnt.

The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly affected all mass gatherings for sporting and religious events, causing cancellation, postponement, or downsizing. On March 24, 2020, the Japanese Government, the Tokyo Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and the International Olympic Committee decided to postpone the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games until the summer of 2021. With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the potential creation of a superspreading event that would overwhelm the Tokyo health system was perceived as a risk. Even with a delayed start date, an extensive scale of resources, planning, risk assessment, communication, and SARS-CoV-2 testing were required for the Games to be held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The effectiveness of various mitigation and control measures, including the availability of vaccines and the expansion of effective testing options, allowed event organisers and the Japanese Government to successfully host the rescheduled 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games from July 23 to Aug 8, 2021 with robust safety plans in place. In February and March, 2022, Beijing hosted the 2022 Winter Olympic Games as scheduled, built on the lessons learnt from the Tokyo Games, and developed specific COVID-19 countermeasure plans in the context of China's national framework for the plan called Zero COVID. Results from the testing programmes at both the Tokyo and Beijing Games show that the measures put in place were effective at preventing the spread of COVID-19 within the Games, and ensured that neither event became a COVID-19-spreading event. The extensive experience from the Tokyo and Beijing Olympic Games highlights that it is possible to organise mass gatherings during a pandemic, provided that appropriate risk assessment, risk mitigation, and risk communication arrangements are in place, leaving legacies for future mass gatherings, public health, epidemic preparedness, and wider pandemic response.

Fatal SARS-CoV-2 Infection among Children, Japan, January-September 20221.

To determine the characteristics of pediatric patients 0-19 years of age who died after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Japan during January 1-September 30, 2022, we reviewed multiple sources. We identified 62 cases, collected detailed information from medical records and death certificates, and conducted interviews, resulting in 53 patients with detailed information for our study. Among 46 patients with internal causes of death (i.e., not external causes such as trauma), 15% were <1 year of age, 59% had no underlying disease, and 88% eligible for vaccination were unvaccinated. Nonrespiratory symptoms were more common than respiratory symptoms. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest affected 46% of patients, and time from symptom onset to death was <7 days for 77%. Main suspected causes of death were central nervous system abnormalities (35%) and cardiac abnormalities (20%). We recommend careful follow-up of pediatric patients after SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first week after symptom onset, regardless of underlying diseases.

The importance of meropenem resistance, rather than imipenem resistance, in defining carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales for public health surveillance: an analysis of national population-based surveillance.

BACKGROUND: In Japan, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) infections were incorporated into the National Epidemiological Surveillance of Infectious Diseases (NESID) in 2014, necessitating mandatory reporting of all CRE infections cases. Subsequently, pathogen surveillance was initiated in 2017, which involved the collection and analysis of CRE isolates from reported cases to assess carbapenemase gene possession. In this surveillance, CRE is defined as (i) minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of meropenem ≥2 mg/L (MEPM criteria) or (ii) MIC of imipenem ≥2 mg/L and MIC of cefmetazole ≥64 mg/L (IPM criteria). This study examined whether the current definition of CRE surveillance captures cases with a clinical and public health burden. METHODS: CRE isolates from reported cases were collected from the public health laboratories of local governments, which are responsible for pathogen surveillance. Antimicrobial susceptibility tests were conducted on these isolates to assess compliance with the NESID CRE definition. The NESID data between April 2017 and March 2018 were obtained and analyzed using antimicrobial susceptibility test results. RESULTS: In total, 1681 CRE cases were identified during the study period, and pathogen surveillance data were available for 740 (44.0%) cases. Klebsiella aerogenes and Enterobacter cloacae complex were the dominant species, followed by Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli. The rate of carbapenemase gene positivity was 26.5% (196/740), and 93.4% (183/196) of these isolates were of the IMP type. Meanwhile, 315 isolates were subjected to antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Among them, 169 (53.7%) fulfilled only the IPM criteria (IPM criteria-only group) which were susceptible to meropenem, while 146 (46.3%) fulfilled the MEPM criteria (MEPM criteria group). The IPM criteria-only group and MEPM criteria group significantly differed in terms of carbapenemase gene positivity (0% vs. 67.8%), multidrug resistance rates (1.2% vs. 65.8%), and mortality rates (1.8% vs 6.9%). CONCLUSION: The identification of CRE cases based solely on imipenem resistance has had a limited impact on clinical management. Emphasizing resistance to meropenem is crucial in defining CRE, which pose both clinical and public health burden. This emphasis will enable the efficient allocation of limited health and public health resources and preservation of newly developed antimicrobials.