The need for improved discharge criteria for hospitalised patients with COVID-19-implications for patients in long-term care facilities.

In the COVID-19 pandemic, patients who are older and residents of long-term care facilities (LTCF) are at greatest risk of worse clinical outcomes. We reviewed discharge criteria for hospitalised COVID-19 patients from 10 countries with the highest incidence of COVID-19 cases as of 26 July 2020. Five countries (Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Chile and Iran) had no discharge criteria; the remaining five (USA, India, Russia, South Africa and the UK) had discharge guidelines with large inter-country variability. India and Russia recommend discharge for a clinically recovered patient with two negative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests 24 h apart; the USA offers either a symptom based strategy-clinical recovery and 10 days after symptom onset, or the same test-based strategy. The UK suggests that patients can be discharged when patients have clinically recovered; South Africa recommends discharge 14 days after symptom onset if clinically stable. We recommend a unified, simpler discharge criteria, based on current studies which suggest that most SARS-CoV-2 loses its infectivity by 10 days post-symptom onset. In asymptomatic cases, this can be taken as 10 days after the first positive PCR result. Additional days of isolation beyond this should be left to the discretion of individual clinician. This represents a practical compromise between unnecessarily prolonged admissions and returning highly infectious patients back to their care facilities, and is of particular importance in older patients discharged to LTCFs, residents of which may be at greatest risk of transmission and worse clinical outcomes.

Face mask sampling reveals antimicrobial resistance genes in exhaled aerosols from patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and healthy volunteers.

INTRODUCTION: The degree to which bacteria in the human respiratory tract are aerosolised by individuals is not established. Building on our experience sampling bacteria exhaled by individuals with pulmonary tuberculosis using face masks, we hypothesised that patients with conditions frequently treated with antimicrobials, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), might exhale significant numbers of bacteria carrying antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes and that this may constitute a previously undefined risk for the transmission of AMR. METHODS: Fifteen-minute mask samples were taken from 13 patients with COPD (five paired with contemporaneous sputum samples) and 10 healthy controls. DNA was extracted from cell pellets derived from gelatine filters mounted within the mask. Quantitative PCR analyses directed to the AMR encoding genes: blaTEM (ß-lactamase), ErmB (target methylation), mefA (macrolide efflux pump) and tetM (tetracycline ribosomal protection protein) and six additional targets were investigated. Positive signals above control samples were obtained for all the listed genes; however, background signals from the gelatine precluded analysis of the additional targets. RESULTS: 9 patients with COPD (69%), aerosolised cells containing, in order of prevalence, mefA, tetM, ErmB and blaTEM, while three healthy controls (30%) gave weak positive signals including all targets except blaTEM. Maximum estimated copy numbers of AMR genes aerosolised per minute were mefA: 3010, tetM: 486, ErmB: 92 and blaTEM: 24. The profile of positive signals found in sputum was not concordant with that in aerosol in multiple instances. DISCUSSION: We identified aerosolised AMR genes in patients repeatedly exposed to antimicrobials and in healthy volunteers at lower frequencies and levels. The discrepancies between paired samples add weight to the view that sputum content does not define aerosol content. Mask sampling is a simple approach yielding samples from all subjects and information distinct from sputum analysis. Our results raise the possibility that patient-generated aerosols may be a significant means of AMR dissemination that should be assessed further and that consideration be given to related control measures.

Face mask sampling for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in expelled aerosols.

BACKGROUND: Although tuberculosis is transmitted by the airborne route, direct information on the natural output of bacilli into air by source cases is very limited. We sought to address this through sampling of expelled aerosols in face masks that were subsequently analyzed for mycobacterial contamination. METHODS: In series 1, 17 smear microscopy positive patients wore standard surgical face masks once or twice for periods between 10 minutes and 5 hours; mycobacterial contamination was detected using a bacteriophage assay. In series 2, 19 patients with suspected tuberculosis were studied in Leicester UK and 10 patients with at least one positive smear were studied in The Gambia. These subjects wore one FFP30 mask modified to contain a gelatin filter for one hour; this was subsequently analyzed by the Xpert MTB/RIF system. RESULTS: In series 1, the bacteriophage assay detected live mycobacteria in 11/17 patients with wearing times between 10 and 120 minutes. Variation was seen in mask positivity and the level of contamination detected in multiple samples from the same patient. Two patients had non-tuberculous mycobacterial infections. In series 2, 13/20 patients with pulmonary tuberculosis produced positive masks and 0/9 patients with extrapulmonary or non-tuberculous diagnoses were mask positive. Overall, 65% of patients with confirmed pulmonary mycobacterial infection gave positive masks and this included 3/6 patients who received diagnostic bronchoalveolar lavages. CONCLUSION: Mask sampling provides a simple means of assessing mycobacterial output in non-sputum expectorant. The approach shows potential for application to the study of airborne transmission and to diagnosis.