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.

Insights into Treatment Alternatives for Neurosyphilis: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of alternative treatments for neurosyphilis. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science from database inception to September, 2023, for studies in neurosyphilis that compared penicillin monotherapy to other treatments. We focused on the impact of these therapies on treatment response, but also assessed data regarding reinfection and adverse drug events. Random-effect models were used to obtain pooled mean differences. Of 3,415 screened studies, six met the inclusion criteria for the systematic literature review. Three studies provided quantitative data that allowed for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Our analysis revealed that the efficacy of intravenous ceftriaxone 2 g daily for 10 days (51 patients) did not appear statistically different compared to intravenous penicillin G 18-24 million units daily for 10 days (185 patients) for neurosyphilis (pooled OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 0.41-19.56; I2 = 49%). No statistical difference between ceftriaxone and penicillin was identified in people living with HIV (pooled OR, 4.51; 95% CI, 0.50-40.49; I2 = 34%). We concluded that alternative therapy with IV ceftriaxone appears similar to penicillin, potentially expanding treatment options for neurosyphilis. Other treatment options including doxycycline warrant further study.

Syphilis Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Investigating Nonpenicillin Therapeutic Strategies.

Background: Penicillin's long-standing role as the reference standard in syphilis treatment has led to global reliance. However, this dependence presents challenges, prompting the need for alternative strategies. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of these alternative treatments against nonneurological syphilis. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science from database inception to 28 August 2023, and we included studies that compared penicillin or amoxicillin monotherapy to other treatments for the management of nonneurological syphilis. Our primary outcome was serological cure rates. Random-effect models were used to obtain pooled mean differences, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test. Results: Of 6478 screened studies, 27 met the inclusion criteria, summing 6710 patients. The studies were considerably homogeneous, and stratified analyses considering each alternative treatment separately revealed that penicillin monotherapy did not outperform ceftriaxone (pooled odds ratio, 1.66 [95% confidence interval, .97-2.84]; I2 = 0%), azithromycin (0.92; [.73-1.18]; I2 = 0%), or doxycycline (0.82 [.61-1.10]; I2 = 1%) monotherapies with respect to serological conversion. Conclusions: Alternative treatment strategies have serological cure rates equivalent to penicillin, potentially reducing global dependence on this antibiotic.

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.

A review of extended coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) isolation duration among inpatients in a tertiary-care hospital-Iowa, 2020-2022.

Of the 2,668 patients admitted with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), 4% underwent prolonged isolation for >20 days. Reasons for extended isolation were inconsistent with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines in 25% of these patients and were questionable in 54% due to an ongoing critically ill condition at day 20 without CDC-defined immunocompromised status.

Descriptive epidemiology of central line-associated bloodstream infections at an academic medical center in Iowa, 2019-2022.

BACKGROUND: Central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) increased nationally during the COVID-19 pandemic. We described CLABSIs at our institution during 2019 to 2022. METHODS: This retrospective observational study examined CLABSIs among adult inpatients at an 866-bed teaching hospital in the Midwest. CLABSI incidence was trended over time and compared to monthly COVID-19 admissions. Manual chart review was performed to obtain patient demographics, catheter-associated variables, pathogens, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 178 CLABSIs. The CLABSI incidence (cases per 1,000 line days) tripled in October 2020 as COVID-19 admissions increased. CLABSIs in 2020 were more frequently caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci and more frequently occurred in the intensive care units 7+ days after central line insertion. The CLABSI incidence normalized in early 2021 and did not increase during subsequent COVID-19 surges. Throughout 2019 to 2022, about half of the nontunneled central venous catheters involved in CLABSI were placed emergently. One-quarter of CLABSIs involved multiple central lines. Chlorhexidine skin treatment adherence was limited by patient refusal. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in CLABSIs in late 2020 during a surge in COVID-19 admissions was likely related to central line maintenance but has resolved. Characterizing CLABSI cases can provide insight into adherence to guideline-recommended prevention practices and identify areas for improvement at individual institutions.

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.

Diagnostic Stewardship: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Blood Collection Diversion Devices Used to Reduce Blood Culture Contamination and Improve the Accuracy of Diagnosis in Clinical Settings.

Background: Blood culture contamination may lead to misdiagnosis, overutilization of antibiotics, and prolonged length of stay. Blood specimen diversion devices can reduce contamination rates during blood culture collection procedures. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis evaluating the influence of blood specimen diversion devices in blood culture contamination rates. Methods: We searched Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science, from database inception to 1 March 2023, for studies evaluating the impact of a diversion device on blood culture contamination. Blood culture contamination was a positive blood culture with microorganisms not representative of true bacteremia, but rather introduced during collection or processing the blood sample. Random-effects models were used to obtain pooled mean differences, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test. Results: Of 1768 screened studies, 12 met inclusion criteria for this systematic literature review. Of them, 9 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Studies were substantially heterogeneous, but stratified analyses considering only high-quality studies revealed that venipuncture using a diversion device was associated with a significant reduction in blood culture contamination in comparison to the standard procedure of collection (pooled odds ratio [OR], 0.26 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .13-.54]; I2 = 19%). Furthermore, the stratified analysis showed that the adoption of a diversion device did not reduce the detection of true infection (pooled OR, 0.85 [95% CI, .65-1.11]; I2 = 0%). Conclusions: Blood culture diversion devices was associated with decreased contamination rates and could improve quality of care, reduce costs, and avoid unnecessary antibiotic use.

Longer-term effectiveness of a heterologous coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine booster in healthcare workers in Brazil.

Objective: To compare the long-term vaccine effectiveness between those receiving viral vector [Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1)] or inactivated viral (CoronaVac) primary series (2 doses) and those who received an mRNA booster (Pfizer/BioNTech) (the third dose) among healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) in Brazil from January 2021 to July 2022. To assess the variation in the effectiveness of booster dose over time, we estimated the effectiveness rate by taking the log risk ratio as a function of time. Results: Of 14,532 HCWs, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was confirmed in 56.3% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine versus 23.2% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001), and 37.1% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine versus 22.7% among HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001). The highest vaccine effectiveness with mRNA booster was observed 30 days after vaccination: 91% for the CoronaVac vaccine group and 97% for the ChAdOx1 vaccine group. Vacine effectiveness declined to 55% and 67%, respectively, at 180 days. Of 430 samples screened for mutations, 49.5% were SARS-CoV-2 delta variants and 34.2% were SARS-CoV-2 omicron variants. Conclusions: Heterologous COVID-19 vaccines were effective for up to 180 days in preventing COVID-19 in the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variant eras, which suggests the need for a second booster.

Perceptions of an automated benchmarking dashboard for antimicrobial stewardship programs among antimicrobial stewards within the veterans' health administration: a multicenter qualitative study.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of a multicenter, try automated dashboard on ASP activities and its acceptance among ASP leaders. Design: Frontline stewards were asked to participate in semi-structured interviews before and after implementation of a web-based ASP information dashboard providing risk-adjusted benchmarking, longitudinal trends, and analysis of antimicrobial usage patterns at each facility. Setting: The study was performed at Iowa City VA Health Care System. Participants: ASP team members from nine medical centers in the VA Midwest Health Care Network (VISN 23). Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted pre- and post-implementation, with interview guides informed by clinical experiences and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Participants evaluated the dashboard's ease of use, applicability to ongoing ASP activities, perceived validity and reliability, and relative advantage over other ASP monitoring systems. Results: Compared to established stewardship data collection and reporting methods, participants found the dashboard more intuitive and accessible, allowing them to reduce dependence on other systems and staff to obtain and share data. Standardized and risk-adjusted rankings were largely accepted as a valuable benchmarking method; however, participants felt their facility's characteristics significantly influenced the rankings' validity. Participants recognized staffing, training, and uncertainty with using the dashboard as an intervention tool as barriers to consistent and comprehensive dashboard implementation. Conclusions: Participants generally accepted the dashboard's risk-adjusted metrics and appreciated its usability. While creating automated tools to rigorously benchmark antimicrobial use across hospitals can be helpful, the displayed metrics require further validation, and the longitudinal utility of the dashboard warrants additional study.

Risk factors for long coronavirus disease 2019 (long COVID) among healthcare personnel, Brazil, 2020-2022.

OBJECTIVE: To determine risk factors for the development of long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare personnel (HCP). METHODS: We conducted a case-control study among HCP who had confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 working in a Brazilian healthcare system between March 1, 2020, and July 15, 2022. Cases were defined as those having long COVID according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition. Controls were defined as HCP who had documented COVID-19 but did not develop long COVID. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the association between exposure variables and long COVID during 180 days of follow-up. RESULTS: Of 7,051 HCP diagnosed with COVID-19, 1,933 (27.4%) who developed long COVID were compared to 5,118 (72.6%) who did not. The majority of those with long COVID (51.8%) had 3 or more symptoms. Factors associated with the development of long COVID were female sex (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.39), age (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02), and 2 or more SARS-CoV-2 infections (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.50). Those infected with the SARS-CoV-2 δ (delta) variant (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.50) or the SARS-CoV-2 o (omicron) variant (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.78), and those receiving 4 COVID-19 vaccine doses prior to infection (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.19) were significantly less likely to develop long COVID. CONCLUSIONS: Long COVID can be prevalent among HCP. Acquiring >1 SARS-CoV-2 infection was a major risk factor for long COVID, while maintenance of immunity via vaccination was highly protective.

Patients' experiences and compliance with preoperative screening and decolonization.

BACKGROUND: To improve adherence with pre-surgical screening for Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage and decolonization, we need more information about patients' experiences with these protocols. METHODS: We surveyed patients undergoing orthopedic, neurosurgical, or cardiac operations at Johns Hopkins Hospitals (JHH), the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC) at MercyOne Northeast Iowa Neurosurgery (MONIN) to assess patients' experiences with decolonization protocols. RESULTS: Five hundred thirty-four patients responded. Respondents at JHH were significantly more likely than those at the UIHC to report using mupirocin and were significantly more likely than those at the UIHC and MONIN to feel they received adequate information about surgical site infection (SSI) prevention and decolonization. Respondents at JHH were the least likely to not worry about SSI and they were more willing to do anything they could to prevent SSI. Few patients reported barriers to adherence and side effects of mupirocin or chlorhexidine. CONCLUSION: Respondents did not report either major side effects or barriers to adherence. Patients varied in their level of concern about SSI, their willingness to invest effort in preventing SSI, and their assessments of preoperative information. To improve patients' adherence, clinicians and hospitals should assess their patients' needs and desires and tailor their preoperative processes, education, and prophylaxis accordingly.

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.

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 (COVID-19) among nonphysician healthcare personnel by work location at a tertiary-care center, Iowa, 2020-2021.

We describe COVID-19 cases among nonphysician healthcare personnel (HCP) by work location. The proportion of HCP with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was highest in the emergency department and lowest among those working remotely. COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 units had similar proportions of HCP with COVID-19 (13%). Cases decreased across all work locations following COVID-19 vaccination.

Association of entry into hospice or palliative care consultation during acute care hospitalization with subsequent antibiotic utilization.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate antibiotic use during the last 6 months of life for hospitalized patients under hospice or palliative care and identify potential targets (i.e. time points) for antibiotic stewardship during the end-of-life period. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of nationwide Veterans Affairs (VA) patients who died between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2019 and who had been hospitalized within 6 months prior to death. Data from the VA's integrated electronic medical record were collected, including demographics, comorbid conditions, and duration of inpatient antibiotics administered, along with outpatient antibiotics dispensed. A propensity score-matched cohort analysis was conducted to compare antibiotic use between hospitalized patients placed into palliative care or hospice matched to hospitalized patients not receiving palliative care or hospice. RESULTS: There were 9808 and 40 796 propensity score-matched patient pairs in the hospice and palliative care groups, respectively. Within 14 days of placement or consultation, 41% (4040/9808) of hospice patients and 48% (19 735/40 796) of palliative care patients received at least one antibiotic, while 25% (2420/9808) matched nonhospice and 27% (10 991/40 796) matched nonpalliative care patients received antibiotics. Entry into hospice was independently associated with a 12% absolute increase in antibiotic prescribing, and entry into palliative care was associated with a 17% absolute increase during the 14 days post-entry vs. pre-entry period. DISCUSSION: We observed that patients receiving end-of-life care had high levels of antibiotic exposure across this VA population, particularly during admissions when they received hospice or palliative care consultation.

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.