Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Variants on Inpatient Clinical Outcome.

BACKGROUND: Prior observation has shown differences in COVID-19 hospitalization risk between SARS-CoV-2 variants, but limited information describes hospitalization outcomes. METHODS: Inpatients with COVID-19 at 5 hospitals in the eastern United States were included if they had hypoxia, tachypnea, tachycardia, or fever, and SARS-CoV-2 variant data, determined from whole-genome sequencing or local surveillance inference. Analyses were stratified by history of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or infection. The average effect of SARS-CoV-2 variant on 28-day risk of severe disease, defined by advanced respiratory support needs, or death was evaluated using models weighted on propensity scores derived from baseline clinical features. RESULTS: Severe disease or death within 28 days occurred for 977 (29%) of 3369 unvaccinated patients and 269 (22%) of 1230 patients with history of vaccination or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among unvaccinated patients, the relative risk of severe disease or death for Delta variant compared with ancestral lineages was 1.30 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11-1.49). Compared with Delta, the risk for Omicron patients was .72 (95% CI: .59-.88) and compared with ancestral lineages was .94 (.78-1.1). Among Omicron and Delta infections, patients with history of vaccination or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection had half the risk of severe disease or death (adjusted hazard ratio: .40; 95% CI: .30-.54), but no significant outcome difference by variant. CONCLUSIONS: Although risk of severe disease or death for unvaccinated inpatients with Omicron was lower than with Delta, it was similar to ancestral lineages. Severe outcomes were less common in vaccinated inpatients, with no difference between Delta and Omicron infections.

Evaluation of Plasma Biomarkers to Predict Major Adverse Kidney Events in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are at increased risk for major adverse kidney events (MAKE). We sought to identify plasma biomarkers predictive of MAKE in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: A total of 576 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021 across 3 academic medical centers. EXPOSURE: Twenty-six plasma biomarkers of injury, inflammation, and repair from first available blood samples collected during hospitalization. OUTCOME: MAKE, defined as KDIGO stage 3 acute kidney injury (AKI), dialysis-requiring AKI, or mortality up to 60 days. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Cox proportional hazards regression to associate biomarker level with MAKE. We additionally applied the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and random forest regression for prediction modeling and estimated model discrimination with time-varying C index. RESULTS: The median length of stay for COVID-19 hospitalization was 9 (IQR, 5-16) days. In total, 95 patients (16%) experienced MAKE. Each 1 SD increase in soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor 1 (sTNFR1) and sTNFR2 was significantly associated with an increased risk of MAKE (adjusted HR [AHR], 2.30 [95% CI, 1.86-2.85], and AHR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.73-2.95], respectively). The C index of sTNFR1 alone was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.78-0.84), and the C index of sTNFR2 was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77-0.84). LASSO and random forest regression modeling using all biomarkers yielded C indexes of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78-0.91), respectively. LIMITATIONS: No control group of hospitalized patients without COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: We found that sTNFR1 and sTNFR2 are independently associated with MAKE in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and can both also serve as predictors for adverse kidney outcomes. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are at increased risk for long-term adverse health outcomes, but not all patients suffer long-term kidney dysfunction. Identification of patients with COVID-19 who are at high risk for adverse kidney events may have important implications in terms of nephrology follow-up and patient counseling. In this study, we found that the plasma biomarkers soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor 1 (sTNFR1) and sTNFR2 measured in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were associated with a greater risk of adverse kidney outcomes. Along with clinical variables previously shown to predict adverse kidney events in patients with COVID-19, both sTNFR1 and sTNFR2 are also strong predictors of adverse kidney outcomes.

Real-World Effectiveness of Remdesivir in Adults Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Retrospective, Multicenter Comparative Effectiveness Study.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to understand the real-world effectiveness of remdesivir in the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: This was a retrospective comparative effectiveness study. Individuals hospitalized in a large private healthcare network in the United States from 23 February 2020 through 11 February 2021 with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 and ICD-10 diagnosis codes consistent with symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were included. Remdesivir recipients were matched to controls using time-dependent propensity scores. The primary outcome was time to improvement with a secondary outcome of time to death. RESULTS: Of 96 859 COVID-19 patients, 42 473 (43.9%) received at least 1 remdesivir dose. The median age of remdesivir recipients was 65 years, 23 701 (55.8%) were male, and 22 819 (53.7%) were non-White. Matches were found for 18 328 patients (43.2%). Remdesivir recipients were significantly more likely to achieve clinical improvement by 28 days (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.22). Remdesivir patients on no oxygen (aHR 1.30, 95% CI, 1.22-1.38) or low-flow oxygen (aHR 1.23, 95% CI, 1.19-1.27) were significantly more likely to achieve clinical improvement by 28 days. There was no significant impact on the likelihood of mortality overall (aHR 1.02, 95% CI, .97-1.08). Remdesivir recipients on low-flow oxygen were significantly less likely to die than controls (aHR 0.85, 95% CI, .77-.92; 28-day mortality 8.4% [865 deaths] for remdesivir patients, 12.5% [1334 deaths] for controls). CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of remdesivir for hospitalized COVID-19 patients on no or low-flow oxygen. Routine initiation of remdesivir in more severely ill patients is unlikely to be beneficial.

The Effectiveness of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: High-flow nasal cannula is widely used in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019, yet data regarding its effectiveness is lacking. More evidence is needed to guide patient selection, timing of high-flow nasal cannula initiation, and resource allocation. We aimed to assess time to discharge and time to death in severe coronavirus disease 2019 in patients treated with high-flow nasal cannula compared with matched controls. We also evaluated the ability of the respiratory rate-oxygenation ratio to predict progression to invasive mechanical ventilation. DESIGN: Time-dependent propensity score matching was used to create pairs of individuals who were then analyzed in a Cox proportional-hazards regression model to estimate high-flow nasal cannula's effect on time to discharge and time to death. A secondary analysis excluded high-flow nasal cannula patients intubated within 6 hours of admission. A Cox proportional-hazards regression model was used to assess risk of invasive mechanical ventilation among high-flow nasal cannula patients stratified by respiratory rate-oxygenation. SETTING: The five hospitals of the Johns Hopkins Health System. PATIENTS: All patients who were admitted with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 were eligible for inclusion. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: High-flow nasal cannula was associated with longer median time to discharge: 10.6 days (interquartile range, 7.1-15.8 d) versus 7.8 days (interquartile range, 4.9-12.1 d). Respiratory rate-oxygenation index performed poorly in predicting ventilation or death. In the primary analysis, there was no significant association between high-flow nasal cannula and hazard of death (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.57-1.09). Excluding patients intubated within 6 hours of admission, high-flow nasal cannula was associated with reduced hazard of death (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Among unselected patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia, high-flow nasal cannula was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in hazard of death. However, in patients not mechanically ventilated within 6 hours of admission, high-flow nasal cannula was associated with a significantly reduced hazard of death.

Prognostic Significance of Urinary Biomarkers in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and associated with poor outcomes. Urinary biomarkers have been associated with adverse kidney outcomes in other settings and may provide additional prognostic information in patients with COVID-19. We investigated the association between urinary biomarkers and adverse kidney outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (n=153) at 2 academic medical centers between April and June 2020. EXPOSURE: 19 urinary biomarkers of injury, inflammation, and repair. OUTCOME: Composite of KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) stage 3 AKI, requirement for dialysis, or death within 60 days of hospital admission. We also compared various kidney biomarker levels in the setting of COVID-19 versus other common AKI settings. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Time-varying Cox proportional hazards regression to associate biomarker level with composite outcome. RESULTS: Out of 153 patients, 24 (15.7%) experienced the primary outcome. Twofold higher levels of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) (HR, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.14-1.57]), monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP-1) (HR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.84]), and kidney injury molecule 1 (KIM-1) (HR, 2.03 [95% CI, 1.38-2.99]) were associated with highest risk of sustaining primary composite outcome. Higher epidermal growth factor (EGF) levels were associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome (HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.47-0.79]). Individual biomarkers provided moderate discrimination and biomarker combinations improved discrimination for the primary outcome. The degree of kidney injury by biomarker level in COVID-19 was comparable to other settings of clinical AKI. There was evidence of subclinical AKI in COVID-19 patients based on elevated injury biomarker level in patients without clinical AKI defined by serum creatinine. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size with low number of composite outcome events. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary biomarkers are associated with adverse kidney outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and may provide valuable information to monitor kidney disease progression and recovery.

Review of the published literature to characterise clinical excellence in COVID-19 care.

COVID-19 continues to be a major source of global morbidity and mortality. It abruptly stressed healthcare systems early in 2020 and the pressures continue. Devastating hardships have been endured by individuals, families and communities; the losses will be felt for years to come. As healthcare professionals and organisations stepped up to respond to the overwhelming number of cases, it is understandable that the focus has been primarily on coping with the quantity of the demand. During a pandemic, it is not surprising that few papers have drawn attention to the quality of the care delivered to those afflicted with illness. Despite the challenges, clinicians caring for patients with COVID-19 have risen to the occasion. This manuscript highlights aspirational examples from the published literature of thoughtful and superb care of patients with COVID-19 using an established framework for clinical excellence (formulated by the Miller-Coulson Academy of Clinical Excellence).

Use of Hydroxychloroquine, Remdesivir, and Dexamethasone Among Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the United States : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about the use patterns of potential pharmacologic treatments of COVID-19 in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To use the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a large, multicenter, longitudinal cohort, to characterize the use of hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and dexamethasone, overall as well as across individuals, health systems, and time. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 43 health systems in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 137 870 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 between 1 February 2020 and 28 February 2021. MEASUREMENTS: Inpatient use of hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, or dexamethasone. RESULTS: Among 137 870 persons hospitalized with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, 8754 (6.3%) received hydroxychloroquine, 29 272 (21.2%) remdesivir, and 53 909 (39.1%) dexamethasone during the study period. Since the release of results from the RECOVERY (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) trial in mid-June, approximately 78% to 84% of people who have had invasive mechanical ventilation have received dexamethasone or other glucocorticoids. The use of hydroxychloroquine increased during March 2020, peaking at 42%, and started declining by April 2020. By contrast, remdesivir and dexamethasone use gradually increased over the study period. Dexamethasone and remdesivir use varied substantially across health centers (intraclass correlation coefficient, 14.2% for dexamethasone and 84.6% for remdesivir). LIMITATION: Because most N3C data contributors are academic medical centers, findings may not reflect the experience of community hospitals. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone, an evidence-based treatment of COVID-19, may be underused among persons who are mechanically ventilated. The use of remdesivir and dexamethasone varied across health systems, suggesting variation in patient case mix, drug access, treatment protocols, and quality of care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and National Institute on Aging.

Development of Severe COVID-19 Adaptive Risk Predictor (SCARP), a Calculator to Predict Severe Disease or Death in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Predicting the clinical trajectory of individual patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is challenging but necessary to inform clinical care. The majority of COVID-19 prognostic tools use only data present upon admission and do not incorporate changes occurring after admission. OBJECTIVE: To develop the Severe COVID-19 Adaptive Risk Predictor (SCARP) (https://rsconnect.biostat.jhsph.edu/covid_trajectory/), a novel tool that can provide dynamic risk predictions for progression from moderate disease to severe illness or death in patients with COVID-19 at any time within the first 14 days of their hospitalization. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTINGS: Five hospitals in Maryland and Washington, D.C. PATIENTS: Patients who were hospitalized between 5 March and 4 December 2020 with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) confirmed by nucleic acid test and symptomatic disease. MEASUREMENTS: A clinical registry for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was the primary data source; data included demographic characteristics, admission source, comorbid conditions, time-varying vital signs, laboratory measurements, and clinical severity. Random forest for survival, longitudinal, and multivariate (RF-SLAM) data analysis was applied to predict the 1-day and 7-day risks for progression to severe disease or death for any given day during the first 14 days of hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 3163 patients admitted with moderate COVID-19, 228 (7%) became severely ill or died in the next 24 hours; an additional 355 (11%) became severely ill or died in the next 7 days. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) for 1-day risk predictions for progression to severe disease or death was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.88 to 0.90) and 0.89 (CI, 0.87 to 0.91) during the first and second weeks of hospitalization, respectively. The AUC for 7-day risk predictions for progression to severe disease or death was 0.83 (CI, 0.83 to 0.84) and 0.87 (CI, 0.86 to 0.89) during the first and second weeks of hospitalization, respectively. LIMITATION: The SCARP tool was developed by using data from a single health system. CONCLUSION: Using the predictive power of RF-SLAM and longitudinal data from more than 3000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, an interactive tool was developed that rapidly and accurately provides the probability of an individual patient's progression to severe illness or death on the basis of readily available clinical information. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Hopkins inHealth and COVID-19 Administrative Supplement for the HHS Region 3 Treatment Center from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.

Patient Trajectories Among Persons Hospitalized for COVID-19 : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to severe disease or death are underexplored in U.S. cohorts. OBJECTIVE: To determine the factors on hospital admission that are predictive of severe disease or death from COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: Five hospitals in the Maryland and Washington, DC, area. PATIENTS: 832 consecutive COVID-19 admissions from 4 March to 24 April 2020, with follow-up through 27 June 2020. MEASUREMENTS: Patient trajectories and outcomes, categorized by using the World Health Organization COVID-19 disease severity scale. Primary outcomes were death and a composite of severe disease or death. RESULTS: Median patient age was 64 years (range, 1 to 108 years); 47% were women, 40% were Black, 16% were Latinx, and 21% were nursing home residents. Among all patients, 131 (16%) died and 694 (83%) were discharged (523 [63%] had mild to moderate disease and 171 [20%] had severe disease). Of deaths, 66 (50%) were nursing home residents. Of 787 patients admitted with mild to moderate disease, 302 (38%) progressed to severe disease or death: 181 (60%) by day 2 and 238 (79%) by day 4. Patients had markedly different probabilities of disease progression on the basis of age, nursing home residence, comorbid conditions, obesity, respiratory symptoms, respiratory rate, fever, absolute lymphocyte count, hypoalbuminemia, troponin level, and C-reactive protein level and the interactions among these factors. Using only factors present on admission, a model to predict in-hospital disease progression had an area under the curve of 0.85, 0.79, and 0.79 at days 2, 4, and 7, respectively. LIMITATION: The study was done in a single health care system. CONCLUSION: A combination of demographic and clinical variables is strongly associated with severe COVID-19 disease or death and their early onset. The COVID-19 Inpatient Risk Calculator (CIRC), using factors present on admission, can inform clinical and resource allocation decisions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Hopkins inHealth and COVID-19 Administrative Supplement for the HHS Region 3 Treatment Center from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.

Thrombosis, Bleeding, and the Observational Effect of Early Therapeutic Anticoagulation on Survival in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Hypercoagulability may be a key mechanism of death in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and examine the observational effect of early therapeutic anticoagulation on survival. DESIGN: In a multicenter cohort study of 3239 critically ill adults with COVID-19, the incidence of VTE and major bleeding within 14 days after intensive care unit (ICU) admission was evaluated. A target trial emulation in which patients were categorized according to receipt or no receipt of therapeutic anticoagulation in the first 2 days of ICU admission was done to examine the observational effect of early therapeutic anticoagulation on survival. A Cox model with inverse probability weighting to adjust for confounding was used. SETTING: 67 hospitals in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with COVID-19 admitted to a participating ICU. MEASUREMENTS: Time to death, censored at hospital discharge, or date of last follow-up. RESULTS: Among the 3239 patients included, the median age was 61 years (interquartile range, 53 to 71 years), and 2088 (64.5%) were men. A total of 204 patients (6.3%) developed VTE, and 90 patients (2.8%) developed a major bleeding event. Independent predictors of VTE were male sex and higher D-dimer level on ICU admission. Among the 2809 patients included in the target trial emulation, 384 (11.9%) received early therapeutic anticoagulation. In the primary analysis, during a median follow-up of 27 days, patients who received early therapeutic anticoagulation had a similar risk for death as those who did not (hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.35]). LIMITATION: Observational design. CONCLUSION: Among critically ill adults with COVID-19, early therapeutic anticoagulation did not affect survival in the target trial emulation. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Association Between Chronic Use of Immunosuppresive Drugs and Clinical Outcomes From Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Hospitalization: A Retrospective Cohort Study in a Large US Health System.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether chronic use of immunosuppressive drugs worsens or improves the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with plausible mechanisms for both. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study in 2121 consecutive adults with acute inpatient hospital admission between 4 March and 29 August 2020 with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in a large academic health system, with adjustment for confounding with propensity score-derived stabilized inverse probability of treatment weights. Chronic immunosuppression was defined as prescriptions for immunosuppressive drugs current at the time of admission. Outcomes included mechanical ventilation, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay. RESULTS: There were 2121 patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed (1967, 93%) or suspected (154, 7%) COVID-19 during the study period, with a median age of 55 years (interquartile range, 40-67). Of these, 108 (5%) were classified as immunosuppressed before COVID-19, primarily with prednisone (>7.5 mg/day), tacrolimus, or mycophenolate mofetil. Among the entire cohort, 311 (15%) received mechanical ventilation; the median (interquartile range) length of stay was 5.2 (2.5-10.6) days, and 1927 (91%) survived to discharge. After adjustment, there were no significant differences in the risk of mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio [HR], .79; 95% confidence interval [CI], .46-1.35), in-hospital mortality (HR, .66; 95% CI, .28-1.55), or length of stay (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, .92-1.47) among individuals with immunosuppression and counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic use of immunosuppressive drugs was neither associated with worse nor better clinical outcomes among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in one US health system.

Outcome-Stratified Analysis of Biomarker Trajectories for Patients Infected With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2.

Longitudinal trajectories of vital signs and biomarkers during hospital admission of patients with COVID-19 remain poorly characterized despite their potential to provide critical insights about disease progression. We studied 1884 patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection from April 3, 2020, to June 25, 2020, within 1 Maryland hospital system and used a retrospective longitudinal framework with linear mixed-effects models to investigate relevant biomarker trajectories leading up to 3 critical outcomes: mechanical ventilation, discharge, and death. Trajectories of 4 vital signs (respiratory rate, ratio of oxygen saturation (Spo2) to fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2), pulse, and temperature) and 4 laboratory values (C-reactive protein (CRP), absolute lymphocyte count (ALC), estimated glomerular filtration rate, and D-dimer) clearly distinguished the trajectories of patients with COVID-19. Before any ventilation, log(CRP), log(ALC), respiratory rate, and Spo2-to-Fio2 ratio trajectories diverge approximately 8-10 days before discharge or death. After ventilation, log(CRP), log(ALC), respiratory rate, Spo2-to-Fio2 ratio, and estimated glomerular filtration rate trajectories again diverge 10-20 days before death or discharge. Trajectories improved until discharge and remained unchanged or worsened until death. Our approach characterizes the distribution of biomarker trajectories leading up to competing outcomes of discharge versus death. Moving forward, this model can contribute to quantifying the joint probability of biomarkers and outcomes when provided clinical data up to a given moment.

Inpatient COVID-19 outcomes in solid organ transplant recipients compared to non-solid organ transplant patients: A retrospective cohort.

Immunosuppression and comorbidities might place solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients at higher risk from COVID-19, as suggested by recent case series. We compared 45 SOT vs. 2427 non-SOT patients who were admitted with COVID-19 to our health-care system (March 1, 2020 - August 21, 2020), evaluating hospital length-of-stay and inpatient mortality using competing-risks regression. We compared trajectories of WHO COVID-19 severity scale using mixed-effects ordinal logistic regression, adjusting for severity score at admission. SOT and non-SOT patients had comparable age, sex, and race, but SOT recipients were more likely to have diabetes (60% vs. 34%, p < .001), hypertension (69% vs. 44%, p = .001), HIV (7% vs. 1.4%, p = .024), and peripheral vascular disorders (19% vs. 8%, p = .018). There were no statistically significant differences between SOT and non-SOT in maximum illness severity score (p = .13), length-of-stay (sHR: 0.9 1.11.4 , p = .5), or mortality (sHR: 0.1 0.41.6 , p = .19), although the severity score on admission was slightly lower for SOT (median [IQR] 3 [3, 4]) than for non-SOT (median [IQR] 4 [3-4]) (p = .042) Despite a higher risk profile, SOT recipients had a faster decline in disease severity over time (OR = 0.76 0.810.86 , p < .001) compared with non-SOT patients. These findings have implications for transplant decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic, and insights about the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on immunosuppressed patients.

The Modern Physical Exam - A Transatlantic Perspective from the Resident Level.

Issue: The physical examination has been in decline for many years and poorer skills contribute to medical errors and adverse events. Diagnostic error is also increasing with the complexity of medicine. Comparing the physical examination in Ireland and the United States with a focus on education, assessment, culture, and health systems may provide insight into the decline of the physical exam in the United States, uncover possible strategies to improve clinical skills, and limit diagnostic error. Evidence: The physical exam is a core component of both undergraduate and postgraduate medical education in Ireland. This is reflected by the time and effort invested by medical schools and medical societies in Ireland in teaching and assessing skills. This high standard of skills results in the physical exam being a key component of the diagnostic process and a gatekeeper to expensive investigations essential in a resource-limited health system such as Ireland. Use of the physical exam in the United States is hindered by the high-tech transformation of healthcare and a more litigious society. Known strategies to highlight the role of the physical exam in clinical practice include creating an evidence base to show that better physical exam skills improve outcomes, identifying accurate physical exam maneuvers, stressing the therapeutic alliance the physical exam brings to the patient encounter, and the incorporation of technology into the bedside exam. Implications: Contrasting the education and clinical use of the physical examination in the United States with Ireland allowed us to identify a number of strategies which could be used to promote the physical exam among learners in both countries. Highlighting simple and pragmatic physical exam maneuvers combined with evidence-based physical exam diagnostic data may renew confidence in the physical exam as a core diagnostic tool. Use of the hypothesis-driven approach may streamline a clinician's physical exam during a patient encounter, focusing on the key examination components and avoiding unnecessary and low yield maneuvers. The absence of assessment of physical exam skills using real patients in United States licensing exams communicates to learners that these skills are not important. However, steps to introduce a culture of assessment to drive learning are being introduced. One area Ireland could learn from the United States is incorporating more technology into the bedside exam. Enhanced physical examination skills in both countries could reduce reliance on expensive investigations and improve diagnostic accuracy.

Development and Comparison of Complementary Methods to Study Potential Skin and Inhalational Exposure to Pathogens During Personal Protective Equipment Doffing.

BACKGROUND: Fluorescent tracers are often used with ultraviolet lights to visibly identify healthcare worker self-contamination after doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE). This method has drawbacks, as it cannot detect pathogen-sized contaminants nor airborne contamination in subjects' breathing zones. METHODS: A contamination detection/quantification method was developed using 2-µm polystyrene latex spheres (PSLs) to investigate skin contamination (via swabbing) and potential inhalational exposure (via breathing zone air sampler). Porcine skin coupons were used to estimate the PSL swabbing recovery efficiency and limit of detection (LOD). A pilot study with 5 participants compared skin contamination levels detected via the PSL vs fluorescent tracer methods, while the air sampler quantified potential inhalational exposure to PSLs during doffing. RESULTS: Average PSL skin swab recovery efficiency was 40% ± 29% (LOD = 1 PSL/4 cm2 of skin). In the pilot study, all subjects had PSL and fluorescent tracer skin contamination. Two subjects had simultaneously located contamination of both types on a wrist and hand. However, for all other subjects, the PSL method enabled detection of skin contamination that was not detectable by the fluorescent tracer method. Hands/wrists were more commonly contaminated than areas of the head/face (57% vs 23% of swabs with PSL detection, respectively). One subject had PSLs detected by the breathing zone air sampler. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a well-characterized method that can be used to quantitate levels of skin and inhalational contact with simulant pathogen particles. The PSL method serves as a complement to the fluorescent tracer method to study PPE doffing self-contamination.

Effect of an Intervention Package and Teamwork Training to Prevent Healthcare Personnel Self-contamination During Personal Protective Equipment Doffing.

BACKGROUND: More than 28 000 people were infected with Ebola virus during the 2014-2015 West African outbreak, resulting in more than 11 000 deaths. Better methods are needed to reduce the risk of self-contamination while doffing personal protective equipment (PPE) to prevent pathogen transmission. METHODS: A set of interventions based on previously identified failure modes was designed to mitigate the risk of self- contamination during PPE doffing. These interventions were tested in a randomized controlled trial of 48 participants with no prior experience doffing enhanced PPE. Contamination was simulated using a fluorescent tracer slurry and fluorescent polystyrene latex spheres (PLSs). Self-contamination of scrubs and skin was measured using ultraviolet light visualization and swabbing followed by microscopy, respectively. Doffing sessions were videotaped and reviewed to score standardized teamwork behaviors. RESULTS: Participants in the intervention group contaminated significantly fewer body sites than those in the control group (median [interquartile range], 6 [3-8] vs 11 [6-13], P = .002). The median contamination score was lower for the intervention group than the control group when measured by ultraviolet light visualization (23.15 vs 64.45, P = .004) and PLS swabbing (72.4 vs 144.8, P = .001). The mean teamwork score was greater in the intervention group (42.2 vs 27.5, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: An intervention package addressing the PPE doffing task, tools, environment, and teamwork skills significantly reduced the amount of self-contamination by study participants. These elements can be incorporated into PPE guidance and training to reduce the risk of pathogen transmission.

Validation of Autoclave Protocols for Successful Decontamination of Category A Medical Waste Generated from Care of Patients with Serious Communicable Diseases.

In response to the Ebola outbreak in 2014, many hospitals designated specific areas to care for patients with Ebola and other highly infectious diseases. The safe handling of category A infectious substances is a unique challenge in this environment. One solution is on-site waste treatment with a steam sterilizer or autoclave. The Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH) installed two pass-through autoclaves in its biocontainment unit (BCU). The JHH BCU and The Johns Hopkins biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) clinical microbiology laboratory designed and validated waste-handling protocols with simulated patient trash to ensure adequate sterilization. The results of the validation process revealed that autoclave factory default settings are potentially ineffective for certain types of medical waste and highlighted the critical role of waste packaging in successful sterilization. The lessons learned from the JHH validation process can inform the design of waste management protocols to ensure effective treatment of highly infectious medical waste.