Global influenza surveillance systems to detect the spread of influenza-negative influenza-like illness during the COVID-19 pandemic: Time series outlier analyses from 2015-2020.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance systems are important in detecting changes in disease patterns and can act as early warning systems for emerging disease outbreaks. We hypothesized that analysis of data from existing global influenza surveillance networks early in the COVID-19 pandemic could identify outliers in influenza-negative influenza-like illness (ILI). We used data-driven methods to detect outliers in ILI that preceded the first reported peaks of COVID-19. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used data from the World Health Organization's Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System to evaluate time series outliers in influenza-negative ILI. Using automated autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) time series outlier detection models and baseline influenza-negative ILI training data from 2015-2019, we analyzed 8,792 country-weeks across 28 countries to identify the first week in 2020 with a positive outlier in influenza-negative ILI. We present the difference in weeks between identified outliers and the first reported COVID-19 peaks in these 28 countries with high levels of data completeness for influenza surveillance data and the highest number of reported COVID-19 cases globally in 2020. To account for missing data, we also performed a sensitivity analysis using linear interpolation for missing observations of influenza-negative ILI. In 16 of the 28 countries (57%) included in this study, we identified positive outliers in cases of influenza-negative ILI that predated the first reported COVID-19 peak in each country; the average lag between the first positive ILI outlier and the reported COVID-19 peak was 13.3 weeks (standard deviation 6.8). In our primary analysis, the earliest outliers occurred during the week of January 13, 2020, in Peru, the Philippines, Poland, and Spain. Using linear interpolation for missing data, the earliest outliers were detected during the weeks beginning December 30, 2019, and January 20, 2020, in Poland and Peru, respectively. This contrasts with the reported COVID-19 peaks, which occurred on April 6 in Poland and June 1 in Peru. In many low- and middle-income countries in particular, the lag between detected outliers and COVID-19 peaks exceeded 12 weeks. These outliers may represent undetected spread of SARS-CoV-2, although a limitation of this study is that we could not evaluate SARS-CoV-2 positivity. CONCLUSIONS: Using an automated system of influenza-negative ILI outlier monitoring may have informed countries of the spread of COVID-19 more than 13 weeks before the first reported COVID-19 peaks. This proof-of-concept paper suggests that a system of influenza-negative ILI outlier monitoring could have informed national and global responses to SARS-CoV-2 during the rapid spread of this novel pathogen in early 2020.

Critical care delivery across health care systems in low-income and low-middle-income country settings: A systematic review.

Background: Prior research has demonstrated that low- and low-middle-income countries (LLMICs) bear a higher burden of critical illness and have a higher rate of mortality from critical illness than high-income countries (HICs). There is a pressing need for improved critical care delivery in LLMICs to reduce this inequity. This systematic review aimed to characterise the range of critical care interventions and services delivered within LLMIC health care systems as reported in the literature. Methods: A search strategy using terms related to critical care in LLMICs was implemented in multiple databases. We included English language articles with human subjects describing at least one critical care intervention or service in an LLMIC setting published between 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2020. Results: A total of 1620 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, 45% of studies reported on pediatric patients, 43% on adults, 23% on infants, 8.9% on geriatric patients and 4.2% on maternal patients. Most of the care described (94%) was delivered in-hospital, with the remainder (6.2%) taking place in out-of-hospital care settings. Overall, 49% of critical care described was delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians delivered critical care in 60% of the included studies. Additional critical care was delivered by general physicians (40%), as well as specialist physician trainees (22%), pharmacists (16%), advanced nursing or midlevel practitioners (8.9%), ambulance providers (3.3%) and respiratory therapists (3.1%). Conclusions: This review represents a comprehensive synthesis of critical care delivery in LLMIC settings. Approximately 50% of critical care interventions and services were delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians were the most common health care professionals involved in care delivery in the included studies, however generalist physicians were commonly reported to provide critical care interventions and services. This study additionally characterised the quality of the published evidence guiding critical care practice in LLMICs, demonstrating a paucity of interventional and cost-effectiveness studies. Future research is needed to understand better how to optimise critical care interventions, services, care delivery and costs in these settings. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42019146802.

Radiographic Findings and Association With Clinical Severity and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19.

PURPOSE: To describe evolution and severity of radiographic findings and assess association with disease severity and outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 62 COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Clinical data was obtained from electronic medical records. A total of 270 chest radiographs were reviewed and qualitatively scored (CXR score) using a severity scale of 0-30. Radiographic findings were correlated with clinical severity and outcome. RESULTS: The CXR score increases from a median initial score of 10 at hospital presentation to the median peak CXR score of 18 within a median time of 4 days after hospitalization, and then slowly decreases to a median last CXR score of 15 in a median time of 12 days after hospitalization. The initial and peak CXR score was independently associated with invasive MV after adjusting for age, gender, body mass index, smoking, and comorbidities (Initial, odds ratio [OR]: 2.11 per 5-point increase, confidence interval [CI] 1.35-3.32, P= 0.001; Peak, OR: 2.50 per 5-point increase, CI 1.48-4.22, P= 0.001). Peak CXR scores were also independently associated with vasopressor usage (OR: 2.28 per 5-point increase, CI 1.30-3.98, P= 0.004). Peak CXR scores strongly correlated with the duration of invasive MV (Rho = 0.62, P< 0.001), while the initial CXR score (Rho = 0.26) and the peak CXR score (Rho = 0.27) correlated weakly with the sequential organ failure assessment score. No statistically significant associations were found between radiographic findings and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Evolution of radiographic features indicates rapid disease progression and correlate with requirement for invasive MV or vasopressors but not mortality, which suggests potential nonpulmonary pathways to death in COVID-19.

Pragmatic Recommendations for Infection Prevention and Control Practices for Healthcare Facilities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Infection prevention and control (IPC) strategies are key in preventing nosocomial transmission of COVID-19. Several commonly used IPC practices are resource-intensive and may be challenging to implement in resource-constrained settings. An international group of healthcare professionals from or with experience in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) searched the literature for relevant evidence. We report on a set of pragmatic recommendations for hospital-based IPC practices in resource-constrained settings of LMICs. For cases of confirmed or suspected COVID-19, we suggest that patients be placed in a single isolation room, whenever possible. When single isolation rooms are unavailable or limited, we recommend cohorting patients with COVID-19 on dedicated wards or in dedicated hospitals. We also recommend that cases of suspected COVID-19 be cohorted separately from those with confirmed disease, whenever possible, to minimize the risk of patient-to-patient transmission in settings where confirmatory testing may be limited. We suggest that healthcare workers be designated to care exclusively for patients with COVID-19, whenever possible, as another approach to minimize nosocomial spread. This approach may also be beneficial in conserving limited supplies of reusable personal protective equipment (PPE). We recommend that visitors be restricted for patients with COVID-19. In settings where family members or visitors are necessary for caregiving, we recommend that the appropriate PPE be used by visitors. We also recommend that education regarding hand hygiene and donning/doffing procedures for PPE be provided. Last, we suggest that all visitors be screened for symptoms before visitation and that visitor logs be maintained.

Comparison of Clinical Features and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 versus Influenza.

Rationale: No direct comparisons of clinical features, laboratory values, and outcomes between critically ill patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and patients with influenza in the United States have been reported.Objectives: To evaluate the risk of mortality comparing critically ill patients with COVID-19 with patients with seasonal influenza.Methods: We retrospectively identified patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) at two academic medical centers with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or influenza A or B infections between January 1, 2019, and April 15, 2020. The clinical data were obtained by medical record review. All patients except one had follow-up to hospital discharge or death. We used relative risk regression adjusting for age, sex, number of comorbidities, and maximum sequential organ failure scores on Day 1 in the ICU to determine the risk of hospital mortality and organ dysfunction in patients with COVID-19 compared with patients with influenza.Results: We identified 65 critically ill patients with COVID-19 and 74 patients with influenza. The mean (±standard deviation) age in each group was 60.4 ± 15.7 and 56.8 ± 17.6 years, respectively. Patients with COVID-19 were more likely to be male, have a higher body mass index, and have higher rates of chronic kidney disease and diabetes. Of the patients with COVID-19, 37% identified as Hispanic, whereas 10% of the patients with influenza identified as Hispanic. A similar proportion of patients had fevers (∼40%) and lymphopenia (∼80%) on hospital presentation. The rates of acute kidney injury and shock requiring vasopressors were similar between the groups. Although the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was also similar in both groups, patients with COVID-19 had slower improvements in oxygenation, longer durations of mechanical ventilation, and lower rates of extubation than patients with influenza. The hospital mortality was 40% in patients with COVID-19 and 19% in patients with influenza (adjusted relative risk, 2.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-3.63; P = 0.006).Conclusions: The need for invasive mechanical ventilation was common in patients in the ICU for COVID-19 and influenza. Compared with those with influenza, patients in the ICU with COVID-19 had worse respiratory outcomes, including longer duration of mechanical ventilation. In addition, patients with COVID-19 were at greater risk for in-hospital mortality, independent of age, sex, comorbidities, and ICU severity of illness.

Pragmatic Recommendations for the Management of COVID-19 Patients with Shock in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

As some patients infected with the novel coronavirus progress to critical illness, a subset will eventually develop shock. High-quality data on management of these patients are scarce, and further investigation will provide valuable information in the context of the pandemic. A group of experts identify a set of pragmatic recommendations for the care of patients with SARS-CoV-2 and shock in resource-limited environments. We define shock as life-threatening circulatory failure that results in inadequate tissue perfusion and cellular dysoxia/hypoxia, and suggest that it can be operationalized via clinical observations. We suggest a thorough evaluation for other potential causes of shock and suggest against indiscriminate testing for coinfections. We suggest the use of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) as a simple bedside prognostic score for COVID-19 patients and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) to evaluate the etiology of shock. Regarding fluid therapy for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with shock in low-middle-income countries, we favor balanced crystalloids and recommend using a conservative fluid strategy for resuscitation. Where available and not prohibited by cost, we recommend using norepinephrine, given its safety profile. We favor avoiding the routine use of central venous or arterial catheters, where availability and costs are strong considerations. We also recommend using low-dose corticosteroids in patients with refractory shock. In addressing targets of resuscitation, we recommend the use of simple bedside parameters such as capillary refill time and suggest that POCUS be used to assess the need for further fluid resuscitation, if available.

Pragmatic Recommendations for Therapeutics of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

The therapeutic options for COVID-19 patients are currently limited, but numerous randomized controlled trials are being completed, and many are on the way. For COVID-19 patients in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), we recommend against using remdesivir outside of a clinical trial. We recommend against using hydroxychloroquine ± azithromycin or lopinavir-ritonavir. We suggest empiric antimicrobial treatment for likely coinfecting pathogens if an alternative infectious cause is likely. We suggest close monitoring without additional empiric antimicrobials if there are no clinical or laboratory signs of other infections. We recommend using oral or intravenous low-dose dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 disease who require oxygen or mechanical ventilation. We recommend against using dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 who do not require supplemental oxygen. We recommend using alternate equivalent doses of steroids in the event that dexamethasone is unavailable. We also recommend using low-dose corticosteroids in patients with refractory shock requiring vasopressor support. We recommend against the use of convalescent plasma and interleukin-6 inhibitors, such as tocilizumab, for the treatment of COVID-19 in LMICs outside of clinical trials.

Bergmann glial ensheathment of dendritic spines regulates synapse number without affecting spine motility.

In the cerebellum, lamellar Bergmann glial (BG) appendages wrap tightly around almost every Purkinje cell dendritic spine. The function of this glial ensheathment of spines is not entirely understood. The development of ensheathment begins near the onset of synaptogenesis, when motility of both BG processes and dendritic spines are high. By the end of the synaptogenic period, ensheathment is complete and motility of the BG processes decreases, correlating with the decreased motility of dendritic spines. We therefore have hypothesized that ensheathment is intimately involved in capping synaptogenesis, possibly by stabilizing synapses. To test this hypothesis, we misexpressed GluR2 in an adenoviral vector in BG towards the end of the synaptogenic period, rendering the BG α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptors (AMPARs) Ca2+-impermeable and causing glial sheath retraction. We then measured the resulting spine motility, spine density and synapse number. Although we found that decreasing ensheathment at this time does not alter spine motility, we did find a significant increase in both synaptic pucta and dendritic spine density. These results indicate that consistent spine coverage by BG in the cerebellum is not necessary for stabilization of spine dynamics, but is very important in the regulation of synapse number.