Early pandemic in-hospital outcomes and mortality risk factors in COVID-19 solid organ transplant patients.

Background: Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with COVID-19 have a higher risk of mortality than those without COVID-19. However, it is unclear how SOT patient outcomes compare to the general population without SOT who contract COVID-19. Methods: We used the National Inpatient Sample from January to December 2020 to investigate inpatient outcomes seen in SOT recipients after contracting COVID-19 compared to nontransplant patients. We identified our study sample using ICD-10 CM and excluded those <18 years of age and those with dual organ transplants. Inpatient outcomes were compared in SOT and non-SOT COVID cohorts, and we further evaluated predictors of mortality in the SOT with COVID population. Results: Out of the 1,416,445 COVID-19 admissions included in the study, 8315 (0.59%) were single SOT recipients. Our analysis that adjusted for multiple baseline characteristics and comorbidities demonstrated that COVID-19 in SOT patients was associated with higher rates of acute kidney injury (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.81-3.02, P < 0.01), lower rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.85, P < 0.01), and similar rates of cardiac arrest, pulmonary embolism, circulatory shock, cerebrovascular events, and in-hospital mortality. Age >65 was associated with mortality in SOT patients. Conclusion: In this nationally representative sample, SOT patients presenting with COVID-19 experienced similar rates of mortality compared to those without SOT. SOT patients were more likely to develop acute kidney injury. Further research is needed to understand the complex relationship between transplant patient outcomes and COVID-19.

Analysis of a beta-lactam allergy assessment protocol challenging diverse reported allergies managed by an antimicrobial stewardship program.

Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of a novel beta-lactam allergy assessment algorithm managed by an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) team. Design: Retrospective analysis. Setting: One quaternary referral teaching hospital and one tertiary care teaching hospital in a large western Pennsylvania health network. Patients or participants: Patients who received a beta-lactam challenge dose under the beta-lactam allergy assessment algorithm. Interventions: A beta-lactam allergy assessment protocol was designed and implemented by an ASP team. The protocol risk stratified patients' reported allergies to identify patients appropriate for a challenge with a beta-lactam antibiotic. This retrospective analysis assessed the safety and efficacy of this protocol among patients receiving a challenge dose from November 2017 to July 2021. Results: Over a 45-month period, 119 total patients with either penicillin or cephalosporin allergies entered the protocol. Following a challenge dose, 106 (89.1%) patients were treated with a beta-lactam. Eleven patients had adverse reactions to a challenge dose, one of which required escalation of care to the intensive care unit. Of the patients with an unknown or low-risk reported allergy, 7/66 (10.6%) had an observed adverse reaction compared to 3/42 (7.1%) who had an observed reaction with a reported high-risk or anaphylactic allergy. Conclusions: Our implemented protocol was safe and effective, with over 90% of patients tolerating the challenge without incident and many going on to receive indicated beta-lactam therapy. This protocol may serve as a framework for other inpatient ASP teams to implement a low-barrier allergy assessment led by ASP teams.

Factors Associated With Acceptance of Telehealth-Based Antimicrobial Stewardship Program Recommendations in a Community Hospital Health System.

Background: Telehealth-based antimicrobial stewardship programs (TeleASPs) have led to reduced broad-spectrum antimicrobial utilization. Data on factors associated with acceptance of stewardship recommendations are limited. Methods: A TeleASP, facilitated by remote infectious disease physicians and local pharmacists, was implemented in 2 community hospitals from February 2018 through July 2020. Variables potentially affecting acceptance of TeleASP recommendations were tracked. Odds ratios of acceptance were determined utilizing multiple logistic regression. Results: During the 30-month period, 4863 (91.2%) of the total 5333 recommendations were accepted. Factors associated with a higher odds of acceptance in multivariable analysis were recommendations for antimicrobial dose/frequency adjustment (odds ratio [OR], 2.63; 95% CI, 1.6-4.3) and order for labs/tests (OR, 3.30; 95% CI, 2.1-5.2), while recommendations for antimicrobial de-escalation (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95) and antimicrobial discontinuation (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42-0.76) were associated with lower odds of acceptance. Female physicians were more likely to accept recommendations compared with males (93.1% vs 90.3% acceptance; OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.3-2.2). Compared with physicians with <3 years of experience, who had the highest acceptance rate (96.3%), physicians with ≥21 years of experience had the lowest (87.1%; OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.15-0.45). Conclusions: TeleASP recommendations were accepted at a high rate. Acceptance rates were higher among female physicians, and recommendations to stop or de-escalate antimicrobials led to lower acceptance. Recommendations made to the most experienced physicians were the least accepted, which may be an important factor for stewardship programs to consider in education and intervention efforts.

Description of Hospitalizations due to the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Omicron Variant Based on Vaccination Status.

Background: Limited descriptive data exist regarding the clinical characteristics of hospitalizations due to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Omicron variant based on vaccination status. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) between 15 January 2022 and 15 February 2022 across 9 hospitals in a large health network. Data were extracted by manual records review. Results: A total of 351 of 452 (77.7%) unvaccinated, 209 of 331 (63.1%) fully vaccinated, and 107 of 163 (65.6%) boosted patients hospitalized with a COVID-19 diagnosis were determined to be admitted specifically due to COVID-19 (P < .001). Most (85%) boosted patients admitted due to COVID-19 were at least 65 years old and/or had severe immunosuppression, compared to 72.2% of fully vaccinated and 60.7% of unvaccinated patients (P < .001). Significantly more unvaccinated patients (34.2%) required >6 L/minute of supplemental oxygen compared to fully vaccinated (24.4%) and boosted (25.2%) patients (P = .027). The age-adjusted vaccine effectiveness (VE) against hospitalization due to COVID-19 was estimated to be 81.1% and 94.1% for full vaccination and boosted status, respectively, whereas VE against mortality related to COVID-19 was estimated to be 84.7% and 94.8%, respectively. Conclusions: During the Omicron BA.1 sublineage wave, unvaccinated patients hospitalized with a COVID-19 diagnosis were more likely than vaccinated patients to be admitted specifically due to COVID-19. Despite being younger with fewer comorbidities, unvaccinated patients required higher levels of care. Vaccination with a booster provides the greatest protection against hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

Lack of Serologic Evidence of Infection Among Health Care Personnel and Other Contacts of First 2 Confirmed Patients With COVID-19 in Illinois, 2020.

OBJECTIVES: Widespread global transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), continues. Many questions remain about asymptomatic or atypical infections and transmission dynamics. We used comprehensive contact tracing of the first 2 confirmed patients in Illinois with COVID-19 and serologic SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing to determine whether contacts had evidence of undetected COVID-19. METHODS: Contacts were eligible for serologic follow-up if previously tested for COVID-19 during an initial investigation or had greater-risk exposures. Contacts completed a standardized questionnaire during the initial investigation. We classified exposure risk as high, medium, or low based on interactions with 2 index patients and use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Serologic testing used a SARS-CoV-2 spike enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay on serum specimens collected from participants approximately 6 weeks after initial exposure to either index patient. The 2 index patients provided serum specimens throughout their illness. We collected data on demographic, exposure, and epidemiologic characteristics. RESULTS: Of 347 contacts, 110 were eligible for serologic follow-up; 59 (17% of all contacts) enrolled. Of these, 53 (90%) were health care personnel and 6 (10%) were community contacts. Seventeen (29%) reported high-risk exposures, 15 (25%) medium-risk, and 27 (46%) low-risk. No participant had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The 2 index patients had antibodies detected at dilutions >1:6400 within 4 weeks after symptom onset. CONCLUSIONS: In serologic follow-up of the first 2 known patients in Illinois with COVID-19, we found no secondary transmission among tested contacts. Lack of seroconversion among these contacts adds to our understanding of conditions (ie, use of PPE) under which SARS-CoV-2 infections might not result in transmission and demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing is a useful tool to verify epidemiologic findings.

Enhanced contact investigations for nine early travel-related cases of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the respiratory disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first identified in Wuhan, China and has since become pandemic. In response to the first cases identified in the United States, close contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases were investigated to enable early identification and isolation of additional cases and to learn more about risk factors for transmission. Close contacts of nine early travel-related cases in the United States were identified and monitored daily for development of symptoms (active monitoring). Selected close contacts (including those with exposures categorized as higher risk) were targeted for collection of additional exposure information and respiratory samples. Respiratory samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Four hundred four close contacts were actively monitored in the jurisdictions that managed the travel-related cases. Three hundred thirty-eight of the 404 close contacts provided at least basic exposure information, of whom 159 close contacts had ≥1 set of respiratory samples collected and tested. Across all actively monitored close contacts, two additional symptomatic COVID-19 cases (i.e., secondary cases) were identified; both secondary cases were in spouses of travel-associated case patients. When considering only household members, all of whom had ≥1 respiratory sample tested for SARS-CoV-2, the secondary attack rate (i.e., the number of secondary cases as a proportion of total close contacts) was 13% (95% CI: 4-38%). The results from these contact tracing investigations suggest that household members, especially significant others, of COVID-19 cases are at highest risk of becoming infected. The importance of personal protective equipment for healthcare workers is also underlined. Isolation of persons with COVID-19, in combination with quarantine of exposed close contacts and practice of everyday preventive behaviors, is important to mitigate spread of COVID-19.

First known person-to-person transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), first detected in China in December, 2019. In January, 2020, state, local, and federal public health agencies investigated the first case of COVID-19 in Illinois, USA. METHODS: Patients with confirmed COVID-19 were defined as those with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Contacts were people with exposure to a patient with COVID-19 on or after the patient's symptom onset date. Contacts underwent active symptom monitoring for 14 days following their last exposure. Contacts who developed fever, cough, or shortness of breath became persons under investigation and were tested for SARS-CoV-2. A convenience sample of 32 asymptomatic health-care personnel contacts were also tested. FINDINGS: Patient 1-a woman in her 60s-returned from China in mid-January, 2020. One week later, she was hospitalised with pneumonia and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Her husband (Patient 2) did not travel but had frequent close contact with his wife. He was admitted 8 days later and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Overall, 372 contacts of both cases were identified; 347 underwent active symptom monitoring, including 152 community contacts and 195 health-care personnel. Of monitored contacts, 43 became persons under investigation, in addition to Patient 2. These 43 persons under investigation and all 32 asymptomatic health-care personnel tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. INTERPRETATION: Person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurred between two people with prolonged, unprotected exposure while Patient 1 was symptomatic. Despite active symptom monitoring and testing of symptomatic and some asymptomatic contacts, no further transmission was detected. FUNDING: None.