Spread of viruses, which measures are the most apt to control COVID-19?

The persistent debate about the modes of transmission of SARS-CoV2 and preventive measures has illustrated the limits of our knowledge regarding the measures to be implemented in the face of viral risk. Past and present (pandemic-related) scientific data underline the complexity of the phenomenon and its variability over time. Several factors contribute to the risk of transmission, starting with incidence in the general population (i.e., colonization pressure) and herd immunity. Other major factors include intensity of symptoms, interactions with the reservoir (proximity and duration of contact), the specific characteristics of the virus(es) involved, and a number of unpredictable elements (humidity, temperature, ventilation…). In this review, we will emphasize the difficulty of "standardizing" the situations that might explain the discrepancies found in the literature. We will show that the airborne route remains the main mode of transmission. Regarding preventive measures of prevention, while vaccination remains the cornerstone of the fight against viral outbreaks, we will remind the reader that wearing a mask is the main barrier measure and that the choice of type of mask depends on the risk situations. Finally, we believe that the recent pandemic should induce us in the future to modify our recommendations by adapting our measures in hospitals, not to the pathogen concerned, which is currently the case, but rather to the type of at-risk situation.

Risk factors for the environmental spread of different multidrug-resistant organisms: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Substantial scientific evidence shows that contamination of environmental surfaces in hospitals plays an important role in the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). To date, studies have failed to identify the risk factors associated with environmental contamination. AIM: To evaluate, compare, and identify factors associated with environmental contamination around carriers of different MDROs. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study from May 2018 to February 2020. A total of 125 patients were included, having been admitted to Avicenne Hospital and Hotel Dieu de France de Beyrouth Hospital who were faecal carriers of MDROs (extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-PE), carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE)). For each patient, quantification of MDRO in stool was undertaken, plus a qualitative evaluation of the presence of MDRO in six different environmental sites; and clinical data were collected. FINDINGS: MDROs comprised ESBL-PE (34%), CPE (45%), and VRE (21%). The most frequent MDRO species was Escherichia coli. Contamination of at least one environmental site was observed for 22 (18%) patients. Only carriage of VanA was associated with a significantly higher risk of dissemination. Having a urinary catheter, carriage of OXA48 and E. coli were protective factors against environmental contamination. There were no significant differences in environmental contamination between E. coli and other Enterobacterales or between ESBL-PE and CPE. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital environmental contamination rates are substantially higher for patients with VRE, compared to the low environment dissemination rates around ESBL-PE and CPE. Further studies on a larger scale are needed to confirm the validity of our findings.

Can environmental contamination be explained by particular traits associated with patients?

BACKGROUND: Little is known about patient risk factors associated with environmental contamination. AIM: To evaluate the rate of environmental contamination and to investigate individual risk factors. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted. Each day, five rooms occupied by patients were selected. Five critical surfaces were systematically swabbed twice a day before and after cleaning. Clinical characteristics of all patients were collected. Logisitic regression was performed to evaluate the association between environmental contamination and patients' characteristics. FINDINGS: A total of 107 consecutive patients were included and 1052 environmental samples were performed. Nineteen (18%) patients were known previously colonized/infected with a multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO). Respectively, 723 (69%) and 112 (11%) samples grew with ≥1 and >2.5 cfu/cm2 bacteria, resulting in 62 (58%) contaminated rooms. Considering positive samples with at least one pathogenic bacterium, 16 (15%) rooms were contaminated. By univariate and multivariate analysis, no variables analysed were associated with the environmental contamination. Considering contaminated rooms with >2.5 cfu/cm2, three factors were protective for environmental contamination: known MDRO carriers/infected patients (odds ratio: 0.25; 95% confidence interval: 0.09-0.72; P = 0.01), patients with urinary catheter (0.19; 0.04-0.89; P = 0.03) and hospitalization in single room (0.3; 0.15-0.6; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study was conducted in a non-outbreak situation and showed a low rate of environmental contamination with pathogenic bacteria. Only 11% of environmental samples grew with >2.5 cfu/cm2, and they were related to non-pathogenic bacteria. No risk factors associated with environmental contamination were identified.

Can real-time polymerase chain reaction allow a faster recovery of hospital activity in cases of an incidental discovery of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae and vancomycin-resistant Enterococci carriers?

BACKGROUND: Detection of faecal carriers of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE) has become a routine medical practice in many countries. In an outbreak setting, several public health organizations recommend three-weekly rectal screenings to rule-out acquisition in contact patients. This strategy, associated with bed closures and reduction of medical activity for a relatively long time, seems costly. AIM: The objective of this study was to test the positive and negative predictive values of reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR; GeneXpert®) carried-out at Day 0, compared with conventional three-weekly culture-based rectal screenings, in identifying, among contact patients, those who acquired CPE/VRE. METHODS: A multicentre retrospective study was conducted from January2015 to October2018. All contact patients (CPs) were included identified from index patients (IPs) colonized or infected with CPE/VRE, incidentally discovered. Each CP was investigated at Day 0 by PCR (GeneXpert®), and by the recommended three-weekly screenings. FINDINGS: Twenty-two IPs and 159 CPs were included. An average of 0.77 secondary cases per patient was noted, with a mean duration of contact of 10 days (range 1-64). Among the 159 CPs, 16 (10%) had a CPE/VRE-positive culture during the monitoring period. Rectal screenings were positive at Day 0 (10 patients), Day 7 (two patients), Day 14 (four patients). Thirteen of 16 patients with positive culture had a positive PCR at Day 0. Overall, a concordance of 97.5% (155/159) was observed between the three-weekly screenings and Day 0 PCR results. When performed on CPs at Day 0 of the identification of an IP, PCR (GeneXpert®) allowed the reduction in turnaround time by five to 27 days, compared to three-weekly screenings. Positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 100% and 98%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of RT-PCR (GeneXpert®) can avoid the three-weekly rectal samplings needed to rule-out acquisition of CPE/VRE.

Long-term control of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium at the scale of a large multihospital institution: a seven-year experience.

Repeated outbreaks of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE) occurred between 2004 and 2010 in Assistance Publique--Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), a 23,000-bed multi-hospital institution. From August 2004 to December 2005, the French guidelines for preventing cross-transmission of multiresistant bacteria were applied. Because the number of VRE cases continued to increase, an institutional control programme was implemented from January 2006 onwards: it foresees stopping transfer of VRE and contact patients, separating VRE and contact patients in distinct cohorts, intervention of a central infection control team to support local teams, and quick application of measures as soon as first VRE cases are identified. Between August 2004 and December 2010, 45 VRE outbreaks occurred in 21 of the 38 AP-HP hospitals, comprising 533 cases. Time series analysis showed that the mean number of cases increased by 0.8 cases per month (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.3 to 1.3, p=0.001) before, and decreased by 0.7 cases per month after implementation of the programme (95% CI: -0.9 to -0.5, p<0.001), resulting in a significant trend change of -1.5 cases per month (95% CI: -2.1 to -0.9, p<0.001). The number of cases per outbreak was significantly lower after implementation of the programme. A sustained and coordinated strategy can control emerging bacteria at the level of a large regional multihospital institution.

Population pharmacokinetic study of amikacin administered once or twice daily to febrile, severely neutropenic adults.

Once-daily (o.d.) administration of 20 mg of amikacin per kg of body weight to neutropenic patients has been validated by clinical studies, but amikacin pharmacokinetics have been documented only for the 7.5-mg/kg twice-daily (b.i.d.) regimen in this population. In order to determine in neutropenic patients (i) the influence of the dosing regimen on the kinetics of amikacin, (ii) the linearity of kinetics of amikacin in the range of 7.5 to 20 mg/kg, and (iii) the influence of patient characteristics on the disposition of amikacin and (iv) to provide a rationale for dosing recommendations, we evaluated the population pharmacokinetics of amikacin administered to 57 febrile neutropenic adults (neutrophil count, <500/mm3) being treated for a hematological disorder and receiving amikacin at 7.5 mg/kg b.i.d. (n = 29) or 20 mg/kg o.d. (n = 28) and administered intravenously over 0.5 h. A total of 278 blood samples were obtained (1 to 14 samples per patient) during one or several administration intervals (1 to 47). Serum amikacin levels were measured by the enzyme-multiplied immunoassay technique. A mixed-effect modeling approach was used to fit a bicompartmental model to the data (NONMEM software). The influences of the dosing regimen and the demographic and biological indices on the pharmacokinetic parameters of amikacin were evaluated by the maximum-likelihood ratio test on the population model. The dosing regimen had no influence on amikacin pharmacokinetic parameters, i.e., the kinetics of amikacin were linear over the range of 7.5 to 20 mg/kg. Amikacin elimination clearance (CL) was only correlated with creatinine clearance or its covariates, namely, sex, age, body weight, and serum creatinine level. The interindividual variability of CL was 21%, while those of the central volume of distribution, the distribution clearance, and the tissue volume of distribution were 15, 30, and 25%, respectively. On the basis of the expected distribution of amikacin concentrations in this population, dosing recommendations as a function of creatinine clearance (CL[CR]) are proposed: for patients with normal renal function (CL[CR] of 80 to 130 ml/min), 20 mg/kg o.d. is recommended, whereas for patients with severe renal impairment (CL[CR], 10 to 20 ml/min), a dosage of 17 mg/kg every 48 h is recommended.