Risk factors for healthcare-associated candidemia in adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Analyzing data from a national deidentified electronic health record-based data set using a matched case-control study design, we found that antibiotic use and severity of illness were independent risk factors for healthcare-associated candidemia in adult patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Interleukin-6 inhibitor and corticosteroid use were not independent risk factors.

Examining barriers to implementing a surgical-site infection bundle.

BACKGROUND: Surgical-site infections (SSIs) can be catastrophic. Bundles of evidence-based practices can reduce SSIs but can be difficult to implement and sustain. OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand the implementation of SSI prevention bundles in 6 US hospitals. DESIGN: Qualitative study. METHODS: We conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with personnel involved in bundle implementation and conducted a thematic analysis of the transcripts. SETTING: The study was conducted in 6 US hospitals: 2 academic tertiary-care hospitals, 3 academic-affiliated community hospitals, 1 unaffiliated community hospital. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 30 hospital personnel participated. Participants included surgeons, laboratory directors, clinical personnel, and infection preventionists. RESULTS: Bundle complexity impeded implementation. Other barriers varied across services, even within the same hospital. Multiple strategies were needed, and successful strategies in one service did not always apply in other areas. However, early and sustained interprofessional collaboration facilitated implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence-based SSI bundle is complicated and can be difficult to implement. One implementation process probably will not work for all settings. Multiple strategies were needed to overcome contextual and implementation barriers that varied by setting and implementation climate. Appropriate adaptations for specific settings and populations may improve bundle adoption, fidelity, acceptability, and sustainability.

Introduction to A Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections In Acute-Care Hospitals: 2022 Updates.

Since the initial publication of A Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections in Acute Care Hospitals in 2008, the prevention of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) has continued to be a national priority. Progress in healthcare epidemiology, infection prevention, antimicrobial stewardship, and implementation science research has led to improvements in our understanding of effective strategies for HAI prevention. Despite these advances, HAIs continue to affect ∼1 of every 31 hospitalized patients, leading to substantial morbidity, mortality, and excess healthcare expenditures, and persistent gaps remain between what is recommended and what is practiced.The widespread impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on HAI outcomes in acute-care hospitals has further highlighted the essential role of infection prevention programs and the critical importance of prioritizing efforts that can be sustained even in the face of resource requirements from COVID-19 and future infectious diseases crises.The Compendium: 2022 Updates document provides acute-care hospitals with up-to-date, practical expert guidance to assist in prioritizing and implementing HAI prevention efforts. It is the product of a highly collaborative effort led by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA), the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), the American Hospital Association (AHA), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of organizations and societies with content expertise, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society (PIDS), the Society for Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), the Society for Hospital Medicine (SHM), the Surgical Infection Society (SIS), and others.

Is there an association between peri-diagnostic vaccination and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients?

Background: Peri-diagnostic vaccination contemporaneous with SARS-CoV-2 infection might boost antiviral immunity and improve patient outcomes. We investigated, among previously unvaccinated patients, whether vaccination (with the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J vaccines) during the week before or after a positive COVID-19 test was associated with altered 30-day patient outcomes. Methods: Using a deidentified longitudinal EHR repository, we selected all previously unvaccinated adults who initially tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between December 11, 2020 (the date of vaccine emergency use approval) and December 19, 2021. We assessed whether vaccination between days -7 and +7 of a positive test affected outcomes. The primary measure was progression to a more severe disease outcome within 30 days of diagnosis using the following hierarchy: hospitalization, intensive care, or death. Results: Among 60,031 hospitalized patients, 543 (0.91%) were initially vaccinated at the time of diagnosis and 59,488 (99.09%) remained unvaccinated during the period of interest. Among 316,337 nonhospitalized patients, 2,844 (0.90%) were initially vaccinated and 313,493 (99.1%) remained unvaccinated. In both analyses, individuals receiving vaccines were older, more often located in the northeast, more commonly insured by Medicare, and more burdened by comorbidities. Among previously unvaccinated patients, there was no association between receiving an initial vaccine dose between days -7 and +7 of diagnosis and progression to more severe disease within 30 days compared to patients who did not receive vaccines. Conclusions: Immunization during acute SARS-CoV-2 infection does not appear associated with clinical progression during the acute infectious period.

Risk Factors for SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Severe Outcomes Among People With Human Immunodeficiency Virus: Cohort Study.

Background: Studies on COVID-19 in people with HIV (PWH) have had limitations. Further investigations on risk factors and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection among PWH are needed. Methods: This retrospective cohort study leveraged the national OPTUM COVID-19 data set to investigate factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity among PWH and risk factors for severe outcomes, including hospitalization, intensive care unit stays, and death. A subset analysis was conducted to examine HIV-specific variables. Multiple variable logistic regression was used to adjust for covariates. Results: Of 43 173 PWH included in this study, 6472 had a positive SARS-CoV-2 result based on a polymerase chain reaction test or antigen test. For PWH with SARS-CoV-2 positivity, higher odds were found for those who were younger (18-49 years), Hispanic White, African American, from the US South, uninsured, and a noncurrent smoker and had a higher body mass index and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index. For PWH with severe outcomes, higher odds were identified for those who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, older, from the US South, receiving Medicaid/Medicare or uninsured, a current smoker, and underweight and had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index. In a subset analysis including PWH with HIV care variables (n = 5098), those with unsuppressed HIV viral load, a low CD4 count, and no antiretroviral therapy had higher odds of severe outcomes. Conclusions: This large US study found significant ethnic, racial, and geographic differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection among PWH. Chronic comorbidities, older age, lower body mass index, and smoking were associated with severe outcomes among PWH during the COVID-19 pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with severe outcomes, but once we adjusted for HIV care variables, SARS-CoV-2 was no longer significant; however, low CD4 count, high viral load, and lack of antiretroviral therapy had higher odds of severe outcomes.

Public perception of COVID-19 vaccines through analysis of Twitter content and users.

BACKGROUND: With the global continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic, the large-scale administration of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is crucial to achieve herd immunity and curtail further spread of the virus, but success is contingent on public understanding and vaccine uptake. We aim to understand public perception about vaccines for COVID-19 through the wide-scale, organic discussion on Twitter. METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study included Twitter posts matching the search criteria (('covid*' OR 'coronavirus') AND 'vaccine') posted during vaccine development from February 1st through December 11th, 2020. These COVID-19 vaccine related posts were analyzed with topic modeling, sentiment and emotion analysis, and demographic inference of users to provide insight into the evolution of public attitudes throughout the study period. FINDINGS: We evaluated 2,287,344 English tweets from 948,666 user accounts. Individuals represented 87.9 % (n = 834,224) of user accounts. Of individuals, men (n = 560,824) outnumbered women (n = 273,400) by 2:1 and 39.5 % (n = 329,776) of individuals were ≥40 years old. Daily mean sentiment fluctuated congruent with news events, but overall trended positively. Trust, anticipation, and fear were the three most predominant emotions; while fear was the most predominant emotion early in the study period, trust outpaced fear from April 2020 onward. Fear was more prevalent in tweets by individuals (26.3 % vs. organizations 19.4 %; p < 0.001), specifically among women (28.4 % vs. males 25.4 %; p < 0.001). Multiple topics had a monthly trend towards more positive sentiment. Tweets comparing COVID-19 to the influenza vaccine had strongly negative early sentiment but improved over time. INTERPRETATION: This study successfully explores sentiment, emotion, topics, and user demographics to elucidate important trends in public perception about COVID-19 vaccines. While public perception trended positively over the study period, some trends, especially within certain topic and demographic clusters, are concerning for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. These insights can provide targets for educational interventions and opportunity for continued real-time monitoring.

Analyzing an Emerging Pandemic on Twitter: Monkeypox.

Background: Social media platforms like Twitter provide important insights into the public's perceptions of global outbreaks like monkeypox. By analyzing tweets, we aimed to identify public knowledge and opinions on the monkeypox virus and related public health issues. Methods: We analyzed English-language tweets using the keyword "monkeypox" from 1 May to 23 July 2022. We reported gender, ethnicity, and race of Twitter users and analyzed tweets to identify predominant sentiment and emotions. We performed topic modeling and compared cohorts of users who self-identify as LGBTQ+ (an abreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and/or questioning) allies versus users who do not, and cohorts identified as "bots" versus humans. Results: A total of 48 330 tweets were written by LGBTQ+ self-identified advocates or allies. The mean sentiment score for all tweets was -0.413 on a -4 to +4 scale. Negative tweets comprised 39% of tweets. The most common emotions expressed were fear and sadness. Topic modeling identified unique topics among the 4 cohorts analyzed. Conclusions: The spread of mis- and disinformation about monkeypox was common in our tweet library. Various conspiracy theories about the origins of monkeypox, its relationship to global economic concerns, and homophobic and racial comments were common. Conversely, many other tweets helped to provide information about monkeypox vaccines, disease symptoms, and prevention methods. Discussion of rising monkeypox case numbers globally was also a large aspect of the conversation. Conclusions: We demonstrated that Twitter is an effective means of tracking sentiment about public healthcare issues. We gained insight into a subset of people, self-identified LGBTQ+ allies, who were more affected by monkeypox.

Incidence and Risk Factors for Severe Outcomes in Pediatric Patients With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Throughout the pandemic, children with COVID-19 have experienced hospitalization, ICU admission, invasive respiratory support, and death. Using a multisite, national dataset, we investigate risk factors associated with these outcomes in children with COVID-19. METHODS: Our data source (Optum deidentified COVID-19 Electronic Health Record Dataset) included children aged 0 to 18 years testing positive for COVID-19 between January 1, 2020, and January 20, 2022. Using ordinal logistic regression, we identified factors associated with an ordinal outcome scale: nonhospitalization, hospitalization, or a severe composite outcome (ICU, intensive respiratory support, death). To contrast hospitalization for COVID-19 and incidental positivity on hospitalization, we secondarily identified patient factors associated with hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19. RESULTS: In 165 437 children with COVID-19, 3087 (1.8%) were hospitalized without complication, 2954 (1.8%) experienced ICU admission and/or intensive respiratory support, and 31 (0.02%) died. We grouped patients by age: 0 to 4 years old (35 088), and 5 to 11 years old (75 574), 12 to 18 years old (54 775). Factors positively associated with worse outcomes were preexisting comorbidities and residency in the Southern United States. In 0- to 4-year-old children, there was a nonlinear association between age and worse outcomes, with worse outcomes in 0- to 2-year-old children. In 5- to 18-year-old patients, vaccination was protective. Findings were similar in our secondary analysis of hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19, though region effects were no longer observed. CONCLUSIONS: Among children with COVID-19, preexisting comorbidities and residency in the Southern United States were positively associated with worse outcomes, whereas vaccination was negatively associated. Our study population was highly insured; future studies should evaluate underinsured populations to confirm generalizability.

Preschool-Aged Household Contacts as a Risk Factor for Viral Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Personnel.

Background: Viral respiratory infections (VRIs) are common and are occupational risks for healthcare personnel (HCP). VRIs can also be acquired at home and other settings among HCPs. We sought to determine if preschool-aged household contacts are a risk factor for VRIs among HCPs working in outpatient settings. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a cluster randomized trial at 7 medical centers in the United States over 4 influenza seasons from 2011-2012 to 2014-2015. Adult HCPs who routinely came within 6 feet of patients with respiratory infections were included. Participants were tested for respiratory viruses whenever symptomatic and at 2 random times each season when asymptomatic. The exposure of interest was the number of household contacts 0-5 years old (preschool-aged) at the beginning of each HCP-season. The primary outcome was the rate of polymerase chain reaction-detected VRIs, regardless of symptoms. The VRI incidence rate ratio (IRR) was calculated using a mixed-effects Poisson regression model that accounted for clustering at the clinic level. Results: Among the 4476 HCP-seasons, most HCPs were female (85.4%) and between 30 and 49 years of age (54.6%). The overall VRI rate was 2.04 per 100 person-weeks. In the adjusted analysis, HCPs having 1 (IRR, 1.22 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.05-1.43]) and ≥2 (IRR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.09-1.67]) preschool-aged household contacts had higher VRI rates than those with zero preschool-aged household contacts. Conclusions: Preschool-aged household contacts are a risk factor for developing VRIs among HCPs working in outpatient settings.

Severe Mpox Infections in People With Uncontrolled Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

In the current mpox outbreak, infections are usually self-limited. We describe 3 patients with uncontrolled HIV and mpox infections lasting months, causing debilitating lesions, complications, and death, despite initiating anti-mpox and antiretroviral therapy. Delayed treatment of mpox with antiviral agents may contribute to poor outcomes in severely immunocompromised patients.

Safety and Efficacy of Ceftriaxone in the Treatment of Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections: A Noninferiority Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Antistaphylococcal penicillins and cefazolin are the treatments of choice for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infections, requiring multiple doses daily. At Parkland, eligible uninsured patients with MSSA bloodstream infections (BSI) receive self-administered outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (S-OPAT). Ceftriaxone was used in a cohort of S-OPAT patients for ease of once-daily dosing. OBJECTIVE: A retrospective study was conducted to evaluate clinical outcomes for patients discharged with ceftriaxone versus cefazolin to treat MSSA BSI. METHODS: A retrospective cohort noninferiority study design was used to assess treatment efficacy of ceftriaxone versus cefazolin among Parkland S-OPAT patients treated from April 2012 to March 2020. Demographic, clinical, and treatment-related adverse events data were collected. Clinical outcomes included treatment failure as defined by repeat positive blood culture or retreatment within 6 months, all-cause 30-day readmission rates, and central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates. RESULTS: Of 368 S-OPAT patients with MSSA BSI, 286 (77.7%) received cefazolin, and 82 (22.3%) received ceftriaxone. Demographics and comorbidities were similar for both groups. There were no treatment failures in the ceftriaxone group compared with 4 (1%) in the cefazolin group (P = 0.58). No difference in 30-day readmission rate between groups was found. The CLABSI rates were lower in ceftriaxone group (2%) compared with cefazolin (11%; P = 0.02). Limitations include retrospective cohort design. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftriaxone was found to be noninferior to cefazolin in this study. Our findings suggest that ceftriaxone is a safe and effective treatment of MSSA BSI secondary to osteoarticular or skin and soft tissue infections when used in the S-OPAT setting. POSTER ABSTRACT: OFID on 2018 Nov; 5(Suppl 1): S316: doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofy210.894.

Contrasting definitions and incidence of healthcare-associated respiratory viral infections in a pediatric hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the difference in the incidence of healthcare-associated respiratory viral infection (HARVI) in a pediatric hospital depending on the definition used. DESIGN: Descriptive historical cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 0-21 years old who were admitted between July 2013 and June 2018 to a 490-bed primary to quaternary-care pediatric hospital serving northern Texas. METHODS: HARVI was defined using microbiologic confirmation, development of new symptoms while hospitalized, and exposure time greater than the minimum incubation period for each specific virus. Events that occurred following the maximum incubation period for that virus were classified as definite, otherwise they were classified as possible. This definition was compared to definitions using alternate timing of onset and symptomatology requirements. Data pertaining to demographics, diagnoses, and illness severity were collected. RESULTS: In total, 498 HARVIs (320 definite and 178 possible) were identified, with an incidence rate of 0.98 per 1,000 patient days (0.63 and 0.35, respectively). Rhinovirus or enterovirus and respiratory syncytial virus were the most identified viruses (58% and 10%, respectively). The median time from admission until HARVI was 10.5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 5-30 days). When alternate definitions were employed, the incidence of HARVI ranged from 0.96 to 2.00 per 1,000 admitted patient days. CONCLUSIONS: HARVI remain a common nosocomial infection in pediatric hospitals and the measured incidence is dependent on the definition used. Because of the endemic and pandemic potential of respiratory viruses, standardized definitions are needed to facilitate intra- and interhospital comparisons.

District-Level Universal Masking Policies and COVID-19 Incidence During the First 8 Weeks of School in Texas.

Texas discontinued state-sponsored business restrictions and mask mandates on March 10, 2021, and mandated that no government officials, including public school officials, may implement mask requirements even in areas where COVID-19 hospitalizations comprised more than 15% of hospitalizations. Nonetheless, some public school districts began the 2021-2022 school year with mask mandates in place. We used quasi-experimental methods to analyze the impact of school mask mandates, which appear to have resulted in approximately 40 fewer student cases per week in the first eight weeks of school. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(6):871-875. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306769).

Influence of Preseason Antibodies Against Influenza Virus on Risk of Influenza Infection Among Healthcare Personnel.

BACKGROUND: The association of hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) antibodies with protection from influenza among healthcare personnel (HCP) with occupational exposure to influenza viruses has not been well-described. METHODS: The Respiratory Protection Effectiveness Clinical Trial was a cluster-randomized, multisite study that compared medical masks to N95 respirators in preventing viral respiratory infections among HCP in outpatient healthcare settings for 5180 participant-seasons. Serum HAI antibody titers before each influenza season and influenza virus infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction were studied over 4 study years. RESULTS: In univariate models, the risk of influenza A(H3N2) and B virus infections was associated with HAI titers to each virus, study year, and site. HAI titers were strongly associated with vaccination. Within multivariate models, each log base 2 increase in titer was associated with 15%, 26% and 33%-35% reductions in the hazard of influenza A(H3N2), A(H1N1), and B infections, respectively. Best models included preseason antibody titers and study year, but not other variables. CONCLUSIONS: HAI titers were associated with protection from influenza among HCP with routine exposure to patients with respiratory illness and influenza season contributed to risk. HCP can be reassured about receiving influenza vaccination to stimulate immunity.

Impact of mandatory vaccination of healthcare personnel on rates of influenza and other viral respiratory pathogens.

OBJECTIVE: The implementation of mandatory influenza vaccination policies among healthcare personnel (HCP) is controversial. Thus, we examined the affect of mandatory influenza vaccination policies among HCP working in outpatient settings. SETTING: Four Veterans' Affairs (VA) health systems and three non-VA medical centers. METHODS: We analyzed rates of influenza and other viral causes of respiratory infections among HCP working in outpatient sites at 4 VA health systems without mandatory influenza vaccination policies and 3 non-VA health systems with mandatory influenza vaccination policies. RESULTS: Influenza vaccination was associated with a decreased risk of influenza (odds ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-0.22) but an increased risk of other respiratory viral infections (incidence rate ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02-1.57). CONCLUSIONS: Our fitted regression models suggest that if influenza vaccination rates in clinics where vaccination was not mandated had equalled those where vaccine was mandated, HCP influenza infections would have been reduced by 52.1% (95% CI, 51.3%-53.0%). These observations, their possible causes, and additional strategies to reduce influenza and other viral respiratory illnesses among HCP working in ambulatory clinics warrant further investigation.

Outbreaks in Health Care Settings.

Outbreaks and pseudo-outbreaks in health care settings are complex and should be evaluated systematically using epidemiologic and molecular tools. Outbreaks result from failures of infection prevention practices, inadequate staffing, and undertrained or overcommitted health care personnel. Contaminated hands, equipment, supplies, water, ventilation systems, and environment may also contribute. Neonatal intensive care, endoscopy, oncology, and transplant units are areas at particular risk. Procedures, such as bronchoscopy and endoscopy, are sources of infection when cleaning and disinfection processes are inadequate. New types of equipment can be introduced and lead to contamination or equipment and medications can be contaminated at the manufacturing source.

The front-line during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: healthcare personnel.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: An estimated four to 11% of reported coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases occurs in healthcare personnel (HCP). HCP are at high risk of acquiring and transmitting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) given their close contact with individuals with recognized and unrecognized COVID-19. We summarize the literature to date describing the epidemiology, identifying risk factors associated with COVID-19, and analyzing clinical characteristics and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCP. RECENT FINDINGS: The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among HCP ranges from 0.7 to 45%. Although there is heterogeneity in the seroprevalence rate reported in the literature, HCP may be at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from exposure to patients with COVID-19. The literature supports that this can be minimized with adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) supply, proper hand hygiene, appropriate PPE use, and other infection prevention measures. In addition, infections in HCP are commonly acquired in the community as well as in nonclinical care settings including break rooms or work rooms. SUMMARY: While much focus has been on minimizing patient-to-HCP transmission of SARS-CoV-2, additional efforts are needed to prevent exposures in nonclinical care settings and in the community.