Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever Virus for Clinicians-Epidemiology, Clinical Manifestations, and Prevention.

Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) is a tickborne infection that can range from asymptomatic to fatal and has been described in >30 countries. Early identification and isolation of patients with suspected or confirmed CCHF and the use of appropriate prevention and control measures are essential for preventing human-to-human transmission. Here, we provide an overview of the epidemiology, clinical features, and prevention and control of CCHF. CCHF poses a continued public health threat given its wide geographic distribution, potential to spread to new regions, propensity for genetic variability, and potential for severe and fatal illness, in addition to the limited medical countermeasures for prophylaxis and treatment. A high index of suspicion, comprehensive travel and epidemiologic history, and clinical evaluation are essential for prompt diagnosis. Infection control measures can be effective in reducing the risk for transmission but require correct and consistent application.

Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever Virus for Clinicians-Diagnosis, Clinical Management, and Therapeutics.

Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus (CCHFV) is the most geographically widespread tickborne viral infection worldwide and has a fatality rate of up to 62%. Despite its widespread range and high fatality rate, no vaccines or treatments are currently approved by regulatory agencies in the United States or Europe. Supportive treatment remains the standard of care, but the use of antiviral medications developed for other viral infections have been considered. We reviewed published literature to summarize the main aspects of CCHFV infection in humans. We provide an overview of diagnostic testing and management and medical countermeasures, including investigational vaccines and limited therapeutics. CCHFV continues to pose a public health threat because of its wide geographic distribution, potential to spread to new regions, propensity for genetic variability, potential for severe and fatal illness, and limited medical countermeasures for prophylaxis and treatment. Clinicians should become familiar with available diagnostic and management tools for CCHFV infections in humans.

Crimean Congo Hemorrhagic Fever Virus for Clinicians-Virology, Pathogenesis, and Pathology.

Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF), caused by CCHF virus, is a tickborne disease that can cause a range of illness outcomes, from asymptomatic infection to fatal viral hemorrhagic fever; the disease has been described in >30 countries. We conducted a literature review to provide an overview of the virology, pathogenesis, and pathology of CCHF for clinicians. The virus life cycle and molecular interactions are complex and not fully described. Although pathogenesis and immunobiology are not yet fully understood, it is clear that multiple processes contribute to viral entry, replication, and pathological damage. Limited autopsy reports describe multiorgan involvement with extravasation and hemorrhages. Advanced understanding of CCHF virus pathogenesis and immunology will improve patient care and accelerate the development of medical countermeasures for CCHF.

A narrative review of high-level isolation unit operational and infrastructure features.

High-level isolation units (HLIUs) are specially designed facilities for care and management of patients with suspected or confirmed high-consequence infectious diseases (HCIDs), equipped with unique infrastructure and operational features. While individual HLIUs have published on their experiences caring for patients with HCIDs and two previous HLIU consensus efforts have outlined key components of HLIUs, we aimed to summarise the existing literature that describes best practices, challenges and core features of these specialised facilities. A narrative review of the literature was conducted using keywords associated with HLIUs and HCIDs. A total of 100 articles were used throughout the manuscript from the literature search or from alternate methods like reference checks or snowballing. Articles were sorted into categories (eg, physical infrastructure, laboratory, internal transport); for each category, a synthesis of the relevant literature was conducted to describe best practices, experiences and operational features. The review and summary of HLIU experiences, best practices, challenges and components can serve as a resource for units continuing to improve readiness, or for hospitals in early stages of developing their HLIU teams and planning or constructing their units. The COVID-19 pandemic, a global outbreak of mpox, sporadic cases of viral haemorrhagic fevers in Europe and the USA, and recent outbreaks of Lassa fever, Sudan Ebolavirus, and Marburg emphasise the need for an extensive summary of HLIU practices to inform readiness and response.

Temporal Improvements in COVID-19 Outcomes for Hospitalized Adults: A Post Hoc Observational Study of Remdesivir Group Participants in the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 standard of care (SOC) evolved rapidly during 2020 and 2021, but its cumulative effect over time is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether recovery and mortality improved as SOC evolved, using data from ACTT (Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial). DESIGN: ACTT is a series of phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated COVID-19 therapeutics from February 2020 through May 2021. ACTT-1 compared remdesivir plus SOC to placebo plus SOC, and in ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, remdesivir plus SOC was the control group. This post hoc analysis compared recovery and mortality between these comparable sequential cohorts of patients who received remdesivir plus SOC, adjusting for baseline characteristics with propensity score weighting. The analysis was repeated for participants in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4 who received remdesivir plus dexamethasone plus SOC. Trends in SOC that could explain outcome improvements were analyzed. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04280705 [ACTT-1], NCT04401579 [ACTT-2], NCT04492475 [ACTT-3], and NCT04640168 [ACTT-4]). SETTING: 94 hospitals in 10 countries (86% U.S. participants). PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. INTERVENTION: SOC. MEASUREMENTS: 28-day mortality and recovery. RESULTS: Although outcomes were better in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were close to 1 (HR for recovery, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.17]; HR for mortality, 0.90 [CI, 0.56 to 1.40]). Comparable patients were less likely to be intubated in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1 (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.53 to 0.97]), and hydroxychloroquine use decreased. Outcomes improved from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3 (HR for recovery, 1.43 [CI, 1.24 to 1.64]; HR for mortality, 0.45 [CI, 0.21 to 0.97]). Potential explanatory factors (SOC trends, case surges, and variant trends) were similar between ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, except for increased dexamethasone use (11% to 77%). Outcomes were similar in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4. Antibiotic use decreased gradually across all stages. LIMITATION: Unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSION: Changes in patient composition explained improved outcomes from ACTT-1 to ACTT-2 but not from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3, suggesting improved SOC. These results support excluding nonconcurrent controls from analysis of platform trials in rapidly changing therapeutic areas. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Unraveling the Treatment Effect of Baricitinib on Clinical Progression and Resource Utilization in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Secondary Analysis of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Randomized Trial-2.

Background: The Adaptive COVID Treatment Trial-2 (ACTT-2) found that baricitinib in combination with remdesivir therapy (BCT) sped recovery in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients vs remdesivir monotherapy (RMT). We examined how BCT affected progression throughout hospitalization and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies. Methods: We characterized the clinical trajectories of 891 ACTT-2 participants requiring supplemental oxygen or higher levels of respiratory support at enrollment. We estimated the effect of BCT on cumulative incidence of clinical improvement and deterioration using competing risks models. We developed multistate models to estimate the effect of BCT on clinical improvement and deterioration and on utilization of respiratory therapies. Results: BCT resulted in more linear improvement and lower incidence of clinical deterioration compared with RMT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.95). The benefit was pronounced among participants enrolled on high-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. In this group, BCT sped clinical improvement (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.51) while slowing clinical deterioration (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.02), which reduced the expected days in ordinal score (OS) 6 per 100 patients by 74 days (95% CI, -8 to 154 days) and the expected days in OS 7 per 100 patients by 161 days (95% CI, 46 to 291 days) compared with RMT. BCT did not benefit participants who were mechanically ventilated at enrollment. Conclusions: Compared with RMT, BCT reduces the clinical burden and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies for patients requiring low-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation compared with RMT and may thereby improve care for this patient population.

Contributions of the Regional Emerging Special Pathogen Treatment Centers to the US COVID-19 Pandemic Response.

The National Emerging Special Pathogens Training and Education Center (NETEC) was established in 2015 to improve the capabilities of healthcare facilities to provide safe and effective care to patients with Ebola and other special pathogens in the United States. Through NETEC, a collaborative network of 10 Regional Emerging Special Pathogen Treatment Centers (RESPTCs) undertook readiness activities that included potential respiratory pathogens. These preparations, which took place before the COVID-19 pandemic, established a foundation of readiness that enabled RESPTCs to play a pivotal role in the US COVID-19 pandemic response. As initial COVID-19 cases were detected in the United States, RESPTCs provided essential isolation capacity, supplies, and subject matter expertise that allowed for additional time for healthcare systems to prepare. Through the Special Pathogen Research Network, RESPTCs rapidly enrolled patients into early clinical trials. During periods of high community transmission, RESPTCs provided educational, clinical, and logistical support to a wide range of healthcare and nonhealthcare settings. In this article, we describe how NETEC and the RESPTC network leveraged this foundation of special pathogen readiness to strengthen the national healthcare system's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. NETEC and the RESPTC network have proven to be an effective model that can support the national response to future emerging special pathogens.

Deconstructing the Treatment Effect of Remdesivir in the Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Trial-1: Implications for Critical Care Resource Utilization.

BACKGROUND: The Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Trial-1 (ACTT-1) found that remdesivir therapy hastened recovery in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, but the pathway for this improvement was not explored. We investigated how the dynamics of clinical progression changed along 4 pathways: recovery, improvement in respiratory therapy requirement, deterioration in respiratory therapy requirement, and death. METHODS: We analyzed trajectories of daily ordinal severity scores reflecting oxygen requirements of 1051 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who participated in ACTT-1. We developed competing risks models that estimate the effect of remdesivir therapy on cumulative incidence of clinical improvement and deterioration, and multistate models that utilize the entirety of each patient's clinical course to characterize the effect of remdesivir on progression along the 4 pathways above. RESULTS: Based on a competing risks analysis, remdesivir reduced clinical deterioration (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: .59-.91) and increased clinical improvement (HR, 1.22; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.39) relative to baseline. Our multistate models indicate that remdesivir inhibits worsening to ordinal scores of greater clinical severity among patients on room air or low-flow oxygen (HR, 0.74; 95% CI: .57-.94) and among patients receiving mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen/noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (HR, 0.73; 95% CI: .53-1.00) at baseline. We also find that remdesivir reduces expected intensive care respiratory therapy utilization among patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir speeds time to recovery by preventing worsening to clinical states that would extend the course of hospitalization and increase intensive respiratory support, thereby reducing the overall demand for hospital care.

Experiences of Latinx Individuals Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Qualitative Study.

Importance: Latinx individuals, particularly immigrants, are at higher risk than non-Latinx White individuals of contracting and dying from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Little is known about Latinx experiences with COVID-19 infection and treatment. Objective: To describe the experiences of Latinx individuals who were hospitalized with and survived COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The qualitative study used semistructured phone interviews of 60 Latinx adults who survived a COVID-19 hospitalization in public hospitals in San Francisco, California, and Denver, Colorado, from March 2020 to July 2020. Transcripts were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis. Data analysis was conducted from May 2020 to September 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Themes and subthemes that reflected patient experiences. Results: Sixty people (24 women and 36 men; mean [SD] age, 48 [12] years) participated. All lived in low-income areas, 47 participants (78%) had more than 4 people in the home, and most (44 participants [73%]) were essential workers. Four participants (9%) could work from home, 12 (20%) had paid sick leave, and 21 (35%) lost their job because of COVID-19. We identified 5 themes (and subthemes) with public health and clinical care implications: COVID-19 was a distant and secondary threat (invincibility, misinformation and disbelief, ingrained social norms); COVID-19 was a compounder of disadvantage (fear of unemployment and eviction, lack of safeguards for undocumented immigrants, inability to protect self from COVID-19, and high-density housing); reluctance to seek medical care (worry about health care costs, concerned about ability to access care if uninsured or undocumented, undocumented immigrants fear deportation); health care system interactions (social isolation and change in hospital procedures, appreciation for clinicians and language access, and discharge with insufficient resources or clinical information); and faith and community resiliency (spirituality, Latinx COVID-19 advocates). Conclusions and Relevance: In interviews, Latinx patients with COVID-19 who survived hospitalization described initial disease misinformation and economic and immigration fears as having driven exposure and delays in presentation. To confront COVID-19 as a compounder of social disadvantage, public health authorities should mitigate COVID-19-related misinformation, immigration fears, and challenges to health care access, as well as create policies that provide work protection and address economic disadvantages.

South American Hemorrhagic Fevers: A summary for clinicians.

OBJECTIVES: This article is one of a series on acute, severe diseases of humans caused by emerging viruses for which there are no or limited licensed medical countermeasures. We approached this summary on South American Hemorrhagic Fevers (SAHF) from a clinical perspective that focuses on pathogenesis, clinical features, and diagnostics with an emphasis on therapies and vaccines that have demonstrated potential for use in an emergency situation through their evaluation in nonhuman primates (NHPs) and/or in humans. METHODS: A standardized literature review was conducted on the clinical, pathological, vaccine, and treatment factors for SAHF as a group and for each individual virus/disease. RESULTS: We identified 2 treatments and 1 vaccine platform that have demonstrated potential benefit for treating or preventing infection in humans and 4 other potential treatments currently under investigation. CONCLUSION: We provide succinct summaries of these countermeasures to give the busy clinician a head start in reviewing the literature if faced with a patient with South American Hemorrhagic Fever. We also provide links to other authoritative sources of information.

What Do Patients Want? A Qualitative Analysis of Patient, Provider, and Administrative Perceptions and Expectations About Patients' Hospital Stays.

Patient experience is increasingly recognized as a measure of health care quality and patient-centered care and is currently measured through the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS). The HCAHPS survey may miss key factors important to patients, and in particular, to underserved patient populations. We performed a qualitative study utilizing semi-structured interviews with 45 hospitalized English- and Spanish-speaking patients and 6 focus groups with physicians, nurses, and administrators at a large, urban safety-net hospital. Four main themes were important to patients: (1) the hospital environment including cleanliness and how hospital policies and procedures impact patients' perceived autonomy, (2) whole-person care, (3) communication with and between care teams and utilizing words that patients can understand, and (4) responsiveness and attentiveness to needs. We found that several key themes that were important to patients are not fully addressed in the HCAHPS survey and there is a disconnect between what patients and care teams believe patients want and what hospital policies drive in the care environment.

Postdischarge telephone calls by hospitalists as a transitional care strategy.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether treating hospitalists can identify and address early postdischarge problems through a structured telephone call. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: We studied patients insured through a managed care program who were discharged from a general internal medicine service of a university-affiliated public safety net hospital (Denver Health Medical Center) between March 1, 2012, and October 31, 2013. The hospitalist who treated the patient during their hospitalization contacted them 48 to 72 hours after discharge and completed a structured telephone assessment. We assessed the type and frequency of problems identified, the proportion of calls in which problems were independently addressed by the hospitalist, the proportion referred for additional managed care services, and the duration of calls and subsequent care coordination. RESULTS: Treating hospitalists identified 1 or more problems in 74 of the 131 patients (56%) contacted. The most common categories of problems were: new or worsening symptoms (41%), difficulty accessing recommended follow-up care (21%), and medication issues (20%). Hospitalists independently managed the problems identified in 68% of the calls; additional services were required in 32%. Median time spent per call was 8 minutes (interquartile range, 5-12). CONCLUSIONS: Treating hospitalists identified problems in over half of patients contacted by telephone shortly after discharge, the largest proportion of which were new or worsening symptoms. Hospitalists were able to address the majority of problems identified through the single, brief telephone encounter without utilizing additional resources.

Gender disparities in leadership and scholarly productivity of academic hospitalists.

BACKGROUND: Gender disparities still exist for women in academic medicine but may be less evident in younger cohorts. Hospital medicine is a new field, and the majority of hospitalists are <41 years of age. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether gender disparities exist in leadership and scholarly productivity for academic hospitalists and to compare the findings to academic general internists. DESIGN: Prospective and retrospective observational study. SETTING: University programs in the United States. MEASUREMENTS: Gender distribution of (1) academic hospitalists and general internists, (2) division or section heads for both specialties, (3) speakers at the 2 major national meetings of the 2 specialties, and (4) first and last authors of articles from the specialties' 2 major journals RESULTS: We found equal gender representation of hospitalists and general internists who worked in university hospitals. Divisions or sections of hospital medicine and general internal medicine were led by women at 11/69 (16%) and 28/80 (35%) of university hospitals, respectively (P = 0.008). Women hospitalists and general internists were listed as speakers on 146/557 (26%) and 291/580 (50%) of the presentations at national meetings, respectively (P < 0.0001), first authors on 153/464 (33%) and 423/895 (47%) publications, respectively (P < 0.0001), and senior authors on 63/305 (21%) and 265/769 (34%) articles, respectively (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite hospital medicine being a newer field, gender disparities exist in leadership and scholarly productivity.

Bacterial contamination of healthcare workers' uniforms: a randomized controlled trial of antimicrobial scrubs.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers' (HCWs) uniforms become contaminated with bacteria during normal use, and this may contribute to hospital-acquired infections. Antimicrobial uniforms are currently marketed as a means of reducing this contamination. OBJECTIVE: To compare the extent of bacterial contamination of uniforms and skin when HCWs wear 1 of 2 antimicrobial scrubs or standard scrubs. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: University-affiliated, public safety net hospital PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, housestaff, and nurses (total N = 105) working on internal medicine units. INTERVENTION: Subjects were randomized to wear standard scrubs or 1 of 2 antimicrobial scrubs. MEASUREMENTS: Bacterial colony counts in cultures taken from the HCWs' scrubs and wrists after an 8-hour workday. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) total colony counts was 99 (66-182) for standard scrubs, 137 (84-289) for antimicrobial scrub type A, and 138 (62-274) for antimicrobial scrub type B (P = 0.36). Colony counts from participants' wrists were 16 (5-40) when they wore standard scrubs and 23 (4-42) and 15 (6-54) when they wore antimicrobial scrubs A and B, respectively (P = 0.92). Resistant organisms were cultured from 3 HCWs (4.3%) randomized to antimicrobial scrubs and none randomized to standard scrubs (P = 0.55). Six participants (5.7%) reported side effects to wearing scrubs, all of whom wore antimicrobial scrubs (P = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that either antimicrobial scrub product decreased bacterial contamination of HCWs' uniforms or skin after an 8-hour workday.

Prospective comparison of curbside versus formal consultations.

BACKGROUND: Curbside consultations are commonly requested during the care of hospitalized patients, but physicians perceive that the recommendations provided may be based on inaccurate or incomplete information. OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy and completeness of the information received from providers requesting a curbside consultation of hospitalists with that obtained in a formal consultation on the same patients, and to examine whether the recommendations offered in the 2 consultations differed. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: University-affiliated, urban safety net hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of curbside consultations with inaccurate or incomplete information; frequency with which recommendations in the formal consultation differed from those in the curbside consultation. RESULTS: Curbside consultations were requested for 50 patients, 47 of which were also evaluated in a formal consultation performed on the same day by a hospitalist other than the one performing the curbside consultation. Based on information collected in the formal consultation, information was either inaccurate or incomplete in 24/47 (51%) of the curbside consultations. Management advice after formal consultation differed from that given in the curbside consultation for 28/47 patients (60%). When inaccurate or incomplete information was received, the advice provided in the formal versus the curbside consultation differed in 22/24 patients (92%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Information presented during inpatient curbside consultations of hospitalists is often inaccurate or incomplete, and this often results in inaccurate management advice.