Search

Background: Crude and adjusted mortality rates for patients with non-ventilator hospital-acquired pneumonia (NV-HAP) are amongst the highest of all healthcare-associated infections, leading to calls for greater prevention. Patients prone to NV-HAP, however, tend to be severely ill at baseline making it unclear whether their high mortality rates are due to NV-HAP, underlying conditions, or both., Methods: Two infectious disease physicians conducted detailed medical record reviews on 150 randomly selected adults from 4 hospitals who died in-hospital following an NV-HAP event between April 2016 and May 2021. Reviewers abstracted risk factors, estimated the preventability of NV-HAP, identified causes of death, and adjudicated the preventability of death., Results: Patients' median age was 69.3 (IQR 60.7-77.4) and 43.3% were female. Comorbidities were common: 57% had cancer, 30% chronic kidney disease, 29% chronic lung disease, and 27% heart failure. At least one hospice-eligible condition was present before NV-HAP in 54% and "Do Not Resuscitate" orders in 24%. Most (99%) had difficult-to-modify NV-HAP risk factors: 76% altered mental status, 35% dysphagia, and 27% nasogastric/orogastric tubes. NV-HAP was deemed possibly or probably preventable in 21% and hospital death likely or very likely preventable in 8.6%., Conclusions: Most patients who die following NV-HAP have multiple, severe underlying comorbidities and difficult-to-modify risk factors for NV-HAP. Only 1 in 5 NV-HAPs that culminated in death and 1 in 12 deaths following NV-HAP were judged potentially preventable. This does not diminish the importance of NV-HAP prevention programs but informs expectations about the potential magnitude of their impact on hospital deaths., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced the Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) as a pay-for-reporting measure in 2015 and is now planning to make it a pay-for-performance measure by incorporating it into the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. This joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIPD position paper highlights concerns with this change. Multiple studies indicate that SEP-1 implementation was associated with increased broad-spectrum antibiotic use, lactate measurements, and aggressive fluid resuscitation for patients with suspected sepsis but not with decreased mortality rates. Increased focus on SEP-1 risks further diverting attention and resources from more effective measures and comprehensive sepsis care. We recommend retiring SEP-1 rather than using it in a payment model and shifting instead to new sepsis metrics that focus on patient outcomes. CMS is developing a community-onset sepsis 30-day mortality electronic clinical quality measure (eCQM) that is an important step in this direction. The eCQM preliminarily identifies sepsis using systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, antibiotic administrations or diagnosis codes for infection or sepsis, and clinical indicators of acute organ dysfunction. We support the eCQM but recommend removing SIRS criteria and diagnosis codes to streamline implementation, decrease variability between hospitals, maintain vigilance for patients with sepsis but without SIRS, and avoid promoting antibiotic use in uninfected patients with SIRS. We further advocate for CMS to harmonize the eCQM with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Adult Sepsis Event surveillance metric to promote unity in federal measures, decrease reporting burden for hospitals, and facilitate shared prevention initiatives. These steps will result in a more robust measure that will encourage hospitals to pay more attention to the full breadth of sepsis care, stimulate new innovations in diagnosis and treatment, and ultimately bring us closer to our shared goal of improving outcomes for patients., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. K. C. discloses grants or contracts from the CDC and AHRQ to my institution and serves as the IDSA and PIDS representative to the SCCM Pediatric Sepsis Definitions Taskforce. D. C. C. reports payment for expert testimony. S. E. C. reports grants or contracts from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); consulting fees from Duke Clinical Research Institute; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Debiopharm; roles as a Board Member for National Foundation for Infectious Diseases and for Global Antibiotic Research & Development Partnership North America (GARDP-NA). R. G. reports support for attending meetings and/or travel for his government relations work from Society of Hospital Medicine; participation as an advisor on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Honor Technologies, Clinical Language Engineering Workbench (CLEW), Sitka; volunteer position as Sr. Advisor for Government Affairs SHM; stock from Sitka, Honor Technologies, CLEW. E. L. H. reports consulting fees paid to author for peer review of drug monographs from Wolters Kluwer (Lexi-Comp); honoraria for continuing education presentations from Clinical Care Options. A. C. K. reports grants or contracts as Investigator for the National Institutes of Health Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial. M. K. reports grants to institution from CDC and AHRQ; royalties to author from UpToDate; Honorarium for lecture on sepsis metrics, paid to author, from Burns & Trauma Journal. H. M. reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Infectious Disease Board Review and International AIDS Society USA; patents planned, issued or pending for Immunofluorescent antibody for pneumocystis; leadership or fiduciary role with Society of Critical Care Medicine, Critical Care Medicine (Senior Editor) and is an IDSA representative to Surviving Sepsis Guideline; and other financial or non-financial interests in Infectious Disease Board Review LLC. C. R. reports grants to institution from CDC and AHRQ; royalties to author from UpToDate; payment to author for consulting related to sepsis diagnostics from Cytovale; leadership or fiduciary role with IDSA as Associate Editor for Clinical Infectious Diseases. D. A. S. reports grants or contracts as investigator for the National Institutes of Health Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial. A. T. reports consulting fees from Vapotherm (no payments made related to this manuscript; Vapotherm is a medical device that can be used to treat sepsis); a role as President-elect for the American College of Emergency Physicians (no direct payment related to this manuscript). D. M. Y. reports grants or contracts to institution from National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI); royalties or licenses from UpToDate (pneumonia chapter) and Lippincott Inc (EM text editor); payment or honoraria as journal editor for American College of Emergency Physicians; payment for expert testimony from University of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania State University. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Many hospitals have stopped or are considering stopping universal admission testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We discuss reasons why admission testing should still be part of a layered system to prevent hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections during times of significant community transmission. These include the morbidity of SARS-CoV-2 in vulnerable patients, the predominant contribution of presymptomatic and asymptomatic people to transmission, the high rate of transmission between patients in shared rooms, and data suggesting surveillance testing is associated with fewer nosocomial infections. Preferences of diverse patient populations, particularly the hardest-hit communities, should be surveyed and used to inform prevention measures. Hospitals' ethical responsibility to protect patients from serious infections should predominate over concerns about costs, labor, and inconvenience. We call for more rigorous data on the incidence and morbidity of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infections and more research to help determine when to start, stop, and restart universal admission testing and other prevention measures., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest . C. R. reports royalties from UpToDate, Inc, for chapters related to procalcitonin use; consulting fees from Cytovale related to sepsis diagnostics; and payments from the Infectious Diseases Society of America for his role as an associate editor for Clinical Infectious Diseases. M. K. reports institutional grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and royalties from UpToDate, Inc, for chapters related to hospital-acquired pneumonia. C. R. and M. K. report funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to conduct research on infection prevention and control. T. R. P. reports funding from a training grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). J. R. K. reports research grants from NIAID (R01 and R33); a service grant from the National Library of Medicine (G08 “Bridging Neglect” of Chagas Disease). All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

We reviewed hospital-onset respiratory viral infections, 2015-2023, in one hospital to determine whether Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission prevention measures prevented non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viral infections. Masking, employee symptom attestations, and screening patients and visitors for symptoms were associated with a 44%-53% reduction in hospital-onset influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), accounting for changes in community incidence., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest . M. K. reports institutional grant funding from CDC, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and Massachusetts Department of Public Health as well as royalties from UpToDate for chapters on pneumonia. C. R. reports institutional grant funding from CDC (for research related to infection prevention and control) and AHRQ (for research related to sepsis treatment and metrics); royalties from UpToDate for chapters on procalcitonin; consulting fees from Cytovale regarding sepsis diagnostics; and payments from the Infectious Diseases Society of America for his role as an associate editor for Clinical Infectious Diseases. M. B. reports grant funding from CDC for ESP VAERS for COVID-19 and a role on the SHEA Guidelines Committee for the IDSA Standards and Practice Guidelines Committee. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Influential studies conclude that each hour until antibiotics increases mortality in sepsis. However, these analyses often (1) adjusted for limited covariates, (2) included patients with long delays until antibiotics, (3) combined sepsis and septic shock, and (4) used linear models presuming each hour delay has equal impact. We evaluated the effect of these analytic choices on associations between time-to-antibiotics and mortality., Methods: We retrospectively identified 104 248 adults admitted to 5 hospitals from 2015-2022 with suspected infection (blood culture collection and intravenous antibiotics ≤24 h of arrival), including 25 990 with suspected septic shock and 23 619 with sepsis without shock. We used multivariable regression to calculate associations between time-to-antibiotics and in-hospital mortality under successively broader confounding-adjustment, shorter maximum time-to-antibiotic intervals, stratification by illness severity, and removing assumptions of linear hourly associations., Results: Changing covariates, maximum time-to-antibiotics, and severity stratification altered the magnitude, direction, and significance of observed associations between time-to-antibiotics and mortality. In a fully adjusted model of patients treated ≤6 hours, each hour was associated with higher mortality for septic shock (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.04-1.11) but not sepsis without shock (aOR: 1.03; .98-1.09) or suspected infection alone (aOR: .99; .94-1.05). Modeling each hour separately confirmed that every hour of delay was associated with increased mortality for septic shock, but only delays >6 hours were associated with higher mortality for sepsis without shock., Conclusions: Associations between time-to-antibiotics and mortality in sepsis are highly sensitive to analytic choices. Failure to adequately address these issues can generate misleading conclusions., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. C. R. reports royalties from UpToDate, Inc, for chapters related to procalcitonin use; payments for an Associate Editor role at Clinical Infectious Diseases from the Infectious Diseases Society of America; and consulting fees from Cytovale related to sepsis diagnostics. M. K. reports royalties from UpToDate, Inc, for chapters related to hospital-acquired pneumonia and an institutional funding grant from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. S. D. reports grants or contract payments from the CRICO Risk Management Foundation, the Eleanor Shore Award, and from Ce Symmetry for a CME (continuing medical education) course. J. Y. reports grants or contracts from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Sepsis surveillance using electronic health record (EHR)-based data may provide more accurate epidemiologic estimates than administrative data, but experience with this approach to estimate population-level sepsis burden is lacking., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study including all adults admitted to publicly-funded hospitals in Hong Kong between 2009-2018. Sepsis was defined as clinical evidence of presumed infection (clinical cultures and treatment with antibiotics) and concurrent acute organ dysfunction (≥2 point increase in baseline SOFA score). Trends in incidence, mortality, and case fatality risk (CFR) were modelled by exponential regression. Performance of the EHR-based definition was compared with 4 administrative definitions using 500 medical record reviews., Results: Among 13,550,168 hospital episodes during the study period, 485,057 (3.6%) had sepsis by EHR-based criteria with 21.5% CFR. In 2018, age- and sex-adjusted standardized sepsis incidence was 759 per 100,000 (relative +2.9%/year [95%CI 2.0, 3.8%] between 2009-2018) and standardized sepsis mortality was 156 per 100,000 (relative +1.9%/year [95%CI 0.9,2.9%]). Despite decreasing CFR (relative -0.5%/year [95%CI -1.0, -0.1%]), sepsis accounted for an increasing proportion of all deaths (relative +3.9%/year [95%CI 2.9, 4.9%]). Medical record reviews demonstrated that the EHR-based definition more accurately identified sepsis than administrative definitions (AUC 0.91 vs 0.52-0.55, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: An objective EHR-based surveillance definition demonstrated an increase in population-level standardized sepsis incidence and mortality in Hong Kong between 2009-2018 and was much more accurate than administrative definitions. These findings demonstrate the feasibility and advantages of an EHR-based approach for widescale sepsis surveillance., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Suspected pneumonia is the most common indication for antibiotics in hospitalized patients but is frequently overdiagnosed. We explored whether normal oxygenation could be used as an indicator to support early discontinuation of antibiotics., Methods: We retrospectively identified all patients started on antibiotics for pneumonia in 4 hospitals with oxygen saturations ≥95% on ambient air, May 2017-February 2021. We propensity-matched patients treated 1-2 days vs 5-8 days and compared hospital mortality and time to discharge using subdistribution hazard ratios (SHRs). Secondary outcomes included readmissions, 30-day mortality, Clostridioides difficile infections, hospital-free days, and antibiotic-free days., Results: Among 39 752 patients treated for possible pneumonia, 10 012 had median oxygen saturations ≥95% without supplemental oxygen. Of these, 2871 were treated 1-2 days and 2891 for 5-8 days; 4478 patients were propensity-matched. Patients treated 1-2 vs 5-8 days had similar hospital mortality (2.1% vs 2.8%; SHR, 0.75 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .51-1.09]) but less time to discharge (6.1 vs 6.6 days; SHR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.07-1.19]) and more 30-day hospital-free days (23.1 vs 22.7; mean difference, 0.44 [95% CI, .09-.78]). There were no significant differences in 30-day readmissions (16.0% vs 15.8%; odds ratio [OR], 1.01 [95% CI, .86-1.19]), 30-day mortality (4.6% vs 5.1%; OR, 0.91 [95% CI, .69-1.19]), or 90-day C. difficile infections (1.3% vs 0.8%; OR, 1.67 [95% CI, .94-2.99])., Conclusions: One-quarter of hospitalized patients treated for pneumonia had oxygenation saturations ≥95% on ambient air. Outcomes were similar with 1-2 vs 5-8 days of antibiotics. Normal oxygenation levels may help identify candidates for early antibiotic discontinuation. Prospective trials are warranted., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. M. K. has received royalties from UpToDate for articles on pneumonia and has also received grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. C. R. has received royalties from UpToDate for articles on procalcitonin; payments for consulting related to sepsis diagnostics from Cytovale; and payments from Pfizer for consulting related to Lyme disease surveillance. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

We report on probable factory-based contamination of portable water heaters with waterborne pathogens and 2 bloodstream infections potentially attributable to off-label use of these water heaters to warm extracorporeal membrane oxygenation circuits. Great caution is warranted when using water-based devices to care for critically ill patients., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. M. B., C. R., and M. K. have received grant funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention within the past 3 years for research on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 prevention and transmission and currently receive grant funding for research on unrelated topics. C. R. and M. K. also have grant funding from AHRQ. M. K. receives funding from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to support public health surveillance. M. K. has received royalties from UpToDate, Inc., for chapters on preventing nosocomial pneumonia and other unrelated topics. C. R. has received royalties from UpToDate, Inc., for chapters related to procalcitonin use. M. H. H. and M. R. S. are employees of Day Zero Diagnostics. A. S. received consulting fees from Inspira Technologies. R. S. reports consulting fees from BD. C. R. reports consulting fees from Pfizer and Cytovale. M. B. reports holding a leadership or fiduciary role on the SHEA Guidelines Committee. All other authors report no potential conflicts., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Burkholderia cepacia complex is a group of potential nosocomial pathogens often linked to contaminated water. We report on a cluster of 8 B. cepacia complex infections in cardiothoracic intensive care unit patients, which were attributed to contaminated extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) water heaters., Methods: In December 2020, we identified an increase in B. cepacia complex infections in the cardiothoracic intensive care unit at Brigham and Women's Hospital. We sought commonalities, sequenced isolates, obtained environmental specimens, and enacted mitigation measures., Results: Whole-genome sequencing of 13 B. cepacia complex clinical specimens between November 2020 and February 2021 identified 6 clonally related isolates, speciated as Burkholderia contaminans. All 6 occurred in patients on ECMO. Microbiology review identified 2 additional B. contaminans cases from June 2020 that may have also been cluster related, including 1 in a patient receiving ECMO. All 8 definite or probable cluster cases required treatment; 3 patients died, and 3 experienced recurrent infections. After ECMO was identified as the major commonality, all 9 of the hospital's ECMO water heaters were cultured, and B. contaminans grew in all cultures. Cultures from air sampled adjacent to the water heaters were negative. Water heater touch screens were culture positive for B. contaminans, and the sink drain in the ECMO heater reprocessing room also grew clonal B. contaminans. Observations of reprocessing revealed opportunities for cross-contamination between devices through splashing from the contaminated sink. The cluster was aborted by removing all water heaters from clinical service., Conclusions: We identified a cluster of 8 B. cepacia complex infections associated with contaminated ECMO water heaters. This cluster underscores the potential risks associated with water-based ECMO heaters and, more broadly, water-based care for vulnerable patients., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. C. R. and M. K. report grants or contracts outside the scope of this work from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research and royalties from UpToDate. M. A. B. reports a leadership or fiduciary role on the Guidelines Committee of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. M. S. and M. Huntley report stock or stock options and other financial or nonfinancial interests in their employer, Day Zero Diagnostics. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Urine cultures are nonspecific and often lead to misdiagnosis of urinary tract infection and unnecessary antibiotics. Diagnostic stewardship is a set of procedures that modifies test ordering, processing, and reporting in order to optimize diagnosis and downstream treatment. In this study, we aimed to develop expert guidance on best practices for urine culture diagnostic stewardship., Methods: A RAND-modified Delphi approach with a multidisciplinary expert panel was used to ascertain diagnostic stewardship best practices. Clinical questions to guide recommendations were grouped into three thematic areas (ordering, processing, reporting) in practice settings of emergency department, inpatient, ambulatory, and long-term care. Fifteen experts ranked recommendations on a 9-point Likert scale. Recommendations on which the panel did not reach agreement were discussed during a virtual meeting, then a second round of ranking by email was completed. After secondary review of results and panel discussion, a series of guidance statements was developed., Results: One hundred and sixty-five questions were reviewed. The panel reaching agreement on 104, leading to 18 overarching guidance statements. The following strategies were recommended to optimize ordering urine cultures: requiring documentation of symptoms, sending alerts to discourage ordering in the absence of symptoms, and cancelling repeat cultures. For urine culture processing, conditional urine cultures and urine white blood cell count as criteria were supported. For urine culture reporting, appropriate practices included nudges to discourage treatment under specific conditions and selective reporting of antibiotics to guide therapy decisions., Conclusions: These 18 guidance statements can optimize use of urine cultures for better patient outcomes., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. All authors: No reported conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021.)

The highly contagious severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Omicron variant increases risk for nosocomial transmission despite universal masking, admission testing, and symptom screening. We report large increases in hospital-onset infections and 2 unit-based clusters. The clusters rapidly abated after instituting universal N95 respirators and daily testing. Broader use of these strategies may prevent nosocomial transmissions., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

We compared healthcare worker severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection rates between March and August 2020 in 2 similar hospitals with high vs low airborne infection isolation room utilization rates but otherwise identical infection control policies. We found no difference in healthcare worker infection rates between the 2 hospitals, nor between patient-facing vs non-patient-facing providers., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

We assessed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission between patients in shared rooms in an academic hospital between September 2020 and April 2021. In total, 11 290 patients were admitted to shared rooms, of whom 25 tested positive. Among 31 exposed roommates, 12 (39%) tested positive within 14 days. Transmission was associated with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) cycle thresholds ≤21., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends N95 respirators for all providers who see patients with possible or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We suggest that N95 respirators may be just as important for the care of patients without suspected COVID-19 when community incidence rates are high. This is because severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is most contagious before symptom onset. Ironically, by the time patients are sick enough to be admitted to the hospital with COVID-19, they tend to be less contagious. The greatest threat of transmission in healthcare facilities may therefore be patients and healthcare workers with early occult infection. N95 respirators' superior fit and filtration provide superior exposure protection for healthcare providers seeing patients with early undiagnosed infection and superior source control to protect patients from healthcare workers with early undiagnosed infection. The probability of occult infection in patients and healthcare workers is greatest when community incidence rates are high. Universal use of N95 respirators may help decrease nosocomial transmission at such times., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

We describe 3 instances of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission despite medical masks and eye protection, including transmission despite the source person being masked, transmission despite the exposed person being masked, and transmission despite both parties being masked. Whole genome sequencing confirmed perfect homology between source and exposed persons' viruses in all cases., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Many patients are fearful of acquiring coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in hospitals and clinics. We characterized the risk of COVID-19 among 226 patients exposed to healthcare workers with confirmed COVID-19. One patient may have been infected, suggesting that the risk of COVID-19 transmission from healthcare workers to patients is generally low., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: US hospitals are required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to publicly report central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs), Clostridioidesdiffficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, and selected surgical site infections for benchmarking and pay-for-performance programs. It is unclear, however, to what extent these conditions capture the full breadth of serious healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) hospital-onset Adult Sepsis Event (HO-ASE) definition could facilitate more comprehensive and efficient surveillance for serious HAIs, but the overlap between HO-ASE and currently reportable HAIs is unknown., Methods: We retrospectively assessed the overlap between HO-ASEs and reportable HAIs among adults hospitalized between June 2015-June 2018 in 3 hospitals. Medical record reviews were conducted for 110 randomly selected HO-ASE cases to determine clinical correlates., Results: Among 282 441 hospitalized patients, 2301 (0.8%) met HO-ASE criteria and 1260 (0.4%) had reportable HAIs. In-hospital mortality rates were higher with HO-ASEs than reportable HAIs (28.6% vs 12.9%). Mortality rates for HO-ASE missed by reportable HAIs were substantially higher than mortality rates for reportable HAIs missed by HO-ASE (28.1% vs 6.3%). Reportable HAIs were only present in 334/2301 (14.5%) HO-ASEs, most commonly CLABSIs (6.0% of HO-ASEs), C. difficile (5.0%), and CAUTIs (3.0%). On medical record review, most HO-ASEs were caused by pneumonia (39.1%, of which only 34.9% were ventilator-associated), bloodstream infections (17.4%, of which only 10.5% were central line-associated), non-C. difficile intra-abdominal infections (14.5%), urinary infections (7.3%, of which 87.5% were catheter-associated), and skin/soft tissue infections (6.4%)., Conclusions: CDC's HO-ASE definition detects many serious nosocomial infections missed by currently reportable HAIs. HO-ASE surveillance could increase the efficiency and clinical significance of surveillance while identifying new targets for prevention., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Defining the duration of infectivity of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has major implications for public health and infection control practice in healthcare facilities. Early in the pandemic, most hospitals required 2 negative RT-PCR tests before discontinuing isolation in patients with Covid-19. Many patients, however, have persistently positive RT-PCR tests for weeks to months following clinical recovery, and multiple studies now indicate that these generally do not reflect replication-competent virus. SARS-CoV-2 appears to be most contagious around the time of symptom onset, and infectivity rapidly decreases thereafter to near-zero after about 10 days in mild-moderately ill patients and 15 days in severely-critically ill and immunocompromised patients. The longest interval associated with replication-competent virus thus far is 20 days from symptom onset. This review summarizes evidence-to-date on the duration of infectivity of SARS-CoV-2, and how this has informed evolving public health recommendations on when it is safe to discontinue isolation precautions., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1) measure has appropriately established sepsis as a national priority. However, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA and five additional endorsing societies) is concerned about SEP-1's potential to drive antibiotic overuse because it does not account for the high rate of sepsis overdiagnosis and encourages aggressive antibiotics for all patients with possible sepsis, regardless of the certainty of diagnosis or severity of illness. IDSA is also concerned that SEP-1's complex "time zero" definition is not evidence-based and is prone to inter-observer variation. In this position paper, IDSA outlines several recommendations aimed at reducing the risk of unintended consequences of SEP-1 while maintaining focus on its evidence-based elements. IDSA's core recommendation is to limit SEP-1 to septic shock, for which the evidence supporting the benefit of immediate antibiotics is greatest. Prompt empiric antibiotics are often appropriate for suspected sepsis without shock, but IDSA believes there is too much heterogeneity and difficulty defining this population, uncertainty about the presence of infection, and insufficient data on the necessity of immediate antibiotics to support a mandatory treatment standard for all patients in this category. IDSA believes guidance on managing possible sepsis without shock is more appropriate for guidelines that can delineate the strengths and limitations of supporting evidence and allow clinicians discretion in applying specific recommendations to individual patients. Removing sepsis without shock from SEP-1 will mitigate the risk of unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for noninfectious syndromes, simplify data abstraction, increase measure reliability, and focus attention on the population most likely to benefit from immediate empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2020.)

Background: Ceftazidime-avibactam has in vitro activity against some carbapenem-resistant gram-negative infections (GNIs), and therefore may be a useful alternative to more toxic antibiotics such as colistin. Understanding ceftazidime-avibactam uptake and usage patterns would inform hospital formularies, stewardship, and antibiotic development., Methods: A retrospective cohort study assessed inpatient encounters in the Vizient database. Ceftazidime-avibactam and colistin administrations were categorized into presumed empiric (3 consecutive days of therapy or less with qualifying exclusions) versus targeted therapy (≥4 consecutive days of therapy) for presumed carbapenem-resistant GNIs. Quarterly percentage change (QPC) using modified Poisson regression and relative change in frequency of targeted ceftazidime-avibactam to colistin encounters was calculated. Factors associated with preferentially receiving targeted ceftazidime-avibactam versus colistin were identified using generalized estimating equations., Results: Between 2015 quarter (q) 1 and 2017q4, ceftazidime-avibactam was administered 21 215 times across 1901 encounters. Inpatient prescriptions for ceftazidime-avibactam increased from 0.44/10 000 hospitalizations in 2015q1 to 7.7/10 000 in 2017q4 (QPC, +11%; 95% CI, 10-13%; P < .01), while conversely colistin prescriptions decreased quarterly by 5% (95% CI, 4-6%; P < .01). Ceftazidime-avibactam therapy was categorized as empiric 25% of the time, targeted 65% of the time, and indeterminate 10% of the time. Patients with chronic kidney disease were twice as likely to receive targeted ceftazidime-avibactam versus colistin (RR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.82-2.25), whereas those on dialysis were less likely to receive ceftazidime-avibactam than colistin (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, .61-.83)., Conclusions: Since approval in 2015, ceftazidime-avibactam use has grown for presumed carbapenem-resistant GNIs, while colistin has correspondingly declined. Renal function drove the choice between ceftazidime-avibactam and colistin as targeted therapy., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2020.)

Background: Resistance to all first-line antibiotics necessitates the use of less effective or more toxic "reserve" agents. Gram-negative bloodstream infections (GNBSIs) harboring such difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR) may have higher mortality than phenotypes that allow for ≥1 active first-line antibiotic., Methods: The Premier Database was analyzed for inpatients with select GNBSIs. DTR was defined as intermediate/resistant in vitro to all ß-lactam categories, including carbapenems and fluoroquinolones. Prevalence and aminoglycoside resistance of DTR episodes were compared with carbapenem-resistant, extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant, and fluoroquinolone-resistant episodes using CDC definitions. Predictors of DTR were identified. The adjusted relative risk (aRR) of mortality was examined for DTR, CDC-defined phenotypes susceptible to ≥1 first-line agent, and graded loss of active categories., Results: Between 2009-2013, 471 (1%) of 45011 GNBSI episodes at 92 (53.2%) of 173 hospitals exhibited DTR, ranging from 0.04% for Escherichia coli to 18.4% for Acinetobacter baumannii. Among patients with DTR, 79% received parenteral aminoglycosides, tigecycline, or colistin/polymyxin-B; resistance to all aminoglycosides occurred in 33%. Predictors of DTR included urban healthcare and higher baseline illness. Crude mortality for GNBSIs with DTR was 43%; aRR was higher for DTR than for carbapenem-resistant (1.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.4; P = .02), extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant (1.2; 1.1-1.4; P = .001), or fluoroquinolone-resistant (1.2; 1.0-1.4; P = .008) infections. The mortality aRR increased 20% per graded loss of active first-line categories, from 3-5 to 1-2 to 0., Conclusion: Nonsusceptibility to first-line antibiotics is associated with decreased survival in GNBSIs. DTR is a simple bedside prognostic measure of treatment-limiting coresistance.

Background: Shock frequently complicates necrotizing fasciitis (NF) caused by group A Streptococcus (GAS) or Staphylococcus aureus. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is sometimes administered for presumptive toxic shock syndrome (TSS), but its frequency of use and efficacy are unclear., Methods: Adult patients with NF and vasopressor-dependent shock undergoing surgical debridement from 2010 to 2014 were identified at 130 US hospitals. IVIG cases were propensity-matched and risk-adjusted. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcome was median length of stay (LOS)., Results: Of 4127 cases of debrided NF with shock at 121 centers, only 164 patients (4%) at 61 centers received IVIG. IVIG subjects were younger with lower comorbidity indices, but higher illness severity. Clindamycin and vasopressor intensity were higher among IVIG cases, as was coding for TSS and GAS. In-hospital mortality did not differ between matched IVIG and non-IVIG groups (crude mortality, 27.3% vs 23.6%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.00 [95% confidence interval, .55-1.83]; P = .99). Early IVIG (≤2 days) did not alter this effect (P = .99). Among patients coded for TSS, GAS, and/or S. aureus, IVIG use was still unusual (59/868 [6.8%]) and lacked benefit (P = .63). Median LOS was similar between IVIG and non-IVIG groups (26 [13-49] vs 26 [11-43]; P = .84). Positive predictive values for identifying true NF and debridement among IVIG cases using our algorithms were 97% and 89%, respectively, based on records review at 4 hospitals., Conclusions: Adjunctive IVIG was administered infrequently in NF with shock and had no apparent impact on mortality or hospital LOS beyond that achieved with debridement and antibiotics., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.)

Background: An increasing number of physicians are seeking dual training in critical care medicine (CCM) and infectious diseases (ID). Understanding experiences and perceptions of CCM-ID physicians could inform career choices and programmatic innovation., Methods: All physicians trained and/or certified in both CCM and ID to date in the United States were sent a Web-based questionnaire in 2015. Responses enabled a cross-sectional analysis of physician demographics and training and practice characteristics and satisfaction., Results: Of 202 CCM-ID physicians, 196 were alive and reachable. The response rate was 79%. Forty-six percent trained and 34% practice in the northeastern United States. Only 40% received dual training at the same institution. Eighty-three percent identified as either an intensivist with ID expertise (44%) or as equally an intensivist and ID physician (38%). Median salary was $265 000 (interquartile range [IQR], $215 000-$350 000). Practice settings were split between academic (45%) and community settings (42%). Two-thirds are clinicians but 62% conduct some research and 26% practice outpatient ID. Top reasons to dually specialize included clinical synergy (70%), procedural activity (50%), and less interest in pulmonology (49%). Although 38% cited less proficiency with bronchoscopy as a disadvantage, 87% seldom need pulmonary consultation in the intensive care unit. Median career satisfaction was 4 (IQR, 4-5) out of 5, and 76% would dually train again., Conclusions: CCM-ID graduates prefer the acute care setting, predominantly CCM or a combination of CCM and ID. They find combination training and practice to be synergistic and satisfying, but most have had to seek CCM and ID training independently at separate institutions. Given these findings, avenues for combined training in CCM-ID should be considered., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.)

Background: Sepsis hospitalizations have increased dramatically in the last decade. It is unclear whether this represents an actual rise in sepsis illness or improved capture by coding. We evaluated the impact of Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) guidance after newly introduced sepsis codes and medical severity diagnosis-related group (MS-DRG) systems on sepsis trends., Methods: In this retrospective cohort study of California hospitalizations from January 2000 to December 2010, sepsis was identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) coding (Dombrovskiy method). Sepsis-associated mortality rates were calculated. Logistic regression models evaluated variables associated with sepsis and mortality. Segmented regression time series analysis assessed changes in sepsis frequency for (1) baseline (January 2000 to September 2003); (2) post-CMS guidelines on sepsis coding (October 2003 to September 2007); and (3) after the introduction of MS-DRG (October 2007 to December 2010)., Results: Annual hospitalizations with sepsis diagnoses tripled within a decade, from 21.1 to 59.9 cases per 1000 admissions, with a 2.8- and 2.0-fold increase in severe and nonsevere sepsis, respectively, whereas annual admissions remained unchanged and sepsis-associated mortality decreased. Greatest increases were seen for severe sepsis present on admission (3.8-fold increase). Increases in sepsis were temporally correlated with CMS coding guidance and MS-DRG introduction after adjustment for comorbidity and other factors., Conclusions: Sepsis rate increases were associated with introduction of CMS-issued guidance for new sepsis ICD-9 coding and MS-DRGs. Coding artifact ("up-capture" of less severely ill septic patients) may be contributing to the apparent rise in sepsis incidence and decline in mortality. Epidemiologic trends based on administrative data should account for policy-related effects., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The recent rise in unfilled training positions among infectious diseases (ID) fellowship programs nationwide indicates that ID is declining as a career choice among internal medicine residency graduates. Supplementing ID training with training in critical care medicine (CCM) might be a way to regenerate interest in the specialty. Hands-on patient care and higher salaries are obvious attractions. High infection prevalence and antibiotic resistance in intensive care units, expanding immunosuppressed host populations, and public health crises such as the recent Ebola outbreak underscore the potential synergy of CCM-ID training. Most intensivists receive training in pulmonary medicine and only 1% of current board-certified intensivists are trained in ID. While still small, this cohort of CCM-ID certified physicians has continued to rise over the last 2 decades. ID and CCM program leadership nationwide must recognize these trends and the merits of the CCM-ID combination to facilitate creation of formal dual-training opportunities., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2015. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.)

Background: National reports of a dramatic rise in sepsis incidence are largely based on analyses of administrative databases. It is unclear if these estimates are biased by changes in coding practices over time., Methods: We calculated linear trends in the annual incidence of septicemia, sepsis, and severe sepsis at 2 academic hospitals from 2003 to 2012 using 5 different claims methods and compared case identification rates to selected objective clinical markers, including positive blood cultures, vasopressors, and/or lactic acid levels., Results: The annual incidence of hospitalizations with sepsis claims increased over the decade, ranging from a 54% increase for the method combining septicemia, bacteremia, and fungemia codes (P < .001 for linear trend) to a 706% increase for explicit severe sepsis/septic shock codes (P = .001). In contrast, the incidence of hospitalizations with positive blood cultures decreased by 17% (P = .006), and hospitalizations with positive blood cultures with concurrent vasopressors and/or lactic acidosis remained stable (P = .098). The sensitivity of sepsis claims for capturing hospitalizations with positive blood cultures with concurrent vasopressors and/or lactic acidosis increased (P < .001 for all methods), whereas the proportion of septicemia hospitalizations with positive blood cultures decreased from 50% to 30% (P < .001)., Conclusions: The incidence of hospitalizations with sepsis codes rose dramatically while hospitalizations with corresponding objective clinical markers remained stable or decreased. Coding for sepsis has become more inclusive, and septicemia diagnoses are increasingly being applied to patients without positive blood cultures. These changes likely explain some of the apparent rise in sepsis incidence and underscore the need for more reliable surveillance methods., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)