Search

Background: Prior observation has shown differences in COVID-19 hospitalization risk between SARS-CoV-2 variants, but limited information describes hospitalization outcomes., Methods: Inpatients with COVID-19 at 5 hospitals in the eastern United States were included if they had hypoxia, tachypnea, tachycardia, or fever, and SARS-CoV-2 variant data, determined from whole-genome sequencing or local surveillance inference. Analyses were stratified by history of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or infection. The average effect of SARS-CoV-2 variant on 28-day risk of severe disease, defined by advanced respiratory support needs, or death was evaluated using models weighted on propensity scores derived from baseline clinical features., Results: Severe disease or death within 28 days occurred for 977 (29%) of 3369 unvaccinated patients and 269 (22%) of 1230 patients with history of vaccination or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among unvaccinated patients, the relative risk of severe disease or death for Delta variant compared with ancestral lineages was 1.30 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11-1.49). Compared with Delta, the risk for Omicron patients was .72 (95% CI: .59-.88) and compared with ancestral lineages was .94 (.78-1.1). Among Omicron and Delta infections, patients with history of vaccination or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection had half the risk of severe disease or death (adjusted hazard ratio: .40; 95% CI: .30-.54), but no significant outcome difference by variant., Conclusions: Although risk of severe disease or death for unvaccinated inpatients with Omicron was lower than with Delta, it was similar to ancestral lineages. Severe outcomes were less common in vaccinated inpatients, with no difference between Delta and Omicron infections., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. The Maryland Department of Health collaborates for research with BioRad, Hologic, and DiaSorin. J. B. has equity/entitlement to future royalties in miDiagnostics. B. T. G. is a member of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Pulmonary-Asthma Drug Advisory Committee and a board member of the Society of Bedside Medicine and has received consulting fees from Janssen Research and Development, LLC (related to vaccine trial case adjudication); Gilead Sciences, Inc (related to COVID therapeutics); and Atea Pharmaceuticals, Inc (related to COVID therapeutics). R. B. is a consultant for Merck & Co and Hologic. R. B. also reports royalties or licenses from emocha Health, support for attending meetings and/or travel from Hologic, and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Merck. H. H. M. reports the following grants or contracts unrelated to this work: National Institutes of Health (NIH) UM1AI0686, NIH UM1 AI068613-14, NIH R01 DA045556-04S1, NIH 3U54HL143541-02S2, NIH 4UH3CA211396-03, and NIH R01 CA243393 and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services related to research contract from BioRad, DiaSorin, and Hologic. D. C. G. reports grants or contracts unrelated to this work from Illumina, Inc; IDbyNDA, Inc; and Fisher Center Discovery Program, Johns Hopkins; consulting fees from bioMerieux, Inc; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from the American Association of Clinical Chemistry and Pan American Society of Clinical Virology. A. G. reports unrelated grants or contracts from NIH and Unitaid and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); participation on an NIH/NIAID Advisory Council and Indo US Science Technology Governing Board; and roles on the IMPAACT Network TB Scientific Committee and World Health Organization (WHO) MDR TB Guidelines Committee. M. L. R. reports grants or contracts unrelated to this work from Critical Path Institute/FDA, paid to their institution. S. L. Z. reports the following grants or contracts unrelated to this work: 1R01AR073208-01 (Shah) (1 April 2018–31 March 2023), NIH/National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), Autoantibodies Define Scleroderma Subgroups with Distinct Relationships to Cancer; UL1TR003098 (Ford) (1 June 2019–30 April 2024), NIH/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Johns Hopkins Institutional Clinical and Translational Science Award. S. L. Z. also reports a role as Co-Director for Data Science, JHM inHealth Precision Medicine (paid to their institution). These conflicts of interest are being managed by the Johns Hopkins University in accordance with its conflict-of-interest policies. 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.)

COVID-19 continues to be a major source of global morbidity and mortality. It abruptly stressed healthcare systems early in 2020 and the pressures continue. Devastating hardships have been endured by individuals, families and communities; the losses will be felt for years to come. As healthcare professionals and organisations stepped up to respond to the overwhelming number of cases, it is understandable that the focus has been primarily on coping with the quantity of the demand. During a pandemic, it is not surprising that few papers have drawn attention to the quality of the care delivered to those afflicted with illness. Despite the challenges, clinicians caring for patients with COVID-19 have risen to the occasion. This manuscript highlights aspirational examples from the published literature of thoughtful and superb care of patients with COVID-19 using an established framework for clinical excellence (formulated by the Miller-Coulson Academy of Clinical Excellence)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: There is an urgent need to understand the real-world effectiveness of remdesivir in the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)., Methods: This was a retrospective comparative effectiveness study. Individuals hospitalized in a large private healthcare network in the United States from 23 February 2020 through 11 February 2021 with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 and ICD-10 diagnosis codes consistent with symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were included. Remdesivir recipients were matched to controls using time-dependent propensity scores. The primary outcome was time to improvement with a secondary outcome of time to death., Results: Of 96 859 COVID-19 patients, 42 473 (43.9%) received at least 1 remdesivir dose. The median age of remdesivir recipients was 65 years, 23 701 (55.8%) were male, and 22 819 (53.7%) were non-White. Matches were found for 18 328 patients (43.2%). Remdesivir recipients were significantly more likely to achieve clinical improvement by 28 days (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.22). Remdesivir patients on no oxygen (aHR 1.30, 95% CI, 1.22-1.38) or low-flow oxygen (aHR 1.23, 95% CI, 1.19-1.27) were significantly more likely to achieve clinical improvement by 28 days. There was no significant impact on the likelihood of mortality overall (aHR 1.02, 95% CI, .97-1.08). Remdesivir recipients on low-flow oxygen were significantly less likely to die than controls (aHR 0.85, 95% CI, .77-.92; 28-day mortality 8.4% [865 deaths] for remdesivir patients, 12.5% [1334 deaths] for controls)., Conclusions: These results support the use of remdesivir for hospitalized COVID-19 patients on no or low-flow oxygen. Routine initiation of remdesivir in more severely ill patients is unlikely to be beneficial., (© 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.)

Background: It is unclear whether chronic use of immunosuppressive drugs worsens or improves the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with plausible mechanisms for both., Methods: Retrospective cohort study in 2121 consecutive adults with acute inpatient hospital admission between 4 March and 29 August 2020 with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in a large academic health system, with adjustment for confounding with propensity score-derived stabilized inverse probability of treatment weights. Chronic immunosuppression was defined as prescriptions for immunosuppressive drugs current at the time of admission. Outcomes included mechanical ventilation, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay., Results: There were 2121 patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed (1967, 93%) or suspected (154, 7%) COVID-19 during the study period, with a median age of 55 years (interquartile range, 40-67). Of these, 108 (5%) were classified as immunosuppressed before COVID-19, primarily with prednisone (>7.5 mg/day), tacrolimus, or mycophenolate mofetil. Among the entire cohort, 311 (15%) received mechanical ventilation; the median (interquartile range) length of stay was 5.2 (2.5-10.6) days, and 1927 (91%) survived to discharge. After adjustment, there were no significant differences in the risk of mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio [HR], .79; 95% confidence interval [CI], .46-1.35), in-hospital mortality (HR, .66; 95% CI, .28-1.55), or length of stay (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, .92-1.47) among individuals with immunosuppression and counterparts., Conclusions: Chronic use of immunosuppressive drugs was neither associated with worse nor better clinical outcomes among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in one US health system., (© 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.)

Longitudinal trajectories of vital signs and biomarkers during hospital admission of patients with COVID-19 remain poorly characterized despite their potential to provide critical insights about disease progression. We studied 1884 patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection from April 3, 2020, to June 25, 2020, within 1 Maryland hospital system and used a retrospective longitudinal framework with linear mixed-effects models to investigate relevant biomarker trajectories leading up to 3 critical outcomes: mechanical ventilation, discharge, and death. Trajectories of 4 vital signs (respiratory rate, ratio of oxygen saturation (Spo2) to fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2), pulse, and temperature) and 4 laboratory values (C-reactive protein (CRP), absolute lymphocyte count (ALC), estimated glomerular filtration rate, and D-dimer) clearly distinguished the trajectories of patients with COVID-19. Before any ventilation, log(CRP), log(ALC), respiratory rate, and Spo2-to-Fio2 ratio trajectories diverge approximately 8-10 days before discharge or death. After ventilation, log(CRP), log(ALC), respiratory rate, Spo2-to-Fio2 ratio, and estimated glomerular filtration rate trajectories again diverge 10-20 days before death or discharge. Trajectories improved until discharge and remained unchanged or worsened until death. Our approach characterizes the distribution of biomarker trajectories leading up to competing outcomes of discharge versus death. Moving forward, this model can contribute to quantifying the joint probability of biomarkers and outcomes when provided clinical data up to a given moment., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: More than 28 000 people were infected with Ebola virus during the 2014-2015 West African outbreak, resulting in more than 11 000 deaths. Better methods are needed to reduce the risk of self-contamination while doffing personal protective equipment (PPE) to prevent pathogen transmission., Methods: A set of interventions based on previously identified failure modes was designed to mitigate the risk of self- contamination during PPE doffing. These interventions were tested in a randomized controlled trial of 48 participants with no prior experience doffing enhanced PPE. Contamination was simulated using a fluorescent tracer slurry and fluorescent polystyrene latex spheres (PLSs). Self-contamination of scrubs and skin was measured using ultraviolet light visualization and swabbing followed by microscopy, respectively. Doffing sessions were videotaped and reviewed to score standardized teamwork behaviors., Results: Participants in the intervention group contaminated significantly fewer body sites than those in the control group (median [interquartile range], 6 [3-8] vs 11 [6-13], P = .002). The median contamination score was lower for the intervention group than the control group when measured by ultraviolet light visualization (23.15 vs 64.45, P = .004) and PLS swabbing (72.4 vs 144.8, P = .001). The mean teamwork score was greater in the intervention group (42.2 vs 27.5, P < .001)., Conclusions: An intervention package addressing the PPE doffing task, tools, environment, and teamwork skills significantly reduced the amount of self-contamination by study participants. These elements can be incorporated into PPE guidance and training to reduce the risk of pathogen transmission., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Fluorescent tracers are often used with ultraviolet lights to visibly identify healthcare worker self-contamination after doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE). This method has drawbacks, as it cannot detect pathogen-sized contaminants nor airborne contamination in subjects' breathing zones., Methods: A contamination detection/quantification method was developed using 2-µm polystyrene latex spheres (PSLs) to investigate skin contamination (via swabbing) and potential inhalational exposure (via breathing zone air sampler). Porcine skin coupons were used to estimate the PSL swabbing recovery efficiency and limit of detection (LOD). A pilot study with 5 participants compared skin contamination levels detected via the PSL vs fluorescent tracer methods, while the air sampler quantified potential inhalational exposure to PSLs during doffing., Results: Average PSL skin swab recovery efficiency was 40% ± 29% (LOD = 1 PSL/4 cm2 of skin). In the pilot study, all subjects had PSL and fluorescent tracer skin contamination. Two subjects had simultaneously located contamination of both types on a wrist and hand. However, for all other subjects, the PSL method enabled detection of skin contamination that was not detectable by the fluorescent tracer method. Hands/wrists were more commonly contaminated than areas of the head/face (57% vs 23% of swabs with PSL detection, respectively). One subject had PSLs detected by the breathing zone air sampler., Conclusions: This study provides a well-characterized method that can be used to quantitate levels of skin and inhalational contact with simulant pathogen particles. The PSL method serves as a complement to the fluorescent tracer method to study PPE doffing self-contamination., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)