Search

Objective: The true incidence and risk factors for secondary bacterial infections in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains poorly understood. Knowledge of risk factors for secondary infections in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is necessary to optimally guide selective use of empiric antimicrobial therapy. Design: Single-center retrospective cohort study of symptomatic inpatients admitted for COVID-19 from April 15, 2020, through June 30, 2021. Setting: Academic quaternary-care referral center in Portland, Oregon. Patients: The study included patients who were 18 years or older with a positive severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) PCR test up to 10 days prior to admission. Methods: Secondary infections were identified based on clinical, radiographic, and microbiologic data. Logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for secondary infection. We also assessed mortality, length of stay, and empiric antibiotics among those with and without secondary infections. Results: We identified 118 patients for inclusion; 31 (26.3%) had either culture-proven or possible secondary infections among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Mortality was higher among patients with secondary infections (35.5%) compared to those without secondary infection (4.6%). Empiric antibiotic use on admission was high in both the secondary and no secondary infection groups at 71.0% and 48.3%, respectively. Conclusions: The incidence of secondary bacterial infection was moderate among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. However, a higher proportion of patients received empiric antibiotics regardless of an identifiable secondary infection. Transfer from an outside hospital, baseline immunosuppressant use, and corticosteroid treatment were independent risk factors for secondary infection. Additional studies are needed to validate risk factors and best guide antimicrobial stewardship efforts.

Objective:Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has significant implications for hospital infection prevention and control, discharge management, and public health. We reviewed available literature to reach an evidenced-based consensus on the expected duration of viral shedding.Design:We queried 4 scholarly repositories and search engines for studies reporting SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding dynamics by PCR and/or culture available through September 8, 2020. We calculated the pooled median duration of viral RNA shedding from respiratory and fecal sources.Results:The review included 77 studies on SARS-CoV-2. All studies reported PCR-based testing and 12 also included viral culture data. Among 28 studies, the overall pooled median duration of RNA shedding from respiratory sources was 18.4 days (95% CI, 15.5–21.3; I2 = 98.87%; P < .01). When stratified by disease severity, the pooled median duration of viral RNA shedding from respiratory sources was 19.8 days (95% CI, 16.2–23.5; I2 = 96.42%; P < .01) among severely ill patients and 17.2 days (95% CI, 14.0–20.5; I2 = 95.64%; P < .01) in mild-to-moderate illness. Viral RNA was detected up to 92 days after symptom onset. Viable virus was isolated by culture from −6 to 20 days relative to symptom onset.Conclusions:SARS-COV-2 RNA shedding can be prolonged, yet high heterogeneity exists. Detection of viral RNA may not correlate with infectivity since available viral culture data suggests shorter durations of shedding of viable virus. Additional data are needed to determine the duration of shedding of viable virus and the implications for risk of transmission.

Introduction The emergence of COVID-19 highlighted the critical importance of appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for the safety of patients and health care personnel. However, previously published survey data indicated that formal instruction on the correct utilization of PPE is uncommon in medical school curricula, and there is no published guidance about optimal instruction methods. The infectious disease (ID) simulation lab at Oregon Health & Science University filled this need. Methods Second- through fourth-year medical students participated in the infection intersession, a 2-week didactic session that students were required to enroll in once during their clinical rotations. As part of the course, students completed the ID simulation lab, during which they were presented with common ID syndromes (suspected tuberculosis, C. difficile colitis, and neutropenic fever) and asked to select the proper PPE prior to interacting with standardized patients. ID physicians acted as the patients and then conducted feedback sessions, which focused on PPE choice, donning and doffing techniques, and ID diagnosis and management principles. Results More than 500 medical students participated between 2016 and 2020, demonstrating the feasibility of the experience. The average exam scores were above 80%, and the average student evaluation score of the session was 8.9 out of 10, demonstrating acceptability. Discussion The ID simulation lab allowed students to reinforce didactic teaching about PPE, dispel common misconceptions, and receive real-time feedback from ID clinicians. Availability of the lab and facilitators were limiting factors. Future work will focus on better understanding the efficacy of the sessions.

Background: Urinary tract infection (UTI) and Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) both pose significant diagnostic challenges. Excess testing has implications for hospital-associated infection surveillance and may also lead to overtreatment and associated patient risk. Accurate diagnosis requires stewardship efforts to ensure that the correct patients are tested appropriately. In coordination with clinicians and microbiology labs, hospital infection prevention departments can aid diagnostic stewardship efforts by creating policies for order indications and proper test collection methods and by developing electronic medical record (EMR) support for diagnostic and treatment algorithms. The prevalence of these practices in Oregon, however, is unknown. Methods: We deployed a web-based survey to infection preventionists at all 61 acute-care hospitals in Oregon in January 2019. Responses were collected through April 2019, and a subset of applicable questions were analyzed. Results: Of 61 acute-care hospitals, 58 (95%) responded. A response from a single long-term acute-care hospital was excluded. For urinary tract infections (UTIs), a minority of hospitals reported having policies requiring annual sterile urine collection training for registered nurses (n = 7, 12%), annual observation of the RN sterile urine collection procedure (n = 1, 2%), or use of boric acid containers for urine collection (n = 10, 17%). UTI testing and treatment algorithms embedded in the electronic medical record (EMR) were more common (Fig. 1). Regarding urine culture reflex policies, 39 facilities (68%) reported reflexing abnormal urinalyses to culture only if ordered, whereas 14 respondents (25%) reported automatically reflexed all abnormal urinalyses to culture. For Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), respondents reported using a variety of methods to discourage inappropriate testing (Fig. 2). Although almost all facilities (n = 53, 93%) reported having a policy to reject formed stool, less than half (n = 27, 47%) reported having a policy to reject stool in patients receiving laxatives. Furthermore, 74% of respondents (n = 42) had a published testing algorithm, more than twice the 18 (32%) hospitals that reported having a comparable UTI algorithm. Conclusions: Infection prevention departments in Oregon acute-care hospitals utilize a variety of tools to contribute to diagnostic and treatment stewardship for UTI and CDI. Our survey revealed many opportunities for improvement in UTI and C. difficile testing and treatment stewardship in Oregon hospitals. For example, although most hospitals reject formed stool for CDI testing, policies for other diagnosis and treatment stewardship techniques were much less commonly employed. Future work will compare the results of this survey to a set of similar questions on a statewide microbiology laboratory survey, assess best practices, and form consensus recommendations on stewardship practices for the state.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Background Testing for urinary tract infection (UTI) and Clostridiodes difficile infection (CDI) poses diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship challenges. Both diagnoses hinge on local microbiology laboratory algorithms. For UTI testing, the definition of “abnormal” urinalysis and the use of reflex urine cultures, both of which alter the frequency of bacteriuria detection, likely differs between laboratories. For CDI, pretest probability, choice and sequence of diagnostic tests are likely variable and impact the chances of accurate diagnosis. Methods To understand laboratory practices and determine variations in local testing algorithms, we deployed a self-administered survey to microbiology laboratories serving Oregon healthcare facilities via SurveyMonkey in September 2018. Responses were collected through April 2019. We analyzed a subset of questions focused on UTI and CDI diagnosis. Results Of 51 surveyed laboratories, response rate was 86% (n = 44). 91% of respondents (n = 40) process bacterial cultures. 47.5% (n = 19) primarily perform urine culture when ordered, whereas the remainder primarily perform cultures in a reflex algorithm when ordered (n = 12; 30%) or a reflex algorithm automatically (n = 9; 22.5%) (Figure 1). The definition of an abnormal urinalysis varied widely (Figure 2). 15% (n = 6) of laboratories reported considering changes to their workflow; two cited a goal of reducing unnecessary testing. Of the 32 laboratories that perform in-house C. difficile testing, the assays and sequence in which they were implemented in testing algorithms varied substantially (Figure 3) and most commonly included NAAT testing. Seven (21.8%) laboratories reported recently changed practices; these changes did not favor any particular algorithm. 84.2% (n = 32) reported stool rejection criteria to limit unnecessary testing, but these criteria varied (Figure 4). Conclusion Wide variation exists in laboratory workflows for UTI and CDI diagnoses in Oregon, suggesting lack of consensus on optimal practices. Encouragingly, multiple labs described recently implemented or planned interventions to reduce unnecessary testing for both infections. This snapshot will inform statewide education and interventions to optimize testing and help prevent patient and population harm. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.