Search

BACKGROUND: As infection with vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) increases in hospitals, knowledge about VRE reservoirs and improved accuracy of epidemiologic measures are needed. Many assessments underestimate incidence by including prevalent carriers in at-risk populations. Routine surveillance cultures can substantially improve prevalence and incidence estimates, and assessing the range of improvement across diverse units is important. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using accurate at-risk populations to evaluate the range of benefit of admission and weekly surveillance cultures in detecting unrecognized VRE in 14 patient-care units. RESULTS: We assessed 165 unit-months. The admission prevalence of VRE was 2.2%-27.2%, with admission surveillance providing 2.2-17-fold increased detection. Medical units were significantly more likely to admit VRE carriers than were surgical units. Monthly incidence was 0.8%-9.7%, with weekly surveillance providing 3.3-15.4-fold increased detection. The common practice of reporting incidence using the total number of patients, rather than patients at risk, underestimated incidence by one-third. Overall, routine surveillance prevented the misclassification of 43.0% (unit range, 0%-85.7%) of 'incident' carriers on the basis of clinical cultures alone and increased VRE precaution days by 2.4-fold (unit range, 2.0-2.6-fold). CONCLUSIONS: Routine surveillance markedly increases the detection of VRE, despite variability across patient-care units. Correct denominators prevent the substantial underestimation of incidence. Copyright © 2007 Infectious Diseases Society of America [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Routine culturing of patients in intensive care units (ICUs) for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) identifies unrecognized carriers and facilitates timely isolation. However, the benefit of surveillance in detecting prevalent and incident carriers likely varies among ICUs. In addition, many assessments underestimate the incidence of acquisition by including prevalent carriers in the at-risk population. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using accurate at-risk populations to evaluate the range of benefit of admission and weekly surveillance cultures in detecting otherwise unrecognized MRSA in 12 ICUs in 5 states. RESULTS: We assessed 142 ICU-months. Among the 12 ICUs, the admission prevalence of imported MRSA was 5%-21%, with admission surveillance providing 30%-135% increases in rates of detection. The monthly hospital-associated incidence was 2%-6%, with weekly surveillance providing 7%-157% increases in detection. The common practice of reporting incidence using the total number of patients or total patient-days underestimated incidence by one-third. Surgical ICUs had lower MRSA importation but higher MRSA incidence. Overall, routine surveillance prevented the misclassification of 17% (unit range, 11%-29%) of 'incident' carriers, compared with clinical cultures, and increased precaution days by 18% (unit range, 11%-91%). CONCLUSIONS: Routine surveillance significantly increases the detection of MRSA, but this benefit is not uniform across ICUs, even with high compliance and the use of correct denominators. Copyright © 2007 Infectious Diseases Society of America [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The majority of recent estimates on the direct medical cost attributable to hospital-onset infections (HOIs) has focused on device- or procedure-associated HOIs. The attributable costs of HOIs that are not associated with device use or procedures have not been extensively studied., Objective: We developed simulation models of attributable cost for 16 HOIs and estimated the total direct medical cost, including nondevice-related HOIs in the USA for 2011 and 2015., Data and Methods: We used total discharge costs associated with HOI-related hospitalization from the National Inpatient Sample and applied an analogy costing methodology to develop simulation models of the costs attributable to HOIs. The mean attributable cost estimate from the simulation analysis was then multiplied by previously published estimates of the number of HOIs for 2011 and 2015 to generate national estimates of direct medical costs., Results: After adjusting all estimates to 2017 US dollars, attributable cost estimates for select nondevice-related infections attributable cost estimates ranged from $7661 for ear, eye, nose, throat, and mouth (EENTM) infections to $27,709 for cardiovascular system infections in 2011; and from $8394 for EENTM to $26,445 for central nervous system infections in 2016 (based on 2015 incidence data). The national direct medical costs for all HOIs were $14.6 billion in 2011 and $12.1 billion in 2016. Nondevice- and nonprocedure-associated HOIs comprise approximately 26-28% of total HOI costs., Conclusion: Results suggest that nondevice- and nonprocedure-related HOIs result in considerable costs to the healthcare system., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, mathematical modeling has been widely used to understand epidemiological burden, trends, and transmission dynamics, to facilitate policy decisions, and, to a lesser extent, to evaluate infection prevention and control (IPC) measures. This review highlights the added value of using conventional epidemiology and modeling approaches to address the complexity of healthcare-associated infections (HAI) and antimicrobial resistance. It demonstrates how epidemiological surveillance data and modeling can be used to infer transmission dynamics in healthcare settings and to forecast healthcare impact, how modeling can be used to improve the validity of interpretation of epidemiological surveillance data, how modeling can be used to estimate the impact of IPC interventions, and how modeling can be used to guide IPC and antimicrobial treatment and stewardship decision-making. There are several priority areas for expanding the use of modeling in healthcare epidemiology and IPC. Importantly, modeling should be viewed as complementary to conventional healthcare epidemiological approaches, and this requires collaboration and active coordination between IPC, healthcare epidemiology, and mathematical modeling groups.

Importance: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the second most common infection leading to hospitalization and is often associated with gram-negative multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). Clinicians overuse extended-spectrum antibiotics although most patients are at low risk for MDRO infection. Safe strategies to limit overuse of empiric antibiotics are needed., Objective: To evaluate whether computerized provider order entry (CPOE) prompts providing patient- and pathogen-specific MDRO risk estimates could reduce use of empiric extended-spectrum antibiotics for treatment of UTI., Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster-randomized trial in 59 US community hospitals comparing the effect of a CPOE stewardship bundle (education, feedback, and real-time and risk-based CPOE prompts; 29 hospitals) vs routine stewardship (n = 30 hospitals) on antibiotic selection during the first 3 hospital days (empiric period) in noncritically ill adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with UTI with an 18-month baseline (April 1, 2017-September 30, 2018) and 15-month intervention period (April 1, 2019-June 30, 2020)., Interventions: CPOE prompts recommending empiric standard-spectrum antibiotics in patients ordered to receive extended-spectrum antibiotics who have low estimated absolute risk (<10%) of MDRO UTI, coupled with feedback and education., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was empiric (first 3 days of hospitalization) extended-spectrum antibiotic days of therapy. Secondary outcomes included empiric vancomycin and antipseudomonal days of therapy. Safety outcomes included days to intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and hospital length of stay. Outcomes were assessed using generalized linear mixed-effect models to assess differences between the baseline and intervention periods., Results: Among 127 403 adult patients (71 991 baseline and 55 412 intervention period) admitted with UTI in 59 hospitals, the mean (SD) age was 69.4 (17.9) years, 30.5% were male, and the median Elixhauser Comorbidity Index count was 4 (IQR, 2-5). Compared with routine stewardship, the group using CPOE prompts had a 17.4% (95% CI, 11.2%-23.2%) reduction in empiric extended-spectrum days of therapy (rate ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.77-0.89]; P < .001). The safety outcomes of mean days to ICU transfer (6.6 vs 7.0 days) and hospital length of stay (6.3 vs 6.5 days) did not differ significantly between the routine and intervention groups, respectively., Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with routine stewardship, CPOE prompts providing real-time recommendations for standard-spectrum antibiotics for patients with low MDRO risk coupled with feedback and education significantly reduced empiric extended-spectrum antibiotic use among noncritically ill adults admitted with UTI without changing hospital length of stay or days to ICU transfers., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03697096.

Importance: Pneumonia is the most common infection requiring hospitalization and is a major reason for overuse of extended-spectrum antibiotics. Despite low risk of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) infection, clinical uncertainty often drives initial antibiotic selection. Strategies to limit empiric antibiotic overuse for patients with pneumonia are needed., Objective: To evaluate whether computerized provider order entry (CPOE) prompts providing patient- and pathogen-specific MDRO infection risk estimates could reduce empiric extended-spectrum antibiotics for non-critically ill patients admitted with pneumonia., Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster-randomized trial in 59 US community hospitals comparing the effect of a CPOE stewardship bundle (education, feedback, and real-time MDRO risk-based CPOE prompts; n = 29 hospitals) vs routine stewardship (n = 30 hospitals) on antibiotic selection during the first 3 hospital days (empiric period) in non-critically ill adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with pneumonia. There was an 18-month baseline period from April 1, 2017, to September 30, 2018, and a 15-month intervention period from April 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020., Intervention: CPOE prompts recommending standard-spectrum antibiotics in patients ordered to receive extended-spectrum antibiotics during the empiric period who have low estimated absolute risk (<10%) of MDRO pneumonia, coupled with feedback and education., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was empiric (first 3 days of hospitalization) extended-spectrum antibiotic days of therapy. Secondary outcomes included empiric vancomycin and antipseudomonal days of therapy and safety outcomes included days to intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and hospital length of stay. Outcomes compared differences between baseline and intervention periods across strategies., Results: Among 59 hospitals with 96 451 (51 671 in the baseline period and 44 780 in the intervention period) adult patients admitted with pneumonia, the mean (SD) age of patients was 68.1 (17.0) years, 48.1% were men, and the median (IQR) Elixhauser comorbidity count was 4 (2-6). Compared with routine stewardship, the group using CPOE prompts had a 28.4% reduction in empiric extended-spectrum days of therapy (rate ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.66-0.78]; P < .001). Safety outcomes of mean days to ICU transfer (6.5 vs 7.1 days) and hospital length of stay (6.8 vs 7.1 days) did not differ significantly between the routine and CPOE intervention groups., Conclusions and Relevance: Empiric extended-spectrum antibiotic use was significantly lower among adults admitted with pneumonia to non-ICU settings in hospitals using education, feedback, and CPOE prompts recommending standard-spectrum antibiotics for patients at low risk of MDRO infection, compared with routine stewardship practices. Hospital length of stay and days to ICU transfer were unchanged., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03697070.

Importance: Infections due to multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, length of hospitalization, and health care costs. Regional interventions may be advantageous in mitigating MDROs and associated infections., Objective: To evaluate whether implementation of a decolonization collaborative is associated with reduced regional MDRO prevalence, incident clinical cultures, infection-related hospitalizations, costs, and deaths., Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study was conducted from July 1, 2017, to July 31, 2019, across 35 health care facilities in Orange County, California., Exposures: Chlorhexidine bathing and nasal iodophor antisepsis for residents in long-term care and hospitalized patients in contact precautions (CP)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Baseline and end of intervention MDRO point prevalence among participating facilities; incident MDRO (nonscreening) clinical cultures among participating and nonparticipating facilities; and infection-related hospitalizations and associated costs and deaths among residents in participating and nonparticipating nursing homes (NHs)., Results: Thirty-five facilities (16 hospitals, 16 NHs, 3 long-term acute care hospitals [LTACHs]) adopted the intervention. Comparing decolonization with baseline periods among participating facilities, the mean (SD) MDRO prevalence decreased from 63.9% (12.2%) to 49.9% (11.3%) among NHs, from 80.0% (7.2%) to 53.3% (13.3%) among LTACHs (odds ratio [OR] for NHs and LTACHs, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.40-0.57), and from 64.1% (8.5%) to 55.4% (13.8%) (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.93) among hospitalized patients in CP. When comparing decolonization with baseline among NHs, the mean (SD) monthly incident MDRO clinical cultures changed from 2.7 (1.9) to 1.7 (1.1) among participating NHs, from 1.7 (1.4) to 1.5 (1.1) among nonparticipating NHs (group × period interaction reduction, 30.4%; 95% CI, 16.4%-42.1%), from 25.5 (18.6) to 25.0 (15.9) among participating hospitals, from 12.5 (10.1) to 14.3 (10.2) among nonparticipating hospitals (group × period interaction reduction, 12.9%; 95% CI, 3.3%-21.5%), and from 14.8 (8.6) to 8.2 (6.1) among LTACHs (all facilities participating; 22.5% reduction; 95% CI, 4.4%-37.1%). For NHs, the rate of infection-related hospitalizations per 1000 resident-days changed from 2.31 during baseline to 1.94 during intervention among participating NHs, and from 1.90 to 2.03 among nonparticipating NHs (group × period interaction reduction, 26.7%; 95% CI, 19.0%-34.5%). Associated hospitalization costs per 1000 resident-days changed from $64 651 to $55 149 among participating NHs and from $55 151 to $59 327 among nonparticipating NHs (group × period interaction reduction, 26.8%; 95% CI, 26.7%-26.9%). Associated hospitalization deaths per 1000 resident-days changed from 0.29 to 0.25 among participating NHs and from 0.23 to 0.24 among nonparticipating NHs (group × period interaction reduction, 23.7%; 95% CI, 4.5%-43.0%)., Conclusions and Relevance: A regional collaborative involving universal decolonization in long-term care facilities and targeted decolonization among hospital patients in CP was associated with lower MDRO carriage, infections, hospitalizations, costs, and deaths.

Background: Detection and containment of hospital outbreaks currently depend on variable and personnel-intensive surveillance methods. Whether automated statistical surveillance for outbreaks of health care-associated pathogens allows earlier containment efforts that would reduce the size of outbreaks is unknown., Methods: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial in 82 community hospitals within a larger health care system. All hospitals followed an outbreak response protocol when outbreaks were detected by their infection prevention programs. Half of the hospitals additionally used statistical surveillance of microbiology data, which alerted infection prevention programs to outbreaks. Statistical surveillance was also applied to microbiology data from control hospitals without alerting their infection prevention programs. The primary outcome was the number of additional cases occurring after outbreak detection. Analyses assessed differences between the intervention period (July 2019 to January 2022) versus baseline period (February 2017 to January 2019) between randomized groups. A post hoc analysis separately assessed pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and Covid-19 pandemic intervention periods., Results: Real-time alerts did not significantly reduce the number of additional outbreak cases (intervention period versus baseline: statistical surveillance relative rate [RR]=1.41, control RR=1.81; difference-in-differences, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 1.52; P=0.46). Comparing only the prepandemic intervention with baseline periods, the statistical outbreak surveillance group was associated with a 64.1% reduction in additional cases (statistical surveillance RR=0.78, control RR=2.19; difference-in-differences, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.99). There was no similarly observed association between the pandemic versus baseline periods (statistical surveillance RR=1.56, control RR=1.66; difference-in-differences, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.92)., Conclusions: Automated detection of hospital outbreaks using statistical surveillance did not reduce overall outbreak size in the context of an ongoing pandemic. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04053075. Support for HCA Healthcare's participation in the study was provided in kind by HCA.).

Importance: Universal nasal mupirocin plus chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing in intensive care units (ICUs) prevents methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections and all-cause bloodstream infections. Antibiotic resistance to mupirocin has raised questions about whether an antiseptic could be advantageous for ICU decolonization., Objective: To compare the effectiveness of iodophor vs mupirocin for universal ICU nasal decolonization in combination with CHG bathing., Design, Setting, and Participants: Two-group noninferiority, pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial conducted in US community hospitals, all of which used mupirocin-CHG for universal decolonization in ICUs at baseline. Adult ICU patients in 137 randomized hospitals during baseline (May 1, 2015-April 30, 2017) and intervention (November 1, 2017-April 30, 2019) were included., Intervention: Universal decolonization involving switching to iodophor-CHG (intervention) or continuing mupirocin-CHG (baseline)., Main Outcomes and Measures: ICU-attributable S aureus clinical cultures (primary outcome), MRSA clinical cultures, and all-cause bloodstream infections were evaluated using proportional hazard models to assess differences from baseline to intervention periods between the strategies. Results were also compared with a 2009-2011 trial of mupirocin-CHG vs no decolonization in the same hospital network. The prespecified noninferiority margin for the primary outcome was 10%., Results: Among the 801 668 admissions in 233 ICUs, the participants' mean (SD) age was 63.4 (17.2) years, 46.3% were female, and the mean (SD) ICU length of stay was 4.8 (4.7) days. Hazard ratios (HRs) for S aureus clinical isolates in the intervention vs baseline periods were 1.17 for iodophor-CHG (raw rate: 5.0 vs 4.3/1000 ICU-attributable days) and 0.99 for mupirocin-CHG (raw rate: 4.1 vs 4.0/1000 ICU-attributable days) (HR difference in differences significantly lower by 18.4% [95% CI, 10.7%-26.6%] for mupirocin-CHG, P < .001). For MRSA clinical cultures, HRs were 1.13 for iodophor-CHG (raw rate: 2.3 vs 2.1/1000 ICU-attributable days) and 0.99 for mupirocin-CHG (raw rate: 2.0 vs 2.0/1000 ICU-attributable days) (HR difference in differences significantly lower by 14.1% [95% CI, 3.7%-25.5%] for mupirocin-CHG, P = .007). For all-pathogen bloodstream infections, HRs were 1.00 (2.7 vs 2.7/1000) for iodophor-CHG and 1.01 (2.6 vs 2.6/1000) for mupirocin-CHG (nonsignificant HR difference in differences, -0.9% [95% CI, -9.0% to 8.0%]; P = .84). Compared with the 2009-2011 trial, the 30-day relative reduction in hazards in the mupirocin-CHG group relative to no decolonization (2009-2011 trial) were as follows: S aureus clinical cultures (current trial: 48.1% [95% CI, 35.6%-60.1%]; 2009-2011 trial: 58.8% [95% CI, 47.5%-70.7%]) and bloodstream infection rates (current trial: 70.4% [95% CI, 62.9%-77.8%]; 2009-2011 trial: 60.1% [95% CI, 49.1%-70.7%])., Conclusions and Relevance: Nasal iodophor antiseptic did not meet criteria to be considered noninferior to nasal mupirocin antibiotic for the outcome of S aureus clinical cultures in adult ICU patients in the context of daily CHG bathing. In addition, the results were consistent with nasal iodophor being inferior to nasal mupirocin., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03140423.

Importance: Characterizing the scale and factors associated with hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infections could help inform hospital and public health policies regarding prevention and surveillance needs for these infections., Objective: To evaluate associations of hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection rates with different periods of the COVID-19 pandemic, hospital characteristics, and testing practices., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of US hospitals reporting SARS-CoV-2 testing data in the PINC AI Healthcare Database COVID-19 special release files was conducted from July 2020 through June 2022. Data were collected from hospitals that reported at least 1 SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction or antigen test during hospitalizations discharged that month. For each hospital-month where the hospital reported sufficient data, all hospitalizations discharged in that month were included in the cohort. SARS-CoV-2 viral tests and results reported in the microbiology files for all hospitalizations in the study period by discharge month were identified. Data analysis was conducted from September 2022 to March 2023., Exposure: Hospitalizations discharged in an included hospital-month., Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariable generalized estimating equation negative-binomial regression models were used to assess associations of monthly rates of hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infections per 1000 patient-days (defined as a first positive SARS-CoV-2 test during after hospitalization day 7) with the phase of the pandemic (defined as the predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant in circulation), admission testing rates, and hospital characteristics (hospital bed size, teaching status, urban vs rural designation, Census region, and patient distribution variables)., Results: A total of 5687 hospital-months from 288 distinct hospitals were included, which contributed 4 421 268 hospitalization records. Among 171 564 hospitalizations with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, 7591 (4.4%) were found to be hospital onset and 6455 (3.8%) were indeterminate onset. The mean monthly hospital-onset infection rate per 1000 patient-days was 0.27 (95 CI, 0.26-0.29). Hospital-onset infections occurred in 2217 of 5687 hospital-months (39.0%). The monthly percentage of discharged patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at admission varied; 1673 hospital-months (29.4%) had less than 25% of hospitalizations tested at admission; 2199 hospital-months (38.7%) had 25% to 50% of all hospitalizations tested, and 1815 hospital months (31.9%) had more than 50% of all hospitalizations tested at admission. Postadmission testing rates and community-onset infection rates increased with admission testing rates. In multivariable models restricted to hospital-months testing at least 25% of hospitalizations at admission, a 10% increase in community-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was associated with a 178% increase in the hospital-onset infection rate (rate ratio, 2.78; 95% CI, 2.52-3.07). Additionally, the phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, the admission testing rate, Census region, and bed size were all significantly associated with hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection rates., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of hospitals reporting SARS-CoV-2 infections, there was an increase of hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infections when community-onset infections were higher, indicating a need for ongoing and enhanced surveillance and prevention efforts to reduce in-hospital transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infections, particularly when community-incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections is high.

Among nursing home outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with ≥3 breakthrough infections when the predominant severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant circulating was the SARS-CoV-2 δ (delta) variant, fully vaccinated residents were 28% less likely to be infected than were unvaccinated residents. Once infected, they had approximately half the risk for all-cause hospitalization and all-cause death compared with unvaccinated infected residents.

One in six nursing home residents and staff with positive SARS-CoV-2 tests ≥90 days after initial infection had specimen cycle thresholds (Ct) <30. Individuals with specimen Ct<30 were more likely to report symptoms but were not different from individuals with high Ct value specimens by other clinical and testing data.

Background: Descriptions of changes in invasive bacterial disease (IBD) epidemiology during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States are limited., Methods: We investigated changes in the incidence of IBD due to Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, group A Streptococcus (GAS), and group B Streptococcus (GBS). We defined the COVID-19 pandemic period as 1 March to 31 December 2020. We compared observed IBD incidences during the pandemic to expected incidences, consistent with January 2014 to February 2020 trends. We conducted secondary analysis of a health care database to assess changes in testing by blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) culture during the pandemic., Results: Compared with expected incidences, the observed incidences of IBD due to S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, GAS, and GBS were 58%, 60%, 28%, and 12% lower during the pandemic period of 2020, respectively. Declines from expected incidences corresponded closely with implementation of COVID-19-associated nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). Significant declines were observed across all age and race groups, and surveillance sites for S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae. Blood and CSF culture testing rates during the pandemic were comparable to previous years., Conclusions: NPIs likely contributed to the decline in IBD incidence in the United States in 2020; observed declines were unlikely to be driven by reductions in testing., Competing Interests: Presented in part: 12th International Symposium on Pneumococci and Pneumococcal Diseases, Toronto, Canada, 19-23 June., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2023.)

SARS-CoV-2 infections among vaccinated nursing home residents increased after the Omicron variant emerged. Data on booster dose effectiveness in this population are limited. During July 2021-March 2022, nursing home outbreaks in 11 US jurisdictions involving >3 infections within 14 days among residents who had received at least the primary COVID-19 vaccine(s) were monitored. Among 2,188 nursing homes, 1,247 outbreaks were reported in the periods of Delta (n = 356, 29%), mixed Delta/Omicron (n = 354, 28%), and Omicron (n = 536, 43%) predominance. During the Omicron-predominant period, the risk for infection within 14 days of an outbreak start was lower among boosted residents than among residents who had received the primary vaccine series alone (risk ratio [RR] 0.25, 95% CI 0.19-0.33). Once infected, boosted residents were at lower risk for all-cause hospitalization (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.40-0.49) and death (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34-0.59) than primary vaccine-only residents.

Objectives: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic caused substantial changes to healthcare delivery and antibiotic prescribing beginning in March 2020. To assess pandemic impact on Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) rates, we described patients and trends in facility-level incidence, testing rates, and percent positivity during 2019-2020 in a large cohort of US hospitals., Methods: We estimated and compared rates of community-onset CDI (CO-CDI) per 10,000 discharges, hospital-onset CDI (HO-CDI) per 10,000 patient days, and C. difficile testing rates per 10,000 discharges in 2019 and 2020. We calculated percent positivity as the number of inpatients diagnosed with CDI over the total number of discharges with a test for C. difficile . We used an interrupted time series (ITS) design with negative binomial and logistic regression models to describe level and trend changes in rates and percent positivity before and after March 2020., Results: In pairwise comparisons, overall CO-CDI rates decreased from 20.0 to 15.8 between 2019 and 2020 ( P < .0001). HO-CDI rates did not change. Using ITS, we detected decreasing monthly trends in CO-CDI (-1% per month, P = .0036) and HO-CDI incidence (-1% per month, P < .0001) during the baseline period, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic declaration. We detected no change in monthly trends for CO-CDI or HO-CDI incidence or percent positivity after March 2020 compared with the baseline period., Conclusions: While there was a slight downward trajectory in CDI trends prior to March 2020, no significant change in CDI trends occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic despite changes in infection control practices, antibiotic use, and healthcare delivery.

Introduction of monovalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in late 2020 helped to mitigate disproportionate COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality in U.S. nursing homes (1); however, reduced effectiveness of monovalent vaccines during the period of Omicron variant predominance led to recommendations for booster doses with bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that include an Omicron BA.4/BA.5 spike protein component to broaden immune response and improve vaccine effectiveness against circulating Omicron variants (2). Recent studies suggest that bivalent booster doses provide substantial additional protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19-associated disease among immunocompetent adults who previously received only monovalent vaccines (3).* The immunologic response after receipt of bivalent boosters among nursing home residents, who often mount poor immunologic responses to vaccines, remains unknown. Serial testing of anti-spike protein antibody binding and neutralizing antibody titers in serum collected from 233 long-stay nursing home residents from the time of their primary vaccination series and including any subsequent booster doses, including the bivalent vaccine, was performed. The bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccine substantially increased anti-spike and neutralizing antibody titers against Omicron sublineages, including BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5, irrespective of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or previous receipt of 1 or 2 booster doses. These data, in combination with evidence of low uptake of bivalent booster vaccination among residents and staff members in nursing homes (4), support the recommendation that nursing home residents and staff members receive a bivalent COVID-19 booster dose to reduce associated morbidity and mortality (2)., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Stefan Gravenstein and David H. Canaday are recipients of support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and investigator-initiated grants to their universities from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to study influenza vaccine and COVID-19 in the nursing home, Pfizer to study pneumococcal vaccines, and from Sanofi Pasteur and Seqirus to study influenza vaccines. Stefan Gravenstein also performs consulting work for Janssen, Merck, Moderna, Novavax, Pfizer, Sanofi, Seqirus, and Vaxart; has served on the speaker’s bureaus for Seqirus and Sanofi; and was paid to chair data safety monitoring boards from Longeveron and SciClone. David H. Canaday has performed consulting work for Seqirus. Elizabeth M. White reports support from the National Institute on Aging, and membership on the Society for Post-acute and Long-term Care Medicine Workforce Development Committee and on the John Hartford Foundation Moving Forward Coalition Workforce Committee. Jürgen Bosch is the cofounder and Chief Executive Officer of InterRayBio, LLC. Yi Cao, Kerri St. Denis, and Alejandro B. Balazs report support from the Ragon Institute of Massachusetts General Hospital, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard University for equipment used in the current study. Kevin W. McConeghy reports grant support from Sanofi-Pasteur, Sequirus Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, and Janssen, unrelated to the current work. Eleftherios Mylonakis reports institutional support from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, NIAID, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Regeneron, Pfizer, Chemic lags/KODA therapeutics, Cidara, the National Cancer Institute, and SciClone Pharmaceuticals, and receipt of consulting fees from Basilea Pharmaceutica International, Ltd. Christopher L. King reports National Cancer Institute support for Early Drivers of Humoral Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 Infections. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

The disruptions of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impacted the delivery and utilization of healthcare services with potential long-term implications for population health and the hospital workforce. Using electronic health record data from over 700 US acute care hospitals, we documented changes in admissions to hospital service areas (inpatient, observation, emergency room [ER], and same-day surgery) during 2019-2020 and examined whether surges of COVID-19 hospitalizations corresponded with increased inpatient disease severity and death rate. We found that in 2020, hospitalizations declined by 50% in April, with greatest declines occurring in same-day surgery (-73%). The youngest patients (0-17) experienced largest declines in ER, observation, and same-day surgery admissions; inpatient admissions declined the most among the oldest patients (65+). Infectious disease admissions increased by 52%. The monthly measures of inpatient case mix index, length of stay, and non-COVID death rate were higher in all months in 2020 compared with respective months in 2019., (Published 2022. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Journal of Hospital Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Hospital Medicine.)

A SARS-CoV-2 P.1 (Gamma) variant outbreak occurred at a skilled nursing facility in Washington, USA, in April 2021. Effectiveness of 2 doses of mRNA vaccines against P.1 infection among residents in this outbreak was 75.0% (95% CI 44.5%-88.7%), similar to effectiveness for other pre-Delta variants among long-term care residents.

We described bacterial/fungal coinfections and antibiotic-resistant infections among inpatients with a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and compared findings in those with a diagnosis of influenza like illness. Less than 10% of inpatients with COVID-19 had bacterial/fungal coinfection. Longer lengths of stay, critical care stay, and mechanical ventilation contribute to increased incidence of hospital-onset infections among inpatients with COVID-19., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. All authors: No reported 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., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2022.)

Nursing home residents continue to experience significant COVID-19 morbidity and mortality (1). On March 29, 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended a second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster dose for adults aged ≥50 years and all immunocompromised persons who had received a first booster ≥4 months earlier.* On September 1, 2022, ACIP voted to recommend bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine boosters for all persons aged ≥12 years who had completed the primary series using monovalent vaccines ≥2 months earlier (2). Data on COVID-19 booster dose vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the nursing home population are limited (3). For this analysis, academic, federal, and private partners evaluated routine care data collected from 196 U.S. community nursing homes to estimate VE of a second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster dose among nursing home residents who had received 3 previous COVID-19 vaccine doses (2 primary series doses and 1 booster dose). Residents who received second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster doses during March 29-June 15, 2022, with follow-up through July 25, 2022, were found to have 60-day VE of 25.8% against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19 infection), 73.9% against severe COVID-19 outcomes (a combined endpoint of COVID-19-associated hospitalizations or deaths), and 89.6% against COVID-19-associated deaths alone. During this period, subvariants BA.2 and BA.2.12.1 (March-June 2022), and BA.4 and BA.5 (July 2022) of the B.1.1.529 and BA.2 (Omicron) variant were predominant. These findings suggest that among nursing home residents, second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster doses provided additional protection over first booster doses against severe COVID-19 outcomes during a time of emerging Omicron variants. Facilities should continue to ensure that nursing home residents remain up to date with COVID-19 vaccination, including bivalent vaccine booster doses, to prevent severe COVID-19 outcomes., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Kevin W. McConeghy, Stefan Gravenstein, and Andrew R. Zullo have received investigator-initiated support from Sanofi-Pasteur, Seqirus, and Pfizer Inc. for other non–COVID-19 vaccine-related work. Dr. Zullo was also supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Vincent Mor reports support from the National Institute on Aging, serves as chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee at naviHealth, Inc., was former chair of the Independent Quality Committee at HCR ManorCare, is the former director of PointRight Inc, where he holds less than 1% equity, and received personal fees from naviHealth, Inc., outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

During July-August 2021, a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak involving 21 residents (all fully vaccinated) and 10 staff (9 fully vaccinated) occurred in a Connecticut nursing home. The outbreak was likely initiated by a fully vaccinated staff member and propagated by fully vaccinated persons. Prior COVID-19 was protective among vaccinated residents., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021.)

Previously reported associations between hospital-level antibiotic use and hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infection (HO-CDI) were reexamined using 2012-2018 data from a new cohort of US acute-care hospitals. This analysis revealed significant positive associations between total, third-generation, and fourth-generation cephalosporin, fluoroquinolone, carbapenem, and piperacillin-tazobactam use and HO-CDI rates, confirming previous findings.

Replication-competent virus has not been detected in individuals with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) more than 10 days after symptom onset. It is unknown whether these findings apply to nursing home residents. Of 273 specimens collected from nursing home residents >10 days from the initial positive test, none were culture positive., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021.)

Nursing home and long-term care facility residents live in congregate settings and are often elderly and frail, putting them at high risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and severe COVID-19-associated outcomes; therefore, this population was prioritized for early vaccination in the United States (1). Following rapid distribution and administration of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) under an Emergency Use Authorization by the Food and Drug Administration (2), observational studies among nursing home residents demonstrated vaccine effectiveness (VE) ranging from 53% to 92% against SARS-CoV-2 infection (3-6). However, concerns about the potential for waning vaccine-induced immunity and the recent emergence of the highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant † highlight the need to continue to monitor VE (7). Weekly data reported by the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare (CMS)-certified skilled nursing facilities or nursing homes to CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) § were analyzed to evaluate effectiveness of full vaccination (2 doses received ≥14 days earlier) with any of the two currently authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines during the period soon after vaccine introduction and before the Delta variant was circulating (pre-Delta [March 1-May 9, 2021]), and when the Delta variant predominated ¶ (Delta [June 21-August 1, 2021]). Using 17,407 weekly reports from 3,862 facilities from the pre-Delta period, adjusted effectiveness against infection for any mRNA vaccine was 74.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 70.0%-78.8%). Analysis using 33,160 weekly reports from 11,581 facilities during an intermediate period (May 10-June 20) found that the adjusted effectiveness was 67.5% (95% CI = 60.1%-73.5%). Analysis using 85,593 weekly reports from 14,917 facilities during the Delta period found that the adjusted effectiveness was 53.1% (95% CI = 49.1%-56.7%). Effectiveness estimates were similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. These findings indicate that mRNA vaccines provide protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection among nursing home residents; however, VE was lower after the Delta variant became the predominant circulating strain in the United States. This analysis assessed VE against any infection, without being able to distinguish between asymptomatic and symptomatic presentations. Additional evaluations are needed to understand protection against severe disease in nursing home residents over time. Because nursing home residents might remain at some risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection despite vaccination, multiple COVID-19 prevention strategies, including infection control, testing, and vaccination of nursing home staff members, residents, and visitors, are critical. An additional dose of COVID-19 vaccine might be considered for nursing home and long-term care facility residents to optimize a protective immune response., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Background: Identifying asymptomatic individuals early through serial testing is recommended to control coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in nursing homes, both in response to an outbreak ("outbreak testing" of residents and healthcare personnel) and in facilities without outbreaks ("nonoutbreak testing" of healthcare personnel). The effectiveness of outbreak testing and isolation with or without nonoutbreak testing was evaluated., Methods: Using published SARS-CoV-2 transmission parameters, the fraction of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions prevented through serial testing (weekly, every 3 days, or daily) and isolation of asymptomatic persons compared with symptom-based testing and isolation was evaluated through mathematical modeling using a Reed-Frost model to estimate the percentage of cases prevented (ie, "effectiveness") through either outbreak testing alone or outbreak plus nonoutbreak testing. The potential effect of simultaneous decreases (by 10%) in the effectiveness of isolating infected individuals when instituting testing strategies was also evaluated., Results: Modeling suggests that outbreak testing could prevent 54% (weekly testing with 48-hour test turnaround) to 92% (daily testing with immediate results and 50% relative sensitivity) of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Adding nonoutbreak testing could prevent up to an additional 8% of SARS-CoV-2 infections (depending on test frequency and turnaround time). However, added benefits of nonoutbreak testing were mostly negated if accompanied by decreases in infection control practice., Conclusions: When combined with high-quality infection control practices, outbreak testing could be an effective approach to preventing COVID-19 in nursing homes, particularly if optimized through increased test frequency and use of tests with rapid turnaround., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021.)

Background and aims The COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant changes in healthcare delivery. In response to these changes, patients have increasingly reduced healthcare utilization in several ways, such as medication compliance, cancer screenings, and routine wellness appointments. This study aims to quantify patient adherence rates to routine and symptom indicated colonoscopies during the COVID-19 and to assess patient medication compliance and utilization of healthcare facilities. Methods A cross-sectional study was performed at a single-center internal medicine clinic from January 2021 to April 2021. A 28-item survey was administered to patients to evaluate for adherence rates to routine and symptom indicated colonoscopies. Patients were also evaluated for rates of healthcare facility usage and medication compliance. Results Among 103 participants, 30.8% of patients who were due for routine colonoscopy either missed, refused, or rescheduled, while 16.7% of patients did so for symptom indicated colonoscopies. Nearly all respondents (94.2%) reported no change to medication compliance when compared to pre-COVID. A significant portion (36.9%) of patients reported missing a healthcare appointment at some point during the pandemic, and of the respondents who felt sick enough to visit the emergency department, 23.1% decided not to go. Conclusions During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients are deferring colorectal cancer surveillance, reducing the usage of acute care facilities, and missing routine healthcare appointments. It is important for providers to address the risks and benefits of delaying colorectal cancer screenings as well as identify physical and psychosocial barriers to patient utilization of both acute and chronic healthcare facilities. As COVID-19 restrictions inevitably continue to ease, medical providers should be aware of these potential lapses in cancer screenings and healthcare visits and be vigilant in catching patients up on their preventative health screenings., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2021, Mason et al.)

Background: To address high COVID-19 burden in U.S. nursing homes, rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests have been widely distributed in those facilities. However, performance data are lacking, especially in asymptomatic people., Objective: To evaluate the performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing when used for facility-wide testing during a nursing home outbreak., Design: A prospective evaluation involving 3 facility-wide rounds of testing where paired respiratory specimens were collected to evaluate the performance of the BinaxNOW antigen test compared with virus culture and real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Early and late infection were defined using changes in RT-PCR cycle threshold values and prior test results., Setting: A nursing home with an ongoing SARS-CoV-2 outbreak., Participants: 532 paired specimens collected from 234 available residents and staff., Measurements: Percentage of positive agreement (PPA) and percentage of negative agreement (PNA) for BinaxNOW compared with RT-PCR and virus culture., Results: BinaxNOW PPA with virus culture, used for detection of replication-competent virus, was 95%. However, the overall PPA of antigen testing with RT-PCR was 69%, and PNA was 98%. When only the first positive test result was analyzed for each participant, PPA of antigen testing with RT-PCR was 82% among 45 symptomatic people and 52% among 343 asymptomatic people. Compared with RT-PCR and virus culture, the BinaxNOW test performed well in early infection (86% and 95%, respectively) and poorly in late infection (51% and no recovered virus, respectively)., Limitation: Accurate symptom ascertainment was challenging in nursing home residents; test performance may not be representative of testing done by nonlaboratory staff., Conclusion: Despite lower positive agreement compared with RT-PCR, antigen test positivity had higher agreement with shedding of replication-competent virus. These results suggest that antigen testing could be a useful tool to rapidly identify contagious people at risk for transmitting SARS-CoV-2 during nascent outbreaks and help reduce COVID-19 burden in nursing homes., Primary Funding Source: None.

Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs), particularly those in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), have experienced disproportionately high levels of COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality and were prioritized for early COVID-19 vaccination (1,2). However, this group was not included in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, and limited postauthorization vaccine effectiveness (VE) data are available for this critical population (3). It is not known how well COVID-19 vaccines protect SNF residents, who typically are more medically frail, are older, and have more underlying medical conditions than the general population (1). In addition, immunogenicity of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was found to be lower in adults aged 65-85 years than in younger adults (4). Through the CDC Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program, SNF residents and staff members in Connecticut began receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on December 18, 2020 (5). Administration of the vaccine was conducted during several on-site pharmacy clinics. In late January 2021, the Connecticut Department of Public Health (CT DPH) identified two SNFs experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks among residents and staff members that occurred after each facility's first vaccination clinic. CT DPH, in partnership with CDC, performed electronic chart review in these facilities to obtain information on resident vaccination status and infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Partial vaccination, defined as the period from >14 days after the first dose through 7 days after the second dose, had an estimated effectiveness of 63% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 33%-79%) against SARS-CoV-2 infection (regardless of symptoms) among residents within these SNFs. This is similar to estimated effectiveness for a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adults across a range of age groups in noncongregate settings (6) and suggests that to optimize vaccine impact among this population, high coverage with the complete 2-dose series should be recommended for SNF residents and staff members., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Background: Effective halting of outbreaks in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) depends on the earliest recognition of cases. We assessed confirmed COVID-19 cases at an SNF impacted by COVID-19 in the United States to identify early indications of COVID-19 infection., Methods: We performed retrospective reviews of electronic health records for residents with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 during February 28-March 16, 2020. Records were abstracted for comorbidities, signs and symptoms, and illness outcomes during the 2 weeks before and after the date of positive specimen collection. Relative risks (RRs) of hospitalization and death were calculated., Results: Of the 118 residents tested among approximately 130 residents from Facility A during February 28-March 16, 2020, 101 (86%) were found to test positive for SARS-CoV-2. At initial presentation, about two-thirds of SARS-CoV-2-positive residents had an abnormal vital sign or change in oxygen status. Most (90.2%) symptomatic residents had elevated temperature, change in mental status, lethargy, change in oxygen status, or cough; 9 (11.0%) did not have fever, cough, or shortness of breath during their clinical course. Those with change in oxygen status had an increased relative risk (RR) of 30-day mortality [51.1% vs 29.7%, RR 1.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-3.0]. RR of hospitalization was higher for residents with underlying hepatic disease (1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.2) or obesity (1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.1); RR of death was not statistically significant., Conclusions and Implications: Our findings reinforce the critical role that monitoring of signs and symptoms can have in identifying COVID-19 cases early. SNFs should ensure they have a systematic approach for responding to abnormal vital signs and oxygen saturation and consider ensuring common signs and symptoms identified in Facility A are among those they monitor., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Treating patients with infections due to multidrug-resistant pathogens often requires substantial healthcare resources. The purpose of this study was to report estimates of the healthcare costs associated with infections due to multidrug-resistant bacteria in the United States (US)., Methods: We performed retrospective cohort studies of patients admitted for inpatient stays in the Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare system between January 2007 and October 2015. We performed multivariable generalized linear models to estimate the attributable cost by comparing outcomes in patients with and without positive cultures for multidrug-resistant bacteria. Finally, we multiplied these pathogen-specific, per-infection attributable cost estimates by national counts of infections due to each pathogen from patients hospitalized in a cohort of 722 US hospitals from 2017 to generate estimates of the population-level healthcare costs in the US attributable to these infections., Results: Our analysis cohort consisted of 16 676 patients with community-onset infections and 172 712 matched controls and 8246 patients with hospital-onset infections and 66 939 matched controls. The highest cost was seen in hospital-onset invasive infections, with attributable costs (95% confidence intervals) ranging from $30 998 ($25 272-$36 724) for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus to $74 306 ($20 377-$128 235) for carbapenem-resistant (CR) Acinetobacter. The highest attributable costs for community-onset invasive infections were seen in CR Acinetobacter ($62 396; $20 370-$104 422). Treatment of these infections cost an estimated $4.6 billion ($4.1 billion-$5.1 billion) in 2017 in the US for community- and hospital-onset infections combined., Conclusions: We found that antimicrobial-resistant infections led to substantial healthcare costs., (© 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: Rises in the incidence of bacterial infections, such as infective endocarditis (IE), have been reported in conjunction with the opioid crisis. However, recent trends for IE and other serious infections among persons with substance use disorders (SUDs) are unknown., Methods: Using the Premier Healthcare Database, we identified hospitalizations from 2012 through 2017 among adults with primary discharge diagnoses of bacterial infections and secondary SUD diagnoses, using International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification Ninth and Tenth Revision codes. We calculated annual rates of infections with SUD diagnoses and evaluated temporal trends. Blood and cardiac tissue specimens were identified from IE hospitalizations to describe the microbiology distribution and temporal trends among hospitalizations with and without SUDs., Results: Among 72 481 weighted IE admissions recorded, SUD diagnoses increased from 19.9% in 2012 to 39.4% in 2017 (P < .0001). Hospitalizations with SUDs increased from 1.1 to 2.1 per 100 000 persons for IE, 1.4 to 2.4 per 100 000 persons for osteomyelitis, 0.5 to 0.9 per 100 000 persons for central nervous system abscesses, and 24.4 to 32.9 per 100 000 persons for skin and soft tissue infections. For adults aged 18-44 years, IE-SUD hospitalizations more than doubled, from 1.6 in 2012 to 3.6 in 2017 per 100 000 persons. Among all IE-SUD hospitalizations, 50.3% had a Staphylococcus aureus infection, compared with 19.4% of IE hospitalizations without SUDs., Conclusions: Rates of hospitalization for serious infections among persons with SUDs are increasing, driven primarily by younger age groups. The differences in the microbiology of IE hospitalizations suggest that SUDs are changing the epidemiology of these infections., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2020.)

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can spread rapidly in high-risk congregate settings such as skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) (1). In Minnesota, SNF-associated cases accounted for 3,950 (8%) of 48,711 COVID-19 cases reported through July 21, 2020; 35% of SNF-associated cases involved health care personnel (HCP*), including six deaths. Facility-wide, serial testing in SNFs has been used to identify residents with asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection to inform mitigation efforts, including cohorting of residents with positive test results and exclusion of infected HCP from the workplace (2,3). During April-June 2020, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), with CDC assistance, conducted weekly serial testing at two SNFs experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks. Among 259 tested residents, and 341 tested HCP, 64% and 33%, respectively, had positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) SARS-CoV-2 test results. Continued SARS-CoV-2 transmission was potentially facilitated by lapses in infection prevention and control (IPC) practices, up to 12-day delays in receiving HCP test results (53%) at one facility, and incomplete HCP participation (71%). Genetic sequencing demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 viral genomes from HCP and resident specimens were clustered by facility, suggesting facility-based transmission. Residents and HCP working in SNFs are at risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2. As part of comprehensive COVID-19 preparation and response, including early identification of cases, SNFs should conduct serial testing of residents and HCP, maximize HCP testing participation, ensure availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), and enhance IPC practices † (4-5)., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can spread rapidly in nursing homes once it is introduced (1,2). To prevent outbreaks, more data are needed to identify sources of introduction and means of transmission within nursing homes. Nursing home residents who receive hemodialysis (dialysis) might be at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infections because of their frequent exposures outside the nursing home to both community dialysis patients and staff members at dialysis centers (3). Investigation of a COVID-19 outbreak in a Maryland nursing home (facility A) identified a higher prevalence of infection among residents undergoing dialysis (47%; 15 of 32) than among those not receiving dialysis (16%; 22 of 138) (p<0.001). Among residents with COVID-19, the 30-day hospitalization rate among those receiving dialysis (53%) was higher than that among residents not receiving dialysis (18%) (p = 0.03); the proportion of dialysis patients who died was 40% compared with those who did not receive dialysis (27%) (p = 0.42).Careful consideration of infection control practices throughout the dialysis process (e.g., transportation, time spent in waiting areas, spacing of machines, and cohorting), clear communication between nursing homes and dialysis centers, and coordination of testing practices between these sites are critical to preventing COVID-19 outbreaks in this medically vulnerable population., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Undetected infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) contributes to transmission in nursing homes, settings where large outbreaks with high resident mortality have occurred (1,2). Facility-wide testing of residents and health care personnel (HCP) can identify asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections and facilitate infection prevention and control interventions (3-5). Seven state or local health departments conducted initial facility-wide testing of residents and staff members in 288 nursing homes during March 24-June 14, 2020. Two of the seven health departments conducted testing in 195 nursing homes as part of facility-wide testing all nursing homes in their state, which were in low-incidence areas (i.e., the median preceding 14-day cumulative incidence in the surrounding county for each jurisdiction was 19 and 38 cases per 100,000 persons); 125 of the 195 nursing homes had not reported any COVID-19 cases before the testing. Ninety-five of 22,977 (0.4%) persons tested in 29 (23%) of these 125 facilities had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. The other five health departments targeted facility-wide testing to 93 nursing homes, where 13,443 persons were tested, and 1,619 (12%) had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. In regression analyses among 88 of these nursing homes with a documented case before facility-wide testing occurred, each additional day between identification of the first case and completion of facility-wide testing was associated with identification of 1.3 additional cases. Among 62 facilities that could differentiate results by resident and HCP status, an estimated 1.3 HCP cases were identified for every three resident cases. Performing facility-wide testing immediately after identification of a case commonly identifies additional unrecognized cases and, therefore, might maximize the benefits of infection prevention and control interventions. In contrast, facility-wide testing in low-incidence areas without a case has a lower proportion of test positivity; strategies are needed to further optimize testing in these settings., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Kayla Donohue reports full-time employment at United Way of Northwest Vermont with temporary assignment to COVID-19 response at the Vermont Department of Health, which supported her work related to this publication. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Importance: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused epidemic spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the Seattle, Washington, metropolitan area, with morbidity and mortality concentrated among residents of skilled nursing facilities. The prevalence of COVID-19 among older adults in independent/assisted living is not understood., Objectives: To conduct surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 and describe symptoms of COVID-19 among residents and staff of an independent/assisted living community., Design, Setting, and Participants: In March 2020, public health surveillance of staff and residents was conducted on site at an assisted and independent living residence for older adults in Seattle, Washington, after exposure to 2 residents who were hospitalized with COVID-19., Exposures: Surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a congregate setting implementing social isolation and infection prevention protocols., Main Outcomes and Measures: SARS-CoV-2 real-time polymerase chain reaction was performed on nasopharyngeal swabs from residents and staff; a symptom questionnaire was completed assessing fever, cough, and other symptoms for the preceding 14 days. Residents were retested for SARS-CoV-2 7 days after initial screening., Results: Testing was performed on 80 residents; 62 were women (77%), with mean age of 86 (range, 69-102) years. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 3 of 80 residents (3.8%); none felt ill, 1 male resident reported resolved cough and 1 loose stool during the preceding 14 days. Virus was also detected in 2 of 62 staff (3.2%); both were symptomatic. One week later, resident SARS-CoV-2 testing was repeated and 1 new infection detected (asymptomatic). All residents remained in isolation and were clinically stable 14 days after the second test., Conclusions and Relevance: Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic residents highlights challenges in protecting older adults living in congregate settings. In this study, symptom screening failed to identify residents with infections and all 4 residents with SARS-CoV-2 remained asymptomatic after 14 days. Although 1 asymptomatic infection was found on retesting, a widespread facility outbreak was avoided. Compared with skilled nursing settings, in assisted/independent living communities, early surveillance to identify asymptomatic persons among residents and staff, in combination with adherence to recommended preventive strategies, may reduce viral spread.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can spread rapidly within skilled nursing facilities. After identification of a case of Covid-19 in a skilled nursing facility, we assessed transmission and evaluated the adequacy of symptom-based screening to identify infections in residents., Methods: We conducted two serial point-prevalence surveys, 1 week apart, in which assenting residents of the facility underwent nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal testing for SARS-CoV-2, including real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), viral culture, and sequencing. Symptoms that had been present during the preceding 14 days were recorded. Asymptomatic residents who tested positive were reassessed 7 days later. Residents with SARS-CoV-2 infection were categorized as symptomatic with typical symptoms (fever, cough, or shortness of breath), symptomatic with only atypical symptoms, presymptomatic, or asymptomatic., Results: Twenty-three days after the first positive test result in a resident at this skilled nursing facility, 57 of 89 residents (64%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Among 76 residents who participated in point-prevalence surveys, 48 (63%) tested positive. Of these 48 residents, 27 (56%) were asymptomatic at the time of testing; 24 subsequently developed symptoms (median time to onset, 4 days). Samples from these 24 presymptomatic residents had a median rRT-PCR cycle threshold value of 23.1, and viable virus was recovered from 17 residents. As of April 3, of the 57 residents with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 11 had been hospitalized (3 in the intensive care unit) and 15 had died (mortality, 26%). Of the 34 residents whose specimens were sequenced, 27 (79%) had sequences that fit into two clusters with a difference of one nucleotide., Conclusions: Rapid and widespread transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was demonstrated in this skilled nursing facility. More than half of residents with positive test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing and most likely contributed to transmission. Infection-control strategies focused solely on symptomatic residents were not sufficient to prevent transmission after SARS-CoV-2 introduction into this facility., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Long-term care facilities are high-risk settings for severe outcomes from outbreaks of Covid-19, owing to both the advanced age and frequent chronic underlying health conditions of the residents and the movement of health care personnel among facilities in a region., Methods: After identification on February 28, 2020, of a confirmed case of Covid-19 in a skilled nursing facility in King County, Washington, Public Health-Seattle and King County, aided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, launched a case investigation, contact tracing, quarantine of exposed persons, isolation of confirmed and suspected cases, and on-site enhancement of infection prevention and control., Results: As of March 18, a total of 167 confirmed cases of Covid-19 affecting 101 residents, 50 health care personnel, and 16 visitors were found to be epidemiologically linked to the facility. Most cases among residents included respiratory illness consistent with Covid-19; however, in 7 residents no symptoms were documented. Hospitalization rates for facility residents, visitors, and staff were 54.5%, 50.0%, and 6.0%, respectively. The case fatality rate for residents was 33.7% (34 of 101). As of March 18, a total of 30 long-term care facilities with at least one confirmed case of Covid-19 had been identified in King County., Conclusions: In the context of rapidly escalating Covid-19 outbreaks, proactive steps by long-term care facilities to identify and exclude potentially infected staff and visitors, actively monitor for potentially infected patients, and implement appropriate infection prevention and control measures are needed to prevent the introduction of Covid-19., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

In the Seattle, Washington metropolitan area, where the first case of novel coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) in the United States was reported (1), a community-level outbreak is ongoing with evidence of rapid spread and high morbidity and mortality among older adults in long-term care skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) (2,3). However, COVID-19 morbidity among residents of senior independent and assisted living communities, in which residents do not live as closely together as do residents in SNFs and do not require skilled nursing services, has not been described. During March 5-9, 2020, two residents of a senior independent and assisted living community in Seattle (facility 1) were hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 infection; on March 6, social distancing and other preventive measures were implemented in the community. UW Medicine (the health system linked to the University of Washington), Public Health - Seattle & King County, and CDC conducted an investigation at the facility. On March 10, all residents and staff members at facility 1 were tested for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and asked to complete a questionnaire about their symptoms; all residents were tested again 7 days later. Among 142 residents and staff members tested during the initial phase, three of 80 residents (3.8%) and two of 62 staff members (3.2%) had positive test results. The three residents had no symptoms at the time of testing, although one reported an earlier cough that had resolved. A fourth resident, who had negative test results in the initial phase, had positive test results 7 days later. This resident was asymptomatic on both days. Possible explanations for so few cases of COVID-19 in this residential community compared with those in several Seattle SNFs with high morbidity and mortality include more social distancing among residents and less contact with health care providers. In addition, early implementation of stringent isolation and protective measures after identification of two COVID-19 cases might have been effective in minimizing spread of the virus in this type of setting. When investigating a potential outbreak of COVID-19 in senior independent and assisted living communities, symptom screening is unlikely to be sufficient to identify all persons infected with SARS-CoV-2. Adherence to CDC guidance to prevent COVID-19 transmission in senior independent and assisted living communities (4) could be instrumental in preventing a facility outbreak., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Alexander L. Greninger reports personal fees from Abbott Molecular outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Older adults are susceptible to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes as a consequence of their age and, in some cases, underlying health conditions (1). A COVID-19 outbreak in a long-term care skilled nursing facility (SNF) in King County, Washington that was first identified on February 28, 2020, highlighted the potential for rapid spread among residents of these types of facilities (2). On March 1, a health care provider at a second long-term care skilled nursing facility (facility A) in King County, Washington, had a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, after working while symptomatic on February 26 and 28. By March 6, seven residents of this second facility were symptomatic and had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2. On March 13, CDC performed symptom assessments and SARS-CoV-2 testing for 76 (93%) of the 82 facility A residents to evaluate the utility of symptom screening for identification of COVID-19 in SNF residents. Residents were categorized as asymptomatic or symptomatic at the time of testing, based on the absence or presence of fever, cough, shortness of breath, or other symptoms on the day of testing or during the preceding 14 days. Among 23 (30%) residents with positive test results, 10 (43%) had symptoms on the date of testing, and 13 (57%) were asymptomatic. Seven days after testing, 10 of these 13 previously asymptomatic residents had developed symptoms and were recategorized as presymptomatic at the time of testing. The reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing cycle threshold (Ct) values indicated large quantities of viral RNA in asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic residents, suggesting the potential for transmission regardless of symptoms. Symptom-based screening in SNFs could fail to identify approximately half of residents with COVID-19. Long-term care facilities should take proactive steps to prevent introduction of SARS-CoV-2 (3). Once a confirmed case is identified in an SNF, all residents should be placed on isolation precautions if possible (3), with considerations for extended use or reuse of personal protective equipment (PPE) as needed (4)., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.