To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
A pseudo-outbreak of bronchoscopy-associated Mycobacterium chelonae and M. mucogenicum was traced to contaminated ice machine water and ice. A nonsterile ice bath was used to cool uncapped, sterile, saline syringes used to slow procedural bleeding. Joining the growing evidence of bronchoscopy pseudo-outbreaks, our investigation describes several lessons for future prevention.
Testing of asymptomatic patients for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (ie, “asymptomatic screening) to attempt to reduce the risk of nosocomial transmission has been extensive and resource intensive, and such testing is of unclear benefit when added to other layers of infection prevention mitigation controls. In addition, the logistic challenges and costs related to screening program implementation, data noting the lack of substantial aerosol generation with elective controlled intubation, extubation, and other procedures, and the adverse patient and facility consequences of asymptomatic screening call into question the utility of this infection prevention intervention. Consequently, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) recommends against routine universal use of asymptomatic screening for SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare facilities. Specifically, preprocedure asymptomatic screening is unlikely to provide incremental benefit in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the procedural and perioperative environment when other infection prevention strategies are in place, and it should not be considered a requirement for all patients. Admission screening may be beneficial during times of increased virus transmission in some settings where other layers of controls are limited (eg, behavioral health, congregate care, or shared patient rooms), but widespread routine use of admission asymptomatic screening is not recommended over strengthening other infection prevention controls. In this commentary, we outline the challenges surrounding the use of asymptomatic screening, including logistics and costs of implementing a screening program, and adverse patient and facility consequences. We review data pertaining to the lack of substantial aerosol generation during elective controlled intubation, extubation, and other procedures, and we provide guidance for when asymptomatic screening for SARS-CoV-2 may be considered in a limited scope.
Background: As of January 2022, more than 57 million cases of COVID-19 have been reported in the United States. Three primary COVID-19 vaccines are widely available: Pfizer (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273), and Johnson & Johnson’s-Janssen (JNJ-78436735). The vaccines are effective but do not prevent all infections. We investigated trends in type of vaccine receipt, demographic characteristics, and disease outcomes in COVID-19 breakthrough infections among hospitalized patients. Methods: A breakthrough case is defined as the detection of SARS-CoV-2 ≥14 days after completion of all doses of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccine. An electronic medical record report in EPIC EHR software identified 85 fully vaccinated patients with a documented positive SARS-CoV-2 result between February and September 2021 at 2 hospitals in southeastern Michigan. Demographic information and hospitalization characteristics, including length of stay and oxygen requirements, were collected from the report. Patients were classified into disease severity categories: nonsevere, severe, or critical. A case was considered severe if the patient’s oxygen saturation level (SpO2) was ≤94% on room air or if the patient required supplemental oxygen. Illness was considered critical if the patient developed respiratory failure, including mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. All other cases were classified as nonsevere. Cycle threshold (Ct) values, the number of PCR cycles required to reach a threshold of SARS-CoV-2 genomic material, were collected from the hospital microbiology lab. Results: We identified 85 breakthrough infections (Fig. 1). The average patient age was 69.9±15.7 years, and 44 (51.8%) were female. Severe disease was most common (n = 73, 85.9%) followed by nonsevere disease (n = 7, 8.24%), and 9 patients (10.6%) in this cohort died. Most patients received either the Moderna (n = 35, 41.2%) or Pfizer (n = 38, 44.7%) vaccines. Pfizer vaccine receipt was most common among patients with severe illness (n = 33 of 73, 45.2%), and Moderna vaccine receipt was most common among patients with critical illness (n = 4 of 5, 80.0%). Average time from last vaccination to positive test was longest among Moderna vaccine recipients (181.9±43.1 days) and shortest among J&J vaccine recipients (91.0±61.1 days). The average Ct value was 23.8±7.5 and ranged from 13.0 to 41.3. There were no appreciable differences in the average Ct value by vaccine manufacturer. Conclusions: Breakthrough infections among hospitalized patients were uncommon, but incidence increased with time after vaccine receipt in all vaccines. Further study is needed to examine differences and severity in breakthrough infections by vaccine type and in individuals who completed booster vaccines.
Background:Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a major source of morbidity and mortality. Even after recovery, recurrent CDI (rCDI) occurs frequently, and concomitant antibiotic use for treatment of a concurrent non–C. difficile infection is a major risk factor. Treatment with fidaxomicin versus vancomycin is associated with similar rate of cure and lower recurrence risk. However, the comparative efficacy of these 2 agents remains unclear in those receiving concomitant antibiotics. Methods: We conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial at the University of Michigan and St. Joseph Mercy hospitals in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Patients provided written informed consent at enrollment. We included all hospitalized patients aged ≥18 years with a positive test for toxigenic C. difficile, >3 unformed stools per 24 hours, and ≥1 qualifying concomitant antibiotic with a planned treatment of an infection for ≥5 days after enrollment. We excluded patients with complicated CDI, allergy to vancomycin–fidaxomicin, planned adjunctive CDI treatments, CDI treatment for >24 hours prior to enrollment, concomitant laxative use, current or planned colostomy or ileostomy, and/or planned long-term (>12 weeks) concomitant antibiotic use. Clinical cure was defined as resolution of diarrhea for 2 consecutive days maintained until the end of therapy and for 2 days afterward. rCDI was defined as recurrent diarrhea with positive testing within 30 days of initial treatment. Patients were randomized (stratified by ICU status) to fidaxomicin 200 mg twice daily or vancomycin 125 mg orally 4 times daily for 10 days. If concomitant antibiotic treatment continued >10 days, the study drug continued until the concomitant antibiotic ended. Bivariable statistics included t tests and χ2 tests. Results: After screening 5,101 patients for eligibility (May 2017–May 2021), 144 were included and randomized (Fig. 1). Study characteristics and outcomes are noted in Table 1. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Most patients were aged <65 years, were on a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI), and were not in the ICU. The mean duration of concomitant antibiotic was 18.4 days. In the intention-to-treat population, clinical cure (73% vs 62.9%; P =.195), and rCDI (3.3% vs 4.0%; P >.99) were similar for fidaxomicin and vancomycin, respectively. Conclusions: In this study of patients with CDI receiving a concomitant antibiotic, a numerically higher proportion were cured with fidaxomicin versus vancomycin, but this result did not reach statistical significance. Overall recurrence was lower than anticipated in both arms compared to previous studies in which duration of CDI treatment was not extended during concomitant antibiotic treatment. Future studies are needed to ascertain whether clinical cure is higher with fidaxomicin than vancomycin during concomitant antibiotic exposure, and whether extending the duration of CDI treatment reduces recurrence.
We sought to determine the incidence of community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfection in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to evaluate associated predictors and outcomes.
In this multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from March 2020 to August 2020 across 38 Michigan hospitals, we assessed prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfections. In-hospital and 60-day mortality, readmission, discharge to long-term care facility (LTCF), and mechanical ventilation duration were assessed for patients with versus without coinfection.
Of 2,205 patients with COVID-19, 141 (6.4%) had a coinfection: 3.0% community onset and 3.4% hospital acquired. Of patients without coinfection, 64.9% received antibiotics. Community-onset coinfection predictors included admission from an LTCF (OR, 3.98; 95% CI, 2.34–6.76; P < .001) and admission to intensive care (OR, 4.34; 95% CI, 2.87–6.55; P < .001). Hospital-acquired coinfection predictors included fever (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.15–5.27; P = .02) and advanced respiratory support (OR, 40.72; 95% CI, 13.49–122.93; P < .001). Patients with (vs without) community-onset coinfection had longer mechanical ventilation (OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 1.67–6.56; P = .001) and higher in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.06–3.40; P = .03) and 60-day mortality (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.05–3.29; P = .03). Patients with (vs without) hospital-acquired coinfection had higher discharge to LTCF (OR, 8.48; 95% CI, 3.30–21.76; P < .001), in-hospital mortality (OR, 4.17; 95% CI, 2.37–7.33; P ≤ .001), and 60-day mortality (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.11–6.33; P ≤ .001).
Despite community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfection being uncommon, most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 received antibiotics. Admission from LTCF and to ICU were associated with increased risk of community-onset coinfection. Future studies should prospectively validate predictors of COVID-19 coinfection to facilitate the reduction of antibiotic use.
This consensus statement by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine (AMDA), the Association for Professionals in Epidemiology and Infection Control (APIC), the HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (PIDS), and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP) recommends that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination should be a condition of employment for all healthcare personnel in facilities in the United States. Exemptions from this policy apply to those with medical contraindications to all COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States and other exemptions as specified by federal or state law. The consensus statement also supports COVID-19 vaccination of nonemployees functioning at a healthcare facility (eg, students, contract workers, volunteers, etc).
Background: Nearly half of hospitalized patients with bacteriuria or treated for pneumonia receive unnecessary antibiotics (noninfectious or nonbacterial syndrome such as asymptomatic bacteriuria), excess duration (antibiotics prescribed for longer than necessary), or avoidable fluoroquinolones (safer alternative available) at hospital discharge.1–3 However, whether antibiotic overuse at discharge varies between hospitals or is associated with patient outcomes remains unknown. Methods: From July 2017 to December 2018, trained abstractors at 46 Michigan hospitals collected detailed data on a sample of adult, non–intensive care, hospitalized patients with bacteriuria (positive urine culture with or without symptoms) or treated for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP; includes those with the disease formerly known as healthcare-associated pneumonia [HCAP]). Antibiotic prescriptions at discharge were assessed for antibiotic overuse using a previously described, guideline-based hierarchical algorithm.3 Here, we report the proportion of patients discharged with antibiotic overuse by the hospital. We also assessed hospital-level correlation (using Pearson’s correlation coefficient) between antibiotic overuse at discharge for patients with bacteriuria and patients treated for CAP. Finally, we assessed the association of antibiotic overuse at discharge with patient outcomes (mortality, readmission, emergency department visit, and antibiotic-associated adverse events) at 30 days using logit generalized estimating equations adjusted for patient characteristics and probability of treatment. Results: Of 17,081 patients (7,207 with bacteriuria; 9,874 treated for pneumonia), nearly half (42.2%) had antibiotic overuse at discharge (36.3% bacteriuria and 51.1% pneumonia). The percentage of patients discharged with antibiotic overuse varied 5-fold among hospitals from 14.7% (95% CI, 8.0%–25.3%) to 74.3% (95% CI, 64.2%–83.8%). Hospital rates of antibiotic overuse at discharge were strongly correlated between bacteriuria and CAP (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, 0.76; P ≤ .001) (Fig. 1). In adjusted analyses, antibiotic overuse at discharge was not associated with death, readmission, emergency department visit, or Clostridioides difficile infection. However, each day of overuse was associated with a 5% increase in the odds of patient-reported antibiotic-associated adverse events after discharge (Fig. 2). Conclusions: Antibiotic overuse at discharge was common, varied widely between hospitals, and was associated with patient harm. Furthermore, antibiotic overuse at discharge was strongly correlated between 2 disparate diseases, suggesting that prescribing culture or discharge processes—rather than disease-specific factors—contribute to overprescribing at discharge. Thus, discharge stewardship may be needed to target multiple diseases.
Funding: This study was supported by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America and by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network.
Disclosures: Valerie M. Vaughn reports contracted research for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, the Department of VA, the NIH, the SHEA, and the APIC. She also reports receipt of funds from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Speaker’s Bureau, the CDC, the Pew Research Trust, Sepsis Alliance, and the Hospital and Health System Association of Pennsylvania.
Background:Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are frequently used to deliver intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy after discharge from the hospital. Infectious disease (ID) physicians are often consulted prior to PICC placement, but whether their approval influences PICC appropriateness and complications is not known. Methods: Using data from the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium (HMS) on PICCs placed in critically ill and hospitalized medical patients between January 1, 2015, and July 26, 2019, we examined the association between ID physician approval of PICC insertion for IV antibiotics and device appropriateness and outcomes. Appropriateness was defined according to the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC) as a composite measure of (1) avoiding PICC use for durations ≤5 days; (2) using single-lumen instead of multilumen catheters; and (3) avoiding PICC use in patients with chronic kidney disease (eGFR>45 mL/min). The associations between ID approval of PICC use and odds of PICC-related complications (eg, deep vein thrombosis, central-line–associated bloodstream infection, and catheter occlusion) were also assessed. Multivariable models adjusting for patient severity of illness and hospital-level clustering were fit to both outcomes. Results were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% CIs. Results: Data from 36,594 patients who underwent PICC placement across 42 Michigan hospitals were included in the analysis. In total, 21,653 (55%) PICCs were placed for the indication of IV antibiotics; 14,935 (69%) of these had a documented ID consultation prior to placement, whereas 6,718 (31%) did not. Of the 14,935 PICCs with an ID consultation, 10,238 (69%) had ID approval documented prior to device placement (Fig. 1). Compared to no approval, PICCs approved by ID prior to insertion were more likely to be appropriate (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 3.28–3.77; P < .001). Specifically, approval was associated with higher single-lumen use (OR, 5.13; 95% CI, 4.72–5.58; P < .001), less placement of PICCs with dwell times ≤ 5 days (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.25–0.32; P < .001), and less frequent use in patients with chronic kidney disease (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73–0.87; P < .001). ID approval of PICCs prior to insertion was associated with a significantly lower odds of PICC-related complications (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.51–0.64) (Table 1). Conclusions: ID approval of PICC use for IV antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients was associated with greater appropriateness and fewer complications. Policies aimed at ensuring ID review prior to PICC use may help improve patient and device safety.
Disclosures:Valerie M. Vaughn reports contract research for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the NIH, the SHEA, and the APIC. She also reports fees from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Speaker’s Bureau, the CDC, the Pew Research Trust, Sepsis Alliance, and The Hospital and Health System Association of Pennsylvania.
Background: Most cases of Legionnaires’ disease are diagnosed by the urinary antigen test (UAT). Single cases of suspected healthcare-acquired Legionnaires’ disease are often investigated by local and state health departments. Such investigations can result in disruptive and expensive interventions. We report a case of a urine-antigen–positive patient whose clinical presentation was inconsistent with Legionnaires’ disease. Within the same year, an employee at this hospital was diagnosed with presumed community-acquired Legionnaires’ disease; however, the case was considered by the health department to be healthcare acquired. The occurrence of 2 cases, as determined by the health department, fulfilled the definition for an outbreak investigation and triggered water restrictions and extensive testing of the environment and patients for Legionella. The cases and the implications of these actions are reviewed in the context of new information about false-positive urinary-antigen tests and changes to the outbreak case definitions for Legionnaires’ disease by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CTSE). This includes “probable” cases that have no positive diagnostic tests.
Disclosures: Janet E. Stout reports salary from the Special Pathogens Laboratory and is an owner.