Infection Prevention and Antimicrobial Stewardship Program Collaboration During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Window of Opportunity.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We describe the similarities between antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) and infection prevention programs (IPPs), and we discuss how these similarities lend themselves to synergy between programs. We also discuss how the COVID-19 pandemic has generated further opportunities for future collaborations that could benefit both programs. RECENT FINDINGS: The COVID-19 pandemic has created new needs, such as real-time data and access to personnel important to both programs, such as information technologists and infectious diseases specialists. It has also increased concerns about rising rates of antimicrobial resistance and healthcare-associated infections, both of which overlap significantly and are key focus areas for both ASPs and IPPs. These emergent issues have highlighted the need for enhanced program infrastructure and new team models. The shift towards telecommunication and telework has facilitated the creation of enhanced infrastructures for collaboration on activities ranging from data access and reporting to providing telehealth services to remote hospitals. These enhanced infrastructures can be leveraged in future collaborative efforts between ASPs and IPPs. SUMMARY: Collaboration between IPPs and ASPs can mitigate setbacks experienced by health systems during the current pandemic, enhance the performance of both programs in the post-pandemic era and increase their preparedness for future pandemic threats. As health systems plan for the post-pandemic era, they should invest in opportunities for synergy between ASPs and IPPs highlighted during the pandemic.

Outcomes of COVID-19 With the Mayo Clinic Model of Care and Research.

OBJECTIVE: To report the Mayo Clinic experience with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related to patient outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with COVID-19 diagnosed between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2020, at any of the Mayo Clinic sites. We abstracted pertinent comorbid conditions such as age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index variables, and treatments received. Factors associated with hospitalization and mortality were assessed in univariate and multivariate models. RESULTS: A total of 7891 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection with research authorization on file received care across the Mayo Clinic sites during the study period. Of these, 7217 patients were adults 18 years or older who were analyzed further. A total of 897 (11.4%) patients required hospitalization, and 354 (4.9%) received care in the intensive care unit (ICU). All hospitalized patients were reviewed by a COVID-19 Treatment Review Panel, and 77.5% (695 of 897) of inpatients received a COVID-19-directed therapy. Overall mortality was 1.2% (94 of 7891), with 7.1% (64 of 897) mortality in hospitalized patients and 11.3% (40 of 354) in patients requiring ICU care. CONCLUSION: Mayo Clinic outcomes of patients with COVID-19 infection in the ICU, hospital, and community compare favorably with those reported nationally. This likely reflects the impact of interprofessional multidisciplinary team evaluation, effective leveraging of clinical trials and available treatments, deployment of remote monitoring tools, and maintenance of adequate operating capacity to not require surge adjustments. These best practices can help guide other health care systems with the continuing response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

GM-CSF Neutralization With Lenzilumab in Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Case-Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of lenzilumab in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. METHODS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and risk factors for poor outcomes were treated with lenzilumab 600 mg intravenously for three doses through an emergency single-use investigational new drug application. Patient characteristics, clinical and laboratory outcomes, and adverse events were recorded. We also identified a cohort of patients matched to the lenzilumab patients for age, sex, and disease severity. Study dates were March 13, 2020, to June 18, 2020. All patients were followed through hospital discharge or death. RESULTS: Twelve patients were treated with lenzilumab; 27 patients comprised the matched control cohort (untreated). Clinical improvement, defined as improvement of at least 2 points on the 8-point ordinal clinical endpoints scale, was observed in 11 of 12 (91.7%) patients treated with lenzilumab and 22 of 27 (81.5%) untreated patients. The time to clinical improvement was significantly shorter for the lenzilumab-treated group compared with the untreated cohort with a median of 5 days versus 11 days (P=.006). Similarly, the proportion of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (oxygen saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen<315 mm Hg) was significantly reduced over time when treated with lenzilumab compared with untreated (P<.001). Significant improvement in inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein and interleukin 6) and markers of disease severity (absolute lymphocyte count) were observed in patients who received lenzilumab, but not in untreated patients. Cytokine analysis showed a reduction in inflammatory myeloid cells 2 days after lenzilumab treatment. There were no treatment-emergent adverse events attributable to lenzilumab. CONCLUSION: In high-risk COVID-19 patients with severe pneumonia, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor neutralization with lenzilumab was safe and associated with faster improvement in clinical outcomes, including oxygenation, and greater reductions in inflammatory markers compared with a matched control cohort of patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial to validate these findings is ongoing (NCT04351152).

Initial SARS-CoV-2 PCR crossing point does not predict hospitalization and duration of PCR positivity.

This study aimed to determine if the crossing point of the initial positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test correlated with patient demographics, subsequent hospitalization, or duration of positivity. Seventy-three patients with two or more positive PCR tests had a median time of 23 days to two consecutive negative results.

Clinical predictors and timing of cessation of viral RNA shedding in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Molecular detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is key in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been widely used for followup of cases as a proxy for contagiousness. The persistence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in the context of clinical features and comorbidities is understudied. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 adult symptomatic cases at Mayo Clinic, eventually achieving cessation of viral RNA shedding (CVS), defined as two consecutive negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR results on nasopharyngeal swabs collected at least 24 h apart. RESULTS: A total of 251 patients were included, median age was 53 years and 59 % female. The most common symptoms at diagnosis were cough, myalgia, dyspnea, fever and chills. Myalgia, cough, anosmia, ageusia and sore throat were common at CVS, but fever and dyspnea were not observed. The median time from symptom onset to CVS was 23 days, and did not differ by symptoms. The weekly cumulative CVS rate was 2, 14, 44, 73, 91 and 95 % at 1-6 weeks from symptom onset, respectively. Cough and fever were associated with a positive PCR test if tested within 2 weeks of symptoms (P < 0.05). Patients with asthma or immunosuppression were less likely to achieve CVS if tested 3 weeks into symptoms (P < 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The cumulative CVS rate at 3 weeks from symptom-onset is 44 % in our entire cohort. The findings of our study highlight the low yield of repeating a SARS-CoV-2 NP PCR test within 21 days of a laboratoryconfirmed COVID-19 diagnosis.