COVID-19 Mixed Impact on Hospital Antimicrobial Stewardship Activities: A Qualitative Study in UK-Based Hospitals.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a well-known global threat due to the subsequent increase in antimicrobial usage. Several antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies have been implemented to curb irrational prescribing and reduce the AMR burden. However, since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has enormously impacted the healthcare system and jeopardized public health, causing millions of deaths globally. Our semi-structured qualitative study aimed to explore the impact of COVID-19 on AMS activities in the UK hospitals. Seventeen interviews were conducted with health care professionals who were part of AMS teams (consultant medical microbiologists, infectious disease consultants, antimicrobial pharmacists). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. An inductive thematic framework was adopted to analyse and create the themes. After agreement of the hierarchical framework definition, all transcripts were coded accordingly. Four main themes and 15 sub-themes were identified. These main themes were: (1) AMS activities or strategies before and during the pandemic; (2) challenges to implementing AMS activities before and during the pandemic; (3) information from public authorities on AMS during the pandemic; and (4) new AMS activities/strategies adopted during the pandemic. Staff vacancies, redeploying of AMS staff to other duties and meeting the burden related to the COVID-19 and lack of resources were the most frequently identified contributing factors to withheld AMS activities during the pandemic. However, modifications to the hybrid working environment, i.e., remote or flexible working, allowed for resumption of AMS activities including virtual ward rounds, virtual meetings and other activities. Further research needs to assess the impact of the hybrid delivery system on AMS activities.

Soap versus sanitiser for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections in the community: a systematic review with meta-analysis and dose-response analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of hand hygiene using alcohol-based hand sanitiser to soap and water for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and to assess the relationship between the dose of hand hygiene and the number of ARI, influenza-like illness (ILI) or influenza events. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and trial registries were searched in April 2020. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared a community-based hand hygiene intervention (soap and water, or sanitiser) with a control, or trials that compared sanitiser with soap and water, and measured outcomes of ARI, ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza or related consequences. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts for inclusion and extracted data. RESULTS: Eighteen trials were included. When meta-analysed, three trials of soap and water versus control found a non-significant increase in ARI events (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.93); six trials of sanitiser versus control found a significant reduction in ARI events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89). When hand hygiene dose was plotted against ARI relative risk, no clear dose-response relationship was observable. Four trials were head-to-head comparisons of sanitiser and soap and water but too heterogeneous to pool: two found a significantly greater reduction in the sanitiser group compared with the soap group and two found no significant difference between the intervention arms. CONCLUSIONS: Adequately performed hand hygiene, with either soap or sanitiser, reduces the risk of ARI virus transmission; however, direct and indirect evidence suggest sanitiser might be more effective in practice.

Downsides of face masks and possible mitigation strategies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify, appraise and synthesise studies evaluating the downsides of wearing face masks in any setting. We also discuss potential strategies to mitigate these downsides. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL and EuropePMC were searched (inception-18 May 2020), and clinical registries were searched via CENTRAL. We also did a forward-backward citation search of the included studies. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing face mask use to any active intervention or to control. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Two author pairs independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. The primary outcomes were compliance, discomforts, harms and adverse events of wearing face masks. RESULTS: We screened 5471 articles, including 37 (40 references); 11 were meta-analysed. For mask wear adherence, 47% (95% CI 25% to 68%, p<0.0001), more people wore face masks in the face mask group compared with control; adherence was significantly higher (26%, 95% CI 8% to 46%, p<0.01) in the surgical/medical mask group than in N95/P2 group. The largest number of studies reported on the discomfort and irritation outcome (20 studies); fewest reported on the misuse of masks, and none reported on mask contamination or risk compensation behaviour. Risk of bias was generally high for blinding of participants and personnel and low for attrition and reporting biases. CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient data to quantify all of the adverse effects that might reduce the acceptability, adherence and effectiveness of face masks. New research on face masks should assess and report the harms and downsides. Urgent research is also needed on methods and designs to mitigate the downsides of face mask wearing, particularly the assessment of possible alternatives. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework website https://osf.io/sa6kf/ (timestamp 20-05-2020).