ABSTRACT
Introduction/Aim: Coinfection in COVID-19 has been reported internationally, however, data on prevalence and outcomes in Australia is lacking. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and microbiology of coinfections, associated antimicrobial use, and outcomes in hospitalised patients with moderate-severe COVID-19 admitted to the Sunshine Coast University Hospital (SCUH). Method(s): A retrospective observational cohort study of adult patients admitted to the SCUH from February to July 2022 with moderate-severe COVID-19 was conducted. Demographics, comorbidities, laboratory, microbiological and radiological results, antimicrobial use, and hospital length of stay were collected. All-cause 30-day mortality and ICU admission were also collected, and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated. Result(s): Sixty-six patients (57% male;median age 78.3) were captured. 13 coinfections occurred in 11 (16.7%) patients. Microbiological testing was performed in 94% of patients;respiratory viral PCR in 78.8%, blood cultures in 69.7%, sputum cultures in 25.8%, urinary antigens in 13.6% and atypical serology in 12.1%. Bacterial pathogens were most prevalent (53.8% of coinfections), whilst viral and fungal infections accounted for 30.8% and 15.4%, respectively. The most common pathogens were Streptococcus pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and influenza A. Most patients (74.2%) received empirical antibiotic therapy (mean = 5.5 days), with similar rates of use between those with coinfection (66.7%) and those without (75.9%). Overall patient mortality was 10.6%, with coinfections demonstrating a higher 30-day mortality (IRR = 2.0). Coinfected patients were seven times more likely to experience ICU admission (IRR = 7.5) compared to patients without coinfections. Conclusion(s): The prevalence of confirmed coinfection in hospitalised patients with moderate-severe COVID 19 was low;however, antimicrobial use was high. Importantly, patients with coinfections were twice as likely to die, and seven times more likely to be admitted to ICU. This study indicates the importance of developing improved diagnostic tools to identify coinfection and to help guide appropriate antimicrobial use.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIM: National surveys soliciting family experiences present challenges and opportunities. We performed a pan-Canadian, multi-centered, online survey of family experiences with restricted family presence in PICU during COVID-19. Sites chose from 6 respondent approach methods. This sub-study explores relationships between invitation methods and response rates. METHOD(S): Information was collected from the 11 participating sites via e-mail-based survey to determine: eligible participant numbers;invitation method;time from PICU admission to survey invitation;contact methods for bereaved and non-bereaved families;participation barriers and facilitators. Responses were quantified using descriptive statistics and Spearman's rank order correlation. Free texts were inductively coded. RESULT(S): Sites invited families of PICU patients admitted during 4-month periods, beginning March 2020 (n=9) and/or November 2020 (n=3). Invitations were sent a mean (SD) of 7.7 (2.8) months post-admission. The overall survey response rate was 270/1005 invited families (27%). The mean institution response rate was 27% (SD=13%, range 4-50%) and was highest for sites using postal invite with telephone follow-up (43%, n=2), followed by telephone approach (26%, n=7), text message paired with social media posts and posters (22%, n=1), and postal invite alone (n=1, 8%). Bereaved families received a personalized telephone call. Time from admission to invitation was inversely correlated with response rate (rs = -0.70, p=0.02). Most common recruitment barriers were lack of funded research personnel (n=4) and REB requiring initial contact by care team rather than researchers (n=3). CONCLUSION(S): Multi-centre surveys with unfunded site participation face challenges. Postal invitation with telephone follow-up may improve response rates.
ABSTRACT
AIMS & OBJECTIVES: Surgical masks are broadly used as personal protective equipment in a pandemic setting, but little is known regarding decontamination interventions to allow for their reuse. This systematic review sought to evaluate and synthesize data from original research evaluating interventions to decontaminate surgical masks. METHODS: The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020178290). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Global Health, the WHO COVID-19 database, Google Scholar, DisasterLit, and preprint servers from inception to April 8, 2020. Citation screening was conducted independently in duplicate. Outcomes of interest included mask performance (i.e. filtration efficiency, airflow resistance) and germicidal effects following decontamination. RESULTS: Of 1874 unique citations, 33 full-texts were assessed of which 7 studies were included. One study evaluated mask performance with interventions applied after mask use: dry heat (via rice cooker), autoclave, and three chemical agents (70% ethanol, 100% isopropanol, and 0.5% sodium hypochlorite). Six studies evaluated interventions applied prior to mask use to enhance antimicrobial properties and/or mask performance: nanoparticle emulsions, quaternary ammonium agent, N-halamine, salt film, and a fluorochemical repellent. Heterogeneity of interventions evaluated and outcomes assessed precluded quantitative analysis. Mask performance was best preserved with dry heat decontamination. Good germicidal effects were observed in salt-, N-halamine-, and nanoparticle-coated masks. Safety outcomes were infrequently evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence exists on the safety or efficacy of surgical mask decontamination interventions. Studies to date have evaluated interventions and outcomes using heterogenous and non-standardized test conditions, limiting our ability to compare between interventions or draw conclusions on the most efficacious intervention.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The high demand for personal protective equipment during the novel coronavirus outbreak has prompted the need to develop strategies to conserve supply. Little is known regarding decontamination interventions to allow for surgical mask reuse. AIM: To identify and synthesize data from original research evaluating interventions to decontaminate surgical masks for the purpose of reuse. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Global Health, the WHO COVID-19 database, Google Scholar, DisasterLit, preprint servers, and prominent journals from inception to April 8th, 2020, were searched for prospective original research on decontamination interventions for surgical masks. Citation screening was conducted independently in duplicate. Study characteristics, interventions, and outcomes were extracted from included studies by two independent reviewers. Outcomes of interest included impact of decontamination interventions on surgical mask performance and germicidal effects. FINDINGS: Seven studies met eligibility criteria: one evaluated the effects of heat and chemical interventions applied after mask use on mask performance, and six evaluated interventions applied prior to mask use to enhance antimicrobial properties and/or mask performance. Mask performance and germicidal effects were evaluated with heterogeneous test conditions. Safety outcomes were infrequently evaluated. Mask performance was best preserved with dry heat decontamination. Good germicidal effects were observed in salt-, N-halamine-, and nanoparticle-coated masks. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence on the safety or efficacy of surgical mask decontamination. Given the heterogeneous methods used in studies to date, we are unable to draw conclusions on the most efficacious and safe intervention for decontaminating surgical masks.