Hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 during the Omicron wave in Israel - benefits of a fourth vaccine dose.

BACKGROUND: Waning vaccine-immunity and an increased incidence of COVID-19 during the Omicron outbreak led the Israeli Ministry of Health to recommend a fourth dose of BNT162b2 for high-risk individuals. This study assessed the effect of that dose for hospitalized patients with severe/critical, breakthrough COVID-19. METHODS: In this multi-center retrospective cohort study of hospitalized adults with severe/critical COVID-19 in Israel, from 01/15/2022-01/31/2022, cases were divided according to the number of vaccinations received. Poor outcome was defined as mechanical ventilation or in-hospital death, and was compared between 3- and 4-dose vaccinees using logistic regression. RESULTS: Included were 1,049 patients, median age 80 years (IQR 69-87), 51% males. Among them, 394 were unvaccinated, 386 had received 3 doses and 88 4 doses. The 3-dose group was older, had more males and immunosuppression, but with similar outcomes, 49% vs. 51% compared to unvaccinated patients (p = 0.72). Patients after 4 doses were similarly older and immunosuppressed, but had better outcomes compared to unvaccinated patients, 34% vs. 51% (p < 0.01). We examined independent predictors for poor outcome in patients with either 3 or 4 doses, received a median of 161 (IQR 147-168) or 14 (IQR 10-18) days before diagnosis, respectively. Receipt of the fourth dose was associated with protection: OR 0.51 (95%CI 0.3-0.87), as was Remdesivir OR 0.65 (95%CI 0.44-0.96). Male sex, chronic renal failure and dementia were associated with poor outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitalized patients with severe/critical breakthrough COVID-19, a recent fourth dose was associated with significant protection against mechanical ventilation or death, compared to three doses.

Immunogenicity and SARS-CoV-2 Infection following the Fourth BNT162b2 Booster Dose among Health Care Workers.

INTRODUCTION: The fourth SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose was found to protect against infection and more importantly against severe disease and death. It was also shown that the risk of symptomatic or severe disease was related to the antibody levels after vaccination or infection, with lower protection against the BA.4 BA.5 Omicron variants. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of the fourth dose on infection and perception of illness seriousness among healthcare workers (HCWs) at a tertiary health care campus in Haifa, Israel, and to investigate the possible protective effect of antibody levels against infection. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study among fully vaccinated HCWs and retired employees at Rambam Healthcare Campus (RHCC), a tertiary hospital in northern Israel. Participants underwent serial serological tests at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 18 months following the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose. Only a part of the participants chose to receive the fourth vaccine. A multivariable logistic regression was conducted to test the adjusted association between vaccination, and the risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2. Kaplan-Meier SARS-CoV-2 free "survival" analysis was conducted to compare the waning effect of the first and second, third and fourth vaccines. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted for different values of the sixth serology to identify workers at risk for disease. RESULTS: Disease occurrence was more frequent among females, people age 40-50 years old and those with background chronic lung disease. The fourth vaccine was found to have better protection against infection, compared to the third vaccine; however, it also had a faster waning immunity compared to the third vaccine dose. Antibody titer of 955 AU/mL was found as a cutoff protecting from infection. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the fourth vaccine dose had a protective effect, but shorter than the third vaccine dose. Cutoff point of 955 AU/mL was recognized for protection from illness. The decision to vaccinate the population with a booster dose should consider other factors, including the spread of disease at the point, chronic comorbidities and age, especially during shortage of vaccine supply.

SARS-CoV-2 and seasonal influenza: similarities and disparities.

This report describes the differences in disease severity and clinical presentation between hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and others with seasonal influenza. A total of 136 influenza and 152 COVID-19 patients were included. Patients with influenza more frequently had dyspnea (p = 0.004), hypoxemia (p < 0.001), underlying diseases (p = 0.046), and elevated liver enzymes (p = 0.028). In contrast, patients with COVID-19 were overweight (p < 0.001), lymphopenic (p < 0.001), had elevated CRP (p = 0.011), and radiological abnormalities (p < 0.001). Patients with influenza were more severely ill on admission (NEWS > 5) (p < 0.001). However, length of hospital stay, ventilatory support, and 30-day-mortality were similar. Despite differences in clinical presentation and disease severity between influenza and COVID-19 patients, both groups had similar clinical outcomes.

Third BNT162b2 Vaccine Booster Dose against SARS-CoV-2-Induced Antibody Response among Healthcare Workers.

This study assessed humoral response to the third BNT162b2 dose among healthcare workers (HCW). This prospective cohort study of HCW tested for anti-spike antibodies (LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay) at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after receiving the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose (tests 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively). A third (booster) vaccination dose was introduced before test 4. Linear regression model was used to determine the humoral response following vaccine doses. For each serology test, changes in log-transformed antibody concentrations over time, adjusted for age, sex, underlying diseases, steroid treatment, and smoking were described using the general linear mix model. Serology tests were performed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the second vaccine dose in 1113, 1058, 986, and 939 participants, respectively. The third dose was received by 964 participants before the 9-month tests, 797 of whom participated in the 9- and 12-month serology tests. A significant inverse correlation was noted between time from third dose and antibody concentrations (Spearman correlation -0.395; p < 0.001). Age (p < 0.0001; CI 95% -0.005--0.004), heart disease (p < 0.0001; CI 95% -0.177--0.052), immunodeficiency (p < 0.0001; CI 95% 0.251--0.106), and smoking (p < 0.0001; CI 95% -0.122--0.040) were significantly associated with decreased antibody concentrations. Female sex (p = 0.03; CI 95% 0.013-0.066) was associated with increased antibody concentrations. The third booster dose had a better effect on immunogenicity, with higher antibody concentrations among tested HCW. Heart disease, smoking, and other known risk factors were associated with decreased antibody concentrations.

Association between IgG antibody levels and adverse events after first and second Bnt162b2 mRNA vaccine doses.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to correlate the SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody response level to the BNT162b2 (Pfizer BioNTech) mRNA vaccine after the first and second doses with the reported adverse events. METHODS: This cohort study examined the adverse events profiles of people vaccinated with BNT162b2 in our institute between late 2020 and May 2021. Adverse events, age, and sex were reported using an electronic questionnaire, and their SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels were retrieved from the hospital database. RESULTS: Between 20 December 2020 and 31 May 2021, the adverse events questionnaire was completed by 9700 individuals who received the first vaccine dose and 8321 who received the second dose. After the first and second doses, the average antibody levels were 62.34 AU/mL (mean 4-373) and 188.19 AU/mL (mean 20-392), respectively. All of the adverse events, except local pain, were more common after the second vaccine dose. Multivariate analysis showed that after the first vaccine dose, female sex and younger age (but not IgG titres) were associated with a higher probability of adverse events (OR 2.377, 95% CI, 1.607-3.515, p = 0.000; OR 0.959, 95% CI, 0.944-0.977, p £0.000; OR 1.002, 95% CI, 0.995-1.008, p £0.601; respectively); however, all three parameters were associated with the incidence of adverse events after the second dose (OR 2.332, 95% CI, 1.636-3.322, p = 0.000; OR 0.984, 95% CI, 0.970-0.999, p £0.039; OR 1.004, 95% CI, 1.001-1.007, p £0.022; respectively). DISCUSSION: Adverse events are significantly more common after the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose than after the first dose. We found an association between sex, age, and SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody titre with the incidence of adverse events.

Hospitalised patients with breakthrough COVID-19 following vaccination during two distinct waves in Israel, January to August 2021: a multicentre comparative cohort study.

BackgroundChanging patterns of vaccine breakthrough can clarify vaccine effectiveness.AimTo compare breakthrough infections during a SARS-CoV-2 Delta wave vs unvaccinated inpatients, and an earlier Alpha wave.MethodsIn an observational multicentre cohort study in Israel, hospitalised COVID-19 patients were divided into three cohorts: breakthrough infections in Comirnaty-vaccinated patients (VD; Jun-Aug 2021) and unvaccinated cases during the Delta wave (ND) and breakthrough infections during an earlier Alpha wave (VA; Jan-Apr 2021). Primary outcome was death or ventilation.ResultsWe included 343 VD, 162 ND and 172 VA patients. VD were more likely older (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.05-1.08), men (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.0-2.5) and immunosuppressed (OR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.1-5.5) vs ND. Median time between second vaccine dose and admission was 179 days (IQR: 166-187) in VD vs 41 days (IQR: 28-57.5) in VA. VD patients were less likely to be men (OR: 0.6; 95% CI: 0.4-0.9), immunosuppressed (OR: 0.3; 95% CI: 0.2-0.5) or have congestive heart failure (OR: 0.6; 95% CI: 0.3-0.9) vs VA. The outcome was similar between all cohorts and affected by age and immunosuppression and not by vaccination, variant or time from vaccination.ConclusionsVaccination was protective during the Delta variant wave, as suggested by older age and greater immunosuppression in vaccinated breakthrough vs unvaccinated inpatients. Nevertheless, compared with an earlier post-vaccination period, breakthrough infections 6 months post-vaccination occurred in healthier patients. Thus, waning immunity increased vulnerability during the Delta wave, which suggests boosters as a countermeasure.

COVID-19: Healthcare Workers May Be at Greater Risk Outside Their Work Environment-A Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: With the availability of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, concerns have been raised regarding pre-vaccination seroprevalence in healthcare workers (HCW). This study examines the seroprevalence of HCW at an Israeli tertiary medical center before first BNT162b2 vaccination. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study. Before vaccination, HCW at our center were offered serological testing. Data on their epidemiological, workplace, and quarantine history were collected. The SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay was performed pre-vaccination. RESULTS: A total of 4,519 (82.5%) of the HCW were tested. Of these, 210 were seropositive; 101 had no known history of COVID-19. Of the 101 asymptomatic HCW, only 3 (3%) had worked at COVID-19 departments, and 70 (69.3%) had not been previously quarantined. Positive serology was similarly distributed across age groups, and about 40% had no children. Nearly half of the HCW tested were administrative and service staff. Overall, seropositive tests were associated with having no children (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.06-1.89; P=0.0218), history of having been quarantined without proof of disease (OR 6.04, 95% CI 4.55-8.01; P<0.001), and Arab ethnicity (OR 3.36, 95% CI 2.54-4.43; P<0.001). Seropositivity was also more prevalent in members of the administration compared to other sectors, medical and paramedical, who are exposed to patients in their daily work (OR 1.365, 95% CI 1.02-1.82; P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The low percentage of asymptomatic COVID-19 among our HCW may reflect the high compliance to personal protective equipment use despite treating hundreds of COVID-19 patients. The relatively high number of childless seropositive HCW could reflect misconceptions regarding children as a main source of infection, leading to carelessness regarding the need for appropriate out-of-hospital protection.

ESCMID guidelines on testing for SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic individuals to prevent transmission in the health care setting.

SCOPE: This guideline addresses the indications for direct testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in asymptomatic individuals in health care facilities, with the aim to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmissions in these settings. The benefit of testing asymptomatic individuals to create a safe environment for patients and health care workers must be weighed against potential unintended consequences, including delaying necessary treatments owing to false positive results and lower quality of care owing to strict isolation measures. METHODS: A total of nine PICOs (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) on the topic of testing asymptomatic individuals was selected by the panel members. Subsequently, a literature search for existing guidelines and systematic reviews was performed on PubMed, Epistemonikos, and RecMap using relevant filters available in each database. Data on article/recommendation type, setting, target population, intervention, and quality of the evidence were extracted. Credibility of the systematic reviews was evaluated using the AMSTAR tool, and level of agreement with available recommendation was evaluated with the AGREE II score. Because the evidence available from systematic reviews was deemed insufficiently updated to formulate relevant recommendations, an additional search targeting relevant guidance documents from major public health institutions and original studies was performed. Provisional recommendations were discussed via web conferences until agreement was reached, and final recommendations were formulated according to the GRADE approach. RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations were formulated regarding systematic testing in asymptomatic individuals upon admission to a health care setting, during hospital stay, before elective procedures, and before scheduled nonsurgical procedures. Moreover, recommendations regarding testing of asymptomatic visitors, personal caregivers, and health care workers in health care facilities were presented. Recommendations also were given on contact tracing in asymptomatic patients or health care workers and the possibility of a negative screening test to shorten the quarantine period. Furthermore, if applicable, recommendations were specified to transmission rate and vaccination coverage.

Immunogenicity trends 1 and 3 months after second BNT162B2 vaccination among healthcare workers in Israel.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the antibody response to the BNT162B2 vaccine among healthcare workers (HCWs) to identify factors associated with decreased immunogenicity. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included consenting HCWs who completed a questionnaire regarding background illnesses, medications, and post-vaccination allergic reactions or rash. All HCWs were tested for anti-spike antibodies (LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay) 1 and 3 months after the second vaccine dose. A multivariate mixed linear model was adjusted to participants' data and fit to predict antibody levels after the second BNT162B2 vaccine dose, based on antibody levels at 1 month and the slope between 3 months and 1 month. Multivariate analyses identified factors associated with lower antibody levels. RESULTS: In total 1506 HCWs were tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies. Older age was associated with lower mean antibody levels (-1.22 AU/mL, p < 0.001, 95%CI -1.43 to -1.01). In addition, male sex (-22.16 AU/mL, p < 0.001, 95%CI -27.93 to -16.39), underlying condition (-10.86 AU/mL, p 0.007, 95%CI -18.81 to -2.91) and immunosuppressive treatment (-28.57 AU/mL, p 0.002, 95%CI -46.85 to -10.29) were associated with significantly lower mean antibody levels. Allergic reactions after vaccine administration or peri-vaccination glucocorticosteroid treatment were not correlated with antibody levels. CONCLUSIONS: Most HCWs had measurable antibodies at 3 months. Risk factors for lower antibody levels were older age, male sex, underlying condition, and immunosuppressive treatment. These factors may be considered when planning booster doses during vaccine shortages.

Single BNT162b2 vaccine dose produces seroconversion in under 60 s cohort.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to worldwide vaccination development efforts. In December 2020 the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine was approved in the United States. This study describes the first BNT162b2 vaccine dose effect on a large cohort. METHODS: This retrospective study examined first vaccine dose effect on serology and investigated the associations between seroconversion and age or sex. RESULTS: Serological blood tests were performed on 1898 participants following first vaccine dose; 81% were tested on day 21, before receiving the second dose (mean age 47.5 ± 12.45; median 47.7, range 18-90). Positive serology was found in 92.7% of day 21 tests. Overall positivity was 86.8%, with rates increasing from 2.5% within 1-14 days to 89.8% (14-20 days), 92.7% (21 days), and 95.9% (>21 days). Mean antibody levels 21 days after first dose were 64.3 ± 33.01 AU/ml, (range 15-373 AU/ml, median 61 AU/ml). Seropositivity was greater in females than males (88.3%. vs 83.3% respectively, p < 0.001; OR1.515; 95% CI 1.152-1.994). Older age > 60 years was associated with decreased likelihood of seropositivity (p < 0.001; OR 0.926; 95% CI 0.911-0.940). Longer time between first vaccination and serology tests was associated with increased likelihood for seropositivity (p < 0.001; OR 1.350; 95% CI 1.298-1.404). CONCLUSIONS: The high seroconversion rate following first BNT162b2 dose among individuals < 60 may justify delayed delivery of the second dose, potentially help relieve the worldwide vaccination supply shortage, enable vaccination of twice this population within a shorter period, and ultimately reduce COVID-19 contagion.

Six-Month Efficacy and Toxicity Profile of BNT162b2 Vaccine in Cancer Patients with Solid Tumors.

We had previously reported short-term efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the BNT162b2 vaccine among cancer patients with solid tumors. We aimed to evaluate these outcomes at six months postvaccination. The study cohort comprised patients who were on treatment during vaccination and throughout six months postvaccination. Serologic tests were performed after second vaccination and six months afterward. An age-matched cohort of health care workers served as controls. Documentation of COVID-19 infection, blood tests, and imaging studies during the study period was reviewed. Participants included 154 patients and 135 controls. Six months postvaccination, 122 (79%) patients were seropositive compared with 114 (84%) controls (P = 0.32). Serology titer dramatically decreased in a similar manner in both cohorts. No COVID-19 cases were documented in controls, and one case occurred in patient cohort. All previously reported adverse effects resolved. Taken together, the pattern of immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety of BNT162b2 in patients with cancer with solid tumors at six months postvaccination resembles that of the general population. SIGNIFICANCE: Evidence regarding efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with cancer indicate a favorable short-term profile. Immunomodulation due to anticancer treatments may affect immunity and immunogenicity of patients with cancer to the BNT162b2 vaccine over time. Our study sheds light on these long-term outcomes and portrays a trend that resembles the general population.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 2355.

BNT162b2 vaccine breakthrough: clinical characteristics of 152 fully vaccinated hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Israel.

OBJECTIVES: The mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have shown high effectiveness in the prevention of symptomatic COVID-19, hospitalization, severe disease and death. Nevertheless, a minority of vaccinated individuals might become infected and experience significant morbidity. Characteristics of vaccine breakthrough infections have not been studied. We sought to portray the population of Israeli patients, who were hospitalized with COVID-19 despite full vaccination. METHODS: A retrospective multicentre cohort study of 17 hospitals included patients fully vaccinated with Pfizer/BioNTech's BNT162b2 vaccine who developed COVID-19 more than 7 days after the second vaccine dose and required hospitalization. The risk for poor outcome, defined as a composite of mechanical ventilation or death, was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients were included, accounting for half of hospitalized fully vaccinated patients in Israel. Poor outcome was noted in 38 patients and mortality rate reached 22% (34/152). Notably, the cohort was characterized by a high rate of co-morbidities predisposing to severe COVID-19, including hypertension (108; 71%), diabetes (73; 48%), congestive heart failure (41; 27%), chronic kidney and lung diseases (37; 24% each), dementia (29; 19%) and cancer (36; 24%), and only six (4%) had no co-morbidities. Sixty (40%) of the patients were immunocompromised. Higher viral load was associated with a significant risk for poor outcome. Risk also appeared higher in patients receiving anti-CD20 treatment and in patients with low titres of anti-Spike IgG, but these differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: We found that severe COVID-19 infection, associated with a high mortality rate, might develop in a minority of fully vaccinated individuals with multiple co-morbidities. Our patients had a higher rate of co-morbidities and immunosuppression compared with previously reported non-vaccinated hospitalized individuals with COVID-19. Further characterization of this vulnerable population may help to develop guidance to augment their protection, either by continued social distancing, or by additional active or passive vaccinations.

Serologic Status and Toxic Effects of the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 Vaccine in Patients Undergoing Treatment for Cancer.

Importance: The efficacy and safety profile of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been acquired from phase 3 studies; however, patients with cancer were not represented in these trials. Owing to the recommendation to prioritize high-risk populations for vaccination, further data are warranted. Objective: To evaluate the use and safety of the BNT162b2 vaccine in patients undergoing treatment for cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In January 2021, mass SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of high-risk populations, including patients with cancer, was initiated in Israel. This cohort study prospectively enrolled and followed up patients with cancer and healthy participants between January 15 and March 14, 2021. The study was conducted at the Division of Oncology of Rambam Health Care Campus, the major tertiary (referral) medical center of northern Israel. Participants included 232 patients with cancer who were receiving active treatment after the first and second doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine and 261 healthy, age-matched health care workers who served as controls. Exposures: Serum samples were collected after each vaccine dose and in cases of seronegativity. Questionnaires regarding sociodemographic characteristics and adverse reactions were administered at serum collection. A regulatory agencies-approved assay was used to assess IgG at all time points. Patients' electronic medical records were reviewed for documentation of COVID-19 infection and results of blood cell counts, liver enzyme levels, and imaging studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Seroconversion rate after the first and second doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine and documented COVID-19 infection. Results: Of the 232 patients undergoing treatment for cancer, 132 were men (57%); mean (SD) age was 66 (12.09) years. After the first dose of BNT162b2 vaccine, 29% (n = 25) patients were seropositive compared with 84% (n = 220) of the controls (P < .001). After the second dose, the seropositive rate reached 86% (n = 187) in the patients. Testing rate ratios per 1000 person-days after the first dose were 12.5 (95% CI, 3.4-45.7) for the patients and 48.5 (95% CI, 37.2-63.2) for the controls. Patients undergoing chemotherapy showed reduced immunogenicity (odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.98). In seronegative patients, the rate of documented absolute leukopenia reached 39%. No COVID-19 cases were documented throughout the study period; however, 2 cases in the patient cohort were noted immediately after the first dose. Reported adverse events were similar to data in former trials comprising mostly healthy individuals. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine appeared to be safe and achieve satisfactory serologic status in patients with cancer. There was a pronounced lag in antibody production compared with the rate in noncancer controls; however, seroconversion occurred in most patients after the second dose. Future real-world data are warranted to determine the long-term efficacy of the vaccine with regard to type of anticancer treatment.

Hospital solution for COVID-19 isolation facility.

OBJECTIVE: In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Israeli government strategy initially focused on containment. The Ministry of Health mandated isolation of COVID-19 patients in hospitals and instructed healthcare institutions to make necessary arrangements. As the second Israeli hospital to establish a COVID-19 department, this article describes our experience in its rapid establishment, while maintaining normal medical center activities. SETTING: Establishing the COVID-19 department involved planning, set-up, and implementations phases, each one based on knowledge available regarding the pandemic and established medical standards for isolation and protection of patients and staff. Wherever possible, new innovative technologies were utilized to provide maximum protection for both patients and staff, together with special online training that was developed for medical teams. RESULTS: A COVID-19 department was successfully established on the hospital campus, remote from other ongoing patient activities. A novel methodology of disease-adapted medicine was implemented successfully among the department's medical staff, who underwent training tailored to expected clinical scenarios. The COVID-19 department is receiving patients, with no contamination of medical personnel to date. A recent survey of COVID-19 patients revealed a very high patient satisfaction rate. CONCLUSION: Based on the experience described herein and lessons learned, the hospital is preparing for a potential large-scale COVID-19 wave, aimed at full readiness through utilization of a fortified underground emergency hospital to treat up to 900 COVID-19 patients, and establishment of versatile in-hospital infrastructure for quick conversion from standard conditions to COVID-19 appropriate conditions.

COVID-19-Associated Suspected Myocarditis as the Etiology for Recurrent and Protracted Fever in an Otherwise Healthy Adult.

Current reports concerning cardiac involvement in the novel corona virus disease (COVID-19) mostly document acute myocardial injury at presentation. Here, we present a healthy young male, with presumed acute myocarditis, presenting 20 days after initial diagnosis of COVID-19 - and after a clinical, and apparent laboratory, resolution of the original episode. His sole substantial clinical finding upon admission was fever, which was followed by a witnessed elevation in troponin-I.

Assessment of Alternative Personal Protective Equipment by Emergency Department Personnel During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: A Simulation-Based Pilot Study.

STATEMENT: Shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) for frontline healthcare workers managing the current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is a major, global challenge. In this pilot study, we describe a simulation-based method for evaluating the suitability and acceptability of an alternative biological isolation garment (BIG, a gown or a suit) for clinical use by emergency department (ED) personnel. Using a high-fidelity simulator, participants provided airway management according to the SARS-CoV-2 protocol. A nonvisible fluorescent marker was used as a surrogate marker of contamination. We assessed ultraviolet light visualization of the fluorescent marker after doffing and satisfaction with donning, use during simulation, and doffing. We found that after doffing, markers were not visualized on any of the participants and that the median satisfaction scores of the alternative and standard BIG (sBIG) were 4 [interquartile range (IQR) = 1-5] and 4 (IQR = 2-4), respectively. The results suggest the suitability and acceptability of the alternative BIG (aBIG) for use by ED personnel.

Drastic Reduction Inpatient Visits to the Emergency Department in a Hospital in Israel During the COVID-19 Outbreak, Compared to the H1N1 2009

BACKGROUND: On February 26, 2020, the first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was detected in Israel. The Ministry of Health (MoH) instructed people to take isolation measures and restrict their movement. Similarly, there was a gradual decrease in the number of visits to our emergency department (ED). OBJECTIVES: To describe the decline in the referrals to the ED and in-hospital beds occupancy during the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare it to the H1N1 2009 pandemic. METHODS: Employing a cross-sectional epidemiologic study, the pattern of visits to the ED during the COVID-19 was compared with the pattern of visits during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, as well as a year without a pandemic. The data was adjusted to consider changes in population size. The Welch t test for unpaired, unequal samples was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Within 2 months of the COVID-19 outbreak, the average number of visits to the ED dropped by 30.2% and the hospital occupancy by 29.2% (a minimum of 57%), compared to the same period, the year before. In comparison to the same period during the H1N1 outbreak, we witnessed a significant decline in the number of visits to the ED during the COVID-19 outbreak. CONCLUSION: The behavior of people during the COVID-19 pandemic was different from their behavior during the H1N1 pandemic. People seemed to avoid visiting the ED. The boundary between precaution and panic in the generation of the media could be very thin. Decision-makers must take this into account.