Circulating eosinophils associated with responsiveness to COVID-19 vaccine and the disease severity in patients with SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant infection.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the longitudinal circulating eosinophil (EOS) data impacted by the COVID-19 vaccine, the predictive role of circulating EOS in the disease severity, and its association with T cell immunity in patients with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 variant infection in Shanghai, China. METHODS: We collected a cohort of 1,157 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron/BA.2 variant in Shanghai, China. These patients were diagnosed or admitted between Feb 20, 2022, and May 10, 2022, and were classified as asymptomatic (n = 705), mild (n = 286) and severe (n = 166) groups. We compiled and analyzed data of patients' clinical demographic characteristics, laboratory findings, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: COVID-19 vaccine reduced the incidence of severe cases. Severe patients were shown to have declined peripheral blood EOS. Both the 2 doses and 3 doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines promoted the circulating EOS levels. In particular, the 3rd booster shot of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine was shown to have a sustained promoting effect on circulating EOS. Univariate analysis showed that there was a significant difference in age, underlying comorbidities, EOS, lymphocytes, CRP, CD4, and CD8 T cell counts between the mild and the severe patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis and ROC curve analysis indicate that circulating EOS (AUC = 0.828, p = 0.025), the combination of EOS and CD4 T cell (AUC = 0.920, p = 0.017) can predict the risk of disease severity in patients with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 variant infection. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine promotes circulating EOS and reduces the risk of severe illness, and particularly the 3rd booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine sustainedly promotes EOS. Circulating EOS, along with T cell immunity, may have a predictive value for the disease severity in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infected patients.

The effect of hand hygiene frequency on reducing acute respiratory infections in the community: a meta-analysis.

Hand hygiene is a simple, low-cost intervention that may lead to substantial population-level effects in suppressing acute respiratory infection epidemics. However, quantification of the efficacy of hand hygiene on respiratory infection in the community is lacking. We searched PubMed for randomised controlled trials on the effect of hand hygiene for reducing acute respiratory infections in the community published before 11 March 2021. We performed a meta-regression analysis using a Bayesian mixed-effects model. A total of 105 publications were identified, out of which six studies reported hand hygiene frequencies. Four studies were performed in household settings and two were in schools. The average number of handwashing events per day ranged from one to eight in the control arms, and four to 17 in the intervention arms. We estimated that a single hand hygiene event is associated with a 3% (80% credible interval (-1% to 7%)) decrease in the daily probability of an acute respiratory infection. Three of these six studies were potentially at high risk of bias because the primary outcome depended on self-reporting of upper respiratory tract symptoms. Well-designed trials with an emphasis on monitoring hand hygiene adherence are needed to confirm these findings.

The contribution of hospital-acquired infections to the COVID-19 epidemic in England in the first half of 2020 (preprint)

Background: SARS-CoV-2 is known to transmit in hospital settings, but the contribution of infections acquired in hospitals to the epidemic at a national scale is unknown. Methods: We used comprehensive national English datasets to determine the number of COVID-19 patients with identified hospital-acquired infections (with symptom onset >7 days after admission and before discharge) in acute English hospitals up to August 2020. As patients may leave the hospital prior to detection of infection or have rapid symptom onset, we combined measures of the length of stay and the incubation period distribution to estimate how many hospital-acquired infections may have been missed. We used simulations to estimate the total number (identified and unidentified) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections, as well as infections due to onward community transmission from missed hospital-acquired infections, to 31 st July 2020. Results: In our dataset of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in acute English hospitals with a recorded symptom onset date (n = 65,028), 7% were classified as hospital-acquired. We estimated that only 30% (range across weeks and 200 simulations: 20-41%) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections would be identified, with up to 15% (mean, 95% range over 200 simulations: 14.1%-15.8%) of cases currently classified as community-acquired COVID-19 potentially linked to hospital transmission. We estimated that 26,600 (25,900 to 27,700) individuals acquired a symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in an acute Trust in England before 31st July 2020, resulting in 15,900 (15,200-16,400) or 20.1% (19.2%-20.7%) of all identified hospitalised COVID-19 cases. Conclusions: Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to hospitalised patients likely caused approximately a fifth of identified cases of hospitalised COVID-19 in the “first wave” in England, but less than 1% of all infections in England. Using time to symptom onset from admission for inpatients as a detection method likely misses a substantial proportion (>60%) of hospital-acquired infections.

The burden and dynamics of hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 in England (preprint)

Hospital-based transmission played a dominant role in MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV epidemics but large-scale studies of its role in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic are lacking. Such transmission risks spreading the virus to the most vulnerable individuals and can have wider-scale impacts through hospital-community interactions. Using data from acute hospitals in England we quantify within-hospital transmission, evaluate likely pathways of spread and factors associated with heightened transmission risk, and explore the wider dynamical consequences. We show that hospital transmission is likely to have been a major contributor to the burden of COVID-19 in England. We estimate that between June 2020 and March 2021 between 95,000 and 167,000 patients acquired SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals with nosocomially-infected patients likely to have been the main sources of transmission to other patients. Increased transmission to patients was associated with hospitals having fewer single rooms and lower heated volume per bed. Moreover, we show that reducing hospital transmission could substantially enhance the efficiency of punctuated lockdown measures in suppressing community transmission. These findings reveal the previously unrecognised scale of hospital transmission, have direct implications for targeting of hospital control measures, and highlight the need to design hospitals better-equipped to limit the transmission of future high consequence pathogens.

Considerations in the use of slit lamp shields to reduce the risk of respiratory virus transmission in coronavirus disease 2019.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The use of slit lamp shields has been recommended by the American Academy of Ophthalmology as an infection control measure during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. However, there is limited evidence regarding its efficacy to reduce viral transmission risks. We aim to provide an evidence-based approach to optimize the use of slit lamp shields during clinical examination. RECENT FINDINGS: Respiratory droplets from coughing and sneezing can travel up to 50 m/s and over a distance of 2 m, with a potential area of spread of 616 cm. Slit lamp shields confer added protection against large droplets but are limited against smaller particles. A larger shield curved toward the ophthalmologist and positioned closer to the patient increases protection against large droplets. A potential improvement to the design of such shields is the use of hydrophilic materials with antiviral properties which may help to minimize splashing of infectious droplets, reducing transmission risks. These include gold or silver nanoparticles and graphene oxide. SUMMARY: Slit lamp shields serve as a barrier for large droplets, but its protection against smaller droplets is undetermined. It should be large, positioned close to the patient, and used in tandem with routine basic disinfection practices.

Transmission of community- and hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 in hospital settings in the UK: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Nosocomial spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been widely reported, but the transmission pathways among patients and healthcare workers (HCWs) are unclear. Identifying the risk factors and drivers for these nosocomial transmissions is critical for infection prevention and control interventions. The main aim of our study was to quantify the relative importance of different transmission pathways of SARS-CoV-2 in the hospital setting. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This is an observational cohort study using data from 4 teaching hospitals in Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, from January to October 2020. Associations between infectious SARS-CoV-2 individuals and infection risk were quantified using logistic, generalised additive and linear mixed models. Cases were classified as community- or hospital-acquired using likely incubation periods of 3 to 7 days. Of 66,184 patients who were hospitalised during the study period, 920 had a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test within the same period (1.4%). The mean age was 67.9 (±20.7) years, 49.2% were females, and 68.5% were from the white ethnic group. Out of these, 571 patients had their first positive PCR tests while hospitalised (62.1%), and 97 of these occurred at least 7 days after admission (10.5%). Among the 5,596 HCWs, 615 (11.0%) tested positive during the study period using PCR or serological tests. The mean age was 39.5 (±11.1) years, 78.9% were females, and 49.8% were nurses. For susceptible patients, 1 day in the same ward with another patient with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 was associated with an additional 7.5 infections per 1,000 susceptible patients (95% credible interval (CrI) 5.5 to 9.5/1,000 susceptible patients/day) per day. Exposure to an infectious patient with community-acquired Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) or to an infectious HCW was associated with substantially lower infection risks (2.0/1,000 susceptible patients/day, 95% CrI 1.6 to 2.2). As for HCW infections, exposure to an infectious patient with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 or to an infectious HCW were both associated with an additional 0.8 infection per 1,000 susceptible HCWs per day (95% CrI 0.3 to 1.6 and 0.6 to 1.0, respectively). Exposure to an infectious patient with community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 was associated with less than half this risk (0.2/1,000 susceptible HCWs/day, 95% CrI 0.2 to 0.2). These assumptions were tested in sensitivity analysis, which showed broadly similar results. The main limitations were that the symptom onset dates and HCW absence days were not available. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that exposure to patients with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 is associated with a substantial infection risk to both HCWs and other hospitalised patients. Infection control measures to limit nosocomial transmission must be optimised to protect both staff and patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The contribution of hospital-acquired infections to the COVID-19 epidemic in England in the first half of 2020 (preprint)

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 spreads in hospitals, but the contribution of these settings to the overall COVID-19 burden at a national level is unknown. MethodsWe used comprehensive national English datasets and simulation modelling to determine the total burden (identified and unidentified) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections. Those unidentified would either be 1) discharged before symptom onset ("missed"), or 2) have symptom onset 7 days or fewer from admission ("misclassified"). We estimated the contribution of "misclassified" cases and transmission from "missed" symptomatic infections to the English epidemic before 31st July 2020. FindingsIn our dataset of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in acute English Trusts with a recorded symptom onset date (n = 65,028), 7% were classified as hospital-acquired (with symptom onset 8 or more days after admission and before discharge). We estimated that only 30% (range across weeks and 200 simulations: 20-41%) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections would be identified. Misclassified cases and onward transmission from missed infections could account for 15% (mean, 95% range over 200 simulations: 14{middle dot}1%-15{middle dot}8%) of cases currently classified as community-acquired COVID-19. From this, we estimated that 26,600 (25,900 to 27,700) individuals acquired a symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in an acute Trust in England before 31st July 2020, resulting in 15,900 (15,200-16,400) or 20.1% (19.2%-20.7%) of all identified hospitalised COVID-19 cases. ConclusionsTransmission of SARS-CoV-2 to hospitalised patients likely caused approximately a fifth of identified cases of hospitalised COVID-19 in the "first wave", but fewer than 1% of all SARS-CoV-2 infections in England. Using symptom onset as a detection method for hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 likely misses a substantial proportion (>60%) of hospital-acquired infections. FundingNational Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, Society for Laboratory Automation and Screening, UKRI, Wellcome Trust, Singapore National Medical Research Council. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched PubMed with the terms "((national OR country) AND (contribution OR burden OR estimates) AND ("hospital-acquired" OR "hospital-associated" OR "nosocomial")) AND Covid-19" for articles published in English up to July 1st 2021. This identified 42 studies, with no studies that had aimed to produce comprehensive national estimates of the contribution of hospital settings to the COVID-19 pandemic. Most studies focused on estimating seroprevalence or levels of infection in healthcare workers only, which were not our focus. Removing the initial national/country terms identified 120 studies, with no country level estimates. Several single hospital setting estimates exist for England and other countries, but the percentage of hospital-associated infections reported relies on identified cases in the absence of universal testing. Added value of this studyThis study provides the first national-level estimates of all symptomatic hospital-acquired infections with SARS-CoV-2 in England up to the 31st July 2020. Using comprehensive data, we calculate how many infections would be unidentified and hence can generate a total burden, impossible from just notification data. Moreover, our burden estimates for onward transmission suggest the contribution of hospitals to the overall infection burden. Implications of all the available evidenceLarge numbers of patients may become infected with SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals though only a small proportion of such infections are identified. Further work is needed to better understand how interventions can reduce such transmission and to better understand the contributions of hospital transmission to mortality.