Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
BMC Infect Dis ; 23(1): 14, 2023 Jan 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2196083

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the proportion of patients with COVID-19 who have respiratory bacterial co-infections and the responsible pathogens is important for managing COVID-19 effectively while ensuring responsible antibiotic use. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the frequency of bacterial co-infection in COVID-19 hospitalized patients and of antibiotic prescribing during the early pandemic period and to appraise the use of antibiotic stewardship criteria. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using major databases up to May 5, 2021. We included studies that reported proportion/prevalence of bacterial co-infection in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and use of antibiotics. Where available, data on duration and type of antibiotics, adverse events, and any information about antibiotic stewardship policies were also collected. RESULTS: We retrieved 6,798 studies and included 85 studies with data from more than 30,000 patients. The overall prevalence of bacterial co-infection was 11% (95% CI 8% to 16%; 70 studies). When only confirmed bacterial co-infections were included the prevalence was 4% (95% CI 3% to 6%; 20 studies). Overall antibiotic use was 60% (95% CI 52% to 68%; 52 studies). Empirical antibiotic use rate was 62% (95% CI 55% to 69%; 11 studies). Few studies described criteria for stopping antibiotics. CONCLUSION: There is currently insufficient evidence to support widespread empirical use of antibiotics in most hospitalised patients with COVID-19, as the overall proportion of bacterial co-infection is low. Furthermore, as the use of antibiotics during the study period appears to have been largely empirical, clinical guidelines to promote and support more targeted administration of antibiotics in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are required.


Subject(s)
Antimicrobial Stewardship , Bacterial Infections , COVID-19 , Coinfection , Respiratory Tract Infections , Humans , Coinfection/drug therapy , Coinfection/epidemiology , COVID-19/microbiology , Bacterial Infections/drug therapy , Bacterial Infections/epidemiology , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Bacteria , Respiratory Tract Infections/drug therapy
2.
ACS Sens ; 7(4): 1122-1131, 2022 04 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1788266

ABSTRACT

Rapid antigen tests are currently used for population screening of COVID-19. However, they lack sensitivity and utilize antibodies as receptors, which can only function in narrow temperature and pH ranges. Consequently, molecularly imprinted polymer nanoparticles (nanoMIPs) are synthetized with a fast (2 h) and scalable process using merely a tiny SARS-CoV-2 fragment (∼10 amino acids). The nanoMIPs rival the affinity of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies under standard testing conditions and surpass them at elevated temperatures or in acidic media. Therefore, nanoMIP sensors possess clear advantages over antibody-based assays as they can function in various challenging media. A thermal assay is developed with nanoMIPs electrografted onto screen-printed electrodes to accurately quantify SARS-CoV-2 antigens. Heat transfer-based measurements demonstrate superior detection limits compared to commercial rapid antigen tests and most antigen tests from the literature for both the alpha (∼9.9 fg mL-1) and delta (∼6.1 fg mL-1) variants of the spike protein. A prototype assay is developed, which can rapidly (∼15 min) validate clinical patient samples with excellent sensitivity and specificity. The straightforward epitope imprinting method and high robustness of nanoMIPs produce a SARS-CoV-2 sensor with significant commercial potential for population screening, in addition to the possibility of measurements in diagnostically challenging environments.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Molecular Imprinting , Nanoparticles , Antibodies , COVID-19/diagnosis , Humans , Molecularly Imprinted Polymers , Nanoparticles/chemistry , Point-of-Care Systems , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Br J Sports Med ; 55(14): 807-813, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1388482

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To examine the interactions between SARS-CoV-2 positive players and other players during rugby league matches and determine within-match SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk. METHODS: Four Super League matches in which SARS-CoV-2 positive players were subsequently found to have participated were analysed. Players were identified as increased-risk contacts, and player interactions and proximities were analysed by video footage and global positioning system (GPS) data. The primary outcome was new positive cases of SARS-CoV-2 within 14 days of the match in increased-risk contacts and other players participating in the matches. RESULTS: Out of 136 total players, there were 8 SARS-CoV-2 positive players, 28 players identified as increased-risk contacts and 100 other players in the matches. Increased-risk contacts and other players were involved in 11.4±9.0 (maximum 32) and 4.0±5.2 (maximum 23) tackles, respectively. From GPS data, increased-risk contacts and other players were within 2 m of SARS-CoV-2 positive players on 10.4±18.0 (maximum 88) and 12.5±20.7 (maximum 121) occasions, totalling 65.7±137.7 (maximum 689) and 89.5±169.4 (maximum 1003) s, respectively. Within 14 days of the match, one increased-risk contact and five players returned positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) tests, and 27 increased-risk contacts and 95 other participants returned negative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests. Positive cases were most likely traced to social interactions, car sharing and wider community transmission and not linked to in-match transmission. CONCLUSION: Despite tackle involvements and close proximity interactions with SARS-CoV-2 positive players, in-match SARS-CoV-2 transmission was not confirmed. While larger datasets are needed, these findings suggest rugby presents a lower risk of viral transmission than previously predicted.


Subject(s)
Athletic Performance , COVID-19/transmission , Competitive Behavior , Football , Geographic Information Systems , Humans , Male , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
5.
JAC Antimicrob Resist ; 3(3): dlab133, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1371735

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Procalcitonin is a biomarker that may be able to identify patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who do not require antimicrobials for bacterial respiratory tract co-infections. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a procalcitonin-guided algorithm in rationalizing empirical antimicrobial prescriptions in non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: Retrospective, single-site, cohort study in adults hospitalized with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 pneumonia and receiving empirical antimicrobials for potential bacterial respiratory tract co-infection. Regression models were used to compare the following outcomes in patients with and without procalcitonin testing within 72 h of starting antimicrobials: antimicrobial consumption (DDD); antimicrobial duration; a composite safety outcome of death, admission to HDU/ICU or readmission to hospital within 30 days; and length of admission. Procalcitonin levels of ≤0.25 ng/L were interpreted as negatively predictive of bacterial co-infection. Effects were expressed as ratios of means (ROM) or prevalence ratios (PR) accordingly. RESULTS: 259 patients were included in the final analysis. Antimicrobial use was lower in patients who had procalcitonin measured within 72 h of starting antimicrobials: mean antimicrobial duration 4.4 versus 5.4 days, adjusted ROM 0.7 (95% CI 0.6-0.9); mean antimicrobial consumption 6.8 versus 8.4 DDD, adjusted ROM 0.7 (95% CI 0.6-0.8). Both groups had similar composite safety outcomes (adjusted PR 0.9; 95% CI 0.6-1.3) and lengths of admission (adjusted ROM 1.3; 95% CI 0.9-1.6). CONCLUSIONS: A procalcitonin-guided algorithm may allow for the safe reduction of antimicrobial usage in hospitalized non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

7.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 636160, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1156134

ABSTRACT

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are known to be at increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2, although whether these risks are equal across all roles is uncertain. Here we report a retrospective analysis of a large real-world dataset obtained from 10 March to 6 July 2020 in an NHS Foundation Trust in England with 17,126 employees. 3,338 HCWs underwent symptomatic PCR testing (14.4% positive, 2.8% of all staff) and 11,103 HCWs underwent serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 IgG (8.4% positive, 5.5% of all staff). Seropositivity was lower than other hospital settings in England but higher than community estimates. Increased test positivity rates were observed in HCWs from BAME backgrounds and residents in areas of higher social deprivation. A multiple logistic regression model adjusting for ethnicity and social deprivation confirmed statistically significant increases in the odds of testing positive in certain occupational groups, most notably domestic services staff, nurses, and health-care assistants. PCR testing of symptomatic HCWs appeared to underestimate overall infection levels, probably due to asymptomatic seroconversion. Clinical outcomes were reassuring, with only a small minority of HCWs with COVID-19 requiring hospitalization (2.3%) or ICU management (0.7%) and with no deaths. Despite a relatively low level of HCW infection compared to other UK cohorts, there were nevertheless important differences in test positivity rates between occupational groups, robust to adjustment for demographic factors such as ethnic background and social deprivation. Quantitative and qualitative studies are needed to better understand the factors contributing to this risk. Robust informatics solutions for HCW exposure data are essential to inform occupational monitoring.

8.
Med Sci (Basel) ; 9(1)2021 02 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1063417

ABSTRACT

Recent large national and international cohorts describe the baseline characteristics and outcome of hospitalised patients with COVID-19, however there is limited granularity to these reports. We aimed to provide a detailed description of a UK COVID-19 cohort, focusing on management and outcome. We performed a retrospective single-centre analysis of clinical management and 28-day outcomes of consecutive adult inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 from 31 January to 16 April 2020 inclusive. In total, 316 cases were identified. Most patients were elderly (median age 75) with multiple comorbidities. One quarter were admitted from residential or nursing care. Mortality was 84 out of 316 (26.6%). Most deaths occurred in patients in whom a ceiling of inpatient treatment had been determined and for whom end of life care and specialist palliative care input was provided where appropriate. No deaths occurred in patients aged under 56 years. Decisions to initiate respiratory support were individualised after consideration of patient wishes, premorbid frailty and comorbidities. In total, 59 (18%) patients were admitted to intensive care, of which 31 (10% overall cohort) required intubation. Multiple logistic regression identified associations between death and age, frailty, and disease severity, with age as the most significant factor (odds ratio 1.07 [95% CI 1.03-1.10] per year increase, p < 0.001). These findings provide important clinical context to outcome data. Mortality was associated with increasing age. Most deaths were anticipated and occurred in patients with advance decisions on ceilings of treatment.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Academic Medical Centers , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , State Medicine , Tertiary Care Centers , United Kingdom
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL