SG-APSIC1117: Healthcare-associated infections among the obstetrics and gynecology patients with confirmed COVID-19 in Hung Vuong Hospital, Vietnam

Objectives: During the COVID-19 surge, our hospital was overloaded due to the increasingly high volume of patients and lack of resources, which resulted in difficulties in complying with infection control and prevention (IPC) practices. In this study, we estimated healthcare-associated infection (HAI) incidence and relevant factors among COVID-19 patients in Hung Vuong hospital. Methods: This study included all SARS-CoV-2–positive adult patients hospitalized between September 1 and October 31, 2021. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition of HAI in the acute-care setting was used. Results: Among 773 patients, 21 (2.72%) developed 26 separate HAIs. The cumulative days of hospitalization were 5,607. The incidence of HAI among COVID-19 patients was 4.64 per 1,000 days of hospitalization. The most frequent HAI was clinically defined pneumonia (46.2%), for which the ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) rate was 41.9 per 1,000 ventilator days. Among 21 positive cultures, the most frequently isolated microorganisms were pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and escherichia coli. HAIs were significantly associated with the number of central-line days (OR, 1.74;95% CI, 1.33–2.78), the number of indwelling urinary catheter days (OR, 1.46;95% CI, 1.05–2.03), the length of administration days (OR, 1.25;95% CI, 1.07–1.45), antibiotics use prior to HAIs (OR, 0.01;95% CI, 0.01–0.21), and the number of nasal cannula days (OR, 0.62;95% CI, 0.44–0.85). Conclusions: COVID-19 makes patients more vulnerable and may require more invasive procedures, increasing the infection risk by opportunistic pathogens like gram-negative Enterobacteriaceae. Hence, fundamental IPC recommendations should be strongly implemented.

A hyperinflammation clinical risk tool, HI5-NEWS2, stratifies hospitalised COVID-19 patients to associate risk of death and effect of early dexamethasone in an observational cohort.

BACKGROUND: The success of early dexamethasone therapy for hospitalised COVID-19 cases in treatment of Sars-CoV-2 infection may predominantly reflect its anti-inflammatory action against a hyperinflammation (HI) response. It is likely that there is substantial heterogeneity in HI responses in COVID-19. METHODS: Blood CRP, ferritin, neutrophil, lymphocyte and platelet counts were scored to assess HI (HI5) and combined with a validated measure of generalised medical deterioration (NEWS2) before day 2. Our primary outcome was 28 day mortality from early treatment with dexamethasone stratified by HI5-NEWS2 status. FINDINGS: Of 1265 patients, high risk of HI (high HI5-NEWS2) (n = 367, 29.0%) conferred a strikingly increased mortality (36.0% vs 7.8%; Age adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 5.9; 95% CI 3.6-9.8, p<0.001) compared to the low risk group (n = 455, 36.0%). An intermediate risk group (n = 443, 35.0%) also showed significantly higher mortality than the low risk group (17.6% vs 7.8%), aHR 2.2, p = 0.005). Early dexamethasone treatment conferred a 50.0% reduction in mortality in the high risk group (36.0% to 18.0%, aHR 0.56, p = 0.007). The intermediate risk group showed a trend to reduction in mortality (17.8% to 10.3%, aHR 0.82, p = 0.46) which was not observed in the low risk group (7.8% to 9.2%, aHR 1.4, p = 0.31). INTERPRETATION: Higher HI5-NEWS2 scores measured at COVID-19 diagnosis, strongly associate with increased mortality at 28 days. Significant reduction in mortality with early dexamethasone treatment was only observed in the high risk group. Therefore, the HI5-NEWS2 score could be utilised to stratify randomised clinical trials to test whether intensified anti-inflammatory therapy would further benefit high risk patients and whether alternative approaches would benefit low risk groups. Considering its recognised morbidity, we suggest that early dexamethasone should not be routinely prescribed for HI5-NEWS2 low risk individuals with COVID-19 and clinicians should cautiously assess the risk benefit of this intervention in all cases.

Biomarker identification using dynamic time warping analysis: a longitudinal cohort study of patients with COVID-19 in a UK tertiary hospital.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 is a heterogeneous disease, and many reports have described variations in demographic, biochemical and clinical features at presentation influencing overall hospital mortality. However, there is little information regarding longitudinal changes in laboratory prognostic variables in relation to disease progression in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. DESIGN AND SETTING: This retrospective observational report describes disease progression from symptom onset, to admission to hospital, clinical response and discharge/death among patients with COVID-19 at a tertiary centre in South East England. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred and fifty-one patients treated for SARS-CoV-2 between March and September 2020 were included in this analysis. Ethical approval was obtained from the HRA Specific Review Board (REC 20/HRA/2986) for waiver of informed consent. RESULTS: The majority of patients presented within 1 week of symptom onset. The lowest risk patients had low mortality (1/45, 2%), and most were discharged within 1 week after admission (30/45, 67%). The highest risk patients, as determined by the 4C mortality score predictor, had high mortality (27/29, 93%), with most dying within 1 week after admission (22/29, 76%). Consistent with previous reports, most patients presented with high levels of C reactive protein (CRP) (67% of patients >50 mg/L), D-dimer (98%>upper limit of normal (ULN)), ferritin (65%>ULN), lactate dehydrogenase (90%>ULN) and low lymphocyte counts (81%

Wave comparisons of clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 admissions - Exploring the impact of treatment and strain dynamics.

OBJECTIVES: Dexamethasone has now been incorporated into the standard of care for COVID-19 hospital patients. However, larger intensive care unit studies have failed to show discernible improvements in mortality in the recent wave. We aimed to investigate the impacts of these factors on disease outcomes in a UK hospital study. METHODS: This retrospective observational study reports patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes in COVID-19 patients from a UK teaching hospital; cohort 1, pre 16th June-2020 (pre-dexamethasone); cohort 2, 17th June to 30th November-2020 (post-dexamethasone, pre-VOC 202,012/01 as dominant strain); cohort 3, 1st December-2020 to 3rd March-2021 (during establishment of VOC202012/01 as the dominant strain). RESULTS: Dexamethasone treatment was more common in cohorts 2 and 3 (42.7% and 51.6%) compared with cohort 1 (2.5%). After adjusting for risk, odds of death within 28 days were 2-fold lower in cohort 2 vs 1 (OR:0.47,[0.27,0.79],p = 0.006). Mortality was higher cohort 3 vs 2 (20% vs 14%); but not significantly different to cohort 1 (OR: 0.86,[0.64, 1.15],p = 0.308). CONCLUSIONS: The real world finding of lower mortality following dexamethasone supports the published trial evidence and highlights ongoing need for research with introduction of new treatments and ongoing concern over new COVID-19 variants.

Secondary haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in hospitalised COVID-19 patients as indicated by a modified HScore is infrequent and high scores do not associate with increased mortality.

A significant proportion of COVID-19 patients show evidence of hyperinflammation (HI), of which secondary haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (sHLH) is the most severe manifestation and diagnosed with HScore. Using a COVID-relevant modification of the HScore (%HScore), we set out to determine the prevalence of sHLH in 567 COVID-19 inpatient cases.The overall incidence of individuals with an 80% probability of sHLH in our COVID-19 cohort was 1.59% on admission and only rose to 4.05% if calculated at any time during admission. This small cohort as defined by %HScore showed no excess mortality compared with the whole cohort. Overall, %HScores were lower in older patients (p<0.0001) and did not reliably predict outcome at any cut-off value (AUROC 0.533, p=0.211, odds ratio 0.99).Our study demonstrates that a modified version (%HScore) of the conventional sHLH scoring system (HScore) does not enable risk stratification in people hospitalised with COVID. We propose further work is needed to develop novel approaches to predict HI and improve trial stratification for HI directed therapy in people with COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 viral load at presentation to hospital is independently associated with the risk of death.

Objectives Previous studies have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 viral load, measured on upper respiratory tract samples at presentation to hospital using PCR Cycle threshold (Ct) value, has prognostic utility. However, these studies have not comprehensively adjusted for factors known to be intimately related to viral load. We aimed to evaluate the association between Ct value at admission and patient outcome whilst adjusting carefully for covariates. Methods We evaluated the association between Ct value at presentation and the outcomes of ICU admission and death, in patients hospitalised during the first wave of the pandemic in Southampton, UK. We adjusted for covariates including age, duration of illness and antibody sero-status, measured by neutralisation assay. Results 185 patients were analysed, with a median [IQR] Ct value of 27.9 [22.6-32.1]. On univariate analysis the Ct value at presentation was associated with the risk of both ICU admission and death. In addition, Ct value significantly differed according to age, the duration of illness at presentation and antibody sero-status. On multivariate analysis, Ct value was independently associated with risk of death (aOR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.96; p = 0.011) but not ICU admission (aOR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93-1.16; p = 0.507). Neutralising antibody status at presentation was not associated with mortality or ICU admission (aOR 10.62, 95% CI 0.47-889; p = 0.199 and aOR 0.46, 95% CI 0.10-2.00; p = 0.302, respectively). Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 Ct value on admission to hospital was independently associated with mortality, when comprehensively adjusting for other factors and could be used for risk stratification.

Evaluation and improvement of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) for COVID-19: a multi-hospital study.

BACKGROUND: The National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) is currently recommended in the UK for the risk stratification of COVID-19 patients, but little is known about its ability to detect severe cases. We aimed to evaluate NEWS2 for the prediction of severe COVID-19 outcome and identify and validate a set of blood and physiological parameters routinely collected at hospital admission to improve upon the use of NEWS2 alone for medium-term risk stratification. METHODS: Training cohorts comprised 1276 patients admitted to King's College Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust with COVID-19 disease from 1 March to 30 April 2020. External validation cohorts included 6237 patients from five UK NHS Trusts (Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals, University Hospitals Southampton, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, University College London Hospitals, University Hospitals Birmingham), one hospital in Norway (Oslo University Hospital), and two hospitals in Wuhan, China (Wuhan Sixth Hospital and Taikang Tongji Hospital). The outcome was severe COVID-19 disease (transfer to intensive care unit (ICU) or death) at 14 days after hospital admission. Age, physiological measures, blood biomarkers, sex, ethnicity, and comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular, respiratory and kidney diseases) measured at hospital admission were considered in the models. RESULTS: A baseline model of 'NEWS2 + age' had poor-to-moderate discrimination for severe COVID-19 infection at 14 days (area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in training cohort = 0.700, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.680, 0.722; Brier score = 0.192, 95% CI 0.186, 0.197). A supplemented model adding eight routinely collected blood and physiological parameters (supplemental oxygen flow rate, urea, age, oxygen saturation, C-reactive protein, estimated glomerular filtration rate, neutrophil count, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio) improved discrimination (AUC = 0.735; 95% CI 0.715, 0.757), and these improvements were replicated across seven UK and non-UK sites. However, there was evidence of miscalibration with the model tending to underestimate risks in most sites. CONCLUSIONS: NEWS2 score had poor-to-moderate discrimination for medium-term COVID-19 outcome which raises questions about its use as a screening tool at hospital admission. Risk stratification was improved by including readily available blood and physiological parameters measured at hospital admission, but there was evidence of miscalibration in external sites. This highlights the need for a better understanding of the use of early warning scores for COVID.

Research Evaluation Alongside Clinical Treatment in COVID-19 (REACT COVID-19): an observational and biobanking study.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 places immense worldwide demand on healthcare services. Earlier identification of patients at risk of severe disease may allow intervention with experimental targeted treatments, mitigating the course of their disease and reducing critical care service demand. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This prospective observational study of patients tested or treated for SARS-CoV-2, who are under the care of the tertiary University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (UHSFT), captured data from admission to discharge; data collection commenced on 7 March 2020. Core demographic and clinical information, as well as results of disease-defining characteristics, was captured and recorded electronically from hospital clinical record systems at the point of testing. Manual data were collected and recorded by the clinical research team for assessments which are not part of the structured electronic healthcare record, for example, symptom onset date. Thereafter, participant records were continuously updated during hospital stay and their follow-up period. Participants aged >16 years were given the opportunity to provide consent for excess clinical sample storage with optional further biological sampling. These anonymised samples were linked to the clinical data in the Real-time Analytics for Clinical Trials platform and were stored within a biorepository at UHSFT. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the HRA Specific Review Board (REC 20/HRA/2986) for waiver of informed consent for the database-only cohort; the procedures conform with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study design, protocol and patient-facing documentation for the biobanking arm of the study have been approved by North West Research Ethics Committee (REC 17/NW/0632) as an amendment to the National Institute for Health Research Southampton Clinical Research Facility-managed Southampton Research Biorepository. This study will be published as peer-reviewed articles and presented at conferences, presentations and workshops.

Clinical impact of molecular point-of-care testing for suspected COVID-19 in hospital (COV-19POC): a prospective, interventional, non-randomised, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The management of the COVID-19 pandemic is hampered by long delays associated with centralised laboratory PCR testing. In hospitals, these delays lead to poor patient flow and nosocomial transmission. Rapid, accurate tests are therefore urgently needed in preparation for the next wave of the pandemic. METHODS: We did a prospective, interventional, non-randomised, controlled study of molecular point-of-care testing in patients aged 18 years or older presenting with suspected COVID-19 to the emergency department or other acute areas of Southampton General Hospital during the first wave of the pandemic in the UK. Nose and throat swab samples taken at admission from patients in the point-of-care testing group were tested with the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel. Samples taken from patients in a contemporaneous control group were tested by laboratory PCR. The primary outcome was time to results in the full cohort. This study is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN14966673) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between March 20 and April 29, 2020, 517 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 499 were recruited to the point-of-care testing group and tested by the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel. 555 contemporaneously identified patients were included in the control group and tested by laboratory PCR. The two groups were similar with regard to the distribution of sex, age, and ethnicity. 197 (39%) patients in the point-of-care testing group and 155 (28%) in the control group tested positive for COVID-19 (difference 11·5% [95% CI 5·8-17·2], p=0·0001). Median time to results was 1·7 h (IQR 1·6-1·9) in the point-of-care testing group and 21·3 h (16·0-27·9) in the control group (difference 19·6 h [19·0-20·3], p<0·0001). A Cox proportional hazards regression model controlling for age, sex, time of presentation, and severity of illness also showed that time to results was significantly shorter in the point-of-care testing group than in the control group (hazard ratio 4023 [95% CI 545-29 696], p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Point-of-care testing is associated with large reductions in time to results and could lead to improvements in infection control measures and patient flow compared with centralised laboratory PCR testing. FUNDING: University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust.

Clinical characteristics, symptoms and outcomes of 1054 adults presenting to hospital with suspected COVID-19: A comparison of patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection.

OBJECTIVES: Most reports describing the characteristics of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 lack a comparator group. We compared clinical characteristics, symptoms, and outcomes of adults presenting to hospital during the pandemic first wave, who tested positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Detailed patient data was obtained from a large, controlled, non-randomised trial of molecular point-of-care testing versus laboratory RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 in adults presenting to a large UK hospital with suspected COVID-19. RESULTS: 1054 patients were included: 352 (33.4%) tested positive and 702 (66.6%) negative. 13.4% (47/352) COVID-19-positive patients had COPD versus 18.7% (131/702) of COVID-19-negative patients (difference=5.3% [95%CI -9.7% to -0.5%], p = 0.0297). 5.7% (20/352) of COVID-19-positive patients were smokers versus 16.5% (116/702) of negative patients (difference=-10.8% [-14.4% to -7.0%], p = 0.0001). 70.5% (248/352) of COVID-19-positive patients were White-British versus 85.5% (600/702) of negative patients (difference=-15.0% [-20.5% to -9.7%], p<0.0001). 20.9% (39/187) of COVID-19-positive patients were healthcare workers versus 5.2% (15/287) of negative patients (p<0.0001). Anosmia was reported in 33.1% (47/142) versus 8.8% (19/216) of COVID-19-positive and negative patients respectively (p<0.0001). Non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses or atypical bacteria were detected in 2.5% (5/197) of COVID-19 patients versus 7.9% (24/302) of COVID-19-negative patients (p = 0.0109). Hospitalisation duration and 30-day-mortality were higher in COVID-19 patients and invasive ventilation was more frequent (11.1% vs 2.8%, p<0.0001), and longer (14.5 vs 4.7 days, p = 0.0015). CONCLUSIONS: There were substantial differences between patients with and without COVID-19 in terms of ethnicity, healthcare worker-status, comorbidities, symptoms, and outcomes. These data can inform healthcare planning for the next phase of the pandemic.