Use of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Antibody Tests by US Infectious Disease Physicians: Results of an Emerging Infections Network Survey, March 2022.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody tests have had limited recommended clinical application during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. To inform clinical practice, an understanding is needed of current perspectives of United States-based infectious disease (ID) physicians on the use, interpretation, and need for SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests. Methods: In March 2022, members of the Emerging Infections Network (EIN), a national network of practicing ID physicians, were surveyed on types of SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays ordered, interpretation of test results, and clinical scenarios for which antibody tests were considered. Results: Of 1867 active EIN members, 747 (40%) responded. Among the 583 who managed or consulted on COVID-19 patients, a majority (434/583 [75%]) had ordered SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests and were comfortable interpreting positive (452/578 [78%]) and negative (405/562 [72%]) results. Antibody tests were used for diagnosing post-COVID-19 conditions (61%), identifying prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (60%), and differentiating prior infection and response to COVID-19 vaccination (37%). Less than a third of respondents had used antibody tests to assess need for additional vaccines or risk stratification. Lack of sufficient evidence for use and nonstandardized assays were among the most common barriers for ordering tests. Respondents indicated that statements from professional societies and government agencies would influence their decision to order SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for clinical decision making. Conclusions: Practicing ID physicians are using SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests, and there is an unmet need for clarifying the appropriate use of these tests in clinical practice. Professional societies and US government agencies can support clinicians in the community through the creation of appropriate guidance.

Approaches to healthcare personnel exemption requests from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination: Results of a national survey.

OBJECTIVE: Although a growing number of healthcare facilities are implementing healthcare personnel (HCP) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination requirements, vaccine exemption request management as a part of such programs is not well described. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Infectious disease (ID) physician members of the Emerging Infections Network with infection prevention or hospital epidemiology responsibilities. METHODS: Eligible persons were sent a web-based survey focused on hospital plans and practices around exemption allowances from HCP COVID-19 vaccine requirements. RESULTS: Of the 695 ID physicians surveyed, 263 (38%) responded. Overall, 160 respondent institutions (92%) allowed medical exemptions, whereas 132 (76%) allowed religious exemptions. In contrast, only 14% (n = 24) allowed deeply held personal belief exemptions. The types of medical exemptions allowed varied considerably across facilities, with allergic reactions to the vaccine or its components accepted by 145 facilities (84%). For selected scenarios commonly used as the basis for religious and deeply held personal belief exemption requests, 144 institutions (83%) would not approve exemptions focused on concerns regarding right of consent or violations of freedom of personal choice, and 140 institutions (81%) would not approve exemptions focused on introducing foreign substances into one's body or the sanctity of the body. Most respondents noted plans for additional infection prevention interventions for HCP who received an exemption for COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Although many respondent institutions allowed exemptions from HCP COVID-19 vaccination requirements, the types of exemptions allowed and how the exemption programs were structured varied widely.

Perceptions of risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in social and educational activities by infectious diseases and general pediatric healthcare providers, a pre-vaccine risk perception cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The perception of the transmission risks of SARS-CoV-2 in social and educational settings by US healthcare providers have not been previously quantified. METHODS: Respondents completed an online survey between September and October 2020 to estimate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission on a scale of 0-10 for different social and educational activities prior to the availability of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Demographic information and experiences during the pandemic were also collected. The risk assessment was emailed to three listservs of healthcare providers, including national listservs of pediatric (PID) and adult infectious diseases (AID) providers, and a listserv of general pediatric practitioners in the St Louis, USA metropolitan area. RESULTS: Respondents identified the highest risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in spending time in a bar, eating at a restaurant, and attending an indoor sporting event. In the school setting, lower risk was identified in elementary and daycare students compared to high school or university-level students. Comparatively, the risk of transmission to students and teachers was lower than the identified high-risk social activities. Factors increasing risk perception in social activities included the absence of children in the respondent's household and female gender. For the school setting, AID providers perceived greater risk compared to PID providers or pediatric practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents identified high risk activities that were associated with a high density of participants in an indoor space where masks are removed for eating and drinking. Differences were apparent in the school setting where pediatric providers perceived lower risks when compared to adult providers.

Impact of Bacterial Infections and Antibiotic Use on Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: An Emerging Infections Network Survey

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has had a significant impact on the United States healthcare system. This is exacerbated by antimicrobial-resistant bacterial pathogens endemic to healthcare settings. Respiratory viral infections are known to predispose patients to bacterial infections, which were a major contributor to mortality in previous pandemics. This study's goal was to gain an understanding of bacterial infections in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. A case form for COVID-19 patients with bacterial infections was developed and sent to clinicians on the Emerging Infections Network listserv. The case form included 22 questions on patient demographics, COVID-19 and bacterial infection and treatment, and patient outcome. One hundred and nine patient cases were collected and analyzed. The majority of patients (59.6%) were critically ill, and 66.9% of patients were diagnosed with sepsis. Empiric and directed antibiotics were administered to 81.6% and 94.5% of patients, respectively. Thirty-one infections were not resolved with antibiotics, and of those patients, 74.2% died. Unresolved bacterial infections were found to be a significant contributor to mortality in this case series. These bacterial infections can most likely be attributed to long hospital stays and exposure to nosocomial pathogens. Thus, unresolved nosocomial bacterial infections warrant additional attention during future events where there is a strain on the US healthcare system.

Inferring patient transfer networks between healthcare facilities

Constructing accurate patient transfer networks between hospitals is critical for understanding the spread of healthcare associated infections through statistical and mathematical modeling, and for determining optimal screening and treatment strategies. The Healthcare Cost & Utilization Project (HCUP) State Inpatient Databases (SID) provide valuable information on patient transfers from publicly obtainable claims databases, yet often give an incomplete picture due to missingness of patient tracking identifiers. We designed a novel imputation algorithm that enabled us to estimate the true number of patient transfers between each pair of hospitals in a state over a specified time period and age group in the presence of these missing identifiers. We then validated the algorithm's performance through a series of simulation experiments using the HCUP SID, and finally tested the algorithm on multiple states' genuine data. Our proposed method significantly reduced the total mean squared error in predicting the true number of transfers amongst hospitals for all simulation experiments, and it also yielded epidemic simulations that more closely approximated those corresponding to the true patient transfer network.

Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in solid organ transplant recipients following COVID-19 vaccination: A multicenter case series.

BACKGROUND: Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) have diminished humoral immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination and higher rates of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection than the general population. Little is known about COVID-19 disease severity in SOTR with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections. METHODS: Between 4/7/21 and 6/21/21, we requested case reports via the Emerging Infections Network (EIN) listserv of SARS-CoV-2 infection following COVID-19 vaccination in SOTR. Online data collection included patient demographics, dates of COVID-19 vaccine administration, and clinical data related to COVID-19. We performed a descriptive analysis of patient factors and evaluated variables contributing to critical disease or need for hospitalization. RESULTS: Sixty-six cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination in SOTR were collected. COVID-19 occurred after the second vaccine dose in 52 (78.8%) cases, of which 43 (82.7%) occurred ≥14 days post-vaccination. There were six deaths, three occurring in fully vaccinated individuals (7.0%, n = 3/43). There was no difference in the percentage of patients who recovered from COVID-19 (70.7% vs. 72.2%, p = .90) among fully and partially vaccinated individuals. We did not identify any differences in hospitalization (60.5% vs. 55.6%, p = .72) or critical disease (20.9% vs. 33.3%, p = .30) among those who were fully versus partially vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: SOTR vaccinated against COVID-19 can still develop severe, and even critical, COVID-19 disease. Two doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine may be insufficient to protect against severe disease and mortality in SOTR. Future studies to define correlates of protection in SOTR are needed.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination preparedness policies in US hospitals.

We surveyed infectious disease specialists about early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination preparedness. Almost all responding institutions rated their facility's preparedness plan as either excellent or adequate. Vaccine hesitancy and concern about adverse reactions were the most commonly anticipated barriers to COVID-19 vaccination. Only 60% believed that COVID-19 vaccination should be mandatory.

Testing Practices for Fungal Respiratory Infections and SARS-CoV-2 among Infectious Disease Specialists, United States.

In an online poll, 174 infectious disease physicians reported that testing frequencies for coccidioidomycosis, histoplasmosis, blastomycosis, and cryptococcosis were similar before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating that these physicians remain alert for these fungal infections and were generally not concerned about the possibility of under-detection.

COVID-19 modeling and non-pharmaceutical interventions in an outpatient dialysis unit.

This paper describes a data-driven simulation study that explores the relative impact of several low-cost and practical non-pharmaceutical interventions on the spread of COVID-19 in an outpatient hospital dialysis unit. The interventions considered include: (i) voluntary self-isolation of healthcare personnel (HCPs) with symptoms; (ii) a program of active syndromic surveillance and compulsory isolation of HCPs; (iii) the use of masks or respirators by patients and HCPs; (iv) improved social distancing among HCPs; (v) increased physical separation of dialysis stations; and (vi) patient isolation combined with preemptive isolation of exposed HCPs. Our simulations show that under conditions that existed prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, extremely high rates of COVID-19 infection can result in a dialysis unit. In simulations under worst-case modeling assumptions, a combination of relatively inexpensive interventions such as requiring surgical masks for everyone, encouraging social distancing between healthcare professionals (HCPs), slightly increasing the physical distance between dialysis stations, and-once the first symptomatic patient is detected-isolating that patient, replacing the HCP having had the most exposure to that patient, and relatively short-term use of N95 respirators by other HCPs can lead to a substantial reduction in both the attack rate and the likelihood of any spread beyond patient zero. For example, in a scenario with R0 = 3.0, 60% presymptomatic viral shedding, and a dialysis patient being the infection source, the attack rate falls from 87.8% at baseline to 34.6% with this intervention bundle. Furthermore, the likelihood of having no additional infections increases from 6.2% at baseline to 32.4% with this intervention bundle.

The Cardiovascular Effects of Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin.

Hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin has been investigated for activity against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but concerns about adverse cardiovascular (CV) effects have been raised. This study evaluated claims data to determine if risks for CV events were increased with hydroxychloroquine alone or combined with azithromycin. We identified data from 43,752 enrollees that qualified for analysis. The number of CV events increased by 25 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8, 42, p=0.005) per 1000 people per year of treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone compared with pretreatment levels and by 201 (95% CI: 145, 256, p<0.001) events per 1000 people per year when individuals took hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. These rates translate to an additional 0.34 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.58) CV events per 1000 patients placed on a 5-day treatment with hydroxychloroquine monotherapy and 2.75 (95% CI: 1.99, 3.51) per 1000 patients on a 5-day treatment with both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. The rate of adverse events increased with age following exposure to hydroxychloroquine alone and combined with azithromycin. For females aged 60 to 79 years prescribed hydroxychloroquine, the rate of adverse CV events was 0.92 per 1000 patients on 5 days of therapy, but it increased to 4.78 per 1000 patients when azithromycin was added. The rate of adverse CV events did not differ significantly from zero for patients 60 years of age or younger. These data suggest that hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin is likely safe in individuals under 60 years of age if they do not have additional CV risks. However, the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin should be used with extreme caution in older patients.