Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ; 11(1): 45, 2022 03 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1731546

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia from SARS-CoV-2 is difficult to distinguish from other viral and bacterial etiologies. Broad-spectrum antimicrobials are frequently prescribed to patients hospitalized with COVID-19 which potentially acts as a catalyst for the development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis during the first 18 months of the pandemic to quantify the prevalence and types of resistant co-infecting organisms in patients with COVID-19 and explore differences across hospital and geographic settings. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science (BioSIS), and Scopus from November 1, 2019 to May 28, 2021 to identify relevant articles pertaining to resistant co-infections in patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Patient- and study-level analyses were conducted. We calculated pooled prevalence estimates of co-infection with resistant bacterial or fungal organisms using random effects models. Stratified meta-analysis by hospital and geographic setting was also performed to elucidate any differences. RESULTS: Of 1331 articles identified, 38 met inclusion criteria. A total of 1959 unique isolates were identified with 29% (569) resistant organisms identified. Co-infection with resistant bacterial or fungal organisms ranged from 0.2 to 100% among included studies. Pooled prevalence of co-infection with resistant bacterial and fungal organisms was 24% (95% CI 8-40%; n = 25 studies: I2 = 99%) and 0.3% (95% CI 0.1-0.6%; n = 8 studies: I2 = 78%), respectively. Among multi-drug resistant organisms, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and multi-drug resistant Candida auris were most commonly reported. Stratified analyses found higher proportions of AMR outside of Europe and in ICU settings, though these results were not statistically significant. Patient-level analysis demonstrated > 50% (n = 58) mortality, whereby all but 6 patients were infected with a resistant organism. CONCLUSIONS: During the first 18 months of the pandemic, AMR prevalence was high in COVID-19 patients and varied by hospital and geography although there was substantial heterogeneity. Given the variation in patient populations within these studies, clinical settings, practice patterns, and definitions of AMR, further research is warranted to quantify AMR in COVID-19 patients to improve surveillance programs, infection prevention and control practices and antimicrobial stewardship programs globally.


Subject(s)
Bacteria/drug effects , Bacterial Infections/drug therapy , COVID-19/complications , Drug Resistance, Bacterial , Drug Resistance, Fungal , Mycoses/drug therapy , Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology , Antifungal Agents/pharmacology , Bacteria/classification , Bacteria/genetics , Bacteria/isolation & purification , Bacterial Infections/etiology , Bacterial Infections/microbiology , COVID-19/virology , Fungi/classification , Fungi/drug effects , Fungi/genetics , Fungi/isolation & purification , Humans , Mycoses/etiology , Mycoses/microbiology , SARS-CoV-2/physiology
2.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 28(6): 773-778, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1693763

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Migrant populations in high-income countries have faced myriad health and social inequities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Migrants often work in frontline essential services that expose them to COVID-19. Migrant workers in meat processing plants have endured large COVID-19 outbreaks across multiple countries. OBJECTIVES: We examine current scientific evidence around COVID-19 transmission, outcomes, and prevention for migrant workers and highlight meat processing plants as an example. SOURCES: We performed a series of PubMed searches between January 1, 2020 and January 12, 2022. CONTENT: Migrant workers in high-income countries often work in occupations at high risk for COVID-19 transmission, contract COVID-19 at higher rates, and experience worse outcomes than native-born counterparts. For example, meat processing plants represent almost ideal environments for rapid and large-scale SARS-CoV-2 viral transmission; often, large migrant workforces confined to small workspaces perform physically demanding work in noisy environments that require shouting to communicate, increasing workers' respiratory rates and the quantity of aerosolized droplets expelled and thus increasing viral transmission risk. Although enhanced vaccination outreach programs remain an important equity approach for migrant worker safety, they alone are insufficient. The emergence and rapid spread of multiple increasingly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern with variable vaccine escape properties, including Omicron in November 2021, highlight the importance of improved infection prevention and control strategies to protect migrant workers. Across countries, strategies such as improving ventilation and mask quality in many high-risk occupational settings are already required by employment law. Universal mandatory vaccination program should also be considered. IMPLICATIONS: COVID-19 transmission prevention for migrant workers requires an aggressive multicomponent plan that includes (a) improved on-site ventilation and infection prevention and control strategies; (b) improved social supports such as paid sick leave; (c) mobile vaccination clinics and community engagement to overcome vaccine hesitancy and barriers; and (d) consideration of universal mandatory vaccination programs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Transients and Migrants , Vaccines , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Meat , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
4.
BMJ Open ; 11(6): e050667, 2021 06 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1282102

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This report estimates the risk of COVID-19 importation and secondary transmission associated with a modified quarantine programme in Canada. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective analysis of international asymptomatic travellers entering Alberta, Canada. INTERVENTIONS: All participants were required to receive a PCR COVID-19 test on arrival. If negative, participants could leave quarantine but were required to have a second test 6 or 7 days after arrival. If the arrival test was positive, participants were required to remain in quarantine for 14 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion and rate of participants testing positive for COVID-19; number of cases of secondary transmission. RESULTS: The analysis included 9535 international travellers entering Alberta by air (N=8398) or land (N=1137) that voluntarily enrolled in the Alberta Border Testing Pilot Programme (a subset of all travellers); most (83.1%) were Canadian citizens. Among the 9310 participants who received at least one test, 200 (21.5 per 1000, 95% CI 18.6 to 24.6) tested positive. Sixty-nine per cent (138/200) of positive tests were detected on arrival (14.8 per 1000 travellers, 95% CI 12.5 to 17.5). 62 cases (6.7 per 1000 travellers, 95% CI 5.1 to 8.5; 31.0% of positive cases) were identified among participants that had been released from quarantine following a negative test result on arrival. Of 192 participants who developed symptoms, 51 (26.6%) tested positive after arrival. Among participants with positive tests, four (2.0%) were hospitalised for COVID-19; none required critical care or died. Contact tracing among participants who tested positive identified 200 contacts; of 88 contacts tested, 22 were cases of secondary transmission (14 from those testing positive on arrival and 8 from those testing positive thereafter). SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 lineage was not detected in any of the 200 positive cases. CONCLUSIONS: 21.5 per 1000 international travellers tested positive for COVID-19. Most (69%) tested positive on arrival and 31% tested positive during follow-up. These findings suggest the need for ongoing vigilance in travellers testing negative on arrival and highlight the value of follow-up testing and contact tracing to monitor and limit secondary transmission where possible.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Travel , Alberta/epidemiology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Internationality , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
5.
PLoS One ; 16(6): e0252441, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1249578

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: As a result of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there have been widespread changes in healthcare access. We conducted a retrospective population-based study in Alberta, Canada (population 4.4 million), where there have been approximately 1550 hospital admissions for COVID-19, to determine the impact of COVID-19 on hospital admissions and emergency department (ED visits), following initiation of a public health emergency act on March 15, 2020. METHODS: We used multivariable negative binomial regression models to compare daily numbers of medical/surgical hospital admissions via the ED between March 16-September 23, 2019 (pre COVID-19) and March 16-September 23, 2020 (post COVID-19 public health measures). We compared the most frequent diagnoses for hospital admissions pre/post COVID-19 public health measures. A similar analysis was completed for numbers of daily ED visits for any reason with a particular focus on ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC). FINDINGS: There was a significant reduction in both daily medical (incident rate ratio (IRR) 0.86, p<0.001) and surgical (IRR 0.82, p<0.001) admissions through the ED in Alberta post COVID-19 public health measures. There was a significant decline in daily ED visits (IRR 0.65, p<0.001) including ACSC (IRR 0.75, p<0.001). The most common medical/surgical diagnoses for hospital admissions did not vary substantially pre and post COVID-19 public health measures, though there was a significant reduction in admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a significant increase in admissions for mental and behavioral disorders due to use of alcohol. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a relatively low volume of COVID-19 hospital admissions in Alberta, there was an extensive impact on our healthcare system with fewer admissions to hospital and ED visits. This work generates hypotheses around causes for reduced hospital admissions and ED visits which warrant further investigation. As most publicly funded health systems struggle with health-system capacity routinely, understanding how these reductions can be safely sustained will be critical.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Alcoholism/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Canada/epidemiology , Female , Government Regulation , Humans , Male , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Physical Distancing , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL