Infection Prevention Considerations for a Multi-Mission Convention Center Field Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The state of Maryland identified its first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on March 5, 2020. The Baltimore Convention Center (BCCFH) quickly became a selected location to set up a 250-bed inpatient field hospital and alternate care site. In contrast to other field hospitals throughout the United States, the BCCFH remained open throughout the pandemic and took on additional COVID-19 missions, including community severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostic testing, monoclonal antibody infusions for COVID-19 outpatients, and community COVID-19 vaccinations.To prevent the spread of pathogens during operations, infection prevention and control guidelines were essential to ensure the safety of staff and patients. Through multi-agency collaboration, use of infection prevention best practices, and answering what we describe as PPE-ESP, an operational framework was established to reduce infection risks for those providing or receiving care at the BCCFH during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Recruitment, Readiness, and Retention of Providers at a Field Hospital during the Pandemic.

In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the State of Maryland established a 250-bed emergency response field hospital at the Baltimore Convention Center to support the existing healthcare infrastructure. To operationalize this hospital with 65 full-time equivalent (FTE) clinicians in less than four weeks, more than 300 applications were reviewed, 186 candidates were interviewed, and 159 clinicians were credentialed and onboarded. The key steps to achieve this undertaking involved employing multidisciplinary teams with experienced personnel, mass outreach, streamlined candidate tracking, pre-interview screening, utilizing all available expertise, expedited credentialing, and focused onboarding. To ensure staff preparedness, the leadership developed innovative team models, applied principles of effective team building, and provided 'just in time' training on COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 related topics to the staff. The leadership focused on staff safety and well-being, offered appropriate financial remuneration and provided leadership opportunities that allowed retention of staff.

High Sensitivity and NPV for BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Test in Children at a Mass Testing Site during Prevalent Delta Variant Period.

SARS-CoV-2 continues to develop new, increasingly infectious variants including delta and omicron. We evaluated the efficacy of the Abbott BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Test against Reverse Transcription PCR (RT-PCR) in 1,054 pediatric participants presenting to a high-volume Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing site while the delta variant was predominant. Both tests utilized anterior nares swabs. Participants were grouped by COVID-19 exposure and symptom status. 5.2% of samples tested positive by RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2. For all participants, sensitivity of the BinaxNOW was 92.7% (95% CI 82.4%-98.0%), and specificity was 98.0% (95% CI 97.0%-98.8%). For symptomatic participants, positive predictive value (PPV) was 72.7% (95% CI 54.5%-86.7%) and negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.2% (95% CI 98.2%-100%). Among asymptomatic participants, PPV was 71.4% (95% CI 53.7%-85.4%) and NPV was 99.7% (95% CI 99.0%-100%). Our reported sensitivity and NPV are higher than other pediatric studies, potentially because of higher viral load from the delta variant, but specificity and PPV are lower. IMPORTANCE The BinaxNOW rapid antigen COVID-19 test had a sensitivity of nearly 92% in both symptomatic and asymptomatic children when performed at a high-throughput setting during the more transmissible delta variant dominant period. The test may play an invaluable role in asymptomatic screening and keeping children safe in school.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention and diagnosis in COVID-19: Practice patterns and outcomes at 33 hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Early reports of increased thrombosis risk with SARS-CoV-2 infection led to changes in venous thromboembolism (VTE) management. Real-world data on the prevalence, efficacy and harms of these changes informs best practices. OBJECTIVE: Define practice patterns and clinical outcomes related to VTE diagnosis, prevention, and management in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) using a multi-hospital US sample. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study of 1121 patients admitted to 33 hospitals, exposure was dose of anticoagulant prescribed for VTE prophylaxis (standard, intensified, therapeutic), and primary outcome was VTE (pulmonary embolism [PE] and deep vein thrombosis [DVT]); secondary outcomes were PE, DVT, arterial thromboembolism (ATE), and bleeding events. Multivariable logistic regression models accounting for clustering by site and adjusted for risk factors were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs). Inverse probability weighting was used to account for confounding by indication. RESULTS: 1121 patients (mean age 60 ± 18, 47% female) admitted with COVID-19 between February 2, 2020 and December 31, 2020 to 33 US hospitals were included. Pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis was prescribed in 86%. Forty-seven patients (4.2%) had PE, 51 (4.6%) had DVT, and 23 (2.1%) had ATE. Forty-six patients (4.1%) had major bleeding and 46 (4.1%) had clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Compared to standard prophylaxis, adjusted odds of VTE were 0.67 (95% CI 0.21-2.1) with no prophylaxis, 1.0 (95% CI 0.06-17) with intensified, and 3.0 (95% CI 0.89-10) with therapeutic. Adjusted odds of bleeding with no prophylaxis were 5.6 (95% CI 3.0-11) and 5.3 (95% CI 3.0-10) with therapeutic (no events on intensified dosing). CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a 3-fold increased odds of VTE and 5-fold increased odds of bleeding. While higher bleeding rates with high-intensity prophylaxis were likely due to full-dose anticoagulation, we conclude that high thrombosis rates were due to clinical concern for thrombosis before formal diagnosis.

Evaluation of Four Point of Care (POC) Antigen Assays for the Detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Variant Omicron.

Ensuring SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics that can reliably detect emerging variants has been an ongoing challenge. Due to the rapid spread of the Omicron variant, point-of-care (POC) antigen tests have become more widely used. This study aimed at (i) comparing the analytical sensitivity (LOD) of 4 POC antigen assays, BD Veritor, Abbott BinaxNow, Orasure InteliSwab and Quidel QuickVue, for the Omicron versus the Delta variant and (ii) verifying the reproducible detection of Omicron by the 4 antigen assays. The LOD for all four assays were evaluated using Omicron and Delta virus stocks quantified for infectivity and genome copies. The four assays detected all replicates of Omicron and Delta dilutions at 104 and 105 TCID50/mL, respectively. We quantified both viral stocks using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), which revealed that the Omicron stock had equivalent copies of the N gene to Delta at a one log lower infectious virus. The Abbott BinaxNow and Orasure InteliSwab had the highest analytical sensitivity for Omicron while the Orasure InteliSwab and the Quidel QuickVue had the highest analytical sensitivity for Delta. When 14 SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR positive nasal/nasopharyngeal swab samples (12 Omicron and 2 Delta, mean Ct = 19.1), were tested by the four assays, only the QuickVue detected all samples. Antigen test positivity correlated with recovery of infectious virus on cell culture in 9 out of 13 tested specimens from symptomatic, asymptomatic, unvaccinated, and vaccinated individuals. Although our study confirms the reduced analytical sensitivity of antigen testing compared to molecular methods, the Omicron variant was detectable by the four evaluated rapid antigen tests. IMPORTANCE In the manuscript, we report an evaluation of the capability of 4 point of care (POC) antigen assays, the BD Veritor, Abbott BinaxNow, Orasure InteliSwab and Quidel QuickVue to detect the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, and we compared their analytical sensitivity for Omicron versus Delta. In this analysis we found that all four assays detected Omicron and Delta at 104 and 105 TCID50/mL, respectively. We further quantified the viral stocks used by droplet digital (ddPCR) and found that the Omicron stock had equivalent copies of the N gene to Delta at a one log lower infectious virus titer and that an increased RNA to infectious virus ratio may be contributing to discrepancies in limit of detection in Omicron compared to Delta. We evaluated 14 SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR positive nasal/nasopharyngeal swab samples (12 Omicron and 2 Delta), with an average cycle threshold value of 19.1, and only the QuickVue showed 100% agreement.

Implementation and Accuracy of BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen COVID-19 Test in Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Populations in a High-Volume Self-Referred Testing Site.

Rapid antigen tests are simple to perform and provide results within 15 min. We describe our implementation and assess performance of the BinaxNOW COVID-19 Antigen Test (Abbott Laboratories) in 6,099 adults at a self-referred walk-up testing site. Participants were grouped by self-reported COVID-19 exposure and symptom status. Most (89%) were asymptomatic, of whom 17% reported potential exposure. Overall test sensitivity compared with reference laboratory reverse-transcription [RT] PCR testing was 81% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75%, 86%). It was higher in symptomatic (87%; 95% CI 80%, 91%) than asymptomatic (71%; 95% CI 61%, 80%) individuals. Sensitivity was 82% (95% CI 66%, 91%) for asymptomatic individuals with potential exposure and 64% (95% CI 51%, 76%) for those with no exposure. Specificity was greater than 99% for all groups. BinaxNOW has high accuracy among symptomatic individuals and is below the FDA threshold for emergency use authorization in asymptomatic individuals. Nonetheless, rapid antigen testing quickly identifies positive among those with symptoms and/or close contact exposure and could expedite isolation and treatment. IMPORTANCE The BinaxNOW rapid antigen COVID-19 test had a sensitivity of 87% in symptomatic and 71% asymptomatic individuals when performed by health care workers in a high-throughput setting. The performance may expedite isolation decisions or referrals for time-sensitive monoclonal antibody treatment in communities where timely COVID PCR tests are unavailable.

Upregulation of pulmonary tissue factor, loss of thrombomodulin and immunothrombosis in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with thrombotic and microvascular complications. The cause of coagulopathy in the disease is incompletely understood. METHODS: A single-center cross-sectional study including 66 adult COVID-19 patients (40 moderate, 26 severe disease), and 9 controls, performed between 04/2020 and 10/2020. Markers of coagulation, endothelial cell function [angiopoietin-1,-2, P-selectin, von Willebrand Factor Antigen (WF:Ag), von Willebrand Factor Ristocetin Cofactor, ADAMTS13, thrombomodulin, soluble Endothelial cell Protein C Receptor (sEPCR), Tissue Factor Pathway Inhibitor], neutrophil activation (elastase, citrullinated histones) and fibrinolysis (tissue-type plasminogen activator, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1) were evaluated using ELISA. Tissue Factor (TF) was estimated by antithrombin-FVIIa complex (AT/FVIIa) and microparticles-TF (MP-TF). We correlated each marker and determined its association with severity. Expression of pulmonary TF, thrombomodulin and EPCR was determined by immunohistochemistry in 9 autopsies. FINDINGS: Comorbidities were frequent in both groups, with older age associated with severe disease. All patients were on prophylactic anticoagulants. Three patients (4.5%) developed pulmonary embolism. Mortality was 7.5%. Patients presented with mild alterations in the coagulogram (compensated state). Biomarkers of endothelial cell, neutrophil activation and fibrinolysis were elevated in severe vs moderate disease; AT/FVIIa and MP-TF levels were higher in severe patients. Logistic regression revealed an association of D-dimers, angiopoietin-1, vWF:Ag, thrombomodulin, white blood cells, absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and hemoglobin levels with severity, with ANC and vWF:Ag identified as independent factors. Notably, postmortem specimens demonstrated epithelial expression of TF in the lung of fatal COVID-19 cases with loss of thrombomodulin staining, implying in a shift towards a procoagulant state. INTERPRETATION: Coagulation dysregulation has multifactorial etiology in SARS-Cov-2 infection. Upregulation of pulmonary TF with loss of thrombomodulin emerge as a potential link to immunothrombosis, and therapeutic targets in the disease. FUNDING: John Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Lessons Learned From Implementing Rehabilitation at a COVID-19 Field Hospital.

ABSTRACT: Rehabilitation experts play an important role in preventing hospital-acquired debility, increasing patients' abilities to safely perform activities of daily living, and facilitating discharge to the home setting for patients with COVID-19. Surges in COVID-19 hospitalization rates combined with increases in length of hospital stay and decreases in postacute care placements have necessitated the opening of COVID-19 field hospitals around the country. Most field hospitals lack the resources to offer a full suite of rehabilitation services, but there are opportunities for small teams of rehabilitation experts to increase their reach by using innovative strategies. This article describes the implementation of a small team of rehabilitation experts in a COVID-19 field hospital and strategies used by this team to maximize patient activity and mobility, facilitate timely discharge, and maximize the number of patients discharged to the home setting. Strategies include training nonclinical staff to assist with activity and mobility promotion and using a rehabilitation triage system to determine needs of individual patients and facilitate efficient resource utilization. The authors reflect on successful aspects of these strategies, as well as barriers to rehabilitation implementation, and make recommendations for other field hospitals seeking to implement rehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic or future health crises.

Treating an Epidemic During a Pandemic: Experience Treating Opioid Use Disorder at the Baltimore Convention Center Field Hospital.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, access to addiction treatment has plummeted. At the same time, patients with opioid use disorder are at higher risk of COVID-19 infection and experience worse outcomes. The Baltimore Convention Center Field Hospital (BCCFH), a state-run COVID-19 disaster hospital operated by Johns Hopkins Medicine and the University of Maryland Medical System, continues to operate 14 months into the pandemic to serve as an overflow unit for the state's hospitals. BCCFH staff observed the demand for opioid use disorder care and developed admission criteria, a pharmacy formulary, and case management procedures to meet this need. This article describes generalized lessons from the BCCFH experience treating substance use disorder during a pandemic.

Tocilizumab for the Treatment of COVID-19 Among Hospitalized Patients: A Matched Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no single treatment that mitigates all harms caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 antagonist, may have a role as an adjunctive immune-modulating therapy. METHODS: This was an observational retrospective study of hospitalized adult patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The intervention group comprised patients who received tocilizumab; the comparator arm was drawn from patients who did not receive tocilizumab. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality censored at 28 days; secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality at discharge, time to clinical improvement, and rates of secondary infections. Marginal structural Cox models via inverse probability treatment weights were applied to estimate the effect of tocilizumab. A time-dependent propensity score-matching method was used to generate a 1:1 match for tocilizumab recipients; infectious diseases experts then manually reviewed these matched charts to identify secondary infections. RESULTS: This analysis included 90 tocilizumab recipients and 1669 controls. Under the marginal structural Cox model, tocilizumab was associated with a 62% reduced hazard of death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.70) and no change in time to clinical improvement (aHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.87). The 1:1 matched data set also showed a lower mortality rate (27.8% vs 34.4%) and reduced hazards of death (aHR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.88). Elevated inflammatory markers were associated with reduced hazards of death among tocilizumab recipients compared with controls. Secondary infection rates were similar between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab may provide benefit in a subgroup of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who have elevated biomarkers of hyperinflammation, without increasing the risk of secondary infection.