Hospital Outcomes of Community-Acquired SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant Infection Compared With Influenza Infection in Switzerland.

Importance: With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it is crucial to assess the current burden of disease of community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in hospitalized patients to tailor appropriate public health policies. Comparisons with better-known seasonal influenza infections may facilitate such decisions. Objective: To compare the in-hospital outcomes of patients hospitalized with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant with patients with influenza. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was based on a national COVID-19 and influenza registry. Hospitalized patients aged 18 years and older with community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection who were admitted between January 15 and March 15, 2022 (when B.1.1.529 Omicron predominance was >95%), and hospitalized patients with influenza A or B infection from January 1, 2018, to March 15, 2022, where included. Patients without a study outcome by August 30, 2022, were censored. The study was conducted at 15 hospitals in Switzerland. Exposures: Community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant vs community-acquired seasonal influenza A or B. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary and secondary outcomes were defined as in-hospital mortality and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) for patients with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant or influenza. Cox regression (cause-specific and Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models) was used to account for time-dependency and competing events, with inverse probability weighting to adjust for confounders with right-censoring at day 30. Results: Of 5212 patients included from 15 hospitals, 3066 (58.8%) had SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection in 14 centers and 2146 patients (41.2%) had influenza A or B in 14 centers. Of patients with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, 1485 (48.4%) were female, while 1113 patients with influenza (51.9%) were female (P = .02). Patients with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant were younger (median [IQR] age, 71 [53-82] years) than those with influenza (median [IQR] age, 74 [59-83] years; P < .001). Overall, 214 patients with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (7.0%) died during hospitalization vs 95 patients with influenza (4.4%; P < .001). The final adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio (sdHR) for in-hospital death for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant vs influenza was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.18-2.01; P = .002). Overall, 250 patients with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (8.6%) vs 169 patients with influenza (8.3%) were admitted to the ICU (P = .79). After adjustment, the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant was not significantly associated with increased ICU admission vs influenza (sdHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.88-1.32; P = .50). Conclusions and Relevance: The data from this prospective, multicenter cohort study suggest a significantly increased risk of in-hospital mortality for patients with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant vs those with influenza, while ICU admission rates were similar.

Evolution of COVID-19 mortality over time: results from the Swiss hospital surveillance system (CH-SUR).

BACKGROUND: When the periods of time during and after the first wave of the ongoing SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic in Europe are compared, the associated COVID-19 mortality seems to have decreased substantially. Various factors could explain this trend, including changes in demographic characteristics of infected persons and the improvement of case management. To date, no study has been performed to investigate the evolution of COVID-19 in-hospital mortality in Switzerland, while also accounting for risk factors. METHODS: We investigated the trends in COVID-19-related mortality (in-hospital and in-intermediate/intensive-care) over time in Switzerland, from February 2020 to June 2021, comparing in particular the first and the second wave. We used data from the COVID-19 Hospital-based Surveillance (CH-SUR) database. We performed survival analyses adjusting for well-known risk factors of COVID-19 mortality (age, sex and comorbidities) and accounting for competing risk. RESULTS: Our analysis included 16,984 patients recorded in CH-SUR, with 2201 reported deaths due to COVID-19 (13.0%). We found that overall in-hospital mortality was lower during the second wave of COVID-19 than in the first wave (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63- 0.78; p <0.001), a decrease apparently not explained by changes in demographic characteristics of patients. In contrast, mortality in intermediate and intensive care significantly increased in the second wave compared with the first wave (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05-1.49; p = 0.029), with significant changes in the course of hospitalisation between the first and the second wave. CONCLUSION: We found that, in Switzerland, COVID-19 mortality decreased among hospitalised persons, whereas it increased among patients admitted to intermediate or intensive care, when comparing the second wave to the first wave. We put our findings in perspective with changes over time in case management, treatment strategy, hospital burden and non-pharmaceutical interventions. Further analyses of the potential effect of virus variants and of vaccination on mortality would be crucial to have a complete overview of COVID-19 mortality trends throughout the different phases of the pandemic.

Droplet precautions on-site (DroPS) during the influenza season 2018/2019: a possible alternative to single room isolation for respiratory viral infections

Background The guideline-driven and widely implemented single room isolation strategy for respiratory viral infections (RVI) such as influenza or respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) can lead to a shortage of available hospital beds. We discuss our experience with the introduction of droplet precautions on-site (DroPS) as a possible alternative. Methods During the 2018/19 influenza season we introduced DroPS on several wards of a single tertiary care center, while other wards maintained the traditional single room isolation strategy. On a daily basis, we evaluated patients for the development of respiratory symptoms and screened those with a clinical diagnosis of hospital-acquired respiratory viral infection (HARVI) for influenza/RSV by molecular rapid test. If negative, it was followed by a multiplex respiratory virus PCR. We report the concept of DroPS, the feasibility of the strategy and the rate of microbiologically confirmed HARVI with influenza or RSV infection on the DroPS wards compared to wards using the traditional single room isolation strategy. Results We evaluated all hospitalised patients at risk for a HARVI, 741 (72%) on the DroPS wards and 293 (28%) on the regular wards. The hospital-acquired infection rate with influenza or RSV was 2/741 (0.3%;1× influenza A, 1× RSV) on the DroPS wards and 2/293 (0.7%;2× influenza A) on the regular wards. Conclusions Droplet precautions on-site (DroPS) may be a simple and potentially resource-saving alternative to the standard single room isolation strategy for respiratory viral infections. Further studies in a larger clinical context are needed to document its safety. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13756-021-01038-y.

Hospital outcomes of community-acquired COVID-19 versus influenza: Insights from the Swiss hospital-based surveillance of influenza and COVID-19.

BackgroundSince the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disease has frequently been compared with seasonal influenza, but this comparison is based on little empirical data.AimThis study compares in-hospital outcomes for patients with community-acquired COVID-19 and patients with community-acquired influenza in Switzerland.MethodsThis retrospective multi-centre cohort study includes patients > 18 years admitted for COVID-19 or influenza A/B infection determined by RT-PCR. Primary and secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission for patients with COVID-19 or influenza. We used Cox regression (cause-specific and Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models) to account for time-dependency and competing events with inverse probability weighting to adjust for confounders.ResultsIn 2020, 2,843 patients with COVID-19 from 14 centres were included. Between 2018 and 2020, 1,381 patients with influenza from seven centres were included; 1,722 (61%) of the patients with COVID-19 and 666 (48%) of the patients with influenza were male (p < 0.001). The patients with COVID-19 were younger (median 67 years; interquartile range (IQR): 54-78) than the patients with influenza (median 74 years; IQR: 61-84) (p < 0.001). A larger percentage of patients with COVID-19 (12.8%) than patients with influenza (4.4%) died in hospital (p < 0.001). The final adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio for mortality was 3.01 (95% CI: 2.22-4.09; p < 0.001) for COVID-19 compared with influenza and 2.44 (95% CI: 2.00-3.00, p < 0.001) for ICU admission.ConclusionCommunity-acquired COVID-19 was associated with worse outcomes compared with community-acquired influenza, as the hazards of ICU admission and in-hospital death were about two-fold to three-fold higher.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the epidemiology of positive blood cultures in Swiss intensive care units: a nationwide surveillance study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence about the impact of the pandemic of COVID-19 on the incidence rates of blood cultures contaminations and bloodstream infections in intensive care units (ICUs) remains scant. The objective of this study was to investigate the nationwide epidemiology of positive blood cultures drawn in ICUs during the first two pandemic waves of COVID-19 in Switzerland. METHODS: We analyzed data on positive blood cultures among ICU patients, prospectively collected through a nationwide surveillance system (ANRESIS), from March 30, 2020, to May 31, 2021, a 14-month timeframe that included a first wave of COVID-19, which affected the French and Italian-speaking regions, an interim period (summer 2020) and a second wave that affected the entire country. We used the number of ICU patient-days provided by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health as denominator to calculate incidence rates of blood culture contaminations and bloodstream infections (ICU-BSI). Incidence rate ratios comparing the interim period with the second wave were determined by segmented Poisson regression models. RESULTS: A total of 1099 blood culture contaminations and 1616 ICU-BSIs were identified in 52 ICUs during the study. Overall, more episodes of blood culture contaminations and ICU-BSI were observed during the pandemic waves, compared to the interim period. The proportions of blood culture contaminations and ICU-BSI were positively associated with the ICU occupancy rate, which was higher during the COVID-19 waves. During the more representative second wave (versus interim period), we observed an increased incidence of blood culture contaminations (IRR 1.57, 95% CI 1.16-2.12) and ICU-BSI (IRR 1.20, 95% CI 1.03-1.39). CONCLUSIONS: An increase in blood culture contaminations and ICU-BSIs was observed during the second COVID-19 pandemic wave, especially in months when the ICU burden of COVID-19 patients was high.

Risk factors for severe outcomes for COVID-19 patients hospitalised in Switzerland during the first pandemic wave, February to August 2020: prospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: As clinical signs of COVID-19 differ widely among individuals, from mild to severe, the definition of risk groups has important consequences for recommendations to the public, control measures and patient management, and needs to be reviewed regularly. AIM: The aim of this study was to explore risk factors for in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission for hospitalised COVID-19 patients during the first epidemic wave in Switzerland, as an example of a country that coped well during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: This study included all (n = 3590) adult polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed hospitalised patients in 17 hospitals from the hospital-based surveillance of COVID-19 (CH-Sur) by 1 September 2020. We calculated univariable and multivariable (adjusted) (1) proportional hazards (Fine and Gray) survival regression models and (2) logistic regression models for in-hospital mortality and admission to ICU, to evaluate the most common comorbidities as potential risk factors. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We found that old age was the strongest factor for in-hospital mortality after having adjusted for gender and the considered comorbidities (hazard ratio [HR] 2.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.33−2.59 and HR 5.6 95% CI 5.23−6 for ages 65 and 80 years, respectively). In addition, male gender remained an important risk factor in the multivariable models (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.41−1.53). Of all comorbidities, renal disease, oncological pathologies, chronic respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease (but not hypertension) and dementia were also risk factors for in-hospital mortality. With respect to ICU admission risk, the pattern was different, as patients with higher chances of survival might have been admitted more often to ICU. Male gender (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.58−2.31), hypertension (OR  1.3, 95% CI 1.07−1.59) and age 55–79 years (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06−1.26) are risk factors for ICU admission. Patients aged 80+ years, as well as patients with dementia or with liver disease were admitted less often to ICU. CONCLUSION: We conclude that increasing age is the most important risk factor for in-hospital mortality of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in Switzerland, along with male gender and followed by the presence of comorbidities such as renal diseases, chronic respiratory or cardiovascular disease, oncological malignancies and dementia. Male gender, hypertension and age between 55 and 79 years are, however, risk factors for ICU admission. Mortality and ICU admission need to be considered as separate outcomes when investigating risk factors for pandemic control measures and for hospital resources planning.

Characteristics of respiratory virus infections in autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation patients, a prospective study, Bern, Switzerland, 2015-2017.

BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of respiratory virus infections (RVI) in patients undergoing autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) is not well described. METHODS: Our goal was to describe the epidemiology of respiratory virus infections (RVI) in patients undergoing autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) in a single tertiary centre observation study during two respiratory virus seasons (2015-2017). All symptomatic auto-SCT patients were tested for RVI by nasopharyngeal swab. RESULTS: 156 transplantation episodes were included, 69% were male and, the median age was 57 years. We detected 19 RVIs in 156 transplantation episodes (12%). The median time to RVI after hospitalization was 13 days [IQR 7-13] and 15/19 (79%) had a possible nosocomial origin (occurrence ≥ 5 days after admission). The nosocomial infections included 5/15 (33%) 'severe' RVIs (3 influenza viruses, 1 parainfluenza virus, and 1 adenovirus) as well as 10/15 (66%) non-severe virus infections (including human rhinovirus and human coronavirus). CONCLUSION: In approximately 10% of auto-SCT transplantation episodes, an RVI with likely nosocomial origin was detected and included 'severe viruses' such as influenza. Our study suggests that infection prevention measures in auto-SCT patients can be improved. ABBREVIATIONS: AdV: adenovirus; ALL: acute lymphatic leukaemia; AML: acute myeloid leukaemia; auto-SCT: autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation; hCoV: human coronavirus; HD: Hodgkin's disease; hMPV: human metapneumovirus; HRV: human rhinovirus; HSCT: allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation; IQR: interquartile range; GCT: germ cell tumour; MM: multiple myeloma; NHL: non-Hodgkin lymphoma; PIV: parainfluenza virus; RSV: respiratory syncytial virus.

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission by aerosols, the rational use of masks, and protection of healthcare workers from COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission by aerosols, to provide evidence on the rational use of masks, and to discuss additional measures important for the protection of healthcare workers from COVID-19. METHODS: Literature review and expert opinion. SHORT CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen causing COVID-19, is considered to be transmitted via droplets rather than aerosols, but droplets with strong directional airflow support may spread further than 2 m. High rates of COVID-19 infections in healthcare-workers (HCWs) have been reported from several countries. Respirators such as filtering face piece (FFP) 2 masks were designed to protect HCWs, while surgical masks were originally intended to protect patients (e.g., during surgery). Nevertheless, high quality standard surgical masks (type II/IIR according to European Norm EN 14683) appear to be as effective as FFP2 masks in preventing droplet-associated viral infections of HCWs as reported from influenza or SARS. So far, no head-to-head trials with these masks have been published for COVID-19. Neither mask type completely prevents transmission, which may be due to inappropriate handling and alternative transmission pathways. Therefore, compliance with a bundle of infection control measures including thorough hand hygiene is key. During high-risk procedures, both droplets and aerosols may be produced, reason why respirators are indicated for these interventions.