Current Evidence for Infection Prevention and Control Interventions in Emergency Medical Services: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to summarize current evidence from the United States on the effectiveness of practices and interventions for preventing, recognizing, and controlling occupationally acquired infectious diseases in Emergency Medical Service (EMS) clinicians. REPORT AND METHODS: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and SCOPUS were searched from January 1, 2006 through March 15, 2022 for studies in the United States that involved EMS clinicians and firefighters, reported on one or more workplace practices or interventions that prevented or controlled infectious diseases, and included outcome measures. Eleven (11) observational studies reported on infection prevention and control (IPC) practices providing evidence that hand hygiene, standard precautions, mandatory vaccine policies, and on-site vaccine clinics are effective. Less frequent handwashing (survey-weight adjusted odds ratio [OR] 4.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 17.27) and less frequent hand hygiene after glove use (survey-weight adjusted OR 10.51; 95% CI, 2.54 to 43.45) were positively correlated with nasal colonization of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) or PPE breach were correlated with higher severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) seropositivity (unadjusted risk ratio [RR] 4.2; 95% CI, 1.03 to 17.22). Workers were more likely to be vaccinated against influenza if their employer offered the vaccine (unadjusted OR 3.3; 95% CI, 1.3 to 8.3). Active, targeted education modules for H1N1 influenza were effective at increasing vaccination rates and the success of on-site vaccine clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from the United States exists on the effectiveness of IPC practices in EMS clinicians, including hand hygiene, standard precautions, mandatory vaccine policies, and vaccine clinics. More research is needed on the effectiveness of PPE and vaccine acceptance.

A review of infectious disease epidemiology in emergency medical service clinicians.

BACKGROUND: The emergency medical service (EMS) workforce is at high risk of occupationally-acquired infections. This review synthesized existing literature on the prevalence, incidence, and severity of infections in the EMS workforce. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and SCOPUS from January 1, 2006 to March 15, 2022 for studies in the US that involved EMS clinician or firefighter populations and reported 1 or more health outcomes related to occupationally-acquired infections. RESULTS: Of the 25 studies that met the inclusion criteria, most focused on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, with prevalence rates ranging from 1.1% to 36.2% (median 6.7%). The prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in 4 studies ranged from 1.9% to 6.4%, and the prevalence of Hepatitis C in 1 study was 1.3%. Few studies reported incidence rates. The prevalence or incidence of these infections generally did not differ by age or gender, but 4 studies reported differences by race or ethnicity. In the 4 studies that compared infection rates between EMS clinicians and firefighters, EMS clinicians had a higher chance of hospitalization or death from SAR-CoV-2 (odds ratio 4.23), a higher prevalence of Hepatitis C in another study (odds ratio 1.74), and no significant difference in MRSA colonization in a separate study. CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed to better characterize the incidence and severity of occupationally-acquired infections in the EMS workforce.

The Effect of Neutropenia and Filgrastim (G-CSF) on Cancer Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Infection.

BACKGROUND: Neutropenia is commonly encountered in cancer patients. Recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF, filgrastim), a cytokine that initiates proliferation and differentiation of mature granulocytes, is widely given to oncology patients to counteract neutropenia, reducing susceptibility to infection. However, the clinical impact of neutropenia and G-CSF use in cancer patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unknown. METHODS: An observational cohort of 379 actively treated cancer patients with COVID-19 was assembled to investigate links between concurrent neutropenia and G-CSF administration on COVID-19-associated respiratory failure and death. These factors were encoded as time-dependent predictors in an extended Cox model, controlling for age and underlying cancer diagnosis. To determine whether the degree of granulocyte response to G-CSF affected outcomes, the degree of response to G-CSF, based on rise in absolute neutrophil count (ANC) 24 hours after growth factor administration, was also incorporated into a similar Cox model. RESULTS: In the setting of active COVID-19 infection, outpatient receipt of G-CSF led to an increased number of hospitalizations (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-10.0, P value: .017). Furthermore, among inpatients, G-CSF administration was associated with increased need for high levels of oxygen supplementation and death (HR: 3.56, 95% CI: 1.19-10.2, P value: .024). This effect was predominantly seen in patients that exhibited a high response to G-CSF based on their ANC increase post-G-CSF administration (HR: 7.78, 95% CI: 2.05-27.9, P value: .004). CONCLUSIONS: The potential risks versus benefits of G-CSF administration should be considered in neutropenic cancer patients with COVID-19, because G-CSF administration may lead to worsening clinical and respiratory status.

Projecting COVID-19 disease severity in cancer patients using purposefully-designed machine learning.

BACKGROUND: Accurately predicting outcomes for cancer patients with COVID-19 has been clinically challenging. Numerous clinical variables have been retrospectively associated with disease severity, but the predictive value of these variables, and how multiple variables interact to increase risk, remains unclear. METHODS: We used machine learning algorithms to predict COVID-19 severity in 348 cancer patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Using only clinical variables collected on or before a patient's COVID-19 positive date (time zero), we sought to classify patients into one of three possible future outcomes: Severe-early (the patient required high levels of oxygen support within 3 days of being tested positive for COVID-19), Severe-late (the patient required high levels of oxygen after 3 days), and Non-severe (the patient never required oxygen support). RESULTS: Our algorithm classified patients into these classes with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) ranging from 70 to 85%, significantly outperforming prior methods and univariate analyses. Critically, classification accuracy is highest when using a potpourri of clinical variables - including basic patient information, pre-existing diagnoses, laboratory and radiological work, and underlying cancer type - suggesting that COVID-19 in cancer patients comes with numerous, combinatorial risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we provide a computational tool that can identify high-risk patients early in their disease progression, which could aid in clinical decision-making and selecting treatment options.

Asthma in COVID-19 patients: An extra chain fitting around the neck?

INTRODUCTION: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly spread across the globe. Pre-existing comorbidities have been found to have a dramatic effect on the disease course. We sought to analyze the effect of asthma on the disease progression and outcomes of COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We conducted a multi-center retrospective study of positively confirmed COVID-19 patients. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, intubation, mechanical ventilation, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 502 COVID-19 adult patients (72 asthma and 430 non-asthma cohorts) with mean age of 60.7 years were included in the study. The frequency of asthma in hospitalized cohorts was 14.3%. Univariate analysis revealed that asthma patients were more likely to be obese (75% versus 54.2%, p = 0.001), with a higher frequency of intubation (40.3% versus 27.8%, p = 0.036), and required a longer duration of hospitalization (15.1 ± 12.5 versus 11.5 ± 10.6, p = 0.015). After adjustment, multivariable analysis showed that asthmatic patients were not associated with higher risk of ICU admission (OR = 1.81, 95%CI = 0.98-3.09, p = 0.06), endotracheal intubation (OR = 1.77, 95%CI = 0.99-3.04, p = 0.06) or complications (OR = 1.37, 95%CI = 0.82-2.31, p = 0.23). Asthmatic patients were not associated with higher odds of prolonged hospital length of stay (OR = 1.48, 95%CI = 0.82-2.66, p = 0.20) or with ICU stay (OR = 0.76, 95%CI = 0.28-2.02, p = 0.58). Kaplan-Meier curve showed no significant difference in the overall survival of the two groups (p = 0.65). CONCLUSION: Despite the increased prevalence of hospitalization in elder asthmatic COVID-19 patients, after adjustment for other variables, it was neither associated with increased severity nor worse outcomes.