Respiratory viral testing and antibacterial treatment in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: Viruses are more common than bacteria in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia. Little is known, however, about the frequency of respiratory viral testing and its associations with antimicrobial utilization. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The study included 179 US hospitals. PATIENTS: Adults admitted with pneumonia between July 2010 and June 2015. METHODS: We assessed the frequency of respiratory virus testing and compared antimicrobial utilization, mortality, length of stay, and costs between tested versus untested patients, and between virus-positive versus virus-negative patients. RESULTS: Among 166,273 patients with pneumonia on admission, 40,787 patients (24.5%) were tested for respiratory viruses, 94.8% were tested for influenza, and 20.7% were tested for other viruses. Viral assays were positive in 5,133 of 40,787 tested patients (12.6%), typically for influenza and rhinovirus. Tested patients were younger and had fewer comorbidities than untested patients, but patients with positive viral assays were older and had more comorbidities than those with negative assays. Blood cultures were positive for bacterial pathogens in 2.7% of patients with positive viral assays versus 5.3% of patients with negative viral tests (P < .001). Antibacterial courses were shorter for virus-positive versus -negative patients overall (mean 5.5 vs 6.4 days; P < .001) but varied by bacterial testing: 8.1 versus 8.0 days (P = .60) if bacterial tests were positive; 5.3 versus 6.1 days (P < .001) if bacterial tests were negative; and 3.3 versus 5.2 days (P < .001) if bacterial tests were not obtained (interaction P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A minority of patients hospitalized with pneumonia were tested for respiratory viruses; only a fraction of potential viral pathogens were assayed; and patients with positive viral tests often received long antibacterial courses.

Real-World Evidence on the Effectiveness of Plexiglass Barriers in Reducing Aerosol Exposure.

Reprinted with permission, Cleveland Clinic Foundation ©2022. All Rights Reserved. Background: Barriers are commonly installed in workplace situations where physical distancing cannot be maintained to reduce the risk for transmission of respiratory viruses. Although some types of barriers have been shown to reduce exposure to aerosols in laboratory-based testing, limited information is available on the efficacy of barriers in real-world settings. Methods: In an acute care hospital, we tested the effectiveness of in-use plexiglass barriers in reducing exposure of staff to aerosolized particles. A nebulizer was used to release 5% NaCl aerosol 1 meter from staff members with and without the barrier positioned between the point of aerosol release and the hospital staff. Particle counts on the staff side of the barrier were measured using a 6-channel particle counter. A condensed moisture (fog) generating device was used to visualize the airflow patterns. Results: Of 13 in-use barriers tested, 6 (46%) significantly reduced aerosol particle counts detected behind the barrier, 6 (46%) reduced particle counts to a modest, non-significant degree, and 1 (8%) significantly increased particle counts behind the barrier. Condensed moisture fog accumulated in the area where staff were seated behind the barrier that increased particle exposure, but not behind the other barriers. After repositioning the ineffective barrier, the condensed moisture fog no longer accumulated behind the barrier and aerosol exposure was reduced. Conclusion: In real-world settings, plexiglass barriers vary widely in effectiveness in reducing staff exposure to aerosols, and some barriers may increase risk for exposure if not positioned correctly. Devices that visualize airflow patterns may be useful as simple tools to assess barriers.

Considerations for fair prioritization of COVID-19 vaccine and its mandate among healthcare personnel.

With current COVID-19 vaccine demand outweighing supply and the emergency authorization/rollout of three novel vaccines in the United States, discussions continue regarding fair prioritization among various groups for this scarce resource. The US federal government's recommended vaccination schedule, meant to assist states with vaccine allocation, demonstrates fair ethical considerations; however, difficulties remain comparing various groups to determine fair vaccine access and distribution. Although strides have been taken to analyze risks versus benefits of early vaccination across certain high-risk populations, prioritizing vulnerable populations versus essential workers remains challenging for multiple reasons. Similarly, as COVID-19 vaccine allocation and distribution continues in the US and in other countries, topics that require continued consideration include sub-prioritization among currently prioritized groups, prioritization among vulnerable groups disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, like ethnic minorities, and holistic comparisons between groups who might receive various and disparate benefits from vaccination. Although all current COVID-19 vaccines are emergency authorization use only and a vaccine mandate would be considered only once these vaccines are licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration, future vaccination policies require time and deliberation. Similarly, given current vaccine hesitancy, mandatory vaccination of certain groups, like healthcare personnel, may need to be considered when these vaccines are licensed, especially if voluntary vaccination proves insufficient. Continued discussions regarding risks versus benefits of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and the unique role of healthcare personnel in providing a safe healthcare environment could lead to better deliberation regarding potential policies. This commentary aims to address both questions of fair prioritization and sub-prioritization of various groups, as well as ethical considerations for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare personnel.

Pediatric urology amidst SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: Building the future with current knowledge.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has ripped around the globe, stolen family members and forced healthcare systems to operate under an unprecedented strain. As of December 2020, 74.7 million people have contracted COVID-19 worldwide and although vaccine distribution has commenced, a recent rise in cases suggest that the pandemic is far from over. METHODS: This piece explores how COVID-19 has explicitly impacted the field of pediatric urology and its patients with a focus on vulnerable subpopulations. RESULTS: Various medical and surgical associations have published guidelines in reaction to the initial onset of the pandemic in early 2020. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: As the number of patients with COVID-19 increases, long-term recovery and future preparedness are imperative and should be cognizant of patient subpopulations that have been subject to disproportionate morbidity and mortality burden. Development of a dedicated response team would aid in achieving preparedness by drafting and implementing plans for resource allocation during scarcity, including logistic and ethical considerations of vaccine distribution. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.