Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 35
Filter
1.
Vaccine ; 2024 Jul 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39013694

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Residents of nursing homes remain an epidemiologically important population for COVID-19 prevention efforts, including vaccination. We aim to understand effectiveness of bivalent vaccination for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections in this population. METHODS: We used a retrospective cohort of nursing home residents from November 1, 2022, through March 31, 2023, to identify new SARS-CoV-2 infections. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios comparing residents with a bivalent vaccination compared with residents not up to date with vaccination recommendations. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as (1 - Hazard Ratio) * 100. RESULTS: Among 6,916 residents residing in 76 nursing homes included in our cohort, 3,211 (46%) received a bivalent vaccine 7 or more days prior to censoring. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness against laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection comparing receipt of a bivalent vaccine versus not up to date vaccine status was 29% (95% Confidence interval 18% to 39%). Vaccine effectiveness for receipt of a bivalent vaccine against residents who were unvaccinated or vaccinated more than a year prior was 32% (95% CI: 20% to 42%,) and was 25% compared with residents who were vaccinated with a monovalent vaccine in the past 61-365 days (95% CI:10% to 37%). CONCLUSIONS: Bivalent COVID-19 vaccines provided additional protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections in nursing home residents during our study time-period, compared to both no vaccination or vaccination more than a year ago and monovalent vaccination 60 - 365 days prior. Ensuring nursing home residents stay up to date with vaccine recommendations remains a critical tool for COVID-19 prevention efforts.

2.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 45(6): 726-732, 2024 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38351597

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The 2014 US National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria (CARB) aimed to reduce inappropriate inpatient antibiotic use by 20% for monitored conditions, such as community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), by 2020. We evaluated annual trends in length of therapy (LOT) in adults hospitalized with uncomplicated CAP from 2013 through 2020. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among adults with a primary diagnosis of bacterial or unspecified pneumonia using International Classification of Diseases Ninth and Tenth Revision codes in MarketScan and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services databases. We included patients with length of stay (LOS) of 2-10 days, discharged home with self-care, and not rehospitalized in the 3 days following discharge. We estimated inpatient LOT based on LOS from the PINC AI Healthcare Database. The total LOT was calculated by summing estimated inpatient LOT and actual postdischarge LOT. We examined trends from 2013 to 2020 in patients with total LOT >7 days, which was considered an indicator of likely excessive LOT. RESULTS: There were 44,976 and 400,928 uncomplicated CAP hospitalizations among patients aged 18-64 years and ≥65 years, respectively. From 2013 to 2020, the proportion of patients with total LOT >7 days decreased by 25% (68% to 51%) among patients aged 18-64 years and by 27% (68%-50%) among patients aged ≥65 years. CONCLUSIONS: Although likely excessive LOT for uncomplicated CAP patients decreased since 2013, the proportion of patients treated with LOT >7 days still exceeded 50% in 2020. Antibiotic stewardship programs should continue to pursue interventions to reduce likely excessive LOT for common infections.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents , Community-Acquired Infections , Length of Stay , Humans , Community-Acquired Infections/drug therapy , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Retrospective Studies , Middle Aged , Female , Male , Aged , Adult , United States , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Young Adult , Adolescent , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Bacterial/drug therapy , Pneumonia/drug therapy , Aged, 80 and over , Antimicrobial Stewardship
3.
JAMA Netw Open ; 6(8): e2329441, 2023 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37639273

ABSTRACT

Importance: Characterizing the scale and factors associated with hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infections could help inform hospital and public health policies regarding prevention and surveillance needs for these infections. Objective: To evaluate associations of hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection rates with different periods of the COVID-19 pandemic, hospital characteristics, and testing practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of US hospitals reporting SARS-CoV-2 testing data in the PINC AI Healthcare Database COVID-19 special release files was conducted from July 2020 through June 2022. Data were collected from hospitals that reported at least 1 SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction or antigen test during hospitalizations discharged that month. For each hospital-month where the hospital reported sufficient data, all hospitalizations discharged in that month were included in the cohort. SARS-CoV-2 viral tests and results reported in the microbiology files for all hospitalizations in the study period by discharge month were identified. Data analysis was conducted from September 2022 to March 2023. Exposure: Hospitalizations discharged in an included hospital-month. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariable generalized estimating equation negative-binomial regression models were used to assess associations of monthly rates of hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infections per 1000 patient-days (defined as a first positive SARS-CoV-2 test during after hospitalization day 7) with the phase of the pandemic (defined as the predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant in circulation), admission testing rates, and hospital characteristics (hospital bed size, teaching status, urban vs rural designation, Census region, and patient distribution variables). Results: A total of 5687 hospital-months from 288 distinct hospitals were included, which contributed 4 421 268 hospitalization records. Among 171 564 hospitalizations with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, 7591 (4.4%) were found to be hospital onset and 6455 (3.8%) were indeterminate onset. The mean monthly hospital-onset infection rate per 1000 patient-days was 0.27 (95 CI, 0.26-0.29). Hospital-onset infections occurred in 2217 of 5687 hospital-months (39.0%). The monthly percentage of discharged patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at admission varied; 1673 hospital-months (29.4%) had less than 25% of hospitalizations tested at admission; 2199 hospital-months (38.7%) had 25% to 50% of all hospitalizations tested, and 1815 hospital months (31.9%) had more than 50% of all hospitalizations tested at admission. Postadmission testing rates and community-onset infection rates increased with admission testing rates. In multivariable models restricted to hospital-months testing at least 25% of hospitalizations at admission, a 10% increase in community-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was associated with a 178% increase in the hospital-onset infection rate (rate ratio, 2.78; 95% CI, 2.52-3.07). Additionally, the phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, the admission testing rate, Census region, and bed size were all significantly associated with hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection rates. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of hospitals reporting SARS-CoV-2 infections, there was an increase of hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infections when community-onset infections were higher, indicating a need for ongoing and enhanced surveillance and prevention efforts to reduce in-hospital transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infections, particularly when community-incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections is high.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Cohort Studies , Pandemics , Hospitals , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/epidemiology
4.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 29(4): 761-770, 2023 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36918377

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 infections among vaccinated nursing home residents increased after the Omicron variant emerged. Data on booster dose effectiveness in this population are limited. During July 2021-March 2022, nursing home outbreaks in 11 US jurisdictions involving >3 infections within 14 days among residents who had received at least the primary COVID-19 vaccine(s) were monitored. Among 2,188 nursing homes, 1,247 outbreaks were reported in the periods of Delta (n = 356, 29%), mixed Delta/Omicron (n = 354, 28%), and Omicron (n = 536, 43%) predominance. During the Omicron-predominant period, the risk for infection within 14 days of an outbreak start was lower among boosted residents than among residents who had received the primary vaccine series alone (risk ratio [RR] 0.25, 95% CI 0.19-0.33). Once infected, boosted residents were at lower risk for all-cause hospitalization (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.40-0.49) and death (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34-0.59) than primary vaccine-only residents.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , United States/epidemiology , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , SARS-CoV-2 , Nursing Homes , Disease Outbreaks
5.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 44(6): 1005-1009, 2023 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36645205

ABSTRACT

Among nursing home outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with ≥3 breakthrough infections when the predominant severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant circulating was the SARS-CoV-2 δ (delta) variant, fully vaccinated residents were 28% less likely to be infected than were unvaccinated residents. Once infected, they had approximately half the risk for all-cause hospitalization and all-cause death compared with unvaccinated infected residents.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Virus Diseases , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Nursing Homes , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control
7.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(Suppl 2): S147-S154, 2022 10 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35856635

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Residents of nursing homes experience disproportionate morbidity and mortality related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and were prioritized for vaccine introduction. We evaluated COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) in preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections among nursing home residents. METHODS: We used a retrospective cohort of 4315 nursing home residents during 14 December 2020-9 November 2021. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios comparing residents with a completed vaccination series with unvaccinated among those with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, by vaccine product, and by time period. RESULTS: Overall adjusted VE was 58% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44% to 69%) among residents without a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. During the pre-Delta period, the VE within 150 days of receipt of the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech (67%; 95% CI, 40% to 82%) and Moderna (75%; 95% CI, 32% to 91%) was similar. During the Delta period, VE measured >150 days after the second dose was 33% (95% CI, -2% to 56%) for Pfizer-BioNTech and 77% (95% CI, 48% to 91%) for Moderna. Rates of infection were 78% lower (95% CI, 67% to 85%) among residents with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and completed vaccination series compared with unvaccinated residents without a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccines were effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections among nursing home residents, and history of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection provided additional protection. Maintaining high coverage of recommended doses of COVID-19 vaccines remains a critical tool for preventing infections in nursing homes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Nursing Homes , Retrospective Studies , Vaccination
8.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 43(8): 1067-1069, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33958010

ABSTRACT

Previously reported associations between hospital-level antibiotic use and hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infection (HO-CDI) were reexamined using 2012-2018 data from a new cohort of US acute-care hospitals. This analysis revealed significant positive associations between total, third-generation, and fourth-generation cephalosporin, fluoroquinolone, carbapenem, and piperacillin-tazobactam use and HO-CDI rates, confirming previous findings.


Subject(s)
Clostridioides difficile , Clostridium Infections , Cross Infection , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Clostridium Infections/drug therapy , Clostridium Infections/epidemiology , Cross Infection/drug therapy , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Hospitals , Humans
9.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(3): 525-528, 2022 02 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33988220

ABSTRACT

Replication-competent virus has not been detected in individuals with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) more than 10 days after symptom onset. It is unknown whether these findings apply to nursing home residents. Of 273 specimens collected from nursing home residents >10 days from the initial positive test, none were culture positive.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Nursing Homes , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Reverse Transcription
10.
Crit Care Med ; 49(12): 2102-2111, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34314131

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Widespread use and misuse of prescription and illicit opioids have exposed millions to health risks including serious infectious complications. Little is known, however, about the association between opioid use and sepsis. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: About 373 U.S. hospitals. PATIENTS: Adults hospitalized between January 2009 and September 2015. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sepsis was identified by clinical indicators of concurrent infection and organ dysfunction. Opioid-related hospitalizations were identified by the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes and/or inpatient orders for buprenorphine. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared by sepsis and opioid-related hospitalization status. The association between opioid-related hospitalization and all-cause, in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis was assessed using mixed-effects logistic models to adjust for baseline characteristics and severity of illness.The cohort included 6,715,286 hospitalizations; 375,479 (5.6%) had sepsis, 130,399 (1.9%) had opioid-related hospitalizations, and 8,764 (0.1%) had both. Compared with sepsis patients without opioid-related hospitalizations (n = 366,715), sepsis patients with opioid-related hospitalizations (n = 8,764) were younger (mean 52.3 vs 66.9 yr) and healthier (mean Elixhauser score 5.4 vs 10.5), had more bloodstream infections from Gram-positive and fungal pathogens (68.9% vs 47.0% and 10.6% vs 6.4%, respectively), and had lower in-hospital mortality rates (10.6% vs 16.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79; p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Of 1,803 patients with opioid-related hospitalizations who died in-hospital, 928 (51.5%) had sepsis. Opioid-related hospitalizations accounted for 1.5% of all sepsis-associated deaths, including 5.7% of sepsis deaths among patients less than 50 years old. From 2009 to 2015, the proportion of sepsis hospitalizations that were opioid-related increased by 77% (95% CI, 40.7-123.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with opioid-related hospitalizations, and opioid-related hospitalizations contribute disproportionately to sepsis-associated deaths among younger patients. In addition to ongoing efforts to combat the opioid crisis, public health agencies should focus on raising awareness about sepsis among patients who use opioids and their providers.


Subject(s)
Hospitalization/trends , Opiate Overdose/complications , Sepsis/complications , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospital Mortality/trends , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Opiate Overdose/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Sepsis/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology
11.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(7): 945-951, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33900791

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To address high COVID-19 burden in U.S. nursing homes, rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests have been widely distributed in those facilities. However, performance data are lacking, especially in asymptomatic people. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing when used for facility-wide testing during a nursing home outbreak. DESIGN: A prospective evaluation involving 3 facility-wide rounds of testing where paired respiratory specimens were collected to evaluate the performance of the BinaxNOW antigen test compared with virus culture and real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Early and late infection were defined using changes in RT-PCR cycle threshold values and prior test results. SETTING: A nursing home with an ongoing SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. PARTICIPANTS: 532 paired specimens collected from 234 available residents and staff. MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of positive agreement (PPA) and percentage of negative agreement (PNA) for BinaxNOW compared with RT-PCR and virus culture. RESULTS: BinaxNOW PPA with virus culture, used for detection of replication-competent virus, was 95%. However, the overall PPA of antigen testing with RT-PCR was 69%, and PNA was 98%. When only the first positive test result was analyzed for each participant, PPA of antigen testing with RT-PCR was 82% among 45 symptomatic people and 52% among 343 asymptomatic people. Compared with RT-PCR and virus culture, the BinaxNOW test performed well in early infection (86% and 95%, respectively) and poorly in late infection (51% and no recovered virus, respectively). LIMITATION: Accurate symptom ascertainment was challenging in nursing home residents; test performance may not be representative of testing done by nonlaboratory staff. CONCLUSION: Despite lower positive agreement compared with RT-PCR, antigen test positivity had higher agreement with shedding of replication-competent virus. These results suggest that antigen testing could be a useful tool to rapidly identify contagious people at risk for transmitting SARS-CoV-2 during nascent outbreaks and help reduce COVID-19 burden in nursing homes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.


Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/analysis , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Nursing Homes , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , COVID-19/epidemiology , False Negative Reactions , False Positive Reactions , Humans , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , United States/epidemiology
12.
Clin Infect Dis ; 72(Suppl 1): S17-S26, 2021 01 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33512523

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Treating patients with infections due to multidrug-resistant pathogens often requires substantial healthcare resources. The purpose of this study was to report estimates of the healthcare costs associated with infections due to multidrug-resistant bacteria in the United States (US). METHODS: We performed retrospective cohort studies of patients admitted for inpatient stays in the Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare system between January 2007 and October 2015. We performed multivariable generalized linear models to estimate the attributable cost by comparing outcomes in patients with and without positive cultures for multidrug-resistant bacteria. Finally, we multiplied these pathogen-specific, per-infection attributable cost estimates by national counts of infections due to each pathogen from patients hospitalized in a cohort of 722 US hospitals from 2017 to generate estimates of the population-level healthcare costs in the US attributable to these infections. RESULTS: Our analysis cohort consisted of 16 676 patients with community-onset infections and 172 712 matched controls and 8246 patients with hospital-onset infections and 66 939 matched controls. The highest cost was seen in hospital-onset invasive infections, with attributable costs (95% confidence intervals) ranging from $30 998 ($25 272-$36 724) for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus to $74 306 ($20 377-$128 235) for carbapenem-resistant (CR) Acinetobacter. The highest attributable costs for community-onset invasive infections were seen in CR Acinetobacter ($62 396; $20 370-$104 422). Treatment of these infections cost an estimated $4.6 billion ($4.1 billion-$5.1 billion) in 2017 in the US for community- and hospital-onset infections combined. CONCLUSIONS: We found that antimicrobial-resistant infections led to substantial healthcare costs.


Subject(s)
Bacterial Infections , Cross Infection , Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus , Staphylococcal Infections , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Bacterial Infections/drug therapy , Bacterial Infections/epidemiology , Cross Infection/drug therapy , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial , Health Care Costs , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Staphylococcal Infections/drug therapy , United States/epidemiology
13.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(32): 1095-1099, 2020 Aug 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32790655

ABSTRACT

Undetected infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) contributes to transmission in nursing homes, settings where large outbreaks with high resident mortality have occurred (1,2). Facility-wide testing of residents and health care personnel (HCP) can identify asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections and facilitate infection prevention and control interventions (3-5). Seven state or local health departments conducted initial facility-wide testing of residents and staff members in 288 nursing homes during March 24-June 14, 2020. Two of the seven health departments conducted testing in 195 nursing homes as part of facility-wide testing all nursing homes in their state, which were in low-incidence areas (i.e., the median preceding 14-day cumulative incidence in the surrounding county for each jurisdiction was 19 and 38 cases per 100,000 persons); 125 of the 195 nursing homes had not reported any COVID-19 cases before the testing. Ninety-five of 22,977 (0.4%) persons tested in 29 (23%) of these 125 facilities had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. The other five health departments targeted facility-wide testing to 93 nursing homes, where 13,443 persons were tested, and 1,619 (12%) had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. In regression analyses among 88 of these nursing homes with a documented case before facility-wide testing occurred, each additional day between identification of the first case and completion of facility-wide testing was associated with identification of 1.3 additional cases. Among 62 facilities that could differentiate results by resident and HCP status, an estimated 1.3 HCP cases were identified for every three resident cases. Performing facility-wide testing immediately after identification of a case commonly identifies additional unrecognized cases and, therefore, might maximize the benefits of infection prevention and control interventions. In contrast, facility-wide testing in low-incidence areas without a case has a lower proportion of test positivity; strategies are needed to further optimize testing in these settings.


Subject(s)
Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Nursing Homes , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Aged , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Health Personnel , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , United States/epidemiology
14.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(27): 882-886, 2020 Jul 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32644985

ABSTRACT

Skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) are focal points of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and asymptomatic infections with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, among SNF residents and health care personnel have been described (1-3). Repeated point prevalence surveys (serial testing of all residents and health care personnel at a health care facility irrespective of symptoms) have been used to identify asymptomatic infections and have reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission during SNF outbreaks (1,3). During March 2020, the Detroit Health Department and area hospitals detected a sharp increase in COVID-19 diagnoses, hospitalizations, and associated deaths among SNF residents. The Detroit Health Department collaborated with local government, academic, and health care system partners and a CDC field team to rapidly expand SARS-CoV-2 testing and implement infection prevention and control (IPC) activities in all Detroit-area SNFs. During March 7-May 8, among 2,773 residents of 26 Detroit SNFs, 1,207 laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 were identified during three periods: before (March 7-April 7) and after two point prevalence surveys (April 8-25 and April 30-May 8): the overall attack rate was 44%. Within 21 days of receiving their first positive test results, 446 (37%) of 1,207 COVID-19 patients were hospitalized, and 287 (24%) died. Among facilities participating in both surveys (n = 12), the percentage of positive test results declined from 35% to 18%. Repeated point prevalence surveys in SNFs identified asymptomatic COVID-19 cases, informed cohorting and IPC practices aimed at reducing transmission, and guided prioritization of health department resources for facilities experiencing high levels of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. With the increased availability of SARS-CoV-2 testing, repeated point prevalence surveys and enhanced and expanded IPC support should be standard tools for interrupting and preventing COVID-19 outbreaks in SNFs.


Subject(s)
Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Infection Control/methods , Mass Screening/methods , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Skilled Nursing Facilities , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Humans , Michigan/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Prevalence
15.
JAMA Intern Med ; 180(8): 1101-1105, 2020 Aug 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32437547

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused epidemic spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the Seattle, Washington, metropolitan area, with morbidity and mortality concentrated among residents of skilled nursing facilities. The prevalence of COVID-19 among older adults in independent/assisted living is not understood. OBJECTIVES: To conduct surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 and describe symptoms of COVID-19 among residents and staff of an independent/assisted living community. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In March 2020, public health surveillance of staff and residents was conducted on site at an assisted and independent living residence for older adults in Seattle, Washington, after exposure to 2 residents who were hospitalized with COVID-19. EXPOSURES: Surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a congregate setting implementing social isolation and infection prevention protocols. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: SARS-CoV-2 real-time polymerase chain reaction was performed on nasopharyngeal swabs from residents and staff; a symptom questionnaire was completed assessing fever, cough, and other symptoms for the preceding 14 days. Residents were retested for SARS-CoV-2 7 days after initial screening. RESULTS: Testing was performed on 80 residents; 62 were women (77%), with mean age of 86 (range, 69-102) years. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 3 of 80 residents (3.8%); none felt ill, 1 male resident reported resolved cough and 1 loose stool during the preceding 14 days. Virus was also detected in 2 of 62 staff (3.2%); both were symptomatic. One week later, resident SARS-CoV-2 testing was repeated and 1 new infection detected (asymptomatic). All residents remained in isolation and were clinically stable 14 days after the second test. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic residents highlights challenges in protecting older adults living in congregate settings. In this study, symptom screening failed to identify residents with infections and all 4 residents with SARS-CoV-2 remained asymptomatic after 14 days. Although 1 asymptomatic infection was found on retesting, a widespread facility outbreak was avoided. Compared with skilled nursing settings, in assisted/independent living communities, early surveillance to identify asymptomatic persons among residents and staff, in combination with adherence to recommended preventive strategies, may reduce viral spread.


Subject(s)
Assisted Living Facilities/organization & administration , Betacoronavirus , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Female , Housing for the Elderly , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Washington/epidemiology
17.
N Engl J Med ; 382(22): 2081-2090, 2020 05 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32329971

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can spread rapidly within skilled nursing facilities. After identification of a case of Covid-19 in a skilled nursing facility, we assessed transmission and evaluated the adequacy of symptom-based screening to identify infections in residents. METHODS: We conducted two serial point-prevalence surveys, 1 week apart, in which assenting residents of the facility underwent nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal testing for SARS-CoV-2, including real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), viral culture, and sequencing. Symptoms that had been present during the preceding 14 days were recorded. Asymptomatic residents who tested positive were reassessed 7 days later. Residents with SARS-CoV-2 infection were categorized as symptomatic with typical symptoms (fever, cough, or shortness of breath), symptomatic with only atypical symptoms, presymptomatic, or asymptomatic. RESULTS: Twenty-three days after the first positive test result in a resident at this skilled nursing facility, 57 of 89 residents (64%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Among 76 residents who participated in point-prevalence surveys, 48 (63%) tested positive. Of these 48 residents, 27 (56%) were asymptomatic at the time of testing; 24 subsequently developed symptoms (median time to onset, 4 days). Samples from these 24 presymptomatic residents had a median rRT-PCR cycle threshold value of 23.1, and viable virus was recovered from 17 residents. As of April 3, of the 57 residents with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 11 had been hospitalized (3 in the intensive care unit) and 15 had died (mortality, 26%). Of the 34 residents whose specimens were sequenced, 27 (79%) had sequences that fit into two clusters with a difference of one nucleotide. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid and widespread transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was demonstrated in this skilled nursing facility. More than half of residents with positive test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing and most likely contributed to transmission. Infection-control strategies focused solely on symptomatic residents were not sufficient to prevent transmission after SARS-CoV-2 introduction into this facility.


Subject(s)
Asymptomatic Diseases , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Disease Transmission, Infectious , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Skilled Nursing Facilities , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Betacoronavirus/genetics , COVID-19 , Comorbidity , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Cough/etiology , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Dyspnea/etiology , Female , Fever/etiology , Genome, Viral , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Male , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Prevalence , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2 , Viral Load , Washington/epidemiology
18.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 41(6): 734-736, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32279665

ABSTRACT

We compared methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bloodstream infections (BSIs) captured by culture-based surveillance and MRSA septicemia hospitalizations captured by administrative coding using statewide hospital discharge data in Connecticut from 2010 to 2018. Observed discrepancies between identification methods suggest administrative coding is inappropriate for assessing trends in MRSA BSIs.


Subject(s)
Bacteremia , Cross Infection , Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus , Staphylococcal Infections , Bacteremia/epidemiology , Connecticut/epidemiology , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Hospitals , Humans , Patient Discharge , Staphylococcal Infections/epidemiology , Staphylococcus aureus
19.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(14): 416-418, 2020 Apr 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32271726

ABSTRACT

In the Seattle, Washington metropolitan area, where the first case of novel coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) in the United States was reported (1), a community-level outbreak is ongoing with evidence of rapid spread and high morbidity and mortality among older adults in long-term care skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) (2,3). However, COVID-19 morbidity among residents of senior independent and assisted living communities, in which residents do not live as closely together as do residents in SNFs and do not require skilled nursing services, has not been described. During March 5-9, 2020, two residents of a senior independent and assisted living community in Seattle (facility 1) were hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 infection; on March 6, social distancing and other preventive measures were implemented in the community. UW Medicine (the health system linked to the University of Washington), Public Health - Seattle & King County, and CDC conducted an investigation at the facility. On March 10, all residents and staff members at facility 1 were tested for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and asked to complete a questionnaire about their symptoms; all residents were tested again 7 days later. Among 142 residents and staff members tested during the initial phase, three of 80 residents (3.8%) and two of 62 staff members (3.2%) had positive test results. The three residents had no symptoms at the time of testing, although one reported an earlier cough that had resolved. A fourth resident, who had negative test results in the initial phase, had positive test results 7 days later. This resident was asymptomatic on both days. Possible explanations for so few cases of COVID-19 in this residential community compared with those in several Seattle SNFs with high morbidity and mortality include more social distancing among residents and less contact with health care providers. In addition, early implementation of stringent isolation and protective measures after identification of two COVID-19 cases might have been effective in minimizing spread of the virus in this type of setting. When investigating a potential outbreak of COVID-19 in senior independent and assisted living communities, symptom screening is unlikely to be sufficient to identify all persons infected with SARS-CoV-2. Adherence to CDC guidance to prevent COVID-19 transmission in senior independent and assisted living communities (4) could be instrumental in preventing a facility outbreak.


Subject(s)
Assisted Living Facilities , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Disease Outbreaks , Housing for the Elderly , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Asymptomatic Diseases , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , United States , Washington/epidemiology , Young Adult
20.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(13): 377-381, 2020 Apr 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32240128

ABSTRACT

Older adults are susceptible to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes as a consequence of their age and, in some cases, underlying health conditions (1). A COVID-19 outbreak in a long-term care skilled nursing facility (SNF) in King County, Washington that was first identified on February 28, 2020, highlighted the potential for rapid spread among residents of these types of facilities (2). On March 1, a health care provider at a second long-term care skilled nursing facility (facility A) in King County, Washington, had a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, after working while symptomatic on February 26 and 28. By March 6, seven residents of this second facility were symptomatic and had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2. On March 13, CDC performed symptom assessments and SARS-CoV-2 testing for 76 (93%) of the 82 facility A residents to evaluate the utility of symptom screening for identification of COVID-19 in SNF residents. Residents were categorized as asymptomatic or symptomatic at the time of testing, based on the absence or presence of fever, cough, shortness of breath, or other symptoms on the day of testing or during the preceding 14 days. Among 23 (30%) residents with positive test results, 10 (43%) had symptoms on the date of testing, and 13 (57%) were asymptomatic. Seven days after testing, 10 of these 13 previously asymptomatic residents had developed symptoms and were recategorized as presymptomatic at the time of testing. The reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing cycle threshold (Ct) values indicated large quantities of viral RNA in asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic residents, suggesting the potential for transmission regardless of symptoms. Symptom-based screening in SNFs could fail to identify approximately half of residents with COVID-19. Long-term care facilities should take proactive steps to prevent introduction of SARS-CoV-2 (3). Once a confirmed case is identified in an SNF, all residents should be placed on isolation precautions if possible (3), with considerations for extended use or reuse of personal protective equipment (PPE) as needed (4).


Subject(s)
Asymptomatic Diseases/epidemiology , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Skilled Nursing Facilities , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Long-Term Care , Male , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Washington/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...