ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Data concerning differences in demographics/disease severity between the first and second waves of COVID-19 are limited. We aimed to examine prognosis in patients presenting to hospital with COVID-19 amongst different ethnic groups between the first and second waves in the UK. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we included 1763 patients presenting to a regional hospital centre in Leicester (UK) and compared those in the first (n = 956) and second (n = 807) waves. Admission National Early Warning Scores, mechanical ventilation and mortality rate were lower in the second wave compared with the first. RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality risk in second wave patients was approximately half that of first wave patients [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40-0.75]. In the second wave, Black patients were at higher risk of 30-day mortality than White patients (4.73, 1.56-14.3). CONCLUSION: We found that disporportionately higher risks of death in patients from ethnic minority groups were not equivalent across consecutive waves of the pandemic. This suggests that risk factors for death in those from ethnic minority groups are malleable and potentially reversible. Our findings need urgent investigation in larger studies.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cleaning is a major control component for outbreaks of infection. However, for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there is limited specific guidance regarding the proper disinfection methods that should be used. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature on cleaning, disinfection or decontamination methods in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies were included, reporting a variety of methods with which the effectiveness of interventions were assessed. Virus was inoculated onto different types of material including masks, nasopharyngeal swabs, serum, laboratory plates and simulated saliva, tears or nasal fluid and then interventions were applied in an attempt to eliminate the virus including chemical, ultraviolet (UV) light irradiation, and heat and humidity. At body temperature (37°C) there is evidence that the virus will not be detectable after 2 days but this can be reduced to non-detection at 30 min at 56°C, 15 min at 65°C and 2 min at 98°C. Different experimental methods testing UV light have shown that it can inactivate the virus. Light of 254-365 nm has been used, including simulated sunlight. Many chemical agents including bleach, hand sanitiser, hand wash, soap, ethanol, isopropanol, guandinium thiocynate/t-octylphenoxypolyethoxyethanol, formaldehyde, povidone-iodine, 0.05% chlorhexidine, 0.1% benzalkonium chloride, acidic electrolysed water, Clyraguard copper iodine complex and hydrogen peroxide vapour have been shown to disinfect SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: Heating, UV light irradiation and chemicals can be used to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 but there is insufficient evidence to support one measure over others in clinical practice.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The number of different antimicrobial recommendations between hospital trusts for the same indication in England is unknown. AIM: We aimed to evaluate the heterogeneity of antimicrobial recommendations for seven common inpatient infections across hospital trusts in England and evaluate changes to recommendations following introduction of national (National Institute for Healthcare and Excellence, NICE) and international (WHO) antimicrobial guidelines. METHODS: Guidelines published on the MicroGuide smartphone application were collected from December 2017 to February 2018 and re-evaluated between December 2019 and February 2020. The following indications were assessed: community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) CURB65 score ≥3, hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), infective exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (iCOPD), cellulitis, uncomplicated urinary tract infection (uUTI), intra-abdominal infection (IAI) and sepsis of unknown source (SUS). On follow-up, compliance against WHO WATCH antibiotic and NICE recommendations was evaluated. RESULTS: Guidelines were obtained predominantly from England. Antibiotic regimens between hospitals became increasingly diverse across indications in the following order: uUTI, cellulitis, iCOPD, CAP, HAP, IAI and SUS. A piperacillin/tazobactam-based regimen was recommended in HAP (59%), SUS (39%) and IAI (30%). After 2 years, 107 changes were made to 357 antibiotic regimen recommendations; the overall number of regimens using piperacillin-tazobactam and WHO WATCH antibiotics remained similar. Compliance of recommendations with NICE guidelines as follows: iCOPD (100% adherent), uUTI (98%), cellulitis (90%), CAP (43%) and HAP (27%). CONCLUSION: The heterogeneity of antibiotic recommendations increased as the indicated infection was more severe, with broader underlying bacterial causes. Piperacillin-tazobactam remains favoured in antibiotic regimens, despite not recommended in WHO and NICE guidance.
