Surveillance for Emerging and Reemerging Pathogens Using Pathogen Agnostic Metagenomic Sequencing in the United States: A Critical Role for Federal Government Agencies.

The surveillance and identification of emerging, reemerging, and unknown infectious disease pathogens is essential to national public health preparedness and relies on fluidity, coordination, and interconnectivity between public and private pathogen surveillance systems and networks. Developing a national sentinel surveillance network with existing resources and infrastructure could increase efficiency, accelerate the identification of emerging public health threats, and support coordinated intervention strategies that reduce morbidity and mortality. However, implementing and sustaining programs to detect emerging and reemerging pathogens in humans using advanced molecular methods, such as metagenomic sequencing, requires making large investments in testing equipment and developing networks of clinicians, laboratory scientists, and bioinformaticians. In this study, we sought to gain an understanding of how federal government agencies currently support such pathogen agnostic testing of human specimens in the United States. We conducted a landscape analysis of federal agency websites for publicly accessible information on the availability and type of pathogen agnostic testing and details on flow of clinical specimens and data. The website analysis was supplemented by an expert review of results with representatives from the federal agencies. Operating divisions within the US Department of Health and Human Services and the US Department of Veterans Affairs have developed and sustained extensive clinical and research networks to obtain patient specimens and perform metagenomic sequencing. Metagenomic facilities supported by US agencies were not equally geographically distributed across the United States. Although many entities have work dedicated to metagenomics and/or support emerging infectious disease surveillance specimen collection, there was minimal formal collaboration across agencies.

Literature Review of Pathogen Agnostic Molecular Testing of Clinical Specimens From Difficult-to-Diagnose Patients: Implications for Public Health.

To better identify emerging or reemerging pathogens in patients with difficult-to-diagnose infections, it is important to improve access to advanced molecular testing methods. This is particularly relevant for cases where conventional microbiologic testing has been unable to detect the pathogen and the patient's specimens test negative. To assess the availability and utility of such testing for human clinical specimens, a literature review of published biomedical literature was conducted. From a corpus of more than 4,000 articles, a set of 34 reports was reviewed in detail for data on where the testing was being performed, types of clinical specimens tested, pathogen agnostic techniques and methods used, and results in terms of potential pathogens identified. This review assessed the frequency of advanced molecular testing, such as metagenomic next generation sequencing that has been applied to clinical specimens for supporting clinicians in caring for difficult-to-diagnose patients. Specimen types tested were from cerebrospinal fluid, respiratory secretions, and other body tissues and fluids. Publications included case reports and series, and there were several that involved clinical trials, surveillance studies, research programs, or outbreak situations. Testing identified both known human pathogens (sometimes in new sites) and previously unknown human pathogens. During this review, there were no apparent coordinated efforts identified to develop regional or national reports on emerging or reemerging pathogens. Therefore, development of a coordinated sentinel surveillance system that applies advanced molecular methods to clinical specimens which are negative by conventional microbiological diagnostic testing would provide a foundation for systematic characterization of emerging and underdiagnosed pathogens and contribute to national biodefense strategy goals.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Outpatient Treatment of COVID-19 - United States, January-July 2022.

In December 2021 and early 2022, four medications received emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration for outpatient treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in patients who are at high risk for progressing to severe disease; these included nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) and molnupiravir (Lagevrio) (both oral antivirals), expanded use of remdesivir (Veklury; an intraveneous antiviral), and bebtelovimab (a monoclonal antibody [mAb]).* Reports have documented disparities in mAb treatment by race and ethnicity (1) and in oral antiviral treatment by zip code-level social vulnerability (2); however, limited data are available on racial and ethnic disparities in oral antiviral treatment.† Using electronic health record (EHR) data from 692,570 COVID-19 patients aged ≥20 years who sought medical care during January-July 2022, treatment with Paxlovid, Lagevrio, Veklury, and mAbs was assessed by race and ethnicity, overall and among high-risk patient groups. During 2022, the percentage of COVID-19 patients seeking medical care who were treated with Paxlovid increased from 0.6% in January to 20.2% in April and 34.3% in July; the other three medications were used less frequently (0.7%-5.0% in July). During April-July 2022, when Paxlovid use was highest, compared with White patients, Black or African American (Black) patients were prescribed Paxlovid 35.8% less often, multiple or other race patients 24.9% less often, American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (AIAN/NHOPI) patients 23.1% less often, and Asian patients 19.4% less often; Hispanic patients were prescribed Paxlovid 29.9% less often than non-Hispanic patients. Racial and ethnic disparities in Paxlovid treatment were generally somewhat higher among patients at high risk for severe COVID-19, including those aged ≥50 years and those who were immunocompromised. The expansion of programs focused on equitable awareness of and access to outpatient COVID-19 treatments, as well as COVID-19 vaccination, including updated bivalent booster doses, can help protect persons most at risk for severe illness and facilitate equitable health outcomes.

Trends in Disease Severity and Health Care Utilization During the Early Omicron Variant Period Compared with Previous SARS-CoV-2 High Transmission Periods - United States, December 2020-January 2022.

The B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was first clinically identified in the United States on December 1, 2021, and spread rapidly. By late December, it became the predominant strain, and by January 15, 2022, it represented 99.5% of sequenced specimens in the United States* (1). The Omicron variant has been shown to be more transmissible and less virulent than previously circulating variants (2,3). To better understand the severity of disease and health care utilization associated with the emergence of the Omicron variant in the United States, CDC examined data from three surveillance systems and a large health care database to assess multiple indicators across three high-COVID-19 transmission periods: December 1, 2020-February 28, 2021 (winter 2020-21); July 15-October 31, 2021 (SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 [Delta] predominance); and December 19, 2021-January 15, 2022 (Omicron predominance). The highest daily 7-day moving average to date of cases (798,976 daily cases during January 9-15, 2022), emergency department (ED) visits (48,238), and admissions (21,586) were reported during the Omicron period, however, the highest daily 7-day moving average of deaths (1,854) was lower than during previous periods. During the Omicron period, a maximum of 20.6% of staffed inpatient beds were in use for COVID-19 patients, 3.4 and 7.2 percentage points higher than during the winter 2020-21 and Delta periods, respectively. However, intensive care unit (ICU) bed use did not increase to the same degree: 30.4% of staffed ICU beds were in use for COVID-19 patients during the Omicron period, 0.5 percentage points lower than during the winter 2020-21 period and 1.2 percentage points higher than during the Delta period. The ratio of peak ED visits to cases (event-to-case ratios) (87 per 1,000 cases), hospital admissions (27 per 1,000 cases), and deaths (nine per 1,000 cases [lagged by 3 weeks]) during the Omicron period were lower than those observed during the winter 2020-21 (92, 68, and 16 respectively) and Delta (167, 78, and 13, respectively) periods. Further, among hospitalized COVID-19 patients from 199 U.S. hospitals, the mean length of stay and percentages who were admitted to an ICU, received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and died while in the hospital were lower during the Omicron period than during previous periods. COVID-19 disease severity appears to be lower during the Omicron period than during previous periods of high transmission, likely related to higher vaccination coverage,† which reduces disease severity (4), lower virulence of the Omicron variant (3,5,6), and infection-acquired immunity (3,7). Although disease severity appears lower with the Omicron variant, the high volume of ED visits and hospitalizations can strain local health care systems in the United States, and the average daily number of deaths remains substantial.§ This underscores the importance of national emergency preparedness, specifically, hospital surge capacity and the ability to adequately staff local health care systems. In addition, being up to date on vaccination and following other recommended prevention strategies are critical to preventing infections, severe illness, or death from COVID-19.

Postoperative recovery with bispectral index versus anesthetic concentration-guided protocols.

BACKGROUND: Use of the bispectral index (BIS) monitor has been suggested to decrease excessive anesthetic drug administration, leading to improved recovery from general anesthesia. The purpose of this substudy of the B-Unaware and BAG-RECALL trials was to assess whether a BIS-based anesthetic protocol was superior to an end-tidal anesthetic concentration-based protocol in decreasing recovery time and postoperative complications. METHODS: Patients at high risk for awareness were randomized to either BIS-guided or end-tidal anesthetic concentration-guided general anesthesia in the original trials. Outcomes included time to postanesthesia care unit discharge readiness, time to achieve a postoperative Aldrete score of 9-10, intensive care unit length of stay, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and severe postoperative pain. Univariate Cox regression and chi-square tests were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: The BIS cohort was not superior in time to postanesthesia care unit discharge readiness (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1; n = 2,949), time to achieve an Aldrete score of 9-10 (hazard ratio, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.4; n = 706), intensive care unit length of stay (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.9-1.1; n = 2,074), incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (absolute risk reduction, -0.5%; 95% CI, -5.8 to 4.8%; n = 789), or incidence of severe postoperative pain (absolute risk reduction, 4.4%; 95% CI, -2.3 to 11.1%; n = 759). CONCLUSIONS: In patients at high risk for awareness, the BIS-guided protocol is not superior to an anesthetic concentration-guided protocol in time needed for postoperative recovery or in the incidences of common postoperative complications.