A Comparison of the Epidemiological Characteristics Between Influenza and COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective, Observational Cohort Study.

Background and objective It is crucial to make early differentiation between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and seasonal influenza infections at the time of a patient's presentation to the emergency department (ED). In light of this, this study aimed to identify key epidemiological, initial laboratory, and radiological differences that would enable early recognition during co-circulation. Methods This was a retrospective, observational cohort study. All adult patients presenting to our ED at the Watford General Hospital, UK, with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 (2019/20) or influenza (2018/19) infection were included in this study. Demographic, laboratory, and radiological data were collected. Binary logistic regression was employed to determine features associated with COVID-19 infection rather than influenza. Results Chest radiographs suggestive of viral pneumonitis and older age (≥80 years) were associated with increased odds of having COVID-19 [odds ratio (OR): 47.00, 95% confidence interval (CI): 21.63-102.13 and OR: 64.85, 95% CI: 19.96-210.69 respectively]. Low eosinophils (<0.02 x 109/L) were found to increase the odds of COVID-19 (OR: 2.12, 95% CI: 1.44-3.10, p<0.001). Conclusions Gaining awareness about the epidemiological, biological, and radiologic presentation of influenza-like illness can be useful for clinicians in ED to differentiate between COVID-19 and influenza. This study showed that older age, eosinopenia, and radiographic evidence of viral pneumonitis significantly increase the odds of having COVID-19 compared to influenza. Further research is needed to determine if these findings are affected by acquired or natural immunity.

Empirical use of temocillin in hospitalized patients: results from a retrospective audit.

Background: Following a global shortage of piperacillin/tazobactam in 2017, a formulary decision was taken at a large District General Hospital in the East of England to partly replace piperacillin/tazobactam with either temocillin as monotherapy or as part of a combination regimen. A retrospective audit was then conducted to assess the clinical effectiveness of temocillin therapy. Methods: Data from patients admitted to Watford General Hospital between May and August 2017 and treated with temocillin were reviewed retrospectively. Clinical characteristics of patients, data related to the episode of infection, clinical success, tolerance and mortality were analysed. Results: Temocillin was used in 126 patients with median age of 73 years. Infection episodes mostly originated from the abdomen (n = 46), the lung (n = 40) and the urinary tract (n = 21). Seventy-seven patients received temocillin as first-line therapy and 106 received it empirically, with temocillin prescribed in combination with another antibiotic in 82% of the empirically treated cases. Clinical success was observed in 88.9% of cases with no difference between patients treated empirically and others (89.6% versus 85%) or in efficacy among abdominal (91%), pulmonary (87.5%) and urinary (81%) infections. One case of Clostridioides difficile infection was reported in a patient treated with four different antibiotics. During the shortage period, the hospital's standardized mortality ratio was significantly lower when compared with the same period of the preceding year (85 versus 96). Conclusions: Using temocillin as part of an empirical strategy is feasible and safe as long as appropriate antibiotic combination is recommended based upon the indication and the likely bacterial pathogen.

Relevance of prediction scores derived from the SARS-CoV-2 first wave, in the evolving UK COVID-19 second wave, for safe early discharge and mortality: a PREDICT COVID-19 UK prospective observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Prospectively validate prognostication scores, SOARS and 4C Mortality Score, derived from the COVID-19 first wave, for mortality and safe early discharge in the evolving pandemic with SARS-CoV-2 variants (B.1.1.7 replacing D614) and healthcare responses altering patient demographic and mortality. DESIGN: Protocol-based prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Single site PREDICT and multisite ISARIC (International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium) cohorts in UK COVID-19 second wave, October 2020 to January 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 1383 PREDICT and 20 595 ISARIC SARS-CoV-2 patients. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Relevance of SOARS and 4C Mortality Score determining in-hospital mortality and safe early discharge in the evolving UK COVID-19 second wave. RESULTS: 1383 (median age 67 years, IQR 52-82; mortality 24.7%) PREDICT and 20 595 (mortality 19.4%) ISARIC patient cohorts showed SOARS had area under the curve (AUC) of 0.8 and 0.74, while 4C Mortality Score had AUC of 0.83 and 0.91 for hospital mortality, in the PREDICT and ISARIC cohorts respectively, therefore, effective in evaluating safe discharge and in-hospital mortality. 19.3% (231/1195, PREDICT cohort) and 16.7% (2550/14992, ISARIC cohort) with SOARS of 0-1 were candidates for safe discharge to a virtual hospital (VH) model. SOARS implementation in the VH pathway resulted in low readmission, 11.8% (27/229) and low mortality, 0.9% (2/229). Use to prevent admission is still suboptimal, as 8.1% in the PREDICT cohort and 9.5% in the ISARIC cohort were admitted despite SOARS score of 0-1. CONCLUSIONS: SOARS and 4C Mortality Score remains valid, transforming complex clinical presentations into tangible numbers, aiding objective decision making, despite SARS-CoV-2 variants and healthcare responses altering patient demographic and mortality. Both scores, easily implemented within urgent care pathways for safe early discharge, allocate hospital resources appropriately to the pandemic's needs while enabling normal healthcare services resumption.

Retrospective case-control study to evaluate hypocalcaemia as a distinguishing feature of COVID-19 compared with other infective pneumonias and its association with disease severity.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether calcium derangement was a specific feature of COVID-19 that distinguishes it from other infective pneumonias, and its association with disease severity. DESIGN: A retrospective observational case-control study looking at serum calcium on adult patients with COVID-19, and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) or viral pneumonia (VP). SETTING: A district general hospital on the outskirts of London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 506 patients with COVID-19, 95 patients with CAP and 152 patients with VP. OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline characteristics including hypocalcaemia in patients with COVID-19, CAP and VP were detailed. For patients with COVID-19, the impact of an abnormally low calcium level on the maximum level of hospital care, as a surrogate of COVID-19 severity, was evaluated. The primary outcome of maximal level of care was based on the WHO Clinical Progression Scale for COVID-19. RESULTS: Hypocalcaemia was a specific and common clinical finding in patients with COVID-19 that distinguished it from other respiratory infections. Calcium levels were significantly lower in those with severe disease. Ordinal regression of risk estimates for categorised care levels showed that baseline hypocalcaemia was incrementally associated with OR of 2.33 (95% CI 1.5 to 3.61) for higher level of care, superior to other variables that have previously been shown to predict worse COVID-19 outcome. Serial calcium levels showed improvement by days 7-9 of admission, only in survivors of COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Hypocalcaemia is specific to COVID-19 and may help distinguish it from other infective pneumonias. Hypocalcaemia may independently predict severe disease and warrants detailed prognostic investigation. The fact that decreased serum calcium is observed at the time of clinical presentation in COVID-19, but not other infective pneumonias, suggests that its early derangement is pathophysiological and may influence the deleterious evolution of this disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 20/HRA/2344.

Early prognostication of COVID-19 to guide hospitalisation versus outpatient monitoring using a point-of-test risk prediction score.

INTRODUCTION: Risk factors of adverse outcomes in COVID-19 are defined but stratification of mortality using non-laboratory measured scores, particularly at the time of prehospital SARS-CoV-2 testing, is lacking. METHODS: Multivariate regression with bootstrapping was used to identify independent mortality predictors in patients admitted to an acute hospital with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. Predictions were externally validated in a large random sample of the ISARIC cohort (N=14 231) and a smaller cohort from Aintree (N=290). RESULTS: 983 patients (median age 70, IQR 53-83; in-hospital mortality 29.9%) were recruited over an 11-week study period. Through sequential modelling, a five-predictor score termed SOARS (SpO2, Obesity, Age, Respiratory rate, Stroke history) was developed to correlate COVID-19 severity across low, moderate and high strata of mortality risk. The score discriminated well for in-hospital death, with area under the receiver operating characteristic values of 0.82, 0.80 and 0.74 in the derivation, Aintree and ISARIC validation cohorts, respectively. Its predictive accuracy (calibration) in both external cohorts was consistently higher in patients with milder disease (SOARS 0-1), the same individuals who could be identified for safe outpatient monitoring. Prediction of a non-fatal outcome in this group was accompanied by high score sensitivity (99.2%) and negative predictive value (95.9%). CONCLUSION: The SOARS score uses constitutive and readily assessed individual characteristics to predict the risk of COVID-19 death. Deployment of the score could potentially inform clinical triage in preadmission settings where expedient and reliable decision-making is key. The resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission provides an opportunity to further validate and update its performance.

Assessing the Impact of COVID-19 on Antimicrobial Stewardship Activities/Programs in the United Kingdom.

Since first identified in late 2019, the acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV2) and the resulting coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has overwhelmed healthcare systems worldwide, often diverting key resources in a bid to meet unprecedented challenges. To measure its impact on national antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) activities, a questionnaire was designed and disseminated to antimicrobialstewardship leads in the United Kingdom (UK). Most respondents reported a reduction in AMS activity with 64% (61/95) reporting that COVID-19 had a negative impact on routine AMS activities. Activities reported to have been negatively affected by the pandemic include audit, quality improvement initiatives, education, AMS meetings, and multidisciplinary working including ward rounds. However, positive outcomes were also identified, with technology being increasingly used as a tool to facilitate stewardship e.g., virtual meetings and ward rounds and increased the acceptance of using procalcitonin tests to distinguish between viral and bacterial infections. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the AMS activities undertaken across the UK. The long-term impact of the reduced AMS activities on incidence of AMR are not yet known. The legacy of innovation, use of technology, and increased collaboration from the pandemic could strengthen AMS in the post-pandemic era and presents opportunities for further development of AMS.

Trends in Antibiotic Resistance in Urologic Practice.

CONTEXT: The significant global upsurge in antimicrobial resistance, particularly among Enterobacteriaceae, represents a serious threat to health care systems. The implications for urologic practice are of particular concern. OBJECTIVE: To review trends in antibiotic resistance in urologic practice. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We report current European trends of resistance in Gram-negative uropathogens. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: In addition to ß-lactam resistance, Gram-negative pathogens are often resistant to multiple drug classes, including aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, and carbapenems, commonly used to treat urologic infections. Interest is renewed in old antibiotics, and several new antibiotics are in the pipeline to meet the challenge of treating these infections. In this review, we summarise emerging trends in antimicrobial resistance and its impact on urologic practice. We also review current guidelines on the treatment and prevention of urologic infections with these organisms, and some key antibiotics in the era of resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing antimicrobial resistance represents a challenge to urologic practice for both treatment and prophylaxis. Antibiotic choice should be determined according to risk factors for multidrug resistance. Good knowledge of the local microbial prevalence and resistance profile is required to guide antimicrobial therapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: Antimicrobial resistance represents a challenge in urology. We summarise emerging trends in antimicrobial resistance and review current guidelines on the treatment and prevention of urologic infections, as well as some key antibiotics in the era of resistance.