The diagnostic accuracy of the ID NOW COVID-19 point of care test in acute hospital admissions.

BACKGROUND: Prompt identification of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection on admission to hospital is crucial to ensuring initiation of appropriate treatment, optimising infection control and maintaining patient flow. The Abbott ID NOW™ COVID-19 assay (ID NOW) is a point-of-care, isothermal nucleic acid amplification test, capable of producing a result within minutes, potentially placing it as an invaluable tool in helping to control the coronavirus-disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ID NOW in acute hospital admissions. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective approach to data collection was undertaken in consecutive patients with ID NOW and Hologic Aptima™ SARS-CoV-2 transcription-mediated amplification assay (Aptima TMA) results, across three hospitals in the south-west of England between 1st March and 30th September 2021. A nasal swab was taken for ID NOW and a combined nose and throat swab for Aptima TMA. Measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated for ID NOW against Aptima TMA. This study was conducted during a period of alpha and delta strain predominance. RESULTS: 19,698 ID NOW assays were performed, of which 12,821 had an Aptima TMA assay performed within 24 hours. ID NOW had sensitivity of 85.2 % (95 % CI, 82.2-87.9) and specificity of 99.6 % (95 % CI, 99.4-99.7) compared with the reference assay. The overall PPV was 91.0 % (95 % CI, 88.5-93.0) and the overall NPV was 99.3 % (95 % CI, 99.1-99.4). CONCLUSIONS: ID NOW offers a valid diagnostic tool to detect SARS-CoV-2, performing comparably to a reference laboratory-based assay which takes longer to provide results.

Exploring the views of infection consultants in England on a novel delinked funding model for antimicrobials: the SMASH study.

Objectives: A novel 'subscription-type' funding model was launched in England in July 2022 for ceftazidime/avibactam and cefiderocol. We explored the views of infection consultants on important aspects of the delinked antimicrobial funding model. Methods: An online survey was sent to all infection consultants in NHS acute hospitals in England. Results: The response rate was 31.2% (235/753). Most consultants agreed the model is a welcome development (69.8%, 164/235), will improve treatment of drug-resistant infections (68.5%, 161/235) and will stimulate research and development of new antimicrobials (57.9%, 136/235). Consultants disagreed that the model would lead to reduced carbapenem use and reported increased use of cefiderocol post-implementation. The presence of an antimicrobial pharmacy team, requirement for preauthorization by infection specialists, antimicrobial stewardship ward rounds and education of infection specialists were considered the most effective antimicrobial stewardship interventions. Under the new model, 42.1% (99/235) of consultants would use these antimicrobials empirically, if risk factors for antimicrobial resistance were present (previous infection, colonization, treatment failure with carbapenems, ward outbreak, recent admission to a high-prevalence setting).Significantly higher insurance and diversity values were given to model antimicrobials compared with established treatments for carbapenem-resistant infections, while meropenem recorded the highest enablement value. Use of both 'subscription-type' model drugs for a wide range of infection sites was reported. Respondents prioritized ceftazidime/avibactam for infections by bacteria producing OXA-48 and KPC and cefiderocol for those producing MBLs and infections with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Acinetobacter spp. and Burkholderia cepacia. Conclusions: The 'subscription-type' model was viewed favourably by infection consultants in England.

Parapneumonic effusions related to Streptococcus pneumoniae: serotype and disease severity trends from 2006 to 2018 in Bristol, UK.

RATIONALE: Streptococcus pneumoniae epidemiology is changing in response to vaccination and some data suggest that empyema incidence is increasing. However, differences exist between the UK and US studies. We describe trends in the clinical phenotype of adult pneumococcal pleural infection, including simple parapneumonic effusions (SPE) in the pneumococcal conjugate vaccination (PCV) era. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether there were differences in pneumococcal disease presentation and severity associated with pleural infection. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study, all adults ≥16 years admitted to three large UK hospitals, 2006-2018 with pneumococcal disease. 2477 invasive pneumococcal cases were identified: 459 SPE and 100 pleural infection cases. Medical records were reviewed for each clinical episode. Serotype data were obtained from the UK Health Security Agency national reference laboratory. RESULTS: Incidence increased over time, including non-PCV-serotype disease. PCV7-serotype disease declined following paediatric PCV7 introduction, but the effect of PCV13 was less apparent as disease caused by the additional six serotypes plateaued with serotypes 1 and 3 causing such parapneumonic effusions from 2011 onwards.Patients with pleural infection had a median survival 468 days (95% CI 340 to 590) vs 286 days (95% CI 274 to 335) in those with SPE. Pleural infection associated with frank pus had lower 90-day mortality than pleural infection without pus (0% vs 29%, p<0.0001). 90-day mortality could be predicted by baseline increased RAPID (Renal, Age, Purulence, Infection source, and Dietary factors) score (HR 15.01, 95% CI 1.24 to 40.06, p=0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Pneumococcal infection continues to cause severe disease despite the introduction of PCVs. The predominance of serotype 1 and 3 in this adult UK cohort is in keeping with previous studies in paediatric and non-UK studies. Rising non-PCV serotype disease and limited impact of PCV13 on cases caused by serotypes 1 and 3 offset the reductions in adult pneumococcal parapneumonic effusion disease burden observed following the introduction of the childhood PCV7 programme.

Persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection in immunocompromised patients facilitates rapid viral evolution: Retrospective cohort study and literature review.

Background: Most patients with SARS-CoV-2 are non-infectious within 2 weeks, though viral RNA may remain detectable for weeks. However there are reports of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection, with viable virus and ongoing infectivity months after initial detection. Beyond individuals, viral evolution during persistent infections may be accelerated, driving emergence of mutations associated with viral variants of concern. These patients often do not meet inclusion criteria for clinical trials, meaning clinical and virologic characteristics, and optimal management strategies are poorly evidence-based. Methods: We analysed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection from a regional testing laboratory in South-West England between March 2020 and December 2021, with at least two SARS-CoV-2 positive samples separated by ≥ 56 days were identified. Excluding those with confirmed or likely re-infection, we identified patients with persistent infection, characterised by an ongoing clinical syndrome consistent with COVID-19 alongside monophyletic viral lineage of SARS-CoV-2. We examined clinical and virologic characteristics, treatment, and outcome. We further performed a literature review investigating cases of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection, reviewing patient characteristics and treatment. Results: We identified six patients with persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection. All were hypogammaglobulinaemic and had underlying haematological malignancy, with four having received B-cell depleting therapy. Evidence of viral evolution, including accrual of mutations associated with variants of concern, was demonstrated in five cases. Four patients ultimately cleared SARS-CoV-2. In two patients, clearance followed treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab. Both survived beyond thirty days following viral clearance, having experienced infections of 305- and 269-days duration respectively, after failed attempts at clearance with alternative therapies. We found 60 cases of confirmed persistent infection in the literature, with a further 31 probable cases. Of those, 80% of patients treated with monoclonal antibodies cleared SARS-CoV-2, and none died. Conclusion: Haematological malignancy and patients receiving B-cell depleting therapies represent key groups at risk of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Throughout persistent infection, SARS-CoV-2 can evolve rapidly, giving rise to significant mutations, including those implicated in variants of concern. Monoclonal antibodies appear to be a promising therapeutic option, potentially in combination with antivirals, crucial for individuals, and for public health.

Cross-skilling training to support medical redeployment in the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, doctors will be redeployed into roles with which they are unfamiliar. Adequate training must be provided to reacquaint doctors with medical ward practice, supporting psychological wellbeing and patient safety. Here we describe a cross-skilling programme in North Bristol NHS Trust designed to address colleague anxiety and support wellbeing during redeployment.

Risk of Bacterial Transmission in Bronchiectasis Outpatient Clinics.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to discuss the risk of bacterial cross-infection for bronchiectasis patients in the outpatient setting. Cross-infection has primarily been a matter of concern in cystic fibrosis (CF). There is considerable evidence of transmission of pathogens between CF patients, and this has led to guideline recommendations advocating strict segregation policies. Guidelines in bronchiectasis do not specifically address the issue of cross-infection. If cross-infection is prevalent, it may have significant implications for patients and the practical running of specialist care. RECENT FINDINGS: Multiple UK-based studies have now published evidence of cross-infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa within cohorts of bronchiectasis patients; however, the risk does not appear to be high. There is also evidence suggesting cross-infection from CF patients to bronchiectasis patients. SUMMARY: The current evidence for cross-infection in bronchiectasis is limited, but suggests a small risk with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Longitudinal studies looking at Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other pathogens are now required.