High Serum S100A12 as a Diagnostic and Prognostic Biomarker for Severity, Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria Superinfection and Herpes Simplex Virus Reactivation in COVID-19.

Neutrophils are critical immune cells in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). S100 calcium-binding protein A12 (S100A12) is highly expressed in neutrophils during acute inflammation. The aim of this study was to evaluate serum S100A12 levels as a diagnostic and prognostic tool in COVID-19. Serum samples of patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 were collected during 2020 to 2024. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used to measure serum S100A12 levels in 63 patients with moderate COVID-19, 60 patients with severe disease and 33 healthy controls. Serum S100A12 levels were elevated in moderate COVID-19 compared to controls and were even higher in severe cases. In moderate disease, serum S100A12 levels positively correlated with immune cell counts. While C-reactive protein and procalcitonin are established inflammation markers, they did not correlate with serum S100A12 levels in either patient cohort. Patients with severe COVID-19 and vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE) infection had increased S100A12 levels. Elevated S100A12 levels were also observed in patients with herpes simplex reactivation. Fungal superinfections did not alter S100A12 levels. These data show that serum S100A12 increases in moderate and severe COVID-19 and is further elevated by VRE bloodstream infection and herpes simplex reactivation. Therefore, S100A12 may serve as a novel biomarker for severe COVID-19 and an early diagnostic indicator for bacterial and viral infections.

Evaluating the impact of interprofessional training wards on patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes: a mixed-methods analysis.

Introduction: Interprofessional teamwork is pivotal in modern healthcare, prompting the establishment of interprofessional training wards since 1996. While these wards serve as hubs for optimizing healthcare professional collaboration and communication, research into patient outcomes remains notably sparse and geographically limited, predominantly examining patient satisfaction and sparingly exploring other metrics like mortality or self-discharge rates. This study seeks to bridge this gap, comparing patient outcomes in interprofessional training wards and conventional wards under the hypothesis that the former offers no disadvantage to patient outcomes. Materials and methods: We explored patient outcomes within an interprofessional student ward called A-STAR at a University Hospital from October 2019 to December 2022. Engaging with patients discharged between May 2021 and April 2022, we utilized digital and paper-based anonymous questionnaires, catering to patient preference, to gather pertinent data. Results: Analysis of outcomes for 1,482 A-STAR (interprofessional student ward) and 5,752 conventional ward patients revealed noteworthy findings. A-STAR patients tended to be younger (59 vs. 61 years, p < 0.01) and more frequently male (73.5% vs. 70.4%, p = 0.025). Vital clinical outcomes, such as discharges against medical advice, complication-driven readmissions, and ICU transfers, were statistically similar between groups, as were mortality rates (1.2% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.468). A-STAR demonstrated high patient satisfaction, underscored by positive reflections on team competence, ward atmosphere, and responsiveness to concerns, emphasizing the value placed on interprofessional collaboration. Patient narratives commended team kindness, lucid explanations, and proactive involvement. Discussion: This data collectively underscores the safety and reliability of patient care within training wards, affirming that patients can trust the care provided in these settings. Patients on the interprofessional ward demonstrated high satisfaction levels: 96.7% appreciated the atmosphere and conduct of ward rounds. In comparison, 98.3% were satisfied with the discussion and information about their treatment during their hospital stay.