Predictors and microbiology of respiratory and bloodstream bacterial infection in patients with COVID-19: living rapid review update and meta-regression

BackgroundThe prevalence of bacterial infection in patients with COVID-19 is low, however, empiric antibiotic use is high. Risk stratification may be needed to minimize unnecessary empiric antibiotic use.ObjectiveTo identify risk factors and microbiology associated with respiratory and bloodstream bacterial infection in patients with COVID-19.Data sourcesWe searched MEDLINE, OVID Epub and EMBASE for published literature up to 5 February 2021.Study eligibility criteriaStudies including at least 50 patients with COVID-19 in any healthcare setting.MethodsWe used a validated ten-item risk of bias tool for disease prevalence. The main outcome of interest was the proportion of COVID-19 patients with bloodstream and/or respiratory bacterial co-infection and secondary infection. We performed meta-regression to identify study population factors associated with bacterial infection including healthcare setting, age, comorbidities and COVID-19 medication.ResultsOut of 33 345 studies screened, 171 were included in the final analysis. Bacterial infection data were available from 171 262 patients. The prevalence of co-infection was 5.1% (95% CI 3.6–7.1%) and secondary infection was 13.1% (95% CI 9.8–17.2%). There was a higher odds of bacterial infection in studies with a higher proportion of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) (adjusted OR 18.8, 95% CI 6.5–54.8). Female sex was associated with a lower odds of secondary infection (adjusted OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55–0.97) but not co-infection (adjusted OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.80–1.37). The most common organisms isolated included Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci and Klebsiella species.ConclusionsWhile the odds of respiratory and bloodstream bacterial infection are low in patients with COVID-19, meta-regression revealed potential risk factors for infection, including ICU setting and mechanical ventilation. The risk for secondary infection is substantially greater than the risk for co-infection in patients with COVID-19. Understanding predictors of co-infection and secondary infection may help to support improved antibiotic stewardship in patients with COVID-19.     

Bacterial co-infection and secondary infection in patients with COVID-19: a living rapid review and meta-analysis

BackgroundBacterial co-pathogens are commonly identified in viral respiratory infections and are important causes of morbidity and mortality. The prevalence of bacterial infection in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 is not well understood.AimsTo determine the prevalence of bacterial co-infection (at presentation) and secondary infection (after presentation) in patients with COVID-19.SourcesWe performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, OVID Epub and EMBASE databases for English language literature from 2019 to April 16, 2020. Studies were included if they (a) evaluated patients with confirmed COVID-19 and (b) reported the prevalence of acute bacterial infection.ContentData were extracted by a single reviewer and cross-checked by a second reviewer. The main outcome was the proportion of COVID-19 patients with an acute bacterial infection. Any bacteria detected from non-respiratory-tract or non-bloodstream sources were excluded. Of 1308 studies screened, 24 were eligible and included in the rapid review representing 3338 patients with COVID-19 evaluated for acute bacterial infection. In the meta-analysis, bacterial co-infection (estimated on presentation) was identified in 3.5% of patients (95%CI 0.4–6.7%) and secondary bacterial infection in 14.3% of patients (95%CI 9.6–18.9%). The overall proportion of COVID-19 patients with bacterial infection was 6.9% (95%CI 4.3–9.5%). Bacterial infection was more common in critically ill patients (8.1%, 95%CI 2.3–13.8%). The majority of patients with COVID-19 received antibiotics (71.9%, 95%CI 56.1 to 87.7%).ImplicationsBacterial co-infection is relatively infrequent in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The majority of these patients may not require empirical antibacterial treatment.     

Investigating the impact of COVID-19 on primary care antibiotic prescribing in North West London across two epidemic waves

ObjectivesWe investigated the impact of COVID-19 and national pandemic response on primary care antibiotic prescribing in London.MethodsIndividual prescribing records between 2015 and 2020 for 2 million residents in north west London were analysed. Prescribing records were linked to SARS-CoV-2 test results. Prescribing volumes, in total, and stratified by patient characteristics, antibiotic class and AWaRe classification, were investigated. Interrupted time series analysis was performed to detect measurable change in the trend of prescribing volume since the national lockdown in March 2020, immediately before the first COVID-19 peak in London.ResultsRecords covering 366 059 patients, 730 001 antibiotic items and 848 201 SARS-CoV-2 tests between January and November 2020 were analysed. Before March 2020, there was a background downward trend (decreasing by 584 items/month) in primary care antibiotic prescribing. This reduction rate accelerated to 3504 items/month from March 2020. This rate of decrease was sustained beyond the initial peak, continuing into winter and the second peak. Despite an overall reduction in prescribing volume, co-amoxiclav, a broad-spectrum “Access” antibiotic, prescribing rose by 70.1% in patients aged 50 and older from February to April. Commonly prescribed antibiotics within 14 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test were amoxicillin (863/2474, 34.9%) and doxycycline (678/2474, 27.4%). This aligned with national guidelines on management of community pneumonia of unclear cause. The proportion of “Watch” antibiotics used decreased during the peak in COVID-19.DiscussionA sustained reduction in community antibiotic prescribing has been observed since the first lockdown. Investigation of community-onset infectious diseases and potential unintended consequences of reduced prescribing is urgently needed.     

Factors associated with asymptomatic infection in health-care workers with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in Wuhan,China: a multicentre retrospective cohort study

ObjectivesTo describe the fraction of asymptomatic health-care workers (HCWs) in two designated hospitals for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment in Wuhan and explore the factors associated with asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.MethodsAll HCWs in Wuhan Union Hospital and Wuhan Red Cross Hospital with either positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid or positive antibody test before 18 April 2020 were included. Exposure, epidemiological and demographic information were retrospectively collected by a structured questionnaire. Medical records were also reviewed for clinical characteristics and CT images of HCWs.ResultsAs of 18 April 2020, a total of 424 HCWs were identified. Among them, 276 (65.1%) were symptomatic and 148 (34.9%) were asymptomatic. Fifty-five (19.9%) families of the symptomatic HCWs and 16 (10.8%) families of the asymptomatic HCWs were infected with SARS-CoV-2. HCWs with infected family members tended to be symptomatic (OR 2.053, 95% CI 1.130–3.730; p 0.018). Multivariable logistic regression analysis exhibited that performing tracheal intubation or extubation (OR 4.057, 95% CI 1.183–13.909; p 0.026) was associated with an increased likelihood of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, whereas consistent use of N95 respirators (OR 0.369, 95% CI 0.201–0.680; p 0.001) and eye protection (OR 0.217, 95% CI 0.116–0.404; p < 0.001) were associated with an increased likelihood of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.ConclusionsAsymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs comprised a considerable proportion of HCW infections during the pandemic of COVID-19. Those who performed tracheal intubation or extubation were most likely to develop related symptoms, whereas those taking aggressive measures, including consistent use of N95 masks and eye protection, tended to be asymptomatic cases.     

Non-occupational and occupational factors associated with specific SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among hospital workers – A multicentre cross-sectional study

ObjectivesProtecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is critical to preserve the functioning of healthcare systems. We therefore assessed seroprevalence and identified risk factors for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) seropositivity in this population.MethodsBetween 22 June 22 and 15 August 2020, HCWs from institutions in northern/eastern Switzerland were screened for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We recorded baseline characteristics, non-occupational and occupational risk factors. We used pairwise tests of associations and multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with seropositivity.ResultsAmong 4664 HCWs from 23 healthcare facilities, 139 (3%) were seropositive. Non-occupational exposures independently associated with seropositivity were contact with a COVID-19-positive household (adjusted OR 59, 95% CI 33–106), stay in a COVID-19 hotspot (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2–4.2) and male sex (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1–3.1). Blood group 0 vs. non-0 (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3–0.8), active smoking (aOR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2–0.7), living with children <12 years (aOR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2–0.6) and being a physician (aOR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1–0.5) were associated with decreased risk. Other occupational risk factors were close contact to COVID-19 patients (aOR 2.7, 95% CI 1.4–5.4), exposure to COVID-19-positive co-workers (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1–2.9), poor knowledge of standard hygiene precautions (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2–2.9) and frequent visits to the hospital canteen (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.4–3.8).DiscussionLiving with COVID-19-positive households showed the strongest association with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. We identified several potentially modifiable work-related risk factors, which might allow mitigation of the COVID-19 risk among HCWs. The lower risk among those living with children, even after correction for multiple confounders, is remarkable and merits further study.     

Assessing the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on mortality: a population-based,matched case-control study

ObjectivesEstimating the isolated effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the risk of mortality is challenging. We aimed to determine whether COVID-19 was associated with high rates of mortality independently of age, sex and underlying disorders.MethodsA population-based, matched, case-control study of adults insured by Clalit Health Services was performed. Cases were defined as patients who died of all causes between July and December 2020. Each case was matched in a ratio of 1:1 with a living control based on age, sex and co-morbidities. An unconditional logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors for mortality.ResultsA total of 2874 patients who died were successfully matched with 2874 living controls. The prevalence of COVID-19 was higher among the patients who died than among the controls (13.5% [387/2874] vs. 4% [115/2874], respectively; OR, 3.73; 95% CI, 3.01–4.63; p < 0.001). A significantly increased odds of mortality was also observed in patients with COVID-19 without underlying diseases (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 2.58–5.23) and in patients with COVID-19 and underlying diseases (OR, 3.77; 95% CI, 2.87–4.94). A multi-variate logistic analysis showed that COVID-19 (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.07–3.77), low socio-economic status (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.02–1.82), dementia (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 2.10–3.01), smoking (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.13–1.63) and an interaction variable of age >80 years and COVID-19 (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.14–4.54) were independent risk factors for mortality, whereas influenza vaccination and high body mass index were associated with lower rates of mortality.ConclusionTesting positive for COVID-19 increased the risk of death three folds, regardless of underlying disorders. These results emphasize the effect of COVID-19 on mortality during the early period of the COVID-19 outbreak, when no vaccines or effective therapeutics were available.     

Respiratory viral co-infections in patients with COVID-19 and associated outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to critically assess the published literature related to community-acquired viral co-infections and COVID-19 and to evaluate the prevalence, most identified co-pathogens, and relevant risk factors. Furthermore, we aimed to examine the clinical features and outcomes of co-infected compared to mono-infected COVID-19 patients. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library for studies published from 1 November 2019 to 13 August 2021. We included patients of all ages and any COVID-19 severity who were screened for respiratory viral co-infection within 48 h of COVID-19 diagnosis. The main outcome was the proportion of patients with a respiratory viral co-infection. The systematic review was registered to PROSPERO (CRD42021272235). Out of 6053 initially retrieved studies, 59 studies with a total of 16,643 SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were included. The global pooled prevalence was 5.01% (95% CI 3.34%–7.27%; I² = 95%) based on a random-effects model, with Influenza Viruses (1.54%) and Enteroviruses (1.32%) being the most prevalent pathogens. Subgroup analyses showed that co-infection was significantly higher in paediatric (9.39%) than adult (3.51%) patients (p-value = 0.02). Furthermore, co-infected patients were more likely to be dyspnoeic and the odds of fatality (OR = 1.66) were increased. Although a relatively low proportion of COVID-19 patients have a respiratory viral co-infection, our findings show that multiplex viral panel testing may be advisable in patients with compatible symptoms. Indeed, respiratory virus co-infections may be associated with adverse clinical outcomes and therefore have therapeutic and prognostic implications.     

SARS-CoV-2 exposures of healthcare workers from primary care,long-term care facilities and hospitals: a nationwide matched case-control study

ObjectivesThis study assessed the roles of various exposures and personal protective equipment (PPE) use on healthcare workers' (HCWs) risk of COVID-19 working in primary care, long-term-care facilities or hospitals.MethodsWe conducted a matched case-control (1:1) study (10 April through 9 July 2021). Cases (HCWs with confirmed COVID-19) and controls (HCWs without any COVID-19-positive test or symptoms) were invited by E-mail to complete an online questionnaire on their exposures and PPE use over the 10-day period preceding inclusion. Risk factors were analysed using multivariable conditional logistic regression.ResultsA total of 2076 cases and 2076 matched controls were included. The analysis retained exposure to an infected person outside work (adjusted OR 19.9 (95% CI, 12.4–31.9)), an infected colleague (OR 2.26 (95% CI, 1.53–3.33)) or COVID-19 patients (OR 2.37 (95% CI, 1.66–3.40)), as independent predictors of COVID-19 in HCWs, while partial (OR 0.30 (95% CI, 0.22–0.40)) or complete (OR 0.19 (95% CI, 0.14–0.27)) immunisation was protective. Eye protection (OR 0.57 (95% CI, 0.37–0.87)) and wearing a gown (OR 0.58 (95% CI, 0.34–0.97)) for COVID-19 patient care were protective, while wearing an apron slightly increased the risk of infection (OR 1.47 (95% CI, 1.00–2.18)). Protection of N95 respirators and surgical face masks did not differ. Compared to medical professions, being a nurse (OR 3.79 (95% CI, 2.50–5.76)) or a nurse's aide (OR 9.08 (95% CI, 5.30–15.5)) was associated with COVID-19. Results were consistent across all healthcare settings.DiscussionHCWs were more likely to get COVID-19 in their personal sphere than during occupational activities. Our results suggest that eye protection for HCWs during patient care should be actively promoted.     

Antibiotic resistance associated with the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundCOVID-19 and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are two intersecting global public health crises.ObjectiveWe aimed to describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on AMR across health care settings.Data sourceA search was conducted in December 2021 in WHO COVID-19 Research Database with forward citation searching up to June 2022.Study eligibilityStudies evaluating the impact of COVID-19 on AMR in any population were included and influencing factors were extracted. Reporting of enhanced infection prevention and control and/or antimicrobial stewardship programs was noted.MethodsPooling was done separately for Gram-negative and Gram-positive organisms. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed.ResultsOf 6036 studies screened, 28 were included and 23 provided sufficient data for meta-analysis. The majority of studies focused on hospital settings (n = 25, 89%). The COVID-19 pandemic was not associated with a change in the incidence density (incidence rate ratio 0.99, 95% CI: 0.67–1.47) or proportion (risk ratio 0.91, 95% CI: 0.55–1.49) of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or vancomycin-resistant enterococci cases. A non-statistically significant increase was noted for resistant Gram-negative organisms (i.e. extended-spectrum beta-lactamase, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, carbapenem or multi-drug resistant or carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Acinetobacter baumannii, incidence rate ratio 1.64, 95% CI: 0.92–2.92; risk ratio 1.08, 95% CI: 0.91–1.29). The absence of reported enhanced infection prevention and control and/or antimicrobial stewardship programs initiatives was associated with an increase in gram-negative AMR (risk ratio 1.11, 95% CI: 1.03–1.20). However, a test for subgroup differences showed no statistically significant difference between the presence and absence of these initiatives (p 0.40).ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic may have hastened the emergence and transmission of AMR, particularly for Gram-negative organisms in hospital settings. But there is considerable heterogeneity in both the AMR metrics used and the rate of resistance reported across studies. These findings reinforce the need for strengthened infection prevention, antimicrobial stewardship, and AMR surveillance in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Post–COVID-19 syndrome and humoral response association after 1 year in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients

ObjectivesThis study aimed to describe the impact of vaccination and the role of humoral responses on post–COVID-19 syndrome 1 year after the onset of SARS coronavirus type 2 (CoV-2).MethodsThis prospective study was conducted through interviews to investigate post–COVID-19 syndrome 6 and 12 months after disease onset in all adult in- and outpatients with COVID-19 at Udine Hospital (March–May 2020). Vaccination status and two different serological assays to distinguish between response to vaccination (receptor-binding domain (RBD) SARS-CoV-2 IgG) and/or natural infection (non-RBD-SARS-CoV-2 IgG) were also assessed.ResultsA total of 479 patients (52.6% female; mean age: 53 years) were interviewed 13.5 months (standard deviation: 0.6 months) after acute infection. Post–COVID-19 syndrome was observed in 47.2% of patients (n = 226) after 1 year. There were no significant differences in the worsening of post–COVID-19 symptoms (22.7% vs. 15.8%; p = 0.209) among vaccinated (n = 132) and unvaccinated (n = 347) patients. The presence of non-RBD SARS-CoV-2 IgG induced by natural infection showed a significant association with post–COVID-19 syndrome (OR: 1.35; 95% CI, 1.11–1.64; p = 0.003), and median non-RBD SARS-CoV-2 IgG titres were significantly higher in long haulers than in patients without symptoms (22 kAU/L (interquartile range, 9.7–37.2 kAU/L) vs. 14.1 kAU/L (interquartile range, 5.4–31.3 kAU/L); p = 0.009) after 1 year. In contrast, the presence of RBD SARS-CoV-2 IgG was not associated with the occurrence of post–COVID-19 syndrome (>2500 U/mL vs. 0.9–2500 U/mL; OR: 1.36; 95% CI, 0.62–3.00; p = 0.441), and RBD SARS-CoV-2 IgG titres were similar in long haulers as in patients without symptoms (50% values > 2500 U/mL vs. 55.6% values > 2500 U/mL; p = 0.451).DiscussionThe SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is not associated with the emergence of post–COVID-19 symptoms more than 1 year after acute infection. The persistence of high serological titre response induced by natural infection, but not vaccination, may play a role in long-haul COVID-19.     

Recommendations for antibacterial therapy in adults with COVID-19 – an evidence based guideline

ScopeThe Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy constituted a multidisciplinary expert committee to provide evidence-based recommendation for the use of antibacterial therapy in hospitalized adults with a respiratory infection and suspected or proven 2019 Coronavirus disease (COVID-19).MethodsWe performed a literature search to answer four key questions. The committee graded the evidence and developed recommendations by using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.Questions addressed by the guideline and RecommendationsWe assessed evidence on the risk of bacterial infections in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the associated bacterial pathogens, how to diagnose bacterial infections and how to treat bacterial infections. Bacterial co-infection upon admission was reported in 3.5% of COVID-19 patients, while bacterial secondary infections during hospitalization occurred up to 15%. No or very low quality evidence was found to answer the other key clinical questions. Although the evidence base on bacterial infections in COVID-19 is currently limited, available evidence supports restrictive antibiotic use from an antibiotic stewardship perspective, especially upon admission. To support restrictive antibiotic use, maximum efforts should be undertaken to obtain sputum and blood culture samples as well as pneumococcal urinary antigen testing. We suggest to stop antibiotics in patients who started antibiotic treatment upon admission when representative cultures as well as urinary antigen tests show no signs of involvement of bacterial pathogens after 48 hours. For patients with secondary bacterial respiratory infection we recommend to follow other guideline recommendations on antibacterial treatment for patients with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia. An antibiotic treatment duration of five days in patients with COVID-19 and suspected bacterial respiratory infection is recommended upon improvement of signs, symptoms and inflammatory markers. Larger, prospective studies about the epidemiology of bacterial infections in COVID-19 are urgently needed to confirm our conclusions and ultimately prevent unnecessary antibiotic use during the COVID-19 pandemic.     

The impact of COVID-19 vaccination programme in the Republic of San Marino: Focus on effectiveness of Gam-Covid-Vac

ObjectiveThe adenovirus-based vaccine Gam-COVID-Vac (Sputnik V) showed promising effectiveness in a phase 3 clinical trial; however, data concerning its impact at a population level are scarce. The Republic of San Marino (RSM) conducted a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination programme mainly based (>80%) on Gam-COVID-Vac. Our aims were to investigate the impact of Gam-COVID-Vac vaccination programme and its effectiveness in a retrospective observational study based on the entire RSM population aged ≥12 years.MethodsWe calculated the incidence rate and the vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the entire RSM population not previously infected, against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19–related hospitalization, from 25 February to 1 October 2021, considering any vaccine and separately according to the vaccine used. Vaccine effectiveness was calculated using a multivariable negative binomial regression model as 1-Incidence Rate Ratio.ResultsDuring the study period, 21 568/28 791 (74.9%) not previously infected subjects received at least one dose of the Gam-COVID-Vac (84%) or BNT162b2, vaccines with 98% completing the vaccination schedule. Overall, 1634 SARS-CoV-2 infections and 166 COVID-19-related hospitalizations were observed with 17 COVID-19-related deaths reported. Incidence rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospitalization were 7.11 and 0.49/100 000 person-days in the fully vaccinated population, respectively. The adjusted overall VE was 67.6% (95% CI: 61.8–72.5) against SARS-CoV-2 infection and 87.9% (95% CI: 77.4–93.5) against COVID-19-related hospitalizations.Gam-COVID-Vac against SARS-CoV-2 infection VE peaked 91.8% (95% CI: 86.3–95.1) in the first bimester from the second dose, declining to 57.8% (95% CI: 42.2–69.2) at 6 months. Protection against hospitalization with COVID-19 was overall 91.6% (95% CI: 81.5–96.2), with no relevant waning trend over time.DiscussionOur study demonstrated the effectiveness of overall vaccination (Gam-COVID-Vac [84%] and BNT162b2 [16%]) in the prevention SARS-CoV-2 infection (pre-Omicron variant), waning over time but still with sustainable effectiveness against COVID-19-related hospitalization in the Republic of San Marino.     

Nationwide effectiveness of five SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in Hungary—the HUN-VE study

ObjectivesThe Hungarian vaccination campaign was conducted with five different vaccines during the third wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2021. This observational study (HUN-VE: Hungarian Vaccine Effectiveness) estimated vaccine effectiveness against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and COVID-19-related mortality in 3.7 million vaccinated individuals.MethodsIncidence rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related mortality were calculated using data from the National Public Health Centre surveillance database. Estimated vaccine effectiveness was calculated as 1 – incidence rate ratio ≥7 days after the second dose for each available vaccine versus an unvaccinated control group using mixed-effect negative binomial regression controlling for age, sex and calendar day.ResultsBetween 22 January 2021 and 10 June 2021, 3 740 066 Hungarian individuals received two doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), HB02 (Sinopharm), Gam-COVID-Vac (Sputnik-V), AZD1222 (AstraZeneca), or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines. Incidence rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related death were 1.73–9.3/100 000 person-days and 0.04–0.65/100 000 person-days in the fully vaccinated population, respectively. Estimated adjusted effectiveness varied between 68.7% (95% CI 67.2%–70.1%) and 88.7% (95% CI 86.6%–90.4%) against SARS-CoV-2 infection, and between 87.8% (95% CI 86.1%–89.4%) and 97.5% (95% CI 95.6%–98.6%) against COVID-19-related death, with 100% effectiveness in individuals aged 16–44 years for all vaccines.ConclusionsOur observational study demonstrated the high or very high effectiveness of five different vaccines in the prevention SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related death.     

Right ventricular dysfunction and pulmonary hypertension in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of prevalence and its association with clinical outcome

IntroductionRapid spread of COVID-19 has caused detrimental effects globally. Involvement of the ACE2 receptor has identified COVID-19 as a multi-organ disease. Preliminary studies have provided evidence that cardiac involvement, including right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) and pulmonary hypertension (PH), were found in COVID-19 cases, even in the non-advanced stage. This meta-analysis aims to analyze the prevalence of RVD and PH, and their association with COVID-19 clinical outcome.Material and methodsA systematic data search was conducted through PubMed, medRxiv, ProQuest, Science Direct, and Scopus databases using constructed keywords based on MeSH terms. Any outcomes regarding mortality, severity, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation usage were analyzed using RevMan v.5.4 and Stata v.16.ResultsA total of 16 eligible studies (1,728 patients) were included. Pooled prevalence of RVD in COVID-19 was 19% (95% CI: 13–25%), and PH was 22% (95% CI: 14–31%). RVD was associated with increased mortality (OR = 2.98 (95% CI: 1.50–5.89), p = 0.002), severity (OR = 3.61 (95% CI: 2.05–6.35), p < 0.001), ICU admission (OR = 1.70 (95% CI: 1.12–2.56), p = 0.01), and mechanical ventilation (MV) usage (OR = 1.60 (95% CI: 1.14–2.25), p = 0.007). PH was also associated with increased mortality (OR = 5.42 (95% CI: 2.66–11.060, p < 0.001), severity (OR = 5.74 (95% CI: 2.28–14.49), p < 0.001), and ICU admission (OR = 12.83 (95% CI: 3.55–46.41), p < 0.001).ConclusionsRVD and PH were prevalent in COVID-19 and associated with mortality, severity, ICU admission, and MV usage in COVID-19 patients. Bedside echocardiography examination could be considered as a novel risk stratification tool in COVID-19.     

Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and COVID-19 Susceptibility and Outcomes: a Korean Nationwide Cohort

BackgroundEvidence for the association between underlying non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), the risk of testing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive, and the clinical consequences of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is controversial and scarce. We aimed to investigate the association between the presence of NAFLD and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infectivity and COVID-19-related outcomes.MethodsWe used the population-based, nationwide cohort in South Korea linked with the general health examination records between January 1, 2018 and July 30, 2020. Data for 212,768 adults older than 20 years who underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing from January 1 to May 30, 2020, were obtained. The presence of NAFLDs was defined using three definitions, namely hepatic steatosis index (HSI), fatty liver index (FLI), and claims-based definition. The outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 test positive, COVID-19 severe illness, and related death.ResultsAmong 74,244 adults who completed the general health examination, there were 2,251 (3.0%) who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, 438 (0.6%) with severe COVID-19 illness, and 45 (0.06%) COVID-19-related deaths. After exposure-driven propensity score matching, patients with pre-existing HSI-NAFLD, FLI-NAFLD, or claims-based NAFLD had an 11–23% increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (HSI-NAFLD 95% confidence interval [CI], 1–28%; FLI-NAFLD 95% CI, 2–27%; and claims-based NAFLD 95% CI, 2–31%) and a 35–41% increased risk of severe COVID-19 illness (HSI-NAFLD 95% CI, 8–83%; FLI-NAFLD 95% CI, 5–71%; and claims-based NAFLD 95% CI, 1–92%). These associations are more evident as liver fibrosis advanced (based on the BARD scoring system). Similar patterns were observed in several sensitivity analyses including the full-unmatched cohort.ConclusionPatients with pre-existing NAFLDs have a higher likelihood of testing SARS-CoV-2 positive and severe COVID-19 illness; this association was more evident in patients with NAFLD with advanced fibrosis. Our results suggest that extra attention should be given to the management of patients with NAFLD during the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Estimating daily antibiotic harms: an umbrella review with individual study meta-analysis

BackgroundThere is growing evidence supporting the efficacy of shorter courses of antibiotic therapy for common infections. However, the risks of prolonged antibiotic duration are underappreciated.ObjectivesTo estimate the incremental daily risk of antibiotic-associated harms.MethodsWe searched three major databases to retrieve systematic reviews from 2000 to 30 July 2020 in any language.EligibilitySystematic reviews were required to evaluate shorter versus longer antibiotic therapy with fixed durations between 3 and 14 days. Randomized controlled trials included for meta-analysis were identified from the systematic reviews.ParticipantsAdult and paediatric patients from any setting.InterventionsPrimary outcomes were the proportion of patients experiencing adverse drug events, superinfections and antimicrobial resistance.Risk of bias assessmentEach randomized controlled trial was evaluated for quality by extracting the assessment reported by each systematic review.Data synthesisThe daily odds ratio (OR) of antibiotic harm was estimated and pooled using random effects meta-analysis.ResultsThirty-five systematic reviews encompassing 71 eligible randomized controlled trials were included. Studies most commonly evaluated duration of therapy for respiratory tract (n = 36, 51%) and urinary tract (n = 29, 41%) infections. Overall, 23 174 patients were evaluated for antibiotic-associated harms. Adverse events (n = 20 345), superinfections (n = 5776) and antimicrobial resistance (n = 2330) were identified in 19.9% (n = 4039), 4.8% (n = 280) and 10.6% (n = 246) of patients, respectively. Each day of antibiotic therapy was associated with 4% increased odds of experiencing an adverse event (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02–1.07). Daily odds of severe adverse effects also increased (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00–1.19). The daily incremental odds of superinfection and antimicrobial resistance were OR 0.98 (0.92–1.06) and OR 1.03 (0.98–1.07), respectively.ConclusionEach additional day of antibiotic therapy is associated with measurable antibiotic harm, particularly adverse events. These data may provide additional context for clinicians when weighing benefits versus risks of prolonged antibiotic therapy.     

Antibiotic strategies and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with pneumonia caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii

ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate antibiotic prescribing patterns and effectiveness of different anti-carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) strategies for CRAB pneumonia.MethodsWe conducted a multicentre, retrospective study in three hospitals. During 2010–2015, adult ICU patients with CRAB pneumonia treated with at least one antimicrobial agent covering the CRAB isolate in vitro for more than 2 days were included. We used multivariate logistic regression to analyse the associations of anti-CRAB strategies with ICU mortality and other clinical outcomes.ResultsAmong 238 patients with CRAB pneumonia, tigecycline monotherapy (84, 35.3%) was the most common antibiotic strategy, followed by tigecycline with colistin (43, 18.1%), colistin monotherapy (34, 14.3%), colistin combination without tigecycline (33, 13.9%), tigecycline combination without colistin (32, 13.4%), and sulbactam-based therapy without tigecycline and colistin (12, 5.0%). In multivariate analysis, tigecycline-based therapy was associated with higher ICU mortality than non-tigecycline therapy (adjusted OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.19–4.46). There was no difference between colistin-based therapy and non-colistin therapy. Compared with tigecycline monotherapy, colistin monotherapy was associated with lower ICU mortality (aOR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10–0.88). Treatment failure analyses showed similar trends. Tigecycline-based therapy was associated with higher treatment failure rate than non-tigecycline therapy (aOR 2.51, 95% CI 1.39–4.54), whereas colistin-based therapy was associated with lower treatment failure rate than non-colistin-based therapy (aOR 0.48, 95% CI 0.27–0.86).ConclusionsTigecycline was commonly prescribed for CRAB pneumonia. However, tigecycline-based therapy was associated with higher ICU mortality and treatment failure. Our study suggests that colistin monotherapy may be a better antibiotic strategy for CRAB pneumonia.