Acquisition of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-PE) carriage after exposure to systemic antimicrobials during travel: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: International travel is an important risk factor for colonization with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-PE). Antimicrobial use during travel likely amplifies this risk, yet to what extent, and whether it varies by antimicrobial class, has not been established. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review that included prospective cohorts reporting both receipt of systemic antimicrobials and acquired ESBL-PE isolated from stool or rectum during international travel. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate odds of acquiring ESBL-PE due to antimicrobials during travel, overall and by antimicrobial class. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included. The study population was mainly female travellers from high income countries recruited primarily from travel clinics. Participants travelled most frequently to Asia and Africa with 10% reporting antimicrobial use during travel. The combined odds ratio (OR) for ESBL-PE acquisition during travel was 2.37 for antimicrobial use overall (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.69 to 3.33), but there was substantial heterogeneity between studies. Fluoroquinolones were the antibiotic class associated with the highest combined OR of ESBL-PE acquisition, compared to no antimicrobial use (OR 4.68, 95% CI, 2.34 to 9.37). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of ESBL-PE colonization during travel is increased substantially with exposure to antimicrobials, especially fluoroquinolones. While a small proportion of colonized individuals will develop a resistant infection, there remains the potential for onward spread among returning travellers. Public health efforts to decrease inappropriate antimicrobial usage during travel are warranted

Presence of Symptoms 6 Weeks After COVID-19 Among Vaccinated and Unvaccinated US Healthcare Personnel: A Prospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES: Although COVID-19 vaccines offer protection against infection and severe disease, there is limited information on the effect of vaccination on prolonged symptoms following COVID-19. Our objective was to determine differences in prevalence of prolonged symptoms 6 weeks after onset of COVID-19 among healthcare personnel (HCP) by vaccination status, and to assess differences in timing of return to work. DESIGN: Cohort analysis of HCP with COVID-19 enrolled in a multicentre vaccine effectiveness study. HCP with COVID-19 between December 2020 and August 2021 were followed up 6 weeks after illness onset. SETTING: Health systems in 12 US states. PARTICIPANTS: HCP participating in a vaccine effectiveness study were eligible for inclusion if they had laboratory-confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 with mRNA vaccination (symptom onset ≥14 days after two doses) or no prior vaccination. Among 681 eligible participants, 419 (61%) completed a follow-up survey to assess symptoms reported 6 weeks after illness onset. EXPOSURES: Two doses of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine compared with no COVID-19 vaccine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of symptoms 6 weeks after onset of COVID-19 illness and days to return to work. RESULTS: Among 419 HCP with COVID-19, 298 (71%) reported one or more COVID-like symptoms 6 weeks after illness onset, with a lower prevalence among vaccinated participants compared with unvaccinated participants (60.6% vs 79.1%; adjusted risk ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.84). Following their illness, vaccinated HCP returned to work a median 2.0 days (95% CI 1.0 to 3.0) sooner than unvaccinated HCP (adjusted HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.79). CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of two doses of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine among HCP with COVID-19 illness was associated with decreased prevalence of COVID-like symptoms at 6 weeks and earlier return to work

Effectiveness of Maternal mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination During Pregnancy Against COVID-19–Associated Hospitalizations in Infants Aged <6 Months During SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Predominance — 20 States, March 9, 2022–May 31, 2023

Infants aged <6 months are not eligible for COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccination during pregnancy has been associated with protection against infant COVID-19–related hospitalization. The Overcoming COVID-19 Network conducted a case-control study during March 9, 2022–May 31, 2023, to evaluate the effectiveness of maternal receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine dose (vaccine effectiveness [VE]) during pregnancy against COVID-19–related hospitalization in infants aged <6 months and a subset of infants aged <3 months. VE was calculated as (1 – adjusted odds ratio) x 100% among all infants aged <6 months and <3 months. Case-patients (infants hospitalized for COVID-19 outside of birth hospitalization and who had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result) and control patients (infants hospitalized for COVID-19–like illness with a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result) were compared. Odds ratios were determined using multivariable logistic regression, comparing the odds of receipt of a maternal COVID-19 vaccine dose (completion of a 2-dose vaccination series or a third or higher dose) during pregnancy with maternal nonvaccination between case- and control patients. VE of maternal vaccination during pregnancy against COVID-19–related hospitalization was 35% (95% CI = 15%–51%) among infants aged <6 months and 54% (95% CI = 32%–68%) among infants aged <3 months. Intensive care unit admissions occurred in 23% of all case-patients, and invasive mechanical ventilation was more common among infants of unvaccinated (9%) compared with vaccinated mothers (1%) (p = 0.02). Maternal vaccination during pregnancy provides some protection against COVID-19–related hospitalizations among infants, particularly those aged <3 months. Expectant mothers should remain current with COVID-19 vaccination to protect themselves and their infants from hospitalization and severe outcomes associated with COVID-19

Effectiveness of a Messenger RNA Vaccine Booster Dose Against Coronavirus Disease 2019 Among US Healthcare Personnel, October 2021-July 2022

BACKGROUND: Protection against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) can limit transmission and the risk of post-COVID conditions, and is particularly important among healthcare personnel. However, lower vaccine effectiveness (VE) has been reported since predominance of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant. METHODS: We evaluated the VE of a monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) booster dose against COVID-19 from October 2021 to June 2022 among US healthcare personnel. After matching case-participants with COVID-19 to control-participants by 2-week period and site, we used conditional logistic regression to estimate the VE of a booster dose compared with completing only 2 mRNA doses \u3e150 days previously, adjusted for multiple covariates. RESULTS: Among 3279 case-participants and 3998 control-participants who had completed 2 mRNA doses, we estimated that the VE of a booster dose against COVID-19 declined from 86% (95% confidence interval, 81%-90%) during Delta predominance to 65% (58%-70%) during Omicron predominance. During Omicron predominance, VE declined from 73% (95% confidence interval, 67%-79%) 14-60 days after the booster dose, to 32% (4%-52%) ≥120 days after a booster dose. We found that VE was similar by age group, presence of underlying health conditions, and pregnancy status on the test date, as well as among immunocompromised participants. CONCLUSIONS: A booster dose conferred substantial protection against COVID-19 among healthcare personnel. However, VE was lower during Omicron predominance, and waning effectiveness was observed 4 months after booster dose receipt during this period. Our findings support recommendations to stay up to date on recommended doses of COVID-19 vaccines for all those eligible

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

A Multisite Collaborative to Decrease Inappropriate Antibiotics in Urgent Care Centers

BACKGROUND: Urgent care (UC; a convenient site to receive care for ambulatory-sensitive) centers conditions; however, UC clinicians showed the highest rate of inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions among outpatient settings according to national billing data. Antibiotic prescribing practices in pediatric-specific UC centers were not known but assumed to require improvement. The aim of this multisite quality improvement project was to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing practices for 3 target diagnoses in pediatric UC centers by a relative 20% by December 1, 2019. METHODS: The Society of Pediatric Urgent Care invited pediatric UC clinicians to participate in a multisite quality improvement study from June 2019 to December 2019. The diagnoses included acute otitis media (AOM), otitis media with effusion, and pharyngitis. Algorithms based on published guidelines were used to identify inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions according to indication, agent, and duration. Sites completed multiple intervention cycles from a menu of publicly available antibiotic stewardship materials. Participants submitted data electronically. The outcome measure was the percentage of inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions for the target diagnoses. Process measures were use of delayed antibiotics for AOM and inappropriate testing in pharyngitis. RESULTS: From 20 UC centers, 157 providers submitted data from 3833 encounters during the intervention cycles. Overall inappropriate antibiotic prescription rates decreased by a relative 53.9%. Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing decreased from 57.0% to 36.6% for AOM, 54.6% to 48.4% for otitis media with effusion, and 66.9% to 11.7% for pharyngitis. CONCLUSIONS: Participating pediatric UC providers decreased inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions from 60.3% to 27.8% using publicly available interventions