COVID-19, equipoise and observational studies: a reminder of forgotten issues

Viewpoint: The impending pandemic of resistant organisms - a paradigm shift towards source control is needed

The United States needs a paradigm shift in its approach to control infectious diseases. Current recommendations are often made in a siloed feedback loop. This may be the driver for such actions as the abandonment of contact precautions in some settings, the allowance of nursing home residents who are carriers of known pathogens to mingle with others in their facility, and the determination of an intervention's feasibility based upon budgetary rather than health considerations for patients and staff. Data from both the U.S. Veterans Health Administration and the U.K.'s National Health Service support the importance of carrier identification and source control. Both organizations observed marked decreases in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), but not methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus infections with the implementation of MRSA admission screening measures. Facilities are becoming over-reliant on horizontal prevention strategies, such as hand hygiene and chlorhexidine bathing. Hand hygiene is an essential practice, but the goal should be to minimize the risk of workers' hands becoming contaminated with defined pathogens, and there are conflicting data on the efficacy of chlorhexidine bathing in non-ICU settings. Preemptive identification of dedicated pathogens and effective source control are needed. We propose that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should gather and publicly report the community incidence of dedicated pathogens. This will enable proactive rather than reactive strategies. In the future, determination of a patient's microbiome may become standard, but until then we propose that we should have knowledge of the main pathogens that they are carrying.

Baseline laboratory parameters for preliminary diagnosis of COVID-19 among children: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Clinical judgment of initial baseline laboratory tests plays an important role in triage and preliminary diagnosis among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the differences in laboratory parameters between COVID-19 and COVID-like patients, and between COVID-19 and healthy children. Additionally, to ascertain whether healthy children or patients with COVID-like symptoms would form a better control group.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional study at the Institute for Child and Youth Health Care of Vojvodina, Novi Sad, Serbia.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on 42 pediatric patients of both sexes with COVID-19. Hematological parameters (white blood cell count, absolute lymphocyte count and platelet count) and biochemical parameters (natremia, kalemia, chloremia, aspartate aminotransferase [AST], alanine aminotransferase [ALT], lactate dehydrogenase [LDH] and C-reactive protein [CRP]) were collected. The first control group was formed by 80 healthy children and the second control group was formed by 55 pediatric patients with COVID-like symptoms.

RESULTS

Leukocytosis, lymphopenia, thrombocytosis, elevated systemic inflammatory index and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, hyponatremia, hypochloremia and elevated levels of AST, ALT, LDH and CRP were present in COVID patients, in comparison with healthy controls, while in comparison with COVID-like controls only lymphopenia was determined.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of leukocytosis, lymphopenia, thrombocytosis, elevated systemic inflammatory index and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, hyponatremia, hypochloremia and elevated levels of AST, ALT, LDH and CRP may help healthcare providers in early identification of COVID-19 patients. Healthy controls were superior to COVID-like controls since they provided better insight into the laboratory characteristics of children with novel betacoronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

Susceptibility and risk of SARS-COV-2 infection among middle-aged and older adults in Tarragona area, Spain

OBJECTIVE

To analyse susceptibility/risk of suffering COVID-19 among adults with distinct underlying medical conditions.

METHODS

Population-based cohort study involving 79,083 individuals ≥50 years old in Tarragona (Southern Catalonia, Spain). Baseline cohort characteristics (demographic, pre-existing comorbidities, chronic medications and vaccinations history) were established at study start (01/03/2020) and primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 occurred among cohort members throughout 01/03/2020-30/06/2020. Risk of suffering COVID-19 was evaluated by Cox regression, estimating multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for age/sex and pre-existing comorbidities.

RESULTS

Across study period, 536 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases were observed (mean incidence: 39.5 cases per 100,000 persons-week). In multivariable-analysis, increasing age/years (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 1.00-1.02), nursing-home (HR: 20.19; 95% CI: 15.98-25.51), neurological disease (HR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.03-1.77), taking diuretics (HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.10-1.75), antiplatelet (HR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.05-1.76) and benzodiazepines (HR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.00-1.53) increased risk; conversely, taking angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.61-1.00), angiotensin-receptor-blockers (HR: 0.70; 95%CI: 0.51-0.96) and statins (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.58-0.96) were associated with reduced risk. Among community-dwelling individuals, pre-existing cancer, renal and cardiac disease appeared also related with an increased risk, whereas influenza vaccination was associated with reduced risk.

CONCLUSION

In a setting with relatively low incidence of COVID-19 across the first wave of pandemic period, increasing age, nursing-home residence and multiple comorbidities appear predisposing for COVID-19 among middle-aged/older adults. Conversely, statins, angiotensin-receptor blockers/inhibitors and influenza vaccination were related with decreased risk.

Creating and implementing a COVID-19 recruitment Data Mart

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented strain on every aspect of the healthcare system, and clinical research is no exception. Researchers are working against the clock to ramp up research studies addressing every angle of COVID-19 - gaining a better understanding of person-to-person transmission, improving methods for diagnosis, and developing therapies to treat infection and vaccines to prevent it. The impact of the virus on research efforts is not limited to investigators and their teams. Potential participants also face unparalleled opportunities and requests to participate in research, which can result in a significant amount of participant fatigue. The Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research recognized early in the pandemic that a solution to assist researchers in the rapid identification of potential participants was critical, and thus developed the COVID-19 Recruitment Data Mart. This solution does not rest solely on technology; the addition of experienced project managers to support researchers and facilitate collaboration was essential. Since the platform and study support tools were launched on July 20, 2020, four studies have been onboarded and a total of 1693 potential participant matches have been shared. Each of these patients had agreed in advance to direct contact for COVID-19 research and had been matched to study-specific inclusion/exclusion criteria. Our innovative Data Mart system is scalable and looks promising as a generalizable solution for simultaneously recommending individuals from a pool of patients against a pool of time-sensitive trial opportunities.

Frequency of Positive Aspergillus Tests in COVID-19 Patients in Comparison to Other Patients with Pulmonary Infections Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit

The aim of this study was to describe the frequency of positive Aspergillus tests in COVID-19 patients and investigate the association between COVID-19 and a positive Aspergillus test result. We compared the proportion of positive Aspergillus tests in COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for >24 h with two control groups: patients with community-acquired pneumonia with (i) a PCR-confirmed influenza infection (considered a positive control since the link between influenza and invasive aspergillosis has been established) and (ii) Streptococcus pneumoniae pneumonia (in whom positive Aspergillus tests are mostly considered to indicate colonization).

The aim of this study was to describe the frequency of positive Aspergillus tests in COVID-19 patients and investigate the association between COVID-19 and a positive Aspergillus test result. We compared the proportion of positive Aspergillus tests in COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for >24 h with two control groups: patients with community-acquired pneumonia with (i) a PCR-confirmed influenza infection (considered a positive control since the link between influenza and invasive aspergillosis has been established) and (ii) Streptococcus pneumoniae pneumonia (in whom positive Aspergillus tests are mostly considered as colonization). During the study period, 92 COVID-19 patients (mean [standard deviation] age, 62 [14] years; 76.1% males), 48 influenza patients (55 [14]; 56.2% males), and 65 pneumococcal pneumonia patients (58 [15], 63,1% males) were identified. Any positive Aspergillus test from any respiratory sample was found in 10.9% of the COVID-19 patients, 6.2% of the patients with pneumococcal pneumonia, and 22.9% of those infected with influenza. A positive culture or PCR or galactomannan test on bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid only was found in 5.4% of COVID-19 patients, which was lower than in patients with influenza (18.8%) and comparable to that in the pneumococcal pneumonia group (4.6%). Using logistic regression analysis, the odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval) for a positive Aspergillus test on BAL fluid for COVID-19 patients was 1.2 (0.3 to 5.1; P = 0.8) compared to the pneumococcal pneumonia group, while it was 0.2 (0.1 to 0.8; P = 0.02) compared to the influenza group. This difference remained significant when corrected for age and sex. In conclusion, in COVID-19 patients, the prevalence of a positive Aspergillus test was comparable to that in patients admitted for pneumococcal pneumonia but substantially lower than what we observed in patients with influenza.