Evaluation of individual and ensemble probabilistic forecasts of COVID-19 mortality in the United States

Short-term probabilistic forecasts of the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States have served as a visible and important communication channel between the scientific modeling community and both the general public and decision-makers. Forecasting models provide specific, quantitative, and evaluable predictions that inform short-term decisions such as healthcare staffing needs, school closures, and allocation of medical supplies. Starting in April 2020, the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub (https://covid19forecasthub.org/) collected, disseminated, and synthesized tens of millions of specific predictions from more than 90 different academic, industry, and independent research groups. A multimodel ensemble forecast that combined predictions from dozens of groups every week provided the most consistently accurate probabilistic forecasts of incident deaths due to COVID-19 at the state and national level from April 2020 through October 2021. The performance of 27 individual models that submitted complete forecasts of COVID-19 deaths consistently throughout this year showed high variability in forecast skill across time, geospatial units, and forecast horizons. Two-thirds of the models evaluated showed better accuracy than a naïve baseline model. Forecast accuracy degraded as models made predictions further into the future, with probabilistic error at a 20-wk horizon three to five times larger than when predicting at a 1-wk horizon. This project underscores the role that collaboration and active coordination between governmental public-health agencies, academic modeling teams, and industry partners can play in developing modern modeling capabilities to support local, state, and federal response to outbreaks.

Protecting patients from harm: design and implementation of an institutional bloodborne pathogen protocol

BACKGROUND

Patients are sometimes exposed to the blood of health care workers (HCWs) while receiving medical care. No national guidelines exist that authoritatively articulate the responsibility of HCWs infected with a potentially transmissible bloodborne pathogen (BBP). Geisinger Health System crafted and implemented a policy delineating the responsibilities of an HCW in the event of accidental blood exposure of a patient, specifically addressing HCWs known to be infected with a BBP.

METHODS

In 2008, a multidisciplinary group convened to review available published resources from the American Medical Association, specialty society positions, state and national guidelines, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology, as well as selected commentaries.

RESULTS

A policy was crafted and enacted within a large integrated heath care system that provided clear guidelines and responsibilities for HCWs who are either infected with a BBP or expose patients to blood in the course of providing medical care. This policy balances the rights of both patients and providers.

CONCLUSIONS

The resources to devise policies regarding BBP exposure to patients are available but require distillation of complex scientific data and social and/or legal opinion or precedent. We offer Geisinger Health System's policy as a workable and readily accessible model that defines the obligations of providers to protect patients in the event of a BBP exposure.

Randomized, prospective comparison of first- and second-generation cephalosporins as infection prophylaxis for cardiac surgery

Surgical wound infections after cardiovascular surgery may be life threatening and are resource intensive. Second-generation cephalosporins are purported to have a broader antimicrobial spectrum than first-generation cephalosporins and, therefore, may be more efficacious for infection prophylaxis. We have conducted a randomized prospective study of 702 patients undergoing open heart surgery to test the hypothesis that the second-generation cephalosporin, cefuroxime, will be more efficacious for infection prophylaxis than the first-generation cephalosporin, cefazolin. Patients were randomized to receive cefazolin 1 g intravenously every 8 hours for 48 hours begun 1 hour preoperatively plus 1 g after 4 hours of surgery (8 doses, n = 425) or cefuroxime 1.5 g 1 hour prior to surgery plus 1.5 g every 12 hours for 3 additional doses (4 doses, n = 277). Infection was defined as a draining wound with or without a positive culture. There was no difference in the wound infection rate between the groups (p = 0.68). Chest wound infections occurred in 2.1% of patients treated with cefazolin and 2.9% of patients treated with cefuroxime (p = 0.79). The rate of true mediastinitis requiring exploration and drainage was 0.7% in both groups (p = 0.084). Leg infections occurred in 6.6% of cefazolin-treated patients and 5.6% of cefuroxime-treated patients (p = 0.83). The second-generation cephalosporin, cefuroxime, did not reduce the incidence of wound infection when compared with the first-generation cephalosporin, cefazolin. Since institutional antibiotic acquisition and administration costs vary, careful analysis of these factors will allow determination of the most cost-effective infection prophylaxis regimen in cardiac surgery.

Effects of acute viral respiratory tract infections in patients with cystic fibrosis

To determine the effects of acute viral respiratory infections (ARI) in cystic fibrosis (CF) we studied all episodes of ARI in ten patients over a 2 year period. A daily diary card was kept on which they recorded all illnesses, including specific upper and lower respiratory symptoms, antibiotic use, and daily peak flow measurements. Recording of concurrent similar illnesses in other household members aided in confirming the onset of ARI, as did a home viral culturing technique and serial serum antibody levels against specific viral types. A total of 80% of the 35 recorded onsets of ARI (1.75/yr/subject) were confirmed by one or more of these methods. Five subjects with moderate to severe pulmonary function scores at the outset of the study had significantly greater decreases in PEFR during ARI episodes (42.4%) than those with milder disease (15.4%), and it took them significantly longer to recover to their baseline measurements (22 days vs. 15 days respectively). The majority of hospital admissions for pulmonary exacerbations were preceded by viral infections (7/8).