Symptoms Of Acute Respiratory Illness Research Articles

Effectiveness of the original monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination series against hospitalization for COVID-19-associated venous thromboembolism.

COVID-19 is a strong risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in preventing hospitalization for COVID-19 with VTE. Adults hospitalized at 21 sites between March 2021 and October 2022 with symptoms of acute respiratory illness were assessed for COVID-19, completion of the original monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination series, and VTE. Prevalence of VTE was compared between unvaccinated and vaccinated patients with COVID-19. Vaccine effectiveness in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization with VTE was calculated using a test negative design. Vaccine effectiveness was also stratified by predominant circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant. Among 18,811 patients (median age 63 [IQR:50-73], 49% women, 59% non-Hispanic White, 20% non-Hispanic Black, 14% Hispanic, and median of 2 comorbid conditions [IQR:1-3]), 9,792 were admitted with COVID-19 (44% vaccinated) and 9,019 were test-negative controls (73% vaccinated). Among patients with COVID-19, 601 were diagnosed with VTE by hospital day 28, of whom 170 were vaccinated. VTE was more common among unvaccinated than vaccinated COVID-19 patients (7.8% versus 4.0%; p=0.001). Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization with VTE was 84% (95% CI: 80-87%) overall. Vaccine effectiveness stratified by predominant circulating variant was 88% (73-95%) for alpha, 93% (90-95%) for delta, and 68% (58-76%) for omicron variants. Vaccination with the original monovalent mRNA series was associated with a decrease in COVID-19 hospitalization with VTE, though data detailing prior history of VTE and use of anticoagulation were not available. These findings will inform risk-benefit considerations for those considering vaccination.

Antibiotic prescribing practices for acute respiratory illness in children less than 24 months of age in Kenema, Sierra Leone: is it time to move beyond algorithm driven decision making?

BackgroundLower respiratory tract infections are the leading cause of mortality in young children globally. In many resource-limited settings clinicians rely on guidelines such as IMCI or ETAT + that promote empiric antibiotic utilization for management of acute respiratory illness (ARI). Numerous evaluations of both guidelines have shown an overall positive response however, several challenges have also been reported, including the potential for over-prescribing of unnecessary antibiotics. The aims of this study were to describe the antibiotic prescribing practices for children less than 24 months of age with symptoms of ARI, that were admitted to Kenema Government Hospital (KGH) in the Eastern Province of Sierra Leone, and to identify the number of children empirically prescribed antibiotics who were admitted to hospital with ARI, as well as their clinical signs, symptoms, and outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a prospective study of children < 24 months of age admitted to the KGH pediatric ward with respiratory symptoms between October 1, 2020 and May 31, 2022. Study nurses collected data on demographic information, medical and medication history, and information on clinical course while hospitalized.ResultsA total of 777 children were enrolled. Prior to arrival at the hospital, 224 children (28.8%) reported taking an antibiotic for this illness without improvement. Only 15 (1.9%) children received a chest radiograph to aid in diagnosis and 100% of patients were placed on antibiotics during their hospital stay.ConclusionsDespite the lives saved, reliance on clinical decision-support tools such as IMCI and ETAT + for pediatric ARI, is resulting in the likely over-prescribing of antibiotics. Greater uptake of implementation research is needed to develop strategies and tools designed to optimize antibiotic use for ARI in LMIC settings. Additionally, much greater priority needs to be given to ensuring clinicians have the basic tools for clinical diagnosis, as well as greater investments in essential laboratory and radiographic diagnostics that help LMIC clinicians move beyond the sole reliance on algorithm based clinical decision making.

Accuracy of COVID-19-Like Illness Diagnoses in Electronic Health Record Data: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Electronic health record (EHR) data provide a unique opportunity to study the epidemiology of COVID-19, clinical outcomes of the infection, comparative effectiveness of therapies, and vaccine effectiveness but require a well-defined computable phenotype of COVID-19-like illness (CLI). The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of pathogen-specific and other acute respiratory illness (ARI) International Statistical Classification of Diseases-9 and -10 codes in identifying COVID-19 cases in emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) and inpatient settings. We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study using EHR, claims, and laboratory information system data of ED or UC and inpatient encounters from 4 health systems in the United States. Patients who were aged ≥18 years, had an ED or UC or inpatient encounter for an ARI, and underwent a SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021, were included. We evaluated various CLI definitions using combinations of International Statistical Classification of Diseases-10 codes as follows: COVID-19-specific codes; CLI definition used in VISION network studies; ARI signs, symptoms, and diagnosis codes only; signs and symptoms of ARI only; and random forest model definitions. We evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of each CLI definition using a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test as the reference standard. We evaluated the performance of each CLI definition for distinct hospitalization and ED or UC cohorts. Among 90,952 hospitalizations and 137,067 ED or UC visits, 5627 (6.19%) and 9866 (7.20%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2, respectively. COVID-19-specific codes had high sensitivity (91.6%) and specificity (99.6%) in identifying patients with SARS-CoV-2 positivity among hospitalized patients. The VISION CLI definition maintained high sensitivity (95.8%) but lowered specificity (45.5%). By contrast, signs and symptoms of ARI had low sensitivity and positive predictive value (28.9% and 11.8%, respectively) but higher specificity and negative predictive value (85.3% and 94.7%, respectively). ARI diagnoses, signs, and symptoms alone had low predictive performance. All CLI definitions had lower sensitivity for ED or UC encounters. Random forest approaches identified distinct CLI definitions with high performance for hospital encounters and moderate performance for ED or UC encounters. COVID-19-specific codes have high sensitivity and specificity in identifying adults with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. Separate combinations of COVID-19-specific codes and ARI codes enhance the utility of CLI definitions in studies using EHR data in hospital and ED or UC settings.

2153. Clinical Characteristics and Pathogen Detection in Children with Symptoms of Acute Respiratory Illness and Acute Gastroenteritis

Abstract Background Children can present with overlapping symptoms of acute respiratory illness (ARI) and acute gastroenteritis (AGE). In these cases, it is unclear if the etiologic agent is a respiratory pathogen, gastrointestinal pathogen, or both. Methods We analyzed data collected in Nashville, TN (12/01/2016–2/28/2020) as part of the New Vaccine Surveillance Network, a prospective ARI/AGE surveillance study. Children (&amp;lt; 18 years old) who presented to the emergency department or were admitted with fever and/or respiratory symptoms for &amp;lt; 14 days were enrolled as ARI subjects and had mid-turbinate nasal ± throat swabs collected, while children with ≥1 episode of vomiting and/or ≥3 episodes of diarrhea in 24 hours were enrolled as AGE subjects and had stool collected. Children who met both sets of criteria were dually enrolled. Respiratory specimens were tested for common respiratory viruses by molecular testing and stool specimens were tested for common gastrointestinal (GI) pathogens by Luminex GI Pathogen Panel. We compared detection groups using Pearson’s χ2 test. C. difficile detection in children &amp;lt; 2 years old was considered asymptomatic carriage (n=32). Results We identified 501 dual enrollees, among whom 279 (55.7%) had both a respiratory and stool specimen tested. Overall, 127 (45.5%) had only a respiratory virus detected, 33 (11.8%) had only a GI pathogen detected, 39 (14.0%) had both, and 77 (27.6%) had no detection (Table 1). Vomiting and diarrhea were frequently reported ( &amp;gt;50%) in all dual enrollees whether or not a pathogen was detected (Figure 1). Cough was detected in high frequency in all groups with pathogen detection. Children with respiratory-only or dual detection had a higher frequency of wheezing and shortness of breath than those with GI-only or no detection. The distribution of pathogens did not significantly differ between single and co-detected cases (Figure 2). Table 1Demographic characteristics of N=279* children presenting with symptoms of acute respiratory illness and acute gastroenteritis in Nashville, TN, stratified by detection status.Figure 1Distribution of signs and symptoms in N=279 children presenting with symptoms of acute respiratory illness and acute gastroenteritis in Nashville, TN, stratified by detection status. p values represent omnibus comparisons of all four groups.Figure 2Distribution of pathogens detected in N=279 children presenting with symptoms of acute respiratory illness and acute gastroenteritis in Nashville, TN, stratified by detection status. Conclusion Children presenting with overlapping symptoms of ARI and AGE were more likely to have an ARI-associated virus. Lower respiratory symptoms (namely, wheezing and shortness of breath) were more specific for ARI-associated viral detection compared with other signs and symptoms. Disclosures Natasha B. Halasa, MD, Quidel: Grant/Research Support|Quidel: equipment donation|Sanofi: Grant/Research Support|Sanofi: HAI testing and vaccine donation.

2167. Use and Timing of Antiviral Therapy for Influenza in Hospitalized U.S. Children, 2016–2020

Abstract Background According to the 2018 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) clinical practice guidelines and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance, clinicians should start antiviral treatment as soon as possible for children who are hospitalized with suspected or confirmed influenza. We assessed the use of influenza-specific antiviral therapy in children hospitalized with symptoms of acute respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed influenza. Methods We conducted active, population-based surveillance of children hospitalized with fever and/or respiratory symptoms (12/01/2016–02/28/2020) at the seven U.S. medical centers that comprise the CDC New Vaccine Surveillance Network. We excluded children who did not undergo clinical testing (by rapid antigen testing or nucleic acid amplification test [NAAT]) or research testing (by NAAT) for influenza, those who presented out of influenza season (site- and season-specific), and those whose date of antiviral therapy or whether antiviral therapy was given was unknown. We assessed the use of influenza-specific antiviral therapy in this cohort and defined timely antiviral therapy as administration within 2 days of hospitalization. Results Of 11,275 eligible children, 1,149 (10.2%) tested positive for influenza by clinical and/or research assays (Table 1). Overall, 154 influenza cases (13.4%) were detected by clinical testing only, 428 (37.2%) by research testing only, and 567 (49.3%) by both. During their influenza-associated hospitalization, 620 children (54.0%) received influenza-specific antivirals, and therapy was timely in 572 cases (92.3%). Of those who tested positive clinically, 445/721 (61.7%) received timely antiviral therapy, 38 (5.3%) received delayed antiviral therapy, and 238 (33.0%) received no antiviral therapy. Oseltamivir was the antiviral used in all treated cases. The distribution of antiviral-treated cases varied by race and Hispanic origin and study site, but not by age at presentation or influenza season (Figure 1). Table 1 Demographic characteristics of 1,149 children with influenza enrolled in the New Vaccine Surveillance Network over four influenza seasons between December 1, 2016, and February 28, 2020. Figure 1Proportions of children with influenza enrolled in the New Vaccine Surveillance Network who received timely, delayed, or no antiviral therapy by age at presentation, race and Hispanic origin, study site, and influenza season (N=1,149). Conclusion Although antiviral therapy is recommended for all influenza-associated hospitalizations in children, antiviral prescribing remains suboptimal. Further studies would help identify and address barriers to antiviral therapy in children with influenza. Disclosures John Williams, MD, GlaxoSmithKline: Advisor/Consultant|Quidel: Advisor/Consultant Janet A. Englund, MD, AstraZeneca: Advisor/Consultant|AstraZeneca: Grant/Research Support|GlaxoSmithKline: Grant/Research Support|Meissa Vaccines: Advisor/Consultant|Merck: Grant/Research Support|Pfizer: Grant/Research Support|Sanofi Pasteur: Advisor/Consultant Rangaraj Selvarangan, BVSc, PhD, D(ABMM), FIDSA, F(AAM), BioFire: Grant/Research Support|Luminex: Grant/Research Support Mary A. Staat, MD, MPH, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Grant/Research Support|Cepheid: Grant/Research Support|National Institute of Health: Grant/Research Support|Uptodate: Royalties Geoffrey A. Weinberg, MD, Merck &amp; Co.: Honoraria|Merck &amp; Co.: Honoraria for composing and reviewing textbook chapters, Merck Manual of Therapeutics Flor M. Munoz, MD, MSc, Gilead: Grant/Research Support|Moderna: DSMB|Pfizer: DSMB Christopher J Harrison, MD, Astellas: Grant/Research Support|GSK: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Grant/Research Support|Pediatric news: Honoraria|Pfizer: Grant/Research Support Natasha B. Halasa, MD, Quidel: Grant/Research Support|Quidel: equipment donation|Sanofi: Grant/Research Support|Sanofi: HAI testing and vaccine donation.

1456. Environmental and Nasal Pathogen Surveillance in Seattle Area Homeless Shelters

Abstract Background The need for community surveillance of respiratory viruses in high-risk settings such as homeless shelters has been underscored by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we show that sampling high-touch surfaces is a low-cost, minimally intensive means of community respiratory virus surveillance. Methods Environmental samples were collected weekly from adult and family homeless shelters in King County, WA from November 2019 – April 2020. At times when residents were present, a 10cm2 area of selected high-touch surfaces were swabbed and bioaerosol samples were collected in high-traffic areas. Surfaces included entrance and restroom doorknobs, counters, and surfaces unique to each shelter. Study staff collected mid-turbinate swabs from shelter resident participants aged &amp;gt; 3 months with symptoms of acute respiratory illness (ARI). All samples were tested by RT-PCR for 27 viruses. From January 1, 2020 onward, samples were also tested for SARS-CoV-2. Results A total of 788 environmental swabs, 1509 nasal swabs, and 98 bioaerosol samples from 6 adult and 3 family shelters were tested. Adenovirus (109 positive swabs, 13.8% of tested swabs), rhinovirus (107, 13.6%) and human bocavirus (62, 7.9%) were the most frequently detected viruses in surface swabs. Rhinovirus (160, 10.6%), human coronaviruses (79, 5.24%) and influenza B (43, 2.85%) were the most detected in nasal swabs. All viruses detected in nasal swabs were found in surface swabs. Of 9 surfaces, exterior bathroom doorknobs were the physical location with the highest number of pathogens detected. SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in surface swabs on 3/20/20, and in nasal swabs on 3/10/20. Bioaerosol samples detected virus in a low percentage of samples relative to surface and nasal swabs. Table 1Count and period prevalence of environmental viral detection by shelter type, November 18, 2019 - April 10, 2020.Figure 1Number of viral pathogens detected from environmental swabs, disaggregated by shelter type.Figure 2Bar graphs comparing prevalence of respiratory pathogen detection in mid-turbinate nasal swabs and environmental swabs/bioaerosol samples by epidemiologic week, November 18, 2019 - April 30, 2020. Conclusion Respiratory viruses detected through environmental sampling in homeless shelters were similar to the viruses detected from ARI episodes in study participants. Environmental surface sampling presents a plausible, minimally invasive method of surveillance for both endemic and emerging respiratory pathogens, as evidenced by the detection of SARS-CoV-2 during the early stages of the pandemic. Further research could focus on sampling public locations for broader community surveillance and culturing viruses found on these surfaces. Disclosures Michael J. Boeckh, MD PhD, Allovir: Advisor/Consultant|Amazon: Grant/Research Support|Ansun Biopharma: Grant/Research Support|EvrysBio: Advisor/Consultant|Gates Ventures: Grant/Research Support|Gilead Sciences: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead Sciences: Grant/Research Support|GlaxoSmithKline: Advisor/Consultant|GlaxoSmithKline: Grant/Research Support|Helocyte: Advisor/Consultant|Janssen: Advisor/Consultant|Janssen: Grant/Research Support|Kyorin Pharmaceuticals: Advisor/Consultant|Merck: Advisor/Consultant|Merck: Grant/Research Support|Moderna: Advisor/Consultant|Moderna: Grant/Research Support|Regeneron: Grant/Research Support|ReViral: Advisor/Consultant|Symbio: Advisor/Consultant|Takeda: Grant/Research Support|Vir Biotechnology: Advisor/Consultant|Vir Biotechnology: Grant/Research Support Janet A. Englund, MD, AstraZeneca: Advisor/Consultant|AstraZeneca: Grant/Research Support|GlaxoSmithKline: Grant/Research Support|Meissa Vaccines: Advisor/Consultant|Merck: Grant/Research Support|Pfizer: Grant/Research Support|Sanofi Pasteur: Advisor/Consultant Helen Y. Chu, MD, MPH, Cepheid: Reagents|Ellume: Advisor/Consultant|Gates Ventures: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant.

2202. Influenza Surveillance of Families in an Observational Household Study 2019-2021

Abstract Background Families with children may be at higher risk for influenza infection. Community transmission can suffer from underreporting as testing is often not performed. We studied the epidemiology of influenza in households with school-aged children using home-based sample collection. Methods We conducted a remote household study surveilling respiratory viruses from November 2019-June 2021, in King County, Washington (WA), USA. Households with school-aged children were enrolled, mailed home specimen collection kits, and asked to self-assess for weekly acute respiratory illness (ARI) using remote survey platforms. Participants with ARI symptoms were prompted to complete serial illness surveys and self-collect/parent collect mid-turbinate nasal swabs. Samples were sent to a University of Washington study laboratory for RT-PCR influenza testing. Influenza rates were compared to WA Department of Health (DOH) reporting. Results A total of 1861 ARI events were reported among 992 adults and 869 children in 470 households; 75 influenza cases were detected (36 influenza A and 39 influenza B). The study participant median age was 32 years (0-84), 10 years (1-49) for influenza A, and 11 years (3-49) for influenza B cases. Overall 13% of households had an influenza case, of which 13 (22%) reported &amp;gt;1 case. A total of 81% of participants reported receipt of one dose of the 2019-2020 influenza vaccine, including 91% of influenza A and 90% of influenza B cases, and 84% received the 2020-2021 influenza vaccine. Like WA DOH, we observed a wave of influenza B cases followed by influenza A in 2019-2020. During influenza season 2020-2021, WA DOH reported 9 positive influenza tests and none observed in our study. Commonly, influenza case-patients reported were fever, cough, rhinorrhea, and fatigue. GI symptoms were more common in children than adults. Of the cases, 92% of influenza A and 78% of influenza B occurred in children. Figure 1.Influenza A and B cases from 2019-2021Figure 2A.Reported Symptoms of Influenza A D0-Day of reported onset, D7-7 days after reported illness onset. No participants &amp;gt;49 years were positive for influenza. D0: 30 participants responded and of respondents, 13% &amp;lt;5 years, 47% 5-12 years, 3% 13-17 years, and 37% 18-49 years. D7: 31 participants responded and of respondents 13% &amp;lt;5 years, 48% 5-11 years, 3% 12-17 years, and 36% 18-49 years. Figure 2B.Reported Symptoms of Influenza B D0-Day of reported onset, D7-7 days after reported illness onset. No participants &amp;gt;49 years were positive for influenza. D0: 28 participants responded and of respondents, 4% &amp;lt;5 years, 57% 5-12 years, 14% 13-17 years, and 25% 18-49 years. D7: 28 participants responded and of respondents, 4% &amp;lt;5 years, 57% 5-11 years, 18% 12-17 years, and 21% 18-49 years. Conclusion Influenza illness in 2019-2020 was initially influenza B, and subsequently replaced by influenza A. Most cases were in children and adolescents, despite at least one dose of influenza vaccine. Symptoms were widely distributed and similar between influenza A and B. Influenza incidence in our cohort declined to zero with the rise of SARS-CoV-2 cases and widespread mitigation efforts. Disclosures Janet A. Englund, MD, AstraZeneca: Advisor/Consultant|AstraZeneca: Grant/Research Support|GlaxoSmithKline: Grant/Research Support|Meissa Vaccines: Advisor/Consultant|Merck: Grant/Research Support|Pfizer: Grant/Research Support|Sanofi Pasteur: Advisor/Consultant Helen Y. Chu, MD, MPH, Cepheid: Reagents|Ellume: Advisor/Consultant|Gates Ventures: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant.

Household level of air pollution and its impact on the occurrence of Acute Respiratory Illness among children under five: secondary analysis of Demographic and Health Survey in West Africa

BackgroundOne out of ten deaths of children under five are attributable to indoor air pollution. And Acute Respiratory Illness (ARI) is among the direct causes.ObjectiveThis study showed the possibilities of characterizing indoor air pollution in West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) area and it also made it possible to estimate its impact on the occurrence of ARI in children under five.MethodsIt has been a secondary analysis based on Demographic and Health Surveys (DHSs) from WAEMU countries’ data.. “Household level of air pollution” is the created composite variable, from questions on the degradation factors of indoor air quality (domestic combustion processes) which served to characterize indoor air pollution and to measure its impact by a logistic regression.ResultsBurkina Faso stands out with a greater number of households with a high level of pollution (63.7%) followed by Benin (43.7%) then Togo (43.0%). The main exposure factor "Household level of air pollution" was associated with ARI symptoms (Togo: prevalence = 51.3%; chi-squared test’s p-value < 0.001). Exposure to high level of pollution constitutes a risk (AOR [95 CI]), even though it is not significant ( Ivory Coast: 1.29 [0.72–2.30], Senegal: 1.39 [0.94–2.05] and Togo: 1.15 [0.67–1.95]) and this could be explained by the high infectious etiology of the ARI.

Perioperative respiratory adverse events in children undergoing triple endoscopy.

Children with aerodigestive disorders often have many of the reported risk factors for development of perioperative respiratory adverse events. This study sought to evaluate the incidence of such events in this group of patients undergoing general anesthesia for "triple endoscopy" (flexible bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage, rigid laryngoscopy and bronchoscopy, and esophagogastroduodenoscopy) and to identify any patient-specific or procedure-specific risk factors associated with higher incidence of perioperative respiratory adverse events. We performed a retrospective chart review of children 18years or younger who underwent triple endoscopy as part of an aerodigestive evaluation. Data collected from medical records included: preoperative polysomnography, symptoms of acute respiratory illness, medical comorbidities, demographics, postoperative hospital or intensive care unit admission, and all respiratory events and interventions in the perioperative period. Patient-specific and procedure-specific factors were investigated via univariate analysis for any correlations with perioperative respiratory adverse events. Of the 122 patients undergoing triple endoscopy, 69 (57%) experienced a perioperative respiratory adverse event. We found no difference in the incidence of perioperative respiratory adverse events among children with documented lung disease compared with those with no lung disease (OR: 0.89, p=.8 95% CI: 0.43, 1.8), and no significant difference between those children who had a respiratory illness at the time of surgery, 1-2weeks prior, 3-4weeks prior, and those with no preceding respiratory illness. A higher percentage of males had a perioperative respiratory adverse event, compared with females (OR: 2.7, p=.01 95% CI: 1.3, 5.09). Patients undergoing triple endoscopy for evaluation of aerodigestive disorders at our institution experienced perioperative respiratory adverse events at a rate of 57%.

Incidence of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection Among Hospitalized Adults, 2017-2020.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) causes acute respiratory illness (ARI) and triggers exacerbations of cardiopulmonary disease. Estimates of incidence in hospitalized adults range widely, with few data on incidence in adults with comorbidities that increase the risk of severity. We conducted a prospective, population-based, surveillance study to estimate incidence of RSV hospitalization among adults overall and those with specific comorbidities. Hospitalized adults aged ≥18 years residing in the surveillance area with ≥2 ARI symptoms or exacerbation of underlying cardiopulmonary disease were screened during the 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020 RSV seasons in 3 hospitals in Rochester, New York and New York City. Respiratory specimens were tested for RSV using polymerase chain reaction assays. RSV incidence per 100 000 was adjusted by market share. Active and passive surveillance identified 1099 adults hospitalized with RSV. Annual incidence during 3 seasons ranged from 44.2 to 58.9/100 000. Age-group-specific incidence ranged from 7.7 to 11.9/100 000, 33.5 to 57.5/100 000, and 136.9 to 255.6/100 000 in patients ages 18-49, 50-64, and ≥65 years, respectively. Incidence rates in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, and congestive heart failure were 3-13, 4-7, and 4-33 times, respectively, the incidence in patients without these conditions. We found a high burden of RSV hospitalization in this large prospective study. Notable was the high incidence among older patients and those with cardiac conditions. These data confirm the need for effective vaccines to prevent RSV infection in older and vulnerable adults.

COVID-19 vaccines for children younger than 12 years: are we ready?

COVID-19 vaccines for children younger than 12 years: are we ready?

Study of clinical parameters, diagnostics and outcome in patients with acute respiratory illness in a tertiary care centre during COVID-19 pandemic

Background: We retrospectively analyzed and compared 98 patients admitted in Intensive care unit (ICU) with symptoms of acute respiratory illness (ARI) during the era of COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: We examined patients presenting in emergency department of SMS Medical College, Jaipur between 3rd and 20th May, 2020 with symptoms of ARI who were tested for SARS-CoV-2. Among those hospitalized, we compared symptoms, vital signs, comorbidities, biochemical and hematological parameters including viral diagnostics. We determined differences in outcomes (ICU admission, interventions, acute respiratory distress syndrome and cardiac injury).Results: In a cohort of 98 patients with symptoms of ARI, 9 (9.183%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Patients were divided into group A and B based on SARS CoV2 RNA testing. Among patients with additional viral testing, no co-infections with SARS-CoV-2 were identified by PCR. FDP and d-dimer was positive in 44.44% patients in group A and 68.53% in group B. 11.11% mortality was observed in group A and 14.606% in group B. The most common complication of ARI observed in both groups was coagulopathy 33.33% in group A and 42.696% in group B.Conclusions: Presence of comorbidities, lymphopenia, elderly age and elevated NLR, TLC, PLR and LDH have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Tuberculosis was most common coinfection seen in patients presenting with ARI. ARI due to non-COVID-19 illness was more severe than due to COVID-19 and was accompanied by multiple respiratory and systemic symptoms and was associated with hospitalization.

Symptom cluster is associated with prolonged return-to-play in symptomatic athletes with acute respiratory illness (including COVID-19): a cross-sectional study—AWARE study I

BackgroundThere are no data relating symptoms of an acute respiratory illness (ARI) in general, and COVID-19 specifically, to return to play (RTP).ObjectiveTo determine if ARI symptoms are associated with more...

Contact tracing of staff in the emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Contact tracing of staff in the emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Possible Vertical Transmission of COVID-19 to the Newborn;a Case Report

Vertical transmission of the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), has been reported in case reports and series, while the data regarding its transmission is still not enough. Thus, presenting different experiences form various regions could help better understand the virus behavior in pregnancy. We herein report a possible vertical transmission of COVID-19 from a mother to the neonate. A 41-year-old mother with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory illness presented with labor pain and vaginal leak at 37 weeks of gestation. She tested positive for COVID-19 using RT-PCR and underwent emergency cesarean section delivery and gave birth to a girl neonate. The baby tested positive for the COVID-19. Although vertical transmission of COVID-19 has not been proved yet, but there are several lines of evidences suggesting it. Paying close attention to the mother and newborn with COVID-19 and long-term follow-up are needed for better understanding of the virus in pregnancy.

Containment of COVID-19 cases among healthcare workers: The role of surveillance, early detection, and outbreak management.

Staff surveillance is crucial during the containment phase of a pandemic to help reduce potential healthcare-associated transmission and sustain good staff morale. During an outbreak of SARS-COV-2 with community transmission, our institution used an integrated strategy for early detection and containment of COVID-19 cases among healthcare workers (HCWs). Our strategy comprised 3 key components: (1) enforcing reporting of HCWs with acute respiratory illness (ARI) to our institution's staff clinic for monitoring; (2) conducting ongoing syndromic surveillance to obtain early warning of potential clusters of COVID-19; and (3) outbreak investigation and management. Over a 16-week surveillance period, we detected 14 cases of COVID-19 among HCWs with ARI symptoms. Two of the cases were linked epidemiologically and thus constituted a COVID-19 cluster with intrahospital HCW-HCW transmission; we also detected 1 family cluster and 2 clusters among HCWs who shared accommodation. No transmission to HCWs or patients was detected after containment measures were instituted. Early detection minimized the number of HCWs requiring quarantine, hence preserving continuity of service during an ongoing pandemic. An integrated surveillance strategy, outbreak management, and encouraging individual responsibility were successful in early detection of clusters of COVID-19 among HCWs. With ongoing local transmission, vigilance must be maintained for intrahospital spread in nonclinical areas where social mingling of HCWs occurs. Because most individuals with COVID-19 have mild symptoms, addressing presenteeism is crucial to minimize potential staff and patient exposure.

Corona Virus Disease 2019

Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a new name given by World Health Organization (WHO) of 2019 novel corona virus infection, reported at the end of 2019 from Wuhan, Cina. The spread of infection occurs rapidly and creates a new pandemic threat. Etiology of COVID-19 was identified in 10 January 2020, a betacorona virus, similar with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS CoV). The clue diagnosis pathway of COVID-19 were history of travel from Wuhan or others infected countries within 14 days prior, and symptoms of acute respiratory illness (ARI) or lower respiratory infection (pneumonia) with the result of real time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) specific for COVID-19. The WHO classified COVID-19 into suspect case, probable case and confirmed case. Indonesia Ministry of Health classified the case into in monitoring (ODP), patient under surveillance (PDP), people without symptom (OTG) and confirmed case. Specimens for detection COVID-19 could be acquired from nasal and nasopharynx swab, sputum and another lower respiratory aspirate including broncoalveolar lavage (BAL). Management of COVID-19 consist of isolation and infection control, supportive treatment according to the disease severity which could be mild (acute respiratory infection) to severe pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Disease transmission is via droplets and contact with droplets. Currently, there is no antiviral and vaccine. Prevention is very important for this disease by limitation of transmission, identification and isolate patients. Prognosis is determined by severity of the disease and patient comorbidity. Information about this novel disease remains very few, studies are still ongoing and is needing further research to fight with this new virus. (J Respir Indo. 2020; 40(2): 120-30)

To breastfeed or not to breastfeed? Lack of evidence on the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in breastmilk of pregnant women with COVID-19.

ABSTRACTA rapid systematic review was carried out to evaluate the current evidence related to the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in breast milk from pregnant women with COVID-19. Eight studies analyzing the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the breast milk of 24 pregnant women with COVID-19 during the third trimester of pregnancy were found. All patients had fever and/or symptoms of acute respiratory illness and chest computed tomography images indicative of COVID-19 pneumonia. Most pregnant women had cesarean delivery (91.7%) and two neonates had low birthweight (< 2 500 g). Biological samples collected immediately after birth from upper respiratory tract (throat or nasopharyngeal) of neonates and placental tissues showed negative results for the presence SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR test. No breast milk samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2 and, to date, there is no evidence on the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in breast milk of pregnant women with COVID-19. However, data are still limited and breastfeeding of women with COVID-19 remains a controversial issue. There are no restrictions on the use of milk from a human breast milk bank.

Sources of viral respiratory infections in Canadian acute care hospital healthcare personnel

SummaryBackgroundViral respiratory illnesses are common causes of outbreaks and can be fatal to some patients.AimTo investigate the association between laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections and potential sources of exposure during the previous 7 days.MethodsIn this nested case–control analysis, healthcare personnel from nine Canadian hospitals who developed acute respiratory illnesses during the winters of 2010/11–2013/14 submitted swabs that were tested for viral pathogens. Associated illness diaries and the weekly diaries of non-ill participants provided information on contact with people displaying symptoms of acute respiratory illness in the previous week. Conditional logistic regression assessed the association between cases, who were matched by study week and site with controls with no respiratory symptoms.FindingsThere were 814 laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory illnesses. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of a viral illness was higher for healthcare personnel reporting exposures to ill household members [7.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.4–9.1], co-workers (3.4, 95% CI 2.4–4.7) or other social contacts (5.1, 95% CI 3.6–7.1). Exposures to patients with respiratory illness were not associated with infection (aOR 0.9, 95% CI 0.7–1.2); however, healthcare personnel with direct patient contact did have higher odds (aOR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.6). The aORs for exposure and for direct patient contact were similar for illnesses caused by influenza.ConclusionCommunity and co-worker contacts are important sources of viral respiratory illness in healthcare personnel, while exposure to patients with recognized respiratory infections is not associated. The comparatively low risk associated with direct patient contact may reflect transmission related to asymptomatic patients or unrecognized infections.

1205. Healthcare Personnel Knowledge, Attitudes, and Beliefs Towards Infection Prevention and Control Measures for Protection from Respiratory Infections

BackgroundHealthcare personnel (HCP) knowledge and attitudes toward Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) measures are important determinants of practices that can protect them from acquisition of infectious diseases from patients. We aimed to describe HCP knowledge and attitudes concerning IPC measures over time in the context of a clinical trial.MethodsResPECT was a multi-center, multi-season cluster randomized clinical trial designed to compare the effectiveness of medical masks (MM) and N95 respirators (N95) for preventing acute respiratory illnesses in HCP employed in outpatient clinical settings. At the beginning of each respiratory virus season, participants completed a survey instrument to measure IPC knowledge. At the beginning and end of each season participants completed a survey to assess attitudes and beliefs about IPC measures, especially MM and N95.ResultsA pre-study and post-study survey pair was available for 88.1% of participant seasons. There were no significant differences in demographic variables or job assignment between survey respondents and nonrespondents for each participant season. Participants correctly identified 59.8% to 63.4% of IPC measures that should be used by HCP when exposed to patients with symptoms of acute respiratory illness, or at high risk of infection. There was modest improvement in the knowledge score over time among providers who participated for multiple years in the study. In the first pre-study survey of IPC attitudes and beliefs, 88.5% and 87.9% of participants identified at least one reason to avoid using either MM and N95, respectively (Figure 1). At the post-season survey, the proportion of participants reporting a reason to avoid MM fell to 39.6% (IRR for pre- vs. post-season 0.15, 95% CI 0.13–0.17) and 53.6% reported a reason to avoid N95 (IRR 0.57, 95% CI 0.51–0.66).ConclusionHCPknowledge of IPC precautions was poor, suggesting a need for better IPC education and accountability in the outpatient setting. When given incentives to comply with processes toward which they had negative attitudes at baseline, HCP realized that medical masks and N95 respirators were comfortable enough to wear for patient encounters and interfered with their work processes less than expected. DisclosuresTrish M. Perl, MD; MSc, 7–11: Advisory Board; medimmune: Research Grant.