Free Coronavirus research

In response to the outbreak in China, the publishing company Wiley is providing free access to all their articles related to coronavirus.

lab-3498585_1920

Access to medical and scientific articles includes research from the Journal of Medical Virology, Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, Zoonoses and Public Health and many more. As new articles are published, they will be made free to access, and added to this centralized resource of coronavirus research.

These important pieces of literature will remain open until April 2020 and the window of time will be extended as needed.

Full detail: Coronavirus research from Wiley

See also:

[NICE Guidance] Letermovir for preventing cytomegalovirus disease after a stem cell transplant

NICE |July 2019 | Letermovir for preventing cytomegalovirus disease after a stem cell transplant

NICE has today published final guidance which recommends the use of letermovir for the prevention of  cytomegalovirus reactivation and disease after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant in adults 

Read the full guidance from NICE

 

[NICE guideline [NG125] Surgical site infections: prevention and treatment

NICE | April 2019 | Surgical site infections: prevention and treatment

This guideline covers preventing and treating surgical site infections in adults, young people and children who are having a surgical procedure involving a cut through the skin. It focuses on methods used before, during and after surgery to minimise the risk of infection.

healthcare-hospital-lamp-1250655.jpg

This guideline includes new and updated recommendations on:

It also includes recommendations on:

Full information is available from NICE 

Improving adherence to Standard Precautions for the control of health care-associated infections

Moralejo, D., El Dib, R., Prata, R.A, Barretti, P., Corrêa, I.| 2018|Improving adherence to Standard Precautions for the control of health care-associated infections |Cochrane Database Systematic Review|Feb |26 | 2|CD010768| DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010768.pub2

bacteria-163711_1280.jpg

Abstract

Background:

‘Standard Precautions’ refers to a system of actions, such as using personal protective equipment or adhering to safe handling of needles, that healthcare workers take to reduce the spread of germs in healthcare settings such as hospitals and nursing homes.

Objectives:

To assess the effectiveness of interventions that target healthcare workers to improve adherence to Standard Precautions in patient care.

Search Methods:

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, two other databases, and two trials registers. We applied no language restrictions. The date of the most recent search was 14 February 2017.

Selection Criteria:

We included randomised trials of individuals, cluster-randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time-series studies that evaluated any intervention to improve adherence to Standard Precautions by any healthcare worker with responsibility for patient care in any hospital, long-term care or community setting, or artificial setting, such as a classroom or a learning laboratory.

Data collection and analysis:

Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data from eligible trials, and assessed risk of bias for each included study, using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Because of substantial heterogeneity among interventions and outcome measures, meta-analysis was not warranted. We used the GRADE approach to assess certainty of evidence and have presented results narratively in ‘Summary of findings’ tables.

Main Results:

We included eight studies with a total of 673 participants; three studies were conducted in Asia, two in Europe, two in North America, and one in Australia. Five studies were randomised trials, two were cluster-randomised trials, and one was a non-randomised trial. Three studies compared different educational approaches versus no education, one study compared education with visualisation of respiratory particle dispersion versus education alone, two studies compared education with additional infection control support versus no intervention, one study compared peer evaluation versus no intervention, and one study evaluated use of a checklist and coloured cues. We considered all studies to be at high risk of bias with different risks. All eight studies used different measures to assess healthcare workers’ adherence to Standard Precautions. Three studies also assessed healthcare workers’ knowledge, and one measured rates of colonisation with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) among residents and staff of long-term care facilities. Because of heterogeneity in interventions and outcome measures, we did not conduct a meta-analysis.Education may slightly improve both healthcare workers’ adherence to Standard Precautions (three studies; four centres) and their level of knowledge (two studies; three centres; low certainty of evidence for both outcomes).Education with visualisation of respiratory particle dispersion probably improves healthcare workers’ use of facial protection but probably leads to little or no difference in knowledge (one study; 20 nurses; moderate certainty of evidence for both outcomes).Education with additional infection control support may slightly improve healthcare workers’ adherence to Standard Precautions (two studies; 44 long-term care facilities; low certainty of evidence) but probably leads to little or no difference in rates of health care-associated colonisation with MRSA (one study; 32 long-term care facilities; moderate certainty of evidence).Peer evaluation probably improves healthcare workers’ adherence to Standard Precautions (one study; one hospital; moderate certainty of evidence).Checklists and coloured cues probably improve healthcare workers’ adherence to Standard Precautions (one study; one hospital; moderate certainty of evidence).

Read the full systematic review at the Cochrane Library 

Blood test identifies patients at risk of developing a secondary infection

University of Edinburgh| June 2018 | Blood test spots patients’ infection risk

A new test developed by researchers at the University of Edinburgh and the University of Cambridge could be used to identify patients in intensive care at risk of developing a secondary infection. The test is able to show three markers in the blood that are involved in fighting infections. These markers demonstrate if the cells are dysfunctional meaning they are more susceptible to disease. Patients with these dysfunctional cells have an increased risk, by two to three times, of developing an infection when compared to those who test negative for the markers. 

blood-1813410_1920
The authors of the study suggest the test could be used in future to pinpoint suitable patients to participate in clinical trials to test new therapies  and that it could help doctors target therapies such as antibiotics to the patients most likely to benefit (Source: University of Edinburgh).
The research findings have now been published in Intensive Care Medicine , where it is available to read in full

Abstract

Purpose

Cellular immune dysfunctions, which are common in intensive care patients, predict a number of significant complications. In order to effectively target treatments, clinically applicable measures need to be developed to detect dysfunction. The objective was to confirm the ability of cellular markers associated with immune dysfunction to stratify risk of secondary infection in critically ill patients.

Methods

Multi-centre, prospective observational cohort study of critically ill patients in four UK intensive care units. Serial blood samples were taken, and three cell surface markers associated with immune cell dysfunction [neutrophil CD88, monocyte human leucocyte antigen-DR (HLA-DR) and percentage of regulatory T cells (Tregs)] were assayed on-site using standardized flow cytometric measures. Patients were followed up for the development of secondary infections.

Results

A total of 148 patients were recruited, with data available from 138. Reduced neutrophil CD88, reduced monocyte HLA-DR and elevated proportions of Tregs were all associated with subsequent development of infection with odds ratios of 2.18, 3.44  and 2.41, respectively. Burden of immune dysfunction predicted a progressive increase in risk of infection, from 14% for patients with no dysfunction to 59% for patients with dysfunction of all three markers. The tests failed to risk stratify patients shortly after ICU admission but were effective between days 3 and 9.

Conclusions

This study confirms our previous findings that three cell surface markers can predict risk of subsequent secondary infection, demonstrates the feasibility of standardized multisite flow cytometry and presents a tool which can be used to target future immunomodulatory therapies.

Full reference: Conway Morris, A., Datta, D., Shankar-Hari, M. et al. | 2018 |Cell-surface signatures of immune dysfunction risk-stratify critically ill patients: INFECT study| Intensive Care Med| Vol. 44| 5| P. 627-635|DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-018-5247-0