Introduction. During previous viral pandemics, reported co-infection rates and implicated pathogens have varied. In the 1918 influenza pandemic, a large proportion of severe illness and death was complicated by bacterial co-infection, predominantly Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus . Gap statement. A better understanding of the incidence of co-infection in patients with COVID-19 infection and the pathogens involved is necessary for effective antimicrobial stewardship. Aim. To describe the incidence and nature of co-infection in critically ill adults with COVID-19 infection in England. Methodology. A retrospective cohort study of adults with COVID-19 admitted to seven intensive care units (ICUs) in England up to 18 May 2020, was performed. Patients with completed ICU stays were included. The proportion and type of organisms were determined at <48 and >48 h following hospital admission, corresponding to community and hospital-acquired co-infections. Results. Of 254 patients studied (median age 59 years (IQR 49–69); 64.6 % male), 139 clinically significant organisms were identified from 83 (32.7 %) patients. Bacterial co-infections/ co-colonisation were identified within 48 h of admission in 14 (5.5 %) patients; the commonest pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (four patients) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (two patients). The proportion of pathogens detected increased with duration of ICU stay, consisting largely of Gram-negative bacteria, particularly Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli . The co-infection/ co-colonisation rate >48 h after admission was 27/1000 person-days (95 % CI 21.3–34.1). Patients with co-infections/ co-colonisation were more likely to die in ICU (crude OR 1.78,95 % CI 1.03–3.08, P=0.04) compared to those without co-infections/ co-colonisation. Conclusion. We found limited evidence for community-acquired bacterial co-infection in hospitalised adults with COVID-19, but a high rate of Gram-negative infection acquired during ICU stay.

BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in Europe and the United States. Detecting the disease at an early stage improves outcomes. Risk prediction models which combine multiple risk factors and symptoms have the potential to improve timely diagnosis. The aim of this review is to systematically identify and compare the performance of models that predict the risk of primary CRC among symptomatic individuals.MethodsWe searched Medline and EMBASE to identify primary research studies reporting, validating or assessing the impact of models. For inclusion, models needed to assess a combination of risk factors that included symptoms, present data on model performance, and be applicable to the general population. Screening of studies for inclusion and data extraction were completed independently by at least two researchers.ResultsTwelve thousand eight hundred eight papers were identified from the literature search and three through citation searching. 18 papers describing 15 risk models were included. Nine were developed in primary care populations and six in secondary care. Four had good discrimination (AUROC > 0.8) in external validation studies, and sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0.25 and 0.99 to 0.99 and 0.46 depending on the cut-off chosen.ConclusionsModels with good discrimination have been developed in both primary and secondary care populations. Most contain variables that are easily obtainable in a single consultation, but further research is needed to assess clinical utility before they are incorporated into practice.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12876-016-0475-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Clinical metagenomics (CMg) has the potential to be translated from a research tool into routine service to improve antimicrobial treatment and infection control decisions. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic provides added impetus to realise these benefits, given the increased risk of secondary infection and nosocomial transmission of multi-drug-resistant (MDR) pathogens linked with the expansion of critical care capacity. Methods CMg using nanopore sequencing was evaluated in a proof-of-concept study on 43 respiratory samples from 34 intubated patients across seven intensive care units (ICUs) over a 9-week period during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. Results An 8-h CMg workflow was 92% sensitive (95% CI, 75–99%) and 82% specific (95% CI, 57–96%) for bacterial identification based on culture-positive and culture-negative samples, respectively. CMg sequencing reported the presence or absence of β-lactam-resistant genes carried by Enterobacterales that would modify the initial guideline-recommended antibiotics in every case. CMg was also 100% concordant with quantitative PCR for detecting Aspergillus fumigatus from 4 positive and 39 negative samples. Molecular typing using 24-h sequencing data identified an MDR-K. pneumoniae ST307 outbreak involving 4 patients and an MDR-C. striatum outbreak involving 14 patients across three ICUs. Conclusion CMg testing provides accurate pathogen detection and antibiotic resistance prediction in a same-day laboratory workflow, with assembled genomes available the next day for genomic surveillance. The provision of this technology in a service setting could fundamentally change the multi-disciplinary team approach to managing ICU infections. The potential to improve the initial targeted treatment and rapidly detect unsuspected outbreaks of MDR-pathogens justifies further expedited clinical assessment of CMg.

Background: In 2009, the EAPC published recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe, and a decade later, wished to update them to reflect contemporary practice. Aim: To elicit consensus on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe, taking account of developments since 2009. Design: A Delphi technique used three sequential online survey rounds, and a final expert consultation (EAPC Board). The original 2009 questionnaire with 134 statements was updated with 13 new concepts and practices following a scoping of the literature between 2009 and 2020 (total: 147 statements). Setting/participants: One contact of Boards of 52 national European organisations affiliated to the EAPC were invited to participate, with subsequent rounds sent to respondees. The EAPC Board ( n = 13) approved final recommendations. Results: In Round 1: 30 organisations (14 organisations × two people, 16 organisations × one person, total n = 44) in 27 countries responded (response rate 58% organisations, 82% countries), Round 2 ( n = 40), Round 3 ( n = 38). 119 statements reached consensus in Round 1, 9 in Round 2, 7 in Round 3. In total 135/145 statements in five domains (terminology, philosophy, levels, delivery, services) reached consensus (defined as >75% agreement), (122) were original EAPC recommendations with 13 new recommendations included emerging specialisms: neonatal, geriatric and dementia care, and better care practices. Seven statements failed to reach consensus and four were removed as irrelevant or repetition. Conclusions: Most recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe remain unchanged since 2009. Evolving concepts in palliative care can be used to support advocacy.

ObjectivesUsing the National Child Mortality Database (NCMD), this work aims to investigate and quantify the characteristics of children dying of COVID-19, and to identify any changes in rate of childhood mortality during the pandemic.DesignWe compared the characteristics of the children who died in 2020, split by SARS-CoV-2 status. A negative binomial regression model was used to compare mortality rates in lockdown (23 March–28 June), with those children who died in the preceding period (6 January–22 March), as well as a comparable period in 2019.SettingEngland.ParticipantsChildren (0–17 years).Main outcome measuresCharacteristics and number of the children who died in 2020, split by SARS-CoV-2 status.Results1550 deaths of children between 6th of January and 28 June 2020 were notified to the NCMD; 437 of the deaths were linked to SARS-CoV-2 virology records, 25 (5.7%) had a positive PCR result. PCR-positive children were less likely to be white (37.5% vs 69.4%, p=0.003) and were older (12.2 vs 0.7 years, p<0.0006) compared with child deaths without evidence of the virus. All-cause mortality rates were similar during lockdown compared with both the period before lockdown in 2020 (rate ratio (RR) 0.93 (0.84 to 1.02)) and a similar period in 2019 (RR 1.02 (0.92 to 1.13)).ConclusionsThere is little to suggest that there has been excess mortality during the period of lockdown. The apparent higher frequency of SARS-CoV-2-positive tests among children from black, Asian and minority ethnic groups is consistent with findings in adults. Ongoing surveillance is essential as the pandemic continues.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo quantify the relative risk (RR) of childhood deaths across the whole of England during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with a similar period of 2019.DesignThis work is based on data collected by the National Child Mortality Database (NCMD). Deaths from 1 April 2020 until 31 March 2021 (2020–2021) were compared with those from the same period of 2019–2020. RR and excess mortality were derived for deaths in 2020–2021 vs 2019–2020.SettingAll deaths reported to NCMD in England of children under 18 years of age, between April 2019 and March 2021.Participants6490 deaths of children, under the age of 18 years, reported to the NCMD over the study period.ResultsChildren had similar demographics in the 2 years. There were 356 (198–514) fewer deaths in 2020–2021 than in 2019–2020 (RR 0.90 (0.85 to 0.94), p<0.001). Deaths from infection (RR 0.49 (0.38 to 0.64)) and from other underlying medical conditions (RR 0.75 (0.68 to 0.82)) were lower in 2020–2021 than 2019–2020, and weak evidence (RR 0.50 (0.23 to 1.07), p=0.074) that this was also true of deaths from substance abuse.ConclusionsChildhood mortality in England during the first year of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was lower than expected, with over 300 fewer deaths than the preceding 12 months. The greatest reduction was in children less than 10 years old. It is important that we learn from this effect that potentially offers alternative ways to improve the outcome for the most vulnerable children in our society.

Background: There is concern about the impact of COVID-19, and the control measures to prevent the spread, on children's mental health. The aim of this work was to identify if there had been a rise of childhood suicide during the COVID pandemic; using data from England's National Child Mortality Database (NCMD). Method: Child suicide rates between April to December 2020 were compared with those in 2019 using negative binomial regression models, and characteristics compared. In a subset (1st January to 17th May 2020) further characteristics and possible contributing factors were obtained. Results: A total of 193 likely childhood deaths by suicide were reported. There was no evidence overall suicide deaths were higher in 2020 than 2019 (RR 1.09 (0.80-1.48), p=0.584) but weak evidence that the rate in the first lockdown period (April to May 2020) was higher than the corresponding period in 2019 (RR 1.56 (0.86-2.81), p=0.144). Characteristics of individuals were similar between periods. Restriction to education and other activities, disruption to care and support services, tensions at home and isolation appeared to be contributing factors. Limitations: As child suicides are fortunately rare, the analysis is based on small numbers of deaths with limited statistical power to detect anything but major increases in incidence. Conclusion: We found no consistent evidence that child suicide deaths increased during the COVID-19 pandemic although there was a concerning signal they may have increased during the first UK lockdown. A similar peak was not seen during the following months, or the second lockdown.