ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: We investigated a decrease in antibiotic prescribing for respiratory illnesses in 2 academic urgent-care clinics during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic using semistructured clinician interviews. METHODS: We conducted a quality-improvement project from November 2020 to May 2021. We investigated provider antibiotic decision making using a mixed-methods explanatory design including interviews. We analyzed transcripts using a thematic framework approach to identify emergent themes. Our performance measure was antibiotic prescribing rate (APR) for encounters with respiratory diagnosis billing codes. We extracted billing and prescribing data from the electronic medical record and assessed differences using run charts, p charts and generalized linear regression. RESULTS: We observed significant reductions in the APR early during the COVID-19 pandemic (relative risk [RR], 0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17-0.25), which was maintained over the study period (P < .001). The average APRs were 14% before the COVID-19 pandemic, 4% during the QI project, and 7% after the project. All providers prescribed less antibiotics for respiratory encounters during COVID-19, but only 25% felt their practice had changed. Themes from provider interviews included changing patient expectations and provider approach to respiratory encounters during COVID-19, the impact of increased telemedicine encounters, and the changing epidemiology of non-COVID-19 respiratory infections. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the decrease in APR was likely multifactorial. The average APR decreased significantly during the pandemic. Although the APR was slightly higher after the QI project, it did not reach prepandemic levels. Future studies should explore how these factors, including changing patient expectations, can be leveraged to improve urgent-care antibiotic stewardship.
ABSTRACT
We compared antibiotic prescribing before and during the -coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic at 2 academic urgent care clinics and found a sustained decrease in prescribing driven by respiratory encounters and despite transitioning to telemedicine. Antibiotics were rarely prescribed during encounters for COVID-19 or COVID-19 symptoms. COVID-19 revealed opportunities for outpatient stewardship programs.
ABSTRACT
Importance: As of May 2021, more than 32 million cases of COVID-19 have been confirmed in the United States, resulting in more than 615â¯000 deaths. Anaphylactic reactions associated with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have been reported. Objective: To characterize the immunologic mechanisms underlying allergic reactions to these vaccines. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case series included 22 patients with suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines between December 18, 2020, and January 27, 2021, at a large regional health care network. Participants were individuals who received at least 1 of the following International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision anaphylaxis codes: T78.2XXA, T80.52XA, T78.2XXD, or E949.9, with documentation of COVID-19 vaccination. Suspected allergy cases were identified and invited for follow-up allergy testing. Exposures: FDA-authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Allergic reactions were graded using standard definitions, including Brighton criteria. Skin prick testing was conducted to polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate 80 (P80). Histamine (1 mg/mL) and filtered saline (negative control) were used for internal validation. Basophil activation testing after stimulation for 30 minutes at 37 °C was also conducted. Concentrations of immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgE antibodies to PEG were obtained to determine possible mechanisms. Results: Of 22 patients (20 [91%] women; mean [SD] age, 40.9 [10.3] years; 15 [68%] with clinical allergy history), 17 (77%) met Brighton anaphylaxis criteria. All reactions fully resolved. Of patients who underwent skin prick tests, 0 of 11 tested positive to PEG, 0 of 11 tested positive to P80, and 1 of 10 (10%) tested positive to the same brand of mRNA vaccine used to vaccinate that individual. Among these same participants, 10 of 11 (91%) had positive basophil activation test results to PEG and 11 of 11 (100%) had positive basophil activation test results to their administered mRNA vaccine. No PEG IgE was detected; instead, PEG IgG was found in tested individuals who had an allergy to the vaccine. Conclusions and Relevance: Based on this case series, women and those with a history of allergic reactions appear at have an elevated risk of mRNA vaccine allergy. Immunological testing suggests non-IgE-mediated immune responses to PEG may be responsible in most individuals.