Pharmacy-based immunization in rural USA during the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey of community pharmacists from five southeastern states

Introduction Immunization rates for seasonal and non-seasonal vaccines dropped during the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known about the extent to which community pharmacies in the USA continued to serve as immunization sites during the pandemic. This study compared 1) the types and perceived changes in non-COVID-19 vaccine doses administered at rural community pharmacies in 2020 (during the pandemic) to 2019 (pre-pandemic) and 2) the delivery of non-COVID-19 immunization services in 2020 to 2019. Methods A mixed-mode (paper/electronic) survey of a convenience sample of 385 community pharmacies operating in rural settings and have administered ≥1 vaccine in 2019 and 2020 was distributed in May-August 2021. Survey development was informed by relevant literature, pre-tested with three individuals, and pilot-tested with 20 pharmacists. Non-response bias was assessed, and survey responses were analyzed using descriptive and bivariate statistics. Results Of the 385 community pharmacies, 86 qualified pharmacies completed the survey (Response Rate = 23.8%). The percentage of pharmacies offering a given vaccine in 2019 and 2020 were similar;with one exception, a higher percentage of pharmacies reported having MMR administered for adults in the pharmacy in 2020 (McNemar's test;p-value = 0.0253). For each given vaccine, the majority of respondents did not perceive a change in the number of doses administered in 2020 compared to 2019. Further, the majority reported no difference in how they delivered immunization services during and pre-pandemic. However, a small percentage of respondents (6.0–22.0%) adapted their services by adopting several measures to ensure the safety and continuity of immunizations during the pandemic. Conclusion Findings highlight the importance of community pharmacies as immunization sites during the pandemic. Community pharmacies continued immunization delivery at community pharmacies during the pandemic with almost no noticeable change to types and doses of vaccines compared to pre-pandemic nor the process of vaccine delivery.

Pharmacy-based immunization in rural USA during the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey of community pharmacists from five southeastern states.

INTRODUCTION: Immunization rates for seasonal and non-seasonal vaccines dropped during the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known about the extent to which community pharmacies in the USA continued to serve as immunization sites during the pandemic. This study compared 1) the types and perceived changes in non-COVID-19 vaccine doses administered at rural community pharmacies in 2020 (during the pandemic) to 2019 (pre-pandemic) and 2) the delivery of non-COVID-19 immunization services in 2020 to 2019. METHODS: A mixed-mode (paper/electronic) survey of a convenience sample of 385 community pharmacies operating in rural settings and have administered ≥1 vaccine in 2019 and 2020 was distributed in May-August 2021. Survey development was informed by relevant literature, pre-tested with three individuals, and pilot-tested with 20 pharmacists. Non-response bias was assessed, and survey responses were analyzed using descriptive and bivariate statistics. RESULTS: Of the 385 community pharmacies, 86 qualified pharmacies completed the survey (Response Rate = 23.8%). The percentage of pharmacies offering a given vaccine in 2019 and 2020 were similar; with one exception, a higher percentage of pharmacies reported having MMR administered for adults in the pharmacy in 2020 (McNemar's test; p-value = 0.0253). For each given vaccine, the majority of respondents did not perceive a change in the number of doses administered in 2020 compared to 2019. Further, the majority reported no difference in how they delivered immunization services during and pre-pandemic. However, a small percentage of respondents (6.0-22.0%) adapted their services by adopting several measures to ensure the safety and continuity of immunizations during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Findings highlight the importance of community pharmacies as immunization sites during the pandemic. Community pharmacies continued immunization delivery at community pharmacies during the pandemic with almost no noticeable change to types and doses of vaccines compared to pre-pandemic nor the process of vaccine delivery.

A quality-improvement approach to urgent-care antibiotic stewardship for respiratory tract infections during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned.

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.

Validity of Coronavirus Disease 2019 International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision in the Urgent Care Setting and Impact on Antibiotic Prescribing Rates.

We validated  different coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10) encounter definitions across 2 urgent care clinics. Sensitivity of definitions varied throughout the pandemic. Inclusion of COVID-19 and COVID-19-like illness (CLI) ICD-10s rendered highest sensitivity but lowest specificity. Antibiotic prescribing rates were low for COVID-19 ICD-10 encounters, increasing with CLI ICD-10 encounters.

Impact of different COVID-19 encounter definitions on antibiotic prescribing rates in urgent care

Background: Billing data have been used in the outpatient setting to identify targets for antimicrobial stewardship. However, COVID-19 ICD-10 codes are new, and the validity of using COVID-19 ICD-10 codes to accurately identify COVID-19 encounters is unknown. We investigated COVID-19 ICD-10 utilization in our urgent care clinics during the pandemic and the impact of using different COVID-19 encounter definitions on antibiotic prescribing rates (APRs). Methods: We included all telemedicine and office visits at 2 academic urgent-care clinics from January 2020 to September 2021. We extracted ICD-10 encounter codes and testing data from the electronic medical record. We compared encounters for which COVID-19 ICD-10 codes were present with encounters for which SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) was performed within 5 days of and up to 2 days after the encounter (Fig. 1). We calculated the sensitivity of the use of COVID-19 ICD-10 codes against a positive NAAT. We calculated the APR as the proportion of encounters in which an antibacterial drug was prescribed. This quality improvement project was deemed non–human-subjects research by the Stanford Panel on Human Subjects in Medical Research.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Outpatient hydroxychloroquine prescribing at a large academic health system during the COVID-19 pandemic

To the Editor—The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has attracted widespread attention to experimental treatments, including the antirheumatic drug hydroxychloroquine, raising concerns about its supply for patients already taking the drug for non–COVID-19 indications.1 Currently, multiple manufacturers have reported shortages of hydroxychloroquine.2 We report an exploratory analysis of hydroxychloroquine prescribing in outpatient and urgent care clinics of a large academic health system in northern California. The CDC guidance has recommended that patients request larger prescription drug quantities to minimize pharmacy visits.3 However, the American College of Rheumatology has suggested limiting outpatient prescription refills of hydroxychloroquine to a 30-day supply as a potential mitigation strategy for any supply disruptions in select circumstances.4 Our analysis was observational in nature, and further interpretation is limited by several factors. [...]these results are unique to practice paradigms of a single health system and are subject to regional epidemiology of COVID-19.

Increasing use of immunization information systems for routine vaccinations in independent community pharmacies: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Only 60% of adults nationwide and just 36.8% of adults in Alabama have immunization data recorded in an Immunization Information System (IIS). The objective of this study, which took place before the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, was to evaluate the impact of an IIS training program on pharmacists' IIS enrollment, participation, awareness, knowledge, intention, and attitudes. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 2019 among Alabama pharmacists (N = 41) practicing in independently owned pharmacies and providing vaccination services but whose pharmacy was not enrolled in Alabama's IIS (Immunization Patient Registry with Integrated Technology [ImmPRINT]). Intervention pharmacists were offered a 2-hour IIS training program, including an online continuing pharmacy education article, demonstration videos, implementation guide, and informational flyer. Control pharmacies received the informational flyer only. Pharmacy-level outcomes, including enrollment and participation, were obtained from ImmPRINT administrative records. Pharmacist-level outcomes, including awareness, knowledge, intention, and attitudes, were self-reported using baseline, 1-month, and 3-month surveys. Two-way mixed analysis of variance, chi-square, and independent t tests were used to analyze differences in outcomes between and within groups. RESULTS: Enrollment in ImmPRINT was significantly greater among intervention pharmacists' pharmacies (P = 0.035). In particular, 59.1% of intervention pharmacies compared with 26.3% of control pharmacies were enrolled in ImmPRINT at 3 months. No statistically significant differences were found between groups in terms of participation in ImmPRINT. Intervention pharmacists' awareness of IIS was significantly greater than control pharmacists (P = 0.028) at 1 month (postintervention). Furthermore, the IIS training program significantly improved intervention pharmacists' knowledge (P = 0.030) and attitudes (P = 0.016) toward IIS over 3 months compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: This pharmacist-centered training program focused on practical strategies to integrate IIS into pharmacy workflow. Results show that pharmacists' enrollment, awareness, knowledge, and attitudes significantly improved as a result of this training. As pharmacists become more involved in immunization efforts, particularly in response to COVID-19, awareness of and participation in responsible immunization documentation are critical.

Sustained Reduction in Urgent Care Antibiotic Prescribing During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: An Academic Medical Center's Experience.

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.

Pharmacotherapy Considerations for COVID-19

Remdesivir Remdesivir is a prodrug of an adenosine nucleoside, which inhibits viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.3,4 At the time of this writing, remdesivir is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is available only as an investigational drug through Gilead Sciences.5 It was studied originally for Ebola virus disease and found to produce no benefit vs. comparators. Exclusions vary between trials, but, notably, they generally exclude patients 17 years of age or younger, those with severe hepatic or renal impairment, and pregnant or breastfeeding women.9-11 Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine Chloroquine has been proposed as another treatment for COVID-19 and has exhibited in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2.7 Its antiviral activity may be afforded by an increase in endosomal pH and interference with glycosylation of cellular receptors of SARS-CoV.12 Initial reports from more than 100 patients asserted that there was superiority of chloroquine to control treatment in inhibiting exacerbation of pneumonia, promoting negative conversion, and shortening the disease. The fourth patient, with severe COVID-19, showed signs of improvement at the end of data collection.19 Guidelines for 2019-nCoV pneumonia from the Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University Novel Coronavirus Management and Research Team provided a weak recommendation for the use of lopinavir/ritonavir based on benefits found in patients with SARS or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), especially with earlier administration.20 Adjunctive Therapies Adjunctive corticosteroids have not shown clinical benefit, have delayed viral RNA clearance in other coronavirus disease (SARS and MERS), and may increase the risk of side effects (e.g., psychosis, diabetes, and avascular necrosis) and increased mortality in influenza.21 Chinese guidance has suggested the use of tocilizumab for cytokine storm in patients with severe disease (e.g., acute respiratory distress syndrome) and elevated interleukin-6 levels.22