Reducing the use of empiric antibiotic therapy in COVID-19 on hospital admission.

BACKGROUND: Empiric antibiotics for community acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) are often prescribed to patients with COVID-19, despite a low reported incidence of co-infections. Stewardship interventions targeted at facilitating appropriate antibiotic prescribing for CABP among COVID-19 patients are needed. We developed a guideline for antibiotic initiation and discontinuation for CABP in COVID-19 patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of this intervention on the duration of empiric CABP antibiotic therapy among patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective, quasi-experimental study of adult patients admitted between 3/1/2020 to 4/25/2020 with COVID-19 pneumonia, who were initiated on empiric CABP antibiotics. Patients were excluded if they were initiated on antibiotics > 48 h following admission or if another source of infection was identified. The primary outcome was the duration of antibiotic therapy (DOT) prior to the guideline (March 1 to March27, 2020) and after guideline implementation (March 28 to April 25, 2020). We also evaluated the clinical outcomes (mortality, readmissions, length of stay) among those initiated on empiric CABP antibiotics. RESULTS: A total of 506 patients with COVID-19 were evaluated, 102 pre-intervention and 404 post-intervention. Prior to the intervention, 74.5% (n = 76) of patients with COVID-19 received empiric antibiotics compared to only 42% of patients post-intervention (n = 170), p < 0.001. The median DOT in the post-intervention group was 1.3 days shorter (p < 0.001) than the pre-intervention group, and antibiotics directed at atypical bacteria DOT was reduced by 2.8 days (p < 0.001). More patients in the post-intervention group were initiated on antibiotics based on criteria consistent with our guideline (68% versus 87%, p = 0.001). There were no differences between groups in terms of clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Following the implementation of a guideline outlining recommendations for initiating and discontinuing antibiotics for CABP among COVID-19 inpatients, we observed a reduction in antibiotic prescribing and DOT. The guideline also resulted in a significant increase in the rate of guideline-congruent empiric antibiotic initiation.

Remdesivir Use in the Setting of Severe Renal Impairment: A Theoretical Concern or Real Risk?

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir (RDV) is US FDA approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) but not recommended in severe renal impairment (SRI, Creatinine clearance <30mL/min or requiring renal replacement therapy). Few studies have evaluated RDV in patients with SRI. METHODS: Hospitalized patients who received RDV between 1 May 2020 and 31 October 2020 were analyzed in a retrospective chart review. We compared incident adverse events (AEs) in patients with and without SRI, including hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, any reported AE, mortality, and length of stay. RESULTS: Of a total of 135 patients, 20 had SRI. Patients with SRI were significantly older (70 vs 54 years, P = .0001). The incidence of possible AEs was 30% among those with SRI vs 11% without (P = .06). Liver function test (LFT) elevations occurred in 10% vs 4% (P = .28), and serum creatinine (SCr) elevations in 27% vs 6% (P = .02) of patients with SRI vs without, respectively. LFT and SCr elevations were not attributed to RDV in either group. Mortality and length of stay were consistent with historical controls. CONCLUSIONS: RDV AEs occurred infrequently and overall were not significantly different between those with and without SRI. While more of patients with SRI experienced SCr elevations, 3 (75%) patients had acute kidney injury prior to RDV. The use of RDV in this small series of patients with SRI appeared to be relatively safe, and the potential benefit outweighed the theoretical risk of liver or renal toxicity. Additional studies are needed to confirm this finding.

Automatic ID Consultation for Inpatients With COVID-19: Point, Counterpoint, and a Single-Center Experience.

There are many unknowns with regard to COVID-19 clinical management, including the role of Infectious Diseases Consultation (IDC). As hospitalizations for COVID-19 continue, hospitals are assessing how to optimally and efficiently manage COVID-19 inpatients. Typically, primary teams must determine when IDC is appropriate, and ID clinicians provide consultation upon request of the primary team. IDC has been shown to be beneficial for many conditions; however, the impact of IDC for COVID-19 is unknown. Herein, we discuss the potential benefits and pitfalls of automatic IDC for COVID-19 inpatients. Important considerations include the quality of care provided, allocation and optimization of resources, and clinician satisfaction. Finally, we describe how automatic IDC changed throughout the COVID-19 pandemic at a single academic medical center.