COVID-19 Vaccination is Associated with Reduced Outpatient Antibiotic Prescribing In Older Adults with Confirmed SARS-CoV-2: A Population Wide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are frequently prescribed unnecessarily in outpatients with COVID-19. We sought to evaluate factors associated with antibiotic prescribing in those with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: We performed a population-wide cohort study of outpatients 66 years or older with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 from January 1st 2020 to December 31st 2021 in Ontario, Canada. We determined rates of antibiotic prescribing within 1-week before (pre-diagnosis) and 1-week after (post-diagnosis) reporting of the positive SARS-CoV-2 result, compared to a self-controlled period (baseline). We evaluated predictors of prescribing, including a primary series COVID-19 vaccination, in univariate and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: We identified 13,529 eligible nursing home residents and 50,885 eligible community dwelling adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the nursing home and community residents, 3,020 (22%) and 6,372 (13%) received at least one antibiotic prescription within 1 week of a SARS-CoV-2 positive result, respectively. Antibiotic prescribing in nursing home and community residents occurred at 15.0 and 10.5 prescriptions per 1000 person-days pre-diagnosis and 20.9 and 9.8 per 1000 person-days post-diagnosis, higher than the baseline rates of 4.3 and 2.5 prescriptions per 1000 person-days. COVID-19 vaccination was associated with reduced prescribing in nursing home and community residents, with adjusted post-diagnosis IRRs of 0.7 (95%CI 0.4-1) and 0.3 (95%CI 0.3-0.4) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prescribing was high and with little or no decline following SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, though was reduced in COVID-19 vaccinated individuals, highlighting the importance of vaccination and antibiotic stewardship in older adults with COVID-19.

Reliability of nonlocalizing signs and symptoms as indicators of the presence of infection in nursing-home residents.

Antibiotics are among the most common medications prescribed in nursing homes. The annual prevalence of antibiotic use in residents of nursing homes ranges from 47% to 79%, and more than half of antibiotic courses initiated in nursing-home settings are unnecessary or prescribed inappropriately (wrong drug, dose, or duration). Inappropriate antibiotic use is associated with a variety of negative consequences including Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), adverse drug effects, drug-drug interactions, and antimicrobial resistance. In response to this problem, public health authorities have called for efforts to improve the quality of antibiotic prescribing in nursing homes.

Canada has an opportunity to address antimicrobial resistance through COVID-19 recovery spending.

Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) causes more than a million deaths globally per year due to infections incurable with currently available antibiotics. Failing to effectively address AMR will have significant negative consequences for Canadians and the Canadian economy. Canada is behind on allocation of required funding and nationally coordinated AMR mitigation strategies relative to other high-income countries. A Pan-Canadian AMR action plan and development of a new governance model is pending. Recent AMR-specific funding commitments are significant but fall short while distribution of funds indicate a siloed approach. Canada could initiate progress towards AMR mitigation through incorporation within the scope of budget allocations intended for COVID-19 recovery and mitigation efforts. We discuss the following components for inclusion: development of infectious disease diagnostics and therapeutics; antimicrobial stewardship interventions in long-term care and Indigenous communities; environmental monitoring of AMR; comprehensive antimicrobial use, and AMR surveillance; and support for capacity-building in low and middle-income countries.

A Time Series Analysis Evaluating Antibiotic Prescription Rates in Long-Term Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Alberta and Ontario, Canada.

The COVID-19 pandemic affected access to care, and the associated public health measures influenced the transmission of other infectious diseases. The pandemic has dramatically changed antibiotic prescribing in the community. We aimed to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting control measures on oral antibiotic prescribing in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in Alberta and Ontario, Canada using linked administrative data. Antibiotic prescription data were collected for LTCF residents 65 years and older in Alberta and Ontario from 1 January 2017 until 31 December 2020. Weekly prescription rates per 1000 residents, stratified by age, sex, antibiotic class, and selected individual agents, were calculated. Interrupted time series analyses using SARIMA models were performed to test for changes in antibiotic prescription rates after the start of the pandemic (1 March 2020). The average annual cohort size was 18,489 for Alberta and 96,614 for Ontario. A significant decrease in overall weekly prescription rates after the start of the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic was found in Alberta, but not in Ontario. Furthermore, a significant decrease in prescription rates was observed for antibiotics mainly used to treat respiratory tract infections: amoxicillin in both provinces (Alberta: -0.6 per 1000 LTCF residents decrease in weekly prescription rate, p = 0.006; Ontario: -0.8, p < 0.001); and doxycycline (-0.2, p = 0.005) and penicillin (-0.04, p = 0.014) in Ontario. In Ontario, azithromycin was prescribed at a significantly higher rate after the start of the pandemic (0.7 per 1000 LTCF residents increase in weekly prescription rate, p = 0.011). A decrease in prescription rates for antibiotics that are largely used to treat respiratory tract infections is in keeping with the lower observed rates for respiratory infections resulting from pandemic control measures. The results should be considered in the contexts of different LTCF systems and provincial public health responses to the pandemic.

Antibiotic prescribing patterns among patients admitted to an academic teaching hospital for COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic in Toronto: A retrospective, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Empirical antibiotics are not recommended for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: In this retrospective study, patients admitted to Toronto General Hospital's general internal medicine from the emergency department for COVID-19 between March 1 and August 31, 2020 were compared with those admitted for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in 2020 and 2019 in the same months. The primary outcome was antibiotics use pattern: prevalence and concordance with COVID-19 or CAP guidelines. The secondary outcome was antibiotic consumption in days of therapy (DOT)/100 patient-days. We extracted data from electronic medical records. We used logistic regression to model the association between disease and receipt of antibiotics, linear regression to compare DOT. RESULTS: The COVID-19, CAP 2020, and CAP 2019 groups had 67, 73, and 120 patients, respectively. Median age was 71 years; 58.5% were male. Prevalence of antibiotic use was 70.2%, 97.3%, and 90.8% for COVID-19, CAP 2020, and CAP 2019, respectively. Compared with CAP 2019, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for receiving antibiotics was 0.23 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.53, p = 0.001) and 3.42 (95% CI 0.73 to 15.95, p = 0.117) for COVID-19 and CAP 2020, respectively. Among patients receiving antibiotics within 48 hours of admission, compared with CAP 2019, the aOR for guideline-concordant combination regimens was 2.28 (95% CI 1.08 to 4.83, p = 0.031) for COVID-19, and 1.06 (95% CI 0.55 to 2.05, p = 0.856) for CAP 2020. Difference in mean DOT/100 patient-days was -24.29 (p = 0.009) comparing COVID-19 with CAP 2019, and +28.56 (p = 0.003) comparing CAP 2020 with CAP 2019. CONCLUSIONS: There are opportunities for antimicrobial stewardship to address unnecessary antibiotic use.

HISTORIQUE: L'antibiothérapie empirique n'est pas recommandée pour le traitement de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). MÉTHODOLOGIE: Dans cette étude rétrospective, les chercheurs ont comparé les patients atteints de COVID-19 hospitalisés au département de médecine interne générale du Toronto General Hospital entre le 1er mars et le 31 août 2020 après être passés par l'urgence à ceux hospitalisés à cause d'une pneumonie d'origine communautaire (POC) au cours des mêmes mois en 2020 et 2019 (POC-20 et POC-19). Le résultat primaire était le schéma d'utilisation des antibiotiques, c'est-à-dire la prévalence et le respect des lignes directrices sur la COVID-19 ou la POC. Le résultat secondaire correspondait à la consommation d'antibiotiques pendant les jours de traitement (JdT)/100 jours-patients. Les chercheurs ont puisé les données dans les dossiers médicaux électroniques. Ils se sont servi de la régression logistique pour modéliser l'association entre la maladie et la réception des antibiotiques, et de la régression linéaire pour comparer les JdT. RÉSULTATS: Le groupe COVID-19, le groupe POC-20 et le groupe POC-19 étaient composés de 67, 73 et 120 patients, respectivement. Ils avaient un âge médian de 71 ans, et 58,5 % étaient de sexe masculin. La prévalence d'utilisation d'antibiotiques s'élevait à 70,2 %, 97,3 % et 90,8 % dans les groupes COVID-19, POC-20 et POC-19, respectivement. Par rapport au groupe POC-19, le rapport de cotes rajusté (RCr) relatif à la réception d'antibiotiques s'élevait à 0,23 (IC à 95 %, 0,10 à 0,53, p = 0,001) et 3,42 (IC à 95 %, 0,73 à 15,95, p = 0,117) dans les groupes COVID-19 et POC-20, respectivement. Chez les patients qui avaient reçu des antibiotiques dans les 48 heures suivant leur hospitalisation par rapport au POC-19, le RCr relatif à la posologie d'association conforme aux lignes directrices était de 2,28 (IC à 95 %, 1,08 à 4,83, p = 0,031) et de 1,06 (IC à 95 %, 0,55 à 2,05, p = 0,856) dans le groupe POC-20. La différence quant au nombre moyen de JdT/100 jours-patients correspondait à ­24,29 (p = 0,009) lorsqu'on comparait le groupe COVID-19 au groupe POC-19, et à +28,56 (p = 0,003) lorsqu'on comparait le groupe POC-20 au groupe POC-19. CONCLUSIONS: L'utilisation inutile d'antibiotiques pourrait très bien être prise en charge par la gérance des antimicrobiens.

Outpatient Therapies for COVID-19: How Do We Choose?

BACKGROUND: Several outpatient coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies have reduced hospitalization in randomized controlled trials. The choice of therapy may depend on drug efficacy, toxicity, pricing, availability, and available infrastructure. To facilitate comparative decision-making, we evaluated the efficacy of each treatment in clinical trials and estimated the cost per hospitalization prevented. METHODS: Wherever possible, we obtained relative risk for hospitalization from published randomized controlled trials. Otherwise, we extracted data from press releases, conference abstracts, government submissions, or preprints. If there was >1 study, the results were meta-analyzed. Using relative risk, we estimated the number needed to treat (NNT), assuming a baseline hospitalization risk of 5%, and compared the cost per hospitalization prevented with the estimate for an average Medicare COVID-19 hospitalization ($21 752). Drug pricing was estimated from GoodRx, from government purchases, or manufacturer estimates. Administrative and societal costs were not included. Results will be updated online as new studies emerge and/or final numbers become available. RESULTS: At a 5% risk of hospitalization, the estimated NNT was 80 for fluvoxamine, 91 for colchicine, 72 for inhaled corticosteroids, 24 for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 50 for molnupiravir, 28 for remdesivir, 25 for sotrovimab, 29 for casirivimab/imdevimab, and 29 for bamlanivimab/etesevimab. For drug cost per hospitalization prevented, colchicine, fluvoxamine, inhaled corticosteroids, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were below the Medicare estimated hospitalization cost. CONCLUSIONS: Many countries are fortunate to have access to several effective outpatient therapies to prevent COVID-19 hospitalization. Given differences in efficacy, toxicity, cost, and administration complexity, this assessment serves as one means to frame treatment selection.

Proposed framework for a national set of reporting measures in Canada in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

An effective strategy to control the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic takes into account inputs from many domains, including community epidemiology, surveillance and testing, contact tracing capacity, support for vulnerable populations, and health care system strain. Provincial and federal governments currently lack a universal approach to presenting relevant pandemic data from these domains to the general public in a way that engages them in decision making and promotes adherence to policies. We propose a framework to analyze COVID-19 pandemic data on an ongoing basis using inputs from these five domains, which can be scaled to the local public health unit, provincial, or national level. Data analysis was qualitative and semi-quantitative because there was a paucity of publicly available data on surveillance and testing, contact tracing, and health care system strain, which limited our ability to perform internal and external validation of our model. We urge the federal government to mandate a core set of reporting items across local, provincial, and federal jurisdictions that may then be used to perform validation and implementation of our proposed framework.

Une stratégie efficace pour contrôler la pandémie continue de maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) tient compte de l'apport de divers domaines, soit l'épidémiologie communautaire, la surveillance et le dépistage, la capacité de traçage des contacts, le soutien de populations vulnérables et la souche du système de santé. À l'heure actuelle, les gouvernements provinciaux et fédéral ne proposent pas de démarche universelle pour présenter des données pertinentes sur ces domaines de la pandémie au grand public, de manière à le faire participer aux prises de décision et à promouvoir l'adhésion aux politiques. Les auteurs proposent un outil pour procéder à l'analyse des données sur la pandémie de COVID-19 à partir des données de ces cinq domaines, qui peut être adapté pour les unités sanitaires locales, provinciales ou nationale. L'analyse des données était qualitative et semi-quantitative en raison du peu de données publiques sur la surveillance et le dépistage, le traçage des contacts et la souche du système de santé, qui ont limité notre capacité de procéder à une validation interne et externe de notre modèle par l'analyse quantitative. Les auteurs exhortent le gouvernement fédéral à mandater un ensemble d'éléments à signaler dans les régions sociosanitaires locales, provinciales et fédérale qui peuvent ensuite utilisés pour valider mettre en œuvre le cadre proposé.