Medication Changes and Diagnosis of New Chronic Illnesses in COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is limited literature on the impact of the COVID-19 infection on medications and medical conditions in COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. Our study is, to our knowledge, the first multicenter study to describe the prevalence of new medical conditions and medication changes at hospital discharge in COVID-19 ICU survivors. OBJECTIVE: To determine the number of medical conditions and medications at hospital admission compared to at hospital discharge in COVID-19 ICU survivors. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter observational study (7 ICUs) evaluated new medical conditions and medication changes at hospital discharge in patients with COVID-19 infection admitted to an ICU between March 1, 2020, to March 1, 2021. Patient and hospital characteristics, baseline and hospital discharge medication and medical conditions, ICU and hospital length of stay, and Charlson comorbidity index were collected. Descriptive statistics were used to describe patient characteristics and number and type of medical conditions and medications. Paired t-test was used to compare number of medical conditions and medications from hospital discharge to admission. RESULTS: Of the 973 COVID-19 ICU survivors, 67.4% had at least one new medical condition and 88.2% had at least one medication change. Median number of medical conditions (increased from 3 to 4, P < .0001) and medications (increased from 5 to 8, P < .0001) increased from admission to discharge. Most common new medical conditions at discharge were pulmonary disorders, venous thromboembolism, psychiatric disorders, infection, and diabetes. Most common therapeutic categories associated with medication change were cardiology, gastroenterology, pain, hematology, and endocrinology. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Our study found that the number of medical conditions and medications increased from hospital admission to discharge. Our results provide additional data to help guide providers on using targeted approaches to manage medications and diseases in COVID-19 ICU survivors after hospital discharge.

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.

Late onset infectious complications and safety of tocilizumab in the management of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab (TCZ) has been used in the management of COVID-19-related cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Concerns exist regarding the risk of infections and drug-related toxicities. We sought to evaluate the incidence of these TCZ complications among COVID-19 patients. METHODS: All adult inpatients with COVID-19 between 1 March and 25 April 2020 that received TCZ were included. We compared the rate of late-onset infections (>48 hours following admission) to a control group matched according to intensive care unit admission and mechanical ventilation requirement. Post-TCZ toxicities evaluated included: elevated liver function tests (LFTs), GI perforation, diverticulitis, neutropenia, hypertension, allergic reactions, and infusion-related reactions. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were included in each group. Seventeen infections in the TCZ group (23%) and 6 (8%) infections in the control group occurred >48 hours after admission (P = .013). Most infections were bacterial with pneumonia being the most common manifestation. Among patients receiving TCZ, LFT elevations were observed in 51%, neutropenia in 1.4%, and hypertension in 8%. The mortality rate among those that received TCZ was greater than the control (39% versus 23%, P = .03). CONCLUSION: Late onset infections were significantly more common among those receiving TCZ. Combining infections and TCZ-related toxicities, 61% of patients had a possible post-TCZ complication. While awaiting clinical trial results to establish the efficacy of TCZ for COVID-19 related CRS, the potential for infections and TCZ related toxicities should be carefully weighed when considering use.

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.