ABSTRACT
Background. COVID-19 shifted antibiotic stewardship program resources and changed antibiotic use (AU). Shifts in patient populations with COVID surges, including pauses to surgical procedures, and dynamic practice changes makes temporal associations difficult to interpret. Our analysis aimed to address the impact of COVID on AU after adjusting for other practice shifts. Methods. We performed a longitudinal analysis of AU data from 30 Southeast US hospitals. Three pandemic phases (1: 3/20-6/20;2: 7/20-10/20;3: 11/20-2/21) were compared to baseline (1/2018-1/2020). AU (days of therapy (DOT)/1000 patient days (PD)) was collected for all antimicrobial agents and specific subgroups: broad spectrum (NHSN group for hospital-onset infections), CAP (ceftriaxone, azithromycin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and doxycycline), and antifungal. Monthly COVID burden was defined as all PD attributed to a COVID admission. We fit negative binomial GEE models to AU including phase and interaction terms between COVID burden and phase to test the hypothesis that AU changes during the phases were related to COVID burden. Models included adjustment for Charlson comorbidity, surgical volume, time since 12/2017 and seasonality. Results. Observed AU rates by subgroup varied over time;peaks were observed for different subgroups during distinct pandemic phases (Figure). Compared to baseline, we observed a significant increase in overall, broad spectrum, and CAP groups during phase 1 (Table). In phase 2, overall and CAP AU was significantly higher than baseline, but in phase 3, AU was similar to baseline. These phase changes were separate from effects of COVID burden, except in phase 1 where we observed significant effects on antifungal (increased) and CAP (decreased) AU (Table). Conclusion. Changes in hospital AU observed during early phases of the COVID pandemic appeared unrelated to COVID burden and may have been due to indirect pandemic effects (e.g., case mix, healthcare resource shifts). By pandemic phase 3, these disruptive effects were not as apparent, potentially related to shifts in non-COVID patient populations or ASP resources, availability of COVID treatments, or increased learning, diagnostic certainty, and provider comfort with avoiding antibacterials in patients with suspected COVID over time. (Figure Presented).
ABSTRACT
Background. The COVID-19 pandemic placed a strain on inpatient clinical and hospital programs due to increased patient volume and rapidly evolving data on best COVID-19 management strategies. However, the impact of the pandemic on ASPs has not been well described. Methods. We performed a cross-sectional electronic survey of stewardship pharmacy and physician leaders in 37 hospitals within the Duke Antimicrobial Stewardship Outreach Network (DASON) (community) and Duke/UNC Health systems (academic) in April-May 2021. The survey included 60 questions related to staffing changes, use of COVID-targeted therapies, related restrictions, and medication shortages. Results. Twenty-seven facilities responded (response rate of 73%). Pharmacy personnel was reduced in 17 (63%) facilities by an average of 16%. Impacted pharmacy personnel included the stewardship lead in 15/17 (88.2%) hospitals. Converting to remote work was rare and only reported in academic institutions (n=2, 7.4%). ASP personnel were reassigned to non-stewardship duties in 12 (44%) hospitals with only half returning to routine ASP work as of May 2021. Respondents estimated that 62% of routine ASP activities were diverted during the time of the pandemic. Non-traditional, pandemic-related ASP activities included managing multiple drug shortages, of which ventilator support medications (91%) were most common affecting patient care at 52% of facilities. Steroid and hydroxychloroquine shortages were less frequent (44% and 22%, respectively). Despite staff reductions, pharmacists often served as primary contact for remdesivir approvals either using a criteria-based checklist at dispensing or as part of a dedicated phone approval team (Figure). Most (77%) hospitals used a criteria-based pharmacist review strategy after remdesivir FDA approval. Restriction processes for other COVID-19 therapies such as tocilizumab, hydroxychloroquine, and ivermectin were reported in 64% of hospitals. Proportion of facilities implementing specific remdesivir allocation strategies from the time of the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) through FDA approval Conclusion. Pandemic response diverted routine ASP work and has not yet returned to baseline. Despite the reduction in pharmacy personnel due to the pandemic, the ASP pharmacy lead took on a novel and critical stewardship role throughout the pandemic exemplified by their involvement in novel treatment allocation for COVID patients.
ABSTRACT
Background. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought vaccination to the forefront of discourse on public health. The rapid speed of COVID-19 vaccine development, utilization of novel technology, and an atmosphere of politicized misinformation have created a perfect storm for vaccine hesitancy. As early adopters of vaccination, HCWs set an example for the general population;as trusted sources of medical information, they educate and inform. However, comparatively little work has investigated HCWs' attitudes toward vaccination and how those attitudes drive their recommendation behavior. Methods. We surveyed hospital employees about their personal reasons for hesitancy and beliefs about patient hesitancies and randomly assigned them to see one of three messages aimed at increasing vaccine confidence. Message themes included an appeal to return to normal life (Normalcy), a risk comparison between vaccinating or not (SDT), and an explanation of the speed of safe and effective vaccine development (Process). Results. Of the 674 NC hospital employees who completed our survey in February 2021, 98% had been offered the COVID-19 vaccine, and 80% had already accepted. For the 20% who had not received the vaccine, the top reasons for hesitancy involved the speed of development and testing, and concerns of vaccine safety and effectiveness. We also found differences in susceptibility to misinformation and vaccine hesitancy across political affiliation, which was higher in Republicans compared to Democrats. HCWs were generally very comfortable recommending the COVID-19 vaccine to patients and supported the idea of sharing the message they read. Although the risk comparison message was most trusted personally, the process message was rated as both the most helpful to patients and the most likely to be shared with them (see Figure 1). This suggests that what is most appealing on a personal level is not necessarily what a HCW would recommend to their patients. Rating of personal opinions of the passages. On a scale from 1 to 7 with 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree. This chart shows the average message ratings across the board when answering whether they thought the passages were understandable, helpful, correct, believable, and trustworthy. (Error bars are 95% CI) There was no significant difference across the messages. The Process message is seen as most helpful and is most likely to be shared with patient than the other messages On left, the average answer on a scale from 1 to 5 for "Do you think the passage you just read would help your patients feel more comfortable about getting the vaccine?" and on right, the average answer for "Would you share this passage with your patients?" Conclusion. HCWs' high uptake and minimal hesitancy in recommending the COVID-19 vaccine is encouraging and merits further exploration for how to increase confidence in HCW who are hesitant to discuss and recommend vaccines to patients, as several highlighted the importance of respecting patient autonomy.