Adherence to Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Guidelines for Elective Surgeries Across 825 US Hospitals, 2019-2020.

BACKGROUND: There are limited US data assessing adherence to surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis guidelines, particularly across a large, nationwide sample. Moreover, commonly prescribed inappropriate antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens remain unknown, hindering improvement initiatives. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults who underwent elective craniotomy, hip replacement, knee replacement, spinal procedure, or hernia repair in 2019-2020 at hospitals in the PINC AI (Premier) Healthcare Database. We evaluated adherence of prophylaxis regimens, with respect to antimicrobial agents endorsed in the American Society of Health-System Pharmacist guidelines, accounting for patient antibiotic allergy and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization status. We used multivariable logistic regression with random effects by hospital to evaluate associations between patient, procedural, and hospital characteristics and guideline adherence. RESULTS: Across 825 hospitals and 521 091 inpatient elective surgeries, 308 760 (59%) were adherent to prophylaxis guidelines. In adjusted analysis, adherence varied significantly by US Census division (adjusted OR [aOR] range: .61-1.61) and was significantly lower in 2020 compared with 2019 (aOR: .92; 95% CI: .91-.94; P < .001). The most common reason for nonadherence was unnecessary vancomycin use. In a post hoc analysis, controlling for patient age, comorbidities, other nephrotoxic agent use, and patient and procedure characteristics, patients receiving cefazolin plus vancomycin had 19% higher odds of acute kidney injury (AKI) compared with patients receiving cefazolin alone (aOR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.11-1.27; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to antimicrobial prophylaxis guidelines remains suboptimal, largely driven by unnecessary vancomycin use, which may increase the risk of AKI. Adherence decreased in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Assessment of Changes in Visits and Antibiotic Prescribing During the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Program for Improving Antibiotic Use and the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Safety Program for Improving Antibiotic Use aimed to improve antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory care practices by engaging clinicians and staff to incorporate antibiotic stewardship into practice culture, communication, and decision-making. Little is known about implementation of antibiotic stewardship in ambulatory care practices. Objective: To examine changes in visits and antibiotic prescribing during the AHRQ Safety Program. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study evaluated a quality improvement intervention in ambulatory care throughout the US in 389 ambulatory care practices from December 1, 2019, to November 30, 2020. Exposures: The AHRQ Safety Program used webinars, audio presentations, educational tools, and office hours to engage stewardship leaders and clinical staff to address attitudes and cultures that challenge judicious antibiotic prescribing and incorporate best practices for the management of common infections. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of the Safety Program was antibiotic prescriptions per 100 acute respiratory infection (ARI) visits. Data on total visits and ARI visits were also collected. The number of visits and prescribing rates from baseline (September 1, 2019) to completion of the program (November 30, 2020) were compared. Results: Of 467 practices enrolled, 389 (83%) completed the Safety Program; of these, 292 (75%) submitted complete data with 6 590 485 visits to 5483 clinicians. Participants included 82 (28%) primary care practices, 103 (35%) urgent care practices, 34 (12%) federally supported practices, 39 (13%) pediatric urgent care practices, 21 (7%) pediatric-only practices, and 14 (5%) other practice types. Visits per practice per month decreased from a mean of 1624 (95% CI, 1317-1931) at baseline to a nadir of 906 (95% CI, 702-1111) early in the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020), and were 1797 (95% CI, 1510-2084) at the end of the program. Total antibiotic prescribing decreased from 18.2% of visits at baseline to 9.5% at completion of the program (-8.7%; 95% CI, -9.9% to -7.6%). Acute respiratory infection visits per practice per month decreased from baseline (n = 321) to a nadir of 76 early in the pandemic (May 2020) and gradually increased through completion of the program (n = 239). Antibiotic prescribing for ARIs decreased from 39.2% at baseline to 24.7% at completion of the program (-14.5%; 95% CI, -16.8% to -12.2%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of US ambulatory practices that participated in the AHRQ Safety Program, significant reductions in the rates of overall and ARI-related antibiotic prescribing were noted, despite normalization of clinic visits by completion of the program. The forthcoming AHRQ Safety Program content may have utility in ambulatory practices across the US.

Multicenter Interim Guidance on Use of Antivirals for Children With Coronavirus Disease 2019/Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2.

BACKGROUND: Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a mild infection in most children, a small proportion develop severe or critical illness. Data describing agents with potential antiviral activity continue to expand such that updated guidance is needed regarding use of these agents in children. METHODS: A panel of pediatric infectious diseases physicians and pharmacists from 20 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a set of guidance statements was developed and refined based on review of the best available evidence and expert opinion. RESULTS: Given the typically mild course of COVID-19 in children, supportive care alone is suggested for most cases. For children with severe illness, defined as a supplemental oxygen requirement without need for noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), remdesivir is suggested, preferably as part of a clinical trial if available. Remdesivir should also be considered for critically ill children requiring invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO. A duration of 5 days is appropriate for most patients. The panel recommends against the use of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir (or other protease inhibitors) for COVID-19 in children. CONCLUSIONS: Antiviral therapy for COVID-19 is not necessary for the great majority of pediatric patients. For children with severe or critical disease, this guidance offers an approach for decision-making regarding use of remdesivir.

Multicenter Initial Guidance on Use of Antivirals for Children With Coronavirus Disease 2019/Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2.

BACKGROUND: Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is mild in nearly all children, a small proportion of pediatric patients develop severe or critical illness. Guidance is therefore needed regarding use of agents with potential activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in pediatrics. METHODS: A panel of pediatric infectious diseases physicians and pharmacists from 18 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a set of guidance statements was developed and refined based on review of best available evidence and expert opinion. RESULTS: Given the typically mild course of pediatric COVID-19, supportive care alone is suggested for the overwhelming majority of cases. The panel suggests a decision-making framework for antiviral therapy that weighs risks and benefits based on disease severity as indicated by respiratory support needs, with consideration on a case-by-case basis of potential pediatric risk factors for disease progression. If an antiviral is used, the panel suggests remdesivir as the preferred agent. Hydroxychloroquine could be considered for patients who are not candidates for remdesivir or when remdesivir is not available. Antivirals should preferably be used as part of a clinical trial if available. CONCLUSIONS: Antiviral therapy for COVID-19 is not necessary for the great majority of pediatric patients. For those rare cases of severe or critical disease, this guidance offers an approach for decision-making regarding antivirals, informed by available data. As evidence continues to evolve rapidly, the need for updates to the guidance is anticipated.

Independent, external validation of clinical prediction rules for the identification of extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, January 2010 to December 2016

BackgroundAlgorithms for predicting infection with extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-PE) on hospital admission or in patients with bacteraemia have been proposed, aiming to optimise empiric treatment decisions.AimWe sought to confirm external validity and transferability of two published prediction models as well as their integral components.MethodsWe performed a retrospective case-control study at University Hospital Basel, Switzerland. Consecutive patients with ESBL-producing Escherichia coli or Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from blood samples between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2016 were included. For each case, three non-ESBL-producing controls matching for date of detection and bacterial species were identified. The main outcome measure was the ability to accurately predict infection with ESBL-PE by measures of discrimination and calibration.ResultsOverall, 376 patients (94 patients, 282 controls) were analysed. Performance measures for prediction of ESBL-PE infection of both prediction models indicate adequate measures of calibration, but poor discrimination (area under receiver-operating curve: 0.627 and 0.651). History of ESBL-PE colonisation or infection was the single most predictive independent risk factor for ESBL-PE infection with high specificity (97%), low sensitivity (34%) and balanced positive and negative predictive values (80% and 82%).ConclusionsApplying published prediction models to institutions these were not derived from, may result in substantial misclassification of patients considered as being at risk, potentially leading to wrong allocation of antibiotic treatment, negatively affecting patient outcomes and overall resistance rates in the long term. Future prediction models need to address differences in local epidemiology by allowing for customisation according to different settings.