Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
BMC Infect Dis ; 23(1): 117, 2023 Feb 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2277160

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Excessive use of antibiotics has been reported during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We evaluated trends in antibiotic use and culture positive Gram-negative (GN)/Gram-positive (GP) pathogens in US hospitalized patients before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective study included patients from 271 US facilities with > 1-day inpatient admission with discharge or death between July 1, 2019, and October 30, 2021, in the BD Insights Research Database. We evaluated microbiological testing data, antibacterial use, defined as antibacterial use ≥ 24 h in admitted patients, and duration of antibacterial therapy. RESULTS: Of 5,518,744 patients included in the analysis, 3,729,295 (67.6%) patients were hospitalized during the pandemic with 2,087,774 (56.0%) tested for SARS-CoV-2 and 189,115 (9.1%) testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. During the pre-pandemic period, 36.2% were prescribed antibacterial therapy and 9.3% tested positive for select GN/GP pathogens. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, antibacterial therapy (57.8%) and positive GN/GP culture (11.9%) were highest in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients followed by SARS-CoV-2-negative patients (antibacterial therapy, 40.1%; GN/GP, pathogens 11.0%), and SARS-CoV-2 not tested (antibacterial therapy 30.4%; GN/GP pathogens 7.2%). Multivariate results showed significant decreases in antibacterial therapy and positive GN/GP cultures for both SARS-CoV-2-positive and negative patients during the pandemic, but no significant overall changes from the pre-pandemic period to the pandemic period. CONCLUSIONS: There was a decline in both antibacterial use and positive GN/GP pathogens in patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. However, overall antibiotic use was similar prior to and during the pandemic. These data may inform future efforts to optimize antimicrobial stewardship and prescribing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Inpatients
2.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 43(10): 1317-1325, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2185255

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence of hospital-onset bacteremia and fungemia (HOB), identify hospital-level predictors, and to evaluate the feasibility of an HOB metric. METHODS: We analyzed 9,202,650 admissions from 267 hospitals during 2015-2020. An HOB event was defined as the first positive blood-culture pathogen on day 3 of admission or later. We used the generalized linear model method via negative binomial regression to identify variables and risk markers for HOB. Standardized infection ratios (SIRs) were calculated based on 2 risk-adjusted models: a simple model using descriptive variables and a complex model using descriptive variables plus additional measures of blood-culture testing practices. Performance of each model was compared against the unadjusted rate of HOB. RESULTS: Overall median rate of HOB per 100 admissions was 0.124 (interquartile range, 0.00-0.22). Facility-level predictors included bed size, sex, ICU admissions, community-onset (CO) blood culture testing intensity, and hospital-onset (HO) testing intensity, and prevalence (all P < .001). In the complex model, CO bacteremia prevalence, HO testing intensity, and HO testing prevalence were the predictors most associated with HOB. The complex model demonstrated better model performance; 55% of hospitals that ranked in the highest quartile based on their raw rate shifted to a lower quartile when the SIR from the complex model was applied. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital descriptors, aggregate patient characteristics, community bacteremia and/or fungemia burden, and clinical blood-culture testing practices influence rates of HOB. Benchmarking an HOB metric is feasible and should endeavor to include both facility and clinical variables.


Subject(s)
Bacteremia , Fungemia , Humans , Fungemia/diagnosis , Fungemia/epidemiology , Benchmarking , Feasibility Studies , Bacteremia/diagnosis , Bacteremia/epidemiology , Hospitals
3.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 9(11): ofac537, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2123133

ABSTRACT

Background: Antibacterial therapy is frequently used in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) without evidence of bacterial infection, prompting concerns about increased antimicrobial resistance (AMR). We evaluated trends in AMR before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective cohort analysis included hospitalized adults aged ≥18 years with >1-day inpatient admission and a record of discharge or death from 271 US facilities in the BD Insights Research Database. We evaluated rates of AMR events, defined as positive cultures for select gram-negative and gram-positive pathogens from any source, with nonsusceptibility reported by commercial panels before (1 July 2019-29 February 2020) and during (1 March 2020-30 October 2021) the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Results: Of 5 518 666 admissions evaluated, AMR rates per 1000 admissions were 35.4 for the prepandemic period and 34.7 for the pandemic period (P ≤ .0001). In the pandemic period, AMR rates per 1000 admissions were 49.2 for SARS-CoV-2-positive admissions, 41.1 for SARS-CoV-2-negative admissions, and 25.7 for patients untested (P ≤ .0001). AMR rates per 1000 admissions among community-onset infections during the pandemic were lower versus prepandemic levels (26.1 vs 27.6; P < .0001), whereas AMR rates for hospital-onset infections were higher (8.6 vs 7.7; P < .0001), driven largely by SARS-CoV-2-positive admissions (21.8). AMR rates were associated with overall antimicrobial use, rates of positive cultures, and higher use of inadequate empiric therapy. Conclusions: Although overall AMR rates did not substantially increase from prepandemic levels, patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection had a significantly higher rate of AMR and hospital-onset infections. Antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship is key to identifying this high-risk AMR population.

4.
BMC Infect Dis ; 22(1): 841, 2022 Nov 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2119179

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Bloodstream infections (BSIs) are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. We evaluate incidence of community- and hospital-onset BSI rates and outcomes before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study evaluating patients who were hospitalized for ≥ 1 day with discharge or death between June 1, 2019, and September 4, 2021, across 271 US health care facilities. Community- and hospital-onset BSI and related outcomes before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, including intensive care admission rates, and overall and ICU-specific length of stay (LOS) was evaluated. Bivariate correlations were calculated between the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods overall and by SARS-CoV-2 testing status. RESULTS: Of 5,239,692 patient admissions, there were 20,113 community-onset BSIs before the pandemic (11.2/1000 admissions) and 39,740 (11.5/1000 admissions) during the pandemic (P ≤ 0.0062). Corresponding rates of hospital-onset BSI were 2,771 (1.6/1000 admissions) and 6,864 (2.0/1000 admissions; P < 0.0062). Compared to the pre-pandemic period, rates of community-onset BSI were higher in patients who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 (15.8/1000 admissions), compared with 9.6/1000 BSI admissions among SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. Compared with patients in the pre-pandemic period, SARS-CoV-2-positive patients with community-onset BSI experienced greater ICU admission rates (36.6% vs 32.8%; P < 0.01), greater ventilator use (10.7% vs 4.7%; P < 0.001), and longer LOS (12.2 d vs 9.1 d; P < 0.001). Rates of hospital-onset BSI were higher in the pandemic vs the pre-pandemic period (2.0 vs 1.5/1000; P < 0.001), with rates as high a 7.3/1000 admissions among SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, SARS-CoV-2-positive patients with hospital-onset BSI had higher rates of ICU admission (72.9% vs 55.4%; P < 0.001), LOS (34.8 d vs 25.5 d; P < 0.001), and ventilator use (52.9% vs 21.5%; P < 0.001). Enterococcus species, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Candida albicans were more frequently detected in the pandemic period. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This nationally representative study found an increased risk of both community-onset and hospital-onset BSI during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic period, with the largest increased risk in hospital-onset BSI among SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. SARS-CoV-2 positivity was associated with worse outcomes.


Subject(s)
Bacteremia , COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Bacteremia/epidemiology , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19/epidemiology
5.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 8(6): ofab232, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1276209

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Increased utilization of antimicrobial therapy has been observed during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. We evaluated hospital outcomes based on the adequacy of antibacterial therapy for bacterial pathogens in US patients. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included patients with ≥24 hours of inpatient admission, ≥24 hours of antibiotic therapy, and discharge/death from March to November 2020 at 201 US hospitals in the BD Insights Research Database. Included patients had a test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and a positive bacterial culture (gram-positive or gram-negative). We used generalized linear mixed models to evaluate the impact of inadequate empiric therapy (IET), defined as therapy not active against the identified bacteria or no antimicrobial therapy in the 48 hours following culture, on in-hospital mortality and hospital and intensive care unit length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: Of 438 888 SARS-CoV-2-tested patients, 39 203 (8.9%) had positive bacterial cultures. Among patients with positive cultures, 9.4% were SARS-CoV-2 positive, 74.4% had a gram-negative pathogen, 25.6% had a gram-positive pathogen, and 44.1% received IET for the bacterial infection. The odds of mortality were 21% higher for IET (odds ratio [OR], 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.33; P < .001) compared with adequate empiric therapy. IET was also associated with increased hospital LOS (LOS, 16.1 days; 95% CI, 15.5-16.7 days; vs LOS, 14.5 days; 95% CI, 13.9-15.1 days; P < .001). Both mortality and hospital LOS findings remained consistent for SARS-CoV-2-positive and -negative patients. CONCLUSIONS: Bacterial pathogens continue to play an important role in hospital outcomes during the pandemic. Adequate and timely therapeutic management may help ensure better outcomes.

6.
BMC Infect Dis ; 21(1): 227, 2021 Feb 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1105696

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Past respiratory viral epidemics suggest that bacterial infections impact clinical outcomes. There is minimal information on potential co-pathogens in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) in the US. We analyzed pathogens, antimicrobial use, and healthcare utilization in hospitalized US patients with and without severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included patients with > 1 day of inpatient admission and discharge/death between March 1 and May 31, 2020 at 241 US acute care hospitals in the BD Insights Research Database. We assessed microbiological testing data, antimicrobial utilization in admitted patients with ≥24 h of antimicrobial therapy, and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: A total of 141,621 patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 (17,003 [12.0%] positive) and 449,339 patients were not tested. Most (> 90%) patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 had additional microbiologic testing performed compared with 41.9% of SARS-CoV-2-untested patients. Non-SARS-CoV-2 pathogen rates were 20.9% for SARS-CoV-2-positive patients compared with 21.3 and 27.9% for SARS-CoV-2-negative and -untested patients, respectively. Gram-negative bacteria were the most common pathogens (45.5, 44.1, and 43.5% for SARS-CoV-2-positive, -negative, and -untested patients). SARS-CoV-2-positive patients had higher rates of hospital-onset (versus admission-onset) non-SARS-CoV-2 pathogens compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative or -untested patients (42.4, 22.2, and 19.5%, respectively), more antimicrobial usage (68.0, 45.2, and 25.1% of patients), and longer hospital LOS (mean [standard deviation (SD)] of 8.6 [11.4], 5.1 [8.9], and 4.2 [8.0] days) and intensive care unit (ICU) LOS (mean [SD] of 7.8 [8.5], 3.6 [6.2], and 3.6 [5.9] days). For all groups, the presence of a non-SARS-CoV-2 pathogen was associated with increased hospital LOS (mean [SD] days for patients with versus without a non-SARS-CoV-2 pathogen: 13.7 [15.7] vs 7.3 [9.6] days for SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, 8.2 [11.5] vs 4.3 [7.9] days for SARS-CoV-2-negative patients, and 7.1 [11.0] vs 3.9 [7.4] days for SARS-CoV-2-untested patients). CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar rates of non-SARS-CoV-2 pathogens in SARS-CoV-2-positive, -negative, and -untested patients, SARS-CoV-2 was associated with higher rates of hospital-onset infections, greater antimicrobial usage, and extended hospital and ICU LOS. This finding highlights the heavy burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare systems and suggests possible opportunities for diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/microbiology , Gram-Negative Bacteria/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cross Infection/microbiology , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL