Evaluating the Appropriateness of Antibiotic Treatment of Tonsillitis during COVID-19 in the North Wale Primary Healthcare Setting.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the delivery of primary care in the NHS. Consultations have largely moved from face-to-face to remote, forcing practitioners to modify the ways in which they deliver care to patients. AIM: In this study, we aim to investigate the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing in tonsillitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: An observational quantitative analysis in the North Wales primary care setting. METHOD: Retrospective review of computer records across 5 GP centers from March 2020 until the end of October 2020. Data was extracted and analyzed using chi-square or fisher exact rank and Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: Our results have shown no significant difference in antibiotic prescribing behavior comparing face-to-face and remote consultations. CONCLUSION: Remote consultation is as effective as face-to-face consultation with regards to the assessment of tonsillitis and the appropriateness of antibiotic prescription in primary care.

Effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on antimicrobial prevalence and prescribing in a tertiary hospital in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: The deployment of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) teams to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic can lead to a loss of developed frameworks, best practices and leadership resulting in adverse impact on antimicrobial prescribing and resistance. We aim to investigate effects of reduction in AMS resources during the COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial prescribing. METHODS: One of 5 full-time equivalent AMS pharmacists was deployed to support pandemic work and AMS rounds with infectious disease physicians were reduced from 5 to 2 times a week. A survey in acute inpatients was conducted using the Global Point Prevalence Survey methodology in July 2020 and compared with those in 2015 and 2017-2019. RESULTS: The prevalence of antimicrobial prescribing (55% in 2015 to 49% in 2019 and 47% in 2020, p = 0.02) and antibacterials (54% in 2015 to 45% in 2019 and 42% in 2020, p < 0.01) have been reducing despite the pandemic. Antimicrobial prescribing in infectious disease wards with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases was 29% in 2020. Overall, antimicrobial prescribing quality indicators continued to improve (e.g. reasons in notes, 91% in 2015 to 94% in 2019 and 97% in 2020, p < 0.01) or remained stable (compliance to guideline, 71% in 2015 to 62% in 2019 and 73% in 2020, p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no increase in antimicrobial prescribing and no significant differences in antimicrobial prescribing quality indicators.

A point prevalence survey to assess antibiotic prescribing in patients hospitalized with confirmed and suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: Earlier studies have reported high antibiotic use in patients hospitalised for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), resulting in concerns of increasing antimicrobial resistance with increase antibiotic use in this pandemic. Point prevalence survey (PPS) can be a quick tool to provide antibiotic prescribing information to aid antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) activities. OBJECTIVES: To describe antibiotic utilization and evaluate antibiotic appropriateness in COVID-19 patients using PPS. METHODS: Adapting Global-PPS on antimicrobial use, the survey was conducted in COVID-19 wards at 2 centres in Singapore on 22 April 2020 at 0800h. Patients on systemic antibiotics were included and evaluated for antibiotic appropriateness. RESULTS: Five hundred and seventy-seven patients were screened. Thirty-six (6.2%) patients were on antibiotics and which were started at median of 7 days (inter-quartile rate (IQR), 4, 11) from symptom onset. Fifty-one antibiotics were prescribed in these patients. Overall, co-amoxiclav (26/51, 51.0%) was the most often prescribed antibiotic. Thirty-one out of 51 (60.8%) antibiotic prescriptions were appropriate. Among 20 inappropriate prescriptions, 18 (90.0%) were initiated in patients with low likelihood of bacterial infections. Antibiotic prescriptions were more appropriate when reviewed by infectious diseases physicians (13/31 [41.9%] versus 2/20 [10.0%], p=0.015), and if reasons for use were stated in notes (31/31 [100.0%] versus 16/20 [80.0%], p=0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Despite low prevalence of antibiotic use among confirmed and suspected COVID-19 patients at 2 centres in Singapore, there was significant proportion of inappropriate antibiotics use where bacterial infections were unlikely. AMS teams can tailor stewardship strategies using PPS results.

Off label, compassionate and irrational use of medicines in Covid-19 pandemic, health consequences and ethical issues.

When Covid-19 emerged in December last year, there was no vaccine nor was there specific effective treatment for this fast-spreading and life-threatening viral respiratory infection. Clinical trials were planned and are in progress to investigate whether drugs used for influenza, HIV and other viruses, and also anthelmintics (ivermectin, nitazoxanide, niclosamide), and antimalarials (chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine) showing antiviral activity in in vitro assays, are effective and safe for Covid-19. So far there is no convincing evidence that these antiviral and antiparasitic drugs are of any benefit for Covid-19. Notwithsanding the absence of evidence of clinical efficacy, these drugs are widely used outside of clinical trials (off label) for prophylaxis and treatment of this viral infection. The rationale behind the prescription of macrolide antibiotics (azithromycin) for Covid-19 is obscure as well. The widespread prescription and use of drugs of unproven efficacy and safety for Covid-19 is at odds with the rational use of medicines, a cornerstone principle of pharmacotherapy advanced by WHO in 1985. This irrational use of drugs is cause for concern because some of them are associated with serious heart disorders and deaths.

COVID-19: An Emerging Threat to Antibiotic Stewardship in the Emergency Department.

While current research efforts focus primarily on identifying patient level interventions that mitigate the direct impact of COVID-19, it is important to consider the collateral effects of COVID-19 on antimicrobial resistance. Early reports suggest high rates of antibiotic utilization in COVID-19 patients despite their lack of direct activity against viral pathogens. The ongoing pandemic is exacerbating known barriers to optimal antibiotic stewardship in the ED, representing an additional direct threat to patient safety and public health. There is an urgent need for research analyzing overall and COVID-19 specific antibiotic prescribing trends in the ED. Optimizing ED stewardship during COVID-19 will likely require a combination of traditional stewardship approaches (e.g. academic detailing, provider education, care pathways) and effective implementation of host response biomarkers and rapid COVID-19 diagnostics. Antibiotic stewardship interventions with demonstrated efficacy in mitigating the impact of COVID-19 on ED prescribing should be widely disseminated and inform the ongoing pandemic response.

Impact of multiplex respiratory virus testing on antimicrobial consumption in adults in acute care: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: Inappropriate use of antibiotics is associated with development of antimicrobial resistance. In respiratory infections it is often difficult to differentiate between viral and bacterial infections, and empirical treatment is common. Enhanced viral testing is expected to clarify clinical decision-making and reduce the prescription of antibacterial agents, but the impact of such information on patient care is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a (1:1) randomized controlled clinical trial involving 998 adults with respiratory symptoms, fever, chest pain or poor general condition in the emergency unit of a tertiary hospital. Multiplex PCR results for 496 patients were available in 24 hours (intervention group) and those for the remaining 502 patients were available in 7 days (control group). Our primary outcome measures were the duration of hospitalization and the consumption of antibiotics within 30 days of enrolment. RESULTS: In all, 841 of 998 (84%) patients had respiratory symptoms at study entry. A respiratory virus was detected in 175 (17.5%). The mean duration of hospitalization was 4.2 days (SD 5.4) in the intervention group and 4.1 days (SD 4.9) in the control group (difference 0.1, 95% CI -0.5 to 0.6, p 0.810). The mean days on antibiotics were 11.3 days (SD 12.6) in the intervention group and 10.4 days (SD 11.4) in the control group (difference 0.9, 95% CI -0.6 to 2.4, p 0.235). CONCLUSIONS: Multiplex PCR testing for respiratory viruses with results available within 24 hours did not reduce the consumption of bacterial antibiotics or the length of hospital stay in adults presenting with respiratory symptoms, fever, chest pain or reduced general condition in acute care.