Antimicrobial prescribing practices at a tertiary-care center in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 across the continuum of care.

In a single-center review of antibiotic prescribing in COVID-19 patients, 10% of patients received antimicrobials, and inpatients encounters had the highest rate and spectrum of prescribing. Prescribing rate, spectrum, and duration appeared to increase with disease severity in inpatients. Antimicrobial prescribing in patients managed in ambulatory encounters was less common.

Policies and practices of SHEA Research Network hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To understand hospital policies and practices as the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) conducted a survey through the SHEA Research Network (SRN). The survey assessed policies and practices around the optimization of personal protection equipment (PPE), testing, healthcare personnel policies, visitors of COVID-19 patients in relation to procedures, and types of patients. Overall, 69 individual healthcare facilities responded in the United States and internationally, for a 73% response rate.

Association of Race and Ethnicity With Prescription of SGLT2 Inhibitors and GLP1 Receptor Agonists Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in the Veterans Health Administration System.

Importance: Novel therapies for type 2 diabetes can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease progression. The equitability of these agents' prescription across racial and ethnic groups has not been well-evaluated. Objective: To investigate differences in the prescription of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) among adult patients with type 2 diabetes by racial and ethnic groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional analysis of data from the US Veterans Health Administration's Corporate Data Warehouse. The sample included adult patients with type 2 diabetes and at least 2 primary care clinic visits from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020. Exposures: Self-identified race and self-identified ethnicity. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were prevalent SGLT2i or GLP-1 RA prescription, defined as any active prescription during the study period. Results: Among 1 197 914 patients (mean age, 68 years; 96% men; 1% American Indian or Alaska Native, 2% Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander, 20% Black or African American, 71% White, and 7% of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity), 10.7% and 7.7% were prescribed an SGLT2i or a GLP-1 RA, respectively. Prescription rates for SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA, respectively, were 11% and 8.4% among American Indian or Alaska Native patients; 11.8% and 8% among Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander patients; 8.8% and 6.1% among Black or African American patients; and 11.3% and 8.2% among White patients, respectively. Prescription rates for SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA, respectively, were 11% and 7.1% among Hispanic or Latino patients and 10.7% and 7.8% among non-Hispanic or Latino patients. After accounting for patient- and system-level factors, all racial groups had significantly lower odds of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA prescription compared with White patients. Black patients had the lowest odds of prescription compared with White patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.71-0.74] for SGLT2i and 0.64 [95% CI, 0.63-0.66] for GLP-1 RA). Patients of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity had significantly lower odds of prescription (0.90 [95% CI, 0.88-0.93] for SGLT2i and 0.88 [95% CI, 0.85-0.91] for GLP-1 RA) compared with non-Hispanic or Latino patients. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with type 2 diabetes in the Veterans Health Administration system during 2019 and 2020, prescription rates of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA medications were low, and individuals of several different racial groups and those of Hispanic ethnicity had statistically significantly lower odds of receiving prescriptions for these medications compared with individuals of White race and non-Hispanic ethnicity. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms underlying these differences in rates of prescribing and the potential relationship with differences in clinical outcomes.

Azithromycin consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic in Croatia, 2020.

BACKGROUND: During the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was great enthusiasm for the use of azithromycin with or without hydroxychloroquine. OBJECTIVES: We analyzed azithromycin consumption in Croatia in 2020 and compared this to the period 2017-2019. METHODS: Azithromycin consumption was evaluated using the IQVIA Adriatic d.o.o. database which collects data on azithromycin distribution from wholesale pharmacies to hospital and non-hospital pharmacies in Croatia. We analyzed data for the period from January 2017 to December 2020. Azithromycin distribution was measured as days of therapy (DOT) and reported as per 1000 inhabitants or per 1000 inhabitant-days. RESULTS: In the period 2017-2020, total azithromycin DOT in Croatia increased in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 (1.76, 1.91, 1.91 and 2.01/1000 inhabitant-days, respectively). Non-hospital pharmacies received 2.18 times and hospital pharmacies 4.39 times more DOT units/1000 inhabitants of azithromycin in March 2020 compared to the average distribution rate in March 2017-2019. During the peak of the COVID-19 epidemic (November and December 2020) azithromycin distribution increased considerably in hospital (3.62 and 3.19 times, respectively) and non-hospital pharmacies (1.93 and 1.84 times, respectively) compared to the average consumption in the same months in 2017-2019. CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed increased azithromycin distribution in the period 2017-2020 which indicates azithromycin overuse. Preliminary information on COVID-19 treatments with a desire to offer and try what is available even in the absence of strong scientific evidence may have influenced practices of antimicrobial prescriptions.

COVID-19 and Antibiotic Prescribing in Pediatric Primary Care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: With the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, pediatric ambulatory encounter volume and antibiotic prescribing both decreased; however, the durability of these reductions in pediatric primary care in the United States has not been assessed. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated public health measures on antibiotic prescribing in 27 pediatric primary care practices. Encounters from January 1, 2018, through June 30, 2021, were included. The primary outcome was monthly antibiotic prescriptions per 1000 patients. Interrupted time series analysis was performed. RESULTS: There were 69 327 total antibiotic prescriptions from April through December in 2019 and 18 935 antibiotic prescriptions during the same months in 2020, a 72.7% reduction. The reduction in prescriptions at visits for respiratory tract infection (RTI) accounted for 87.3% of this decrease. Using interrupted time series analysis, overall antibiotic prescriptions decreased from 31.6 to 6.4 prescriptions per 1000 patients in April 2020 (difference of -25.2 prescriptions per 1000 patients; 95% CI: -32.9 to -17.5). This was followed by a nonsignificant monthly increase in antibiotic prescriptions, with prescribing beginning to rebound from April to June 2021. Encounter volume also immediately decreased, and while overall encounter volume quickly started to recover, RTI encounter volume returned more slowly. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in antibiotic prescribing in pediatric primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic were sustained, only beginning to rise in 2021, primarily driven by reductions in RTI encounters. Reductions in viral RTI transmission likely played a substantial role in reduced RTI visits and antibiotic prescriptions.

Outside any therapeutic trial prescription of hydroxychloroquine for hospitalized patients with covid-19 during the first wave of the pandemic: A national inquiry of prescription patterns among French hospitalists.

INTRODUCTION: During the first wave of the coronavirus-disease 2019 (covid-19) pandemic in early 2020, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was widely prescribed in light of in vitro activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Our objective was to evaluate in early 2020 the rate of French hospitalists declaring having prescribed HCQ to treat covid-19 patients outside any therapeutic trial, compare the reasons and the determinants for having prescribed HCQ or not. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A national inquiry submitted by email from May 7 to 25, 2020, to a sample of French hospitalists: doctors managing patients hospitalized for covid-19 in a French department of internal medicine or infectious diseases and identified in the directories of French hospitals or as a member of the French Infectious Diseases Society (SPILF). Primary outcome was the percentage of hospitalists declaring having prescribed HCQ to covid-19 patients. Secondary outcomes were reasons and determinants of HCQ prescription. RESULTS: Among 400 (22.8%) responding hospitalists, 45.3% (95% CI, 40.4 to 50.1%) declared having prescribed HCQ to covid-19 patients. Two main profiles were discerned: HCQ prescribers who did not raise its efficacy as a motive, and non-prescribers who based their decision on evidence-based medicine. Multivariate analysis retained the following prescription determinants (adjusted odds ratio; 95% confidence interval): a departmental procedure for HCQ prescription (8.25; 4.79 to 14.20), having prescribed other treatments outside a therapeutic trial (3.21; 1.81 to 5.71), prior HCQ prescription (2.75; 1.5 to 5.03) and HCQ prescribed within the framework of a therapeutic trial (0.56; 0.33 to 0.95). CONCLUSION: Almost half of the hospitalists prescribed HCQ. The physician's personality (questioning or not evidence-based-medicine principles in the context of the pandemic) and departmental therapeutic procedures were the main factors influencing HCQ prescription. Establishment of "therapeutic" procedures represents a potential means to improve the quality of therapeutic decision-making during a pandemic.

Practice Management Strategies Among Current Members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: A survey was conducted at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) to evaluate current practice management strategies among AAHKS members. METHODS: An application was used by AAHKS members to answer both multiple-choice and yes or no questions. Specific questions were asked regarding the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on practice patterns. RESULTS: There was a dramatic acceleration in same day total joint arthroplasty with 85% of AAHKS members performing same day total joint arthroplasty. More AAHKS members remain in private practice (46%) than other practice types, whereas fee for service (34%) and relative value units (26%) are the major form of compensation. At the present time, 93% of practices are experiencing staffing shortages, and these shortages are having an impact on surgical volume. CONCLUSION: This survey elucidates the current practice patterns of AAHKS members. The pandemic has had a significant impact on some aspects of practice activity. Future surveys need to monitor changes in practice patterns over time.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Workload, Case Mix and hospital Resources at a Tertiary Vascular Unit.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated impact on the provision of vascular services, and the pattern of presentation and practice in a tertiary referral vascular unit. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study from a prospectively maintained data-base comparing two time frames, Period 1(15th March-30th May 2019-P1) and Period 2(15th March-30th May 2020-P2)All the patients who presented for a vascular review in the 2 timeframes were included. Metrics of service and patient care episodes were collected and compared including, the number of emergency referrals, patient encounters, consultations, emergency admissions and interventions. Impact on key hospital resources such as critical care and imaging facilities during the two time periods were also examined. RESULTS: There was an absolute reduction of 44% in the number of patients who required urgent or emergency treatment from P1 to P2 (141 vs 79). We noted a non-significant trend towards an increase in the proportion of patients presenting with Chronic Limb Threatening Ischaemia (CLTI) Rutherford 5&6 (P=0.09) as well as a reduction in the proportion of admissions related to Aortic Aneurysm (P=0.21). There was a significant absolute reduction of 77% in all vascular interventions from P1 to P2 with the greatest reductions noted in Carotid (P=0.02), Deep Venous (P=0.003) and Aortic interventions (P=0.016). The number of lower limb interventions also decreased though there was a significant increase as a relative proportion of all vascular interventions in P2 (P=0.001). There was an absolute reduction in the number of scans performed for vascular pathology; Duplex scans reduced by 86%(P<0.002), CT scans by 68%(P<0.003) and MRIs by 74%(P<0.009). CONCLUSION: We report a decrease in urgent and emergency vascular presentations, admissions and interventions. The reduction in patients presenting with lower limb pathology was not as significant as other vascular conditions, resulting in a significant rise in interventions for CLTI and DFI as a proportion of all vascular interventions. These observations will help guide the provision of vascular services during future pandemics.

The limits of pandemic precautions: Tympanostomy tube placement in children with cleft palate during COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) mitigation measures have led to a sustained reduction in tympanostomy tube (TT) placement in the general population. The present aim was to determine if TT placement has also decreased in children at risk for chronic otitis media with effusion (COME), such as those with cleft palate (CP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort study with medical record review was performed including consecutive children, ages 0-17 years, undergoing primary palatoplasty at a tertiary children's hospital February 2019-January 2020 (pre-COVID) or May 2020-April 2021 (COVID). Revision palatoplasty (n = 29) was excluded. Patient characteristics and middle ear status pre-operatively and at palatoplasty were compared between groups using logistic regression or Wilcoxon rank-sum. RESULTS: The pre-COVID and COVID cohorts included 73 and 87 patients, respectively. Seventy (44%) were female and median age at palatoplasty was 13.5 months for CP ± cleft lip (CP ± L) and 5.5 years for submucous cleft palate (SMCP). In patients with CP ± L, TT were placed or in place and patent at palatoplasty in 28/38 (74%) pre-COVID and 37/50 (74%) during COVID (P = 0.97). In patients with SMCP, these proportions were 5/35 (14%) and 6/37 (16%), respectively (P = 0.82). Examining only patients <2 years of age also revealed no difference in TT placement pre-COVID versus COVID (P = 0.99). Finally, the prevalence and type of effusion during COVID was similar to pre-COVID. CONCLUSIONS: Reduced infectious exposure has not decreased TT placement or effusion at palatoplasty. Future work could focus on non-infectious immunologic factors underlying the maintenance of COME in these children.

Use of Telehealth by Surgical Specialties During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: While telehealth use in surgery has shown to be feasible, telehealth became a major modality of health care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To assess patterns of telehealth use across surgical specialties before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: Insurance claims from a Michigan statewide commercial payer for new patient visits with a surgeon from 1 of 9 surgical specialties during one of the following periods: prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (period 1: January 5 to March 7, 2020), early pandemic (period 2: March 8 to June 6, 2020), and late pandemic (period 3: June 7 to September 5, 2020). Exposures: Telehealth implementation owing to the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: (1) Conversion rate defined as the rate of weekly new patient telehealth visits divided by mean weekly number of total new patient visits in 2019. This outcome adjusts for a substantial decrease in outpatient care during the pandemic. (2) Weekly number of new patient telehealth visits divided by weekly number of total new patient visits. Results: Among 4405 surgeons in the cohort, 2588 (58.8%) performed telehealth in any patient care context. Specifically for new patient visits, 1182 surgeons (26.8%) used telehealth. A total of 109 610 surgical new outpatient visits were identified during the pandemic. The median (interquartile range) age of telehealth patients was 46.8 (34.1-58.4) years compared with 52.6 (38.3-62.3) years for patients who received care in-person. Prior to March 2020, less than 1% (8 of 173 939) of new patient visits were conducted through telehealth. Telehealth use peaked in April 2020 (week 14) and facilitated 34.6% (479 of 1383) of all new patient visits during that week. The telehealth conversion rate peaked in April 2020 (week 15) and was equal to 8.2% of the 2019 mean weekly new patient visit volume. During period 2, a mean (SD) of 16.6% (12.0%) of all new patient surgical visits were conducted via telehealth (conversion rate of 5.1% of 2019 mean weekly new patient visit volumes). During period 3, 3.0% (2168 of 71 819) of all new patient surgical visits were conducted via telehealth (conversion rate of 2.5% of 2019 new patient visit volumes). Mean (SD) telehealth conversion rates varied by specialty with urology being the highest (14.3% [7.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Results from this study showed that telehealth use grew across all surgical specialties in Michigan in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. While rates of telehealth use have declined as in-person care has resumed, telehealth use remains substantially higher across all surgical specialties than it was prior to the pandemic.

Changes to telehealth practices in primary care in New Brunswick (Canada): A comparative study pre and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth technologies were used in the primary health care setting in New Brunswick as a means to continue providing care to patients while following public health guidelines. This study aimed to measure these changes and examine if they improved timely access to primary care. A secondary goal was to identify which telehealth technologies were deemed sustainable by primary care providers. METHODS: This was a comparative study on the use of telehealth technology before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Between April 2020 and November 2020, 114 active primary care providers (family physicians or nurse practitioners) responded to the online survey. RESULTS: The findings illustrated an increase in the use of telehealth technologies. The use of phone consultations increased by 122%, from 43.9% pre-pandemic to 97.6% during the pandemic (p < 0.001). The use of virtual consultation (19.3% pre-pandemic vs. 41.2% during the pandemic, p < 0.001), emails and texts also increased during the pandemic. Whereas the more structural organizational tools (electronic medical charts and reservation systems) remained stable. However, those changes did not coincide with a significant improvement to timely access to care during the pandemic. Many participants (40.1%) wanted to keep phone consultations, and 21.9% of participants wanted to keep virtual consultations as part of their long-term practice. INTERPRETATION: The observed increase in the use of telehealth technologies may be sustainable, but it has not significantly improved timely access to primary care in New Brunswick.

Survey of the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Ophthalmology Clinical Practice in Turkey

Objectives: To investigate the effect of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the clinical practice of ophthalmologists in our country. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire consisting of 22 questions was delivered to 250 ophthalmologists via e-mail and a smartphone messaging application. A total of 113 ophthalmologists completed the survey. The questions included the participants' demographic data (age, years in practice, institution, and city), changes in their working conditions and institutional preventive measures implemented during the pandemic, their personal COVID-19 experiences, the prevalence of telemedicine applications, and their attitudes toward these practices. Results: Nearly half (47.8%) of the 113 ophthalmologists were 36 to 45 years old. In terms of years in practice, the largest proportion of respondents (28.3%) had 6-10 years of experience. Most of the participants worked in private/foundation universities (37.2%), while 22.1% worked in education and research clinics. Participants working at public universities most often reported that they or a close contact had to work in COVID wards (89.5%). Triage was performed in 51.5% of ophthalmology outpatient clinics, with 88.0% of these participants reporting that patients with fever, cough, or dyspnea were directed to the pandemic clinic without ophthalmological examination. All participants working in public hospitals, education and research clinics, and public university hospitals had postponed elective surgeries, whereas 12.5% of those working in private practice and 20.5% of those working in private/foundation universities reported that they continued elective surgeries. While 80.8% of the participants did not conduct online interviews or examinations, 40.4% stated that they considered telemedicine applications beneficial. Seventy-seven percent of participants expressed concern about a decrease in their income during the pandemic, with this being especially common among participants working in private practice (87.5%) and private/foundation university hospitals (85.7%). Conclusion: Ophthalmologists across our country have been affected by this pandemic at a level that will change their clinical approach. We think that ophthalmologists impacted by the difficulty of providing personal protective equipment and economic concerns should be supported more during the pandemic.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Urological Care Delivery in the United States.

PURPOSE: We examined changes in urological care delivery due to COVID-19 in the U.S. based on patient, practice, and local/regional demographic and pandemic response features. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed real-world data from the American Urological Association Quality (AQUA) Registry collected from electronic health record systems. Data represented 157 outpatient urological practices and 3,165 providers across 48 U.S. states and territories, including 3,297,721 unique patients, 12,488,831 total outpatient visits and 2,194,456 procedures. The primary outcome measure was the number of outpatient visits and procedures performed (inpatient or outpatient) per practice per week, measured from January 2019 to February 2021. RESULTS: We found large (>50%) declines in outpatient visits from March 2020 to April 2020 across patient demographic groups and states, regardless of timing of state stay-at-home orders. Nonurgent outpatient visits decreased more across various nonurgent procedures (49%-59%) than for procedures performed for potentially urgent diagnoses (38%-52%); surgical procedures for nonurgent conditions also decreased more (43%-79%) than those for potentially urgent conditions (43%-53%). African American patients had similar decreases in outpatient visits compared with Asians and Caucasians, but also slower recoveries back to baseline. Medicare-insured patients had the steepest declines (55%), while those on Medicaid and government insurance had the lowest percentage of recovery to baseline (73% and 69%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides real-world evidence on the decline in urological care across demographic groups and practice settings, and demonstrates a differential impact on the utilization of urological health services by demographics and procedure type.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on corticosteroid injection services: A National Survey of Members of the British Society of Skeletal Radiologists (BSSR).

OBJECTIVE: To describe the restructuring of services by British radiologists in response to evolving national guidelines and highlight the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the treatment of musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions. METHODS: An online anonymised survey was distributed via the British Society of Skeletal Radiology (BSSR) members forum in November 2020. Responses were collated using a standardised Google form including 21 questions. RESULTS: 135 members of the BSSR completed the survey. 85% of respondents stopped performing corticosteroid injections (CSI) during the initial lockdown of the pandemic. This was primarily influenced by national guidelines. The majority of respondents initially abstained from offered CSI procedures, then by November 2020, 69% of respondents were providing CSI for high and low risk patients, 23% were only providing CSI for low-risk patients with 8% still not performing any CSI. 40% of respondents reported routinely obtaining specific written consent regarding the risk of COVID-19. Approximately, 11,000 CSI were performed by respondents between March and November 2020 with no reported significant COVID-19-related complications. Over 80% of BSSR members reported that the number of CSI procedures that they performed dropped by more than 80% compared to usual. 73% of respondents reported an increased backlog of patients awaiting treatment. The average waiting time for routine outpatient CSI treatment was > 12 weeks in 53% of responses, compared to 34% the previous year. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the clinical practices of MSK radiologists in the UK. Our survey highlights the rapid response of BSSR members as national guidelines evolved. Currently, the majority of respondents are performing CSI for musculoskeletal conditions when clinically indicated, with enhanced consent. However, the pandemic has resulted in increased waiting times - delaying the treatment of patients who may be suffering with significant pain and disability. Further research is warranted to provide guidance around both service recovery and provision of CSI around COVID-19 vaccination schedules. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: BSSR members responded rapidly to changing guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic. The majority of respondents are currently performing CSI when clinically indicated. The pandemic has resulted in a significant increase in waiting times which will have a significant impact on UK musculoskeletal services.

The influence of the SARS-CoV-2 lockdown on patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases on their adherence to immunomodulatory medication: a cross sectional study over 3 months in Germany.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on the adherence of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) to their immunomodulatory medication during the three-month lockdown in Germany. METHODS: From 16th March until 15th June 2020, IRD patients from private practices and rheumatology departments were asked to answer a questionnaire addressing their behaviour with respect to their immunomodulating therapy. Eight private practices and nine rheumatology departments that included rheumatology primary care centres and university hospitals participated. A total of 4252 questionnaires were collected and evaluated. RESULTS: The majority of patients (54%) were diagnosed with RA, followed by psoriatic arthritis (14%), ankylosing spondylitis (10%), connective tissue diseases (12%) and vasculitides (6%). Most of the patients (84%) reported to continue their immunomodulatory therapy. Termination of therapy was reported by only 3% of the patients. The results were independent from the type of IRD, the respective immunomodulatory therapy and by whom the patients were treated (private practices vs rheumatology departments). Younger patients (<60 years) reported just as often as older patients to discontinue their therapy. CONCLUSION: The data show that most of the patients continued their therapy in spite of the pandemic. A significant change in behaviour with regard to their immunomodulatory therapy was not observed during the three months of observation. The results support the idea that the immediate release of recommendations of the German Society of Rheumatology were well received, supporting the well-established physician-patient relationship in times of a crisis.