A Multicenter Retrospective Study Evaluating Intravenous to Oral Antibiotic Stepdown for Uncomplicated Streptococcal Bacteremia.

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) versus oral (PO) stepdown therapy for uncomplicated streptococcal bacteremia. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study included adult patients with uncomplicated streptococcal bacteremia between 1 July 2019 and 1 July 2022. Patients who received IV therapy for the full treatment course were compared to patients who transitioned to PO therapy after initial IV therapy. The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as absence of infection recurrence, infection-related readmission, and infection-related mortality at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included microbiological success, length of stay (LOS), and IV line-associated complications. Results: Of 238 patients included, 47.1% received PO stepdown therapy. Clinical success occurred in 94.4% and 94.6% in the IV only and PO stepdown groups, respectively (P = .946). Patients who transitioned to PO therapy received a median duration of IV therapy of 3.9 days (interquartile range, 2.9-7.3 days). Line complications were more frequent in the IV only group, primarily driven by catheter-related infections (7.2% vs 0%, P = .002). LOS was significantly shorter in the PO stepdown group (5.5 vs 9.2 days, P < .001). Conclusions: Patients transitioned to PO antibiotics for uncomplicated streptococcal bacteremia had similar rates of clinical success compared to patients who received only IV therapy. With consideration of infectious source, severity of illness, and comorbidities, PO stepdown following initial IV antibiotics for uncomplicated streptococcal bacteremia in select patients is a reasonable approach that may result in decreased LOS and line-related complications.

Microbiology of infection-related complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to describe the incidence, microbiology, and risk factors related to infectious complications after transrectal prostate biopsies. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing prostate biopsies. Throughout the study period, the institutional standard for antibiotic prophylaxis was cephalexin and ciprofloxacin. Due to the desire to limit fluoroquinolone use, the ciprofloxacin duration of therapy was reduced from 48 to 24 hours in the middle of the study period. The primary outcome was the incidence of infection-related complications, defined as a urinary tract infection or bacteremia within 30 days post-procedure. RESULTS: A total of 1471 transrectal prostate biopsies were included. All patients received antibiotic prophylaxis, with 86.1% (1268/1472) of patients receiving both ciprofloxacin and cephalexin. The incidence of infection-related complications was 1.6% (24/1471). Four patients experienced bacteremia, all of which were due to E. coli and all of these patients had received antibiotic prophylaxis with an active antibiotic. The use of ciprofloxacin was associated with a lower risk of infection-related complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07, 0.55). Bacteriuria within one year prior to the procedure was associated with increased risk of infection-related complications (OR 4.77, 95% CI 1.34, 16.93). Four (0.3%) patients experienced an antibiotic-related adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a low rate of infection-related complications and antibiotic-related adverse events in the setting of antibiotic prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin and cephalexin for 24 hours, without pre-procedure rectal culture screening. Investigation into procedural or host factors may uncover opportunities to further reduce infection-related complications.

Live Biotherapeutic Products for the Prevention of Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection.

OBJECTIVE: To review the efficacy, safety, and role of live biotherapeutic products (LBPs) in the prevention of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI). DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar (through February 2024) with search terms RBX2660, SER-109, and fecal microbiota. Other resources included abstracts presented at recent conferences, national clinical practice guidelines, and manufacturers' websites. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All relevant studies, trial updates, conference abstracts, and guidelines in the English language were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two LBPs were recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of recurrence in adults following antibiotic treatment for rCDI. Fecal microbiota, live-jslm is administered rectally as a retention enema, whereas fecal microbiota spores, live-brpk is given orally after bowel preparation. Several phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials have established the safety and efficacy of these LBPs in reducing rates of rCDI compared with placebo. Patients with severe immunosuppression and those with inflammatory bowel disease were largely excluded from these trials. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE IN COMPARISON WITH EXISTING DRUGS: Live biotherapeutic products offer a similar mechanism to conventional fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) in preventing rCDI through microbiota restoration. The primary advantages of LBPs over FMT are their standardized composition and donor stool screening processes for transmissible pathogens. Bezlotoxumab is also available for the prevention of Clostridioides difficile infection; however, there are no clinical data available to compare the efficacy of LBPs with bezlotoxumab, and the benefit of simultaneous use of these preventative therapies is unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Live biotherapeutic products provide a safe and effective option for the prevention of rCDI and represent an improvement over conventional FMT. Additional studies are needed to further determine their place in therapy relative to bezlotoxumab and in the setting of immunosuppression and inflammatory bowel disease.

When is vancomycin prophylaxis necessary? Risk factors for MRSA surgical site infection.

Background: The 2022 SHEA/IDSA/APIC guidance for surgical site infection (SSI) prevention recommends reserving vancomycin prophylaxis to patients who are methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonized. Unfortunately, vancomycin prophylaxis remains common due to the overestimation of MRSA risk and the desire to cover MRSA in patients with certain healthcare-associated characteristics. To optimize vancomycin prophylaxis, we sought to identify risk factors for MRSA SSI. Methods: This was a single-center, case-control study of patients with a postoperative SSI after undergoing a National Healthcare Safety Network operative procedure over eight years. MRSA SSI cases were compared to non-MRSA SSI controls. Forty-two demographic, medical, and surgical characteristics were evaluated. Results: Of the 441 patients included, 23 developed MRSA SSIs (rate = 5.2 per 100 SSIs). In the multivariable model, we identified two independent risk factors for MRSA SSI: a history of MRSA colonization or infection (OR, 9.0 [95% CI, 1.9-29.6]) and hip or knee replacement surgery (OR, 3.8 [95% CI, 1.3-9.9]). Hemodialysis, previous hospitalization, and prolonged hospitalization prior to the procedure had no measurable association with odds of MRSA SSI. Conclusions: Patients with prior MRSA colonization or infection had 9-10 times greater odds of MRSA SSI and patients undergoing hip and knee replacement had 3-4 times greater odds of MRSA SSI. Healthcare-associated characteristics, such as previous hospitalization or hemodialysis, were not associated with MRSA SSI. Our findings support national recommendations to reserve vancomycin prophylaxis for patients who are MRSA colonized, as well as those undergoing hip and knee replacement, in the absence of routine MRSA colonization surveillance.

Rethinking Perioperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Low-Risk Head and Neck Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: For true clean-contaminated head and neck procedures, the literature supports ≤24 hours of perioperative antibiotics. However, there are certain otolaryngology procedures with low surgical site infection (SSI) risk for which there is negligible benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis. The objective of this evaluation was to describe antibiotic use and adherence to evidence-based institutional guidelines in low-risk head and neck procedures. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing low-risk clean-contaminated head and neck procedures wherein antibiotic prophylaxis was not indicated, based on evidence-based institutional guidelines. RESULTS: Among the 291 included patients, perioperative antibiotics were unnecessarily administered in 29% of patients. Among patients who received antibiotics, 76% received preoperative antibiotics and 41% received postoperative antibiotics, for a median duration of 7 days. There were no significant differences in SSIs, mortality, and length of stay for those receiving perioperative antibiotics versus those not receiving perioperative antibiotics. CONCLUSION: These data highlight the need for antibiotic stewardship interventions and partnerships between antibiotic stewardship teams and surgical services.

Impact of the sequential implementation of a pharmacy-driven methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal-swab ordering policy and vancomycin 72-hour restriction protocol on standardized antibiotic administration ratio (SAAR) data for antibiotics used for resistant gram-positive infections.

OBJECTIVE: Vancomycin is often initiated in hospitalized patients; however, it may be unnecessary or continued for longer durations than needed. Oversight of all vancomycin orders may not be feasible with widespread prescribing and strategies to enlist other clinicians to serve as stewards of vancomycin use are needed. We implemented 2 sequential interventions: a protocol in which the pharmacist orders MRSA nasal swab followed by a protocol requiring approval from pharmacists to continue vancomycin for >72 hours. METHODS: In this single-center, retrospective, quasi-experimental study, we evaluated vancomycin use after implementation of a pharmacy-driven MRSA nasal-swab ordering protocol and a vancomycin 72-hour restriction protocol. The primary outcome was the change in the standardized antibiotic administration ratio (SAAR) for antibacterial agents for resistant gram-positive infections. We also evaluated the impact on antibiotic utilization. RESULTS: Following the MRSA swab protocol, the SAAR decreased from 1.26 to 1.13 (P < .001; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.25). After the 72-hour approval process, the SAAR was 0.96 (P < .001; 95% CI, 1.0-1.12). Vancomycin utilization decreased from 138.9 to 125.3 days of therapy per 1,000 patient days following the MRSA swab protocol (P < .001) and to 112.7 (P < .001) following the 72-hour approval protocol. Interrupted time-series analysis identified a similar rate of decline in utilization following the 2 interventions (-0.3 and -0.5; P = .16). Both interventions combined resulted in a significant reduction (-1.5; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Implementation of a pharmacist-driven MRSA nasal-swab ordering protocol, followed by a 72-hour approval protocol, was associated with a significant reduction in the SAAR for antibiotics used in the treatment of resistant gram-positive infections and a reduction in vancomycin utilization. Leveraging the oversight of primary service clinical pharmacists through these protocols proved to be an effective strategy.

Current and Emerging Therapies for COVID-19 in Lung Transplantation.

Purpose of Review: The landscape of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has rapidly changed over the past 3 years. Paralleling this evolution, the scientific and medical communities have reported many novel findings relating to the infection's epidemiology, transmission, diagnosis, and treatment. We review pertinent studies of COVID-19 therapeutics with an emphasis on their application to lung transplant recipients. Recent Findings: Agents that have been well-studied for treating COVID-19 include antivirals (remdesivir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, molnupiravir), monoclonal antibodies, and immunomodulators (for example, corticosteroids and tocilizumab). Summary: Remdesivir remains an essential therapy for managing mild-moderate COVID-19. Though highly efficacious for mild-moderate COVID-19 for outpatient therapy, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir has limited use in lung transplant recipients due to significant drug-drug interactions. Monoclonal antibodies, though useful, are the most affected by the emergence of new viral variants.

Treatment options for severe or refractory mpox virus infection in patients with advanced HIV.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a health advisory on the occurrence of severe cases of mpox in immunocompromised patients, namely those with advanced HIV. Treatment options are limited, and very little is known about how to optimally treat patients with severe disease. Herein we describe two cases of severe mpox in Chicago in the setting of advanced HIV and provide suggested guidance for managing cases of severe disease in immunocompromised patients based available data, CDC recommendations, and our experience managing these patients.

Reducing the use of empiric antibiotic therapy in COVID-19 on hospital admission.

BACKGROUND: Empiric antibiotics for community acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) are often prescribed to patients with COVID-19, despite a low reported incidence of co-infections. Stewardship interventions targeted at facilitating appropriate antibiotic prescribing for CABP among COVID-19 patients are needed. We developed a guideline for antibiotic initiation and discontinuation for CABP in COVID-19 patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of this intervention on the duration of empiric CABP antibiotic therapy among patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective, quasi-experimental study of adult patients admitted between 3/1/2020 to 4/25/2020 with COVID-19 pneumonia, who were initiated on empiric CABP antibiotics. Patients were excluded if they were initiated on antibiotics > 48 h following admission or if another source of infection was identified. The primary outcome was the duration of antibiotic therapy (DOT) prior to the guideline (March 1 to March27, 2020) and after guideline implementation (March 28 to April 25, 2020). We also evaluated the clinical outcomes (mortality, readmissions, length of stay) among those initiated on empiric CABP antibiotics. RESULTS: A total of 506 patients with COVID-19 were evaluated, 102 pre-intervention and 404 post-intervention. Prior to the intervention, 74.5% (n = 76) of patients with COVID-19 received empiric antibiotics compared to only 42% of patients post-intervention (n = 170), p < 0.001. The median DOT in the post-intervention group was 1.3 days shorter (p < 0.001) than the pre-intervention group, and antibiotics directed at atypical bacteria DOT was reduced by 2.8 days (p < 0.001). More patients in the post-intervention group were initiated on antibiotics based on criteria consistent with our guideline (68% versus 87%, p = 0.001). There were no differences between groups in terms of clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Following the implementation of a guideline outlining recommendations for initiating and discontinuing antibiotics for CABP among COVID-19 inpatients, we observed a reduction in antibiotic prescribing and DOT. The guideline also resulted in a significant increase in the rate of guideline-congruent empiric antibiotic initiation.

The effect of delays in second-dose antibiotics on patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.

BACKGROUND: Early antibiotics are fundamental to sepsis management. Second-dose antibiotic delays were associated with increased mortality in a recent study. Study objectives include: 1) determine factors associated with delays in second-dose antibiotic administration; 2) evaluate if delays influence clinical outcomes. METHODS: ED-treated adults (≥18 years; n = 1075) with severe sepsis or septic shock receiving ≥2 doses of intravenous antibiotics were assessed, retrospectively, for second-dose antibiotic delays (dose time > 25% of recommended interval). Predictors of delay and impact on outcomes were determined, controlling for MEDS score, 30 mL/kg fluids and antibiotics within three hours of sepsis onset, lactate, and renal failure, among others. RESULTS: In total, 335 (31.2%) patients had delayed second-dose antibiotics. A total of 1864 second-dose antibiotics were included, with 354 (19.0%) delays identified by interval (delayed/total doses): 6-h (36/67) = 53.7%; 8-h (165/544) = 30.3%; 12-h (114/436) = 26.1%; 24-h (21/190) = 8.2%; 48-h (0/16) = 0%. In-hospital mortality in the timely group was 15.5% (shock-17.6%) and 13.7% in the delayed group (shock-16.9%). Increased odds of delay were observed for ED boarding (OR 2.54, 95% 1.81-3.55), shorter dosing intervals (6/8-h- OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.95-4.57; 12-h- OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.72-3.51), receiving 30 mL/kg fluids by three hours (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.06-1.90), and renal failure (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.50-4.39). Delays were not associated with increased mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.58-1.29) or other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Factors associated with delayed second-dose antibiotics include ED boarding, antibiotics requiring more frequent dosing, receiving 30 mL/kg fluid, and renal failure. Delays in second-dose administration were not associated with mortality or other outcomes.

Impact of a structured interview on beta-lactam reaction documentation quality.

Incomplete documentation of ß-lactam reactions often leads to inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a structured interview on the quality of ß-lactam reaction documentation. After 203 interviews, documentation of the core components of a ß-lactam reaction improved (48% vs 1%; P < .001).

Remdesivir Use in the Setting of Severe Renal Impairment: A Theoretical Concern or Real Risk?

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir (RDV) is US FDA approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) but not recommended in severe renal impairment (SRI, Creatinine clearance <30mL/min or requiring renal replacement therapy). Few studies have evaluated RDV in patients with SRI. METHODS: Hospitalized patients who received RDV between 1 May 2020 and 31 October 2020 were analyzed in a retrospective chart review. We compared incident adverse events (AEs) in patients with and without SRI, including hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, any reported AE, mortality, and length of stay. RESULTS: Of a total of 135 patients, 20 had SRI. Patients with SRI were significantly older (70 vs 54 years, P = .0001). The incidence of possible AEs was 30% among those with SRI vs 11% without (P = .06). Liver function test (LFT) elevations occurred in 10% vs 4% (P = .28), and serum creatinine (SCr) elevations in 27% vs 6% (P = .02) of patients with SRI vs without, respectively. LFT and SCr elevations were not attributed to RDV in either group. Mortality and length of stay were consistent with historical controls. CONCLUSIONS: RDV AEs occurred infrequently and overall were not significantly different between those with and without SRI. While more of patients with SRI experienced SCr elevations, 3 (75%) patients had acute kidney injury prior to RDV. The use of RDV in this small series of patients with SRI appeared to be relatively safe, and the potential benefit outweighed the theoretical risk of liver or renal toxicity. Additional studies are needed to confirm this finding.

COVIDOSE: A Phase II Clinical Trial of Low-Dose Tocilizumab in the Treatment of Noncritical COVID-19 Pneumonia.

Interleukin-6 (IL-6)-mediated hyperinflammation may contribute to the mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The IL-6 receptor-blocking monoclonal antibody tocilizumab has been repurposed for COVID-19, but prospective trials and dose-finding studies in COVID-19 have not yet fully reported. We conducted a single-arm phase II trial of low-dose tocilizumab in nonintubated hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19, radiographic pulmonary infiltrate, fever, and C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥ 40 mg/L. We hypothesized that doses significantly lower than the emerging standards of 400 mg or 8 mg/kg would resolve clinical and laboratory indicators of hyperinflammation. A dose range from 40 to 200 mg was evaluated, with allowance for one repeat dose at 24 to 48 hours. The primary objective was to assess the relationship of dose to fever resolution and CRP response. Thirty-two patients received low-dose tocilizumab, with the majority experiencing fever resolution (75%) and CRP decline consistent with IL-6 pathway abrogation (86%) in the 24-48 hours following drug administration. There was no evidence of a relationship between dose and fever resolution or CRP decline over the dose range of 40-200 mg. Within the 28-day follow-up, 5 (16%) patients died. For patients who recovered, median time to clinical recovery was 3 days (interquartile range, 2-5). Clinically presumed and/or cultured bacterial superinfections were reported in 5 (16%) patients. Low-dose tocilizumab was associated with rapid improvement in clinical and laboratory measures of hyperinflammation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Results of this trial provide rationale for a randomized, controlled trial of low-dose tocilizumab in COVID-19.

Community-acquired Coinfection in Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Retrospective Observational Experience.

Community-acquired coinfection in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is not well defined. Current literature describes coinfection in 0-40% of COVID-19 patients. In this retrospective report, coinfection was identified in 3.7% of patients and 41% of patients admitted to intensive care (P < .005). Despite infrequent coinfection, antibiotics were used in 69% of patients.

Investigating the impact of a ß-lactam allergy label on preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis administration.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common postprocedure complication that may be prevented by adhering to established recommendations, including administration of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. Patients with a ß-lactam allergy (BLA) label have an increased risk of SSI. We sought to evaluate the appropriateness of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in patients labeled with a BLA compared those without a BLA. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective, matched cohort study of adult patients who underwent a clean or clean-contaminated knee replacement, abdominal hysterectomy, colorectal surgery, or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Patients with a BLA label were matched to patients without a BLA label based on procedure, age, and body mass index (BMI). The primary end point was the rate of appropriate preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, including antibiotic selection and timing prior to incision. RESULTS: In total, 260 patients were included. Knee replacement (38%) was the most common procedure, followed by abdominal hysterectomy (25%), colorectal surgery (18%), and CABG (18%). Appropriate preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis was higher among patients without a BLA (76% vs 37%; P < .001). Among patients with a mild-to-moderate reaction or intolerance, 29 (53%) received antibiotics that would have been appropriate only if the patient had had a severe BLA. Patients with a BLA were more likely to have had an antibiotic omitted from the prophylactic regimen (44% vs 4%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients with a BLA were more likely to receive inappropriate preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, attributed to misinterpretation of BLA labels and antibiotic omissions. Optimizing antibiotic prophylaxis among patients with BLAs remains an area of opportunity to prevent SSIs.

Late onset infectious complications and safety of tocilizumab in the management of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab (TCZ) has been used in the management of COVID-19-related cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Concerns exist regarding the risk of infections and drug-related toxicities. We sought to evaluate the incidence of these TCZ complications among COVID-19 patients. METHODS: All adult inpatients with COVID-19 between 1 March and 25 April 2020 that received TCZ were included. We compared the rate of late-onset infections (>48 hours following admission) to a control group matched according to intensive care unit admission and mechanical ventilation requirement. Post-TCZ toxicities evaluated included: elevated liver function tests (LFTs), GI perforation, diverticulitis, neutropenia, hypertension, allergic reactions, and infusion-related reactions. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were included in each group. Seventeen infections in the TCZ group (23%) and 6 (8%) infections in the control group occurred >48 hours after admission (P = .013). Most infections were bacterial with pneumonia being the most common manifestation. Among patients receiving TCZ, LFT elevations were observed in 51%, neutropenia in 1.4%, and hypertension in 8%. The mortality rate among those that received TCZ was greater than the control (39% versus 23%, P = .03). CONCLUSION: Late onset infections were significantly more common among those receiving TCZ. Combining infections and TCZ-related toxicities, 61% of patients had a possible post-TCZ complication. While awaiting clinical trial results to establish the efficacy of TCZ for COVID-19 related CRS, the potential for infections and TCZ related toxicities should be carefully weighed when considering use.

IL-6 Inhibition in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients Is Associated With Increased Secondary Infections.

Background: Anti-inflammatory therapies such as IL-6 inhibition have been proposed for COVID-19 in a vacuum of evidence-based treatment. However, abrogating the inflammatory response in infectious diseases may impair a desired host response and pre-dispose to secondary infections. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical record of critically ill COVID-19 patients during an 8-week span and compared the prevalence of secondary infection and outcomes in patients who did and did not receive tocilizumab. Additionally, we included representative histopathologic post-mortem findings from several COVID-19 cases that underwent autopsy at our institution. Results: One hundred eleven patients were identified, of which 54 had received tocilizumab while 57 had not. Receiving tocilizumab was associated with a higher risk of secondary bacterial (48.1 vs. 28.1%; p = 0.029 and fungal (5.6 vs. 0%; p = 0.112) infections. Consistent with higher number of infections, patients who received tocilizumab had higher mortality (35.2 vs. 19.3%; p = 0.020). Seven cases underwent autopsy. In three cases who received tocilizumab, there was evidence of pneumonia on pathology. Of the four cases that had not been given tocilizumab, two showed evidence of aspiration pneumonia and two exhibited diffuse alveolar damage. Conclusions: Experimental therapies are currently being applied to COVID-19 outside of clinical trials. Anti-inflammatory therapies such as anti-IL-6 therapy have the potential to impair viral clearance, pre-dispose to secondary infection, and cause harm. We seek to raise physician awareness of these issues and highlight the need to better understand the immune response in COVID-19.

Automatic ID Consultation for Inpatients With COVID-19: Point, Counterpoint, and a Single-Center Experience.

There are many unknowns with regard to COVID-19 clinical management, including the role of Infectious Diseases Consultation (IDC). As hospitalizations for COVID-19 continue, hospitals are assessing how to optimally and efficiently manage COVID-19 inpatients. Typically, primary teams must determine when IDC is appropriate, and ID clinicians provide consultation upon request of the primary team. IDC has been shown to be beneficial for many conditions; however, the impact of IDC for COVID-19 is unknown. Herein, we discuss the potential benefits and pitfalls of automatic IDC for COVID-19 inpatients. Important considerations include the quality of care provided, allocation and optimization of resources, and clinician satisfaction. Finally, we describe how automatic IDC changed throughout the COVID-19 pandemic at a single academic medical center.