Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients Hospitalized at Acute Care Services: Real-World Experience in the New York Metropolitan Area During the Early Pandemic Before Initiation of Clinical Trials.

As New York became the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic early on, clinicians were challenged to provide optimal medical and pharmaceutical care, despite the paucity of supporting literature and guidance. We sought to describe prescribing patterns and outcomes of physician response to the urgent need to treat COVID-19 patients before initiation of randomized clinical trials. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with COVID-19 initially admitted to acute care services during March 2020. Critically ill patients requiring intensive care unit level of care on admission were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 639 consecutive patients (supportive care, n = 247; treatment n = 392) were included in the analysis. Overall, the 28-day mortality rate was 12.2%. The mortality was 8.7% higher in the treatment group (15.6% vs 6.9% in the supportive care group, P < 0.001). Treatment was not protective against progression to severe disease (18.4% vs 3.6% with supportive care, P < 0.0001). Time to defervescence, duration of oxygen support, and hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay were also higher in the treatment group. In multivariate analysis, 60 years or older, presence of severe disease, and need for ICU admission were identified as independent predictors of 28-day mortality. There were 41 (10.5%) adverse event in the treatment group, with the majority being QT prolongation and gastrointestinal effects. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of hospitalized patients admitted to acute care services, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir or both could not be shown to improve mortality, progression to severe disease, or clinical response.

Multidisciplinary Teams for the Management of Infective Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: The management of infective endocarditis (IE) is complex owing to a high burden of morbidity and mortality. Recent guidelines recommend dedicated multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) for the management of IE. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate and summarize the effect of MDT management on patient outcomes. Methods: A systematic review was performed and, where feasible, results were meta-analyzed; otherwise, results were summarized narratively. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed in duplicate. Restricted maximum likelihood random effects models were used to calculate unadjusted risk ratios and 95% CIs. Results: Screening of 2343 studies based on title and abstract yielded 60 full-text reviews; 18 studies were summarized narratively, of which 15 were included in a meta-analysis of short-term mortality. Meta-analysis resulted in a risk ratio of 0.61 (95% CI, .47-.78; I2 = 62%) for mortality in favor of a dedicated MDT as compared with usual care. Length of stay was variable, with 55% (10/18) of studies reporting an increased length of stay. Most studies (16/18, 88.9%) reported a decreased time to surgery and an increased rate of surgery (13/18, 73%). No studies reported on patient-reported outcomes. Conclusions: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of MDT management on IE. The sum of evidence demonstrated a significant association between MDTs and improved short-term mortality. Further research is needed to evaluate benefits of virtual MDT care, cost-effectiveness, and the impact on patient-reported outcomes and long-term mortality.

Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Infective Endocarditis in Adults: A WikiGuidelines Group Consensus Statement.

Importance: Practice guidelines often provide recommendations in which the strength of the recommendation is dissociated from the quality of the evidence. Objective: To create a clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management of adult bacterial infective endocarditis (IE) that addresses the gap between the evidence and recommendation strength. Evidence Review: This consensus statement and systematic review applied an approach previously established by the WikiGuidelines Group to construct collaborative clinical guidelines. In April 2022 a call to new and existing members was released electronically (social media and email) for the next WikiGuidelines topic, and subsequently, topics and questions related to the diagnosis and management of adult bacterial IE were crowdsourced and prioritized by vote. For each topic, PubMed literature searches were conducted including all years and languages. Evidence was reported according to the WikiGuidelines charter: clear recommendations were established only when reproducible, prospective, controlled studies provided hypothesis-confirming evidence. In the absence of such data, clinical reviews were crafted discussing the risks and benefits of different approaches. Findings: A total of 51 members from 10 countries reviewed 587 articles and submitted information relevant to 4 sections: establishing the diagnosis of IE (9 questions); multidisciplinary IE teams (1 question); prophylaxis (2 questions); and treatment (5 questions). Of 17 unique questions, a clear recommendation could only be provided for 1 question: 3 randomized clinical trials have established that oral transitional therapy is at least as effective as intravenous (IV)-only therapy for the treatment of IE. Clinical reviews were generated for the remaining questions. Conclusions and Relevance: In this consensus statement that applied the WikiGuideline method for clinical guideline development, oral transitional therapy was at least as effective as IV-only therapy for the treatment of IE. Several randomized clinical trials are underway to inform other areas of practice, and further research is needed.

Use of Novel Strategies to Develop Guidelines for Management of Pyogenic Osteomyelitis in Adults: A WikiGuidelines Group Consensus Statement.

Importance: Traditional approaches to practice guidelines frequently result in dissociation between strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. Objective: To construct a clinical guideline for pyogenic osteomyelitis management, with a new standard of evidence to resolve the gap between strength of recommendation and quality of evidence, through the use of a novel open access approach utilizing social media tools. Evidence Review: This consensus statement and systematic review study used a novel approach from the WikiGuidelines Group, an open access collaborative research project, to construct clinical guidelines for pyogenic osteomyelitis. In June 2021 and February 2022, authors recruited via social media conducted multiple PubMed literature searches, including all years and languages, regarding osteomyelitis management; criteria for article quality and inclusion were specified in the group's charter. The GRADE system for evaluating evidence was not used based on previously published concerns regarding the potential dissociation between strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. Instead, the charter required that clear recommendations be made only when reproducible, prospective, controlled studies provided hypothesis-confirming evidence. In the absence of such data, clinical reviews were drafted to discuss pros and cons of care choices. Both clear recommendations and clinical reviews were planned with the intention to be regularly updated as new data become available. Findings: Sixty-three participants with diverse expertise from 8 countries developed the group's charter and its first guideline on pyogenic osteomyelitis. These participants included both nonacademic and academic physicians and pharmacists specializing in general internal medicine or hospital medicine, infectious diseases, orthopedic surgery, pharmacology, and medical microbiology. Of the 7 questions addressed in the guideline, 2 clear recommendations were offered for the use of oral antibiotic therapy and the duration of therapy. In addition, 5 clinical reviews were authored addressing diagnosis, approaches to osteomyelitis underlying a pressure ulcer, timing for the administration of empirical therapy, specific antimicrobial options (including empirical regimens, use of antimicrobials targeting resistant pathogens, the role of bone penetration, and the use of rifampin as adjunctive therapy), and the role of biomarkers and imaging to assess responses to therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: The WikiGuidelines approach offers a novel methodology for clinical guideline development that precludes recommendations based on low-quality data or opinion. The primary limitation is the need for more rigorous clinical investigations, enabling additional clear recommendations for clinical questions currently unresolved by high-quality data.