Symptoms Six Weeks After COVID-19 Are Reduced Among US Health Care Personnel Receiving Additional Vaccine Doses During the Omicron Period, December 2021-April 2022.

Background: The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that subsequent doses of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine are associated with lower incidence of COVID-19-like symptoms at 6 weeks after infection. Methods: This study was a case-control analysis of health care personnel in an ongoing multicenter COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness study. We enrolled participants at the time of COVID-19-like symptoms between December 19, 2021, and April 27, 2022, which corresponded to the early Omicron-predominant period after original monovalent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 additional vaccination doses became available. Our outcome was self-reported symptoms completed 6 weeks after the onset of symptoms. Results: We enrolled 2478 participants, of whom 1422 (57%) had COVID-19. The prevalence of symptoms at 6 weeks was 26% (n = 373) in those with COVID-19 and 18% (n = 195) in those without COVID-19. Fatigue (11%) and difficulty sleeping (7%) were most strongly associated with COVID-19. A total of 1643 (66%) participants received a subsequent vaccine dose (after the primary series). Participants with COVID-19 who had received a subsequent vaccination had lower odds of symptoms at 6 weeks (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.55; 95% CI, 0.43-0.70), but this relationship was not observed in those without COVID-19 (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.59-1.29). Conclusions: Health care personnel who received subsequent doses of original monovalent COVID-19 vaccine had a lower prevalence of symptoms at 6 weeks than those that did not.

Single Intravenous Dose Dalbavancin Pathway for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections: Considerations for Emergency Department Implementation and Cost Savings.

BACKGROUND: A pathway for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) with a single intravenous (IV) dose of dalbavancin was previously shown to reduce hospital admissions and shorten inpatient length of stay (LOS). OBJECTIVES: To describe pathway implementation at the emergency department (ED) and evaluate cost-effectiveness of a single-dose dalbavancin administered to ED patients who would otherwise be hospitalized to receive usual care with multidose IV antibiotics. METHODS: The dalbavancin pathway was previously implemented at 11 U.S. EDs (doi:10.1111/acem.14258). Patients with ABSSSI, without an unstable comorbidity or infection complication requiring complex management, were treated with a single dose of dalbavancin. At the emergency physicians' discretion, patients were either discharged and received outpatient follow-up or were hospitalized for continued management. A decision analytic cost-effectiveness model was developed from the U.S. healthcare's perspective to evaluate costs associated with the dalbavancin pathway compared with inpatient usual care. Costs (2021 USD) were modeled over a 14-day horizon and included ED visits, drug costs, inpatient stay, and physician visits. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses examined input parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Driven largely by the per diem inpatient cost and LOS for usual care, the dalbavancin pathway was associated with savings of $5133.20 per patient and $1211.57 per hospitalization day avoided, compared with inpatient usual care. The results remained robust in sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSION: The new single-dose dalbavancin ED pathway for ABSSSI treatment, which was previously implemented at 11 U.S. EDs, offers robust cost savings compared to inpatient usual care.

Mpox Surveillance Based on Rash Characteristics - 13 Emergency Departments, United States, June-December 2023.

In 2022, a global mpox outbreak occurred, primarily affecting gay and bisexual men who have sex with men (GBMSM). To screen for mpox's reemergence and investigate potentially unsuspected cases among non-GBMSM, prospective surveillance of patients aged ≥3 months with an mpox-compatible rash (vesicular, pustular, ulcerated, or crusted) was conducted at 13 U.S. emergency departments (EDs) during June-December 2023. Demographic, historical, and illness characteristics were collected using questionnaires and electronic health records. Lesions were tested for monkeypox virus using polymerase chain reaction. Among 196 enrolled persons, the median age was 37.5 years (IQR = 21.0-53.5 years); 39 (19.9%) were aged <16 years, and 108 (55.1%) were male. Among all enrollees, 13 (6.6%) were GBMSM. Overall, approximately one half (46.4%) and one quarter (23.5%) of enrolled persons were non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black or African American, respectively, and 38.8% reported Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) ethnicity. Unstable housing was reported by 21 (10.7%) enrollees, and 24 (12.2%) lacked health insurance. The prevalence of mpox among ED patients evaluated for an mpox-compatible rash was 1.5% (95% CI = 0.3%-4.4%); all persons with a confirmed mpox diagnosis identified as GBMSM and reported being HIV-negative, not being vaccinated against mpox, and having engaged in sex with one or more partners met through smartphone dating applications. No cases were identified among women, children, or unhoused persons. Clinicians should remain vigilant for mpox and educate persons at risk for mpox about modifying behaviors that increase risk and the importance of receiving 2 appropriately spaced doses of JYNNEOS vaccine to prevent mpox.

Availability and use of institutional support programs for emergency department healthcare personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic placed health care personnel (HCP) at risk for stress, anxiety, burnout, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). To address this, hospitals developed programs to mitigate risk. The objectives of the current study were to measure the availability and use of these programs in a cohort of academic emergency departments (EDs) in the United States early in the pandemic and identify factors associated with program use. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of ED HCP in 21 academic EDs in 15 states between June and September 2020. Site investigators provided data on the availability of 28 programs grouped into 9 categories. Individual support programs included: financial, workload mitigation, individual COVID-19 testing, emotional (e.g., mental health hotline), and instrumental (e.g., childcare) Clinical work support programs included: COVID-19 team communication (e.g., debriefing critical incident), patient-family communication facilitation, patient services (e.g., social work, ethics consultation), and system-level exposure reduction. Participants provided corresponding data on whether they used the programs. We used generalized linear mixed models clustered on site to measure the association between demographic and facility characteristics and program use. RESULTS: We received 1,541 survey responses (96% response rate) from emergency physicians or advanced practice providers, nurses, and nonclinical staff. Program availability in each of the 9 categories was high (>95% of hospitals). Program use was variable, with clinical work support programs used more frequently (28-50% of eligible HCP across categories) than individual employee support programs (6-13% of eligible HCP across categories). Fifty-seven percent of respondents reported that the COVID-19 pandemic had affected their stress and anxiety, and 12% were at elevated risk for PTSD. Program use did not significantly differ for HCP who reported symptoms of anxiety and/or stress compared to those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Early in the pandemic, support programs were widely available to ED HCP, but program use was low. Future work will focus on identifying barriers and facilitators to use and specific programs most likely to be effective during periods of highest occupational stress.

Interval Appendectomy After Successful Antibiotic Treatment?

This Viewpoint discusses the pros and cons of performing interval appendectomy in patients who have recovered from successful antibiotic treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis.

Race, Ethnicity, and Delayed Time to COVID-19 Testing Among US Health Care Workers.

Importance: Access to COVID-19 testing is critical to reducing transmission and supporting early treatment decisions; when made accessible, the timeliness of testing may also be an important metric in mitigating community spread of the infection. While disparities in transmission and outcomes of COVID-19 have been well documented, the extent of timeliness of testing and the association with demographic factors is unclear. Objectives: To evaluate demographic factors associated with delayed COVID-19 testing among health care personnel (HCP) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Preventing Emerging Infections Through Vaccine Effectiveness Testing study, a multicenter, test-negative, case-control vaccine effectiveness study that enrolled HCP who had COVID-19 symptoms and testing between December 2020 and April 2022. Data analysis was conducted from March 2022 to Junne 2023. Exposure: Displaying COVID-19-like symptoms and polymerase chain reaction testing occurring from the first day symptoms occurred up to 14 days after symptoms occurred. Main Outcomes and Measures: Variables of interest included patient demographics (sex, age, and clinical comorbidities) and COVID-19 characteristics (vaccination status and COVID-19 wave). The primary outcome was time from symptom onset to COVID-19 testing, which was defined as early testing (≤2 days) or delayed testing (≥3 days). Associations of demographic characteristics with delayed testing were measured while adjusting for clinical comorbidities, COVID-19 characteristics, and test site using multivariable modeling to estimate relative risks and 95% CIs. Results: A total of 5551 HCP (4859 female [82.9%]; 1954 aged 25-34 years [35.2%]; 4233 non-Hispanic White [76.3%], 370 non-Hispanic Black [6.7%], and 324 non-Hispanic Asian [5.8%]) were included in the final analysis. Overall, 2060 participants (37.1%) reported delayed testing and 3491 (62.9%) reported early testing. Compared with non-Hispanic White HCP, delayed testing was higher among non-Hispanic Black HCP (adjusted risk ratio, 1.18; 95%CI, 1.10-1.27) and for non-Hispanic HCP of other races (adjusted risk ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.33). Sex and age were not associated with delayed testing. Compared with clinical HCP with graduate degrees, all other professional and educational groups had significantly delayed testing. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of HCP, compared with non-Hispanic White HCP and clinical HCP with graduate degrees, non-Hispanic Black HCP, non-Hispanic HCP of other races, and HCP all other professional and education backgrounds were more likely to have delayed COVID-19 testing. These findings suggest that time to testing may serve as a valuable metric in evaluating sociodemographic disparities in the response to COVID-19 and future health mitigation strategies.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infections Among Emergency Health Care Personnel: Impact on Delivery of United States Emergency Medical Care, 2020.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In the early months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and before vaccine availability, there were concerns that infected emergency department (ED) health care personnel could present a threat to the delivery of emergency medical care. We examined how the pandemic affected staffing levels and whether COVID-19 positive staff were potentially infectious at work in a cohort of US ED health care personnel in 2020. METHODS: The COVID-19 Evaluation of Risks in Emergency Departments (Project COVERED) project was a multicenter prospective cohort study of US ED health care personnel conducted from May to December 2020. During surveillance, health care personnel completed weekly electronic surveys and underwent periodic serology and nasal reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing for SARS-CoV-2, and investigators captured weekly data on health care facility COVID-19 prevalence and health care personnel staffing. Surveys asked about symptoms, potential exposures, work attendance, personal protective equipment use, and behaviors. RESULTS: We enrolled 1,673 health care personnel who completed 29,825 person weeks of surveillance. Eighty-nine (5.3%) health care personnel documented 90 (0.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2% to 0.4%) person weeks of missed work related to documented or concerns for COVID-19 infection. Health care personnel experienced symptoms of COVID-19 during 1,256 (4.2%) person weeks and worked at least one shift whereas symptomatic during 1,042 (83.0%) of these periods. Seventy-five (4.5%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the surveillance period, including 43 (57.3%) who indicated they never experienced symptoms; 74 (98.7%; 95% CI 90.7% to 99.9%) infected health care personnel worked at least one shift during the initial period of infection, and 71 (94.7%) continued working until laboratory confirmation of their infection. Physician staffing was not associated with the facility or community COVID-19 levels within any time frame studied (Kendall tau's 0.02, 0.056, and 0.081 for no shift, one-week time shift, and 2-week time shift, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: During the first wave of the pandemic, COVID-19 infections in ED health care personnel were infrequent, and the time lost from the workforce was minimal. Health care personnel frequently reported for work while infected with SARS-CoV-2 before laboratory confirmation. The ED staffing levels were poorly correlated with facility and community COVID-19 burden.

Empirical antimicrobial prescribing for pyelonephritis in patients discharged from 15 US Emergency Departments: an opportunity for improvement.

BACKGROUND: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are commonly treated in the emergency department (ED), and unfortunately, resistance to first-line agents is increasing. OBJECTIVES: To characterize treatment of pyelonephritis in a nationally representative sample of ED patients and to identify patient- and treatment-specific factors associated with receiving initial inactive antibiotics. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, observational cohort study utilizing the Emergency Medicine PHARMacotherapy Research NETwork (EMPHARM-NET), comprising 15 geographically diverse US EDs. All patients ≥18 years of age with a diagnosis of pyelonephritis between 2018 and 2020 were included. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received initial inactive empirical antibiotic therapy and to identify predictive factors of inactive antibiotic therapy. RESULTS: Of the 3714 patients evaluated, 223 had culture-positive pyelonephritis. Median patient age was 50.1 years and patients were mostly female (78.3%). Overall, 40.4% of patients received an IV antibiotic, most commonly ceftriaxone (86.7%). The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were cefalexin (31.8%), ciprofloxacin (14.3%), cefdinir (13.5%) and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (12.6%). Overall, 10.3% of patients received initial inactive therapy. After adjustment in a multivariable analysis, long-acting IV antibiotic was predictive of inactive therapy (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: In our prospective, multicentre observational study, we found that only 40.4% of patients with pyelonephritis received empirical IV antibiotics in the ED, contributing to inactive therapy. Receipt of long-acting IV antibiotics was independently associated with a decreased rate of initial inactive therapy. This reinforces guideline recommendations to administer long-acting IV antibiotics empirically in the ED upon suspicion of pyelonephritis.

Effectiveness of a bivalent mRNA vaccine dose against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection among U.S. Healthcare personnel, September 2022-May 2023.

BACKGROUND: Bivalent mRNA vaccines were recommended since September 2022. However, coverage with a recent vaccine dose has been limited, and there are few robust estimates of bivalent VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA vaccine dose against COVID-19 among eligible U.S. healthcare personnel who had previously received monovalent mRNA vaccine doses. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study in 22 U.S. states, and enrolled healthcare personnel with COVID-19 (case-participants) or without COVID-19 (control-participants) during September 2022-May 2023. Participants were considered eligible for a bivalent mRNA dose if they had received 2-4 monovalent (ancestral-strain) mRNA vaccine doses, and were ≥67 days after the most recent vaccine dose. We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA dose using conditional logistic regression, accounting for matching by region and four-week calendar period. We adjusted estimates for age group, sex, race and ethnicity, educational level, underlying health conditions, community COVID-19 exposure, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and days since the last monovalent mRNA dose. RESULTS: Among 3,647 healthcare personnel, 1,528 were included as case-participants and 2,119 as control-participants. Participants received their last monovalent mRNA dose a median of 404 days previously; 1,234 (33.8%) also received a bivalent mRNA dose a median of 93 days previously. Overall, VE of a bivalent dose was 34.1% (95% CI, 22.6%-43.9%) against COVID-19 and was similar by product, days since last monovalent dose, number of prior doses, age group, and presence of underlying health conditions. However, VE declined from 54.8% (95% CI, 40.7%-65.6%) after 7-59 days to 21.6% (95% CI 5.6%-34.9%) after ≥60 days. CONCLUSIONS: Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines initially conferred approximately 55% protection against COVID-19 among U.S. healthcare personnel. However, protection waned after two months. These findings indicate moderate initial protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection by remaining up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccines.

Factors associated with the decision to receive bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccination among health care personnel.

COVID-19 vaccination is effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 complications, but uptake has been low. Our objective in this study was to compare the importance of factors reported to influence the decision to receive a bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccine among health care personnel (HCP) tested for SARS-CoV-2 between October 2022 and April 2023 in a 20-hospital vaccine effectiveness study in the United States (n = 1656). Compared with those who had not received the booster, the factors most likely to be reported to be important were concerns about contracting COVID-19 (84.0% of those who had received the bivalent booster vs. 47.5% of those who had not, difference 36.6% points (PP), 95% confidence interval [CI] 32.1 to 41.1%), spreading infection to family members (89.2% vs. 62.8%, difference 26.3 PP, 95% CI 22.3 to 30.4%), and spreading infection to colleagues at work (85.5% vs. 59.4%, difference 26.1 PP, 95% CI 21.7 to 30.5%). HCP who had received the booster more frequently cited the primary literature (61.7% vs. 31.8%, difference 29.9 PP, 95% CI 24.6 to 35.2%) and employer recommendations (48.3% vs. 29.8%, difference 18.5 PP, 95% CI 13.2 to 23.9%) as influencing their decision. This analysis provides insight into factors for targeting future vaccine messaging.

Effectiveness of a Messenger RNA Vaccine Booster Dose Against Coronavirus Disease 2019 Among US Healthcare Personnel, October 2021-July 2022.

Background: Protection against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) can limit transmission and the risk of post-COVID conditions, and is particularly important among healthcare personnel. However, lower vaccine effectiveness (VE) has been reported since predominance of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant. Methods: We evaluated the VE of a monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) booster dose against COVID-19 from October 2021 to June 2022 among US healthcare personnel. After matching case-participants with COVID-19 to control-participants by 2-week period and site, we used conditional logistic regression to estimate the VE of a booster dose compared with completing only 2 mRNA doses >150 days previously, adjusted for multiple covariates. Results: Among 3279 case-participants and 3998 control-participants who had completed 2 mRNA doses, we estimated that the VE of a booster dose against COVID-19 declined from 86% (95% confidence interval, 81%-90%) during Delta predominance to 65% (58%-70%) during Omicron predominance. During Omicron predominance, VE declined from 73% (95% confidence interval, 67%-79%) 14-60 days after the booster dose, to 32% (4%-52%) ≥120 days after a booster dose. We found that VE was similar by age group, presence of underlying health conditions, and pregnancy status on the test date, as well as among immunocompromised participants. Conclusions: A booster dose conferred substantial protection against COVID-19 among healthcare personnel. However, VE was lower during Omicron predominance, and waning effectiveness was observed 4 months after booster dose receipt during this period. Our findings support recommendations to stay up to date on recommended doses of COVID-19 vaccines for all those eligible.

Trial Participation and Outcomes Among English-Speaking and Spanish-Speaking Patients With Appendicitis Randomized to Antibiotics: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Spanish-speaking participants are underrepresented in clinical trials, limiting study generalizability and contributing to ongoing health inequity. The Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial intentionally included Spanish-speaking participants. Objective: To describe trial participation and compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes among Spanish-speaking and English-speaking participants with acute appendicitis randomized to antibiotics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, a pragmatic randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy with appendectomy in adult patients with imaging-confirmed appendicitis enrolled at 25 centers across the US from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. The trial was conducted in English and Spanish. All 776 participants randomized to antibiotics are included in this analysis. The data were analyzed from November 15, 2021, through August 24, 2022. Intervention: Randomization to a 10-day course of antibiotics or appendectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Trial participation, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire scores (higher scores indicating a better health status), rate of appendectomy, treatment satisfaction, decisional regret, and days of work missed. Outcomes are also reported for a subset of participants that were recruited from the 5 sites with a large proportion of Spanish-speaking participants. Results: Among eligible patients 476 of 1050 Spanish speakers (45%) and 1076 of 3982 of English speakers (27%) consented, comprising the 1552 participants who underwent 1:1 randomization (mean age, 38.0 years; 976 male [63%]). Of the 776 participants randomized to antibiotics, 238 were Spanish speaking (31%). Among Spanish speakers randomized to antibiotics, the rate of appendectomy was 22% (95% CI, 17%-28%) at 30 days and 45% (95% CI, 38%-52%) at 1 year, while in English speakers, these rates were 20% (95% CI, 16%-23%) at 30 days and 42% (95% CI 38%-47%) at 1 year. Mean EQ-5D scores were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.95) among Spanish speakers and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.93) among English speakers. Symptom resolution at 30 days was reported by 68% (95% CI, 61%-74%) of Spanish speakers and 69% (95% CI, 64%-73%) of English speakers. Spanish speakers missed 6.69 (95% CI, 5.51-7.87) days of work on average, while English speakers missed 3.76 (95% CI, 3.20-4.32) days. Presentation to the emergency department or urgent care, hospitalization, treatment dissatisfaction, and decisional regret were low for both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: A high proportion of Spanish speakers participated in the CODA trial. Clinical and most patient-reported outcomes were similar for English- and Spanish-speaking participants treated with antibiotics. Spanish speakers reported more days of missed work. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Presence of symptoms 6 weeks after COVID-19 among vaccinated and unvaccinated US healthcare personnel: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Although COVID-19 vaccines offer protection against infection and severe disease, there is limited information on the effect of vaccination on prolonged symptoms following COVID-19. Our objective was to determine differences in prevalence of prolonged symptoms 6 weeks after onset of COVID-19 among healthcare personnel (HCP) by vaccination status, and to assess differences in timing of return to work. DESIGN: Cohort analysis of HCP with COVID-19 enrolled in a multicentre vaccine effectiveness study. HCP with COVID-19 between December 2020 and August 2021 were followed up 6 weeks after illness onset. SETTING: Health systems in 12 US states. PARTICIPANTS: HCP participating in a vaccine effectiveness study were eligible for inclusion if they had laboratory-confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 with mRNA vaccination (symptom onset ≥14 days after two doses) or no prior vaccination. Among 681 eligible participants, 419 (61%) completed a follow-up survey to assess symptoms reported 6 weeks after illness onset. EXPOSURES: Two doses of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine compared with no COVID-19 vaccine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of symptoms 6 weeks after onset of COVID-19 illness and days to return to work. RESULTS: Among 419 HCP with COVID-19, 298 (71%) reported one or more COVID-like symptoms 6 weeks after illness onset, with a lower prevalence among vaccinated participants compared with unvaccinated participants (60.6% vs 79.1%; adjusted risk ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.84). Following their illness, vaccinated HCP returned to work a median 2.0 days (95% CI 1.0 to 3.0) sooner than unvaccinated HCP (adjusted HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.79). CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of two doses of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine among HCP with COVID-19 illness was associated with decreased prevalence of COVID-like symptoms at 6 weeks and earlier return to work.

Perception of Treatment Success and Impact on Function with Antibiotics or Appendectomy for Appendicitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial with an Observational Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To compare secondary patient reported outcomes of perceptions of treatment success and function for patients treated for appendicitis with appendectomy vs. antibiotics at 30 days. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy trial found antibiotics noninferior to appendectomy based on 30-day health status. To address questions about outcomes among participants with lower socioeconomic status, we explored the relationship of sociodemographic and clinical factors and outcomes. METHODS: We focused on 4 patient reported outcomes at 30 days: high decisional regret, dissatisfaction with treatment, problems performing usual activities, and missing >10 days of work. The randomized (RCT) and observational cohorts were pooled for exploration of baseline factors. The RCT cohort alone was used for comparison of treatments. Logistic regression was used to assess associations. RESULTS: The pooled cohort contained 2062 participants; 1552 from the RCT. Overall, regret and dissatisfaction were low whereas problems with usual activities and prolonged missed work occurred more frequently. In the RCT, those assigned to antibiotics had more regret (Odd ratios (OR) 2.97, 95% Confidence intervals (CI) 2.05-4.31) and dissatisfaction (OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.25-3.12), and reported less missed work (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.27-0.56). Factors associated with function outcomes included sociodemographic and clinical variables for both treatment arms. Fewer factors were associated with dissatisfaction and regret. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants reported high satisfaction, low regret, and were frequently able to resume usual activities and return to work. When comparing treatments for appendicitis, no single measure defines success or failure for all people. The reported data may inform discussions regarding the most appropriate treatment for individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Endotracheal Intubation Strategy, Success, and Adverse Events Among Emergency Department Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To describe endotracheal intubation practices in emergency departments by staff intubating patients early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: Multicenter prospective cohort study of endotracheal intubations conducted at 20 US academic emergency departments from May to December 2020, stratified by known or suspected COVID-19 status. We used multivariable regression to measure the association between intubation strategy, COVID-19 known or suspected status, first-pass success, and adverse events. RESULTS: There were 3,435 unique emergency department endotracheal intubations by 586 participating physicians or advanced practice providers; 565 (18%) patients were known or suspected of having COVID-19 at the time of endotracheal intubation. Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubations of patients with known or suspected COVID-19 were more often performed using video laryngoscopy (88% versus 82%, difference 6.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0% to 9.6%) and passive nasal oxygenation (44% versus 39%, difference 5.1%; 95% CI, 0.9% to 9.3%). First-pass success was not different between those who were and were not known or suspected of COVID-19 (87% versus 86%, difference 0.6%; 95% CI, -2.4% to 3.6%). Adjusting for patient characteristics and procedure factors in those with low anticipated airway difficulty (n=2,374), adverse events (most commonly hypoxia) occurred more frequently in patients with known or suspected COVID-19 (35% versus 19%, adjusted odds ratio 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.3). CONCLUSION: Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubation of those confirmed or suspected to have COVID-19 was associated with a similar first-pass intubation success rate but higher risk-adjusted adverse events.

Association of Appendicitis Incidence With Warmer Weather Independent of Season.

Importance: Acute appendicitis is a common cause of abdominal pain and the most common reason for emergency surgery in several countries. Increased cases during summer months have been reported. Objective: To investigate the incidence of acute appendicitis by considering local temperature patterns in geographic regions with different climate over several years. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used insurance claims data from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database and the Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits Database from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2017. The cohort included individuals at risk for appendicitis who were enrolled in US insurance plans that contribute data to the MarketScan databases. Cases of appendicitis in the inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department settings were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification or International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes. Local weather data were obtained for individuals living in a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) from the Integrated Surface Database. Associations were characterized using a fixed-effects generalized linear model based on a negative binomial distribution. The model was adjusted for age, sex, and day of week and included fixed effects for year and MSA. The generalized linear model was fit with a piecewise linear model by searching each 0.56 °C in temperature for change points. To further isolate the role of temperature, observed temperature was replaced with the expected temperature and the deviation of the observed temperature from the expected temperature for a given city on a given day of year. Data were analyzed from October 1, 2021, to July 31, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the daily number of appendicitis cases in a given city stratified by age and sex, with mean temperature in the MSA over the previous 7 days as the independent variable. Results: A total of 450 723 744 person-years at risk and 689 917 patients with appendicitis (mean [SD] age, 35 [18] years; 347 473 male [50.4%] individuals) were included. Every 5.56 °C increase in temperature was associated with a 1.3% increase in the incidence of appendicitis (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02) when temperatures were 10.56 °C or lower and a 2.9% increase in incidence (IRR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.03-1.03) for temperatures higher than 10.56 °C. In terms of temperature deviations, a higher-than-expected temperature increase greater than 5.56 °C was associated with a 3.3% (95% CI, 1.0%-5.7%) increase in the incidence of appendicitis compared with days with near-0 deviations. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study observed seasonality in the incidence of appendicitis and found an association between increased incidence and warmer weather. These results could help elucidate the mechanism of appendicitis.

Association of Patient Belief About Success of Antibiotics for Appendicitis and Outcomes: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: A patient's belief in the likely success of a treatment may influence outcomes, but this has been understudied in surgical trials. Objective: To examine the association between patients' baseline beliefs about the likelihood of treatment success with outcomes of antibiotics for appendicitis in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a secondary analysis of the CODA randomized clinical trial. Participants from 25 US medical centers were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. Included in the analysis were participants with appendicitis who were randomly assigned to receive antibiotics in the CODA trial. After informed consent but before randomization, participants who were assigned to receive antibiotics responded to a baseline survey including a question about how successful they believed antibiotics could be in treating their appendicitis. Interventions: Participants were categorized based on baseline survey responses into 1 of 3 belief groups: unsuccessful/unsure, intermediate, and completely successful. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three outcomes were assigned at 30 days: (1) appendectomy, (2) high decisional regret or dissatisfaction with treatment, and (3) persistent signs and symptoms (abdominal pain, tenderness, fever, or chills). Outcomes were compared across groups using adjusted risk differences (aRDs), with propensity score adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Results: Of the 776 study participants who were assigned antibiotic treatment in CODA, a total of 425 (mean [SD] age, 38.5 [13.6] years; 277 male [65%]) completed the baseline belief survey before knowing their treatment assignment. Baseline beliefs were as follows: 22% of participants (92 of 415) had an unsuccessful/unsure response, 51% (212 of 415) had an intermediate response, and 27% (111 of 415) had a completely successful response. Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those who believed antibiotics could be completely successful had a 13-percentage point lower risk of appendectomy (aRD, -13.49; 95% CI, -24.57 to -2.40). The aRD between those with intermediate vs unsuccessful/unsure beliefs was -5.68 (95% CI, -16.57 to 5.20). Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those with intermediate beliefs had a lower risk of persistent signs and symptoms (aRD, -15.72; 95% CI, -29.71 to -1.72), with directionally similar results for the completely successful group (aRD, -15.14; 95% CI, -30.56 to 0.28). Conclusions and Relevance: Positive patient beliefs about the likely success of antibiotics for appendicitis were associated with a lower risk of appendectomy and with resolution of signs and symptoms by 30 days. Pathways relating beliefs to outcomes and the potential modifiability of beliefs to improve outcomes merit further investigation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.