Real-World Effectiveness of Intravenous and Oral Antibiotic Stepdown Strategies for Gram-Negative Complicated Urinary Tract Infection With Bacteremia.

Background: Robust data are lacking regarding the optimal route, duration, and antibiotic choice for gram-negative bloodstream infection from a complicated urinary tract infection source (GN-BSI/cUTI). Methods: In this multicenter observational cohort study, we simulated a 4-arm registry trial using a causal inference method to compare effectiveness of the following regimens for GN-BSI/cUTI: complete course of an intravenous ß-lactam (IVBL) or oral stepdown therapy within 7 days using fluoroquinolones (FQs), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), or high-bioavailability ß-lactams (HBBLs). Adults treated between January 2016 and December 2022 for Escherichia coli or Klebsiella species GN-BSI/cUTI were included. Propensity weighting was used to balance characteristics between groups. The 60-day recurrence was compared using a multinomial Cox proportional hazards model with probability of treatment weighting. Results: Of 2571 patients screened, 759 (30%) were included. Characteristics were similar between groups. Compared with IVBLs, we did not observe a difference in effectiveness for FQs (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.09 [95% confidence interval, .49-2.43]) or TMP-SMX (1.44 [.54-3.87]), and the effectiveness of TMP-SMX/FQ appeared to be optimal at durations of >10 days. HBBLs were associated with nearly 4-fold higher risk of recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.83 [95% confidence interval, 1.76-8.33]), which was not mitigated by longer treatment durations. Most HBBLs (67%) were not optimally dosed for bacteremia. Results were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: These real-world data suggest that oral stepdown therapy with FQs or TMP-SMX have similar effectiveness as IVBLs. HBBLs were associated with higher recurrence rates, but dosing was suboptimal. Further data are needed to define optimal dosing and duration to mitigate treatment failures.

Real-world use of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in COVID-19 outpatients during BQ.1, BQ.1.1., and XBB.1.5 predominant omicron variants in three U.S. health systems: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: Ritonavir-boosted Nirmatrelvir (NMV-r), a protease inhibitor with in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, can reduce risk of progression to severe COVID-19 among high-risk individuals infected with earlier variants, but less is known about its effectiveness against omicron variants BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5. We sought to evaluate effectiveness of NMV-r in BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5 omicron variants by comparing hospitalisation rates to NMV-r treated patients during a previous omicron phase and to contemporaneous untreated patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of non-hospitalised adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection using real-world data from three health systems in Colorado and Utah, and compared hospitalisation rates in NMV-r-treated patients in a BA.2/BA.2.12.1/BA.4/BA.5 variant-predominant (first) phase (April 3, 2022-November 12, 2022), with a BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5 variant-predominant (second) phase (November 13, 2022-March 7, 2023). In the primary analysis, we used Firth logistic regression with a two-segment (phase) linear time model, and pre-specified non-inferiority bounds for the mean change between segments. In a pre-specified secondary analysis, we inferred NMV-r effectiveness in a cohort of treated and untreated patients infected during the second phase. For both analyses, the primary outcome was 28-day all-cause hospitalisation. Subgroup analyses assessed treatment effect heterogeneity. Findings: In the primary analysis, 28-day all-cause hospitalisation rates in NMV-r treated patients in the second phase (n = 12,061) were non-inferior compared to the first phase (n = 25,075) (198 [1.6%] vs. 345 [1.4%], adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.76 [95% CI 0.54-1.06]), with consistent results among secondary endpoints and key subgroups. Secondary cohort analyses revealed additional evidence for NMV-r effectiveness, with reduced 28-day hospitalisation rates among treated patients compared to untreated patients during a BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5 predominant phase (198/12,061 [1.6%] vs. 376/10,031 [3.7%], aOR 0.34 [95% CI 0.30-0.38), findings robust to additional sensitivity analyses. Interpretation: Real-world evidence from major US healthcare systems suggests ongoing NMV-r effectiveness in preventing hospitalisation during a BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5-predominant phase in the U.S, supporting its continued use in similar patient populations. Funding: U.S. National Institutes of Health.

Oral ß-Lactams, Fluoroquinolones, or Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole for Definitive Treatment of Uncomplicated Escherichia coli or Klebsiella Species Bacteremia From a Urinary Tract Source.

Background: Fluoroquinolones (FQs) are effective for oral step-down therapy for gram-negative bloodstream infections but are associated with unfavorable toxic effects. Robust data are lacking for trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) and high-bioavailability ß-lactams (HBBLs). Methods: In this multicenter observational cohort study, we simulated a 3-arm registry trial using causal inference methods to compare the effectiveness of FQs, TMP-SMX, or HBBLs for gram-negative bloodstream infections oral step-down therapy. The study included adults treated between January 2016 and December 2022 for uncomplicated Escherichia coli or Klebsiella species bacteremia of urinary tract origin who were who were transitioned to an oral regimen after ≤4 days of effective intravenous antibiotics. Propensity weighting was used to balance characteristics between groups. 60-day recurrence was compared using a multinomial Cox proportional hazards model with probability of treatment weighting. Results: Of 2571 patients screened, 648 (25%) were included. Their median age (interquartile range) was 67 (45-78) years, and only 103 (16%) were male. Characteristics were well balanced between groups. Compared with FQs, TMP-SMX had similar effectiveness (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% confidence interval, .30-2.78]), and HBBLs had a higher risk of recurrence (2.19 [.95-5.01]), although this difference was not statistically significant. Most HBBLs (70%) were not optimally dosed for bacteremia. A total antibiotic duration ≤8 days was associated with a higher recurrence rate in select patients with risk factors for failure. Conclusions: FQs and TMP-SMX had similar effectiveness in this real-world data set. HBBLs were associated with higher recurrence rates but suboptimal dosing may have contributed. Further studies are needed to define optimal BL dosing and duration to mitigate treatment failures.

Effect of tele-COVID rounds and a tele-stewardship intervention on antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients admitted to 17 small community hospitals.

Antibiotic stewardship interventions are urgently needed to reduce antibiotic overuse in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, particularly in small community hospitals (SCHs), who often lack access to infectious diseases (ID) and stewardship resources. We implemented multidisciplinary tele-COVID rounds plus tele-antibiotic stewardship surveillance in 17 SCHs to standardize COVID management and evaluate concurrent antibiotics for discontinuation. Antibiotic use was compared in the 4 months preintervention versus 10 months postintervention. Interrupted time-series analysis demonstrated an immediate decrease in antibiotic use by 339 days of therapy/1000 COVID-19 patient days (p < .001), and an estimated 5258 antibiotic days avoided during the postintervention period. Thirty-day mortality was not significantly different, and a significant reduction in transfers was observed following the intervention (23.3% vs. 7.8%, p < .001). A novel tele-ID and tele-stewardship intervention significantly decreased antibiotic use and transfers among COVID-19 patients at 17 SCHs, demonstrating that telehealth is a feasible way to provide ID expertise in community and rural settings.

Concordance Between Initial Presumptive and Final Adjudicated Diagnoses of Infection Among Patients Meeting Sepsis-3 Criteria in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines emphasize rapid antibiotic treatment for sepsis, but infection presence is often uncertain at initial presentation. We investigated the incidence and drivers of false-positive presumptive infection diagnosis among emergency department (ED) patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria. METHODS: For a retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized after meeting Sepsis-3 criteria (acute organ failure and suspected infection including blood cultures drawn and intravenous antimicrobials administered) in 1 of 4 EDs from 2013 to 2017, trained reviewers first identified the ED-diagnosed source of infection and adjudicated the presence and source of infection on final assessment. Reviewers subsequently adjudicated final infection probability for a randomly selected 10% subset of subjects. Risk factors for false-positive infection diagnosis and its association with 30-day mortality were evaluated using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Of 8267 patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED, 699 (8.5%) did not have an infection on final adjudication and 1488 (18.0%) patients with confirmed infections had a different source of infection diagnosed in the ED versus final adjudication (ie, initial/final source diagnosis discordance). Among the subset of patients whose final infection probability was adjudicated (n = 812), 79 (9.7%) had only "possible" infection and 77 (9.5%) were not infected. Factors associated with false-positive infection diagnosis included hypothermia, altered mental status, comorbidity burden, and an "unknown infection source" diagnosis in the ED (odds ratio: 6.39; 95% confidence interval: 5.14-7.94). False-positive infection diagnosis was not associated with 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this large multihospital study, <20% of ED patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria had no infection or only possible infection on retrospective adjudication.

A Fully Integrated Infectious Diseases and Antimicrobial Stewardship Telehealth Service Improves Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia Bundle Adherence and Outcomes in 16 Small Community Hospitals.

Background: Infectious diseases (ID) and antimicrobial stewardship (AS) improve Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) outcomes. However, many small community hospitals (SCHs) lack on-site access to these services, and it is not known if ID telehealth (IDt) offers the same benefit for SAB. We evaluated the impact of an integrated IDt service on SAB outcomes in 16 SCHs. Methods: An IDt service offering IDt physician consultation plus IDt pharmacist surveillance was implemented in October 2016. Patients treated for SAB in 16 SCHs between January 2009 and August 2019 were identified for review. We compared SAB bundle adherence and outcomes between patients with and without an IDt consult (IDt group and control group, respectively). Results: A total of 423 patients met inclusion criteria: 157 in the IDt group and 266 in the control group. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Among patients completing their admission at an SCH, IDt consultation increased SAB bundle adherence (79% vs 23%; odds ratio [OR], 16.9; 95% CI, 9.2-31.0). Thirty-day mortality and 90-day SAB recurrence favored the IDt group, but the differences were not statistically significant (5% vs 9%; P = .2; and 2% vs 6%; P = .09; respectively). IDt consultation significantly decreased 30-day SAB-related readmissions (9% vs 17%; P = .045) and increased length of stay (median [IQR], 5 [5-8] days vs 5 [3-7] days; P = .04). In a subgroup of SAB patients with a controllable source, IDt appeared to have a mortality benefit (2% vs 9%; OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.01-0.98). Conclusions: An integrated ID/AS telehealth service improved SAB management and outcomes at 16 SCHs. These findings provide important insights for other IDt programs.

Association of the Intermountain Risk Score with major adverse health events in patients positive for COVID-19: an observational evaluation of a US cohort.

OBJECTIVES: The Intermountain Risk Score (IMRS), composed using published sex-specific weightings of parameters in the complete blood count (CBC) and basic metabolic profile (BMP), is a validated predictor of mortality. We hypothesised that IMRS calculated from prepandemic CBC and BMP predicts COVID-19 outcomes and that IMRS using laboratory results tested at COVID-19 diagnosis is also predictive. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Primary, secondary, urgent and emergent care, and drive-through testing locations across Utah and in sections of adjacent US states. Viral RNA testing for SARS-CoV-2 was conducted from 3 March to 2 November 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥18 years were evaluated if they had CBC and BMP measured in 2019 and tested positive for COVID-19 in 2020. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalisation or mortality, with secondary outcomes being hospitalisation and mortality separately. RESULTS: Among 3883 patients, 8.2% were hospitalised and 1.6% died. Subjects with low, mild, moderate and high-risk IMRS had the composite endpoint in 3.5% (52/1502), 8.6% (108/1256), 15.5% (152/979) and 28.1% (41/146) of patients, respectively. Compared with low-risk, subjects in mild-risk, moderate-risk and high-risk groups had HR=2.33 (95% CI 1.67 to 3.24), HR=4.01 (95% CI 2.93 to 5.50) and HR=8.34 (95% CI 5.54 to 12.57), respectively. Subjects aged <60 years had HR=3.06 (95% CI 2.01 to 4.65) and HR=7.38 (95% CI 3.14 to 17.34) for moderate and high risks versus low risk, respectively; those ≥60 years had HR=1.95 (95% CI 0.99 to 3.86) and HR=3.40 (95% CI 1.63 to 7.07). In multivariable analyses, IMRS was independently predictive and was shown to capture substantial risk variation of comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: IMRS, a simple risk score using very basic laboratory results, predicted COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality. This included important abilities to identify risk in younger adults with few diagnosed comorbidities and to predict risk prior to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

A Pragmatic, Stepped-Wedge, Cluster-controlled Clinical Trial of Real-Time Pneumonia Clinical Decision Support.

Rationale: Care of emergency department (ED) patients with pneumonia can be challenging. Clinical decision support may decrease unnecessary variation and improve care. Objectives: To report patient outcomes and processes of care after deployment of electronic pneumonia clinical decision support (ePNa): a comprehensive, open loop, real-time clinical decision support embedded within the electronic health record. Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-controlled trial with deployment at 2-month intervals in 16 community hospitals. ePNa extracts real-time and historical data to guide diagnosis, risk stratification, microbiological studies, site of care, and antibiotic therapy. We included all adult ED patients with pneumonia over the course of 3 years identified by International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision discharge coding confirmed by chest imaging. Measurements and Main Results: The median age of the 6,848 patients was 67 years (interquartile range, 50-79), and 48% were female; 64.8% were hospital admitted. Unadjusted mortality was 8.6% before and 4.8% after deployment. A mixed effects logistic regression model adjusting for severity of illness with hospital cluster as the random effect showed an adjusted odds ratio of 0.62 (0.49-0.79; P < 0.001) for 30-day all-cause mortality after deployment. Lower mortality was consistent across hospital clusters. ePNa-concordant antibiotic prescribing increased from 83.5% to 90.2% (P < 0.001). The mean time from ED admission to first antibiotic was 159.4 (156.9-161.9) minutes at baseline and 150.9 (144.1-157.8) minutes after deployment (P < 0.001). Outpatient disposition from the ED increased from 29.2% to 46.9%, whereas 7-day secondary hospital admission was unchanged (5.2% vs. 6.1%). ePNa was used by ED clinicians in 67% of eligible patients. Conclusions: ePNa deployment was associated with improved processes of care and lower mortality. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03358342).

Simple scoring tool to estimate risk of hospitalization and mortality in ambulatory and emergency department patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Accurate methods of identifying patients with COVID-19 who are at high risk of poor outcomes has become especially important with the advent of limited-availability therapies such as monoclonal antibodies. Here we describe development and validation of a simple but accurate scoring tool to classify risk of hospitalization and mortality. METHODS: All consecutive patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 from March 25-October 1, 2020 within the Intermountain Healthcare system were included. The cohort was randomly divided into 70% derivation and 30% validation cohorts. A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted for 14-day hospitalization. The optimal model was then adapted to a simple, probabilistic score and applied to the validation cohort and evaluated for prediction of hospitalization and 28-day mortality. RESULTS: 22,816 patients were included; mean age was 40 years, 50.1% were female and 44% identified as non-white race or Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. 6.2% required hospitalization and 0.4% died. Criteria in the simple model included: age (0.5 points per decade); high-risk comorbidities (2 points each): diabetes mellitus, severe immunocompromised status and obesity (body mass index≥30); non-white race/Hispanic or Latinx ethnicity (2 points), and 1 point each for: male sex, dyspnea, hypertension, coronary artery disease, cardiac arrythmia, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, chronic pulmonary disease, chronic liver disease, cerebrovascular disease, and chronic neurologic disease. In the derivation cohort (n = 16,030) area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.82 (95% CI 0.81-0.84) for hospitalization and 0.91 (0.83-0.94) for 28-day mortality; in the validation cohort (n = 6,786) AUROC for hospitalization was 0.8 (CI 0.78-0.82) and for mortality 0.8 (CI 0.69-0.9). CONCLUSION: A prediction score based on widely available patient attributes accurately risk stratifies patients with COVID-19 at the time of testing. Applications include patient selection for therapies targeted at preventing disease progression in non-hospitalized patients, including monoclonal antibodies. External validation in independent healthcare environments is needed.

A Novel Program to Provide Drug Recovery Assistance and Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy in People Who Inject Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Safe hospital discharge on parenteral antibiotic therapy is challenging for people who inject drugs (PWID) admitted with serious bacterial infections (SBI). We describe a Comprehensive Care of Drug Addiction and Infection (CCDAI) program involving a partnership between Intermountain Healthcare hospitals and a detoxification facility (DF) to provide simultaneous drug recovery assistance and parenteral antibiotic therapy (DRA-OPAT). METHODS: The CCDAI program was evaluated using a pre-/poststudy design. We compared outcomes in PWID hospitalized with SBI during a 1-year postimplementation period (2018) with similar patients from a historical control period (2017), identified by propensity modeling and manual review. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were candidates for the CCDAI program in the implementation period. Thirty-five participants (40.2%) enrolled in DRA-OPAT and discharged to the DF; 16 (45.7%) completed the full outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) duration. Fifty-one patients with similar characteristics were identified as a preimplementation control group. Median length of stay (LOS) was reduced from 22.9 days (interquartile interval [IQI], 9.8-42.7) to 10.6 days (IQI, 6-17.4) after program implementation (P < .0001). Total median cost decreased from $39 220.90 (IQI, $23 300.71-$82 506.66) preimplementation to $27 592.39 (IQI, $18 509.45-$48 369.11) postimplementation (P < .0001). Ninety-day readmission rates were similar (23.5% vs 24.1%; P = .8). At 1-year follow-up, all-cause mortality was 7.1% in the preimplementation group versus 1.2% postimplementation (P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: Partnerships between hospitals and community resources hold promise for providing resource-efficient OPAT and drug recovery assistance. We observed significant reductions in LOS and cost without increases in readmission rates; 1-year mortality may have been improved. Further study is needed to optimize benefits of the program.

Deploying an Electronic Clinical Decision Support Tool for Diagnosis and Treatment of Pneumonia Into Rural and Critical Access Hospitals: Utilization, Effect on Processes of Care, and Clinician Satisfaction.

PURPOSE: Electronic clinical decision support (CDS) for treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (ePNa) is associated with improved guideline adherence and decreased mortality. How rural providers respond to CDS developed for urban hospitals could shed light on extending CDS to resource-limited settings. METHODS: ePNa was deployed into 10 rural and critical access hospital emergency departments (EDs) in Utah and Idaho in 2018. We reviewed pneumonia cases identified through ICD-10 codes after local deployment to measure ePNa utilization and guideline adherence. ED providers were surveyed to assess quantitative and qualitative aspects of satisfaction. FINDINGS: ePNa was used in 109/301 patients with pneumonia (36%, range 0%-67% across hospitals) and was associated with appropriate antibiotic selection (93% vs 65%, P < .001). Fifty percent of survey recipients responded, 87% were physicians, 87% were men, and the median ED experience was 10 years. Mean satisfaction with ePNa was 3.3 (range 1.7-4.8) on a 5-point Likert scale. Providers with a favorable opinion of ePNa were more likely to favor implementation of additional CDS (P = .005). Satisfaction was not associated with provider type, age, years of experience or experience with ePNa. Ninety percent of respondents provided qualitative feedback. The most common theme in high and low utilization hospitals was concern about usability. Compared to high utilization hospitals, low utilization hospitals more frequently identified concerns about adaptation for local needs. CONCLUSIONS: ePNa deployment to rural and critical access EDs was moderately successful and associated with improved antibiotic use. Concerns about usability and adapting ePNa for local use predominated the qualitative feedback.

Early Remdesivir to Prevent Progression to Severe Covid-19 in Outpatients.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir improves clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Whether the use of remdesivir in symptomatic, nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19 who are at high risk for disease progression prevents hospitalization is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19 who had symptom onset within the previous 7 days and who had at least one risk factor for disease progression (age ≥60 years, obesity, or certain coexisting medical conditions). Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 and 100 mg on days 2 and 3) or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause by day 28. The primary safety end point was any adverse event. A secondary end point was a composite of a Covid-19-related medically attended visit or death from any cause by day 28. RESULTS: A total of 562 patients who underwent randomization and received at least one dose of remdesivir or placebo were included in the analyses: 279 patients in the remdesivir group and 283 in the placebo group. The mean age was 50 years, 47.9% of the patients were women, and 41.8% were Hispanic or Latinx. The most common coexisting conditions were diabetes mellitus (61.6%), obesity (55.2%), and hypertension (47.7%). Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 2 patients (0.7%) in the remdesivir group and in 15 (5.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.59; P = 0.008). A total of 4 of 246 patients (1.6%) in the remdesivir group and 21 of 252 (8.3%) in the placebo group had a Covid-19-related medically attended visit by day 28 (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.56). No patients had died by day 28. Adverse events occurred in 42.3% of the patients in the remdesivir group and in 46.3% of those in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among nonhospitalized patients who were at high risk for Covid-19 progression, a 3-day course of remdesivir had an acceptable safety profile and resulted in an 87% lower risk of hospitalization or death than placebo. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; PINETREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501952; EudraCT number, 2020-003510-12.).

Epidemiology, Clinical Features, and Outcomes of Coccidioidomycosis, Utah, 2006-2015.

On the basis of a 1957 geographic Coccidioides seropositivity survey, 3 counties in southwestern Utah, USA, were considered coccidioidomycosis-endemic, but there has been a paucity of information on the disease burden in Utah since. We report findings from a recent clinical and epidemiologic study of coccidioidomycosis in Utah. To describe clinical characteristics, we identified all coccidioidomycosis cases in an integrated health system in the state during 2006-2015. For epidemiologic analysis, we used cases reported to the Utah Department of Health during 2009-2015. Mean state incidence was 1.83 cases/100,000 population/year. Washington County, in southwestern Utah, had the highest incidence, 17.2 cases/100,000 population/year. In a generalized linear model with time as a fixed effect, mean annual temperature, population, and new construction were associated with regional variations in incidence. Using these variables in a spatiotemporal model, we estimated the adjusted regional variation by county to predict areas where Coccidioides infections might increase.

Real-world Effectiveness and Tolerability of Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for Ambulatory Patients With Early COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) are a promising therapy for early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but their effectiveness has not been confirmed in a real-world setting. METHODS: In this quasi-experimental pre-/postimplementation study, we estimated the effectiveness of MAb treatment within 7 days of symptom onset in high-risk ambulatory adults with COVID-19. The primary outcome was a composite of emergency department visits or hospitalizations within 14 days of positive test. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and 14-day mortality. The average treatment effect in the treated for MAb therapy was estimated using inverse probability of treatment weighting and the impact of MAb implementation using propensity-weighted interrupted time series analysis. RESULTS: Pre-implementation (July-November 2020), 7404 qualifying patients were identified. Postimplementation (December 2020-January 2021), 594 patients received MAb treatment and 5536 did not. The primary outcome occurred in 75 (12.6%) MAb recipients, 1018 (18.4%) contemporaneous controls, and 1525 (20.6%) historical controls. MAb treatment was associated with decreased likelihood of emergency care or hospitalization (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79). After implementation, the weighted probability that a given patient would require an emergency department visit or hospitalization decreased significantly (0.7% per day; 95% CI, 0.03%-0.10%). Mortality was 0.2% (n = 1) in the MAb group compared with 1.0% (n = 71) and 1.0% (n = 57) in pre- and postimplementation controls, respectively. Adverse events occurred in 7 (1.2%); 2 (0.3%) were considered serious. CONCLUSIONS: MAb treatment of high-risk ambulatory patients with early COVID-19 was well tolerated and likely effective at preventing the need for subsequent emergency department or hospital care.

Evaluation of potential COVID-19 recurrence in patients with late repeat positive SARS-CoV-2 testing.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and reactivation has mostly been described in case reports. We therefore investigated the epidemiology of recurrent COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Among patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 between March 11 and July 31, 2020 within an integrated healthcare system, we identified patients with a recurrent positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay ≥60 days after an initial positive test. To assign an overall likelihood of COVID-19 recurrence, we combined quantitative data from initial and recurrent positive RT-PCR cycle thresholds-a value inversely correlated with viral RNA burden- with a clinical recurrence likelihood assigned based on independent, standardized case review by two physicians. "Probable" or "possible" recurrence by clinical assessment was confirmed as the final recurrence likelihood only if a cycle threshold value obtained ≥60 days after initial testing was lower than its preceding cycle threshold or if the patient had an interval negative RT-PCR. RESULTS: Among 23,176 patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, 1,301 (5.6%) had at least one additional SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCRs assay ≥60 days later. Of 122 testing positive, 114 had sufficient data for evaluation. The median interval to the recurrent positive RT-PCR was 85.5 (IQR 74-107) days. After combining clinical and RT-PCR cycle threshold data, four patients (3.5%) met criteria for probable COVID-19 recurrence. All four exhibited symptoms at recurrence and three required a higher level of medical care compared to their initial diagnosis. After including six additional patients (5.3%) with possible recurrence, recurrence incidence was 4.3 (95% CI 2.1-7.9) cases per 10,000 COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Only 0.04% of all COVID-19 patients in our health system experienced probable or possible recurrence; 90% of repeat positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCRs were not consistent with true recurrence. Our pragmatic approach combining clinical and quantitative RT-PCR data could aid assessment of COVID-19 reinfection or reactivation by clinicians and public health personnel.

Interventions to optimize antimicrobial stewardship.

Developing and improving an antimicrobial stewardship program successfully requires evaluation of numerous factors. As technology progresses and our understanding of antimicrobial resistance grows, careful consideration should be taken to ensure that a program meets the needs of the institution and is achievable given the available resources. In this review, we explore fundamental initiatives and strategies for both new and established antimicrobial stewardship programs, including the specific areas to target and key elements required for sustainable implementation.

Hydroxychloroquine vs. Azithromycin for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 (HAHPS): Results of a Randomized, Active Comparator Trial.

RATIONALE: The COVID-19 pandemic struck an immunologically naïve, globally interconnected population. In the face of a new infectious agent causing acute respiratory failure for which there were no known effective therapies, rapid, often pragmatic trials were necessary to evaluate potential treatments, frequently starting with medications that are already marketed for other indications. Early in the pandemic, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin were two such candidates. OBJECTIVE: Assess the relative efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a randomized clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine vs. azithromycin among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Treatment was 5 days of study medication. The primary endpoint was the COVID Ordinal Outcomes scale at day 14. Secondary endpoints included hospital-, ICU-, and ventilator-free days at day 28. The trial was stopped early after enrollment of 85 patients when a separate clinical trial concluded that a clinically important effect of hydroxychloroquine over placebo was definitively excluded. Comparisons were made a priori using a proportional odds model from a Bayesian perspective. RESULTS: We enrolled 85 patients at 13 hospitals over 11 weeks. Adherence to study medication was high. The estimated odds ratio for less favorable status on the ordinal scale for hydroxychloroquine vs. azithromycin from the primary analysis was 1.07, with a 95% credible interval from 0.63 to 1.83 with a posterior probability of 60% that hydroxychloroquine was worse than azithryomycin. Secondary outcomes displayed a similar, slight preference for azithromycin over hydroxychloroquine. QTc prolongation was rare and did not differ between groups. The twenty safety outcomes were similar between arms with the possible exception of post-randomization onset acute kidney injury, which was more common with hydroxychloroquine (15% vs. 0%). Patients in the hydroxychloroquine arm received remdesivir more often than in the azithromycin arm (19% vs. 2%). There was no apparent association between remdesivir use and acute kidney injury. CONCLUSIONS: While early termination limits the precision of our results, we found no suggestion of substantial efficacy for hydroxychloroquine over azithromycin. Acute kidney injury may be more common with hydroxychloroquine than azithromycin, although this may be due to the play of chance. Differential use of remdesivir may have biased our results in favor of hydroxychloroquine. Our results are consistent with conclusions from other trials that hydroxychloroquine cannot be recommended for inpatients with COVID-19; azithromycin may merit additional investigation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered (NCT04329832) before enrollment of the first patient.

Clinical criteria for COVID-19-associated hyperinflammatory syndrome: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A subset of patients with COVID-19 develops a hyperinflammatory syndrome that has similarities with other hyperinflammatory disorders. However, clinical criteria specifically to define COVID-19-associated hyperinflammatory syndrome (cHIS) have not been established. We aimed to develop and validate diagnostic criteria for cHIS in a cohort of inpatients with COVID-19. METHODS: We searched for clinical research articles published between Jan 1, 1990, and Aug 20, 2020, on features and diagnostic criteria for secondary haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, macrophage activation syndrome, macrophage activation-like syndrome of sepsis, cytokine release syndrome, and COVID-19. We compared published clinical data for COVID-19 with clinical features of other hyperinflammatory or cytokine storm syndromes. Based on a framework of conserved clinical characteristics, we developed a six-criterion additive scale for cHIS: fever, macrophage activation (hyperferritinaemia), haematological dysfunction (neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio), hepatic injury (lactate dehydrogenase or asparate aminotransferase), coagulopathy (D-dimer), and cytokinaemia (C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, or triglycerides). We then validated the association of the cHIS scale with in-hospital mortality and need for mechanical ventilation in consecutive patients in the Intermountain Prospective Observational COVID-19 (IPOC) registry who were admitted to hospital with PCR-confirmed COVID-19. We used a multistate model to estimate the temporal implications of cHIS. FINDINGS: We included 299 patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 between March 13 and May 5, 2020, in analyses. Unadjusted discrimination of the maximum daily cHIS score was 0·81 (95% CI 0·74-0·88) for in-hospital mortality and 0·92 (0·88-0·96) for mechanical ventilation; these results remained significant in multivariable analysis (odds ratio 1·6 [95% CI 1·2-2·1], p=0·0020, for mortality and 4·3 [3·0-6·0], p<0·0001, for mechanical ventilation). 161 (54%) of 299 patients met two or more cHIS criteria during their hospital admission; these patients had higher risk of mortality than patients with a score of less than 2 (24 [15%] of 138 vs one [1%] of 161) and for mechanical ventilation (73 [45%] vs three [2%]). In the multistate model, using daily cHIS score as a time-dependent variable, the cHIS hazard ratio for worsening from low to moderate oxygen requirement was 1·4 (95% CI 1·2-1·6), from moderate oxygen to high-flow oxygen 2·2 (1·1-4·4), and to mechanical ventilation 4·0 (1·9-8·2). INTERPRETATION: We proposed and validated criteria for hyperinflammation in COVID-19. This hyperinflammatory state, cHIS, is commonly associated with progression to mechanical ventilation and death. External validation is needed. The cHIS scale might be helpful in defining target populations for trials and immunomodulatory therapies. FUNDING: Intermountain Research and Medical Foundation.

Are Clostridioides difficile infections being overdiagnosed in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients?

BACKGROUND: Because both diarrhea due to other causes and gastrointestinal colonization with toxigenic Clostridioides difficile are common in HSCT, there is a possibility of false-positive diagnoses of C difficile infections (CDI). METHODS: We estimated the probability of a patient being colonized by toxigenic C difficile by testing non-diarrheal surveillance stools from 223 HSCT recipients and the probability that a specimen submitted for C difficile testing was not CDI by determining the number of clinical tests that returned negative from this cohort. The number of expected false-positive CDI was estimated using these probabilities and compared with observed clinical test results. RESULTS: The expected false-positive and the observed numbers of positive clinical results were similar. The 20 patients diagnosed with CDI were also similar to 142 patients with diarrhea and C difficile-negative stools in number of stools on day of testing, associated symptoms, and the recorded number of days to formed stools. C difficile colonization was most commonly detected during the first week and CDI during the second. Retrospective analysis of 837 patients showed that 18 stools were submitted for each diagnosis of CDI. Ribotyping of the surveillance samples showed 17 ribotypes. CONCLUSIONS: Although several assumptions could impact the accuracy of our false-positive CDI estimates, it appears that many HSCT recipients diagnosed with CDI may actually represent colonized status and an alternative cause of diarrhea. Diagnostic stewardship, including limiting CDI diagnoses to patients with positive toxin and restricting stool submissions to patients with more severe symptoms, may decrease the number of false-positive diagnoses.