Assessing Clinician Utilization of Next-Generation Antibiotics Against Resistant Gram-Negative Infections in U.S. Hospitals : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. antibiotic market failure has threatened future innovation and supply. Understanding when and why clinicians underutilize recently approved gram-negative antibiotics might help prioritize the patient in future antibiotic development and potential market entry rewards. OBJECTIVE: To determine use patterns of recently U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved gram-negative antibiotics (ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, meropenem-vaborbactam, plazomicin, eravacycline, imipenem-relebactam-cilastatin, and cefiderocol) and identify factors associated with their preferential use (over traditional generic agents) in patients with gram-negative infections due to pathogens displaying difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR; that is, resistance to all first-line antibiotics). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: 619 U.S. hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adult inpatients. MEASUREMENTS: Quarterly percentage change in antibiotic use was calculated using weighted linear regression. Machine learning selected candidate variables, and mixed models identified factors associated with new (vs. traditional) antibiotic use in DTR infections. RESULTS: Between quarter 1 of 2016 and quarter 2 of 2021, ceftolozane-tazobactam (approved 2014) and ceftazidime-avibactam (2015) predominated new antibiotic usage whereas subsequently approved gram-negative antibiotics saw relatively sluggish uptake. Among gram-negative infection hospitalizations, 0.7% (2551 [2631 episodes] of 362 142) displayed DTR pathogens. Patients were treated exclusively using traditional agents in 1091 of 2631 DTR episodes (41.5%), including "reserve" antibiotics such as polymyxins, aminoglycosides, and tigecycline in 865 of 1091 episodes (79.3%). Patients with bacteremia and chronic diseases had greater adjusted probabilities and those with do-not-resuscitate status, acute liver failure, and Acinetobacter baumannii complex and other nonpseudomonal nonfermenter pathogens had lower adjusted probabilities of receiving newer (vs. traditional) antibiotics for DTR infections, respectively. Availability of susceptibility testing for new antibiotics increased probability of usage. LIMITATION: Residual confounding. CONCLUSION: Despite FDA approval of 7 next-generation gram-negative antibiotics between 2014 and 2019, clinicians still frequently treat resistant gram-negative infections with older, generic antibiotics with suboptimal safety-efficacy profiles. Future antibiotics with innovative mechanisms targeting untapped pathogen niches, widely available susceptibility testing, and evidence demonstrating improved outcomes in resistant infections might enhance utilization. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; NIH Intramural Research Program.

Improving Sepsis Outcomes in the Era of Pay-for-Performance and Electronic Quality Measures: A Joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIDP Position Paper.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced the Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) as a pay-for-reporting measure in 2015 and is now planning to make it a pay-for-performance measure by incorporating it into the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. This joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIPD position paper highlights concerns with this change. Multiple studies indicate that SEP-1 implementation was associated with increased broad-spectrum antibiotic use, lactate measurements, and aggressive fluid resuscitation for patients with suspected sepsis but not with decreased mortality rates. Increased focus on SEP-1 risks further diverting attention and resources from more effective measures and comprehensive sepsis care. We recommend retiring SEP-1 rather than using it in a payment model and shifting instead to new sepsis metrics that focus on patient outcomes. CMS is developing a community-onset sepsis 30-day mortality electronic clinical quality measure (eCQM) that is an important step in this direction. The eCQM preliminarily identifies sepsis using systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, antibiotic administrations or diagnosis codes for infection or sepsis, and clinical indicators of acute organ dysfunction. We support the eCQM but recommend removing SIRS criteria and diagnosis codes to streamline implementation, decrease variability between hospitals, maintain vigilance for patients with sepsis but without SIRS, and avoid promoting antibiotic use in uninfected patients with SIRS. We further advocate for CMS to harmonize the eCQM with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Adult Sepsis Event surveillance metric to promote unity in federal measures, decrease reporting burden for hospitals, and facilitate shared prevention initiatives. These steps will result in a more robust measure that will encourage hospitals to pay more attention to the full breadth of sepsis care, stimulate new innovations in diagnosis and treatment, and ultimately bring us closer to our shared goal of improving outcomes for patients.

Measures and Impact of Caseload Surge During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 pandemic surges strained hospitals globally. We performed a systematic review to examine measures of pandemic caseload surge and its impact on mortality of hospitalized patients. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies published between December 1, 2019, and November 22, 2023, which reported the association between pandemic "surge"-related measures and mortality in hospitalized patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Three authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed individual study risk of bias. We assessed measures of surge qualitatively across included studies. Given multidomain heterogeneity, we semiquantitatively aggregated surge-mortality associations. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 17,831 citations, we included 39 studies, 17 of which specifically described surge effects in ICU settings. The majority of studies were from high-income countries ( n = 35 studies) and included patients with COVID-19 ( n = 31). There were 37 different surge metrics which were mapped into four broad themes, incorporating caseloads either directly as unadjusted counts ( n = 11), nested in occupancy ( n = 14), including additional factors (e.g., resource needs, speed of occupancy; n = 10), or using indirect proxies (e.g., altered staffing ratios, alternative care settings; n = 4). Notwithstanding metric heterogeneity, 32 of 39 studies (82%) reported detrimental adjusted odds/hazard ratio for caseload surge-mortality outcomes, reporting point estimates of up to four-fold increased risk of mortality. This signal persisted among study subgroups categorized by publication year, patient types, clinical settings, and country income status. CONCLUSIONS: Pandemic caseload surge was associated with lower survival across most studies regardless of jurisdiction, timing, and population. Markedly variable surge strain measures precluded meta-analysis and findings have uncertain generalizability to lower-middle-income countries (LMICs). These findings underscore the need for establishing a consensus surge metric that is sensitive to capturing harms in everyday fluctuations and future pandemics and is scalable to LMICs.

Bronchiectasis-associated infections and outcomes in a large, geographically diverse electronic health record cohort in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Bronchiectasis is a pulmonary disease characterized by irreversible dilation of the bronchi and recurring respiratory infections. Few studies have described the microbiology and prevalence of infections in large patient populations outside of specialized tertiary care centers. METHODS: We used the Cerner HealthFacts Electronic Health Record database to characterize the nature, burden, and frequency of pulmonary infections among persons with bronchiectasis. Chronic infections were defined based on organism-specific guidelines. RESULTS: We identified 7,749 patients who met our incident bronchiectasis case definition. In this study population, the organisms with the highest rates of isolate prevalence were Pseudomonas aeruginosa with 937 (12%) individuals, Staphylococcus aureus with 502 (6%), Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) with 336 (4%), and Aspergillus sp. with 288 (4%). Among persons with at least one isolate of each respective pathogen, 219 (23%) met criteria for chronic P. aeruginosa colonization, 74 (15%) met criteria for S. aureus chronic colonization, 101 (30%) met criteria for MAC chronic infection, and 50 (17%) met criteria for Aspergillus sp. chronic infection. Of 5,795 persons with at least two years of observation, 1,860 (32%) had a bronchiectasis exacerbation and 3,462 (60%) were hospitalized within two years of bronchiectasis diagnoses. Among patients with chronic respiratory infections, the two-year occurrence of exacerbations was 53% and for hospitalizations was 82%. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with bronchiectasis experiencing chronic respiratory infections have high rates of hospitalization.

Risk of Misleading Conclusions in Observational Studies of Time-to-Antibiotics and Mortality in Suspected Sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Influential studies conclude that each hour until antibiotics increases mortality in sepsis. However, these analyses often (1) adjusted for limited covariates, (2) included patients with long delays until antibiotics, (3) combined sepsis and septic shock, and (4) used linear models presuming each hour delay has equal impact. We evaluated the effect of these analytic choices on associations between time-to-antibiotics and mortality. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 104 248 adults admitted to 5 hospitals from 2015-2022 with suspected infection (blood culture collection and intravenous antibiotics ≤24 h of arrival), including 25 990 with suspected septic shock and 23 619 with sepsis without shock. We used multivariable regression to calculate associations between time-to-antibiotics and in-hospital mortality under successively broader confounding-adjustment, shorter maximum time-to-antibiotic intervals, stratification by illness severity, and removing assumptions of linear hourly associations. RESULTS: Changing covariates, maximum time-to-antibiotics, and severity stratification altered the magnitude, direction, and significance of observed associations between time-to-antibiotics and mortality. In a fully adjusted model of patients treated ≤6 hours, each hour was associated with higher mortality for septic shock (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.04-1.11) but not sepsis without shock (aOR: 1.03; .98-1.09) or suspected infection alone (aOR: .99; .94-1.05). Modeling each hour separately confirmed that every hour of delay was associated with increased mortality for septic shock, but only delays >6 hours were associated with higher mortality for sepsis without shock. CONCLUSIONS: Associations between time-to-antibiotics and mortality in sepsis are highly sensitive to analytic choices. Failure to adequately address these issues can generate misleading conclusions.

Association Between Vaccination Status and Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the ICU With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Although COVID-19 vaccines can reduce the need for intensive care unit admission in COVID-19, their effect on outcomes in critical illness remains unclear. We evaluated outcomes in vaccinated patients admitted to the ICU with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and the association between vaccination and booster status on clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING AND PATIENTS: All patients were admitted to an ICU between January 2021 (after vaccination was available) and July 2022 with a diagnosis of COVID-19 based on a SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test in Alberta, Canada. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT: The propensity-matched primary outcome of all-cause in-hospital mortality was compared between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, and vaccinated patients were stratified by booster dosing. Secondary outcomes were mechanical ventilation (MV) duration ICU length of stay (LOS). MAIN RESULTS: The study included 3,293 patients: 743 (22.6%) were fully vaccinated (54.6% with booster), 166 (5.0%) were partially vaccinated, and 2,384 (72.4%) were unvaccinated. Unvaccinated patients were more likely to require invasive MV (78.4% vs 68.2%), vasopressor use (71.1% vs 66.6%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (2.1% vs 0.5%). In a propensity-matched analysis, in-hospital mortality was similar (31.8% vs 34.0%, adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.97-1.61), but median duration MV (7.6 vs 4.7 d; p < 0.001) and ICU LOS (6.6 vs 5.2 d; p < 0.001) were longer in unvaccinated compared to fully vaccinated patients. Among vaccinated patients, greater than or equal to 1 booster had lower in-hospital mortality (25.5% vs 40.9%; adjusted OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.0.36-0.68) and duration of MV (3.8 vs 5.6 d; p = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one in four patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 after widespread COVID-19 vaccine availability represented a vaccine-breakthrough case. Mortality risk remains substantial in vaccinated patients and similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients after the onset of critical illness. However, COVID-19 vaccination is associated with reduced ICU resource utilization and booster dosing may increase survivability from COVID-19-related critical illness.

Reliability of Admission Procalcitonin Testing for Capturing Bacteremia Across the Sepsis Spectrum: Real-World Utilization and Performance Characteristics, 65 U.S. Hospitals, 2008-2017.

OBJECTIVES: Serum procalcitonin is often ordered at admission for patients with suspected sepsis and bloodstream infections (BSIs), although its performance characteristics in this setting remain contested. This study aimed to evaluate use patterns and performance characteristics of procalcitonin-on-admission in patients with suspected BSI, with or without sepsis. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Cerner HealthFacts Database (2008-2017). PATIENTS: Adult inpatients (≥ 18 yr) who had blood cultures and procalcitonin drawn within 24 hours of admission. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Testing frequency of procalcitonin was determined. Sensitivity of procalcitonin-on-admission for detecting BSI due to different pathogens was calculated. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated to assess discrimination by procalcitonin-on-admission for BSI in patients with and without fever/hypothermia, ICU admission and sepsis defined by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event criteria. AUCs were compared using Wald test and p values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. At 65 procalcitonin-reporting hospitals, 74,958 of 739,130 patients (10.1%) who had admission blood cultures also had admission procalcitonin testing. Most patients (83%) who had admission day procalcitonin testing did not have a repeat procalcitonin test. Median procalcitonin varied considerably by pathogen, BSI source, and acute illness severity. At a greater than or equal to 0.5 ng/mL cutoff, sensitivity for BSI detection was 68.2% overall, ranging between 58.0% for enterococcal BSI without sepsis and 96.4% for pneumococcal sepsis. Procalcitonin-on-admission displayed moderate discrimination at best for overall BSI (AUC, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.72-0.73) and showed no additional utility in key subgroups. Empiric antibiotic use proportions were not different between blood culture sampled patients with a positive procalcitonin (39.7%) and negative procalcitonin (38.4%) at admission. CONCLUSIONS: At 65 study hospitals, procalcitonin-on-admission demonstrated poor sensitivity in ruling out BSI, moderate-to-poor discrimination for both bacteremic sepsis and occult BSI and did not appear to meaningfully alter empiric antibiotic usage. Diagnostic stewardship of procalcitonin-on-admission and risk assessment of admission procalcitonin-guided clinical decisions is warranted.

Suspected Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) Reinfections: Incidence, Predictors, and Healthcare Use Among Patients at 238 US Healthcare Facilities, 1 June 2020 to 28 February 2021.

In a retrospective cohort study, among 131 773 patients with previous coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), reinfection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) was suspected in 253 patients (0.2%) at 238 US healthcare facilities between 1 June 2020 and 28 February 2021. Women displayed a higher cumulative reinfection risk. Healthcare burden and illness severity were similar between index and reinfection encounters.

Preintubation Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score for Predicting COVID-19 Mortality: External Validation Using Electronic Health Record From 86 U.S. Healthcare Systems to Appraise Current Ventilator Triage Algorithms.

OBJECTIVES: Prior research has hypothesized the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score to be a poor predictor of mortality in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Yet, several U.S. states have proposed SOFA-based algorithms for ventilator triage during crisis standards of care. Using a large cohort of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, we externally validated the predictive capacity of the preintubation SOFA score for mortality prediction with and without other commonly used algorithm elements. DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data. SETTING: Eighty-six U.S. health systems. PATIENTS: Patients with COVID-19 hospitalized between January 1, 2020, and February 14, 2021, and subsequently initiated on mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 15,122 mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, SOFA score alone demonstrated poor discriminant accuracy for inhospital mortality in mechanically ventilated patients using the validation cohort (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.65-0.67). Discriminant accuracy was even poorer using SOFA score categories (AUC, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.54-0.55). Age alone demonstrated greater discriminant accuracy for inhospital mortality than SOFA score (AUC, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.69-0.72). Discriminant accuracy for mortality improved upon addition of age to the continuous SOFA score (AUC, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.73-0.76) and categorized SOFA score (AUC, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.71-0.73) models, respectively. The addition of comorbidities did not substantially increase model discrimination. Of 36 U.S. states with crisis standards of care guidelines containing ventilator triage algorithms, 31 (86%) feature the SOFA score. Of these, 25 (81%) rely heavily on the SOFA score (12 exclusively propose SOFA; 13 place highest weight on SOFA or propose SOFA with one other variable). CONCLUSIONS: In a U.S. cohort of over 15,000 ventilated patients with COVID-19, the SOFA score displayed poor predictive accuracy for short-term mortality. Our findings warrant reappraisal of the SOFA score's implementation and weightage in existing ventilator triage pathways in current U.S. crisis standards of care guidelines.

Epidemiology of ICU-Onset Bloodstream Infection: Prevalence, Pathogens, and Risk Factors Among 150,948 ICU Patients at 85 U.S. Hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: Bloodstream infections (BSIs) acquired in the ICU represent a detrimental yet potentially preventable condition. We determined the prevalence of BSI acquired in the ICU (ICU-onset BSI), pathogen profile, and associated risk factors. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. DATA SOURCES: Eighty-five U.S. hospitals in the Cerner Healthfacts Database. PATIENT SELECTION: Adult hospitalizations between January 2009 and December 2015 including a (≥ 3 d) ICU stay. DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: Prevalence of ICU-onset BSI (between ICU Day 3 and ICU discharge) and associated pathogen and antibiotic resistance distributions were compared with BSI present on (ICU) admission (ICU-BSI POA ); and BSI present on ICU admission day or Day 2. Cox models identified risk factors for ICU-onset BSI among host, care setting, and treatment-related factors. Among 150,948 ICU patients, 5,600 (3.7%) had ICU-BSI POA and 1,306 (0.9%) had ICU-onset BSI. Of those with ICU-BSI POA , 4,359 (77.8%) were admitted to ICU at hospital admission day. Patients with ICU-onset BSI (vs ICU-BSI POA ) displayed higher crude mortality of 37.9% (vs 20.4%) ( p < 0.001) and longer median (interquartile range) length of stay of 13 days (8-23 d) (vs 5 d [3-8 d]) ( p < 0.001) (considering all ICU stay). Compared with ICU-BSI POA , ICU-onset BSI displayed more Pseudomonas , Acinetobacter , Enterococcus, Candida , and Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species, and more methicillin-resistant staphylococci, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, ceftriaxone-resistant Enterobacter , and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales and Acinetobacter species, respectively. Being younger, male, Black, Hispanic, having greater comorbidity burden, sepsis, trauma, acute pulmonary or gastrointestinal presentations, and pre-ICU exposure to antibacterial and antifungal agents was associated with greater ICU-onset BSI risk after adjusted analysis. Mixed ICUs (vs medical or surgical ICUs) and urban and small/medium rural hospitals were also associated with greater ICU-onset BSI risk. The associated risk of acquiring ICU-onset BSI manifested with any duration of mechanical ventilation and 7 days after insertion of central venous or arterial catheters. CONCLUSIONS: ICU-onset BSI is a serious condition that displays a unique pathogen and resistance profile compared with ICU-BSI POA . Further scrutiny of modifiable risk factors for ICU-onset BSI may inform control strategies.

Risk Factors for Severe COVID-19 Outcomes Among Persons Aged ≥18 Years Who Completed a Primary COVID-19 Vaccination Series - 465 Health Care Facilities, United States, December 2020-October 2021.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is highly effective at preventing COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death; however, some vaccinated persons might develop COVID-19 with severe outcomes† (1,2). Using data from 465 facilities in a large U.S. health care database, this study assessed the frequency of and risk factors for developing a severe COVID-19 outcome after completing a primary COVID-19 vaccination series (primary vaccination), defined as receipt of 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] or mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) or a single dose of JNJ-78436735 [Janssen (Johnson & Johnson)] ≥14 days before illness onset. Severe COVID-19 outcomes were defined as hospitalization with a diagnosis of acute respiratory failure, need for noninvasive ventilation (NIV), admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) including all persons requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (including discharge to hospice). Among 1,228,664 persons who completed primary vaccination during December 2020-October 2021, a total of 2,246 (18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated persons) developed COVID-19 and 189 (1.5 per 10,000) had a severe outcome, including 36 who died (0.3 deaths per 10,000). Risk for severe outcomes was higher among persons who were aged ≥65 years, were immunosuppressed, or had at least one of six other underlying conditions. All persons with severe outcomes had at least one of these risk factors, and 77.8% of those who died had four or more risk factors. Severe COVID-19 outcomes after primary vaccination are rare; however, vaccinated persons who are aged ≥65 years, are immunosuppressed, or have other underlying conditions might be at increased risk. These persons should receive targeted interventions including chronic disease management, precautions to reduce exposure, additional primary and booster vaccine doses, and effective pharmaceutical therapy as indicated to reduce risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes. Increasing COVID-19 vaccination coverage is a public health priority.

Mortality Risk Among Patients Hospitalized Primarily for COVID-19 During the Omicron and Delta Variant Pandemic Periods - United States, April 2020-June 2022.

The risk for COVID-19-associated mortality increases with age, disability, and underlying medical conditions (1). Early in the emergence of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients was lower than that during previous pandemic peaks (2-5), and some health authorities reported that a substantial proportion of COVID-19 hospitalizations were not primarily for COVID-19-related illness,* which might account for the lower mortality among hospitalized patients. Using a large hospital administrative database, CDC assessed in-hospital mortality risk overall and by demographic and clinical characteristics during the Delta (July-October 2021), early Omicron (January-March 2022), and later Omicron (April-June 2022) variant periods† among patients hospitalized primarily for COVID-19. Model-estimated adjusted mortality risk differences (aMRDs) (measures of absolute risk) and adjusted mortality risk ratios (aMRRs) (measures of relative risk) for in-hospital death were calculated comparing the early and later Omicron periods with the Delta period. Crude mortality risk (cMR) (deaths per 100 patients hospitalized primarily for COVID-19) was lower during the early Omicron (13.1) and later Omicron (4.9) periods than during the Delta (15.1) period (p<0.001). Adjusted mortality risk was lower during the Omicron periods than during the Delta period for patients aged ≥18 years, males and females, all racial and ethnic groups, persons with and without disabilities, and those with one or more underlying medical conditions, as indicated by significant aMRDs and aMRRs (p<0.05). During the later Omicron period, 81.9% of in-hospital deaths occurred among adults aged ≥65 years and 73.4% occurred among persons with three or more underlying medical conditions. Vaccination, early treatment, and appropriate nonpharmaceutical interventions remain important public health priorities for preventing COVID-19 deaths, especially among persons most at risk.

Association Between Caseload Surge and COVID-19 Survival in 558 U.S. Hospitals, March to August 2020.

BACKGROUND: Several U.S. hospitals had surges in COVID-19 caseload, but their effect on COVID-19 survival rates remains unclear, especially independent of temporal changes in survival. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between hospitals' severity-weighted COVID-19 caseload and COVID-19 mortality risk and identify effect modifiers of this relationship. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04688372). SETTING: 558 U.S. hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database. PARTICIPANTS: Adult COVID-19-coded inpatients admitted from March to August 2020 with discharge dispositions by October 2020. MEASUREMENTS: Each hospital-month was stratified by percentile rank on a surge index (a severity-weighted measure of COVID-19 caseload relative to pre-COVID-19 bed capacity). The effect of surge index on risk-adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice was calculated using hierarchical modeling; interaction by surge attributes was assessed. RESULTS: Of 144 116 inpatients with COVID-19 at 558 U.S. hospitals, 78 144 (54.2%) were admitted to hospitals in the top surge index decile. Overall, 25 344 (17.6%) died; crude COVID-19 mortality decreased over time across all surge index strata. However, compared with nonsurging (<50th surge index percentile) hospital-months, aORs in the 50th to 75th, 75th to 90th, 90th to 95th, 95th to 99th, and greater than 99th percentiles were 1.11 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.23), 1.24 (CI, 1.12 to 1.38), 1.42 (CI, 1.27 to 1.60), 1.59 (CI, 1.41 to 1.80), and 2.00 (CI, 1.69 to 2.38), respectively. The surge index was associated with mortality across ward, intensive care unit, and intubated patients. The surge-mortality relationship was stronger in June to August than in March to May (slope difference, 0.10 [CI, 0.033 to 0.16]) despite greater corticosteroid use and more judicious intubation during later and higher-surging months. Nearly 1 in 4 COVID-19 deaths (5868 [CI, 3584 to 8171]; 23.2%) was potentially attributable to hospitals strained by surging caseload. LIMITATION: Residual confounding. CONCLUSION: Despite improvements in COVID-19 survival between March and August 2020, surges in hospital COVID-19 caseload remained detrimental to survival and potentially eroded benefits gained from emerging treatments. Bolstering preventive measures and supporting surging hospitals will save many lives. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the National Cancer Institute.

Invasive Candidiasis Species Distribution and Trends, United States, 2009-2017.

BACKGROUND: Invasive candidiasis (IC) is a growing concern among US healthcare facilities. A large-scale study evaluating incidence and trends of IC in the United States by species and body site is needed to understand the distribution of infection. METHODS: An electronic medical record database was used to calculate incidence and trends of IC in the United States by species and infection site from 2009 through 2017. Hospital incidence was calculated using total unique inpatient hospitalizations in hospitals reporting at least 1 Candida case as the denominator. IC incidence trends were assessed using generalized estimating equations with exchangeable correlation structure to fit Poisson regression models, controlling for changes in hospital characteristics and case mix over time. RESULTS: Candida albicans remains the leading cause of IC in the United States, followed by Candida glabrata. The overall incidence of IC was 90/100 000 patients, which did not change significantly over time. There were no changes in incidence among C. albicans, C. glabrata, C. parapsilosis, or C. tropicalis; the incidence of other Candida spp. as a whole increased 7.2% annually. While there was no change in candidemia 2009-2017, abdominal and nonabdominal sterile site IC increased significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Nonbloodstream IC is increasing in the United States. Understanding the epidemiology of IC should facilitate improved management of infected patients.

Pharmacoepidemiology of Ceftazidime-Avibactam Use: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of 210 US Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Ceftazidime-avibactam has in vitro activity against some carbapenem-resistant gram-negative infections (GNIs), and therefore may be a useful alternative to more toxic antibiotics such as colistin. Understanding ceftazidime-avibactam uptake and usage patterns would inform hospital formularies, stewardship, and antibiotic development. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study assessed inpatient encounters in the Vizient database. Ceftazidime-avibactam and colistin administrations were categorized into presumed empiric (3 consecutive days of therapy or less with qualifying exclusions) versus targeted therapy (≥4 consecutive days of therapy) for presumed carbapenem-resistant GNIs. Quarterly percentage change (QPC) using modified Poisson regression and relative change in frequency of targeted ceftazidime-avibactam to colistin encounters was calculated. Factors associated with preferentially receiving targeted ceftazidime-avibactam versus colistin were identified using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Between 2015 quarter (q) 1 and 2017q4, ceftazidime-avibactam was administered 21 215 times across 1901 encounters. Inpatient prescriptions for ceftazidime-avibactam increased from 0.44/10 000 hospitalizations in 2015q1 to 7.7/10 000 in 2017q4 (QPC, +11%; 95% CI, 10-13%; P < .01), while conversely colistin prescriptions decreased quarterly by 5% (95% CI, 4-6%; P < .01). Ceftazidime-avibactam therapy was categorized as empiric 25% of the time, targeted 65% of the time, and indeterminate 10% of the time. Patients with chronic kidney disease were twice as likely to receive targeted ceftazidime-avibactam versus colistin (RR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.82-2.25), whereas those on dialysis were less likely to receive ceftazidime-avibactam than colistin (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, .61-.83). CONCLUSIONS: Since approval in 2015, ceftazidime-avibactam use has grown for presumed carbapenem-resistant GNIs, while colistin has correspondingly declined. Renal function drove the choice between ceftazidime-avibactam and colistin as targeted therapy.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Position Paper: Recommended Revisions to the National Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1) Sepsis Quality Measure.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1) measure has appropriately established sepsis as a national priority. However, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA and five additional endorsing societies) is concerned about SEP-1's potential to drive antibiotic overuse because it does not account for the high rate of sepsis overdiagnosis and encourages aggressive antibiotics for all patients with possible sepsis, regardless of the certainty of diagnosis or severity of illness. IDSA is also concerned that SEP-1's complex "time zero" definition is not evidence-based and is prone to inter-observer variation. In this position paper, IDSA outlines several recommendations aimed at reducing the risk of unintended consequences of SEP-1 while maintaining focus on its evidence-based elements. IDSA's core recommendation is to limit SEP-1 to septic shock, for which the evidence supporting the benefit of immediate antibiotics is greatest. Prompt empiric antibiotics are often appropriate for suspected sepsis without shock, but IDSA believes there is too much heterogeneity and difficulty defining this population, uncertainty about the presence of infection, and insufficient data on the necessity of immediate antibiotics to support a mandatory treatment standard for all patients in this category. IDSA believes guidance on managing possible sepsis without shock is more appropriate for guidelines that can delineate the strengths and limitations of supporting evidence and allow clinicians discretion in applying specific recommendations to individual patients. Removing sepsis without shock from SEP-1 will mitigate the risk of unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for noninfectious syndromes, simplify data abstraction, increase measure reliability, and focus attention on the population most likely to benefit from immediate empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Late Conditions Diagnosed 1-4 Months Following an Initial Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Encounter: A Matched-Cohort Study Using Inpatient and Outpatient Administrative Data-United States, 1 March-30 June 2020.

BACKGROUND: Late sequelae of COVID-19 have been reported; however, few studies have investigated the time course or incidence of late new COVID-19-related health conditions (post-COVID conditions) after COVID-19 diagnosis. Studies distinguishing post-COVID conditions from late conditions caused by other etiologies are lacking. Using data from a large administrative all-payer database, we assessed type, association, and timing of post-COVID conditions following COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS: Using the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release (release date, 20 October 2020) data, during March-June 2020, 27 589 inpatients and 46 857 outpatients diagnosed with COVID-19 (case-patients) were 1:1 matched with patients without COVID-19 through the 4-month follow-up period (control-patients) by using propensity score matching. In this matched-cohort study, adjusted ORs were calculated to assess for late conditions that were more common in case-patients than control-patients. Incidence proportion was calculated for conditions that were more common in case-patients than control-patients during 31-120 days following a COVID-19 encounter. RESULTS: During 31-120 days after an initial COVID-19 inpatient hospitalization, 7.0% of adults experienced ≥1 of 5 post-COVID conditions. Among adult outpatients with COVID-19, 7.7% experienced ≥1 of 10 post-COVID conditions. During 31-60 days after an initial outpatient encounter, adults with COVID-19 were 2.8 times as likely to experience acute pulmonary embolism as outpatient control-patients and also more likely to experience a range of conditions affecting multiple body systems (eg, nonspecific chest pain, fatigue, headache, and respiratory, nervous, circulatory, and gastrointestinal symptoms) than outpatient control-patients. CONCLUSIONS: These findings add to the evidence of late health conditions possibly related to COVID-19 in adults following COVID-19 diagnosis and can inform healthcare practice and resource planning for follow-up COVID-19 care.

Extrapulmonary Nontuberculous Mycobacteria Infections in Hospitalized Patients, United States, 2009-2014.

Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) cause pulmonary and extrapulmonary infections in susceptible persons. To characterize the epidemiology of skin and soft tissue (SST) and disseminated extrapulmonary infections caused by NTM in the United States, we used a large electronic health record database to examine clinical, demographic, and laboratory data for hospitalized patients with NTM isolated from extrapulmonary sources during 2009-2014. Using all unique inpatients as the denominator, we estimated prevalence and summarized cases by key characteristics. Of 9,196,147 inpatients, 831 had confirmed extrapulmonary NTM. The 6-year prevalence was 11 cases/100,000 inpatients; source-specific prevalence was 4.4 SST infections/100,000 inpatients and 3.7 disseminated infections/100,000 inpatients. NTM species varied across geographic region; rapidly growing NTM were most prevalent in southern states. Infection with Mycobacterium avium complex was more common among patients with concurrent HIV and fungal infection, a relevant finding because treatment is more effective for M. avium complex than for other NTM infections.

Epidemiology, Outcomes, and Trends of Patients With Sepsis and Opioid-Related Hospitalizations in U.S. Hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: Widespread use and misuse of prescription and illicit opioids have exposed millions to health risks including serious infectious complications. Little is known, however, about the association between opioid use and sepsis. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: About 373 U.S. hospitals. PATIENTS: Adults hospitalized between January 2009 and September 2015. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sepsis was identified by clinical indicators of concurrent infection and organ dysfunction. Opioid-related hospitalizations were identified by the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes and/or inpatient orders for buprenorphine. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared by sepsis and opioid-related hospitalization status. The association between opioid-related hospitalization and all-cause, in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis was assessed using mixed-effects logistic models to adjust for baseline characteristics and severity of illness.The cohort included 6,715,286 hospitalizations; 375,479 (5.6%) had sepsis, 130,399 (1.9%) had opioid-related hospitalizations, and 8,764 (0.1%) had both. Compared with sepsis patients without opioid-related hospitalizations (n = 366,715), sepsis patients with opioid-related hospitalizations (n = 8,764) were younger (mean 52.3 vs 66.9 yr) and healthier (mean Elixhauser score 5.4 vs 10.5), had more bloodstream infections from Gram-positive and fungal pathogens (68.9% vs 47.0% and 10.6% vs 6.4%, respectively), and had lower in-hospital mortality rates (10.6% vs 16.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79; p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Of 1,803 patients with opioid-related hospitalizations who died in-hospital, 928 (51.5%) had sepsis. Opioid-related hospitalizations accounted for 1.5% of all sepsis-associated deaths, including 5.7% of sepsis deaths among patients less than 50 years old. From 2009 to 2015, the proportion of sepsis hospitalizations that were opioid-related increased by 77% (95% CI, 40.7-123.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with opioid-related hospitalizations, and opioid-related hospitalizations contribute disproportionately to sepsis-associated deaths among younger patients. In addition to ongoing efforts to combat the opioid crisis, public health agencies should focus on raising awareness about sepsis among patients who use opioids and their providers.

Antimicrobial Treatment Duration in Sepsis and Serious Infections.

Sepsis mortality has improved following advancements in early recognition and standardized management, including emphasis on early administration of appropriate antimicrobials. However, guidance regarding antimicrobial duration in sepsis is surprisingly limited. Decreased antibiotic exposure is associated with lower rates of de novo resistance development, Clostridioides difficile-associated disease, antibiotic-related toxicities, and health care costs. Consequently, data weighing safety versus adequacy of shorter treatment durations in sepsis would be beneficial. We provide a narrative review of evidence to guide antibiotic duration in sepsis. Evidence is significantly limited by noninferiority trial designs and exclusion of critically ill patients in many trials. Potential challenges to shorter antimicrobial duration in sepsis include inadequate source control, treatment of multidrug-resistant organisms, and pharmacokinetic alterations that predispose to inadequate antimicrobial levels. Additional studies specifically targeting patients with clinical indicators of sepsis are needed to guide measures to safely reduce antimicrobial exposure in this high-risk population while preserving clinical effectiveness.