COVID-19-Related Publications by Hospitalists in the United States.

Objective To determine the degree to which hospitalists published academic manuscripts related to COVID-19 during the first year of the pandemic. Patients and methods The study was a cross-sectional analysis of the author's specialty, defined by byline or professional online biography, from articles related to COVID-19 published between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021. It included the top four internal medicine journals by impact factor: New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine. Participants were all United States (US)-based physician authors contributing to COVID-19 publications. Our primary outcome was the percentage of US-based physician authors of COVID-19 articles who were hospitalists. Subgroup analyses characterized author specialty by authorship position (first, middle, last) and article type (research vs. non-research). Results Between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021, the top four US-based medical journals published 870 articles related to COVID-19 of which 712 articles with 1940 US-based physician authors were included. Hospitalists accounted for 4.2% (82) of authorship positions including 4.7% (49/1038) of authorship positions in research articles and 3.7% (33/902) of authorship positions in non-research articles. First, middle, and last authorship positions were held by hospitalists at 3.7% (18/485), 4.4% (45/1034), and 4.5% (19/421) of the time, respectively. Conclusions Despite caring for a large number of patients with COVID-19, hospitalists were rarely involved in disseminating COVID-19 knowledge. Limited authorship by hospitalists could constrain the dissemination of inpatient medicine knowledge, impact patient outcomes, and affect the academic promotion of early-career hospitalists.

Gender differences in COVID-19-related manuscript authorship by hospitalists during the pandemic: A bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hospital medicine (HM) has a well-described gender disparity related to academic work and promotion. During the COVID-19 pandemic, female authorship across medicine fell further behind historical averages. OBJECTIVE: Examine how COVID-19 affected the publication gender gap for hospitalists. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Bibliometric analysis to determine gender and specialty of US-based physician first and last authors of COVID-19 articles published March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021 in the four highest impact general medical journals and two highest impact HM-specific journals. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: We characterized the percentage of all physician authors that were women, the percentage of physician authors that were hospitalists, and the percentage of HM authors that were women. We compared author gender between general medical and HM-specific journals. RESULTS: During the study period, 853 manuscripts with US-based first or last authors were published in eligible journals. Included manuscripts contained 1124 US-based physician first or last author credits, of which 34.2% (384) were women and 8.8% (99) were hospitalists. Among hospitalist author credits, 43.4% (n = 43/99) were occupied by women. The relative gender equity for hospitalist authors was driven by the two HM journals where, compared to the four general medical journals, hospitalist authors (54.1% [33/61] vs. 26.3% [10/38] women, respectively, p = .002) and hospitalist last authors (51.9% [14/27] vs. 20% [4/20], p = .03) were more likely to be women. CONCLUSIONS: Across COVID-19-related manuscripts, disparities by gender were driven by the high-impact general medical journals. HM-specific journals had more equitable inclusion of women authors, demonstrating the potential impact of proactive editorial policies on diversity.

Policies and practices of SHEA Research Network hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To understand hospital policies and practices as the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) conducted a survey through the SHEA Research Network (SRN). The survey assessed policies and practices around the optimization of personal protection equipment (PPE), testing, healthcare personnel policies, visitors of COVID-19 patients in relation to procedures, and types of patients. Overall, 69 individual healthcare facilities responded in the United States and internationally, for a 73% response rate.

Eligibility for Posthospitalization Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background A recent randomized trial, the MICHELLE trial, demonstrated improved posthospital outcomes with a 35-day course of prophylactic rivaroxaban for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at high risk of venous thromboembolism. We explored how often these findings may apply to an unselected clinical population of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods and Results Using a 35-hospital retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized between March 7, 2020, and January 23, 2021, with COVID-19 (MI-COVID19 database), we quantified the percentage of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who would be eligible for rivaroxaban at discharge per MICHELLE trial criteria and report clinical event rates. The main clinical outcome was derived from the MICHELLE trial and included a composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolus-related death, nonhemorrhagic stroke, and cardiovascular death at 35 days. Multiple sensitivity analyses tested different eligibility and exclusion criteria definitions to determine the effect on eligibility for postdischarge anticoagulation prophylaxis. Of 2016 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who survived to discharge and did not have another indication for anticoagulation, 25.9% (n=523) would be eligible for postdischarge thromboprophylaxis per the MICHELLE trial criteria (range, 2.9%-39.4% on sensitivity analysis). Of the 416 who had discharge anticoagulant data collected, only 13.2% (55/416) were actually prescribed a new anticoagulant at discharge. Of patients eligible for rivaroxaban per the MICHELLE trial, the composite clinical outcome occurred in 1.2% (6/519); similar outcome rates were 5.7% and 0.63% in the MICHELLE trial's control (no anticoagulation) and intervention (rivaroxaban) groups, respectively. Symptomatic venous thromboembolism events and all-cause mortality were 6.2% (32/519) and 5.66% in the MI-COVID19 and MICHELLE trial control cohorts, respectively. Conclusions Across 35 hospitals in Michigan, ≈1 in 4 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 would qualify for posthospital thromboprophylaxis. With only 13% of patients actually receiving postdischarge prophylaxis, there is a potential opportunity for improvement in care.

Opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing after COVID-19 hospitalization.

Opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing after COVID-19 hospitalization is not well understood. We aimed to characterize opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing among naïve patients hospitalized for COVID and to identify the risk factors associated with a new prescription at discharge. In this retrospective study of patients across 39 Michigan hospitals from March to November 2020, we identified 857 opioid- and benzodiazepine-naïve patients admitted with COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation. Of these, 22% received opioids, 13% received benzodiazepines, and 6% received both during the hospitalization. At discharge, 8% received an opioid prescription, and 3% received a benzodiazepine prescription. After multivariable adjustment, receipt of an opioid or benzodiazepine prescription at discharge was associated with the length of inpatient opioid or benzodiazepine exposure. These findings suggest that hospitalization represents a risk of opioid or benzodiazepine initiation among naïve patients, and judicious prescribing should be considered to prevent opioid-related harms.

Risk factors and outcomes associated with community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfection in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A multihospital cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the incidence of community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfection in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to evaluate associated predictors and outcomes. METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from March 2020 to August 2020 across 38 Michigan hospitals, we assessed prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfections. In-hospital and 60-day mortality, readmission, discharge to long-term care facility (LTCF), and mechanical ventilation duration were assessed for patients with versus without coinfection. RESULTS: Of 2,205 patients with COVID-19, 141 (6.4%) had a coinfection: 3.0% community onset and 3.4% hospital acquired. Of patients without coinfection, 64.9% received antibiotics. Community-onset coinfection predictors included admission from an LTCF (OR, 3.98; 95% CI, 2.34-6.76; P < .001) and admission to intensive care (OR, 4.34; 95% CI, 2.87-6.55; P < .001). Hospital-acquired coinfection predictors included fever (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.15-5.27; P = .02) and advanced respiratory support (OR, 40.72; 95% CI, 13.49-122.93; P < .001). Patients with (vs without) community-onset coinfection had longer mechanical ventilation (OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 1.67-6.56; P = .001) and higher in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.06-3.40; P = .03) and 60-day mortality (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.05-3.29; P = .03). Patients with (vs without) hospital-acquired coinfection had higher discharge to LTCF (OR, 8.48; 95% CI, 3.30-21.76; P < .001), in-hospital mortality (OR, 4.17; 95% CI, 2.37-7.33; P ≤ .001), and 60-day mortality (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.11-6.33; P ≤ .001). CONCLUSION: Despite community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfection being uncommon, most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 received antibiotics. Admission from LTCF and to ICU were associated with increased risk of community-onset coinfection. Future studies should prospectively validate predictors of COVID-19 coinfection to facilitate the reduction of antibiotic use.

Trends in Venous Thromboembolism Anticoagulation in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

Importance: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of COVID-19. It is not well understood how hospitals have managed VTE prevention and the effect of prevention strategies on mortality. Objective: To characterize frequency, variation across hospitals, and change over time in VTE prophylaxis and treatment-dose anticoagulation in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, as well as the association of anticoagulation strategies with in-hospital and 60-day mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 used a pseudorandom sample from 30 US hospitals in the state of Michigan participating in a collaborative quality initiative. Data analyzed were from patients hospitalized between March 7, 2020, and June 17, 2020. Data were analyzed through March 2021. Exposures: Nonadherence to VTE prophylaxis (defined as missing ≥2 days of VTE prophylaxis) and receipt of treatment-dose or prophylactic-dose anticoagulants vs no anticoagulation during hospitalization. Main Outcomes and Measures: The effect of nonadherence and anticoagulation strategies on in-hospital and 60-day mortality was assessed using multinomial logit models with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results: Of a total 1351 patients with COVID-19 included (median [IQR] age, 64 [52-75] years; 47.7% women, 48.9% Black patients), only 18 (1.3%) had a confirmed VTE, and 219 (16.2%) received treatment-dose anticoagulation. Use of treatment-dose anticoagulation without imaging ranged from 0% to 29% across hospitals and increased over time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.46; 95% CI, 1.31-1.61 per week). Of 1127 patients who ever received anticoagulation, 392 (34.8%) missed 2 or more days of prophylaxis. Missed prophylaxis varied from 11% to 61% across hospitals and decreased markedly over time (aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82-0.97 per week). VTE nonadherence was associated with higher 60-day (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.03-1.67) but not in-hospital mortality (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03). Receiving any dose of anticoagulation (vs no anticoagulation) was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (only prophylactic dose: aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.26-0.52; any treatment dose: aHR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25-0.58). However, only the prophylactic dose of anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days (prophylactic dose: aHR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.90; treatment dose: aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.63-1.35). Conclusions and Relevance: This large, multicenter cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, found evidence of rapid dissemination and implementation of anticoagulation strategies, including use of treatment-dose anticoagulation. As only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was associated with lower 60-day mortality, prophylactic dosing strategies may be optimal for patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research agenda for healthcare epidemiology.

This SHEA white paper identifies knowledge gaps and challenges in healthcare epidemiology research related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with a focus on core principles of healthcare epidemiology. These gaps, revealed during the worst phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, are described in 10 sections: epidemiology, outbreak investigation, surveillance, isolation precaution practices, personal protective equipment (PPE), environmental contamination and disinfection, drug and supply shortages, antimicrobial stewardship, healthcare personnel (HCP) occupational safety, and return to work policies. Each section highlights three critical healthcare epidemiology research questions with detailed description provided in supplementary materials. This research agenda calls for translational studies from laboratory-based basic science research to well-designed, large-scale studies and health outcomes research. Research gaps and challenges related to nursing homes and social disparities are included. Collaborations across various disciplines, expertise and across diverse geographic locations will be critical.

Empiric Antibacterial Therapy and Community-onset Bacterial Coinfection in Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Multi-hospital Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Antibacterials may be initiated out of concern for bacterial coinfection in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We determined prevalence and predictors of empiric antibacterial therapy and community-onset bacterial coinfections in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A randomly sampled cohort of 1705 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in 38 Michigan hospitals between 3/13/2020 and 6/18/2020. Data were collected on early (within 2 days of hospitalization) empiric antibacterial therapy and community-onset bacterial coinfections (positive microbiologic test ≤3 days). Poisson generalized estimating equation models were used to assess predictors. RESULTS: Of 1705 patients with COVID-19, 56.6% were prescribed early empiric antibacterial therapy; 3.5% (59/1705) had a confirmed community-onset bacterial infection. Across hospitals, early empiric antibacterial use varied from 27% to 84%. Patients were more likely to receive early empiric antibacterial therapy if they were older (adjusted rate ratio [ARR]: 1.04 [1.00-1.08] per 10 years); had a lower body mass index (ARR: 0.99 [0.99-1.00] per kg/m2), more severe illness (eg, severe sepsis; ARR: 1.16 [1.07-1.27]), a lobar infiltrate (ARR: 1.21 [1.04-1.42]); or were admitted to a for-profit hospital (ARR: 1.30 [1.15-1.47]). Over time, COVID-19 test turnaround time (returned ≤1 day in March [54.2%, 461/850] vs April [85.2%, 628/737], P < .001) and empiric antibacterial use (ARR: 0.71 [0.63-0.81] April vs March) decreased. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of confirmed community-onset bacterial coinfections was low. Despite this, half of patients received early empiric antibacterial therapy. Antibacterial use varied widely by hospital. Reducing COVID-19 test turnaround time and supporting stewardship could improve antibacterial use.