Effectiveness of BNT162b2 BA.4/5 Bivalent mRNA Vaccine Against Symptomatic COVID-19 Among Immunocompetent Individuals Testing at a Large US Retail Pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Data on the effectiveness of BA.4/5 bivalent vaccine stratified by age and prior infection are lacking. METHODS: This test-negative study used data from individuals ≥5 years of age testing for SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms (15 September 2022 to 31 January 2023) at a large national retail pharmacy chain. The exposure was receipt of 2-4 wild-type doses and a BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent vaccine (>2 months since last wild-type dose). The outcome was a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Absolute (vs unvaccinated) and relative (vs 2-4 wild-type doses) vaccine effectiveness (VE) were calculated as (1 - adjusted odds ratio from logistic regression) × 100. VE was stratified by age and self-reported prior infection. RESULTS: Overall, 307 885 SARS-CoV-2 tests were included (7916 aged 5-11, 16 329 aged 12-17, and 283 640 aged ≥18 years). SARS-CoV-2 positivity was 39%; 21% were unvaccinated, 70% received 2-4 wild-type doses with no bivalent vaccine, and 9% received a BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent dose. At a median of 1-2 months after BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent vaccination, depending on age group, absolute VE was 22%-60% and was significantly higher among those reporting prior infection (range, 55%-79%) than not (range, no protection to 50%). Relative VE was 31%-64%. CONCLUSIONS: BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent showed early additional protection against Omicron-related symptomatic COVID-19, with hybrid immunity offering greater protection.

Barriers to initial COVID-19 booster among U.S. adults who completed a primary vaccine series in the CHASING COVID cohort, September 2021 - October 2022.

It is crucial to understand factors associated with COVID-19 booster uptake in the U.S. given the updated COVID-19 vaccine recommendations. Using data from a national prospective cohort (N=4,616) between September 2021-October 2022, we examined socioeconomic, demographic, and behavioral factors of initial booster uptake among participants fully-vaccinated with the primary COVID-19 vaccines series. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the associations of each factor with time to initial booster uptake. Most participants (86.5%) reported receiving their initial booster. After adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, education, region, and employment, participants with greater risk for severe COVID-19 had similar booster uptake compared with those with lower risk (aHR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.95, 1.14). Participants with greater barriers to healthcare (aHR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.84, 0.96), food insecurity (aHR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.75, 0.89), and housing instability (aHR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.73, 0.90) were less likely to report receiving initial booster compared with those without those barriers. Factors motivating the decision to vaccinate changed from safety-related concerns for the primary series to perceived need for the booster. It is key to address economic and health access barriers to achieve equitable COVID-19 vaccine uptake and continued protection against COVID-19.

Patterns, Predictors, and Intercenter Variability in Empiric Gram-Negative Antibiotic Use Across 928 United States Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Empiric antibiotic use among hospitalized adults in the United States (US) is largely undescribed. Identifying factors associated with broad-spectrum empiric therapy may inform antibiotic stewardship interventions and facilitate benchmarking. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adults discharged in 2019 from 928 hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database. "Empiric" gram-negative antibiotics were defined by administration before day 3 of hospitalization. Multivariable logistic regression models with random effects by hospital were used to evaluate associations between patient and hospital characteristics and empiric receipt of broad-spectrum, compared to narrow-spectrum, gram-negative antibiotics. RESULTS: Of 8 017 740 hospitalized adults, 2 928 657 (37%) received empiric gram-negative antibiotics. Among 1 781 306 who received broad-spectrum therapy, 30% did not have a common infectious syndrome present on admission (pneumonia, urinary tract infection, sepsis, or bacteremia), surgery, or an intensive care unit stay in the empiric window. Holding other factors constant, males were 22% more likely (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.22 [95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.23]), and all non-White racial groups 6%-13% less likely (aOR range, 0.87-0.94), to receive broad-spectrum therapy. There were significant prescribing differences by region, with the highest adjusted odds of broad-spectrum therapy in the US West South Central division. Even after model adjustment, there remained substantial interhospital variability: Among patients receiving empiric therapy, the probability of receiving broad-spectrum antibiotics varied as much as 34+ percentage points due solely to the admitting hospital (95% interval of probabilities: 43%-77%). CONCLUSIONS: Empiric gram-negative antibiotic use is highly variable across US regions, and there is high, unexplained interhospital variability. Sex and racial disparities in the receipt of broad-spectrum therapy warrant further investigation.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Severity and Risk of Subsequent Cardiovascular Events.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the relationship between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity and subsequent risk of experiencing a cardiovascular event (CVE) after COVID-19 recovery. We evaluated this relationship in a large cohort of United States adults. METHODS: Using a claims database, we performed a retrospective cohort study of adults diagnosed with COVID-19 between 1 April 2020 and 31 May 2021. We evaluated the association between COVID-19 severity and risk of CVE >30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis using inverse probability of treatment-weighted competing risks regression. Severity was based on level of care required for COVID-19 treatment: intensive care unit (ICU) admission, non-ICU hospitalization, or outpatient care only. RESULTS: A total of 1 357 518 COVID-19 patients were included (2% ICU, 3% non-ICU hospitalization, and 95% outpatient only). Compared to outpatients, there was an increased risk of any CVE for patients requiring ICU admission (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.80 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.71-1.89]) or non-ICU hospitalization (aHR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.24-1.33]). Risk of subsequent hospitalization for CVE was even higher (aHRs, 3.47 [95% CI, 3.20-3.76] for ICU and 1.96 [95% CI, 1.85-2.09] for non-ICU hospitalized vs outpatient only). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients hospitalized or requiring critical care had a significantly higher risk of experiencing and being hospitalized for post-COVID-19 CVE than patients with milder COVID-19 who were managed solely in the outpatient setting, even after adjusting for differences between these groups. These findings underscore the continued importance of preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection from progressing to severe illness to reduce potential long-term cardiovascular complications.

A multicenter evaluation of antibacterial use in hospitalized patients through the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic waves.

BACKGROUND: Excessive use of antibiotics has been reported during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We evaluated trends in antibiotic use and culture positive Gram-negative (GN)/Gram-positive (GP) pathogens in US hospitalized patients before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective study included patients from 271 US facilities with > 1-day inpatient admission with discharge or death between July 1, 2019, and October 30, 2021, in the BD Insights Research Database. We evaluated microbiological testing data, antibacterial use, defined as antibacterial use ≥ 24 h in admitted patients, and duration of antibacterial therapy. RESULTS: Of 5,518,744 patients included in the analysis, 3,729,295 (67.6%) patients were hospitalized during the pandemic with 2,087,774 (56.0%) tested for SARS-CoV-2 and 189,115 (9.1%) testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. During the pre-pandemic period, 36.2% were prescribed antibacterial therapy and 9.3% tested positive for select GN/GP pathogens. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, antibacterial therapy (57.8%) and positive GN/GP culture (11.9%) were highest in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients followed by SARS-CoV-2-negative patients (antibacterial therapy, 40.1%; GN/GP, pathogens 11.0%), and SARS-CoV-2 not tested (antibacterial therapy 30.4%; GN/GP pathogens 7.2%). Multivariate results showed significant decreases in antibacterial therapy and positive GN/GP cultures for both SARS-CoV-2-positive and negative patients during the pandemic, but no significant overall changes from the pre-pandemic period to the pandemic period. CONCLUSIONS: There was a decline in both antibacterial use and positive GN/GP pathogens in patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. However, overall antibiotic use was similar prior to and during the pandemic. These data may inform future efforts to optimize antimicrobial stewardship and prescribing.

Association of SARS-CoV-2 status and antibiotic-resistant bacteria with inadequate empiric therapy in hospitalized patients: a US multicenter cohort evaluation (July 2019 - October 2021).

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic usage and antibiotic resistance (ABR) patterns changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inadequate empiric antibiotic therapy (IET) is a significant public health problem and contributes to ABR. We evaluated factors associated with IET before and during the COVID-19 pandemic to determine the impact of the pandemic on antibiotic management. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective cohort analysis included hospitalized US adults who had a positive bacterial culture (specified gram-positive or gram-negative bacteria) from July 2019 to October 2021 in the BD Insights Research Database. IET was defined as antibacterial therapy within 48 h that was not active against the bacteria. ABR results were based on susceptibility testing and reports from local facilities. Multivariate analysis was used to identify risk factors associated with IET in patients with any positive bacterial culture and ABR-positive cultures, including multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria. RESULTS: Of 278,344 eligible patients in 269 hospitals, 56,733 (20.4%) received IET; rates were higher in patients with ABR-positive (n = 93,252) or MDR-positive (n = 39,000) cultures (34.9% and 45.0%, respectively). Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-positive patients had significantly higher rates of IET (25.9%) compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative (20.3%) or not tested (19.7%) patients overall and in the ABR and MDR subgroups. Patients with ABR- or MDR-positive cultures had more days of therapy and longer lengths of stay. In multivariate analyses, ABR, MDR, SARS-CoV-2-positive status, respiratory source, and prior admissions were identified as key IET risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: IET remained a persistent problem during the COVID-19 pandemic and occurred at higher rates in patients with ABR/MDR bacteria or a co-SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Assessment of retrospective collection of EQ-5D-5L in a US COVID-19 population.

BACKGROUND: It is imperative to evaluate health related quality of life (HRQoL) pre-COVID-19, but there is currently no evidence of the retrospective application of the EuroQol 5-Dimension, 5 level version (EQ-5D-5L) for COVID-19 studies. METHODS: Symptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 at CVS Health US test sites were recruited between 01/31/2022-04/30/2022. Consented participants completed the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire twice: a modified version where all the questions were past tense to retrospectively assess pre-COVID-19 baseline QoL, and the standard version in present tense to assess current HRQoL. Duncan's new multiple range test was adopted for post analysis of variance pairwise comparisons of EQ visual analog scale (EQ VAS) means between problem levels for each of 5 domains. A linear mixed model was applied to check whether the relationship between EQ VAS and utility index (UI) was consistent pre-COVID-19 and during COVID-19. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison was used to compare pre-COVID-19 UI and EQ VAS scores with those of the US population. Lastly, Cohen's d was used to quantify the magnitude of difference in means between two groups. RESULTS: Of 676 participants, 10.2% were age 65 or more years old, 73.2% female and 71.9% white. Diabetes was reported by 4.7% participants and hypertension by 11.2%. The estimated coefficient for the interaction of UI-by-retrospective collection indicator (0 = standard prospective collection, 1 = retrospective for pre-COVID-19), -4.2 (SE: 3.2), P = 0.197, indicates that retrospective collection does not significantly alter the relationship between EQ VAS and UI. After adjusting for age, gender, diabetes, hypertension, and percent of mobility problems, the predicted means of pre-COVID-19 baseline EQ VAS and UI were 84.6 and 0.866, respectively. Both means were close to published US population norms (80.4 and 0.851) compared to those observed (87.4 and 0.924). After adjusting for age, gender, diabetes, and hypertension, the calculated ES between pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 for UI and EQ VAS were 0.15 and 0.39, respectively. Without retrospectively collected EQ-5D-5L, using US population norms tended to underestimate the impact of COVID-19 on HRQoL. CONCLUSION: At a group level the retrospectively collected pre-COVID-19 EQ-5D-5L is adequate and makes it possible to directly evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on HRQoL. ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05160636).

Descriptive Epidemiology and Outcomes of Nonventilated Hospital-Acquired, Ventilated Hospital-Acquired, and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia in the United States, 2012-2019.

OBJECTIVES: Multiple randomized controlled trials exploring the outcomes of patients with ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia and hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia have noted that hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia patients who require subsequent ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia suffered higher mortality than either those who did not (nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia) or had ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. We examined the epidemiology and outcomes of all three conditions in a large U.S. database. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Two hundred fifty-three acute-care hospitals, United States, contributing data (including microbiology) to Premier database, 2012-2019. PATIENTS: Patients with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia identified based on a slightly modified previously published International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition/International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition-Clinical Modification algorithm. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 17,819 patients who met enrollment criteria, 26.5% had nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia, 25.6% vHAPB, and 47.9% ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia predominated in the Northeastern United States and in large urban teaching hospitals. Patients with nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia were oldest (mean 66.7 ± 15.1 yr) and most likely White (76.9%), whereas those with ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia were youngest (59.7 ± 16.6 yr) and least likely White (70.3%). Ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia was associated with the highest comorbidity burden (mean Charlson score 4.1 ± 2.8) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia with the lowest (3.2 ± 2.5). Similarly, hospital mortality was highest among patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (29.2%) and lowest in nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (11.7%), with ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia in-between (21.3%). Among survivors, 24.5% of nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia required a rehospitalization within 30 days of discharge, compared with 22.5% among ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and 18.8% ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Unadjusted hospital length of stay after infection onset was longest among ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia and shortest among nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia patients. Median total hospital costs mirrored length of stay: ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia $77,657, ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia $62,464, and nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia $39,911. CONCLUSIONS: Both hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia remain associated with significant mortality and cost in the United States. Our analyses confirm that of all three conditions, ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia carries the highest risk of death. In contrast, ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia remains most costly. Nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia survivors were most likely to require a readmission within 30 days of discharge.

The risk of inappropriate empiric treatment and its outcomes based on pathogens in non-ventilated (nvHABP), ventilated (vHABP) hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated (VABP) bacterial pneumonia in the US, 2012-2019.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate empiric antimicrobial treatment (IET) contributes to worsened outcomes. While IET's differential impact across types of nosocomial pneumonia (NP: non-ventilated [nvHABP], ventilated [vHABP] hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated [VABP] bacterial pneumonia) is established, its potential interaction with the bacterial etiology is less clear. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study in the Premier Healthcare Database using an administrative algorithm to identify NP. We paired respective pathogens with empiric treatments. Antimicrobial coverage was appropriate if a drug administered within 2 days of infection onset covered the recovered organism(s). All other treatment was IET. RESULTS: Among 17,819 patients with NP, 26.5% had nvHABP, 25.6% vHABP, and 47.9% VABP. Gram-negative (GN) organisms accounted for > 50% of all infections. GN pathogens were ~ 2 × as likely (7.4% vHABP to 10.7% nvHABP) to engender IET than Gram-positive (GP, 2.9% vHABP to 4.9% nvHABP) pathogens. Although rare (5.6% nvHABP to 8.3% VABP), GN + GP infections had the highest rates of IET (6.7% vHABP to 12.9% nvHABP). Carbapenem-resistant GNs were highly likely to receive IET (33.8% nvHABP to 40.2% VABP). Hospital mortality trended higher in the IET group, reaching statistical significance in GN + GP vHABP (47.8% IET vs. 29.3% non-IET, p = 0.016). 30-day readmission was more common with IET (16.0%) than non-IET (12.6%, p = 0.024) in GN VABP. Generally post-infection onset hospital length of stay and costs were higher with IET than non-IET. CONCLUSIONS: IET is ~ 2 × more common in GN than GP infections. Although the magnitude of its impact varies by NP type, IET contributes to worsened clinical and economic outcomes.

Epidemiology and outcomes of culture-positive bloodstream pathogens prior to and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a multicenter evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Bloodstream infections (BSIs) are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. We evaluate incidence of community- and hospital-onset BSI rates and outcomes before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study evaluating patients who were hospitalized for ≥ 1 day with discharge or death between June 1, 2019, and September 4, 2021, across 271 US health care facilities. Community- and hospital-onset BSI and related outcomes before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, including intensive care admission rates, and overall and ICU-specific length of stay (LOS) was evaluated. Bivariate correlations were calculated between the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods overall and by SARS-CoV-2 testing status. RESULTS: Of 5,239,692 patient admissions, there were 20,113 community-onset BSIs before the pandemic (11.2/1000 admissions) and 39,740 (11.5/1000 admissions) during the pandemic (P ≤ 0.0062). Corresponding rates of hospital-onset BSI were 2,771 (1.6/1000 admissions) and 6,864 (2.0/1000 admissions; P < 0.0062). Compared to the pre-pandemic period, rates of community-onset BSI were higher in patients who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 (15.8/1000 admissions), compared with 9.6/1000 BSI admissions among SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. Compared with patients in the pre-pandemic period, SARS-CoV-2-positive patients with community-onset BSI experienced greater ICU admission rates (36.6% vs 32.8%; P < 0.01), greater ventilator use (10.7% vs 4.7%; P < 0.001), and longer LOS (12.2 d vs 9.1 d; P < 0.001). Rates of hospital-onset BSI were higher in the pandemic vs the pre-pandemic period (2.0 vs 1.5/1000; P < 0.001), with rates as high a 7.3/1000 admissions among SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, SARS-CoV-2-positive patients with hospital-onset BSI had higher rates of ICU admission (72.9% vs 55.4%; P < 0.001), LOS (34.8 d vs 25.5 d; P < 0.001), and ventilator use (52.9% vs 21.5%; P < 0.001). Enterococcus species, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Candida albicans were more frequently detected in the pandemic period. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This nationally representative study found an increased risk of both community-onset and hospital-onset BSI during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic period, with the largest increased risk in hospital-onset BSI among SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. SARS-CoV-2 positivity was associated with worse outcomes.

A multicenter analysis of the clinical microbiology and antimicrobial usage in hospitalized patients in the US with or without COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Past respiratory viral epidemics suggest that bacterial infections impact clinical outcomes. There is minimal information on potential co-pathogens in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) in the US. We analyzed pathogens, antimicrobial use, and healthcare utilization in hospitalized US patients with and without severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included patients with > 1 day of inpatient admission and discharge/death between March 1 and May 31, 2020 at 241 US acute care hospitals in the BD Insights Research Database. We assessed microbiological testing data, antimicrobial utilization in admitted patients with ≥24 h of antimicrobial therapy, and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: A total of 141,621 patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 (17,003 [12.0%] positive) and 449,339 patients were not tested. Most (> 90%) patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 had additional microbiologic testing performed compared with 41.9% of SARS-CoV-2-untested patients. Non-SARS-CoV-2 pathogen rates were 20.9% for SARS-CoV-2-positive patients compared with 21.3 and 27.9% for SARS-CoV-2-negative and -untested patients, respectively. Gram-negative bacteria were the most common pathogens (45.5, 44.1, and 43.5% for SARS-CoV-2-positive, -negative, and -untested patients). SARS-CoV-2-positive patients had higher rates of hospital-onset (versus admission-onset) non-SARS-CoV-2 pathogens compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative or -untested patients (42.4, 22.2, and 19.5%, respectively), more antimicrobial usage (68.0, 45.2, and 25.1% of patients), and longer hospital LOS (mean [standard deviation (SD)] of 8.6 [11.4], 5.1 [8.9], and 4.2 [8.0] days) and intensive care unit (ICU) LOS (mean [SD] of 7.8 [8.5], 3.6 [6.2], and 3.6 [5.9] days). For all groups, the presence of a non-SARS-CoV-2 pathogen was associated with increased hospital LOS (mean [SD] days for patients with versus without a non-SARS-CoV-2 pathogen: 13.7 [15.7] vs 7.3 [9.6] days for SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, 8.2 [11.5] vs 4.3 [7.9] days for SARS-CoV-2-negative patients, and 7.1 [11.0] vs 3.9 [7.4] days for SARS-CoV-2-untested patients). CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar rates of non-SARS-CoV-2 pathogens in SARS-CoV-2-positive, -negative, and -untested patients, SARS-CoV-2 was associated with higher rates of hospital-onset infections, greater antimicrobial usage, and extended hospital and ICU LOS. This finding highlights the heavy burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare systems and suggests possible opportunities for diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship.

Ceftolozane/Tazobactam vs Polymyxin or Aminoglycoside-based Regimens for the Treatment of Drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

BACKGROUND: Ceftolozane/tazobactam is a novel cephalosporin/beta-lactamase inhibitor combination that often retains activity against resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The comparative safety and efficacy vs polymyxins or aminoglycosides in this setting remains unknown. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter, observational cohort study was performed. Patients who received ceftolozane/tazobactam were compared with those treated with either polymyxin or aminoglycoside-based regimens for infections due to drug-resistant P. aeruginosa. Multivariate logistic regression was performed controlling for factors associated with treatment to assess the independent impact of ceftolozane/tazobactam on clinical cure, acute kidney injury (AKI), and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients were included (100 in each treatment arm). The cohort represented an ill population with 69% in the intensive care unit, 63% mechanically ventilated, and 42% in severe sepsis or septic shock at infection onset. The most common infection type was ventilator-associated pneumonia (52%); 7% of patients were bacteremic. Combination therapy was more commonly used in polymyxin/aminoglycoside patients than those who received ceftolozane/tazobactam (72% vs 15%, P < .001). After adjusting for differences between groups, receipt of ceftolozane/tazobactam was independently associated with clinical cure (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-5.30) and protective against AKI (aOR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03-0.22). There was no difference in in-hospital mortality. The number needed to treat for a clinical cure with ceftolozane/tazobactam was 5, and the number needed to harm with AKI with a polymyxin/aminoglycoside was 4. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the preferential use of ceftolozane/tazobactam over polymyxins or aminoglycosides for drug-resistant P. aeruginosa infections.

A Combination Antibiogram Evaluation for Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Respiratory and Blood Sources from Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and Non-ICU Settings in U.S. Hospitals.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is an important pathogen associated with significant morbidity and mortality. U.S. guidelines for the treatment of hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia recommend the use of two antipseudomonal drugs for high-risk patients to ensure that ≥95% of patients receive active empirical therapy. We evaluated the utility of combination antibiograms in identifying optimal anti-P.aeruginosa drug regimens. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of the antimicrobial susceptibility of all nonduplicate P.aeruginosa blood and respiratory isolates collected between 1 October 2016 and 30 September 2017 from 304 U.S. hospitals in the BD Insights Research Database. Combination antibiograms were used to determine in vitro rates of susceptibility to potential anti-P.aeruginosa combination regimens consisting of a backbone antibiotic (an extended-spectrum cephalosporin, carbapenem, or piperacillin-tazobactam) plus an aminoglycoside or fluoroquinolone. Single-agent susceptibility rates for the 11,701 nonduplicate P.aeruginosa isolates ranged from 72.7% for fluoroquinolones to 85.0% for piperacillin-tazobactam. Susceptibility rates were higher for blood isolates than for respiratory isolates (P < 0.05). Antibiotic combinations resulted in increased susceptibility rates but did not achieve the goal of 95% antibiotic coverage. Adding an aminoglycoside resulted in higher susceptibility rates than adding a fluoroquinolone; piperacillin-tazobactam plus an aminoglycoside resulted in the highest susceptibility rate (93.3%). Intensive care unit (ICU) isolates generally had lower susceptibility rates than non-ICU isolates. Commonly used antipseudomonal drugs, either alone or in combination, did not achieve 95% coverage against U.S. hospital P.aeruginosa isolates, suggesting that new drugs are needed to attain this goal. Local institutional use of combination antibiograms has the potential to optimize empirical therapy of infections caused by difficult-to-treat pathogens.

Impact of the use of local fidaxomicin treatment algorithms for managing Clostridium difficile infection in hospitalized patients in southeastern United States.

BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) is a major public health threat that results in increased length of stay, hospital readmissions, deaths, and economic burden. CDAD treatment is often guided by severity of disease. Although various tools exist to determine CDAD severity, real-world data evaluating the use of such tools in treatment algorithms are sparse. METHODS: A local CDAD treatment pathway was developed independently to guide fidaxomicin prescribing at wellStar Health System (WellStar) and at Lee Health (LH) and Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH). Each algorithm was designed locally by the stewardship pharmacist and was utilized to identify patients at high risk for C. difficile recurrence. Patient and clinical data was retrospectively gathered to evaluate the utility and outcomes of the treatment pathway. RESULTS: There were 262 patients that received fidaxomicin at these three hospitals during the study time period. Only 30% at WellStar and 20% at LH or SMH met the study criteria and adhered to the pathway requirements. After completion of fidaxomicin, 30-day recurrence rates at WellStar was 0 and at LH and SMH 7%. Clinical cure rates were 83% in WellStar and 93% in LH and SMH. CONCLUSIONS: The results from these two pathways show positive outcomes for the use of fidaxomicin in patients at high risk for CDAD recurrence. This data supports the potential utility of fidaxomicin against CDAD.

Receipt of BNT162b2 Vaccine and COVID-19 Ambulatory Visits in US Children Younger Than 5 Years.

This study examines the association of the receipt of wild-type BNT162b2 vaccine with medically attended COVID-19 outcomes among children younger than 5 years in the US.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 XBB Vaccine Against XBB and JN.1 Sublineages.

We provide updated results (11 October 2023 through 29 February 2024) from our previously conducted test-negative case-control study in Kaiser Permanente Southern California to evaluate sublineage-specific effectiveness of the BNT162b2 XBB1.5-adapted vaccine. Results suggest that XBB1.5-adapted vaccines may have reduced effectiveness against JN.1 versus XBB sublineages.

Perceived Risk for Severe COVID-19 and Oral Antiviral Use Among Antiviral-Eligible US Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Oral antiviral medications are important tools for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes. However, their uptake remains low for reasons that are not entirely understood. Our study aimed to assess the association between perceived risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and oral antiviral use among those who were eligible for treatment based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. METHODS: We surveyed 4034 non-institutionalized US adults in April 2023, and report findings from 934 antiviral-eligible participants with at least one confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection since December 1, 2021 and no current long COVID symptoms. Survey weights were used to yield nationally representative estimates. The primary exposure of interest was whether participants perceived themselves to be "at high risk for severe COVID-19." The primary outcome was use of a COVID-19 oral antiviral within 5 days of suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Only 18.5% of antiviral-eligible adults considered themselves to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 and 16.8% and 15.9% took oral antivirals at any time or within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection, respectively. In contrast, 79.8% were aware of antiviral treatments for COVID-19. Perceived high-risk status was associated with being more likely to be aware (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]: 1.11 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.20]), to be prescribed (aPR 1.47 [95% CI 1.08-2.01]), and to take oral antivirals at any time (aPR 1.61 [95% CI 1.16-2.24]) or within 5 days of infection (aPR 1.72 [95% CI 1.23-2.40]). CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread awareness of the availability of COVID-19 oral antivirals, more than 80% of eligible US adults did not receive them. Our findings suggest that differences between perceived and actual risk for severe COVID-19 (based on current CDC guidelines) may partially explain this low uptake.

Proportion of Patients in the United States Who Fill Their Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Prescriptions.

INTRODUCTION: Although real-world studies demonstrate that those prescribed nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (and particularly within 5 days of symptom onset) are less likely to experience severe COVID-19 outcomes, prior studies show that only a small fraction of patients with COVID-19 who are eligible for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir receive a prescription. Studies calculating the proportion of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescriptions filled and identifying individual- and pharmacy-level correlates of filling nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are lacking. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included individuals aged ≥ 12 years with a nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescription ordered at a large national retail pharmacy (December 22, 2021-August 12, 2023). Those taking contraindicated medications were excluded. For those with only one nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescription ordered, the outcome was whether the prescription was filled (yes/no). In a subanalysis of these individuals, the outcome was whether the prescription was filled within 5 days of symptom onset (yes/no). For those with multiple prescriptions ordered, the outcome was whether > 1 (vs. 0 or 1) prescriptions were filled. A log-binomial regression with generalized estimating equations was used to identify individual (clinical and demographic) and pharmacy-level (percentage of trade area that is non-Hispanic white, urbanicity, US Census region, and tract-level area deprivation index) correlates. RESULTS: A total of 2,103,570 unique nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescriptions were ordered for 1,985,990 individuals. Among the 95% of individuals prescribed only one nirmatrelvir/ritonavir course, 88% filled their prescription. Among those with > 1 prescription ordered, 77% (82,993/108,411) filled one and 13% (13,662/108,411) filled > 1. Patients ≥ 50 years of age and those with documented high-risk conditions were slightly more likely to fill prescriptions, regardless of whether one or multiple courses were ordered. Individuals with cancer, asthma, or taking corticosteroids or immunosuppressive medications were more likely to fill multiple prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients filled their nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescriptions. Interventions to improve uptake should focus on increasing patient and provider awareness, reducing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescribing disparities, and ensuring treatment initiation within 5 days.

Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Utilization for the Treatment of Non-hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 in the National Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System.

INTRODUCTION: Limited data exist regarding real-world utilization of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. We identified predictors of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use among Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatients nationally. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who were eligible to receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir between January and December of 2022, to identify factors associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use (i.e., demographics, medical history, prior medication and healthcare exposures, frailty, and other clinical characteristics) using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: We included 309,755 outpatients with COVID-19 who were eligible for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, of whom 12.2% received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir uptake increased from 1.1% to 23.2% over the study period. Factors associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir receipt included receiving a COVID-19 booster vs. none (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.19 [95% confidence interval [CI] 2.12-2.26]), age ≥ 50 vs. 18-49 years (aORs > 1.5 for all age groups ≥ 50 years), having HIV (aOR 1.36 [1.22-1.51]), being non-frail vs. severely frail (aOR 1.22 [1.13-1.33]), and having rheumatoid arthritis (aOR 1.12 [1.04-1.21). Those with concomitant use of potentially interacting antiarrhythmics (aOR 0.35 [0.28-0.45]), anticoagulants/antiplatelets (aOR 0.42 [0.40-0.45]), and/or psychiatric/sedatives (aOR 0.84 [0.81-0.87]) were less likely to receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increases over time, overall utilization of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was low. Predictors of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir utilization were consistent with known risk factors for progression to severe COVID-19, including older age and underlying medical conditions. Unvaccinated and undervaccinated patients and those receiving potentially interacting medications for cardiovascular or mental health conditions (antiarrhythmic, alpha-1 antagonist, anticoagulant/antiplatelet, sedative/hypnotic/psychiatric) were less likely to receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Further education of prescribers and patients about nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment guidelines is needed to improve overall uptake and utilization in certain high-risk subpopulations.

Predictors of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir receipt among COVID-19 patients in a large US health system.

A clear understanding of real-world uptake of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 can inform treatment allocation strategies and improve interpretation of effectiveness studies. We used data from a large US healthcare system to describe nirmatrelvir-ritonavir dispenses among all SARS-CoV-2 positive patients aged ≥ 12 years meeting recommended National Institutes of Health treatment eligibility criteria for the study period between 1 January and 31 December, 2022. Overall, 10.9% (N = 34,791/319,900) of treatment eligible patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir over the study period. Although uptake of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir increased over time, by the end of 2022, less than a quarter of treatment eligible patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections had received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Across patient demographics, treatment was generally consistent with tiered treatment guidelines, with dispenses concentrated among patients aged ≥ 65 years (14,706/63,921; 23.0%), and with multiple comorbidities (10,989/54,431; 20.1%). However, neighborhoods of lower socioeconomic status (upper third of neighborhood deprivation index [NDI]) had between 12% (95% CI: 7-18%) and 28% (25-32%) lower odds of treatment dispense over the time periods studied compared to the lower third of NDI distribution, even after accounting for demographic and clinical characteristics. A limited chart review (N = 40) confirmed that in some cases a decision not to treat was appropriate and aligned with national guidelines to use clinical judgement on a case-by-case basis. There is a need to enhance patient and provider awareness on the availability and benefits of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19 illness.