Chest CT in the Emergency Department for Diagnosis of COVID-19 Pneumonia: Dutch Experience.

Background Clinicians need to rapidly and reliably diagnose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) for proper risk stratification, isolation strategies, and treatment decisions. Purpose To assess the real-life performance of radiologist emergency department chest CT interpretation for diagnosing COVID-19 during the acute phase of the pandemic, using the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS). Materials and Methods This retrospective multicenter study included consecutive patients who presented to emergency departments in six medical centers between March and April 2020 with moderate to severe upper respiratory symptoms suspicious for COVID-19. As part of clinical practice, chest CT scans were obtained for primary work-up and scored using the five-point CO-RADS scheme for suspicion of COVID-19. CT was compared with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay and a clinical reference standard established by a multidisciplinary group of clinicians based on RT-PCR, COVID-19 contact history, oxygen therapy, timing of RT-PCR testing, and likely alternative diagnosis. Performance of CT was estimated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis and diagnostic odds ratios against both reference standards. Subgroup analysis was performed on the basis of symptom duration grouped presentations of less than 48 hours, 48 hours through 7 days, and more than 7 days. Results A total of 1070 patients (median age, 66 years; interquartile range, 54-75 years; 626 men) were included, of whom 536 (50%) had a positive RT-PCR result and 137 (13%) of whom were considered to have a possible or probable COVID-19 diagnosis based on the clinical reference standard. Chest CT yielded an AUC of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.89) compared with RT-PCR and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.89) compared with the clinical reference standard. A CO-RADS score of 4 or greater yielded an odds ratio of 25.9 (95% CI: 18.7, 35.9) for a COVID-19 diagnosis with RT-PCR and an odds ratio of 30.6 (95% CI: 21.1, 44.4) with the clinical reference standard. For symptom duration of less than 48 hours, the AUC fell to 0.71 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.80; P < .001). Conclusion Chest CT analysis using the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Reporting and Data System enables rapid and reliable diagnosis of COVID-19, particularly when symptom duration is greater than 48 hours. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Elicker in this issue.

The Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy (SWAB) guideline for the approach to suspected antibiotic allergy.

OBJECTIVES: Prudent handling of reported antibiotic allergies is an important aspect of antibiotic stewardship. The Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy (SWAB) constituted a multidisciplinary expert committee to provide evidence-based recommendations for bedside decision-making in antibiotic therapy in patients that report an antibiotic allergy. METHODS: The guideline committee generated 12 key questions, most of which were population, intervention, comparison, and outcome questions relevant to both children and adults with suspected antibiotic allergies. For each question, a systematic literature search was performed and reviewed for the best available evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The quality of evidence was graded from very low to high, and recommendations were formulated in structured discussions as strong or weak. RESULTS: Sixty recommendations were provided for suspected allergy to ß-lactam antibiotics (BLAs) and non-ß-lactam antibiotics. Owing to the absence of randomized controlled trials in this field, the underlying evidence was predominantly graded as low or very low. Available data support that a detailed allergy history should always be performed and critically appraised. When cross-allergy between BLA groups is not to be expected due to the absence of molecular similarity of the side chains, the patient can be safely exposed to the alternative BLA. An exception to this rule is severe delayed-type reactions in which re-exposure to a BLA should only be considered after consultation with a multidisciplinary team. CONCLUSIONS: Accumulated scientific data now support a more liberal approach that better balances the benefits of treatment with first choice and usually smaller spectrum antibiotics with appropriate avoidance of antibiotics in case of a truly high risk of a (severe) allergic reaction. In The Netherlands, a formal guideline was developed that provides recommendations for the approach toward suspected allergy to BLA and frequently used non-ß-lactam antibiotics, thereby strongly supporting antimicrobial stewardship.

Mortality after Delay of Adequate Empiric Antimicrobial Treatment of Bloodstream Infection.

BACKGROUND: Timely empiric antimicrobial therapy is one of the cornerstones of the management of suspected bloodstream infection (BSI). However, studies about the effects of empiric therapy on mortality have reported inconsistent results. The objective of this study was to estimate the effect of delay of appropriate empiric therapy on early mortality in patients with BSI. Methods: Data for the propensity score matching (PSM) study were obtained from a cohort of patients with BSI. Inadequate empiric treatment was defined as in vitro resistance to the antimicrobial regimen administered <6 h after blood cultures were taken. The primary outcome measure was 14-day mortality. Thirty-day mortality and median length of stay (LOS) were secondary outcomes. PSM was applied to control for confounding. Results: Of a total of 893 included patients with BSI, 35.7% received inadequate initial empiric treatment. In the PSM cohort (n = 334), 14-day mortality was 9.6% for inadequate antibiotic treatment, compared to. 10.2% in adequate empiric treatment (p = 0.85). No prolonged median LOS was observed in patients who initially received inadequate therapy (10.5 vs. 10.7 days, p = 0.89). Conclusions: In this study, we found no clear effect of inadequate empirical treatment on mortality in a low-risk BSI population. The importance of early empiric therapy compared to other determinants, may be limited. This may not apply for specific subpopulations, e.g., patients with sepsis.

The impact of an infectious disease expert team on outpatient parenteral antimicrobial treatment in the Netherlands.

Background There is increasing interest in outpatient parenteral antimicrobial treatment. Objective To evaluate the added value of consultation of an infectious diseases expert team (consisting of two internist-infectious diseases specialists and a microbiologist) for advice regarding type, administration route and duration of antibiotic treatment. Setting A retrospective case series was performed at the Haga Teaching Hospital, a 700-bed regional teaching hospital in The Hague, The Netherlands. Methods Complication rate and mortality was evaluated during 60 days of follow-up. Therapeutic rationality regarding outpatient parenteral antimicrobial treatment was determined by presenting randomly selected paper cases from the database to two independent infectious diseases specialists who were blinded to patient's treatment and outcomes. The concordance between the two advices were analysed using Cohen's kappa. For those with discordance, an infectious diseases expert team meeting was organized to reach consensus. The final recommendation was compared to the actual given antibiotic treatment. Main outcome measure Discrepancy between the infectious disease expert team recommendations upon type, administration route and duration of antibiotics and the real outpatient parenteral antimicrobial treatment practice. Results Out of 89 included cases, 50 were randomly selected for review by the infectious diseases specialists. The kappa statistic regarding antimicrobial policy was 0.581 (P < 0.001). In 78% (39/50 cases), they had complete agreement upon all aspects of antibiotic treatment. The remaining 11 cases were reviewed by the expert team. Comparing the consensus of 50 cases to actual practice, in 14(28%) cases there was a discrepancy suggesting potential room for improvement. Comparing the cases in whom an individual infectious diseases specialist was involved in real practice to those cases without, there was 18% versus 42% discrepancy with the recommendations of the expert team (OR 3.4; 95% CI: 0.9-12.5, P = 0.06). Complication rate was 19% including unplanned readmissions and side effects of antimicrobial agent or administration route. Conclusion Though outpatient parenteral antimicrobial treatment policies in the Netherlands appear to be safe, consultation of an ID expert team, rather than an individual ID specialist, has the potential to optimize antimicrobial treatment in patients considered suitable for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial treatment.