Remdesivir therapy for severe pediatric COVID-19 in Singapore: A single-center retrospective observational cohort study.

Background and Aims: There is a paucity of information on remdesivir (RDV) use in severe pediatric coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to explore the effectiveness of RDV as the cumulative proportion of pediatric COVID-19 patients deescalated from Day 5 of high dependency or intensive care unit (HD/ICU). Methods: All children ≤18 years admitted to Singapore's largest pediatric hospital from January 1, 2020 to March 18, 2022 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were included if they were positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, required oxygen, and HD/ICU care. The characteristics and outcomes of those who received RDV or not (no-RDV) were compared. Results: We reviewed 15 children with a median age of 2.5 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.8-11.0), of which 7 (46.7%) received RDV. There was no difference in cumulative proportion of children deescalated from Day 5 of HD/ICU care in the RDV versus the no-RDV group (5/7, 70% vs. 7/8, 87.5%, p = 0.57). The RDV versus no-RDV group had higher disease severity, that is, WHO Ordinal Scale scores (median 6, IQR: 5-7 vs. 5, IQR: 4-5, p = 0.03), higher procalcitonin levels (ug/L) (median 4.31, IQR: 0.8-24.2 vs. 0.12, IQR: 0.09-0.26, p = 0.02), and longer HD/ICU care days (median 5, IQR: 4-9, vs. 1, IQR: 1-4, p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in hospitalization days. There were no adverse events directly attributable to RDV. None died from COVID-19 infection. Conclusion: Our observational analysis was unable to detect any clear benefit of RDV in terms of reducing duration in HD/ICU. RDV was well-tolerated in children with severe COVID-19.

National surgical antibiotic prophylaxis guideline in Singapore.

INTRODUCTION: Institutional surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) guidelines are in place at all public hospitals in Singapore, but variations exist and adherence to guidelines is not tracked consistently. A national point prevalence survey carried out in 2020 showed that about 60% of surgical prophylactic antibiotics were administered for more than 24 hours. This guideline aims to align best practices nationally and provides a framework for audit and surveillance. METHOD: This guideline was developed by the National Antimicrobial Stewardship Expert Panel's National Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis Guideline Development Workgroup Panel, which comprises infectious diseases physicians, pharmacists, surgeons and anaesthesiologists. The Workgroup adopted the ADAPTE methodology framework with modifications for the development of the guideline. The recommended duration of antibiotic prophylaxis was graded according to the strength of consolidated evidence based on the scoring system of the Singapore Ministry of Health Clinical Practice Guidelines. RESULTS: This National SAP Guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the rational use of antibiotic prophylaxis. These include recommended agents, dose, timing and duration for patients undergoing common surgeries based on surgical disciplines. The Workgroup also provides antibiotic recommendations for special patient population groups (such as patients with ß-lactam allergy and patients colonised with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), as well as for monitoring and surveillance of SAP. CONCLUSION: This evidence-based National SAP Guideline for hospitals in Singapore aims to align practices and optimise the use of antibiotics for surgical prophylaxis for the prevention of surgical site infections while reducing adverse events from prolonged durations of SAP.

Impact of a Carbapenem Antimicrobial Stewardship Program on Patient Outcomes.

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) aim to improve appropriate antimicrobial use. However, concerns of the negative consequences from accepting ASP interventions exist, particularly when deescalation or discontinuation of broad-spectrum antibiotics is recommended. Hence, we sought to evaluate the impact on clinical outcomes when ASP interventions for inappropriate carbapenem use were accepted or rejected by primary providers. We retrospectively reviewed all carbapenem prescriptions deemed inappropriate according to institutional guidelines with ASP interventions between July 2011 and December 2014. Intervention acceptance and outcomes, including carbapenem utilization, length of stay, hospitalization charges, 30-day readmission, and mortality rates were reviewed. Data were analyzed in two groups, one in which physicians accepted all interventions ("accepted") and one in which interventions were rejected ("rejected"). A total of 158 ASP interventions were made. These included carbapenem discontinuation (35%), change to narrower-spectrum antibiotic (32%), dose optimization (17%), further investigations (including imaging and procalcitonin) (11%), infectious diseases referral (3%), antibiotic discontinuation (other than carbapenem) (1%), and source control (1%). Of 220 unique patients, carbapenem use was inappropriate in 101 (45.9%) patients. A significant reduction in carbapenem utilization was observed in the accepted group versus rejected group (median defined daily doses, 0.224 versus 0.668 per 1,000 patient-days, respectively; P < 0.001). There was a significant reduction in 30-day mortality in the accepted (none) versus rejected group (10 deaths, P = 0.015), but there were no differences in length of stay, hospitalization charge, or 30-day readmission rates. Hypotension was independently associated with mortality in multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 5.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.34 to 20.6). In our institution, acceptance of carbapenem ASP interventions did not compromise patient safety in terms of clinical outcomes while reducing consumption.