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.

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.

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.

Trends in Patient Transfers From Overall and Caseload-Strained US Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Transferring patients to other hospitals because of inpatient saturation or need for higher levels of care was often challenging during the early waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding how transfer patterns evolved over time and amid hospital overcrowding could inform future care delivery and load balancing efforts. Objective: To evaluate trends in outgoing transfers at overall and caseload-strained hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic vs prepandemic times. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data for adult patients at continuously reporting US hospitals in the PINC-AI Healthcare Database. Data analysis was performed from February to July 2023. Exposures: Pandemic wave, defined as wave 1 (March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020), wave 2 (June 1, 2020, to September 30, 2020), wave 3 (October 1, 2020, to June 19, 2021), Delta (June 20, 2021, to December 18, 2021), and Omicron (December 19, 2021, to February 28, 2022). Main Outcomes and Measures: Weekly trends in cumulative mean daily acute care transfers from all hospitals were assessed by COVID-19 status, hospital urbanicity, and census index (calculated as daily inpatient census divided by nominal bed capacity). At each hospital, the mean difference in transfer counts was calculated using pairwise comparisons of pandemic (vs prepandemic) weeks in the same census index decile and averaged across decile hospitals in each wave. For top decile (ie, high-surge) hospitals, fold changes (and 95% CI) in transfers were adjusted for hospital-level factors and seasonality. Results: At 681 hospitals (205 rural [30.1%] and 476 urban [69.9%]; 360 [52.9%] small with <200 beds and 321 [47.1%] large with ≥200 beds), the mean (SD) weekly outgoing transfers per hospital remained lower than the prepandemic mean of 12.1 (10.4) transfers per week for most of the pandemic, ranging from 8.5 (8.3) transfers per week during wave 1 to 11.9 (10.7) transfers per week during the Delta wave. Despite more COVID-19 transfers, overall transfers at study hospitals cumulatively decreased during each high national surge period. At 99 high-surge hospitals, compared with a prepandemic baseline, outgoing acute care transfers decreased in wave 1 (fold change -15.0%; 95% CI, -22.3% to -7.0%; P < .001), returned to baseline during wave 2 (2.2%; 95% CI, -4.3% to 9.2%; P = .52), and displayed a sustained increase in subsequent waves: 19.8% (95% CI, 14.3% to 25.4%; P < .001) in wave 3, 19.2% (95% CI, 13.4% to 25.4%; P < .001) in the Delta wave, and 15.4% (95% CI, 7.8% to 23.5%; P < .001) in the Omicron wave. Observed increases were predominantly limited to small urban hospitals, where transfers peaked (48.0%; 95% CI, 36.3% to 60.8%; P < .001) in wave 3, whereas large urban and small rural hospitals displayed little to no increases in transfers from baseline throughout the pandemic. Conclusions and Relevance: Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, study hospitals reported paradoxical decreases in overall patient transfers during each high-surge period. Caseload-strained rural (vs urban) hospitals with fewer than 200 beds were unable to proportionally increase transfers. Prevailing vulnerabilities in flexing transfer capabilities for care or capacity reasons warrant urgent attention.

Impact of Surge Strain and Pandemic Progression on Prognostication by an Established COVID-19-Specific Severity Score.

IMPORTANCE: Many U.S. State crisis standards of care (CSC) guidelines incorporated Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), a sepsis-related severity score, in pandemic triage algorithms. However, SOFA performed poorly in COVID-19. Although disease-specific scores may perform better, their prognostic utility over time and in overcrowded care settings remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated prognostication by the modified 4C (m4C) score, a COVID-19-specific prognosticator that demonstrated good predictive capacity early in the pandemic, as a potential tool to standardize triage across time and hospital-surge environments. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Two hundred eighty-one U.S. hospitals in an administrative healthcare dataset. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 298,379 hospitalized adults with COVID-19 were identified from March 1, 2020, to January 31, 2022. m4C scores were calculated from admission diagnosis codes, vital signs, and laboratory values. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hospital-surge index, a severity-weighted measure of COVID-19 caseload, was calculated for each hospital-month. Discrimination of in-hospital mortality by m4C and surge index-adjusted models was measured by area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). Calibration was assessed by training models on early pandemic waves and measuring fit (deviation from bisector) in subsequent waves. RESULTS: From March 2020 to January 2022, 298,379 adults with COVID-19 were admitted across 281 U.S. hospitals. m4C adequately discriminated mortality in wave 1 (AUC 0.779 [95% CI, 0.769-0.789]); discrimination was lower in subsequent waves (wave 2: 0.772 [95% CI, 0.765-0.779]; wave 3: 0.746 [95% CI, 0.743-0.750]; delta: 0.707 [95% CI, 0.702-0.712]; omicron: 0.729 [95% CI, 0.721-0.738]). m4C demonstrated reduced calibration in contemporaneous waves that persisted despite periodic recalibration. Performance characteristics were similar with and without adjustment for surge. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Mortality prediction by the m4C score remained robust to surge strain, making it attractive for when triage is most needed. However, score performance has deteriorated in recent waves. CSC guidelines relying on defined prognosticators, especially for dynamic disease processes like COVID-19, warrant frequent reappraisal to ensure appropriate resource allocation.

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.

Reducing antimicrobial overuse through targeted therapy for patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a study protocol for a cluster-randomized factorial controlled trial (CARE-CAP).

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a significant public health concern and a leading cause of hospitalization and inpatient antimicrobial use in the USA. However, determining the etiologic pathogen is challenging because traditional culture methods are slow and insensitive, leading to prolonged empiric therapy with extended-spectrum antibiotics (ESA) that contributes to increased hospital length of stay, and antimicrobial resistance. Two potential ways to reduce the exposure to ESA are (a) rapid diagnostic assays that can provide accurate results within hours, obviating the need for empiric therapy, and (b) de-escalation following negative bacterial cultures in clinically stable patients. METHODS: We will conduct a large pragmatic 2 × 2 factorial cluster-randomized controlled trial across 12 hospitals in the Cleveland Clinic Health System that will test these two approaches to reducing the use of ESA in adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) with CAP. We will enroll over 12,000 patients and evaluate the independent and combined effects of routine use of rapid diagnostic testing at admission and pharmacist-led de-escalation after 48 h for clinically stable patients with negative cultures vs usual care. We hypothesize that both approaches will reduce days on ESA. Our primary outcome is the duration of exposure to ESA therapy, a key driver of antimicrobial resistance. Secondary outcomes include detection of respiratory viruses, treatment with anti-viral medications, positive pneumococcal urinary antigen test, de-escalation by 72 h from admission, re-escalation to ESA after de-escalation, total duration of any antibiotic, 14-day in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit transfer after admission, healthcare-associated C. difficile infection, acute kidney injury, total inpatient cost, and hospital length-of-stay. DISCUSSION: Our study aims to determine whether identifying an etiological agent early and pharmacist-led de-escalation (calling attention to negative cultures) can safely reduce the use of ESA in patients with CAP. If successful, our findings should lead to better antimicrobial stewardship, as well as improved patient outcomes and reduced healthcare costs. Our findings may also inform clinical guidelines on the optimal management of CAP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05568654 . Registered on October 4, 2022.

Assessment of Hospital-Onset SARS-CoV-2 Infection Rates and Testing Practices in the US, 2020-2022.

Importance: Characterizing the scale and factors associated with hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infections could help inform hospital and public health policies regarding prevention and surveillance needs for these infections. Objective: To evaluate associations of hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection rates with different periods of the COVID-19 pandemic, hospital characteristics, and testing practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of US hospitals reporting SARS-CoV-2 testing data in the PINC AI Healthcare Database COVID-19 special release files was conducted from July 2020 through June 2022. Data were collected from hospitals that reported at least 1 SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction or antigen test during hospitalizations discharged that month. For each hospital-month where the hospital reported sufficient data, all hospitalizations discharged in that month were included in the cohort. SARS-CoV-2 viral tests and results reported in the microbiology files for all hospitalizations in the study period by discharge month were identified. Data analysis was conducted from September 2022 to March 2023. Exposure: Hospitalizations discharged in an included hospital-month. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariable generalized estimating equation negative-binomial regression models were used to assess associations of monthly rates of hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infections per 1000 patient-days (defined as a first positive SARS-CoV-2 test during after hospitalization day 7) with the phase of the pandemic (defined as the predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant in circulation), admission testing rates, and hospital characteristics (hospital bed size, teaching status, urban vs rural designation, Census region, and patient distribution variables). Results: A total of 5687 hospital-months from 288 distinct hospitals were included, which contributed 4 421 268 hospitalization records. Among 171 564 hospitalizations with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, 7591 (4.4%) were found to be hospital onset and 6455 (3.8%) were indeterminate onset. The mean monthly hospital-onset infection rate per 1000 patient-days was 0.27 (95 CI, 0.26-0.29). Hospital-onset infections occurred in 2217 of 5687 hospital-months (39.0%). The monthly percentage of discharged patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at admission varied; 1673 hospital-months (29.4%) had less than 25% of hospitalizations tested at admission; 2199 hospital-months (38.7%) had 25% to 50% of all hospitalizations tested, and 1815 hospital months (31.9%) had more than 50% of all hospitalizations tested at admission. Postadmission testing rates and community-onset infection rates increased with admission testing rates. In multivariable models restricted to hospital-months testing at least 25% of hospitalizations at admission, a 10% increase in community-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was associated with a 178% increase in the hospital-onset infection rate (rate ratio, 2.78; 95% CI, 2.52-3.07). Additionally, the phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, the admission testing rate, Census region, and bed size were all significantly associated with hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection rates. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of hospitals reporting SARS-CoV-2 infections, there was an increase of hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infections when community-onset infections were higher, indicating a need for ongoing and enhanced surveillance and prevention efforts to reduce in-hospital transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infections, particularly when community-incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections is high.

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.

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.

Early Discontinuation of Antibiotics in Patients Admitted With Clinically Suspected Serious Infection but Negative Cultures: Retrospective Cohort Study of Practice Patterns and Outcomes at 111†US Hospitals.

Background: The optimal duration for antibiotics in patients hospitalized with culture-negative serious infection (CNSI) is unknown. We compared outcomes in patients with CNSI treated with 3 or 4 vs ≥5 days of antibiotics. Methods: CNSI was identified among adults admitted to 111 US hospitals between 2009 and 2014 via electronic health record data, defined as suspected serious infection (blood cultures drawn and ≥3 days of antibiotics) and negative culture- and nonculture-based tests for infection. Patients treated with antibiotics on their last hospital day and patients with diagnosis codes for sepsis-mimicking conditions were excluded. Among patients without fevers/hypothermia or vasopressors by day 3, we calculated odds ratios for in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice associated with 3 or 4 vs ≥5 days of antibiotics, adjusting for confounders. Results: Antibiotics were discontinued in 3 or 4 days in 1862 (9%) of 20 714 patients with CNSI. Early discontinuation was not associated with higher mortality odds overall (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.27; 95% CI, .98-1.65), in patients presenting with (1.39; .88-2.22) and without sepsis (1.17; .81-1.69), and in those with pulmonary (1.23; .65-2.34) and nonpulmonary CNSI (1.30; .99-1.72). Early discontinuation appeared detrimental with propensity score weighting (aOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.03-1.80) and when retaining patients with sepsis mimics (1.38; 1.16-1.65), but it was protective (0.48; .37-.64]) when retaining patients who received antibiotics on their last hospital day. Conclusions: Early discontinuation of antibiotics in CNSI was not associated with significant harm in our primary analysis, but different conclusions based on alternative analytic decisions, as well as risk of residual confounding, indicate that randomized controlled trials are needed.

Outcomes Among Patients Hospitalized With Non-COVID-19 Conditions Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Alberta and Ontario, Canada.

Importance: The association of inpatient COVID-19 caseloads with outcomes in patients hospitalized with non-COVID-19 conditions is unclear. Objective: To determine whether 30-day mortality and length of stay (LOS) for patients hospitalized with non-COVID-19 medical conditions differed (1) before and during the pandemic and (2) across COVID-19 caseloads. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study compared patient hospitalizations between April 1, 2018, and September 30, 2019 (prepandemic), vs between April 1, 2020, and September 30, 2021 (during the pandemic), in 235 acute care hospitals in Alberta and Ontario, Canada. All adults hospitalized for heart failure (HF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma, urinary tract infection or urosepsis, acute coronary syndrome, or stroke were included. Exposure: The monthly surge index for each hospital from April 2020 through September 2021 was used as a measure of COVID-19 caseload relative to baseline bed capacity. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality after hospital admission for the 5 selected conditions or COVID-19 as measured by hierarchical multivariable regression models. Length of stay was the secondary outcome. Results: Between April 2018 and September 2019, 132 240 patients (mean [SD] age, 71.8 [14.8] years; 61 493 female [46.5%] and 70 747 male [53.5%]) were hospitalized for the selected medical conditions as their most responsible diagnosis compared with 115 225 (mean [SD] age, 71.9 [14.7] years, 52 058 female [45.2%] and 63 167 male [54.8%]) between April 2020 and September 2021 (114 414 [99.3%] of whom had negative SARS-CoV-2 test results). Patients admitted during the pandemic with any of the selected conditions and concomitant SARS-CoV-2 infection exhibited a much longer LOS (mean [SD], 8.6 [7.1] days or a median of 6 days longer [range, 1-22 days]) and greater mortality (varying across diagnoses, but with a mean [SD] absolute increase at 30 days of 4.7% [3.1%]) than those without coinfection. Patients hospitalized with any of the selected conditions without concomitant SARS-CoV-2 infection had similar LOSs during the pandemic as before the pandemic, and only patients with HF (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.24) and COPD or asthma (AOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.30-1.53) had a higher risk-adjusted 30-day mortality during the pandemic. As hospitals experienced COVID-19 surges, LOS and risk-adjusted mortality remained stable for patients with the selected conditions but were higher in patients with COVID-19. Once capacity reached above the 99th percentile, patients' 30-day mortality AOR was 1.80 (95% CI, 1.24-2.61) vs when the surge index was below the 75th percentile. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that during surges in COVID-19 caseloads, mortality rates were significantly higher only for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. However, most patients hospitalized with non-COVID-19 conditions and negative SARS-CoV-2 test results (except those with HF or with COPD or asthma) exhibited similar risk-adjusted outcomes during the pandemic as before the pandemic, even during COVID-19 caseload surges, suggesting resiliency in the event of regional or hospital-specific occupancy strains.

Association between minimum inhibitory concentration values and mortality risk in patients with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections: a retrospective cohort study of electronic health records from 148 US hospitals.

Background: Clinical data informing antimicrobial susceptibility breakpoints for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections are lacking. We sought to leverage real-world data to identify MIC values within the currently defined susceptible range that could discriminate mortality risk for patients with S. maltophilia infections and guide future breakpoint revisions. Methods: Inpatients with S. maltophilia infection who received single-agent targeted therapy with levofloxacin or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole were identified in the Cerner HealthFacts electronic health record database. Encounters were restricted to those with MIC values reported to be in the susceptible range for both agents. Curation for exact (non-range) MIC values yielded sequentially granular model populations. Logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted OR (aOR) of mortality or hospice discharge associated with different susceptible-range MICs, controlling for patient- and centre-related factors, and infection site, polymicrobial infection and receipt of empirical therapy. Results: Seventy-three of 851 levofloxacin-treated patients had levofloxacin MIC of exactly 2 mg/L (current Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) susceptibility breakpoint) and served as the reference category for levofloxacin breakpoint models. In breakpoint model I (n = 501), aOR of mortality associated with infection due to isolates with levofloxacin MIC of ≤1 versus 2 mg/L were similar [aOR = 1.79 (95% CI 0.88-3.62), P = 0.11]. In breakpoint model IIa (n = 358), aOR of mortality associated with MIC ≤0.5 versus 2 mg/L were also similar [aOR 0.1.36 (95% CI 0.65-2.83), P = 0.41]. However, breakpoint model IIb (n = 297) displayed higher aOR of mortality associated with an MIC of 1 versus 2 mg/L [aOR 2.36 (95% CI 1.14-4.88), P = 0.02]. Only 9/645 trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole-treated patients had trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole MIC of exactly 2/38 mg/L precluding informative models for this agent. Conclusions: In this retrospective study of real-world patients with S. maltophilia infection, risk-adjusted survival data do not appear to stratify patients clinically within current susceptible-range MIC breakpoint for levofloxacin (≤2 mg/L) by mortality.

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.