Stewardship Prompts to Improve Antibiotic Selection for Urinary Tract Infection: The INSPIRE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the second most common infection leading to hospitalization and is often associated with gram-negative multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). Clinicians overuse extended-spectrum antibiotics although most patients are at low risk for MDRO infection. Safe strategies to limit overuse of empiric antibiotics are needed. Objective: To evaluate whether computerized provider order entry (CPOE) prompts providing patient- and pathogen-specific MDRO risk estimates could reduce use of empiric extended-spectrum antibiotics for treatment of UTI. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster-randomized trial in 59 US community hospitals comparing the effect of a CPOE stewardship bundle (education, feedback, and real-time and risk-based CPOE prompts; 29 hospitals) vs routine stewardship (n = 30 hospitals) on antibiotic selection during the first 3 hospital days (empiric period) in noncritically ill adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with UTI with an 18-month baseline (April 1, 2017-September 30, 2018) and 15-month intervention period (April 1, 2019-June 30, 2020). Interventions: CPOE prompts recommending empiric standard-spectrum antibiotics in patients ordered to receive extended-spectrum antibiotics who have low estimated absolute risk (<10%) of MDRO UTI, coupled with feedback and education. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was empiric (first 3 days of hospitalization) extended-spectrum antibiotic days of therapy. Secondary outcomes included empiric vancomycin and antipseudomonal days of therapy. Safety outcomes included days to intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and hospital length of stay. Outcomes were assessed using generalized linear mixed-effect models to assess differences between the baseline and intervention periods. Results: Among 127 403 adult patients (71 991 baseline and 55 412 intervention period) admitted with UTI in 59 hospitals, the mean (SD) age was 69.4 (17.9) years, 30.5% were male, and the median Elixhauser Comorbidity Index count was 4 (IQR, 2-5). Compared with routine stewardship, the group using CPOE prompts had a 17.4% (95% CI, 11.2%-23.2%) reduction in empiric extended-spectrum days of therapy (rate ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.77-0.89]; P < .001). The safety outcomes of mean days to ICU transfer (6.6 vs 7.0 days) and hospital length of stay (6.3 vs 6.5 days) did not differ significantly between the routine and intervention groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with routine stewardship, CPOE prompts providing real-time recommendations for standard-spectrum antibiotics for patients with low MDRO risk coupled with feedback and education significantly reduced empiric extended-spectrum antibiotic use among noncritically ill adults admitted with UTI without changing hospital length of stay or days to ICU transfers. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03697096.

Stewardship Prompts to Improve Antibiotic Selection for Pneumonia: The INSPIRE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Pneumonia is the most common infection requiring hospitalization and is a major reason for overuse of extended-spectrum antibiotics. Despite low risk of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) infection, clinical uncertainty often drives initial antibiotic selection. Strategies to limit empiric antibiotic overuse for patients with pneumonia are needed. Objective: To evaluate whether computerized provider order entry (CPOE) prompts providing patient- and pathogen-specific MDRO infection risk estimates could reduce empiric extended-spectrum antibiotics for non-critically ill patients admitted with pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster-randomized trial in 59 US community hospitals comparing the effect of a CPOE stewardship bundle (education, feedback, and real-time MDRO risk-based CPOE prompts; n = 29 hospitals) vs routine stewardship (n = 30 hospitals) on antibiotic selection during the first 3 hospital days (empiric period) in non-critically ill adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with pneumonia. There was an 18-month baseline period from April 1, 2017, to September 30, 2018, and a 15-month intervention period from April 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020. Intervention: CPOE prompts recommending standard-spectrum antibiotics in patients ordered to receive extended-spectrum antibiotics during the empiric period who have low estimated absolute risk (<10%) of MDRO pneumonia, coupled with feedback and education. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was empiric (first 3 days of hospitalization) extended-spectrum antibiotic days of therapy. Secondary outcomes included empiric vancomycin and antipseudomonal days of therapy and safety outcomes included days to intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and hospital length of stay. Outcomes compared differences between baseline and intervention periods across strategies. Results: Among 59 hospitals with 96 451 (51 671 in the baseline period and 44 780 in the intervention period) adult patients admitted with pneumonia, the mean (SD) age of patients was 68.1 (17.0) years, 48.1% were men, and the median (IQR) Elixhauser comorbidity count was 4 (2-6). Compared with routine stewardship, the group using CPOE prompts had a 28.4% reduction in empiric extended-spectrum days of therapy (rate ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.66-0.78]; P < .001). Safety outcomes of mean days to ICU transfer (6.5 vs 7.1 days) and hospital length of stay (6.8 vs 7.1 days) did not differ significantly between the routine and CPOE intervention groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Empiric extended-spectrum antibiotic use was significantly lower among adults admitted with pneumonia to non-ICU settings in hospitals using education, feedback, and CPOE prompts recommending standard-spectrum antibiotics for patients at low risk of MDRO infection, compared with routine stewardship practices. Hospital length of stay and days to ICU transfer were unchanged. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03697070.

Validity of inpatient electronic health record-based measures of oxygen-related therapy in the United States: Lessons applicable for studying COVID-19 endpoints.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, inpatient electronic health records (EHRs) have been used to conduct public health surveillance and assess treatments and outcomes. Invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) and supplemental oxygen (O2) use are markers of severe illness in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. In a large US system (n = 142 hospitals), we assessed documentation of MV and O2 use during COVID-19 hospitalization in administrative data versus nursing documentation. METHODS: We identified 319 553 adult hospitalizations with a COVID-19 diagnosis, February 2020-October 2022, and extracted coded, administrative data for MV or O2. Separately, we developed classification rules for MV or O2 supplementation from semi-structured nursing documentation. We assessed MV and O2 supplementation in administrative data versus nursing documentation and calculated ordinal endpoints of decreasing COVID-19 disease severity. Nursing documentation was considered the gold standard in sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) analyses. RESULTS: In nursing documentation, the prevalence of MV and O2 supplementation among COVID-19 hospitalizations was 14% and 75%, respectively. The sensitivity of administrative data was 83% for MV and 41% for O2, with both PPVs above 91%. Concordance between sources was 97% for MV (κ = 0.85), and 54% for O2 (κ = 0.21). For ordinal endpoints, administrative data accurately identified intensive care and MV but underestimated hospitalizations with O2 requirements (42% vs. 18%). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to nursing documentation, administrative data under-ascertained O2 supplementation but accurately estimated severe endpoints such as MV. Nursing documentation improved ascertainment of O2 among COVID-19 hospitalizations and can capture oxygen requirements in adults hospitalized with COVID-19 or other respiratory illnesses.

Developing a PRogram to Educate and Sensitize Caregivers to Reduce the Inappropriate Prescription Burden in the Elderly with Alzheimer's Disease (D-PRESCRIBE-AD): Trial protocol and rationale of an open-label pragmatic, prospective randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Potentially inappropriate prescribing of medications in older adults, particular those with dementia, can lead to adverse drug events including falls and fractures, worsening cognitive impairment, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. Educational mailings from health plans to patients and their providers to encourage deprescribing conversations may represent an effective, low-cost, "light touch", approach to reducing the burden of potentially inappropriate prescription use in older adults with dementia. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the Developing a PRogram to Educate and Sensitize Caregivers to Reduce the Inappropriate Prescription Burden in Elderly with Alzheimer's Disease (D-PRESCRIBE-AD) trial is to evaluate the effect of a health plan based multi-faceted educational outreach intervention to community dwelling patients with dementia who are currently prescribed sedative/hypnotics, antipsychotics, or strong anticholinergics. METHODS: The D-PRESCRIBE-AD is an open-label pragmatic, prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing three arms: 1) educational mailing to both the health plan patient and their prescribing physician (patient plus physician arm, n = 4814); 2) educational mailing to prescribing physician only (physician only arm, n = 4814); and 3) usual care (n = 4814) among patients with dementia enrolled in two large United States based health plans. The primary outcome is the absence of any dispensing of the targeted potentially inappropriate prescription during the 6-month study observation period after a 3-month black out period following the mailing. Secondary outcomes include dose-reduction, polypharmacy, healthcare utilization, mortality and therapeutic switching within targeted drug classes. CONCLUSION: This large pragmatic RCT will contribute to the evidence base on promoting deprescribing of potentially inappropriate medications among older adults with dementia. If successful, such light touch, inexpensive and highly scalable interventions have the potential to reduce the burden of potentially inappropriate prescribing for patients with dementia. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05147428.

National validation of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services strategy for identifying potential surgical-site infections following colon surgery and abdominal hysterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: National validation of claims-based surveillance for surgical-site infections (SSIs) following colon surgery and abdominal hysterectomy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: US hospitals selected for data validation by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). PARTICIPANTS: The study included 550 hospitals performing colon surgery and 458 hospitals performing abdominal hysterectomy in federal fiscal year 2013. METHODS: We requested 1,200 medical records from hospitals selected for validation as part of the CMS Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting program. For colon surgery, we sampled 60% with a billing code suggestive of SSI during their index admission and/or readmission within 30 days and 40% who were readmitted without one of these codes. For abdominal hysterectomy, we included all patients with an SSI code during their index admission, all patients readmitted within 30 days, and a sample of those with a prolonged surgical admission (length of stay > 7 days). We calculated sensitivity and positive predictive value for the different groups. RESULTS: We identified 142 colon-surgery SSIs (46 superficial SSIs and 96 deep and organ-space SSIs) and 127 abdominal-hysterectomy SSIs (58 superficial SSIs and 69 deep and organ-space SSIs). Extrapolating to the full CMS data validation cohort, we estimated an SSI rate of 8.3% for colon surgery and 3.0% for abdominal hysterectomy. Our colon-surgery surveillance codes identified 93% of SSIs, with 1 SSI identified for every 2.6 patients reviewed. Our abdominal-hysterectomy surveillance codes identified 73% of SSIs, with 1 SSI identified for every 1.6 patients reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: Using claims to target record review for SSI validation performed well in a national sample.

Assessing past versus present severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection: A survey of criteria for discontinuing precautions in asymptomatic patients testing positive on admission.

Infection prevention program leaders report frequent use of criteria to distinguish recently recovered coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases from actively infectious cases when incidentally positive asymptomatic patients were identified on routine severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. Guidance on appropriate interpretation of high-sensitivity molecular tests can prevent harm from unnecessary precautions that delay admission and impede medical care.

Nasal Iodophor Antiseptic vs Nasal Mupirocin Antibiotic in the Setting of Chlorhexidine Bathing to Prevent Infections in Adult ICUs: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Universal nasal mupirocin plus chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing in intensive care units (ICUs) prevents methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections and all-cause bloodstream infections. Antibiotic resistance to mupirocin has raised questions about whether an antiseptic could be advantageous for ICU decolonization. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of iodophor vs mupirocin for universal ICU nasal decolonization in combination with CHG bathing. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two-group noninferiority, pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial conducted in US community hospitals, all of which used mupirocin-CHG for universal decolonization in ICUs at baseline. Adult ICU patients in 137 randomized hospitals during baseline (May 1, 2015-April 30, 2017) and intervention (November 1, 2017-April 30, 2019) were included. Intervention: Universal decolonization involving switching to iodophor-CHG (intervention) or continuing mupirocin-CHG (baseline). Main Outcomes and Measures: ICU-attributable S aureus clinical cultures (primary outcome), MRSA clinical cultures, and all-cause bloodstream infections were evaluated using proportional hazard models to assess differences from baseline to intervention periods between the strategies. Results were also compared with a 2009-2011 trial of mupirocin-CHG vs no decolonization in the same hospital network. The prespecified noninferiority margin for the primary outcome was 10%. Results: Among the 801 668 admissions in 233 ICUs, the participants' mean (SD) age was 63.4 (17.2) years, 46.3% were female, and the mean (SD) ICU length of stay was 4.8 (4.7) days. Hazard ratios (HRs) for S aureus clinical isolates in the intervention vs baseline periods were 1.17 for iodophor-CHG (raw rate: 5.0 vs 4.3/1000 ICU-attributable days) and 0.99 for mupirocin-CHG (raw rate: 4.1 vs 4.0/1000 ICU-attributable days) (HR difference in differences significantly lower by 18.4% [95% CI, 10.7%-26.6%] for mupirocin-CHG, P < .001). For MRSA clinical cultures, HRs were 1.13 for iodophor-CHG (raw rate: 2.3 vs 2.1/1000 ICU-attributable days) and 0.99 for mupirocin-CHG (raw rate: 2.0 vs 2.0/1000 ICU-attributable days) (HR difference in differences significantly lower by 14.1% [95% CI, 3.7%-25.5%] for mupirocin-CHG, P = .007). For all-pathogen bloodstream infections, HRs were 1.00 (2.7 vs 2.7/1000) for iodophor-CHG and 1.01 (2.6 vs 2.6/1000) for mupirocin-CHG (nonsignificant HR difference in differences, -0.9% [95% CI, -9.0% to 8.0%]; P = .84). Compared with the 2009-2011 trial, the 30-day relative reduction in hazards in the mupirocin-CHG group relative to no decolonization (2009-2011 trial) were as follows: S aureus clinical cultures (current trial: 48.1% [95% CI, 35.6%-60.1%]; 2009-2011 trial: 58.8% [95% CI, 47.5%-70.7%]) and bloodstream infection rates (current trial: 70.4% [95% CI, 62.9%-77.8%]; 2009-2011 trial: 60.1% [95% CI, 49.1%-70.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Nasal iodophor antiseptic did not meet criteria to be considered noninferior to nasal mupirocin antibiotic for the outcome of S aureus clinical cultures in adult ICU patients in the context of daily CHG bathing. In addition, the results were consistent with nasal iodophor being inferior to nasal mupirocin. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03140423.

Treatment and care received by children hospitalized with COVID-19 in a large hospital network in the United States, February 2020 to September 2021.

We described care received by hospitalized children with COVID-19 or multi-system inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) prior to the 2021 COVID-19 Omicron variant surge in the US. We identified hospitalized children <18 years of age with a COVID-19 or MIS-C diagnosis (COVID-19 not required), separately, from February 2020-September 2021 (n = 126 hospitals). We described high-risk conditions, inpatient treatments, and complications among these groups. Among 383,083 pediatric hospitalizations, 2,186 had COVID-19 and 395 had MIS-C diagnosis. Less than 1% had both COVID-19 and MIS-C diagnosis (n = 154). Over half were >6 years old (54% COVID-19, 70% MIS-C). High-risk conditions included asthma (14% COVID-19, 11% MIS-C), and obesity (9% COVID-19, 10% MIS-C). Pulmonary complications in children with COVID-19 included viral pneumonia (24%) and acute respiratory failure (11%). In reference to children with COVID-19, those with MIS-C had more hematological disorders (62% vs 34%), sepsis (16% vs 6%), pericarditis (13% vs 2%), myocarditis (8% vs 1%). Few were ventilated or died, but some required oxygen support (38% COVID-19, 45% MIS-C) or intensive care (42% COVID-19, 69% MIS-C). Treatments included: methylprednisolone (34% COVID-19, 75% MIS-C), dexamethasone (25% COVID-19, 15% MIS-C), remdesivir (13% COVID-19, 5% MIS-C). Antibiotics (50% COVID-19, 68% MIS-C) and low-molecular weight heparin (17% COVID-19, 34% MIS-C) were frequently administered. Markers of illness severity among hospitalized children with COVID-19 prior to the 2021 Omicron surge are consistent with previous studies. We report important trends on treatments in hospitalized children with COVID-19 to improve the understanding of real-world treatment patterns in this population.

Pragmatic guidance for embedding pragmatic clinical trials in health plans: Large simple trials aren't so simple.

BACKGROUND: There are unique opportunities related to the design and conduct of pragmatic trials embedded in health insurance plans, which have longitudinal data on member/patient demographics, dates of coverage, and reimbursed medical care, including prescription drug dispensings, vaccine administrations, behavioral healthcare encounters, and some laboratory results. Such trials can be large and efficient, using these data to identify trial-eligible patients and to ascertain outcomes. METHODS: We use our experience primarily with the National Institutes of Health Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory Distributed Research Network, which comprises health plans that participate in the US Food & Drug Administration's Sentinel System, to describe lessons learned from the conduct and planning of embedded pragmatic trials. RESULTS: Information is available for research on more than 75 million people with commercial or Medicare Advantage health plans. We describe three studies that have used or plan to use the Network, as well as a single health plan study, from which we glean our lessons learned. CONCLUSIONS: Studies that are conducted in health plans provide much-needed evidence to drive clinically meaningful changes in care. However, there are many unique aspects of these trials that must be considered in the planning, implementation, and analytic phases. The type of trial best suited for studies embedded in health plans will be those that require large sample sizes, simple interventions that could be disseminated through health plans, and where data available to the health plan can be leveraged. These trials hold potential for substantial long-term impact on our ability to generate evidence to improve care and population health.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection prevention practices that exceed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance: Balancing extra caution against impediments to care.

In a survey of infection prevention programs, leaders reported frequent clinical and infection prevention practice modifications to avoid coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) exposure that exceeded national guidance. Future pandemic responses should emphasize balanced approaches to precautions, prioritize educational campaigns to manage safety concerns, and generate an evidence-base that can guide appropriate infection prevention practices.

The impact of surgical volume on hospital ranking using the standardized infection ratio.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services require hospitals to report on quality metrics which are used to financially penalize those that perform in the lowest quartile. Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a critical component of the quality metrics that target healthcare-associated infections. However, the accuracy of such hospital profiling is highly affected by small surgical volumes which lead to a large amount of uncertainty in estimating standardized hospital-specific infection rates. Currently, hospitals with less than one expected SSI are excluded from rankings, but the effectiveness of this exclusion criterion is unknown. Tools that can quantify the classification accuracy and can determine the minimal surgical volume required for a desired level of accuracy are lacking. We investigate the effect of surgical volume on the accuracy of identifying poorly performing hospitals based on the standardized infection ratio and develop simulation-based algorithms for quantifying the classification accuracy. We apply our proposed method to data from HCA Healthcare (2014-2016) on SSIs in colon surgery patients. We estimate that for a procedure like colon surgery with an overall SSI rate of 3%, to rank hospitals in the HCA colon SSI dataset, hospitals that perform less than 200 procedures have a greater than 10% chance of being incorrectly assigned to the worst performing quartile. Minimum surgical volumes and predicted events criteria are required to make evaluating hospitals reliable, and these criteria vary by overall prevalence and between-hospital variability.

Combined laparoscopic and open colon surgery rankings fail to accurately rank hospitals by surgical-site infection rate.

OBJECTIVE: To compare strategies for hospital ranking based on colon surgical-site infection (SSI) rate by combining all colon procedures versus stratifying by surgical approach (ie, laparoscopic vs open). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We identified SSIs among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing colon surgery from 2009 through 2013 using previously validated methods. We created a risk prediction model for SSI using age, sex, race, comorbidities, surgical approach (laparoscopy vs open), and concomitant colon and noncolon procedures. Adjusted SSI rates were used to rank hospitals. Subanalyses were performed for common colon procedures and procedure types for which there were both open and laparoscopic procedures. We generated ranks using only open and only laparoscopic procedures, overall and for each subanalysis. Rankings were compared using a Spearman correlation coefficient. RESULTS: In total, 694,813 colon procedures were identified among 508,135 Medicare beneficiaries. The overall SSI rate was 7.6%. The laparoscopic approach was associated with lower SSI risk (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.5), and higher SSI risk was associated with concomitant abdominal surgeries (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.4-1.5) and higher Elixhauser score (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1). Hospital rankings for laparascopic procedures were poorly correlated with rankings for open procedures (r = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital rankings based on total colon procedures fail to account for differences in SSI risk from laparoscopic vs open procedures. Stratifying rankings by surgical approach yields a more equitable comparison of surgical performance.

The US Food and Drug Administration Sentinel System: a national resource for a learning health system.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) created the Sentinel System in response to a requirement in the FDA Amendments Act of 2007 that the agency establish a system for monitoring risks associated with drug and biologic products using data from disparate sources. The Sentinel System has completed hundreds of analyses, including many that have directly informed regulatory decisions. The Sentinel System also was designed to support a national infrastructure for a learning health system. Sentinel governance and guiding principles were designed to facilitate Sentinel's role as a national resource. The Sentinel System infrastructure now supports multiple non-FDA projects for stakeholders ranging from regulated industry to other federal agencies, international regulators, and academics. The Sentinel System is a working example of a learning health system that is expanding with the potential to create a global learning health system that can support medical product safety assessments and other research.

Effect of Mailing Educational Material to Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Their Clinicians on Use of Oral Anticoagulants: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Only about half of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are at increased risk for stroke are treated with an oral anticoagulant (OAC), despite guideline recommendations for their use. Educating patients with AF about prevention of stroke with OACs may enable them as agents of change to initiate OAC treatment. Objective: To determine whether an educational intervention directed to patients and their clinicians stimulates the use of OACs in patients with AF who are not receiving OACs. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Implementation of a Randomized Controlled Trial to Improve Treatment With Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (IMPACT-AFib) trial was a prospective, multicenter, open-label, pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted from September 25, 2017, to May 1, 2019, embedded in health plans that participate in the US Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel System. It used the distributed database comprising health plan members to identify eligible patients, their clinicians, and outcomes. IMPACT-AFib enrolled patients with AF, a CHA2DS2-VASc (cardiac failure or dysfunction, hypertension, age 65-74 [1 point] or ≥75 years [2 points], diabetes, and stroke, transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism [2 points]-vascular disease, and sex category [female]) score of 2 or more, no evidence of OAC prescription dispensing in the preceding 12 months, and no hospitalization-related bleeding event within the prior 6 months. Interventions: Randomization to a single mailing of patient and/or clinician educational materials vs control. Main Outcomes and Measures: Analysis was performed on a modified intention-to-treat basis. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with at least 1 OAC prescription dispensed or at least 4 international normalized ratio test results within 1 year of the intervention. Results: Among 47 333 patients, there were 24 909 men (52.6%), the mean (SD) age was 77.9 (9.7) years, mean (SD) CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.5 (1.7), 22 404 patients (47.3%) had an ATRIA (Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation) bleeding risk score of 5 or more, and 8890 patients (18.8%) had a history of hospitalization for bleeding. There were 2328 of 23 546 patients (9.9%) in the intervention group with initiation of OAC at 1 year compared with 2330 of 23 787 patients (9.8%) in the control group (adjusted OR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.95-1.07]; P = .79). Conclusions and Relevance: Among a large population with AF with a guideline indication for OACs for stroke prevention who were randomized to a mailed educational intervention or to usual care, there was no clinically meaningful, numerical, or statistically significant difference in rates of OAC initiation. More-intensive interventions are needed to try and address the public health issue of underuse of anticoagulation for stroke prevention among patients with AF. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03259373.

When Can Nonrandomized Studies Support Valid Inference Regarding Effectiveness or Safety of New Medical Treatments?

The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard for evaluating the causal effects of medications. Limitations of RCTs have led to increasing interest in using real-world evidence (RWE) to augment RCT evidence and inform decision making on medications. Although RWE can be either randomized or nonrandomized, nonrandomized RWE can capitalize on the recent proliferation of large healthcare databases and can often answer questions that cannot be answered in randomized studies due to resource constraints. However, the results of nonrandomized studies are much more likely to be impacted by confounding bias, and the existence of unmeasured confounders can never be completely ruled out. Furthermore, nonrandomized studies require more complex design considerations which can sometimes result in design-related biases. We discuss questions that can help investigators or evidence consumers evaluate the potential impact of confounding or other biases on their findings: Does the design emulate a hypothetical randomized trial design? Is the comparator or control condition appropriate? Does the primary analysis adjust for measured confounders? Do sensitivity analyses quantify the potential impact of residual confounding? Are methods open to inspection and (if possible) replication? Designing a high-quality nonrandomized study of medications remains challenging and requires broad expertise across a range of disciplines, including relevant clinical areas, epidemiology, and biostatistics. The questions posed in this paper provide a guiding framework for assessing the credibility of nonrandomized RWE and could be applied across many clinical questions.

When Are Treatment Blinding and Treatment Standardization Necessary in Real-World Clinical Trials?

Concerns regarding both the limited generalizability and the slow pace of traditional randomized trials have led to calls for greater use of real-world evidence in the evaluation of new treatments or products. Real-world clinical trials or pragmatic trials often differ from traditional clinical trials in the use of open-label or nonblinded treatments delivered by real-world clinicians in community practice settings. Blinding and standardization of treatment may sometimes be necessary for internal validity, but they may also obscure or distort meaningful differences between treatments. When investigators consider whether blinding of clinicians, patients, or assessors is necessary, we suggest they consider several specific questions: Will clinicians, patients, and assessors have expectations or preferences regarding benefits or adverse effects? How might those expectations affect treatment uptake, treatment adherence, or assessment of outcomes? Will expectations differ in the settings where trial results will be applied? How would blinding of treatment reduce biases? How would blinding obscure true differences between treatments? How would procedures necessary for blinding reduce acceptability or increase risk of trial participation? When investigators consider how strictly treatments should be standardized, we suggest they consider several specific questions: How would treatment effectiveness or safety vary according to clinician experience or expertise? What level of experience or expertise is available in potential trial settings and settings where trial results would be applied? Is some level of standardization necessary for valid inference? Considering any special vulnerabilities of the study population, is some level of standardization necessary to assure participant safety?

When Can We Rely on Real-World Evidence to Evaluate New Medical Treatments?

Concerns regarding both the limited generalizability and the slow pace of traditional randomized trials have led to calls for greater use of real-world evidence (RWE) in the evaluation of new treatments or products. The RWE label has been used to refer to a variety of departures from the methods of traditional randomized controlled trials. Recognizing this complexity and potential confusion, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine convened a series of workshops to clarify and address questions regarding the use of RWE to evaluate new medical treatments. Those workshops identified three specific dimensions in which RWE studies might differ from traditional clinical trials: use of real-world data (data extracted from health system records or data captured by mobile devices), delivery of real-world treatment (open-label treatments delivered in community settings by community practitioners), and real-world treatment assignment (including nonrandomized comparisons and variations on random assignment such as before-after or stepped-wedge designs). For any RWE study, decisions regarding each of these dimensions depends on the specific research question, characteristics of the potential study settings, and characteristics of the settings where study results would be applied.

When Can We Trust Real-World Data To Evaluate New Medical Treatments?

Concerns regarding both the limited generalizability and the slow pace of traditional randomized trials have led to calls for greater use of real-world evidence (RWE) in the evaluation of new treatments or products. RWE studies often rely on real-world data (RWD), including data extracted from healthcare records or data captured by mobile phones or other consumer devices. Global assessments of RWD sources are not helpful in assessing whether any specific RWD element is fit for any specific purpose. Instead, evidence generators and evidence consumers should clearly identify the specific health state or clinical phenomenon of interest and then consider each step between that clinical phenomenon and its representation in a research database. We propose specific questions regarding potential error or bias affecting each of those steps: Would a person experiencing this clinical phenomenon present for care in this setting or interact with this recording device? Would this clinical phenomenon be accurately recognized or assessed? How might the recording environment or tools affect accurate and consistent recording of this clinical phenomenon? Can data elements from different sources be harmonized, both technically (same format) and semantically (same meaning)? Can the original data elements be consistently reduced to a useful clinical phenotype? Addressing these questions requires a range of clinical, organizational, and technical expertise. Transparency regarding each step in the creation of RWD is essential if evidence consumers are to rely on RWE studies.

The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) on Healthcare-Associated Infections.

BACKGROUND: The profound changes wrought by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on routine hospital operations may have influenced performance on hospital measures, including healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). We aimed to evaluate the association between COVID-19 surges and HAI and cluster rates. METHODS: In 148 HCA Healthcare-affiliated hospitals, from 1 March 2020 to 30 September 2020, and a subset of hospitals with microbiology and cluster data through 31 December 2020, we evaluated the association between COVID-19 surges and HAIs, hospital-onset pathogens, and cluster rates using negative binomial mixed models. To account for local variation in COVID-19 pandemic surge timing, we included the number of discharges with a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis per staffed bed per month. RESULTS: Central line-associated blood stream infections (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia increased as COVID-19 burden increased. There were 60% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 23-108%) more CLABSI, 43% (95% CI: 8-90%) more CAUTI, and 44% (95% CI: 10-88%) more cases of MRSA bacteremia than expected over 7 months based on predicted HAIs had there not been COVID-19 cases. Clostridioides difficile infection was not significantly associated with COVID-19 burden. Microbiology data from 81 of the hospitals corroborated the findings. Notably, rates of hospital-onset bloodstream infections and multidrug resistant organisms, including MRSA, vancomycin-resistant enterococcus, and Gram-negative organisms, were each significantly associated with COVID-19 surges. Finally, clusters of hospital-onset pathogens increased as the COVID-19 burden increased. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 surges adversely impact HAI rates and clusters of infections within hospitals, emphasizing the need for balancing COVID-related demands with routine hospital infection prevention.