RESUMEN
Objectives: Recognition of sepsis frequently occurs in emergency departments. To evaluate the appropriateness of empiric antibiotic use in the setting of suspected sepsis in emergency department, the percentages of bacterial infection and antibiotic-related adverse drug effects were quantified in an emergency department at an academic medical center. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed electronic medical records of adults who presented to the emergency department between January 2018 and June 2018 with suspected sepsis (defined as having ≥2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome [SIRS] criteria) and received ≥1 dose of intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotic. Results: In total, 218 patients were included in the final analysis. Moreover, 19.3% of these patients had confirmed bacterial infections; 44.5% had suspected bacterial infections; and 35.9% did not have bacterial infection. Elevated SIRS score (ie, ≥2) and Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score (ie, ≥2) were not associated with the presence of bacterial infections. We identified 90-day Clostridioides difficile infections in 7 patients and drug-resistant organism infections in 6 patients, regardless of the presence of bacterial infections. Conclusions: A high number of patients received intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics in the emergency department without confirmed or suspected bacterial infections that were supported by microbiologic cultures, radiographic imaging, or other symptoms of infections. Most patients who were initially admitted to the emergency department with suspected sepsis were discharged home after receiving 1 dose of intravenous antibiotic. Patients who were initially screened using SIRS score and who received broad-spectrum antibiotics in the emergency department were without confirmed or suspected bacterial infection.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Rapidly evolving treatment paradigms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) introduce challenges for clinicians to keep up with the pace of published literature and to critically appraise the voluminous data produced. This review summarizes the clinical evidence from key studies examining the place of therapy of recommended drugs and management strategies for COVID-19. RECENT FINDINGS: The global magnitude and duration of the pandemic have resulted in a flurry of interventional treatment trials evaluating both novel and repurposed drugs targeting various aspects of the viral life cycle. Additionally, clinical observations have documented various stages or phases of COVID-19 and underscored the importance of timing for the efficacy of studied therapies. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many observational, retrospective, and randomized controlled studies have been conducted to guide management of COVID-19 using drug therapies and other management strategies. Large, randomized, or adaptive platform trials have proven the most informative to guide recommended treatments to-date. Antimicrobial stewardship programs can play a pivotal role in ensuring appropriate use of COVID-19 therapies based on evolving clinical data and limiting unnecessary antibiotics given low rates of co-infection. SUMMARY: Given the rapidly evolving medical literature and treatment paradigms, it is recommended to reference continuously updated, curated guidelines from national and international sources. While the drugs and management strategies mentioned in this review represent the current state of recommendations, many therapies are still under investigation to further define optimal COVID-19 treatment. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11908-021-00769-8.