Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination Is Associated With Reduced Outpatient Antibiotic Prescribing in Older Adults With Confirmed Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2: A Population-Wide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are frequently prescribed unnecessarily in outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We sought to evaluate factors associated with antibiotic prescribing in outpatients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. METHODS: We performed a population-wide cohort study of outpatients aged ≥66 years with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021 in Ontario, Canada. We determined rates of antibiotic prescribing within 1 week before (prediagnosis) and 1 week after (postdiagnosis) reporting of the positive SARS-CoV-2 result, compared to a self-controlled period (baseline). We evaluated predictors of prescribing, including a primary-series COVID-19 vaccination, in univariate and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: We identified 13 529 eligible nursing home residents and 50 885 eligible community-dwelling adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the nursing home and community residents, 3020 (22%) and 6372 (13%), respectively, received at least 1 antibiotic prescription within 1 week of a SARS-CoV-2 positive result. Antibiotic prescribing in nursing home and community residents occurred, respectively, at 15.0 and 10.5 prescriptions per 1000 person-days prediagnosis and 20.9 and 9.8 per 1000 person-days postdiagnosis, higher than the baseline rates of 4.3 and 2.5 prescriptions per 1000 person-days. COVID-19 vaccination was associated with reduced prescribing in nursing home and community residents, with adjusted postdiagnosis incidence rate ratios (95% confidence interval) of 0.7 (0.4-1) and 0.3 (0.3-0.4), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prescribing was high and with little or no decline following SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis but was reduced in COVID-19-vaccinated individuals, highlighting the importance of vaccination and antibiotic stewardship in older adults with COVID-19.

Effect of inpatient antibiotic treatment among older adults with delirium found with a positive urinalysis: a health record review.

BACKGROUND: Among older adults with delirium and positive urinalysis, antibiotic treatment for urinary tract infection is common practice, but unsupported by literature or guidelines. We sought to: i) determine the rate of antibiotic treatment and the proportion of asymptomatic patients (other than delirium) in this patient population, and ii) examine the effect of antibiotic treatment on delirium resolution and adverse outcomes. METHODS: A health record review was conducted at a tertiary academic centre from January to December 2020. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 65, positive delirium screening assessment, positive urinalysis, and admission to general medical units. Outcomes included rates of antibiotic treatment, delirium on day 7 of admission, and 30-day adverse outcomes. We compared delirium and adverse outcome rates in antibiotic-treated vs. non-treated groups. We conducted subgroup analyses among asymptomatic patients. RESULTS: We included 150 patients (57% female, mean age 85.4 years). Antibiotics were given to 86%. The asymptomatic subgroup (delirium without urinary symptoms or fever) comprised 38% and antibiotic treatment rate in this subgroup was 68%. There was no significant difference in delirium rate on day 7 between antibiotic-treated vs. non-treated groups, (entire cohort RR 0.94 [0.41-2.16] and asymptomatic subgroup RR 0.69 [0.22-2.15]) or in 30-day adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with delirium and positive urinalysis in general medical inpatient units were frequently treated with antibiotics - often despite the absence of urinary or other infectious symptoms. We failed to find evidence that antibiotic treatment in this population is associated with delirium resolution on day 7 of admission.

Introduction of a penicillin allergy de-labelling program with direct oral challenge and its effects on utilization of beta-lactam antimicrobials: a multicenter retrospective parallel cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Self-reported penicillin allergy labels are common and often inaccurate after assessment. These labels can lead to reduced use of first-line beta-lactam antibiotics and worse outcomes. We measured the impact of a previously performed inpatient proactive systematic penicillin allergy de-labelling program on subsequent antibiotic use. This prior program included assessment, risk-stratification, and low risk direct oral amoxicillin challenge. METHODS: We performed a retrospective comparison of parallel cohorts from two separate tertiary care hospital campuses in Ottawa, Canada across two penicillin de-labelling intervention periods across April 15th to April 30th, 2021, and February 15th to March 8th, 2022. Outcomes, including penicillin allergy labelling and antibiotic use, were collected for the index admission and the subsequent 6-month period. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 368 patients with penicillin allergy label were included across two campuses and study periods. 24 (13.8%) patients in the intervention groups had sustained penicillin allergy label removal at 30 days from admission vs. 3 (1.5%) in the non-intervention group (p < 0.001). In the 6-months following admission, beta-lactams were prescribed more frequently in the intervention groups vs. the non-intervention groups for all patients (28 [16.1%] vs.15 [7.7%], p = 0.04) and were prescribed more frequently amongst those who received at least one antibiotic (28/46 [60.9%] vs.15/40 [37.5%], p = 0.097). In a multivariate regression analysis, the intervention groups were found to be associated with an increased odds of beta-lactam prescribing in all patients (OR 2.49, 95%CI 1.29-5.02) and in those prescribed at least one antibiotic (OR 2.44, 95%CI 1.00-6.15). No drug-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Proactive penicillin allergy de-labelling for inpatients was associated with a reduction in penicillin allergy labels and increased utilization of beta-lactams in the subsequent 6-months.

Resource utilization and cost assessment of a proactive penicillin allergy de-labeling program for low-risk inpatients.

BACKGROUND: Resource utilization and costs can impede proactive assessment and de-labeling of penicillin allergy among inpatients. METHODS: Our pilot intervention was a proactive penicillin allergy de-labeling program for new inpatients with penicillin allergy. Patients deemed appropriate for a challenge with a low-risk penicillin allergy history were administered 250 mg amoxicillin and monitored for 1 h. We performed an explorative economic evaluation using various healthcare professional wages. RESULTS: Over two separate 2-week periods between April 2021 and March 2022, we screened 126 new inpatients with a penicillin allergy. After exclusions, 55 were appropriate for formal assessment. 19 completed the oral challenge, and 12 were directly de-labeled, resulting in a number needed to screen of 4 and a number needed to assess of 1.8 to effectively de-label one patient. The assessor's median time in the hospital per day de-labeling was 4h08 with a range of (0h05, 6h45). A single-site annual implementation would result in 715 penicillin allergy assessments with 403 patients de-labeled assuming 20,234 annual weekday admissions and an 8.9% penicillin allergy rate. Depending on the assessor used, the annual cost of administration would be between $21,476 ($53.29 per effectively de-labeled patient) for a pharmacy technician and $61,121 ($151.67 per effectively de-labeled patient) for a Nurse Practitioner or Physician Assistant. CONCLUSION: A proactive approach, including a direct oral challenge for low-risk in-patients with penicillin allergy, appears safe and feasible. Similar programs could be implemented at other institutions across Canada to increase access to allergy assessment.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in schools using built environment testing in Ottawa, Canada: A multi-facility prospective surveillance study.

Classroom and staffroom floor swabs across six elementary schools in Ottawa, Canada were tested for SARS-CoV-2. Environmental test positivity did not correlate with student grade groups, school-level absenteeism, pediatric COVID-19-related hospitalizations, or community SARS-CoV-2 wastewater levels. Schools in neighbourhoods with historically elevated COVID-19 burden showed a negative but non-significant association with lower swab positivity.

The spatial and temporal distribution of SARS-CoV-2 from the built environment of COVID-19 patient rooms: A multicentre prospective study.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 can be detected from the built environment (e.g., floors), but it is unknown how the viral burden surrounding an infected patient changes over space and time. Characterizing these data can help advance our understanding and interpretation of surface swabs from the built environment. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study at two hospitals in Ontario, Canada between January 19, 2022 and February 11, 2022. We performed serial floor sampling for SARS-CoV-2 in rooms of patients newly hospitalized with COVID-19 in the past 48 hours. We sampled the floor twice daily until the occupant moved to another room, was discharged, or 96 hours had elapsed. Floor sampling locations included 1 metre (m) from the hospital bed, 2 m from the hospital bed, and at the room's threshold to the hallway (typically 3 to 5 m from the hospital bed). The samples were analyzed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 using quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). We calculated the sensitivity of detecting SARS-CoV-2 in a patient with COVID-19, and we evaluated how the percentage of positive swabs and the cycle threshold of the swabs changed over time. We also compared the cycle threshold between the two hospitals. RESULTS: Over the 6-week study period we collected 164 floor swabs from the rooms of 13 patients. The overall percentage of swabs positive for SARS-CoV-2 was 93% and the median cycle threshold was 33.4 (interquartile range [IQR]: 30.8, 37.2). On day 0 of swabbing the percentage of swabs positive for SARS-CoV-2 was 88% and the median cycle threshold was 33.6 (IQR: 31.8, 38.2) compared to swabs performed on day 2 or later where the percentage of swabs positive for SARS-CoV-2 was 98% and the cycle threshold was 33.2 (IQR: 30.6, 35.6). We found that viral detection did not change with increasing time (since the first sample collection) over the sampling period, Odds Ratio (OR) 1.65 per day (95% CI 0.68, 4.02; p = 0.27). Similarly, viral detection did not change with increasing distance from the patient's bed (1 m, 2 m, or 3 m), OR 0.85 per metre (95% CI 0.38, 1.88; p = 0.69). The cycle threshold was lower (i.e., more virus) in The Ottawa Hospital (median quantification cycle [Cq] 30.8) where floors were cleaned once daily compared to the Toronto hospital (median Cq 37.2) where floors were cleaned twice daily. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to detect SARS-CoV-2 on the floors in rooms of patients with COVID-19. The viral burden did not vary over time or by distance from the patient's bed. These results suggest floor swabbing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a built environment such as a hospital room is both accurate and robust to variation in sampling location and duration of occupancy.

Detection of Covid-19 Outbreaks Using Built Environment Testing for SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Environmental surveillance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) through wastewater has become a useful tool for population-level surveillance. Built environment sampling may provide a more spatially refined approach for surveillance in congregate living settings. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study in 10 long-term care homes (LTCHs) between September 2021 and November 2022. Floor surfaces were sampled weekly at multiple locations within each building and analyzed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 using quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. The primary outcome was the presence of a coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) outbreak in the week that floor sampling was performed. RESULTS: Over the 14-month study period, we collected 4895 swabs at 10 LTCHs. During the study period, 23 Covid-19 outbreaks occurred with 119 cumulative weeks under outbreak. During outbreak periods, the proportion of floor swabs that were positive for SARS-CoV-2 was 54.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 52 to 56.6), and during non-outbreak periods it was 22.3% (95% CI, 20.9 to 23.8). Using the proportion of floor swabs positive for SARS-CoV-2 to predict Covid-19 outbreak status in a given week, the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.9). Among 10 LTCHs with an outbreak and swabs performed in the prior week, eight had positive floor swabs exceeding 10% at least 5 days before outbreak identification. For seven of these eight LTCHs, positivity of floor swabs exceeded 10% more than 10 days before the outbreak was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Detection of SARS-CoV-2 on floors is strongly associated with Covid-19 outbreaks in LTCHs. These data suggest a potential role for floor sampling in improving early outbreak identification.

Failure of ivermectin per rectum to achieve clinically meaningful serum levels in two cases of Strongyloides hyperinfection.

Two cases of Strongyloides hyperinfection are presented. Ivermectin was initially administered orally and per rectum pending the availability of subcutaneous (SC) preparations. In neither case did rectal suppositories of ivermectin achieve clinically meaningful serum values. Clinicians should use SC preparations of ivermectin as early as possible in Strongyloides hyperinfection and dissemination.