Search

ObjectiveTo describe patient characteristics, symptoms, patterns of care and outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in Michigan.DesignMulticentre retrospective cohort study.Setting32 acute care hospitals in the state of Michigan.ParticipantsPatients discharged (16 March–11 May 2020) with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were identified. Trained abstractors collected demographic information on all patients and detailed clinical data on a subset of COVID-19-positive patients.Primary outcome measurementsPatient characteristics, treatment and outcomes including cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mortality and venous thromboembolism within and across hospitals.ResultsDemographic-only data from 1593 COVID-19-positive and 1259 persons under investigation discharges were collected. Among 1024 cases with detailed data, the median age was 63 years; median body mass index was 30.6; and 51.4% were black. Cough, fever and shortness of breath were the top symptoms. 37.2% reported a known COVID-19 contact; 7.0% were healthcare workers; and 16.1% presented from congregated living facilities.During hospitalisation, 232 (22.7%) patients were treated in an intensive care unit (ICU); 558 (54.9%) in a ‘cohorted’ unit; 161 (15.7%) received mechanical ventilation; and 90 (8.8%) received high-flow nasal cannula. ICU patients more often received hydroxychloroquine (66% vs 46%), corticosteroids (34% vs 18%) and antibiotic therapy (92% vs 71%) than general ward patients (pAcross 14 hospitals, the proportion of patients admitted directly to an ICU ranged from 0% to 43.8%; mechanical ventilation on admission from 0% to 12.8%; mortality from 7.9% to 45.7%. Use of at least one COVID-19-specific therapy varied from 32% to 96.3% across sites.ConclusionsDuring the early days of the Michigan outbreak of COVID-19, patient characteristics, treatment and outcomes varied widely within and across hospitals.

Background Fluoroquinolones increase the risk of Clostridioides difficile infection and antibiotic resistance. Hospitals often use pre-prescription approval or prospective audit and feedback to target fluoroquinolone prescribing. Whether these strategies impact aggregate fluoroquinolone use is unknown. Methods This study is a 48-hospital, retrospective cohort of general-care, medical patients hospitalized with pneumonia or positive urine culture between December 2015–September 2017. Hospitals were surveyed on their use of pre-prescription approval and/or prospective audit and feedback to target fluoroquinolone prescribing during hospitalization (fluoroquinolone stewardship). After controlling for hospital clustering and patient factors, aggregate (inpatient and post-discharge) fluoroquinolone (ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin) exposure was compared between hospitals with and without fluoroquinolone stewardship. Results There were 11 748 patients (6820 pneumonia; 4928 positive urine culture) included at 48 hospitals. All hospitals responded to the survey: 29.2% (14/48) reported using pre-prescription approval and/or prospective audit and feedback to target fluoroquinolone prescribing. After adjustment, fluoroquinolone stewardship was associated with fewer patients receiving a fluoroquinolone (37.1% vs 48.2%; P = .01) and fewer fluoroquinolone treatment days per 1000 patients (2282 vs 3096 days/1000 patients; P = .01), driven by lower inpatient prescribing. However, most (66.6%) fluoroquinolone treatment days occurred after discharge, and hospitals with fluoroquinolone stewardship had twice as many new fluoroquinolone starts after discharge as hospitals without (15.6% vs 8.4%; P = .003). Conclusions Hospital-based stewardship interventions targeting fluoroquinolone prescribing were associated with less fluoroquinolone prescribing during hospitalization, but not at discharge. To limit aggregate fluoroquinolone exposure, stewardship programs should target both inpatient and discharge prescribing., In this 48-hospital cohort study of 11 748 patients hospitalized with pneumonia or positive urine cultures, hospital-based antibiotic stewardship interventions targeting fluoroquinolone prescribing were associated with less fluoroquinolone use during hospitalization, but appeared to partially increase fluoroquinolone prescribing at discharge.

Key Points Question Is approval by an infectious disease physician prior to placement of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) for intravenous antimicrobials associated with appropriate device use or complications? Findings In this cohort study of 21 653 PICCs placed for intravenous antimicrobials in 42 hospitals, 47% of PICCs were placed with approval of an infectious disease physician. Compared with nonapproved PICCs, approved PICCs were more likely to be appropriately placed, and the patients less likely to experience complications. Meaning This cohort study suggests that infectious disease physician approval of PICCs prior to placement for intravenous antimicrobial therapy is associated with more appropriate device use and fewer complications., Importance Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are frequently used to deliver intravenous antimicrobial therapy. However, inappropriate PICC use may lead to patient harm. Objective To evaluate whether infectious disease physician approval prior to PICC placement for intravenous antimicrobials is associated with more appropriate device use and fewer complications. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study of 21 653 PICCs placed for a primary indication of intravenous antimicrobial therapy between January 1, 2015, and July 26, 2019, was conducted in 42 hospitals participating in a quality collaborative across Michigan among hospitalized medical patients. Main Outcomes and Measures Appropriateness of PICCs was defined according to the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters as a composite measure of (1) single-lumen catheter use, (2) avoiding use of PICCs for 5 days or less, and (3) avoiding use of PICCs for patients with chronic kidney disease (defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate, This cohort study evaluates whether infectious disease physician approval prior to placement of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) for intravenous antimicrobials is associated with more appropriate device use and fewer complications.

Background Antibacterials may be initiated out of concern for bacterial coinfection in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We determined prevalence and predictors of empiric antibacterial therapy and community-onset bacterial coinfections in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods A randomly sampled cohort of 1705 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in 38 Michigan hospitals between 3/13/2020 and 6/18/2020. Data were collected on early (within 2 days of hospitalization) empiric antibacterial therapy and community-onset bacterial coinfections (positive microbiologic test ≤3 days). Poisson generalized estimating equation models were used to assess predictors. Results Of 1705 patients with COVID-19, 56.6% were prescribed early empiric antibacterial therapy; 3.5% (59/1705) had a confirmed community-onset bacterial infection. Across hospitals, early empiric antibacterial use varied from 27% to 84%. Patients were more likely to receive early empiric antibacterial therapy if they were older (adjusted rate ratio [ARR]: 1.04 [1.00–1.08] per 10 years); had a lower body mass index (ARR: 0.99 [0.99–1.00] per kg/m2), more severe illness (eg, severe sepsis; ARR: 1.16 [1.07–1.27]), a lobar infiltrate (ARR: 1.21 [1.04–1.42]); or were admitted to a for-profit hospital (ARR: 1.30 [1.15–1.47]). Over time, COVID-19 test turnaround time (returned ≤1 day in March [54.2%, 461/850] vs April [85.2%, 628/737], P < .001) and empiric antibacterial use (ARR: 0.71 [0.63–0.81] April vs March) decreased. Conclusions The prevalence of confirmed community-onset bacterial coinfections was low. Despite this, half of patients received early empiric antibacterial therapy. Antibacterial use varied widely by hospital. Reducing COVID-19 test turnaround time and supporting stewardship could improve antibacterial use.

Background Antibiotic therapy has no known benefit against COVID-19, but is often initiated out of concern for concomitant bacterial infection. We sought to determine how common early empiric antibiotic therapy and community-onset bacterial co-infections are in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods In this multi-center cohort study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 discharged from 32 Michigan hospitals during the COVID-19 Michigan surge, we describe the use of early empiric antibiotic therapy (within the first two days) and prevalence of community-onset bacterial co-infection. Additionally, we assessed patient and hospital predictors of early empiric antibiotic using poison generalized estimating equation models. Results Between 3/10/2020 and 5/10/2020, data were collected on 951 COVID-19 PCR positive patients. Patient characteristics are described in Table 1. Nearly two thirds (62.4%, 593/951) of COVID-19 positive patients were prescribed early empiric antibiotic therapy, most of which (66.2%, 393/593) was directed at community-acquired pathogens. Across hospitals, the proportion of COVID-19 patients prescribed early empiric antibiotics varied from 40% to 90% (Figure 1). On multivariable analysis, patients were more likely to receive early empiric antibiotic therapy if they were older (adjusted rate ratio [ARR]: 1.01 [1.00–1.01] per year), required respiratory support (e.g., low flow oxygen, ARR: 1.16 [1.04–1.29]), had signs of a bacterial infection (e.g., lobar infiltrate, ARR: 1.17 [1.02–1.34]), or were admitted to a for-profit hospital (ARR: 1.27 [1.11–1.45]); patients admitted later were less likely to receive empiric antibiotics (April vs. March, ARR: 0.72 [0.62–0.84], Table 2). Community-onset bacterial co-infections were identified in 4.5% (43/951) of COVID-19 positive patients (2.4% [23/951] positive blood culture; 1.9% [18/951] positive respiratory culture). Conclusion Despite low prevalence of community-onset bacterial co-infections, patients hospitalized with COVID-19 often received early empiric antibiotic therapy. Given the potential harms from unnecessary antibiotic use, including additional personal protective equipment to administer antibiotics, judicious antibiotic use is key in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Disclosures Tejal N. Gandhi, MD, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (Grant/Research Support) Scott A. Flanders, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Research Grant or Support)Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (Research Grant or Support)

Background Most patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) can be safely treated with 5 days of antibiotics, but many are not. We determined whether a hospitalist-collaborative can reduce excess antibiotic duration in patients with CAP through partnership with antibiotic stewardship teams (AST), data feedback, pay-for-performance, and sharing best practices. Methods From April 2017 to October 2018, abstractors collected data (medical record, phone calls 30-days post-discharge) on adult, non-ICU patients hospitalized with CAP at 43 hospitals in Michigan. We used a guideline-based algorithm1 to determine appropriate antibiotic duration based on patient factors (e.g., clinical stability). All hospitals received a) quarterly reports on appropriate 5-day treatment rates (2016—current), b) best practice recommendations (2017—current) including toolkit and webinar (3/2018), and c) pay-for-performance based on 5-day CAP metric (2018—current). Generalized linear mixed models were used to evaluate change over time in a) proportion of patients with CAP eligible for 5-day treatment who received 5 ± 1 days and, after adjusting for patient factors and weighting by inverse probability of treatment, b) patient outcomes 30-days post-discharge. Results Of 6,229 patients hospitalized with CAP, 4,769 (76.6%) were eligible for 5-days of antibiotic treatment; 283 (5.9%) were excluded due to inability to determine antibiotic duration. Between April 2017 and October 2018, the proportion of patients eligible for a 5-day duration of antibiotic treatment who received 5 ± 1 days increased from 19.8% (181/914) to 30.9% (207/670; P = 0.01), a relative improvement of 56.1% (Figure 1). During this time period, there were no changes in 30-day post-discharge death, readmission, emergency room visit, Clostridioides difficile infection, or provider-documented antibiotic-associated adverse-events (Table 1). However, there was a decrease (3.3% to 1.7%, P = 0.03 for change over time; relative reduction: 48.5%) in patient-reported antibiotic-associated adverse events (Figure 2). Conclusion A hospitalist collaborative partnering with AST can safely reduce excess antibiotic duration and antibiotic-associated adverse-events in hospitalized patients with CAP. Disclosures All Authors: No reported Disclosures.

Background Antibiotics prescribed at hospital discharge account for half of antibiotic use related to hospitalization for urinary tract infection or bacterial pneumonia. It is unclear how much antibiotic use at discharge represents overuse, and thus, could potentially be improved through antibiotic stewardship. Methods From July 2017 to December 2018, trained abstractors at 46 Michigan hospitals collected detailed data on a sample of adult, nonintensive care, hospitalized patients with bacteriuria or treated for community-acquired or healthcare-associated pneumonia (discharge diagnosis of pneumonia plus antibiotic treatment). Antibiotic prescriptions at discharge were assessed for overuse using a guideline-based hierarchical algorithm: evaluating first for unnecessary antibiotics (noninfectious/nonbacterial syndrome), then excess duration (antibiotics needed, but prescribed for longer than necessary), and finally avoidable fluoroquinolones (safer alternative antibiotic available) (Figure 1). For each disease state, descriptive results are shown with comparisons by t- or Fisher’s exact tests. Results Of 17,157 patients (7,283 with bacteriuria; 9,874 treated for pneumonia), 30.1% of patients with bacteriuria had asymptomatic bacteriuria and 11.4% of patients treated for pneumonia did not meet diagnostic criteria for pneumonia. The most common antibiotics prescribed at discharge were fluoroquinolones. Nearly half (43.6%) of patients had antibiotic overuse at discharge (33.8% bacteriuria, 50.9% pneumonia), with a median 4 days of overuse after discharge (Table 1). For bacteriuria, 45.0% of overuse days at discharge were due to unnecessary antibiotics; for pneumonia, 61.2% were due to excess antibiotic duration (Figure 2). Patients with community-acquired pneumonia and those with sepsis on admission had the highest rates of antibiotic overuse at discharge (Table 2). Conclusion In the largest assessment of antibiotics at discharge to-date, antibiotic overuse at discharge was extremely common. Specific targets for discharge stewardship vary by disease state. Notably, interventions may be more effective at reducing fluoroquinolone prescribing at discharge indirectly by stopping treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria and reducing excess duration in pneumonia. Disclosures All Authors: No reported Disclosures.

Background Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines recommend transition to an oral (PO) β-lactam (BL) regimen or fluoroquinolone (FQ) when patients are clinically stable. Due to collateral damage associated with FQs, stewardship efforts often focus on reducing initial FQ use for CAP therapy. We hypothesized that FQ use remains prevalent in CAP treatment despite initial intravenous (IV) BL therapy, and examined factors associated with switching to a PO BL vs. an FQ and the impact on outcomes. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, data were collected from January 2016 through February 2018 on non-ICU medical patients admitted with CAP at 46 Michigan hospitals. Patients were included if they received IV BL (ceftriaxone or ampicillin-sulbactam) plus macrolide/doxycycline by hospital day 2 and switched to a PO respiratory FQ or BL by therapy day 4. Exclusions included positive culture, concomitant infection, HCAP, unstable on day 4, or severe immune deficiency. Data were analyzed using logistic generalized estimating equation models, accounting for hospital-level clustering; outcomes were adjusted using the inverse probability of treatment weighting by propensity scores. Results. Of 555 included patients, 54.4% were switched to a PO BL vs. 45.6% to an FQ by day 4 of therapy. The groups had similar durations of therapy (8 days), time to clinical stability, prior antibiotics, and COPD, but the BL group was older, with a higher Pneumonia Severity Index, CURB-65, and more cardiovascular (CV) disease (Figure 1). In multivariable analysis, CV disease and higher CURB-65 were more common and diabetes (DM) less common in the PO BL group (Figure 2). Sharing antibiotic use data with providers were associated with less FQ use (83.1% vs. 70.8%, OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27, 0.97, P = 0.04). On adjusted analysis there were no differences in patient outcomes (Figure 3). Conclusion. Among CAP patients started on an IV BL regimen, nearly half were switched to a PO FQ by therapy day 4, including more patients with DM. Although there were sicker patients in the BL group, there were no differences in outcomes between cohorts. To reduce FQ use, stewardship programs should share antibiotic use data and provide guidance for step-down therapy in clinically stable CAP patients. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.