Search

Abstract Background Unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions in primary care are common and contribute to antimicrobial resistance in the population. Audit and feedback (A&F) on antibiotic prescribing to primary care can improve the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing, but the optimal approach is uncertain. We performed two pragmatic randomized controlled trials of different approaches to audit and feedback. The trial results showed that A&F was associated with significantly reducing antibiotic prescribing. Still, the effect size was small, and the modifications to the A&F interventions tested in the trials were not associated with any change. Herein, we report a theory-informed qualitative process evaluation to explore potential mechanisms underlying the observed effects. Methods Ontario family physicians in the intervention arms of both trials who were sent A&F letters were invited for one-on-one interviews. Purposive sampling was used to seek variation across interested participants in personal and practice characteristics. Qualitative analysis utilized inductive and deductive techniques informed by the Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory. Results Modifications to the intervention design tested in the trial did not alter prescribing patterns beyond the changes made in response to the A&F overall for various reasons. Change in antibiotic prescribing in response to A&F depended on whether it led to the formation of specific intentions and whether those intentions translated to particular behaviours. Those without intentions to change tended to feel that their unique clinical context was not represented in the A&F. Those with intentions but without specific actions taken tended to express a lack of self-efficacy for avoiding a prescription in contexts with time constraints and/or without an ongoing patient relationship. Many participants noted that compared to overall prescribing, A&F on antibiotic prescription duration was perceived as new information and easily actionable. Conclusion Our findings indicate that contextual factors, including the types of patients and the setting where they are seen, affect how clinicians react to audit and feedback. These results suggest a need to test tailored feedback reports that reflect the context of how, where, and why physicians prescribe antibiotics so that they might be perceived as more personal and more actionable. Trial registration Clinical Trial registration IDs: NCT04594200, NCT05044052.

Abstract Background Antibiotics remain the primary treatment for community acquired pneumonia (CAP), however rising rates of antimicrobial resistance may jeopardize their future efficacy. With higher rates of disease reported in the youngest populations, effective treatment courses for pediatric pneumonia are of paramount importance. This study is the first to examine the quality of pediatric antibiotic use by agent, dose and duration. Methods A retrospective cohort study included all outpatient/primary care physician visits for pediatric CAP (aged

ABSTRACT The COVID-19 pandemic has likely influenced the epidemiology of bacterial infections through wide-ranging changes to clinical practices and infection control and prevention interventions. We sought to determine how the detection and incidence of bloodstream infections (BSIs) have been influenced by the pandemic. We performed a retrospective analysis of blood culture data in the province of Ontario, Canada, from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2020. Outcomes included a weekly incidence of blood culture tests, BSIs, and contaminant results. Results were stratified by hospital, community, and long-term care (LTC) settings. An interrupted time series analysis using segmented regression models was used to determine changes in outcome incidence/prevalence during the pre- and peri-pandemic periods. Of the 14,083,853 individuals included, 129,329 (0.92%) developed a bloodstream infection. The blood culture ordering rate increased during the pandemic in the hospital setting only [Incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01–1.19]. There was a decline in the incidence of community-acquired (IRR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91–0.99) and LTC-acquired (IRR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76–0.94) BSIs. Hospital-acquired BSIs were unchanged. The proportion of blood culture contaminants increased in the community (7% increase, P < 0.01) and LTC settings (14% increase, P < 0.05). There was decreased incidence of community-acquired Streptococcus pneumoniae (IRR 0.43, 95% CI 0.33–0.57) and Staphylococcus aureus (IRR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84–0.99) bacteremia. Pandemic-related changes in the performance of blood cultures and the epidemiology of BSIs have implications for current and future pandemic antimicrobial use, healthcare resource allocation, and hospital and laboratory policies. IMPORTANCE Bacterial infections are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, previous studies have demonstrated pandemic-related shifts in the epidemiology of bacterial bloodstream infections (BSIs) in the general population and in specific hospital systems. Our study uses a large, comprehensive data set stratified by setting [community, long-term care (LTC), and hospital] to uniquely demonstrate how the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on BSIs and testing practices varies by healthcare setting. We showed that, while the number of false-positive blood culture results generally increased during the pandemic, this effect did not apply to hospitalized patients. We also found that many infections were likely under-recognized in patients in the community and in LTC, demonstrating the importance of maintaining healthcare for these groups during crises. Last, we found a decrease in infections caused by certain pathogens in the community, suggesting some secondary benefits of pandemic-related public health measures.

Abstract Background: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a medical emergency with significant morbidity and mortality for oncology patients, requiring comprehensive workup and timely antibiotic administration. We evaluated concordance with locally developed FN guidelines and outcomes of cancer patients admitted to general internal medicine at an academic teaching hospital. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of patients admitted between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017, for FN. Patients were classified as having low-risk or high-risk FN according to their malignancy and chemotherapy. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving guideline-concordant antibiotics within 48 hours of admission to general internal medicine. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients in whom empirical antibiotics were active against pathogens isolated, rate of antibiotic-associated adverse events, and in-hospital mortality. We used logistic regression to model relationship between FN risk and guideline-concordant antibiotics. Results: Among 100 patients included, 34 (34%) were low-risk FN and 66 (66%) were high-risk. Proportion of guideline-concordant empirical antibiotics was significantly lower among low-risk FN patients than high-risk patients: 12 (35%) of 34 versus 47 (71%) of 66 (P = .001). Empirical antibiotics were active against 17 (94%) of 18 isolated pathogens. The mortality rate was 3%, and 16% of patients experienced antibiotic-associated adverse events. Hematological malignancy and infectious diseases–trained physician involvement were associated with guideline-concordant prescribing, with adjusted odds ratios of 3.76 (95% CI, 1.46–9.70; P = .006) and 3.71 (95% CI, 1.49–9.23; P = .005), respectively. Conclusions: Guideline concordance was low compared to published reports. Factors influencing appropriate antimicrobial prescribing in patients with FN warrant further exploration.

Summary: Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) has recognized antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as a top threat to global health. However, the public has an incomplete understanding of AMR and its consequences. Aim: The aim of this study was to explore patients’ understanding, perspective and health outcome expectations for antibiotic therapy within an inpatient internal medicine population. Methods: A mixed methods study, combining a cross-sectional survey with qualitative methods. Fourteen questions (10 paper survey and four open ended interview questions) were used, and were completed by the participant in one sitting. Participants were recruited from General Internal Medicine units at two academic hospitals in Canada (convenience sample). Findings: Thirty participants were included. Out of a scale of 1–100%, participants indicated moderate concern (mean of 40%) about getting an infection that could not be cured by antibiotics. The majority agreed that they trusted their healthcare team to decide on appropriate antibiotic therapy (mean of 81%). The participants strongly agreed (mean of 90%) that it was important to understand the rationale for their antibiotic therapy. Three themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: 1) varying levels of knowledge; 2) viewing antibiotics as beneficial while emphasizing effectiveness; and 3) trusting the healthcare team with expectations for inclusion in decision making. Conclusion: The study results showed varying levels of patients’ antibiotic knowledge and large gaps in awareness related to AMR. Exploring the role and workflow of interdisciplinary healthcare professionals may be a potential strategy to minimize patients’ knowledge gap related to antimicrobial therapy and AMR.

Abstract Background More than 90% of antibiotics are prescribed in primary care, but 50% may be unnecessary. Reducing unnecessary antibiotic overuse is needed to limit antimicrobial resistance. We conducted a pragmatic trial of a primary care provider-focused antimicrobial stewardship intervention to reduce antibiotic prescriptions in primary care. Methods Primary care practitioners from six primary care clinics in Toronto, Ontario were assigned to intervention or control groups to evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-faceted intervention for reducing antibiotic prescriptions to adults with respiratory and urinary tract infections. The intervention included provider education, clinical decision aids, and audit and feedback of antibiotic prescribing. The primary outcome was total antibiotic prescriptions for these infections. Secondary outcomes were delayed prescriptions, prescriptions longer than 7 days, recommended antibiotic use, and outcomes for individual infections. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate treatment effects, adjusting for clustering by clinic and baseline differences. Results There were 1682 encounters involving 54 primary care providers from January until May 31, 2019. In intervention clinics, the odds of any antibiotic prescription was reduced 22% (adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.78; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.64.0.96). The odds that a delay in filling a prescription was recommended was increased (adjusted OR=2.29; 95% CI=1.37, 3.83), while prescription durations greater than 7 days were reduced (adjusted OR=0.24; 95% CI=0.13, 0.43). Recommended antibiotic use was similar in control (85.4%) and intervention clinics (91.8%, p=0.37). Conclusions A community-based, primary care provider-focused antimicrobial stewardship intervention was associated with a reduced likelihood of antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory and urinary infections, an increase in delayed prescriptions, and reduced prescription durations. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03517215 ).

Abstract Background It is important to understand clinical features of bacteremic urinary tract infection (bUTI), because bUTI is a serious infection that requires prompt diagnosis and antibiotic therapy. Escherichia coli is the most common and important uropathogen. The objective of our study was to characterize the clinical presentation of E coli bUTI. Methods Retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients admitted for community acquired E. coli bacteremia from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016 was conducted at 4 acute care academic and community hospitals in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Logistic regression models were developed to identify E coli bUTI cases without urinary symptoms. Results Of 462 patients with E. coli bacteremia, 284 (61.5%) patients had a urinary source. Of these 284 patients, 161 (56.7%) had urinary symptoms. In a multivariable model, bUTI without urinary symptoms were associated with older age (age =85 years had OR of 2.95 95% CI 1.44–6.18 p = 0.0036) and delirium (OR of 2.12 95% CI 1.13–4.03 p = 0.0207). Sepsis by SIRS criteria was present in 274 (96.5%) of all bUTI cases and 119 (96.8%) of bUTI cases without urinary symptoms. Conclusion The majority of patients with E. coli bacteremia had a urinary source. A significant proportion of bUTI cases had no urinary symptoms elicited on history. Elderly and delirious patients were more likely to have bUTI without urinary symptoms. In elderly and delirious patients with sepsis by SIRS criteria but without a clear infectious source, clinicians should suspect, investigate, and treat for bUTI.

Abstract Background Antimicrobial stewardship programs potentially lead to appropriate antibiotic use, yet the optimal approach for neonates is uncertain. Such a program was implemented in a tertiary care neonatal intensive care unit in October 2012. We evaluated the impact of this program on antimicrobial use and its association with clinical outcomes. Methods In a retrospective cohort study, we examined 1580 neonates who received antimicrobials in the 13-months before and 13-months during program implementation. Prospective audit and feedback was given 5 days a week on each patient who was receiving antibiotic. Pharmacy and microbiology data were linked to clinical data from the local Canadian Neonatal Network database. The primary outcome was days of antibiotic therapy per 1000 patient-days; secondary outcomes included mortality, necrotizing enterocolitis, and antibiotic duration for culture-positive and culture-negative late-onset sepsis. The breadth of antibiotic exposure was compared using the Antibiotic Spectrum Index. Results Overall antibiotic use decreased to 339 days of therapy per 1000 patient-days from 395 (14%, P

The COVID-19 pandemic affected access to care, and the associated public health measures influenced the transmission of other infectious diseases. The pandemic has dramatically changed antibiotic prescribing in the community. We aimed to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting control measures on oral antibiotic prescribing in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in Alberta and Ontario, Canada using linked administrative data. Antibiotic prescription data were collected for LTCF residents 65 years and older in Alberta and Ontario from 1 January 2017 until 31 December 2020. Weekly prescription rates per 1000 residents, stratified by age, sex, antibiotic class, and selected individual agents, were calculated. Interrupted time series analyses using SARIMA models were performed to test for changes in antibiotic prescription rates after the start of the pandemic (1 March 2020). The average annual cohort size was 18,489 for Alberta and 96,614 for Ontario. A significant decrease in overall weekly prescription rates after the start of the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic was found in Alberta, but not in Ontario. Furthermore, a significant decrease in prescription rates was observed for antibiotics mainly used to treat respiratory tract infections: amoxicillin in both provinces (Alberta: −0.6 per 1000 LTCF residents decrease in weekly prescription rate, p = 0.006; Ontario: −0.8, p < 0.001); and doxycycline (−0.2, p = 0.005) and penicillin (−0.04, p = 0.014) in Ontario. In Ontario, azithromycin was prescribed at a significantly higher rate after the start of the pandemic (0.7 per 1000 LTCF residents increase in weekly prescription rate, p = 0.011). A decrease in prescription rates for antibiotics that are largely used to treat respiratory tract infections is in keeping with the lower observed rates for respiratory infections resulting from pandemic control measures. The results should be considered in the contexts of different LTCF systems and provincial public health responses to the pandemic.

Background Cancer patients are at significant risk of developing sepsis due to underlying malignancy and necessary treatments. Little is known about the economic burden of sepsis in this high-risk population. We estimate the short- and long-term healthcare costs of care of cancer patients with and without sepsis using individual-level linked-administrative data. Methods We conducted a population-based matched cohort study of cancer patients aged ≥18, diagnosed between 2010 and 2017. Cases were identified if diagnosed with sepsis during the study period, and were matched 1:1 by age, sex, cancer type and other variables to controls without sepsis. Mean costs (2018 Canadian dollars) for patients with and without sepsis up to 5 years were estimated adjusted using survival probabilities at partitioned intervals. We estimated excess cost associated with sepsis presented as a cost difference between the two cohorts. Haematological and solid cancers were analysed separately. Results 77,483 cancer patients with sepsis were identified and matched. 64.3% of the cohort were aged ≥65, 46.3% female and 17.8% with haematological malignancies. Among solid tumour patients, the excess cost of care among patients who developed sepsis was $29,081 (95%CI, $28,404-$29,757) in the first year, rising to $60,714 (95%CI, $59,729-$61,698) over 5 years. This was higher for haematology patients; $46,154 (95%CI, $45,505-$46,804) in year 1, increasing to $75,931 (95%CI, $74,895-$76,968). Conclusions Sepsis imposes substantial economic burden and can result in a doubling of cancer care costs, particularly during the first year of cancer diagnosis. These estimates are helpful in improving our understanding of burden of sepsis along the cancer pathway and to deploy targeted strategies to alleviate this burden.

Objectives: To identify perceived influences on implementation of antibiotic stewardship programmes (ASPs) in hospitals, across healthcare systems, and to exemplify the use of a behavioral framework to conceptualize those influences.Methods: EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched from 01/2001 to 07/2017 and reference lists were screened for transnational studies that reported barriers and/or facilitators to implementing actual or hypothetical ASPs or ASP-supporting strategies. Extracted data were synthesized using content analysis with the Theoretical Domains Framework as an organizing framework. Commonly reported influences were quantified.Results: From 3,196 abstracts 75 full-text articles were screened for inclusion. Eight studies met the eligibility criteria. The number of countries involved in each study ranged from 2 to 36. These studies included a total of 1849 participants. North America, Europe and Australasia had the strongest representation. Participants were members of special interest groups, designated hospital representatives or clinical experts. Ten of the 14 theoretical domains in the framework were present in the results reported in the included studies. The most commonly reported (≥4 out of 8 studies) influences on ASP implementation were coded in the domain “environmental context and resources” (e.g., problems with data and information systems; lack of key personnel; inadequate financial resources) and “goals” (other higher priorities).Conclusions: Despite an extensive transnational research effort, there is evidence from international studies of substantial barriers to implementing ASPs in hospitals, even in developed countries. Large-scale efforts to implement hospital antibiotic stewardship in those countries will need to overcome issues around inadequacy of information systems, unavailability of key personnel and funding, and the competition from other priority initiatives. We have enhanced the evidence base to inform guidance by taking a behavioral approach to identify influences on ASP uptake.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42017076425.

Antimicrobials are among the most prescribed medications in Canada, with over 90% of antibiotics prescribed in outpatient settings. Seniors prescribed antimicrobials are particularly vulnerable to adverse drug events and antimicrobial resistance. The extent of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in outpatient Canadian medical practice, and the potential long-term trends in this practice, are unknown. This study is the first in Canada to examine prescribing quality across two large-scale provincial healthcare systems to compare both quantity and quality of outpatient antibiotic use in seniors. Population-based analyses using administrative health databases were conducted in British Columbia (BC) and Ontario (ON), and all outpatient, oral antimicrobials dispensed to seniors (≥65 years) from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2018 were identified. Antimicrobials were linked to an indication using a 3-tiered hierarchy. Tier 1 indications, which always require antibiotics, were given priority, followed by Tier 2 indications that sometimes require antibiotics, then Tier 3, which never require antibiotics. Prescription rates were calculated per 1000 population, and trends were examined overall, by drug class, and by patient demographics. Prescribing remained steady in both provinces, with 11,166,401 prescriptions dispensed overall in BC, and 27,656,014 overall in ON. BC prescribed at slightly elevated rates (range: 790 to 930 per 1000 residents), in comparison to ON (range: 745 to 785 per 1000 residents), throughout the study period. For both provinces, a Tier 3 diagnosis was the most common reason for antibiotic use, accounting for 50% of all indication-associated antibiotic prescribing. Although Tier 3 indications remained the most prescribed-for diagnoses throughout the study period, a declining trend over time is encouraging, with much room for improvement remaining. Elevated prescribing to seniors continues across Canadian outpatient settings, and prescribing quality is of high concern, with 50% of all antimicrobials prescribed inappropriately for common infections that do not require antimicrobials.

Despite decades of stewardship efforts to combat antimicrobial resistance and quantify changes in use, the quality of antibiotic use in British Columbia (BC) remains unknown. As the overuse and misuse of antibiotics drives antibiotic resistance, it is imperative to expand surveillance efforts to examine the quality of antibiotic prescriptions. In late 2019, Canadian expected rates of antibiotic prescribing were developed for common infections. These rates were utilized to quantify the gap between the observed rates of prescribing and Canadian expected rates for antibiotic use for the province of BC. The prescribing data were extracted and matched to physician billing systems using anonymized patient identifiers from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2018. Outpatient prescribing was further subdivided into community and emergency department settings and stratified by the following age groups:

Objectives: Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is a common infection worldwide. We compared SAB mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) versus high-income countries (HIC) in a meta-analysis. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1991-2021 and included observational, single-country studies on patients with positive blood cultures for S. aureus. The main outcome was the proportion of patients with SAB who died in the hospital. A generalized linear mixed random-effects model was used to pool estimates, and a meta-regression was used to adjust for study-level characteristics. Results: A total of 332 studies involving 517,671 patients in 39 countries were included. No study was conducted in a low-income country. Only 33 (10%) studies were performed in middle-income countries (MIC), which described 6,216 patients. The pooled in-hospital mortality was 32.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 27.2%-38.2%, T2 = 0.3063) in MIC and 22.3% (95% CI 20.1%-24.6%, T2 = 0.3257) in HIC. In a meta-regression model, MIC had higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.37, 95% CI 1.11-1.71; P = 0.0042) than HIC. Conclusion: In SAB studies, LMIC are poorly represented. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in MIC than in HIC. Research should be conducted in LMIC to characterize differences in care processes driving the mortality gap.

BackgroundThis retrospective cohort study is the first in North America to examine population-level appropriate antibiotic use for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in older adults, by agent, dose and duration. With the highest rates of CAP reported in the elderly populations, appropriate antibiotic use is essential to improve clinical outcomes. Given the ongoing crisis of antimicrobial resistance, understanding inappropriate antibiotic prescribing is integral to direct community stewardship efforts.MethodsAll outpatient primary care visits for CAP (aged ≥65 years) were identified using physician billing codes between January 1 2014 to December 31 2018 in British Columbia (BC) and Ontario (ON). Categories of prescribing were derived from existing literature, and constructed for clinical relevance using Canadian and international guidelines available during the study period. Categories were mutually exclusive and included: guideline adherent (first-line agent, adherent dose/duration), clinically appropriate (non-first line agent, presence of comorbidities), effective but unnecessary (first-line agent, excess dose/duration), undertreatment (first-line agent, subtherapeutic dose/duration), and not recommended (non-first line agent, absence of comorbidities). Proportions of prescribing were examined by category. Temporal trends in prescribing were examined using Poisson regression.ResultsA total of 436,441 episodes of CAP were identified, with 46% prescribed an antibiotic in BC, and 52% in Ontario. Guideline adherent prescribing was minimal for both provinces (BC: 2%; ON: 1%) however the largest magnitude of increase was reported in this category by the final study year (BC-Rate Ratio [RR]: 3.4, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 2.7-4.3; ON-RR: 4.62, 95% CI: 3.4-6.5). Clinically appropriate prescribing accounted for the most antibiotics issued, across all study years (BC: 61%; ON: 74%) (BC-RR: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.8-0.8; ON-RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.8-0.9). Excess duration of therapy was the hallmark characteristic for effective but unnecessary prescribing (BC: 92%; ON: 99%). The most common duration prescribed was 7 days, followed by 10. Not recommended prescribing was minimal in both provinces (BC: 4%; ON: 7%) and remained stable by the final study year (BC-RR: 1.1, 95% CI: 0.9-1.2; ON-RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.9-1.1).ConclusionThree quarters of antibiotic prescribing for CAP was appropriate in Ontario, but only two thirds in BC. Shortening durations-in line with evidence for 3 to 5-day treatment presents a focused target for stewardship efforts.

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, is not recommended for prophylaxis or treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Inappropriate use of ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19 may make it less available for patients with serious parasitic infections who could benefit from its use and worsen the current shortage of ivermectin in Canada. However, patients with COVID-19 who are candidates to receive immunomodulatory therapies (e.g. corticosteroids and interleukin-6 inhibitors) may be at risk of hyperinfection syndrome and disseminated disease from Strongyloides stercoralis. These complications can be severe and even fatal. It is important to recognize and screen patients who may be at risk of strongyloidiasis, as these patients may require treatment with ivermectin to avoid the potential for a hyperinfection syndrome and disseminated disease, which is frequently deadly. Clinicians should follow evidence-based recommendations to screen and treat for Strongyloides infection in patients with COVID-19 who are under consideration to receive specific COVID-19 therapies that alter immune response and may lead to hyperinfection syndrome or disseminated disease.

L’ivermectine, un agent antiparasitaire, n’est pas recommandé pour la prophylaxie ou le traitement de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). L’utilisation inappropriée de l’ivermectine pour le traitement de la COVID-19 peut en diminuer la disponibilité pour les patients atteints d’infections parasitaires graves qui pourraient en bénéficier et aggraver la pénurie actuelle de ce médicament au Canada. Cependant, les patients atteints de COVID-19 qui sont des candidats pour recevoir des thérapies immunomodulatrices (e.g. corticostéroïdes et inhibiteurs de l’interleukine-6) peuvent être exposés au risque de syndrome d’hyperinfection et de la maladie disséminée à Strongyloides stercoralis. Ces complications peuvent être graves, voire mortelles. Il est important de reconnaître et de dépister les patients qui présentent des risques de strongyloïdose, car ces patients peuvent avoir besoin d’un traitement à l’ivermectine pour éviter le risque d’un syndrome d’hyperinfection et d’une maladie disséminée, qui est souvent mortelle. Les médecins devraient suivre des recommandations fondées sur des données probantes pour dépister et traiter l’infection à Strongyloides chez les patients atteints de COVID-19 qui pourraient recevoir des traitements propres à la COVID-19 qui modifient la réponse immunitaire et qui peuvent entraîner un syndrome d’hyperinfection ou une maladie disséminée.

BackgroundCancer patients are at significant risk of developing sepsis due to underlying malignancy and necessary treatments. Little is known about the economic burden of sepsis in this high-risk population. We estimate the short- and long-term healthcare costs of care of cancer patients with and without sepsis using individual-level linked-administrative data.MethodsWe conducted a population-based matched cohort study of cancer patients aged ≥18, diagnosed between 2010 and 2017. Cases were identified if diagnosed with sepsis during the study period, and were matched 1:1 by age, sex, cancer type and other variables to controls without sepsis. Mean costs (2018 Canadian dollars) for patients with and without sepsis up to 5 years were estimated adjusted using survival probabilities at partitioned intervals. We estimated excess cost associated with sepsis presented as a cost difference between the two cohorts. Haematological and solid cancers were analysed separately.Results77,483 cancer patients with sepsis were identified and matched. 64.3% of the cohort were aged ≥65, 46.3% female and 17.8% with haematological malignancies. Among solid tumour patients, the excess cost of care among patients who developed sepsis was $29,081 (95%CI, $28,404-$29,757) in the first year, rising to $60,714 (95%CI, $59,729-$61,698) over 5 years. This was higher for haematology patients; $46,154 (95%CI, $45,505-$46,804) in year 1, increasing to $75,931 (95%CI, $74,895-$76,968).ConclusionsSepsis imposes substantial economic burden and can result in a doubling of cancer care costs, particularly during the first year of cancer diagnosis. These estimates are helpful in improving our understanding of burden of sepsis along the cancer pathway and to deploy targeted strategies to alleviate this burden.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is an important infection. Methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA) screening is performed on hospitalized patients for infection control purposes.