Kooda, Kirstin

Abstract Objectives Despite low rates of bacterial coinfection in patients admitted with COVID-19, antimicrobials are frequently prescribed. Our primary objective was to evaluate antimicrobial prescribing over time in patients admitted with COVID-19. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the role of ID providers in antimicrobial utilization, describe the rate of confirmed bacterial infection and determine factors associated with empirical antimicrobial prescribing in COVID-19. Materials and methods Retrospective review was performed for adult patients admitted to a tertiary care centre with COVID-19 between 1 March 2020 and 30 November 2020. Patient demographics, disease severity, risk factors for severe disease, clinical outcomes, antimicrobial prescribing and respiratory microbiological testing were collected and analysed. Prescribing trends were evaluated by month, and factors contributing to prescribing were established using univariate and multivariable analysis. Results Antibiotics were prescribed during admission in 37.9% of the study cohort, with 85.1% of patients who received antibiotics having therapy initiated within 48 h of admission. Antibiotic prescribing incidence increased with disease. Over the study period, antimicrobial prescribing rates decreased by 8.7% per month. Multivariable analysis found ICU admission, obtainment of procalcitonin values, intubation, heart failure, haemodialysis and nursing home residence were associated with empirical antimicrobial prescribing. Conclusions Unnecessary antimicrobial prescribing in patients with viral syndromes like COVID-19 continues to represent an area of concern. Antimicrobial stewardship efforts during COVID-19 should consider patient-specific factors associated with antibiotic prescribing. Recognition of such factors, in combination with application of well-established antimicrobial stewardship tactics, may serve to impact antimicrobial prescribing trends, even as patient volumes rise.

Abstract In clinical scenario surveys, inpatient providers were more likely to report continuing inappropriate (odds ratio, 2.02 [95% confidence interval, 1.35–3.03]; P<.001) or broad-spectrum (1.8 [1.27–2.56]; P=.001) antibiotic therapy when initiated by emergency department providers, than to change to appropriate or narrow-spectrum therapy, respectively. Antibiotic inertia could represent a significant antibiotic stewardship target.

BackgroundClinician preferences and practices regarding appropriate vasopressin use in light of its increased acquisition cost secondary to rebranding has not been evaluated or described since the most recent iteration of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline was published.ObjectiveTo assess vasopressin cost containment initiatives and pharmacists' opinions regarding appropriate vasopressin use.MethodsA scenario‐based survey was distributed to critical care and emergency medicine pharmacists. Responses were characterized using frequency and descriptive statistics. Categorical variables between those who implemented changes (Vasopressin Cost Consideration) and those who did not (Usual Care) were compared using chi‐square or Fisher's exact tests. McNemar's test was used to compare responses in clinical scenarios between Vasopressin Cost Consideration and Usual Care groups.ResultsAmong 1757 pharmacists surveyed, 200 (11.3%) responded. When respondents considered vasopressin cost and evidence (vs evidence alone), fewer respondents would use vasopressin adjunctively with norepinephrine (21% vs 26.6%, P = 0.031), to raise mean arterial pressure compared with epinephrine (65.2% vs 72.3%, P = 0.012), or to reduce norepinephrine infusion rates (71.4% vs 81.4%, P < 0.001), but would use with steroids (62.4% vs 28.3%, P < 0.001). Most (72%) respondents had implemented vasopressin cost containment and/or education initiatives. The Vasopressin Cost Consideration group respondents were more likely to initiate vasopressin at 0.03 units/minute without titrating (47.9% vs 33.9%, P = 0.045).ConclusionSince vasopressin was generically rebranded, most institutions have implemented at least one initiative to reduce vasopressin use and/or educate clinicians about its appropriate use. When vasopressin acquisition costs were considered, pharmacists recommended its use less frequently, particularly in clinical scenarios where its use is controversial.

Long-acting injectable antipsychotics provide the delivery of medication over an extended period of time requiring administration typically only every 2 to 4 weeks. The side effect profile of a long-acting injectable antipsychotic is predictable and similar to the oral formulation. However, injection site reactions may occur with this novel delivery system. The risk of an injection site reaction may be greater with the repeated administration of a lipophilic decanoate formulation and include pain, development of indurations, and fibrosis. Severe complications from injection site reactions have rarely been described in the literature with newer agents. We report the first case of a patient prescribed paliperidone palmitate every 3 weeks that developed severe sepsis requiring vasopressors and intubation due to delayed relayed recognition of a necrotizing infection at an injection site. Clinicians should be alerted to screen for injection site reactions when there is an unknown source infection in a patient receiving a long-acting injectable antipsychotic.