Background As a result of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there have been widespread changes in healthcare access. We conducted a retrospective population-based study in Alberta, Canada (population 4.4 million), where there have been approximately 1550 hospital admissions for COVID-19, to determine the impact of COVID-19 on hospital admissions and emergency department (ED visits), following initiation of a public health emergency act on March 15, 2020. Methods We used multivariable negative binomial regression models to compare daily numbers of medical/surgical hospital admissions via the ED between March 16-September 23, 2019 (pre COVID-19) and March 16-September 23, 2020 (post COVID-19 public health measures). We compared the most frequent diagnoses for hospital admissions pre/post COVID-19 public health measures. A similar analysis was completed for numbers of daily ED visits for any reason with a particular focus on ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC). Findings There was a significant reduction in both daily medical (incident rate ratio (IRR) 0.86, p<0.001) and surgical (IRR 0.82, p<0.001) admissions through the ED in Alberta post COVID-19 public health measures. There was a significant decline in daily ED visits (IRR 0.65, p<0.001) including ACSC (IRR 0.75, p<0.001). The most common medical/surgical diagnoses for hospital admissions did not vary substantially pre and post COVID-19 public health measures, though there was a significant reduction in admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a significant increase in admissions for mental and behavioral disorders due to use of alcohol. Conclusions Despite a relatively low volume of COVID-19 hospital admissions in Alberta, there was an extensive impact on our healthcare system with fewer admissions to hospital and ED visits. This work generates hypotheses around causes for reduced hospital admissions and ED visits which warrant further investigation. As most publicly funded health systems struggle with health-system capacity routinely, understanding how these reductions can be safely sustained will be critical.

Background Pneumonia from SARS-CoV-2 is difficult to distinguish from other viral and bacterial etiologies. Broad-spectrum antimicrobials are frequently prescribed to patients hospitalized with COVID-19 which potentially acts as a catalyst for the development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Objectives We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis during the first 18 months of the pandemic to quantify the prevalence and types of resistant co-infecting organisms in patients with COVID-19 and explore differences across hospital and geographic settings. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science (BioSIS), and Scopus from November 1, 2019 to May 28, 2021 to identify relevant articles pertaining to resistant co-infections in patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Patient- and study-level analyses were conducted. We calculated pooled prevalence estimates of co-infection with resistant bacterial or fungal organisms using random effects models. Stratified meta-analysis by hospital and geographic setting was also performed to elucidate any differences. Results Of 1331 articles identified, 38 met inclusion criteria. A total of 1959 unique isolates were identified with 29% (569) resistant organisms identified. Co-infection with resistant bacterial or fungal organisms ranged from 0.2 to 100% among included studies. Pooled prevalence of co-infection with resistant bacterial and fungal organisms was 24% (95% CI 8–40%; n = 25 studies: I2 = 99%) and 0.3% (95% CI 0.1–0.6%; n = 8 studies: I2 = 78%), respectively. Among multi-drug resistant organisms, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and multi-drug resistant Candida auris were most commonly reported. Stratified analyses found higher proportions of AMR outside of Europe and in ICU settings, though these results were not statistically significant. Patient-level analysis demonstrated > 50% (n = 58) mortality, whereby all but 6 patients were infected with a resistant organism. Conclusions During the first 18 months of the pandemic, AMR prevalence was high in COVID-19 patients and varied by hospital and geography although there was substantial heterogeneity. Given the variation in patient populations within these studies, clinical settings, practice patterns, and definitions of AMR, further research is warranted to quantify AMR in COVID-19 patients to improve surveillance programs, infection prevention and control practices and antimicrobial stewardship programs globally.

Background: Vancomycin is a first-line antibiotic for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections or other Gram-positive infections. The area under the curve (AUC) to minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ratio is proposed as a therapeutic drug-monitoring parameter. How well clinical efficacy is predicted by this measure has not been established. Objective: Determine the test performance characteristics (TPC) of AUC:MIC of vancomycin for prediction of positive outcome. Data Sources: PubMed and Ovid Medline (1946Medline ( to 2018 and EMBASE (1974EMBASE ( to 2018. Study Eligibility Criteria and Participants: Studies of patients treated with vancomycin for any type of infection in peer reviewed publications. All patient populations were included. Interventions: Vancomycin AUC:MIC or AUC was related to patient clinical outcome. Methods: Searches of medical databases using relevant terms were performed. Screening, study reviewing, data extracting and assessing data quality was performed independently by two reviewers. Studies were stratified by type of primary outcome for calculation of pooled sensitivity, specificity and construction of hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves. Results: Nineteen studies including 1699 patients were meta-analysed. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.77 (95% CI 0.67e0.84) and 0.62 (95% CI 0.53e0.71) respectively for the seven studies with primary outcome of mortality and 0.65 (95% CI 0.53e0.75), 0.58 (95% CI 0.48e0.67) for studies with composite or clinical cure outcome (n ¼ 12). HSROC curves suggested considerable heterogeneity. An additional 11 studies were described but could not be included for meta-analysis because data were not available. The majority of these studies (9/11) failed to demonstrate a relationship between AUC:MIC and positive clinical outcome. Conclusions: Vancomycin AUC:MIC performance was modest and inconsistent. Analysis was limited by studies without sufficient data; therefore, meta-analytic results may overestimate TPC values. Given this, as well as the lack of standardization of methods, widespread adoption of AUC:MIC as the preferred vancomycin monitoring parameter may be premature.

No abstract

Current limitations in the understanding and control of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Canada are described through a comprehensive review focusing on: (1) treatment optimization; (2) surveillance of antimicrobial use and AMR; and (3) prevention of transmission of AMR. Without addressing gaps in identified areas, sustained progress in AMR mitigation is unlikely. Expert opinions and perspectives contributed to prioritizing identified gaps. Using Canada as an example, this review emphasizes the importance and necessity of a One Health approach for understanding and mitigating AMR. Specifically, antimicrobial use in human, animal, crop, and environmental sectors cannot be regarded as independent; therefore, a One Health approach is needed in AMR research and understanding, current surveillance efforts, and policy. Discussions regarding addressing described knowledge gaps are separated into four categories: (1) further research; (2) increased capacity/resources; (3) increased prescriber/end-user knowledge; and (4) policy development/enforcement. This review highlights the research and increased capacity and resources to generate new knowledge and implement recommendations needed to address all identified gaps, including economic, social, and environmental considerations. More prescriber/end-user knowledge and policy development/enforcement are needed, but must be informed by realistic recommendations, with input from all relevant stakeholders. For most knowledge gaps, important next steps are uncertain. In conclusion, identified knowledge gaps underlined the need for AMR policy decisions to be considered in a One Health framework, while highlighting critical needs to achieve realistic and meaningful progress.