Purpose of Review Rapidly evolving treatment paradigms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) introduce challenges for clinicians to keep up with the pace of published literature and to critically appraise the voluminous data produced. This review summarizes the clinical evidence from key studies examining the place of therapy of recommended drugs and management strategies for COVID-19. Recent Findings The global magnitude and duration of the pandemic have resulted in a flurry of interventional treatment trials evaluating both novel and repurposed drugs targeting various aspects of the viral life cycle. Additionally, clinical observations have documented various stages or phases of COVID-19 and underscored the importance of timing for the efficacy of studied therapies. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many observational, retrospective, and randomized controlled studies have been conducted to guide management of COVID-19 using drug therapies and other management strategies. Large, randomized, or adaptive platform trials have proven the most informative to guide recommended treatments to-date. Antimicrobial stewardship programs can play a pivotal role in ensuring appropriate use of COVID-19 therapies based on evolving clinical data and limiting unnecessary antibiotics given low rates of co-infection. Summary Given the rapidly evolving medical literature and treatment paradigms, it is recommended to reference continuously updated, curated guidelines from national and international sources. While the drugs and management strategies mentioned in this review represent the current state of recommendations, many therapies are still under investigation to further define optimal COVID-19 treatment. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11908-021-00769-8.

Objectives: Recognition of sepsis frequently occurs in emergency departments. To evaluate the appropriateness of empiric antibiotic use in the setting of suspected sepsis in emergency department, the percentages of bacterial infection and antibiotic-related adverse drug effects were quantified in an emergency department at an academic medical center. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed electronic medical records of adults who presented to the emergency department between January 2018 and June 2018 with suspected sepsis (defined as having ≥2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome [SIRS] criteria) and received ≥1 dose of intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotic. Results: In total, 218 patients were included in the final analysis. Moreover, 19.3% of these patients had confirmed bacterial infections; 44.5% had suspected bacterial infections; and 35.9% did not have bacterial infection. Elevated SIRS score (ie, ≥2) and Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score (ie, ≥2) were not associated with the presence of bacterial infections. We identified 90-day Clostridioides difficile infections in 7 patients and drug-resistant organism infections in 6 patients, regardless of the presence of bacterial infections. Conclusions: A high number of patients received intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics in the emergency department without confirmed or suspected bacterial infections that were supported by microbiologic cultures, radiographic imaging, or other symptoms of infections. Most patients who were initially admitted to the emergency department with suspected sepsis were discharged home after receiving 1 dose of intravenous antibiotic. Patients who were initially screened using SIRS score and who received broad-spectrum antibiotics in the emergency department were without confirmed or suspected bacterial infection.

No abstract

Background Recent literature suggests no difference in clinical outcomes between short (7 days) and prolonged course (14 days) antibiotic therapy for the treatment of uncomplicated Gram-negative bacteremia (GNB). Methods The objectives of the study were to develop and implement a treatment algorithm that identifies patients who are eligible for 7-day therapy for uncomplicated GNB and evaluate its impact on patient outcomes at The Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH) in Baltimore. The algorithm was developed and implemented at JHH on 11/11/2019. From 11/11/2019 to 3/31/2020, the Infectious Diseases (ID) Pharmacy Resident and ID pharmacists reviewed cases of GNB on weekdays and contacted teams to provide algorithm-compliant treatment recommendations. To quantify the impact of the intervention on clinical outcomes, data from the same time period during the previous year (baseline) were collected and compared to those collected during the intervention. The primary outcome was duration of antibiotic therapy for GNB. Secondary outcomes included: duration of intravenous (IV) antibiotics, length of hospital stay (LOS), and recurrent bacteremia. Results A total of 345 patients with GNB were identified (142 baseline; 203 intervention) of which 59 and 55 patients met criteria for 7-day therapy, respectively. The Pitt bacteremia score (median 1), bacteremia source [urinary (43%), abdominal (23%)], and organisms [E. coli (48%) and Klebsiella spp. (33%)] were similar between the periods. More patients in the intervention period were treated for ≤8 days (60.0% vs. 37.3%; p=0.015), and the median duration of therapy was 2 days shorter (8 vs. 10 days; p=0.04). Median duration of IV antibiotic therapy (4 vs. 7 days; p=0.004) and median LOS (4 vs. 7 days; p=0.029) were also shorter in the intervention period. There were no differences in the rate of 30-day recurrent bacteremia between the periods (3.4% baseline vs. 1.8% intervention; p=0.60). Conclusion Our pharmacist-led intervention successfully shortened the duration of therapy, increased conversion from IV to PO therapy, and reduced LOS, without negatively impacting the number of patients with recurrent GNB. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Objectives: Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) use has increased significantly as it provides safe and reliable administration of long-term antimicrobials for severe infections. Benefits of OPAT include fewer antibiotic or line-related complications, increased patient satisfaction, shorter hospitalizations, and lower costs. Although OPAT programs carefully screen patients for eligibility and safety prior to enrollment, complications can occur. There is a paucity of studies identifying predictors of clinical outcomes in OPAT patients. Here, we seek to identify baseline predictors of OPAT outcomes utilizing machine learning methodologies. Methods: We used electronic health record data from patients treated with OPAT between February 2019 and June 2022 at a large academic tertiary care hospital in Dallas, Texas. Three primary outcomes were examined: 1) clinical improvement at 30 days without evidence of reinfection; 2) patient actively being followed at 30 days; and 3) occurrence of any adverse event while on OPAT. Potential predictors were determined a priori, including demographic and clinical characteristics, OPAT setting, intravenous line type, and antimicrobials administered. Three classifiers were used to predict each outcome: logistic regression, random forest, and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost). Model performance was measured using AUC, F1, and accuracy scores. Results: We included 664 unique patients in the study, of whom 57% were male. At 30 days, clinical improvement was present in 78% of patients. Two-thirds of patients (67%) were actively followed at 30 days, and 30% experienced an adverse event while on OPAT. The XGBoost model performed best for predicting treatment success (average AUC = 0.873), with significant predictors including ID consultation and the use of vancomycin. The logistic regression model was best for predicting adverse outcomes (average AUC = 0.710). Risk factors for adverse outcomes included management in the home setting and the use of vancomycin, daptomycin, or piperacillin-tazobactam. Conclusion: Outcomes of patients undergoing OPAT can be predicted with the use of easily-obtainable clinical and demographic factors. Patients requiring certain antimicrobial therapies, such as vancomycin or daptomycin, may derive less benefit from early hospital discharge and OPAT.