Background Antibiotics may be indicated in patients with COVID-19 due to suspected or confirmed bacterial superinfection. Objectives To investigate antibiotic prescribing practices in patients with COVID-19. Methods We performed an international web-based survey and investigated the pattern of antibiotic use as reported by physicians involved in treatment of COVID-19. SPSS Statistics version 25 was used for data analysis. Results The survey was completed by 166 participants from 23 countries and 82 different hospitals. Local guidelines for antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients were reported by 61.8% (n = 102) of participants and for 82.9% (n = 136) they did not differ from local community-acquired pneumonia guidelines. Clinical presentation was recognized as the most important reason for the start of antibiotics (mean score = 4.07 and SD = 1.095 on grading scale from 1 to 5). When antibiotics were started, most respondents rated as the highest the need for coverage of atypical pathogens (mean score = 2.8 and SD = 0.99), followed by Staphylococcus aureus (mean score = 2.67 and SD = 1.05 on bi-modal scale, with values 1 and 2 for disagreement and values 3 and 4 for agreement). In the patients on the ward, 29.1% of respondents chose not to prescribe any antibiotic. Combination of β-lactams and macrolides or fluoroquinolones was reported by 52.4% (n = 87) of respondents. In patients in the ICU, piperacillin/tazobactam was the most commonly prescribed antibiotic. The mean reported duration of antibiotic treatment was 7.12 (SD = 2.44) days. Conclusions The study revealed widespread broad-spectrum antibiotic use in patients with COVID-19. Implementation of antimicrobial stewardship principles is warranted to mitigate the negative consequences of antibiotic therapy.

Objective We aimed to explore anxiety status across a broad range of HCWs supporting patients with COVID-19 in different global regions. Method This was an international online survey in which participation was on voluntary basis and data were submitted via Google Drive, across a two-week period starting from March 18, 2020. The Beck Anxiety Inventory was used to quantify the level of anxiety. Results 1416 HCWs (70.8% medical doctors, 26.2% nurses) responded to the survey from 75 countries. The distribution of anxiety levels was: normal/minimal ( n = 503, 35.5%), low ( n = 390, 27.5%); moderate ( n = 287, 20.3%), and severe ( n = 236, 16.7%). According to multiple generalized linear model, female gender ( p = 0.001), occupation (ie, being a nurse dealing directly with patients with COVID-19 [ p = 0.017]), being younger ( p = 0.001), reporting inadequate knowledge on COVID-19 ( p = 0.005), having insufficient personal protective equipment (p = 0.001) and poor access to hand sanitizers or liquid soaps ( p = 0.008), coexisting chronic disorders (p = 0.001) and existing mental health problems (p = 0.001), and higher income of countries where HCWs lived ( p = 0.048) were significantly associated with increased anxiety. Conclusions Front-line HCWs, regardless of the levels of COVID-19 transmission in their country, are anxious when they do not feel protected. Our findings suggest that anxiety could be mitigated ensuring sufficient levels of protective personal equipment alongside greater education and information .

Background A debate about the scientific quality of COVID-19 themed research has emerged. We explored whether the quality of evidence of COVID-19 publications is lower when compared to nonCOVID-19 publications in the three highest ranked scientific medical journals. Methods We searched the PubMed Database from March 12 to April 12, 2020 and identified 559 publications in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and The Lancet which were divided into COVID-19 (cases, n = 204) and nonCOVID-19 (controls, n = 355) associated content. After exclusion of secondary, unauthored, response letters and non-matching article types, 155 COVID-19 publications (including 13 original articles) and 130 nonCOVID-19 publications (including 52 original articles) were included in the comparative analysis. The hierarchical level of evidence was determined for each publication included and compared between cases and controls as the main outcome. A quantitative scoring of quality was carried out for the subgroup of original articles. The numbers of authors and citation rates were also compared between groups. Results The 130 nonCOVID-19 publications were associated with higher levels of evidence on the level of evidence pyramid, with a strong association measure (Cramer’s V: 0.452, P <0.001). The 155 COVID-19 publications were 186-fold more likely to be of lower evidence (95% confidence interval [CI] for odds ratio, 7.0–47; P <0.001). The quantitative quality score (maximum possible score, 28) was significantly different in favor of nonCOVID-19 (mean difference, 11.1; 95% CI, 8.5–13.7; P <0.001). There was a significant difference in the early citation rate of the original articles that favored the COVID-19 original articles (median [interquartile range], 45 [30–244] vs. 2 [1–4] citations; P <0.001). Conclusions We conclude that the quality of COVID-19 publications in the three highest ranked scientific medical journals is below the quality average of these journals. These findings need to be verified at a later stage of the pandemic.