IMPORTANCE Randomized clinical trials have yielded conflicting results about the effects of remdesivir therapy on survival and length of hospital stay among people with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE To examine associations between remdesivir treatment and survival and length of hospital stay among people hospitalized with COVID-19 in routine care settings. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective cohort study used data from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to identify adult patients in 123 VHA hospitals who had a first hospitalization with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from May 1 to October 8, 2020. Propensity score matching of patients initiating remdesivir treatment to control patients who had not initiated remdesivir treatment by the same hospital day was used to create the analytic cohort. EXPOSURES Remdesivir treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Time to death within 30 days of remdesivir treatment initiation (or corresponding hospital day for matched control individuals) and time to hospital discharge with time to death as a competing event. Associations between remdesivir treatment and these outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression in the matched cohort.RESULTS The initial cohort included 5898 patients admitted to 123 hospitals, 2374 (40.3%) of whom received remdesivir treatment (2238 men [94.3%]; mean [SD] age, 67.8 [12.8] years) and 3524 (59.7%) of whom never received remdesivir treatment (3302 men [93.7%]; mean [SD] age, 67.0 [14.4] years). After propensity score matching, the analysis included 1172 remdesivir recipients and 1172 controls, for a final matched cohort of 2344 individuals. Remdesivir recipients and matched controls were similar with regard to age (mean [SD], 66.6 [14.2] years vs 67.5 [14.1] years), sex (1101 men [93.9%] vs 1101 men [93.9%]), dexamethasone use (559 [47.7%] vs 559 [47.7%]), admission to the intensive care unit (242 [20.7%] vs 234 [19.1%]), and mechanical ventilation use (69 [5.9%] vs 45 [3.8%]). Standardized differences were less than 10% for all measures. Remdesivir treatment was not associated with 30-day mortality (143 remdesivir recipients [12.2%] vs 124 controls [10.6%]; log rank P = .26; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.83-1.36). Results were similar for people receiving vs not receiving dexamethasone at remdesivir initiation (dexamethasone recipients:

Purpose Rural disparities exist in access to multidisciplinary pain care with higher rates of opioid prescribing in rural regions. Among Veterans, who have prevalent rates of chronic pain, women often evidence complex presentations, multiple comorbidities, and dissatisfaction with care. This study investigates the impact of rurality on pain care for women specifically, and whether this varies from the impact of rurality for men. Methods A cohort of Veterans with chronic pain in 2018 was built utilizing VA administrative data. Variables of interest included: demographic, comorbidities, medications, and health care utilization for chronic pain. Findings The cohort included 2,261,030 Veterans; 11% (n = 248,977) were women. Significantly fewer women (7%) compared to men (10.7%) received long‐term opioids (adjusted OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.75‐0.78). Men, relative to women, were also more likely to receive gabapentinoids and nonsteroidal ant‐inflammatory drugs, whereas women, relative to men, were more likely to receive muscle relaxants and duloxetine. Women were more likely to receive most psychiatric medications. Rural women received more primary care visits compared to urban women (adjusted OR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.15‐1.22), but fewer women's clinic visits (a subset of primary care visits: adjusted OR = 0.69, 95% CI:0.67‐0.71) and fewer pain specialty care visits (physical therapy, pain clinic, and mental health visits with pain codes). Rural effects did not vary substantially between women and men. Conclusions Rural‐dwelling Veterans received more pain and psychiatric medications compared to urban Veterans and fewer specialty care visits. Rural Veterans may benefit from increased access to specialty chronic pain care.

ImportanceVeterans Health Administration (VHA) enrollees receive care for COVID-19 in both VHA and non-VHA (ie, community) hospitals, but little is known about the frequency or outcomes of care for veterans with COVID-19 in VHA vs community hospitals.ObjectiveTo compare outcomes among veterans admitted for COVID-19 in VHA vs community hospitals.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study used VHA and Medicare data from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021, on hospitalizations for COVID-19 in 121 VHA and 4369 community hospitals in the US among a national cohort of veterans (aged ≥65 years) enrolled in both the VHA and Medicare with VHA care in the year prior to hospitalization for COVID-19 based on the primary diagnosis code.ExposureAdmission to VHA vs community hospitals.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day readmission. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance observable patient characteristics (eg, demographic characteristics, comorbidity, mechanical ventilation on admission, area-level social vulnerability, distance to VHA vs community hospitals, and date of admission) between VHA and community hospitals.ResultsThe cohort included 64 856 veterans (mean [SD] age, 77.6 [8.0] years; 63 562 men [98.0%]) dually enrolled in the VHA and Medicare who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Most (47 821 [73.7%]) were admitted to community hospitals (36 362 [56.1%] admitted to community hospitals via Medicare, 11 459 [17.7%] admitted to community hospitals reimbursed via VHA’s Care in the Community program, and 17 035 [26.3%] admitted to VHA hospitals). Admission to community hospitals was associated with higher unadjusted and risk-adjusted 30-day mortality compared with admission to VHA hospitals (crude mortality, 12 951 of 47 821 [27.1%] vs 3021 of 17 035 [17.7%]; P < .001; risk-adjusted odds ratio, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.21-1.55]; P < .001). Readmission within 30 days was less common after admission to community compared with VHA hospitals (4898 of 38 576 [12.7%] vs 2006 of 14 357 [14.0%]; risk-adjusted hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.86-0.92]; P < .001).Conclusions and RelevanceThis study found that most hospitalizations for COVID-19 among VHA enrollees aged 65 years or older were in community hospitals and that veterans experienced higher mortality in community hospitals than in VHA hospitals. The VHA must understand the sources of the mortality difference to plan care for VHA enrollees during future COVID-19 surges and the next pandemic.

Background: Early postoperative and acute prosthetic joint infection (PJI) may be managed with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR). Among patients with nonstaphylococcal PJI, an initial 4–6-week course of intravenous or highly bioavailable oral antibiotics is recommended in the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines, with disagreement among committee members on the need for subsequent chronic oral antimicrobial suppression (CAS). We aimed to characterize patients with nonstaphylococcal PJI who received CAS and to compare them to those who did not receive CAS. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients admitted to Veterans’ Affairs (VA) hospitals from 2003 to 2017 who had a PJI caused by nonstaphylococcal bacteria, underwent DAIR, and received 4–6 weeks of antimicrobial treatment. PJI was defined by Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) 2011 criteria. CAS was defined as at least 6 months of oral antibiotics following initial treatment of the PJI. Patients were followed for 5 years after debridement. We used χ2 tests and t tests were used to compare patients who received CAS with those who did not receive CAS. Results: Overall, 561 patients had a nonstaphylococcal PJI treated with DAIR, and 80.6% of patients received CAS. The most common organisms causing PJI were streptococci. We detected no significant differences between patients who received CAS and those who did not receive CAS, except that modified Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (mAPACHE) scores were higher among patients who did not receive CAS (Table 1). Conclusion: Patients not on CAS were more severely ill (by mAPACHE) than those on CAS. Otherwise, the 2 groups were not different. This finding was contrary to our hypothesis that patients with multiple comorbidities or higher mAPACHE scores would be more likely to get CAS. A future analysis will be conducted to assess treatment failure in both groups. We hope to find a specific cohort who may benefit from CAS and hope to deimplement CAS in others who may not benefit from it.Funding: NoDisclosures: None

ImportanceWhile current evidence has demonstrated a surgical site infection (SSI) prevention bundle consisting of preoperative Staphylococcus aureus screening, nasal and skin decolonization, and use of appropriate perioperative antibiotic based on screening results can decrease rates of SSI caused by S aureus, it is well known that interventions may need to be modified to address facility-level factors.ObjectiveTo assess the association between implementation of an SSI prevention bundle allowing for facility discretion regarding specific component interventions and S aureus deep incisional or organ space SSI rates.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis quality improvement study was conducted among all patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting, cardiac valve replacement, or total joint arthroplasty (TJA) at 11 Veterans Administration hospitals. Implementation of the bundle was on a rolling basis with the earliest implementation occurring in April 2012 and the latest implementation occurring in July 2017. Data were collected from January 2007 to March 2018 and analyzed from October 2020 to June 2023.InterventionsNasal screening for S aureus; nasal decolonization of S aureus carriers; chlorhexidine bathing; and appropriate perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis according to S aureus carrier status. Facility discretion regarding how to implement the bundle components was allowed.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was deep incisional or organ space SSI caused by S aureus. Multivariable logistic regression with generalized estimating equation (GEE) and interrupted time-series (ITS) models were used to compare SSI rates between preintervention and postintervention periods.ResultsAmong 6696 cardiac surgical procedures and 16 309 TJAs, 95 S aureus deep incisional or organ space SSIs were detected (25 after cardiac operations and 70 after TJAs). While the GEE model suggested a significant association between the intervention and decreased SSI rates after TJAs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.98), there was not a significant association when an ITS model was used (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.32-2.39). No significant associations after cardiac operations were found.Conclusions and RelevanceAlthough this quality improvement study suggests an association between implementation of an SSI prevention bundle and decreased S aureus deep incisional or organ space SSI rates after TJAs, it was underpowered to see a significant difference when accounting for changes over time.