Abstract The majority of available US-published reports present populations with community spread in urban areas. The objective of this report is to describe a rural healthcare system's utilisation of therapeutic options available to treat Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and subsequent patient outcomes. A total of 150 patients were treated for COVID-19 at three hospitals in the Dakotas from 21 March 2020 to 30 April 2020. The most common pharmacological treatment regimens administered were zinc, hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin and convalescent plasma. Adjunctive treatments included therapeutic anticoagulation, tocilizumab and corticosteroids. As of 1 June 2020, 127 patients have survived to hospital discharge, 12 patients remain hospitalised and 11 patients have expired. The efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin use has yet to be determined but was not without risks of corrected QT interval prolongation and arrhythmias in our cohort. We did not appreciate any adverse effects that appeared related to tocilizumab or convalescent plasma administration in those patient subsets. These findings may provide insight into disease severity and treatment options in the rural setting with limited resources to participate in clinical trials and encourage larger comparative studies evaluating treatment efficacy.

No abstract

Background Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is frequently mis-categorized as aspiration pneumonia, prompting the addition of anaerobic coverage to the antibiotic regimen. In our institution, this usually takes the form of adding metronidazole to ceftriaxone. The 2019 American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America CAP guidelines recommend anaerobic coverage only for hospitalized patients with a suspected lung abscess or empyema. The objective of this study was to determine if a pharmacist-led workflow could increase adherence to the 2019 CAP guideline recommendations by limiting anaerobic coverage to those rare occasions. Methods The hospital antimicrobial stewardship committee approved a pharmacist workflow and guidance document which outlines criteria to evaluate appropriateness of anaerobic coverage for hospitalized patients with CAP and no other indications for antibiotics. If anaerobic coverage is not indicated, the pharmacist submits a standardized message to the treating provider via the electronic medical record, recommending discontinuation of metronidazole. This workflow was implemented on October 3, 2019. Metronidazole days of therapy (DOT) per 1000 patient days in quarters 1 through 4 of 2019 and quarter 1 of 2020 were collected as well as percent acceptance of documented pharmacist interventions from October 3, 2019 until March 31, 2020. Results Between October 3, 2019 and March 31, 2020, a total of 221 interventions were made by pharmacists to discontinue metronidazole in hospitalized CAP patients where anaerobic coverage was not indicated. Out of those 221 interventions, 164 (74%) were accepted by providers and only 57 (26%) were rejected. The DOT per 1000 patient days of metronidazole was assessed for the three quarters prior to our intervention and the two quarters after the intervention. Compared to the three quarters prior, metronidazole DOT per 1000 patient days decreased by 26.6% for the two quarters following implementation of the pharmacist-led intervention (Figure 1). Figure 1: Metronidazole DOT per 1000 patient days from January 1, 2019 through March 31, 2020. Vertical line indicates when pharmacist workflow was implemented. Conclusion A pharmacist antimicrobial stewardship intervention at our institution increased adherence to CAP guidelines and decreased unnecessary antibiotic exposure in hospitalized CAP patients when anaerobic coverage was not indicated. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Background Up to 56% of antibiotics prescribed in the ambulatory setting in the United States are inappropriately prescribed, with 30% of those determined to be unnecessary. In order to increase transparency and education about antibiotic prescribing in our ambulatory clinics at our institution, we implemented quarterly scorecards demonstrating antibiotic prescribing trends for primary care prescribers. Methods This pre-post interventional study analyzed the impact of prescriber scorecards on antibiotic prescribing, with the intervention consisting of real-time education and presentation of baseline data via scorecards. Prescribers were educated on the scorecard project via live meetings in Nov-Dec 2020. In Dec 2020, prescribers were sent individual emails describing their baseline antibiotic prescription rate (defined as number of prescriptions per 100 patient encounters), de-identified comparison data for other prescribers within their individual clinic, and average rate of the top 10% of prescribers with the lowest prescription rates. Baseline data was from prescriptions dated Jan-Mar 2020. The email also explained the project and shared that quarterly scorecards would be distributed in 2021. Baseline data was compared to prescription data from Jan-Mar 2021. Knowing the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in significantly fewer encounters for respiratory infections, data was also analyzed with respiratory diagnoses removed from the dataset. Results In the pre-intervention period, 11,769 antibiotics were prescribed during 92,239 encounters for a prescription rate of 12.8 (95%CI: 12.5-13.0). Of 96,449 encounters in the post-intervention period, 7,326 antibiotics were prescribed for a rate of 7.6 (95%CI: 7.4-7.8; p< 0.0001). When respiratory diagnoses were removed, prescription rates were 6.1 (95%CI: 5.9-6.2) in the pre-group, compared to 6.3 (95%CI: 6.1-6.5; p=0.0546). When analyzed by prescriber, significant decreases were seen in prescriptions by physicians (5.8 vs 5.4, p=0.0035) while increases were seen in prescriptions by advanced practice prescribers. Conclusion Antibiotic scorecards sent to prescribers may result in reduced antibiotic prescribing, but further research is needed to elucidate the impact of the scorecards in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures