Background Antibiotic therapy has no known benefit against COVID-19, but is often initiated out of concern for concomitant bacterial infection. We sought to determine how common early empiric antibiotic therapy and community-onset bacterial co-infections are in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods In this multi-center cohort study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 discharged from 32 Michigan hospitals during the COVID-19 Michigan surge, we describe the use of early empiric antibiotic therapy (within the first two days) and prevalence of community-onset bacterial co-infection. Additionally, we assessed patient and hospital predictors of early empiric antibiotic using poison generalized estimating equation models. Results Between 3/10/2020 and 5/10/2020, data were collected on 951 COVID-19 PCR positive patients. Patient characteristics are described in Table 1. Nearly two thirds (62.4%, 593/951) of COVID-19 positive patients were prescribed early empiric antibiotic therapy, most of which (66.2%, 393/593) was directed at community-acquired pathogens. Across hospitals, the proportion of COVID-19 patients prescribed early empiric antibiotics varied from 40% to 90% (Figure 1). On multivariable analysis, patients were more likely to receive early empiric antibiotic therapy if they were older (adjusted rate ratio [ARR]: 1.01 [1.00–1.01] per year), required respiratory support (e.g., low flow oxygen, ARR: 1.16 [1.04–1.29]), had signs of a bacterial infection (e.g., lobar infiltrate, ARR: 1.17 [1.02–1.34]), or were admitted to a for-profit hospital (ARR: 1.27 [1.11–1.45]); patients admitted later were less likely to receive empiric antibiotics (April vs. March, ARR: 0.72 [0.62–0.84], Table 2). Community-onset bacterial co-infections were identified in 4.5% (43/951) of COVID-19 positive patients (2.4% [23/951] positive blood culture; 1.9% [18/951] positive respiratory culture). Conclusion Despite low prevalence of community-onset bacterial co-infections, patients hospitalized with COVID-19 often received early empiric antibiotic therapy. Given the potential harms from unnecessary antibiotic use, including additional personal protective equipment to administer antibiotics, judicious antibiotic use is key in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Disclosures Tejal N. Gandhi, MD, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (Grant/Research Support) Scott A. Flanders, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Research Grant or Support)Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (Research Grant or Support)

Key Points Question What is the frequency with which patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are treated with venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylactic- and treatment-dose anticoagulation, and what is the association of anticoagulation with in-hospital and 60-day mortality? Findings In this cohort study of 1351 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in which 1127 patients received anticoagulation, 34.8% missed 2 or more days of VTE prophylaxis. Use of only prophylactic-dose or treatment-dose anticoagulation was associated with lower in-hospital mortality vs no anticoagulation; however, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days. Meaning These findings suggest that prophylactic-dose VTE anticoagulation may be optimal therapy for patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Background Fluoroquinolones increase the risk of Clostridioides difficile infection and antibiotic resistance. Hospitals often use pre-prescription approval or prospective audit and feedback to target fluoroquinolone prescribing. Whether these strategies impact aggregate fluoroquinolone use is unknown. Methods This study is a 48-hospital, retrospective cohort of general-care, medical patients hospitalized with pneumonia or positive urine culture between December 2015–September 2017. Hospitals were surveyed on their use of pre-prescription approval and/or prospective audit and feedback to target fluoroquinolone prescribing during hospitalization (fluoroquinolone stewardship). After controlling for hospital clustering and patient factors, aggregate (inpatient and post-discharge) fluoroquinolone (ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin) exposure was compared between hospitals with and without fluoroquinolone stewardship. Results There were 11 748 patients (6820 pneumonia; 4928 positive urine culture) included at 48 hospitals. All hospitals responded to the survey: 29.2% (14/48) reported using pre-prescription approval and/or prospective audit and feedback to target fluoroquinolone prescribing. After adjustment, fluoroquinolone stewardship was associated with fewer patients receiving a fluoroquinolone (37.1% vs 48.2%; P = .01) and fewer fluoroquinolone treatment days per 1000 patients (2282 vs 3096 days/1000 patients; P = .01), driven by lower inpatient prescribing. However, most (66.6%) fluoroquinolone treatment days occurred after discharge, and hospitals with fluoroquinolone stewardship had twice as many new fluoroquinolone starts after discharge as hospitals without (15.6% vs 8.4%; P = .003). Conclusions Hospital-based stewardship interventions targeting fluoroquinolone prescribing were associated with less fluoroquinolone prescribing during hospitalization, but not at discharge. To limit aggregate fluoroquinolone exposure, stewardship programs should target both inpatient and discharge prescribing.