Antibiotic usage and stewardship in patients with COVID-19: too much antibiotic in uncharted waters?

Background: Antimicrobial usage and stewardship programmes during COVID-19 have been poorly studied. Prescribing practice varies despite national guidelines, and there is concern that stewardship principles have suffered. Aim: To analyse antibiotic prescriptions during the COVID-19 pandemic at a teaching hospital and to propose improved approaches to stewardship. Methods: We reviewed COVID-19 admissions to medical wards and intensive care units (ICUs) in a London teaching hospital to assess initial antibiotic usage and evidence of bacterial co-infection, and to determine if our current antibiotic guidelines were adhered to. Findings: Data from 130 inpatients (76% medical and 24% ICU) were obtained. On admission, 90% were treated with antibiotics. No microbiological samples taken on admission provided definitive evidence of respiratory co-infection. In 13% of cases, antibiotics were escalated, usually without supporting clinical, radiological or laboratory evidence. In 16% of cases, antibiotics were stopped or de-escalated within 72 h. Blood results and chest radiographs were characteristic of COVID-19 in 20% of ward patients and 42% of ICU patients. Overall mortality was 25% at 14 days – similar to rates described for the UK as a whole. Conclusion: The majority of patients received antibiotics despite limited evidence of co-infection. Most patients received narrower spectrum antibiotics than recommended by NICE. As understanding of the natural history of COVID-19 infections progresses, stewardship programmes will need to evolve; however, at this point, we feel that a more restrictive antibiotic prescribing approach is warranted. We propose strategies for effective stewardship and estimate the effect this may have on antibiotic consumption. </jats:sec

Safety and Efficacy of Intermittent High-Dose Liposomal Amphotericin B Antifungal Prophylaxis in Haemato-Oncology: An Eight-Year Single-Centre Experience and Review of the Literature

Triazoles remain first-line agents for antifungal prophylaxis in high-risk haemato-oncology patients, but their use is increasingly contraindicated due to drug–drug interactions and additive toxicities with novel treatments. In this retrospective, single-centre, observational study, we present our eight-year experience of antifungal prophylaxis using intermittent high-dose liposomal Amphotericin B (L-AmB). All adults identified through our Antifungal Stewardship Programme as receiving L-AmB prophylaxis at 7.5 mg/kg once-weekly between February 2012 and January 2020 were included. Adverse reactions, including infusion reactions, electrolyte loss, and nephrotoxicity, were recorded. ‘Breakthrough’ invasive fungal infection (IFI) occurring within four weeks of L-AmB was classified using European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) criteria. Moreover, 114 courses of intermittent high-dose L-AmB prophylaxis administered to 92 unique patients were analysed. Hypokalaemia was the most common grade 3–4 adverse event, with 26 (23%) courses. Grade 3 nephrotoxicity occurred in 8 (7%) and reversed in all six patients surviving to 90 days. There were two (1.8%) episodes of breakthrough IFI, one ‘probable’ and one ‘possible’. In this study, the largest evaluation of intermittent high-dose L-AmB prophylaxis conducted to date, toxicity was manageable and reversible and breakthrough IFI was rare. L-AmB prophylaxis represents a viable alternative for patients with a contraindication to triazoles.</jats:p

Evaluating the Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Using Randomized Data From the ISCHEMIA Trial

BACKGROUND: The appropriate use criteria for revascularization of stable ischemic heart disease have not been evaluated using randomized data. Using data from the randomized ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches; July 2012 to January 2018, 37 countries), the health status benefits of an invasive strategy over a conservative one were examined within appropriate use criteria scenarios. METHODS: Among 1833 participants mapped to 36 appropriate use criteria scenarios, symptom status was assessed using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7 at 1 year for each scenario and for each of the 6 patient characteristics used to define the scenarios. Coronary anatomy and SYNTAX(Synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with Taxus and cardiac surgery) scores were measured using coronary computed tomography angiography. Treatment effects are expressed as an odds ratio for a better health status outcome with an invasive versus conservative treatment strategy using Bayesian hierarchical proportional odds models. Differences in the primary clinical outcome were similarly examined. RESULTS: The mean age was 63 years, 81% were male, and 71% were White. Diabetes was present in 28% and multivessel disease in 51%. Most clinical scenarios favored invasive for better 1-year health status. The benefit of an invasive strategy on Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency scores was reduced for asymptomatic patients (odds ratio [95% credible interval], 1.16 [0.66-1.71] versus 2.26 [1.75-2.80]), as well as for those on no antianginal medications. Diabetes, number of diseased vessels, proximal left anterior descending coronary artery location, and SYNTAX score did not effectively identify patients with better health status after invasive treatment, and minimal differences in clinical events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Applying the randomization scheme from the ISCHEMIA trial to appropriate clinical scenarios revealed baseline symptoms and antianginal therapy to be the primary drivers of health status benefits from invasive management. Consideration should be given to reducing the patient characteristics collected to generate appropriateness ratings to improve the feasibility of future data collection

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used