The epidemiology of hematogenous vertebral osteomyelitis: a cohort study in a tertiary care hospital

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Vertebral osteomyelitis is a common manifestation of osteomyelitis in adults and associated with considerable morbidity. Limited data exist regarding hematogenous vertebral osteomyelitis. Our objective was to describe the epidemiology and management of hematogenous vertebral osteomyelitis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a 2-year retrospective cohort study of adult patients with hematogenous vertebral osteomyelitis at a tertiary care hospital.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seventy patients with hematogenous vertebral osteomyelitis were identified. The mean age was 59.7 years (±15.0) and 38 (54%) were male. Common comorbidities included diabetes (43%) and renal insufficiency (24%). Predisposing factors in the 30 days prior to admission included bacteremia (19%), skin/soft tissue infection (17%), and having an indwelling catheter (30%). Back pain was the most common symptom (87%). Seven (10%) patients presented with paraplegia. Among the 46 (66%) patients with a microbiological diagnosis, the most common organisms were methicillin-susceptible <it>S. aureus </it>[15 (33%) cases], and methicillin-resistant <it>S. aureus </it>[10 (22%)]. Among the 44 (63%) patients who had a diagnostic biopsy, open biopsy was more likely to result in pathogen recovery [14 (93%) of 15 with open biopsy vs. 14 (48%) of 29 with needle biopsy; p = 0.003]. Sixteen (23%) patients required surgical intervention for therapeutic purposes during admission.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This is one of the largest series of hematogenous vertebral osteomyelitis. A microbiological diagnosis was made in only approximately two-thirds of cases. <it>S. aureus </it>was the most common causative organism, of which almost half the isolates were methicillin-resistant.</p

Self-Administered Outpatient Antimicrobial Infusion by Uninsured Patients Discharged from a Safety-Net Hospital: A Propensity-Score-Balanced Retrospective Cohort Study

<div><p>Background</p><p>Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is accepted as safe and effective for medically stable patients to complete intravenous (IV) antibiotics in an outpatient setting. Since, however, uninsured patients in the United States generally cannot afford OPAT, safety-net hospitals are often burdened with long hospitalizations purely to infuse antibiotics, occupying beds that could be used for patients requiring more intensive services. OPAT is generally delivered in one of four settings: infusion centers, nursing homes, at home with skilled nursing assistance, or at home with self-administered therapy. The first three—termed healthcare-administered OPAT (H-OPAT)—are most commonly used in the United States by patients with insurance funding. The fourth—self-administered OPAT (S-OPAT)—is relatively uncommon, with the few published studies having been conducted in the United Kingdom. With multidisciplinary planning, we established an S-OPAT clinic in 2009 to shift care of selected uninsured patients safely to self-administration of their IV antibiotics at home. We undertook this study to determine whether the low-income mostly non-English-speaking patients in our S-OPAT program could administer their own IV antimicrobials at home with outcomes as good as, or better than, those receiving H-OPAT.</p><p>Methods and Findings</p><p>Parkland Hospital is a safety-net hospital serving Dallas County, Texas. From 1 January 2009 to 14 October 2013, all uninsured patients meeting criteria were enrolled in S-OPAT, while insured patients were discharged to H-OPAT settings. The S-OPAT patients were trained through multilingual instruction to self-administer IV antimicrobials by gravity, tested for competency before discharge, and thereafter followed at designated intervals in the S-OPAT outpatient clinic for IV access care, laboratory monitoring, and physician follow-up. The primary outcome was 30-d all-cause readmission, and the secondary outcome was 1-y all-cause mortality. The study was adequately powered for readmission but not for mortality. Clinical, sociodemographic, and outcome data were collected from the Parkland Hospital electronic medical records and the US census, constituting a historical prospective cohort study. We used multivariable logistic regression to develop a propensity score predicting S-OPAT versus H-OPAT group membership from covariates. We then estimated the effect of S-OPAT versus H-OPAT on the two outcomes using multivariable proportional hazards regression, controlling for selection bias and confounding with the propensity score and covariates.</p><p>Of the 1,168 patients discharged to receive OPAT, 944 (81%) were managed in the S-OPAT program and 224 (19%) by H-OPAT services. In multivariable proportional hazards regression models controlling for confounding and selection bias, the 30-d readmission rate was 47% lower in the S-OPAT group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.53; 95% CI 0.35–0.81; <i>p</i> = 0.003), and the 1-y mortality rate did not differ significantly between the groups (aHR, 0.86; 95% CI 0.37–2.00; <i>p</i> = 0.73). The S-OPAT program shifted a median 26 d of inpatient infusion per patient to the outpatient setting, avoiding 27,666 inpatient days. The main limitation of this observational study—the potential bias from the difference in healthcare funding status of the groups—was addressed by propensity score modeling.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>S-OPAT was associated with similar or better clinical outcomes than H-OPAT. S-OPAT may be an acceptable model of treatment for uninsured, medically stable patients to complete extended courses of IV antimicrobials at home.</p></div

Nafcillin versus cefazolin for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia

Background: Anti-staphylococcal penicillins have long been the first-line treatment option for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infections. Recent retrospective data comparing nafcillin and cefazolin report similar clinical efficacy despite concerns about high inoculum MSSA infections. Methods: This was a retrospective, non-inferiority, cohort study comparing treatment failure rates between nafcillin and cefazolin in patients with MSSA bacteremia from any source, other than meningitis. Multiple logistic regression was used to adjust for confounding variables. Results: A total of 142 patients were included in the study. The overall treatment failure rate among patients receiving cefazolin was non-inferior to nafcillin (11.3% versus 8.5%; 90% confidence interval −5.2% to 10.8%). Rates of adverse drug events were significantly higher in the nafcillin arm (19.7% versus 7%; p = 0.046). After adjustment for confounding variables, no difference between treatment groups was found in treatment failure (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 1.2; 95% CI, 0.3–4.5), but nafcillin was associated with significantly higher nephrotoxicity (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 5.4; 95% CI, 1.1–26.8). Conclusion: Cefazolin was associated with lower nephrotoxicity and similar treatment failure rates compared to nafcillin suggesting that cefazolin is an appealing first line agent for most MSSA bloodstream infections. Keywords: Nafcillin, Cefazolin, Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, MSSA, Bacteremi

Multivariable logistic regression model of propensity score for participation in the self-administered OPAT versus healthcare-administered OPAT program.

<p>The model’s area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.91. Patients’ predicted probability of S- OPAT participation from the model is the propensity score used to control for selection bias in later outcome modeling.</p><p>*The <i>p</i>-values for the main category terms (e.g., health funding source) are from the type 3 analysis of the main effects of the nine categorical variables, and the <i>p</i>-values for the individual category terms test the difference between each category (e.g., Medicaid) and its referent category (indicated by aOR = 1.00; e.g., Medicare), all based on a sample size of 1,168 patients.</p><p>^‡Fiscal years run from 1 October to 30 September. For H-OPAT, fiscal year 2010 also includes the 9 mo before the fiscal year (1 January 2009 to 30 September 2009).</p><p>aOR, adjusted odds ratio; ENT, ear/nose/throat; ref, referent category.</p><p>Multivariable logistic regression model of propensity score for participation in the self-administered OPAT versus healthcare-administered OPAT program.</p

Summary of patient selection.

<p>^aPatients who were homeless, had a history of IV drug abuse, or were medically unstable. ^bThe eligibility criteria for inclusion in the S-OPAT group are given in <a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001922#pmed.1001922.s002" target="_blank">S2 Fig</a>.</p

The value of inflammatory markers to diagnose and monitor diabetic foot osteomyelitis

In this study, we assessed the effectiveness of inflammatory markers to diagnose and monitor the treatment of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot. We evaluated 35 consecutive patients admitted to our hospital with infected foot ulcers. Patients were divided in two groups based on the results of bone culture and histopathology: osteomyelitis and no osteomyelitis. The erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-8 (IL-8), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1) and macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha (MIP1α) were measured at baseline after 3 and 6 weeks of standard therapy. PCT levels in the osteomyelitis group were significantly higher at baseline than in the group with no osteomyelitis (P = 0·049). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the levels of the other markers. CRP, ESR, PCT and IL-6 levels significantly declined in the group with osteomyelitis after starting therapy, while MCP-1 increased (P = 0·002). TNFα and MIP1α levels were below range in 80 out of 97 samples and therefore not reported. Our results suggest that PCT might be useful to distinguish osteomyelitis in infected foot ulcers. CRP, ESR, PCT and IL-6 are valuable when monitoring the effect of therapy

Childcare needs as a barrier to healthcare among women in a safety-net health system

Abstract Background Childcare needs are an understudied social determinant of health. The effect of childcare needs on access to healthcare must be understood to inform health system interventions and policy reform. This study sought to characterize childcare needs, access to childcare, and prior experience with navigating childcare needs in healthcare settings among women in a safety-net population. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of patient-reported survey data collected in-person between April and October 2019. Surveys were administered in waiting rooms of ambulatory services in a large, urban safety-net health system in Dallas, Texas. Survey respondents were derived from a random convenience sample of women waiting for outpatient appointments. Participants were screened for having children under the age of 13 and/or childcare responsibilities for inclusion in the sample. Outcomes of interest included self-reported delayed or missed care, reasons for delayed or missed care, perceived difficulty in accessing childcare, prior methods for managing childcare during healthcare appointments, and prior experience with childcare centers. Results Among the 336 respondents (96.7% response rate), 121 (36.0%) reported delaying or missing a mean 3.7 appointments/year. Among women with delayed or missed care, 54.5% reported childcare barriers as the primary reason for deferral of care, greater than transportation (33%) or insurance (25%) barriers. Respondents rated childcare access as more difficult than healthcare access. Delayed or missed care due to childcare was more common among White (68.8%) and Black (55.0%) women compared to Hispanic women (34.3%). Common methods of navigating childcare needs during scheduled appointments included bringing children to appointments (69.1%) and re-scheduling or missing the scheduled appointment (43.0%). 40.6% of patients reported leaving an appointment before completion due to childcare needs. Conclusions Childcare needs are a leading barrier to healthcare among women accessing care in safety-net settings. Unmet childcare needs result in deferral of care, which may impact health outcomes. Childcare access is perceived as more challenging than healthcare access itself. Health system and policy interventions are needed to address childcare as a social determinant of health

Intersecting social determinants of health among patients with childcare needs: a cross-sectional analysis of social vulnerability

Abstract Introduction Access to childcare is an understudied social determinant of health (SDOH). Our health system established a childcare facility for patients to address childcare barriers to healthcare. Recognizing that social risk factors often co-exist, we sought to understand intersecting social risk factors among patients with childcare needs who utilized and did not utilize the childcare facility and identify residual unmet social needs alongside childcare needs. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of patients who enrolled in the childcare facility from November 2020 to October 2022 to compare parameters of the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) associated with the census tract extracted from electronic medical record (EMR) data among utilizers and non-utilizers of the facility. Overall SVI and segmentation into four themes of vulnerability (socioeconomic status, household characteristics, racial/ethnic minority status, and housing type/transportation) were compared across utilizers and utilizers. Number of 90th percentile indicators were also compared to assess extreme levels of vulnerability. A sample of utilizers additionally received a patient-reported social needs screening questionnaire administered at the childcare facility. Results Among 400 enrollees in the childcare facility, 70% utilized childcare services and 30% did not. Utilizers and non-utilizers were demographically similar, though utilizers were more likely to speak Spanish (34%) compared to non-utilizers (22%). Mean SVI was similar among utilizers and non-utilizers, but the mean number of 90th percentile indicators were higher for non-utilizers compared to utilizers (4.3 ± 2.7 vs 3.7 ± 2.7, p = 0.03), primarily driven by differences in the housing type/transportation theme (p = 0.01). Non-utilizers had a lower rate of healthcare utilization compared to utilizers (p = 0.02). Among utilizers who received patient-reported screening, 84% had one unmet social need identified, of whom 62% agreed for additional assistance. Among social work referrals, 44% were linked to social workers in their medical clinics, while 56% were supported by social work integrated in the childcare facility. Conclusions This analysis of SDOH approximated by SVI showed actionable differences, potentially transportation barriers, among patients with childcare needs who utilized a health system-integrated childcare facility and patients who did not utilize services. Furthermore, residual unmet social needs among patients who utilized the facility demonstrate the multifactorial nature of social risk factors experienced by patients with childcare needs and opportunities to address intersecting social needs within an integrated intervention. Intersecting social needs require holistic examination and multifaceted interventions