Deviating from IDSA treatment guidelines for non-purulent skin infections increases the risk of treatment failure in emergency department patients

The Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) publishes guidelines regularly for the management of skin and soft tissue infections; however, the extent to which practice patterns follow these guidelines and if this can affect treatment failure rates is unknown. We observed the treatment failure rates from a multicentre retrospective ambulatory cohort of adult emergency department patients treated for a non-purulent skin infection. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the role of IDSA classification and whether adherence to IDSA guidelines reduced treatment failure. A total of 759 ambulatory patients were included in the cohort with 17.4% failing treatment. Among all patients, 56.0% had received treatments matched to the IDSA guidelines with 29.1% over-treated, and 14.9% under-treated based on the guidelines. After adjustment for age, gender, infection location and medical comorbidities, patients with a moderate infection type had three times increased risk of treatment failure (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 2.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15-7.74) and two times increased risk with a severe infection type (aRR 2.27; 95% CI 1.25-4.13) compared with mild infection types. Patients who were under-treated based on IDSA guidelines were over two times more likely to fail treatment (aRR 2.65; 95% CI 1.16-6.05) while over-treatment was not associated with treatment failure. Patients 70 years of age had a 56% increased risk of treatment failure (aRR 1.56; 95% CI 1.04-2.33) compared with those \u3c 70 years. Following the IDSA guidelines for non-purulent SSTIs may reduce the treatment failure rates; however, older adults still carry an increased risk of treatment failure

Growing Food Security: Food Pantry Gardens as Outdoor Classrooms

Approximately 15 percent (17.6 million households) of all U.S. households experienced food insecurity during 2012, and approximately 17% (16,280) of all of Floyd County, Georgia\u27s 95,978 residents are food insecure (Map the Meal Gap 2013). While food pantries were originally designed to assist food insecure citizens with acute hunger, ensuring they have sufficient nutrition in times of need, such food assistance has become a key component of food insecure “households’ long term strategies to supplement monthly shortfalls in food” (Echevarria et al. 2011: 1). Our community engagement project addresses this social problem by developing gardens at the food pantry that serve as educational centers to teach food insecure patrons how to grow food year round and incorporate it into healthy meals that can be easily produced. On-site meals with locally grown ingredients showcase the facility of growing and cooking food directly from one\u27s own garden and directly ameliorate chronic food insecurity. As part of a research and service collaboration with our local Food Pantry, my Anthropology of Food course in Fall 2015 worked on the maintenance and development of on-site gardens and an orchard, harvesting and preparing produce from the gardens, and designing workshops and recipes that showcase and teach the use of locally (on-site) produced vegetables and fruits. Building upon a previous research collaboration with Action Ministries Rome (GA) that documented patrons\u27 interest and need for more education and experience with the preparation of locally grown foods, my students and I scheduled workshops where local residents could learn seasonal food production and preparation strategies. By hosting workshops in which I engage both the class and members of the food pantry simultaneously in a hands-on manner in the food pantry gardens, we provide knowledge that allows them to grow and harvest their own food. We hosted meals in the gardens where we set up tables and chairs and prepared and shared dishes made from the produce grown on site with food insecure members of the local community. Such on-site food production and preparation enables the food insecure (and our students) to feel confident in their ability to grow healthy food and turn it into meals for their families and reduce their food expenditures. We have developed forms with descriptions of the crops grown on site and corresponding recipes for locally grown vegetables to distribute at the food pantry and on our website to ensure that patrons know how and when to harvest and use the produce they receive from the pantry. This information and first-hand experiential knowledge is invaluable to the pantry efforts to encourage patrons to eat healthier food and reduce their dependence through gardening

Reduction of Inappropriate Antibiotic Use and Improved Outcomes by Implementation of an Algorithm-Based Clinical Guideline for Nonpurulent Skin and Soft Tissue Infections

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Clinicians currently do not reliably adhere to antibiotic treatment guidelines, resulting in unnecessary patient exposure to broad-spectrum antimicrobials. Our objective is to determine whether a treatment intervention for the management of nonpurulent skin and soft tissue infections increases clinician adherence and improves patient outcomes. METHODS: Between January 1 and December 31, 2017, patients presenting to 2 emergency departments (EDs) and who had received a diagnosis of a nonpurulent skin and soft tissue infection were enrolled and assigned to a pre- or postintervention cohort with a treatment intervention implemented on June 1. Primary outcomes were percentage of ED providers following the guidelines and percentage of patients admitted to the hospital. Secondary outcomes were patient self-reported treatment failure and hospital readmission. RESULTS: There were 1,360 patients, 665 in the preintervention and 695 in the postintervention cohorts. After algorithm implementation, guideline adherence increased (43.0% versus 55.1%; P \u3c .001) and number of patients admitted to the hospital declined (36.5% versus 12.0%; P \u3c .001). In addition, patients reported fewer treatment failures (26.8% versus 16.5%; P=.02) and fewer readmissions (22.3% versus 12.7%; P=.013). After multivariate adjustment, guideline adherence increased by 22% (adjusted relative risk [RR] 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10 to 1.37), whereas hospital admissions were reduced by 26% (adjusted RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.87). In addition, the risks of treatment failure and readmission were reduced by 46% (adjusted RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97) and 45% (adjusted RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.87), respectively. CONCLUSION: Among patients with a nonpurulent skin and soft tissue infection, implementing an easy-to-follow treatment algorithm can reduce unnecessary antibiotic exposure by increasing clinician guideline adherence while reducing patient treatment failure rates

Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978. Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50–72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74–1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67–1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74–1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68–1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91–1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88–1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90. Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Spee