No abstract

Compared with a matched hospital population, a population with vancomycin-resistant enterococci was associated with severe adverse outcomes: increased mortality, morbidity, and costs.

Background Remdesivir (RDV) improved clinical outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in randomized trials, but data from clinical practice are limited. Methods We examined survival outcomes for US patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Aug-Nov 2020 and treated with RDV within two-days of hospitalization vs. those not receiving RDV during their hospitalization using the Premier Healthcare Database. Preferential within-hospital propensity score matching with replacement was used. Additionally, patients were also matched on baseline oxygenation level (no supplemental oxygen charges (NSO), low-flow oxygen (LFO), high-flow oxygen/non-invasive ventilation (HFO/NIV) and invasive mechanical ventilation/ECMO (IMV/ECMO) and two-month admission window and excluded if discharged within 3-days of admission (to exclude anticipated discharges/transfers within 72-hrs consistent with ACTT-1 study). Cox Proportional Hazards models were used to assess time to 14-/28-day mortality overall and for patients on NSO, LFO, HFO/NIV and IMV/ECMO. Results 28,855 RDV patients were matched to 16,687 unique non-RDV patients. Overall, 10.6% and 15.4% RDV patients died within 14- and 28-days, respectively compared with 15.4% and 19.1% non-RDV patients. Overall, RDV was associated with a reduction in mortality at 14-days (HR[95% CI]: 0.76[0.70−0.83]) and 28-days (0.89[0.82−0.96]). This mortality benefit was also seen for NSO, LFO and IMV/ECMO at 14-days (NSO:0.69[0.57−0.83], LFO:0.68[0.80−0.77], IMV/ECMO:0.70[0.58−0.84]) and 28-days (NSO:0.80[0.68−0.94], LFO:0.77[0.68−0.86], IMV/ECMO:0.81[0.69−0.94]). Additionally, HFO/NIV RDV group had a lower risk of mortality at 14-days (0.81[0.70−0.93]) but no statistical significance at 28-days. Conclusions RDV initiated upon hospital admission was associated with improved survival among COVID-19 patients. Our findings complement ACTT-1 and support RDV as a foundational treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The 7th conference of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP7) provides recommendations on the type, dose, and duration of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but the extent to which hospitals follow these criteria has not been well studied. Discharge and billing records for patients admitted to any of 16 acute-care hospitals from January 2005 to December 2006 were obtained. Patients 18 years or older who had an inpatient stay ≥2 days and no apparent contraindications for thromboprophylaxis were grouped into the categories of critical care, surgery and medically ill before being assessed for additional VTE risk factors based on the diagnostic criteria outlined in ACCP7. For patients at risk, the recommended type (mechanical or pharmacologic), dose, and duration of thromboprophylaxis was identified based on the guidelines and compared to the regimen actually received, if any. Among the 258,556 hospitalized patients, 68,278 (26.4%) were determined to be at risk of VTE without apparent contraindications for thromboprophylaxis. The proportions of patients who received the appropriate type, dose, and duration of thromboprophylaxis were 10.5, 9.8, and 17.9% for critical care, medical, and surgical patients, respectively. Of those at risk, 36.8% received no thromboprophylaxis and an additional 50.2% received thromboprophylaxis deemed inappropriate for one or more reasons. The implementation of ACCP7 guidelines for type, dosage, and duration of thromboprophylaxis is low in patients at risk of VTE. There is a need for physicians and health systems to improve awareness and implementation of recommended thromboprophylaxis.

No abstract