The United States is in an acceleration phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently there is no known effective therapy or vaccine for treatment of SARS-CoV-2, highlighting urgency around identifying effective therapies. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of hydroxychloroquine therapy alone and in combination with azithromycin in hospitalized patients positive for COVID-19. Design: Multi-center retrospective observational study. Setting: The Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) in Southeast Michigan: large six hospital integrated health system; the largest of hospitals is an 802-bed quaternary academic teaching hospital in urban Detroit, Michigan. Participants: Consecutive patients hospitalized with a COVID-related admission in the health system from March 10, 2020 to May 2, 2020 were included. Only the first admission was included for patients with multiple admissions. All patients evaluated were 18 years of age and older and were treated as inpatients for at least 48 h unless expired within 24 h. Exposure: Receipt of hydroxychloroquine alone, hydroxychloroquine in combination with azithromycin, azithromycin alone, or neither. Main outcome: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results: Of 2,541 patients, with a median total hospitalization time of 6 days (IQR: 4-10 days), median age was 64 years (IQR:53-76 years), 51% male, 56% African American, with median time to follow-up of 28.5 days (IQR:3-53). Overall in-hospital mortality was 18.1% (95% CI:16.6%-19.7%); by treatment: hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin, 157/783 (20.1% [95% CI: 17.3%-23.0%]), hydroxychloroquine alone, 162/1202 (13.5% [95% CI: 11.6%-15.5%]), azithromycin alone, 33/147 (22.4% [95% CI: 16.0%-30.1%]), and neither drug, 108/409 (26.4% [95% CI: 22.2%-31.0%]). Primary cause of mortality was respiratory failure (88%); no patient had documented torsades de pointes. From Cox regression modeling, predictors of mortality were age>65 years (HR:2.6 [95% CI:1.9-3.3]), white race (HR:1.7 [95% CI:1.4-2.1]), CKD (HR:1.7 [95%CI:1.4-2.1]), reduced O2 saturation level on admission (HR:1.5 [95%CI:1.1-2.1]), and ventilator use during admission (HR: 2.2 [95%CI:1.4-3.3]). Hydroxychloroquine provided a 66% hazard ratio reduction, and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin 71% compared to neither treatment (p < 0.001). Conclusions and relevance: In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality. Prospective trials are needed to examine this impact.

No abstract

Health care–associated infections (HAIs) account for many morbidity and mortality worldwide, with disproportionate adverse effects in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Many factors contribute to the impact in LMIC, including lack of infrastructure, inconsistent surveillance, deficiency in trained personnel and infection control programs, and poverty-related factors. Therefore, optimal approaches must be tailored for LMIC and balance effectiveness and cost in the control of HAIs.

Objective: To assess the impact of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) in adult medical–surgical intensive care units (MS-ICUs) in Latin America. Design: Quasi-experimental prospective with continuous time series. Setting: The study included 77 MS-ICUs in 9 Latin American countries. Patients: Adult patients admitted to an MS-ICU for at least 24 hours were included in the study. Methods: This multicenter study was conducted over 12 months. To evaluate the ASPs, representatives from all MS-ICUs performed a self-assessment survey (0–100 scale) at the beginning and end of the study. The impact of each ASP was evaluated monthly using the following measures: antimicrobial consumption, appropriateness of antimicrobial treatments, crude mortality, and multidrug-resistant microorganisms in healthcare-associated infections (MDRO-HAIs). Using final stewardship program quality self-assessment scores, MS-ICUs were stratified and compared among 3 groups: ≤25th percentile, >25th to <75th percentile, and ≥75th percentile. Results: In total, 77 MS-ICU from 9 Latin American countries completed the study. Twenty MS-ICUs reached at least the 75th percentile at the end of the study in comparison with the same number who remain within the 25th percentile (score, 76.1 ± 7.5 vs 28.0 ± 7.3; P < .0001). Several indicators performed better in the MS-ICUs in the 75th versus 25th percentiles: antimicrobial consumption (143.4 vs 159.4 DDD per 100 patient days; P < .0001), adherence to clinical guidelines (92.5% vs 59.3%; P < .0001), validation of prescription by pharmacist (72.0% vs 58.0%; P < .0001), crude mortality (15.9% vs 17.7%; P < .0001), and MDRO-HAIs (9.45 vs 10.96 cases per 1,000 patient days; P = .004). Conclusion: MS-ICUs with more comprehensive ASPs showed significant improvement in antimicrobial utilization.

Capacity building is needed in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) to combat antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Stewardship programs such as post-prescription review and feedback (PPRF) are important components in addressing AMR. Little data are available regarding effectiveness of PPRF programs in LMIC settings. An adapted PPRF program was implemented in the medicine, surgery, and obstetrics/gynecology wards in a 125-bed hospital in Kathmandu. Seven "physician champions" were trained. Baseline and post-intervention patient chart data were analyzed for changes in days of therapy (DOT) and mean number of course days for intravenous and oral antibiotics, and for specific study antibiotics. Charts were independently reviewed to determine justification for prescribed antibiotics. Physician champions documented recommendations. Days of therapy per 1,000 patient-days for courses of aminoglycoside (P < 0.001) and cephalosporin (P < 0.001) decreased. In the medicine ward, data indicate increased justified use of antibiotics (P = 0.02), de-escalation (P < 0.001), rational use of antibiotics (P < 0.01), and conforming to guidelines in the first 72 hours (P = 0.02), and for definitive therapy (P < 0.001). Physician champions documented 437 patient chart reviews and made 138 recommendations; 78.3% of recommendations were followed by the attending physician. Post-prescription review and feedback can be successfully implemented in LMIC hospitals, which often lack infectious disease specialists. Future program adaptation and training will focus on identifying additional stewardship programming and support mechanisms to optimize antibiotic use in LMICs.

Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) has emerged as a systematic approach to optimize antimicrobial use and reduce antimicrobial resistance. To support the implementation of AMS programs, the World Health Organization developed a draft toolkit for health care facility AMS programs in low- and middle-income countries. A feasibility study was conducted in Bhutan, the Federated States of Micronesia, Malawi, and Nepal to obtain local input on toolkit content and implementation of AMS programs. This descriptive qualitative study included semi-structured interviews with national- and facility-level stakeholders. Respondents identified AMS as a priority and perceived the draft toolkit as a much-needed document to further AMS program implementation. Facilitators for implementing AMS included strong national and facility leadership and clinical staff engagement. Barriers included lack of human and financial resources, inadequate regulations for prescription antibiotic sales, and insufficient AMS training. Action items for AMS implementation included improved laboratory surveillance, establishment of a stepwise approach for implementation, and mechanisms for reporting and feedback. Recommendations to improve the AMS toolkit’s content included additional guidance on defining the responsibilities of the committees and how to prioritize AMS programming based on local context. The AMS toolkit was perceived to be an important asset as countries and health care facilities move forward to implement AMS programs.

Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs can decrease non-optimal use of antibiotics in hospital settings. There are limited data on AMS programs in burn and chronic wound centers in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). A post-prescription review and feedback (PPRF) program was implemented in three hospitals in Nepal with a focus on wound and burn care. A total of 241 baseline and 236 post-intervention patient chart data were collected from three hospitals. There was a significant decrease in utilizing days of therapy per 1000 patient days (DOT/1000 PD) of penicillin (p = 0.02), aminoglycoside (p < 0.001), and cephalosporin (p = 0.04). Increases in DOT/1000 PD at post-intervention were significant for metronidazole (p < 0.001), quinolone (p = 0.01), and other antibiotics (p < 0.001). Changes in use of antibiotics varied across hospitals, e.g., cephalosporin use decreased significantly at Kirtipur Hospital (p < 0.001) and Pokhara Academy of Health Sciences (p = 0.02), but not at Kathmandu Model Hospital (p = 0.59). An independent review conducted by infectious disease specialists at the Henry Ford Health System revealed significant changes in antibiotic prescribing practices both overall and by hospital. There was a decrease in mean number of intravenous antibiotic days between baseline (10.1 (SD 8.8)) and post-intervention (8.8 (SD 6.5)) (t = 3.56; p < 0.001), but no difference for oral antibiotics. Compared to baseline, over the 6-month post-intervention period, we found an increase in justified use of antibiotics (p < 0.001), de-escalation (p < 0.001), accurate documentation (p < 0.001), and adherence to the study antibiotic prescribing guidelines at 72 h (p < 0.001) and after diagnoses (p < 0.001). The evaluation data presented provide evidence that PPRF training and program implementation can contribute to hospital-based antibiotic stewardship for wound and burn care in Nepal.

No abstract