SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is highly effective at reducing viral infection, hospitalization and death. However, vaccine breakthrough infections have been widely observed, raising the question of whether particular viral variants or viral mutations are associated with breakthrough.

No abstract

Background Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing is common in primary care (PC), particularly for respiratory tract diagnoses (RTDs). However, the optimal approach for improving prescribing remains unknown. Methods We conducted a stepped-wedge study in PC practices within a health system to assess the impact of a provider-targeted intervention on antibiotic prescribing for RTDs. RTDs were grouped into tiers based on appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing: tier 1 (almost always indicated), tier 2 (may be indicated), and tier 3 (rarely indicated). Providers received education on appropriate RTD prescribing followed by monthly peer comparison feedback on antibiotic prescribing for (1) all tiers and (2) tier 3 RTDs. Chi-squared testing was used to compare the proportion of visits with antibiotic prescriptions before and during the intervention. Mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the association between the intervention and antibiotic prescribing. Results Across 30 PC practices and 185,755 total visits, overall antibiotic prescribing was reduced with the intervention, from 35.2% to 23.0% of visits (p<0.001). In multivariable analysis, the intervention was associated with a reduced odds of antibiotic prescription for tiers 2 (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.52 – 0.62) and 3 (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.53 – 0.61), but not for tier 1 (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.83 – 1.16). Conclusion A provider-focused intervention reduced overall antibiotic prescribing for RTDs without affecting prescribing for infections that likely require antibiotics. Future research should examine the sustainability of such interventions, potential unintended adverse effects on patient health or satisfaction, and provider perceptions and acceptability.

Objective: To determine metrics and provider characteristics associated with inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract diagnoses (RTDs). Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Primary care practices in a university health system. Participants: Patients seen by an attending physician or advanced practice provider (APP) at their primary care office visit with International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM)–coded RTDs. Methods: Medical records were reviewed for 1,200 randomly selected office visits in which an antibiotic was prescribed to determine appropriateness. Based on this gold standard, metrics and provider characteristics associated with inappropriate antibiotic prescribing were determined. Results: Overall, 69% of antibiotics were inappropriate. Metrics utilizing prespecified RTDs most strongly associated with inappropriate prescribing were (1) proportion prescribing for RTDs for which antibiotics are almost never required (eg, bronchitis) and (2) proportion prescribing for any RTD. Provider characteristics associated with inappropriate antibiotic prescribing were APP versus physician (72% vs 58%; P = .02), family medicine versus internal medicine (76% vs 63%; P = .01), board certification 1997 or later versus board certification before 1997 (75% vs 63%; P = .02), nonteaching versus teaching practice (73% vs 51%; P < .01), and nonurban vs urban practice (77% vs 57%; P < .01). Conclusions: Metrics utilizing proportion prescribing for RTDs for which antibiotics are almost never required and proportion prescribing for any RTD were most strongly associated with inappropriate prescribing. APPs and clinicians with family medicine training, with board certification 1997 or later, and who worked in nonteaching or nonurban practices had higher proportions of inappropriate prescribing. These findings could inform design of interventions to improve prescribing and could represent an efficient way to track inappropriate prescribing.

Background The impact of the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: Management Bundle (SEP-1) Core Measure on overall antibacterial utilization is unknown. Methods We performed a retrospective multicenter longitudinal cohort study with interrupted time series analysis to determine the impact of SEP-1 implementation on antibacterial utilization and patient outcomes. All adult patients admitted to 26 hospitals between October 1, 2014, and September 30, 2015 (the “SEP-1 preparation period”) and between November 1, 2015, and October 31, 2016 (the “SEP-1 implementation period”) were evaluated for inclusion.The primary outcome was total antibacterial utilization measured as days of therapy (DOT) per 1,000 patient days. Results The study cohort included 701,055 eligible patient admissions and 4.2 million patient days. Overall antibacterial utilization increased 2% each month during SEP-1 preparation (RR=1.02 per month [95% CI 1.00-1.04]; p=0.02). Cumulatively, the mean monthly DOT/1,000 patient-days increased 24.4% [95% CI 18.0, 38.8] over the entire study period (October 2014-October 2016). The rate of sepsis diagnosis/1,000 patients increased 2% each month during SEP-1 preparation (RR=1.02 per month [95% CI 1.00-1.04]; p=0.04). The rate of all-cause mortality/1,000 patients decreased during the study period (SEP-1 preparation RR=0.95 [0.92-0.98]; p=0.001 and SEP-1 implementation RR=0.98 [95% CI 0.97-1.00]; p=0.01). Cumulatively, the monthly mean all-cause mortality/1,000 patients declined 38.5% [95% CI 25.9, 48.0] over the study period. Conclusions Announcement and implementation of the CMS SEP-1 process measure was associated with increased diagnosis of sepsis and antibacterial utilization and decreased mortality among hospitalized patients.