On May 1, 2020, after review of yet unpublished data from available clinical trials, the US Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) to permit the use of remdesivir, a nucleotide analog that inhibits viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RDRP), for treatment of adults and children hospitalized with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). EUA was granted after an interim analysis of 606 recoveries in the randomized, placebo-controlled National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Adaptive Covid-19 Treatment Trial (n51063 participants from 47 United States sites and 21 international sites). Remdesivir reduced the median time to recovery (11 versus 15 days; hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.12 to 1.54; P,0.001) compared with placebo, and overall mortality among patients treated with remdesivir was 8.0% compared with 11.6% among those treated with placebo (P50.59). 1 Notably, patients with severe AKI and ESKD were excluded from this and all other remdesivir trials on the basis of eGFR cutoffs (either 50 or 30 ml/ min per 1.73 m 2 ) (Table 1). As a result, the EUA fact sheet for health care providers states the following. 1

Addressing inaccurate penicillin allergies is encouraged as part of antibiotic stewardship in the inpatient setting. However, implementing interventions targeted at the 10–15% of inpatients reporting a prior penicillin allergy can pose substantial logistic challenges. We implemented a computerized guideline for patients with reported beta-lactam allergy at five hospitals within a single healthcare system in the Boston area. In this paper, we describe our implementation roadmap, including both successes achieved and challenges faced. We explain key implementation steps, including assembling a team, stakeholder engagement, developing or selecting an approach, spreading the change, establishing measures, and measuring impact. The objective is to detail the lessons learned while empowering others to be part of this important, multi-disciplinary work to improve the care of patients with reported beta-lactam allergies.

Objective:To assess the safety of, and subsequent allergy documentation associated with, an antimicrobial stewardship intervention consisting of test-dose challenge procedures prompted by an electronic guideline for hospitalized patients with reported β-lactam allergies.Design:Retrospective cohort study.Setting:Large healthcare system consisting of 2 academic and 3 community acute-care hospitals between April 2016 and December 2017.Methods:We evaluated β-lactam antibiotic test-dose outcomes, including adverse drug reactions (ADRs), hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), and electronic health record (EHR) allergy record updates. HSR predictors were examined using a multivariable logistic regression model. Modification of the EHR allergy record after test doses considered relevant allergy entries added, deleted, and/or specified.Results:We identified 1,046 test-doses: 809 (77%) to cephalosporins, 148 (14%) to penicillins, and 89 (9%) to carbapenems. Overall, 78 patients (7.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.9%–9.2%) had signs or symptoms of an ADR, and 40 (3.8%; 95% CI, 2.8%–5.2%) had confirmed HSRs. Most HSRs occurred at the second (ie, full-dose) step (68%) and required no treatment beyond drug discontinuation (58%); 3 HSR patients were treated with intramuscular epinephrine. Reported cephalosporin allergy history was associated with an increased odds of HSR (odds ratio [OR], 2.96; 95% CI, 1.34–6.58). Allergies were updated for 474 patients (45%), with records specified (82%), deleted (16%), and added (8%).Conclusion:This antimicrobial stewardship intervention using β-lactam test-dose procedures was safe. Overall, 3.8% of patients with β-lactam allergy histories had an HSR; cephalosporin allergy histories conferred a 3-fold increased risk. Encouraging EHR documentation might improve this safe, effective, and practical acute-care antibiotic stewardship tool.

By incorporating CVVH intensity into the CIV dosing nomogram, the majority of patients achieved therapeutic concentrations at 24 h and maintained them within range at 48 and 72 h. Additional studies are required to validate this nomogram before widespread implementation may be considered.

Purpose Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a wide spectrum of clinical symptoms including acute respiratory failure. Biomarkers that can predict outcomes in patients with COVID-19 can assist with patient management. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether procalcitonin (PCT) can predict clinical outcome and bacterial superinfection in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods Adult patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 by nasopharyngeal PCR who were admitted to a tertiary care center in Boston, MA with SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 17 and April 30, 2020 with a baseline PCT value were studied. Patients who were presumed positive for SARS-CoV-2, who lacked PCT levels, or who had a positive urinalysis with negative cultures were excluded. Demographics, clinical and laboratory data were extracted from the electronic medical records. Results 324 patient charts were reviewed and grouped by clinical and microbiologic outcomes by day 28. Baseline PCT levels were significantly higher for patients who were treated for true bacteremia (p = 0.0005) and bacterial pneumonia (p = 0.00077) compared with the non-bacterial infection group. Baseline PCT positively correlated with the NIAID ordinal scale and survival over time. When compared to other inflammatory biomarkers, PCT showed superiority in predicting bacteremia. Conclusions Baseline PCT levels are associated with outcome and bacterial superinfection in patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2.