Background: Hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) often receive antibiotics for suspected bacterial co-infection. We estimated the incidence of bacterial co-infection and secondary infection in COVID-19 using clinical diagnoses to determine how frequently antibiotics are administered when bacterial infection is absent. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of inpatients with COVID-19 present on admission to hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database between April – June 2020. Bacterial infections were defined using ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes and associated “present on admission” coding. Co-infections were defined by bacterial infection present on admission, while secondary infections were defined by bacterial infection that developed after admission. Co-infection and secondary infection were not mutually exclusive. Results: 18.5% of 64,961 COVID-19 patients (n=12,040) presented with bacterial infection at admission, 3.8% (n=2,506) developed secondary infection after admission, and 0.9% (n=574) had both. 76.3% (n=49,551) received an antibiotic while hospitalized, including 71% of patients who had no diagnosis of bacterial infection. Secondary bacterial infection occurred in 5.7% patients receiving steroids in the first 2 days of hospitalization, 9.9% receiving tocilizumab in the first 2 days of hospitalization, and 10.3% patients receiving both. After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, bacterial co-infection (aRR 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11 – 1.20) and secondary infection (aRR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.82 – 2.04) were both independently associated with increased mortality. Conclusions: Though 1 in 5 inpatients with COVID-19 present with bacterial infection, secondary infections in the hospital are uncommon. Most inpatients with COVID-19 receive antibiotic therapy, including 71% of those not diagnosed with bacterial infection.

Objective Limited research of how to best taper opioids brings about an ethical and clinical dilemma. Experiments using overt and concealed administration of opioids have demonstrated the benefits of a concealed reduction to eliminate negative expectations and prolong analgesic benefits. This may allow for opioid tapering without significant increases in pain. Based on this, we investigated patient and provider acceptance of a concealed opioid reduction for chronic pain. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey via REDcap with 74 patients, who are currently taking or have taken high dose opioids, and 49 providers using a validated questionnaire based on two hypothetical clinical trials comparing a patient preauthorized concealed opioid reduction vs standard tapering. Results We found that patients and providers have positive attitudes toward a concealed reduction of opioid dosages. More than 60% of providers and patients surveyed viewed the hypothetical clinical trial as helpful to reduce pain, side effects, and withdrawal symptoms. Sixty-one percent of patients and 77.6% of providers recognized that there would be differences in pain relief depending upon which group the hypothetical participants would be enrolled in. Conclusions Patients and providers appear to understand the benefits of a concealed opioid reduction. Our findings support future randomized controlled trials that compare concealed and overt opioid tapering in patients with chronic pain. More research is needed to understand the difference in attitudes between research and clinical practice and to test the acceptability of a concealed reduction following a participation in an active clinical trial.

We describe epidemiologic and microbiologic characteristics of patients co-colonized with different species of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) from 5 hospitals in 4 states. 28/313 patients (8.9%) were co-colonized with at least 2 different CRE species. Different species within the same patient showed identical mechanism resistance in 18/28 (64%) of cases.

No abstract

Background: Inappropriate antibiotic prescription leads to increased Clostridiodes difficile infections, adverse effects including organ toxicity, and generation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Despite efforts to improve antibiotic use in acute-care settings, unnecessary and inappropriate prescription still occur in 30%–50% of patients. Objectives: We assessed factors associated with inappropriate antibiotic prescription at 2 time points: (1) initial, empiric therapy and (2) 3–5 days after therapy initiation. Methods: As part of a multicenter study investigating strategies to reduce antibiotic therapy after 3–5 days of use, antibiotic prescription data were collected from 11 adult and pediatric intensive care and general medical units at 6 hospitals in Maryland in 2014 and 2015. We performed a retrospective cohort study of all hospitalized patients who received any of 23 common antibiotics for at least 3 days. Each medical record was reviewed for demographics, admission and discharge dates, patient comorbidities, and antibiotic regimen by at least 1 infectious disease physician or pharmacist. Classification of antibiotic inappropriateness was based on each institution’s guidelines and standards. Bivariate analyses were performed using logistic regression for both initial therapy and therapy at days 3–5. Multivariable logistic regression was performed using covariates meeting the significance level of P < .05. Results: In total, 3,436 antibiotic courses were assessed at time of initial therapy, and 1541 regimens were continued and reviewed again at days 3–5 of therapy. For the initial therapy, 1,255 regimens (37%) were inappropriate; 45% of these were considered unnecessary and 41% were too broad in spectrum. In the multivariable regression, older age and antibiotic prescription during the summer were associated with the receipt of inappropriate antibiotics (Table 1). Having end-stage renal disease as a comorbid condition was protective against inappropriate use. At days 3–5 of therapy, 688 (45%) of the antibiotic courses were inappropriate. Reasons regimens were considered inappropriate included unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions (49%) and antibiotics being too broad (38%). Older age and receiving cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam on day 3 of therapy were factors associated with inappropriate use (Table 2). Having undergone a transplant or a surgical procedure was protective of inappropriate antimicrobial use at days 3–5 of therapy. Conclusions: Older patients are more likely to receive inappropriate antibiotics at both initial regimen and 3–5 days later. Patients receiving cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam are at greater risk of receiving inappropriate antibiotics at days 3–5 due to failure to de-escalate. Antibiotic stewardship strategies targeting these patient populations may limit inappropriate use.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKp) is a significant public health concern that has contributed to the spread of carbapenem resistance and has been linked to high morbidity and mortality. Transmission of K. pneumoniae among patients through interactions with shared health care personnel (HCP) has been described as a source of infection in health care settings; however, it remains unknown whether particular bacterial characteristics are associated with increased CRKp transmission.

No abstract

Background Bright-light treatment is a safe and effective treatment for the management of winter seasonal affective disorder (SAD). In a recent study, we found that the relative duration of reading was positively associated with likelihood of remission after six weeks of light treatment. Methods Two technicians measured the illuminance of a light box with a light meter directed towards the center of reading material that was placed on a table in front of the light box. The measurement was also performed after reading material was removed. The two measurements were performed in a randomized order. Friedman analysis of variance with Wilcoxon post-hoc tests were used to compare illuminance with vs. without reading. Results The presence of the reading material increased illuminance by 470.93 lux (95% CI 300.10–641.75), p<0.0001. Limitations This is a technical report done under conditions intended to mimic those of typical ambulatory light treatment as much as possible. Conclusions As reading materials reflect light from the light box, reading during light therapy increases ocular illuminance. If confirmed by future studies using continuous recordings in randomized design, instructing SAD patients to read during light therapy may contribute to a more complete response to light treatment. The downside of specific relevance for students, is that reading, in particular, with bright light in the late evening/early night may induce or worsen circadian phase delay, adversely affecting health and functioning.