Impact of an antibiotic stewardship initiative on urgent-care respiratory prescribing across patient race, ethnicity, and language

We conducted a post hoc analysis of an antibiotic stewardship intervention implemented across our health system's urgent-care network to determine whether there was a differential impact among patient groups. Respiratory urgent-care antibiotic prescribing decreased for all racial, ethnic, and preferred language groups, but disparities in antibiotic prescribing persisted.

Beyond antibiotic prescribing rates: first-line antibiotic selection, prescription duration, and associated factors for respiratory encounters in urgent care

Objective

Assess urgent care (UC) clinician prescribing practices and factors associated with first-line antibiotic selection and recommended duration of therapy for sinusitis, acute otitis media (AOM), and pharyngitis.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Participants

All respiratory UC encounters and clinicians in the Intermountain Health (IH) network, July 1st, 2019-June 30th, 2020.

Methods

Descriptive statistics were used to characterize first-line antibiotic selection rates and the duration of antibiotic prescriptions during pharyngitis, sinusitis, and AOM UC encounters. Patient and clinician characteristics were evaluated. System-specific guidelines recommended 5-10 days of penicillin, amoxicillin, or amoxicillin-clavulanate as first-line. Alternative therapies were recommended for penicillin allergy. Generalized estimating equation modeling was used to assess predictors of first-line antibiotic selection, prescription duration, and first-line antibiotic prescriptions for an appropriate duration.

Results

Among encounters in which an antibiotic was prescribed, the rate of first-line antibiotic selection was 75%, the recommended duration was 70%, and the rate of first-line antibiotic selection for the recommended duration was 53%. AOM was associated with the highest rate of first-line prescriptions (83%); sinusitis the lowest (69%). Pharyngitis was associated with the highest rate of prescriptions for the recommended duration (91%); AOM the lowest (51%). Penicillin allergy was the strongest predictor of non-first-line selection (OR = 0.02, 95% CI [0.02, 0.02]) and was also associated with extended duration prescriptions (OR = 0.87 [0.80, 0.95]).

Conclusions

First-line antibiotic selection and duration for respiratory UC encounters varied by diagnosis and patient characteristics. These areas can serve as a focus for ongoing stewardship efforts.

Implementation of an Antibiotic Stewardship Initiative in a Large Urgent Care Network

Importance

Urgent Care (UC) encounters result in more inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions than other outpatient setting. Few stewardship interventions have focused on UC.

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of an antibiotic stewardship initiative to reduce antibiotic prescribing for respiratory conditions in a UC network.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This quality improvement study conducted in a UC network with 38 UC clinics and 1 telemedicine clinic included 493 724 total UC encounters. The study compared the antibiotic prescribing rates of all UC clinicians who encountered respiratory conditions for a 12-month baseline period (July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019) with an intervention period (July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020). A sustainability period (July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021) was added post hoc.

Interventions

Stewardship interventions included (1) education for clinicians and patients, (2) electronic health record (EHR) tools, (3) a transparent clinician benchmarking dashboard, and (4) media. Occurring independently but concurrent with the interventions, a stewardship measure was introduced by UC leadership into the quality measures, including a financial incentive.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the percentage of UC encounters with an antibiotic prescription for a respiratory condition. Secondary outcomes included antibiotic prescribing when antibiotics were not indicated (tier 3 encounters) and first-line antibiotics for acute otitis media, sinusitis, and pharyngitis. Interrupted time series with binomial generalized estimating equations were used to compare periods.

Results

The baseline period included 207 047 UC encounters for respiratory conditions (56.8% female; mean [SD] age, 30.0 [21.4] years; 92.0% White race); the intervention period included 183 893 UC encounters (56.4% female; mean [SD] age, 30.7 [20.8] years; 91.2% White race). Antibiotic prescribing for respiratory conditions decreased from 47.8% (baseline) to 33.3% (intervention). During the initial intervention month, a 22% reduction in antibiotic prescribing occurred (odds ratio [OR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.86). Antibiotic prescriptions decreased by 5% monthly during the intervention (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.94-0.96). Antibiotic prescribing for tier 3 encounters decreased by 47% (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44-63), and first-line antibiotic prescriptions increased by 18% (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.09-1.29) during the initial intervention month. Antibiotic prescriptions for tier 3 encounters decreased by an additional 4% each month (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98), whereas first-line antibiotic prescriptions did not change (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01). Antibiotic prescribing for respiratory conditions remained stable in the sustainability period.

Conclusions and relevance

The findings of this quality improvement study indicated that a UC antibiotic stewardship initiative was associated with decreased antibiotic prescribing for respiratory conditions. This study provides a model for UC antibiotic stewardship.

Pathogen-agnostic immune biomarkers that predict infection after solid organ transplantation

Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) remain at high risk for infection throughout their post-transplant course. Dosing of immunosuppressive medications, strategies that prevent infection, and choice of empiric antimicrobial treatment could be optimized by a better understanding of an individual patient's risk for infectious complications. Diagnostic tests that qualitatively or quantitatively measure the function of the immune system and/or its response to infection may be useful for individualized management decisions. Numerous studies have identified an association between infectious outcomes after solid organ transplantation (SOT) and the results of a variety of non-pathogen-specific or "pathogen-agnostic" immune monitoring tests. These biomarkers include humoral immune markers, functional or quantitative assessments of cellular immunity, transcriptomic-based diagnostics, and replication of viruses within the human virome, which have been used to predict or diagnose a variety of different infectious diseases complicating SOT. In this narrative review, we discuss several host-derived immune biomarkers that show promise for either predicting or diagnosing infection among SOTRs. However, additional studies are needed to determine the optimal use of immune response testing. Whether immune biomarkers contribute added benefits to current standard clinical care has not yet been determined. Testing must be validated across a range of clinical scenarios, including surveillance to predict infection risk and diagnosis of active infection at various time points post transplant.

1739. An Exploratory Analysis to Examine Urgent Care Antibiotic Prescribing Inequities in a Vertically Integrated Healthcare System

Background

Previous studies have shown antibiotic prescribing differences based on patient demographics which may represent inequitable care. Our objective was to perform an exploratory analysis of antibiotic prescribing rates for respiratory conditions to better understand possible inequities and identify disparities in our health system.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of urgent care encounters for respiratory conditions in the Intermountain Healthcare (IH) network from July 1st 2018 – June 30th 2019. Individual respiratory encounters were identified using a validated methodology based on ICD10 codes. Overall antibiotic prescribing rates and rates for Tier 1 (antibiotics indicated), 2 (sometimes indicated), and 3 (not indicated, eg bronchitis) conditions were assessed. Prescribing rates for categories in which inequities might exist, including age, weight, patient race/ethnicity, preferred language, provider type, and provider/patient gender combinations, were examined. We considered an absolute percentage difference between groups within a category of ≥5.0% to represent a potential disparity.

Results

93,588 (48.5%) of 193,107 respiratory urgent care encounters were associated with an antibiotic prescription. Overall antibiotic prescribing rates (Results Image 1) were higher in white compared to non-white patients (49.0% vs 38.2%) and in those reporting non-Hispanic ethnicity compared to Hispanics (49.1% vs 43.2%). Patients over 18 years-old were prescribed antibiotics more frequently than younger patients. Among Tier 3 encounters male providers prescribed antibiotics more frequently for male patients than female providers did for female patients (20.8% vs 15.6). Overweight and obese patients with Tier 3 diagnoses received antibiotic prescriptions more frequently than non-obese patients (22.8% vs 15.3%). Minimal differences between patients who preferred English and those who preferred non-English languages were observed. Results Image 1 - Table 1

Overall antibiotic prescribing rates and antibiotic prescribing rates for Tier 3 conditions for urgent care respiratory condition encounters July 1st, 2018 – June 30th, 2019*¥. *Tier 3 codes are those where antibiotics are not indicated (eg bronchitis). ¥Absolute differences of ≥5.0% between groups within each category are indicated in bold.

Conclusion

Antibiotic prescribing rates for respiratory conditions in urgent care encounters in our system differed based on race, ethnicity, age, obesity, and gender. These differences may represent biases contributing to inequities in care and may serve as potential targets for improved stewardship efforts.

Disclosures

All Authors: No reported disclosures.

2219. Syphilis Diagnosis and Treatment Practices in the Ambulatory Setting of a Large Vertically Integrated Healthcare Organization: An Opportunity for Infectious Diseases Physician Engagement

Background

Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) continue to increase in the United States. Syphilis management may challenge busy outpatient clinicians and diagnostic delays have been described. To better understand syphilis treatment practices and identify targets for improvement in our organization, we characterized outpatient encounters associated with a positive syphilis test.

Methods

Intermountain Healthcare (IH) is an integrated healthcare system with 23 emergency departments (ED), 34 urgent care (UC), and >100 primary care (PC) clinics. Protocols favor treponemal testing as the initial screening test. All positive treponemal tests associated with a positive non-treponemal test in the ambulatory setting were routed to an electronic inbox within the electronic health record (EHR) and reviewed by a team of Infectious Disease (ID) clinicians from May 1st 2021 – January 31st, 2022. Positive results originating from ID or HIV-trained primary care clinicians were excluded. Each encounter was assessed for staging and treatment plans based on CDC guidelines as well as HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and HIV treatment eligibility.

Results

119 encounters were reviewed. Patients 30-44 years old were most likely to have a positive test (50, 42.0%). PC (63, 52.9%) and UC (24, 20.2%) accounted for the most positive tests. 102 (85.7%) positive tests were from white patients, consistent with racial demographics of Utah. Only 40 (33.6%) encounters could be clinically staged after chart review by an ID clinician. Of these, 17 (42.5%) were determined to be staged and treated inappropriately by the treating provider. 54 (45.4%) encounters could not be staged and required further testing or more clinical history to determine the significance of positive test. 18 (15.1%) patients could possibly have benefitted from PrEP evaluation and one new HIV diagnosis was referred to ID clinic.

Conclusion

Our exploratory analysis revealed many syphilis cases unable to be staged on chart review and opportunities to improve care. Strategies such as prospective audit and feedback or eConsults may be insufficient and clinical evaluation may be necessary to stage syphilis infection. Syphilis care improvements in our system may be a future target for ID physician engagement and novel stewardship strategies.

Disclosures

All Authors: No reported disclosures.

2212. Improving Sexually Transmitted Infection Co-testing in a Large Urgent Care Network

Background

Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) remain a serious public health concern. The state of Utah has the lowest percentage of adults 18-64 years-old ever tested for HIV (26.5%) and the lowest percentage tested for HIV in the previous 12 months (6.5%). Increasing HIV testing in Utah is of the utmost importance. Delayed diagnoses and missed testing opportunities for HIV and other STIs exist. Encounters for evaluation of possible gonorrhea (GC) or chlamydia (CT) infection is a critical opportunity to co-test for HIV and syphilis. With continued growth, urgent care (UC) sites are well-positioned to increase STI diagnosis and treatment. We aimed to develop a multi-faceted quality improvement (QI) bundle to increase STI testing in our UC centers.

Methods

Intermountain Healthcare (IH) is a vertically integrated healthcare network predominantly in Utah and operates a network of 35 UC clinics across the state. In 2020, qualitative interviews to evaluate barriers to STI testing were performed with UC clinicians. Based on these interviews a QI initiative was designed and implemented throughout 2021. The bundle included clinician education, electronic health record (EHR) improvements, and automatic referral for patients with a new diagnosis of HIV to an Infectious Diseases (ID) physician (Methods Image 1). We compared co-testing rates before (July 2018 – December 2020) and after the intervention began (March 2021 – April 2022).

Urgent-care antibiotic prescribing: An exploratory analysis to evaluate health inequities

Healthcare disparities and inequities exist in a variety of environments and manifest in diagnostic and therapeutic measures. In this commentary, we highlight our experience examining our organization's urgent care respiratory encounter antibiotic prescribing practices. We identified differences in prescribing based on several individual characteristics including patient age, race, ethnicity, preferred language, and patient and/or clinician gender. Our approach can serve as an electronic health record (EHR)-based methodology for disparity and inequity audits in other systems and for other conditions.

Baricitinib versus dexamethasone for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACTT-4): a randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Baricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

In this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012).

INTERPRETATION

In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered.

FUNDING

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.