Availability and use of institutional support programs for emergency department healthcare personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic placed health care personnel (HCP) at risk for stress, anxiety, burnout, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). To address this, hospitals developed programs to mitigate risk. The objectives of the current study were to measure the availability and use of these programs in a cohort of academic emergency departments (EDs) in the United States early in the pandemic and identify factors associated with program use.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey of ED HCP in 21 academic EDs in 15 states between June and September 2020. Site investigators provided data on the availability of 28 programs grouped into 9 categories. Individual support programs included: financial, workload mitigation, individual COVID-19 testing, emotional (e.g., mental health hotline), and instrumental (e.g., childcare) Clinical work support programs included: COVID-19 team communication (e.g., debriefing critical incident), patient-family communication facilitation, patient services (e.g., social work, ethics consultation), and system-level exposure reduction. Participants provided corresponding data on whether they used the programs. We used generalized linear mixed models clustered on site to measure the association between demographic and facility characteristics and program use.

RESULTS

We received 1,541 survey responses (96% response rate) from emergency physicians or advanced practice providers, nurses, and nonclinical staff. Program availability in each of the 9 categories was high (>95% of hospitals). Program use was variable, with clinical work support programs used more frequently (28-50% of eligible HCP across categories) than individual employee support programs (6-13% of eligible HCP across categories). Fifty-seven percent of respondents reported that the COVID-19 pandemic had affected their stress and anxiety, and 12% were at elevated risk for PTSD. Program use did not significantly differ for HCP who reported symptoms of anxiety and/or stress compared to those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Early in the pandemic, support programs were widely available to ED HCP, but program use was low. Future work will focus on identifying barriers and facilitators to use and specific programs most likely to be effective during periods of highest occupational stress.

Effectiveness of a bivalent mRNA vaccine dose against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection among U.S. Healthcare personnel, September 2022-May 2023

BACKGROUND

Bivalent mRNA vaccines were recommended since September 2022. However, coverage with a recent vaccine dose has been limited, and there are few robust estimates of bivalent VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA vaccine dose against COVID-19 among eligible U.S. healthcare personnel who had previously received monovalent mRNA vaccine doses.

METHODS

We conducted a case-control study in 22 U.S. states, and enrolled healthcare personnel with COVID-19 (case-participants) or without COVID-19 (control-participants) during September 2022-May 2023. Participants were considered eligible for a bivalent mRNA dose if they had received 2-4 monovalent (ancestral-strain) mRNA vaccine doses, and were ≥67 days after the most recent vaccine dose. We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA dose using conditional logistic regression, accounting for matching by region and four-week calendar period. We adjusted estimates for age group, sex, race and ethnicity, educational level, underlying health conditions, community COVID-19 exposure, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and days since the last monovalent mRNA dose.

RESULTS

Among 3,647 healthcare personnel, 1,528 were included as case-participants and 2,119 as control-participants. Participants received their last monovalent mRNA dose a median of 404 days previously; 1,234 (33.8%) also received a bivalent mRNA dose a median of 93 days previously. Overall, VE of a bivalent dose was 34.1% (95% CI, 22.6%-43.9%) against COVID-19 and was similar by product, days since last monovalent dose, number of prior doses, age group, and presence of underlying health conditions. However, VE declined from 54.8% (95% CI, 40.7%-65.6%) after 7-59 days to 21.6% (95% CI 5.6%-34.9%) after ≥60 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines initially conferred approximately 55% protection against COVID-19 among U.S. healthcare personnel. However, protection waned after two months. These findings indicate moderate initial protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection by remaining up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccines.

Race, Ethnicity, and Delayed Time to COVID-19 Testing Among US Health Care Workers

Importance

Access to COVID-19 testing is critical to reducing transmission and supporting early treatment decisions; when made accessible, the timeliness of testing may also be an important metric in mitigating community spread of the infection. While disparities in transmission and outcomes of COVID-19 have been well documented, the extent of timeliness of testing and the association with demographic factors is unclear.

Objectives

To evaluate demographic factors associated with delayed COVID-19 testing among health care personnel (HCP) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used data from the Preventing Emerging Infections Through Vaccine Effectiveness Testing study, a multicenter, test-negative, case-control vaccine effectiveness study that enrolled HCP who had COVID-19 symptoms and testing between December 2020 and April 2022. Data analysis was conducted from March 2022 to Junne 2023.

Exposure

Displaying COVID-19-like symptoms and polymerase chain reaction testing occurring from the first day symptoms occurred up to 14 days after symptoms occurred.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Variables of interest included patient demographics (sex, age, and clinical comorbidities) and COVID-19 characteristics (vaccination status and COVID-19 wave). The primary outcome was time from symptom onset to COVID-19 testing, which was defined as early testing (≤2 days) or delayed testing (≥3 days). Associations of demographic characteristics with delayed testing were measured while adjusting for clinical comorbidities, COVID-19 characteristics, and test site using multivariable modeling to estimate relative risks and 95% CIs.

Results

A total of 5551 HCP (4859 female [82.9%]; 1954 aged 25-34 years [35.2%]; 4233 non-Hispanic White [76.3%], 370 non-Hispanic Black [6.7%], and 324 non-Hispanic Asian [5.8%]) were included in the final analysis. Overall, 2060 participants (37.1%) reported delayed testing and 3491 (62.9%) reported early testing. Compared with non-Hispanic White HCP, delayed testing was higher among non-Hispanic Black HCP (adjusted risk ratio, 1.18; 95%CI, 1.10-1.27) and for non-Hispanic HCP of other races (adjusted risk ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.33). Sex and age were not associated with delayed testing. Compared with clinical HCP with graduate degrees, all other professional and educational groups had significantly delayed testing.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of HCP, compared with non-Hispanic White HCP and clinical HCP with graduate degrees, non-Hispanic Black HCP, non-Hispanic HCP of other races, and HCP all other professional and education backgrounds were more likely to have delayed COVID-19 testing. These findings suggest that time to testing may serve as a valuable metric in evaluating sociodemographic disparities in the response to COVID-19 and future health mitigation strategies.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infections Among Emergency Health Care Personnel: Impact on Delivery of United States Emergency Medical Care, 2020

STUDY OBJECTIVE

In the early months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and before vaccine availability, there were concerns that infected emergency department (ED) health care personnel could present a threat to the delivery of emergency medical care. We examined how the pandemic affected staffing levels and whether COVID-19 positive staff were potentially infectious at work in a cohort of US ED health care personnel in 2020.

METHODS

The COVID-19 Evaluation of Risks in Emergency Departments (Project COVERED) project was a multicenter prospective cohort study of US ED health care personnel conducted from May to December 2020. During surveillance, health care personnel completed weekly electronic surveys and underwent periodic serology and nasal reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing for SARS-CoV-2, and investigators captured weekly data on health care facility COVID-19 prevalence and health care personnel staffing. Surveys asked about symptoms, potential exposures, work attendance, personal protective equipment use, and behaviors.

RESULTS

We enrolled 1,673 health care personnel who completed 29,825 person weeks of surveillance. Eighty-nine (5.3%) health care personnel documented 90 (0.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2% to 0.4%) person weeks of missed work related to documented or concerns for COVID-19 infection. Health care personnel experienced symptoms of COVID-19 during 1,256 (4.2%) person weeks and worked at least one shift whereas symptomatic during 1,042 (83.0%) of these periods. Seventy-five (4.5%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the surveillance period, including 43 (57.3%) who indicated they never experienced symptoms; 74 (98.7%; 95% CI 90.7% to 99.9%) infected health care personnel worked at least one shift during the initial period of infection, and 71 (94.7%) continued working until laboratory confirmation of their infection. Physician staffing was not associated with the facility or community COVID-19 levels within any time frame studied (Kendall tau's 0.02, 0.056, and 0.081 for no shift, one-week time shift, and 2-week time shift, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

During the first wave of the pandemic, COVID-19 infections in ED health care personnel were infrequent, and the time lost from the workforce was minimal. Health care personnel frequently reported for work while infected with SARS-CoV-2 before laboratory confirmation. The ED staffing levels were poorly correlated with facility and community COVID-19 burden.

Factors associated with the decision to receive bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccination among health care personnel

COVID-19 vaccination is effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 complications, but uptake has been low. Our objective in this study was to compare the importance of factors reported to influence the decision to receive a bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccine among health care personnel (HCP) tested for SARS-CoV-2 between October 2022 and April 2023 in a 20-hospital vaccine effectiveness study in the United States (n = 1656). Compared with those who had not received the booster, the factors most likely to be reported to be important were concerns about contracting COVID-19 (84.0% of those who had received the bivalent booster vs. 47.5% of those who had not, difference 36.6% points (PP), 95% confidence interval [CI] 32.1 to 41.1%), spreading infection to family members (89.2% vs. 62.8%, difference 26.3 PP, 95% CI 22.3 to 30.4%), and spreading infection to colleagues at work (85.5% vs. 59.4%, difference 26.1 PP, 95% CI 21.7 to 30.5%). HCP who had received the booster more frequently cited the primary literature (61.7% vs. 31.8%, difference 29.9 PP, 95% CI 24.6 to 35.2%) and employer recommendations (48.3% vs. 29.8%, difference 18.5 PP, 95% CI 13.2 to 23.9%) as influencing their decision. This analysis provides insight into factors for targeting future vaccine messaging.

Effectiveness of a Messenger RNA Vaccine Booster Dose Against Coronavirus Disease 2019 Among US Healthcare Personnel, October 2021-July 2022

Background

Protection against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) can limit transmission and the risk of post-COVID conditions, and is particularly important among healthcare personnel. However, lower vaccine effectiveness (VE) has been reported since predominance of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant.

Methods

We evaluated the VE of a monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) booster dose against COVID-19 from October 2021 to June 2022 among US healthcare personnel. After matching case-participants with COVID-19 to control-participants by 2-week period and site, we used conditional logistic regression to estimate the VE of a booster dose compared with completing only 2 mRNA doses >150 days previously, adjusted for multiple covariates.

Results

Among 3279 case-participants and 3998 control-participants who had completed 2 mRNA doses, we estimated that the VE of a booster dose against COVID-19 declined from 86% (95% confidence interval, 81%-90%) during Delta predominance to 65% (58%-70%) during Omicron predominance. During Omicron predominance, VE declined from 73% (95% confidence interval, 67%-79%) 14-60 days after the booster dose, to 32% (4%-52%) ≥120 days after a booster dose. We found that VE was similar by age group, presence of underlying health conditions, and pregnancy status on the test date, as well as among immunocompromised participants.

Conclusions

A booster dose conferred substantial protection against COVID-19 among healthcare personnel. However, VE was lower during Omicron predominance, and waning effectiveness was observed 4 months after booster dose receipt during this period. Our findings support recommendations to stay up to date on recommended doses of COVID-19 vaccines for all those eligible.

Trial Participation and Outcomes Among English-Speaking and Spanish-Speaking Patients With Appendicitis Randomized to Antibiotics: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Spanish-speaking participants are underrepresented in clinical trials, limiting study generalizability and contributing to ongoing health inequity. The Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial intentionally included Spanish-speaking participants.

Objective

To describe trial participation and compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes among Spanish-speaking and English-speaking participants with acute appendicitis randomized to antibiotics.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This study is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, a pragmatic randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy with appendectomy in adult patients with imaging-confirmed appendicitis enrolled at 25 centers across the US from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. The trial was conducted in English and Spanish. All 776 participants randomized to antibiotics are included in this analysis. The data were analyzed from November 15, 2021, through August 24, 2022.

Intervention

Randomization to a 10-day course of antibiotics or appendectomy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Trial participation, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire scores (higher scores indicating a better health status), rate of appendectomy, treatment satisfaction, decisional regret, and days of work missed. Outcomes are also reported for a subset of participants that were recruited from the 5 sites with a large proportion of Spanish-speaking participants.

Results

Among eligible patients 476 of 1050 Spanish speakers (45%) and 1076 of 3982 of English speakers (27%) consented, comprising the 1552 participants who underwent 1:1 randomization (mean age, 38.0 years; 976 male [63%]). Of the 776 participants randomized to antibiotics, 238 were Spanish speaking (31%). Among Spanish speakers randomized to antibiotics, the rate of appendectomy was 22% (95% CI, 17%-28%) at 30 days and 45% (95% CI, 38%-52%) at 1 year, while in English speakers, these rates were 20% (95% CI, 16%-23%) at 30 days and 42% (95% CI 38%-47%) at 1 year. Mean EQ-5D scores were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.95) among Spanish speakers and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.93) among English speakers. Symptom resolution at 30 days was reported by 68% (95% CI, 61%-74%) of Spanish speakers and 69% (95% CI, 64%-73%) of English speakers. Spanish speakers missed 6.69 (95% CI, 5.51-7.87) days of work on average, while English speakers missed 3.76 (95% CI, 3.20-4.32) days. Presentation to the emergency department or urgent care, hospitalization, treatment dissatisfaction, and decisional regret were low for both groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

A high proportion of Spanish speakers participated in the CODA trial. Clinical and most patient-reported outcomes were similar for English- and Spanish-speaking participants treated with antibiotics. Spanish speakers reported more days of missed work.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Perception of Treatment Success and Impact on Function with Antibiotics or Appendectomy for Appendicitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial with an Observational Cohort

OBJECTIVE

To compare secondary patient reported outcomes of perceptions of treatment success and function for patients treated for appendicitis with appendectomy vs. antibiotics at 30 days.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy trial found antibiotics noninferior to appendectomy based on 30-day health status. To address questions about outcomes among participants with lower socioeconomic status, we explored the relationship of sociodemographic and clinical factors and outcomes.

METHODS

We focused on 4 patient reported outcomes at 30 days: high decisional regret, dissatisfaction with treatment, problems performing usual activities, and missing >10 days of work. The randomized (RCT) and observational cohorts were pooled for exploration of baseline factors. The RCT cohort alone was used for comparison of treatments. Logistic regression was used to assess associations.

RESULTS

The pooled cohort contained 2062 participants; 1552 from the RCT. Overall, regret and dissatisfaction were low whereas problems with usual activities and prolonged missed work occurred more frequently. In the RCT, those assigned to antibiotics had more regret (Odd ratios (OR) 2.97, 95% Confidence intervals (CI) 2.05-4.31) and dissatisfaction (OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.25-3.12), and reported less missed work (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.27-0.56). Factors associated with function outcomes included sociodemographic and clinical variables for both treatment arms. Fewer factors were associated with dissatisfaction and regret.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, participants reported high satisfaction, low regret, and were frequently able to resume usual activities and return to work. When comparing treatments for appendicitis, no single measure defines success or failure for all people. The reported data may inform discussions regarding the most appropriate treatment for individuals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

A Video-Based Consent Tool: Development and Effect of Risk-Benefit Framing on Intention to Randomize

INTRODUCTION

Nearly 75% of clinical trials fail to enroll enough participants, and cohorts often fail to reflect the clinical and demographic diversity of at-risk populations. Effective recruitment strategies are critically important for successful clinical trials. Framing treatment risks are known to affect medical decision-making for both physicians and patients but has not been rigorously studied in surgical trials. We sought to examine the impact of a high-quality video-based consent tool and the effect of risk-benefit framing on patient willingness to participate in a surgical clinical trial.

METHODS

A standardized video consent was shown to all potential participants in the Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, a randomized controlled trial comparing antibiotics and surgery for acute appendicitis. We report (1) differences in recruitment between two versions of a video-based tool that differed in production quality and (2) the impact of risk-benefit framing on participant randomization rates. The reasons for declining randomization were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 4697 eligible patients approached to participate in the CODA trial, 1535 (33% [95% confidence interval (CI): 31%-34%]) agreed to randomization; this did not change from video version 1 to version 2. There was no difference in participation between positively framed videos (32% [95% CI: 30%-34%]) versus negatively framed videos (33.0% [95% CI: 30.8-35.2]). The most common reason for declining participation was treatment preference (72% for surgery and 18% for antibiotics).

CONCLUSIONS

Neither the change from video 1 to video 2 nor the positive versus negative framing affected participant willingness to randomize. The stakeholder-informed video-based consenting tool used in CODA was an effective strategy for the recruitment of a heterogeneous patient population within the proposed study period.

Presence of symptoms 6 weeks after COVID-19 among vaccinated and unvaccinated US healthcare personnel: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Although COVID-19 vaccines offer protection against infection and severe disease, there is limited information on the effect of vaccination on prolonged symptoms following COVID-19. Our objective was to determine differences in prevalence of prolonged symptoms 6 weeks after onset of COVID-19 among healthcare personnel (HCP) by vaccination status, and to assess differences in timing of return to work.

DESIGN

Cohort analysis of HCP with COVID-19 enrolled in a multicentre vaccine effectiveness study. HCP with COVID-19 between December 2020 and August 2021 were followed up 6 weeks after illness onset.

SETTING

Health systems in 12 US states.

PARTICIPANTS

HCP participating in a vaccine effectiveness study were eligible for inclusion if they had laboratory-confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 with mRNA vaccination (symptom onset ≥14 days after two doses) or no prior vaccination. Among 681 eligible participants, 419 (61%) completed a follow-up survey to assess symptoms reported 6 weeks after illness onset.

EXPOSURES

Two doses of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine compared with no COVID-19 vaccine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence of symptoms 6 weeks after onset of COVID-19 illness and days to return to work.

RESULTS

Among 419 HCP with COVID-19, 298 (71%) reported one or more COVID-like symptoms 6 weeks after illness onset, with a lower prevalence among vaccinated participants compared with unvaccinated participants (60.6% vs 79.1%; adjusted risk ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.84). Following their illness, vaccinated HCP returned to work a median 2.0 days (95% CI 1.0 to 3.0) sooner than unvaccinated HCP (adjusted HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.79).

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of two doses of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine among HCP with COVID-19 illness was associated with decreased prevalence of COVID-like symptoms at 6 weeks and earlier return to work.

Endotracheal Intubation Strategy, Success, and Adverse Events Among Emergency Department Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To describe endotracheal intubation practices in emergency departments by staff intubating patients early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

METHODS

Multicenter prospective cohort study of endotracheal intubations conducted at 20 US academic emergency departments from May to December 2020, stratified by known or suspected COVID-19 status. We used multivariable regression to measure the association between intubation strategy, COVID-19 known or suspected status, first-pass success, and adverse events.

RESULTS

There were 3,435 unique emergency department endotracheal intubations by 586 participating physicians or advanced practice providers; 565 (18%) patients were known or suspected of having COVID-19 at the time of endotracheal intubation. Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubations of patients with known or suspected COVID-19 were more often performed using video laryngoscopy (88% versus 82%, difference 6.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0% to 9.6%) and passive nasal oxygenation (44% versus 39%, difference 5.1%; 95% CI, 0.9% to 9.3%). First-pass success was not different between those who were and were not known or suspected of COVID-19 (87% versus 86%, difference 0.6%; 95% CI, -2.4% to 3.6%). Adjusting for patient characteristics and procedure factors in those with low anticipated airway difficulty (n=2,374), adverse events (most commonly hypoxia) occurred more frequently in patients with known or suspected COVID-19 (35% versus 19%, adjusted odds ratio 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.3).

CONCLUSION

Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubation of those confirmed or suspected to have COVID-19 was associated with a similar first-pass intubation success rate but higher risk-adjusted adverse events.

Association of Patient Belief About Success of Antibiotics for Appendicitis and Outcomes: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

A patient's belief in the likely success of a treatment may influence outcomes, but this has been understudied in surgical trials.

Objective

To examine the association between patients' baseline beliefs about the likelihood of treatment success with outcomes of antibiotics for appendicitis in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a secondary analysis of the CODA randomized clinical trial. Participants from 25 US medical centers were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. Included in the analysis were participants with appendicitis who were randomly assigned to receive antibiotics in the CODA trial. After informed consent but before randomization, participants who were assigned to receive antibiotics responded to a baseline survey including a question about how successful they believed antibiotics could be in treating their appendicitis.

Interventions

Participants were categorized based on baseline survey responses into 1 of 3 belief groups: unsuccessful/unsure, intermediate, and completely successful.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Three outcomes were assigned at 30 days: (1) appendectomy, (2) high decisional regret or dissatisfaction with treatment, and (3) persistent signs and symptoms (abdominal pain, tenderness, fever, or chills). Outcomes were compared across groups using adjusted risk differences (aRDs), with propensity score adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical factors.

Results

Of the 776 study participants who were assigned antibiotic treatment in CODA, a total of 425 (mean [SD] age, 38.5 [13.6] years; 277 male [65%]) completed the baseline belief survey before knowing their treatment assignment. Baseline beliefs were as follows: 22% of participants (92 of 415) had an unsuccessful/unsure response, 51% (212 of 415) had an intermediate response, and 27% (111 of 415) had a completely successful response. Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those who believed antibiotics could be completely successful had a 13-percentage point lower risk of appendectomy (aRD, -13.49; 95% CI, -24.57 to -2.40). The aRD between those with intermediate vs unsuccessful/unsure beliefs was -5.68 (95% CI, -16.57 to 5.20). Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those with intermediate beliefs had a lower risk of persistent signs and symptoms (aRD, -15.72; 95% CI, -29.71 to -1.72), with directionally similar results for the completely successful group (aRD, -15.14; 95% CI, -30.56 to 0.28).

Conclusions and Relevance

Positive patient beliefs about the likely success of antibiotics for appendicitis were associated with a lower risk of appendectomy and with resolution of signs and symptoms by 30 days. Pathways relating beliefs to outcomes and the potential modifiability of beliefs to improve outcomes merit further investigation.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Emergency department personnel patient care-related COVID-19 risk

OBJECTIVES

Emergency department (ED) health care personnel (HCP) are at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study was to determine the attributable risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from providing ED care, describe personal protective equipment use, and identify modifiable ED risk factors. We hypothesized that providing ED patient care increases the probability of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of 1,673 ED physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), nurses, and nonclinical staff at 20 U.S. centers over 20 weeks (May to December 2020; before vaccine availability) to detect a four-percentage point increased SARS-CoV-2 incidence among HCP related to direct patient care. Participants provided monthly nasal and serology specimens and weekly exposure and procedure information. We used multivariable regression and recursive partitioning to identify risk factors.

RESULTS

Over 29,825 person-weeks, 75 participants (4.5%) acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection (31 were asymptomatic). Physicians/APPs (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.56-2.03) did not have higher risk of becoming infected compared to nonclinical staff, but nurses had a marginally increased risk (aOR 1.91; 95% CI 0.99-3.68). Over 99% of participants used CDC-recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), but PPE lapses occurred in 22.1% of person-weeks and 32.1% of SARS-CoV-2-infected patient intubations. The following factors were associated with infection: household SARS-CoV-2 exposure; hospital and community SARS-CoV-2 burden; community exposure; and mask non-use in public. SARS-CoV-2 intubation was not associated with infection (attributable risk fraction 13.8%; 95% CI -2.0-38.2%), and nor were PPE lapses.

CONCLUSIONS

Among unvaccinated U.S. ED HCP during the height of the pandemic, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was similar in nonclinical staff and HCP engaged in direct patient care. Many identified risk factors were related to community exposures.

Analysis of Outcomes Associated With Outpatient Management of Nonoperatively Treated Patients With Appendicitis

IMPORTANCE

In the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, which found antibiotics to be noninferior, approximately half of participants randomized to receive antibiotics had outpatient management with hospital discharge within 24 hours. If outpatient management is safe, it could increase convenience and decrease health care use and costs.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the use and safety of outpatient management of acute appendicitis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study, which is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, included 776 adults with imaging-confirmed appendicitis who received antibiotics at 25 US hospitals from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020.

EXPOSURES

Participants randomized to antibiotics (intravenous then oral) could be discharged from the emergency department based on clinician judgment and prespecified criteria (hemodynamically stable, afebrile, oral intake tolerated, pain controlled, and follow-up confirmed). Outpatient management and hospitalization were defined as discharge within or after 24 hours, respectively.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Outcomes compared among patients receiving outpatient vs inpatient care included serious adverse events (SAEs), appendectomies, health care encounters, satisfaction, missed workdays at 7 days, and EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D) score at 30 days. In addition, appendectomy incidence among outpatients and inpatients, unadjusted and adjusted for illness severity, was compared.

RESULTS

Among 776 antibiotic-randomized participants, 42 (5.4%) underwent appendectomy within 24 hours and 8 (1.0%) did not receive their first antibiotic dose within 24 hours, leaving 726 (93.6%) comprising the study population (median age, 36 years; range, 18-86 years; 462 [63.6%] male; 437 [60.2%] White). Of these participants, 335 (46.1%; site range, 0-89.2%) were discharged within 24 hours, and 391 (53.9%) were discharged after 24 hours. Over 7 days, SAEs occurred in 0.9 (95% CI, 0.2-2.6) per 100 outpatients and 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-2.9) per 100 inpatients; in the appendicolith subgroup, SAEs occurred in 2.3 (95% CI, 0.3-8.2) per 100 outpatients vs 2.8 (95% CI, 0.6-7.9) per 100 inpatients. During this period, appendectomy occurred in 9.9% (95% CI, 6.9%-13.7%) of outpatients and 14.1% (95% CI, 10.8%-18.0%) of inpatients; adjusted analysis demonstrated a similar difference in incidence (-4.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to 0.6). At 30 days, appendectomies occurred in 12.6% (95% CI, 9.1%-16.7%) of outpatients and 19.0% (95% CI, 15.1%-23.4%) of inpatients. Outpatients missed fewer workdays (2.6 days; 95% CI, 2.3-2.9 days) than did inpatients (3.8 days; 95% CI, 3.4-4.3 days) and had similar frequency of return health care visits and high satisfaction and EQ-5D scores.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings support that outpatient antibiotic management is safe for selected adults with acute appendicitis, with no greater risk of complications or appendectomy than hospital care, and should be included in shared decision-making discussions of patient preferences for outcomes associated with nonoperative and operative care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Self-selection vs Randomized Assignment of Treatment for Appendicitis

Importance

For adults with appendicitis, several randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that antibiotics are an effective alternative to appendectomy. However, it remains unknown how the characteristics of patients in such trials compare with those of patients who select their treatment and whether outcomes differ.

Objective

To compare participants in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial (RCT) with a parallel cohort study of participants who declined randomization and self-selected treatment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The CODA trial was conducted in 25 US medical centers. Participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020; all participants were eligible for at least 1 year of follow-up, with all follow-up ending in 2021. The randomized cohort included 1094 adults with appendicitis; the self-selection cohort included patients who declined participation in the randomized group, of whom 253 selected appendectomy and 257 selected antibiotics. In this secondary analysis, characteristics and outcomes in both self-selection and randomized cohorts are described with an exploratory analysis of cohort status and receipt of appendectomy.

Interventions

Appendectomy vs antibiotics.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Characteristics among participants randomized to either appendectomy or antibiotics were compared with those of participants who selected their own treatment.

Results

Clinical characteristics were similar across the self-selection cohort (510 patients; mean age, 35.8 years [95% CI, 34.5-37.1]; 218 female [43%; 95% CI, 39%-47%]) and the randomized group (1094 patients; mean age, 38.2 years [95% CI, 37.4-39.0]; 386 female [35%; 95% CI, 33%-38%]). Compared with the randomized group, those in the self-selection cohort were less often Spanish speaking (n = 99 [19%; 95% CI, 16%-23%] vs n = 336 [31%; 95% CI, 28%-34%]), reported more formal education (some college or more, n = 355 [72%; 95% CI, 68%-76%] vs n = 674 [63%; 95% CI, 60%-65%]), and more often had commercial insurance (n = 259 [53%; 95% CI, 48%-57%] vs n = 486 [45%; 95% CI, 42%-48%]). Most outcomes were similar between the self-selection and randomized cohorts. The number of patients undergoing appendectomy by 30 days was 38 (15.3%; 95% CI, 10.7%-19.7%) among those selecting antibiotics and 155 (19.2%; 95% CI, 15.9%-22.5%) in those who were randomized to antibiotics (difference, 3.9%; 95% CI, -1.7% to 9.5%). Differences in the rate of appendectomy were primarily observed in the non-appendicolith subgroup.

Conclusions and Relevance

This secondary analysis of the CODA RCT found substantially similar outcomes across the randomized and self-selection cohorts, suggesting that the randomized trial results are generalizable to the community at large.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Patient Factors Associated With Appendectomy Within 30 Days of Initiating Antibiotic Treatment for Appendicitis

IMPORTANCE

Use of antibiotics for the treatment of appendicitis is safe and has been found to be noninferior to appendectomy based on self-reported health status at 30 days. Identifying patient characteristics associated with a greater likelihood of appendectomy within 30 days in those who initiate antibiotics could support more individualized decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

To assess patient factors associated with undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics for appendicitis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cohort study using data from the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial, characteristics among patients who initiated antibiotics were compared between those who did and did not undergo appendectomy within 30 days. The study was conducted at 25 US medical centers; participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. A total of 1552 participants with acute appendicitis were randomized to antibiotics (776 participants) or appendectomy (776 participants). Data were analyzed from September 2020 to July 2021.

EXPOSURES

Appendectomy vs antibiotics.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Conditional logistic regression models were fit to estimate associations between specific patient factors and the odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days after initiating antibiotics. A sensitivity analysis was performed excluding participants who underwent appendectomy within 30 days for nonclinical reasons.

RESULTS

Of 776 participants initiating antibiotics (mean [SD] age, 38.3 [13.4] years; 286 [37%] women and 490 [63%] men), 735 participants had 30-day outcomes, including 154 participants (21%) who underwent appendectomy within 30 days. After adjustment for other factors, female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.31), radiographic finding of wider appendiceal diameter (OR per 1-mm increase, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00-1.18), and presence of appendicolith (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.28-3.10) were associated with increased odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days. Characteristics that are often associated with increased risk of complications (eg, advanced age, comorbid conditions) and those clinicians often use to describe appendicitis severity (eg, fever: OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.82-1.98) were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. The sensitivity analysis limited to appendectomies performed for clinical reasons provided similar results regarding appendicolith (adjusted OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.49-3.91).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cohort study found that presence of an appendicolith was associated with a nearly 2-fold increased risk of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics. Clinical characteristics often used to describe severity of appendicitis were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. This information may help guide more individualized decision-making for people with appendicitis.

Effectiveness of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine among U.S. Health Care Personnel

BACKGROUND

The prioritization of U.S. health care personnel for early receipt of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), allowed for the evaluation of the effectiveness of these new vaccines in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We conducted a test-negative case-control study involving health care personnel across 25 U.S. states. Cases were defined on the basis of a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) or antigen-based test for SARS-CoV-2 and at least one Covid-19-like symptom. Controls were defined on the basis of a negative PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms, and were matched to cases according to the week of the test date and site. Using conditional logistic regression with adjustment for age, race and ethnic group, underlying conditions, and exposures to persons with Covid-19, we estimated vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination (assessed 14 days after receipt of the first dose through 6 days after receipt of the second dose) and complete vaccination (assessed ≥7 days after receipt of the second dose).

RESULTS

The study included 1482 case participants and 3449 control participants. Vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination was 77.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.9 to 82.7) with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 88.9% (95% CI, 78.7 to 94.2) with the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna); for complete vaccination, vaccine effectiveness was 88.8% (95% CI, 84.6 to 91.8) and 96.3% (95% CI, 91.3 to 98.4), respectively. Vaccine effectiveness was similar in subgroups defined according to age (<50 years or ≥50 years), race and ethnic group, presence of underlying conditions, and level of patient contact. Estimates of vaccine effectiveness were lower during weeks 9 through 14 than during weeks 3 through 8 after receipt of the second dose, but confidence intervals overlapped widely.

CONCLUSIONS

The BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were highly effective under real-world conditions in preventing symptomatic Covid-19 in health care personnel, including those at risk for severe Covid-19 and those in racial and ethnic groups that have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).

Front-Line Emergency Department Clinician Acceptability and Use of a Prototype Real-Time Cloud-Based Influenza Surveillance System

Objectives: To assess emergency department (ED) clinicians' perceptions of a novel real-time influenza surveillance system using a pre- and post-implementation structured survey.

Methods: We created and implemented a laboratory-based real-time influenza surveillance system at two EDs at the beginning of the 2013-2014 influenza season. Patients with acute respiratory illness were tested for influenza using rapid PCR-based Cepheid Xpert Flu assay. Results were instantaneously uploaded to a cloud-based data aggregation system made available to clinicians via a web-based dashboard. Clinicians received bimonthly email updates summating year-to-date results. Clinicians were surveyed prior to, and after the influenza season, to assess their views regarding acceptability and utility of the surveillance system data which were shared via dashboard and email updates.

Results: The pre-implementation survey revealed that the majority (82%) of the 151 ED clinicians responded that they “sporadically” or “don't,” actively seek influenza-related information during the season. However, most (75%) reported that they would find additional information regarding influenza prevalence useful. Following implementation, there was an overall increase in the frequency of clinician self-reporting increased access to surveillance information from 50 to 63%, with the majority (75%) indicating that the surveillance emails impacted their general awareness of influenza. Clinicians reported that the additional real-time surveillance data impacted their testing (65%) and treatment (51%) practices.

Conclusions: The majority of ED clinicians found surveillance data useful and indicated the additional information impacted their clinical practice. Accurate and timely surveillance information, distributed in a provider-friendly format could impact ED clinician management of patients with suspected influenza.

Symptoms of Anxiety, Burnout, and PTSD and the Mitigation Effect of Serologic Testing in Emergency Department Personnel During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Study Objective

Among a comprehensive range of frontline emergency department health care personnel, we assessed symptoms of anxiety and burnout, specific coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) work-related stressors, and risk for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We also determined whether COVID-19 serologic testing of HCP decreased their self-reported anxiety.

Methods

In a prospective cohort study from May 13, 2020, to July 8, 2020, we used electronic surveys to capture participant self-reported symptoms before and after serologic testing for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G antibodies. Participants were physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers, and nonclinical ED personnel at 20 geographically diverse United States EDs. We evaluated these domains: 1) the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on overall stress and anxiety; 2) COVID-19-related work stressors; 3) burnout; and 4) PTSD risk (measured using the Primary Care-PTSD Screen for DSM-5, a 5-item screening instrument in which a score of ≥3 signifies high risk for PTSD). We also assessed perceptions of whether results of COVID-19 antibody testing decreased participants’ self-reported anxiety.

Results

Of 1,606 participants, 100% and 88% responded to the baseline and follow-up surveys, respectively. At baseline, approximately half (46%) reported symptoms of emotional exhaustion and burnout from their work, and 308 (19.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 17.3% to 21.1%) respondents screened positive for increased PTSD risk. Female respondents were more likely than males to screen positive (odds ratio [OR] 2.03, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.78). Common concerns included exposing their family and the health of coworkers diagnosed with COVID-19. After receiving antibody test results, 54% (95% CI 51.8 to 56.7) somewhat agreed, agreed, or strongly agreed that knowledge of their immune status had decreased their anxiety. A positive serology result indicating prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a higher likelihood of reporting decreased anxiety (2.83, 95% CI 1.37 to 5.83).

Conclusion

Symptoms of anxiety and burnout were prevalent across the spectrum of ED staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. One-fifth of ED personnel appeared to be at risk for PTSD. Increased provision of serologic testing may help to mitigate anxiety.

Diagnosed and Undiagnosed COVID-19 in US Emergency Department Health Care Personnel: A Cross-sectional Analysis

Study objective

We determine the percentage of diagnosed and undiagnosed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among a sample of US emergency department (ED) health care personnel before July 2020.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional analysis of ED health care personnel in 20 geographically diverse university-affiliated EDs from May 13, to July 8, 2020, including case counts of prior laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnoses among all ED health care personnel, and then point-in-time serology (with confirmatory testing) and reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction testing in a sample of volunteers without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Health care staff were categorized as clinical (physicians, advanced practice providers, and nurses) and nonclinical (clerks, social workers, and case managers). Previously undiagnosed infection was based on positive SARS-CoV-2 serology or reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction result among health care personnel without prior diagnosis.

Results

Diagnosed COVID-19 occurred in 2.8% of health care personnel (193/6,788), and the prevalence was similar for nonclinical and clinical staff (3.8% versus 2.7%; odds ratio 1.5; 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.2). Among 1,606 health care personnel without previously diagnosed COVID-19, 29 (1.8%) had evidence of current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most (62%; 18/29) who were seropositive did not think they had been infected, 76% (19/25) recalled COVID-19–compatible symptoms, and 89% (17/19) continued to work while symptomatic. Accounting for both diagnosed and undiagnosed infections, 4.6% (95% confidence interval 2.8% to 7.5%) of ED health care personnel were estimated to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with 38% of those infections undiagnosed.

Conclusion

In late spring and early summer 2020, the estimated prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was 4.6%, and greater than one third of infections were undiagnosed. Undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection may pose substantial risk for transmission to other staff and patients.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Antibiotics with Appendectomy for Appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic therapy has been proposed as an alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis.

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic, nonblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy (10-day course) with appendectomy in patients with appendicitis at 25 U.S. centers. The primary outcome was 30-day health status, as assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better health status; noninferiority margin, 0.05 points). Secondary outcomes included appendectomy in the antibiotics group and complications through 90 days; analyses were prespecified in subgroups defined according to the presence or absence of an appendicolith.

RESULTS

In total, 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) underwent randomization; 776 were assigned to receive antibiotics (47% of whom were not hospitalized for the index treatment) and 776 to undergo appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure). Antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of 30-day EQ-5D scores (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.001 to 0.03). In the antibiotics group, 29% had undergone appendectomy by 90 days, including 41% of those with an appendicolith and 25% of those without an appendicolith. Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.98); the higher rate in the antibiotics group could be attributed to those with an appendicolith (20.2 vs. 3.6 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.11 to 15.38) and not to those without an appendicolith (3.7 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.43). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.50).

CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of results of a standard health-status measure. In the antibiotics group, nearly 3 in 10 participants had undergone appendectomy by 90 days. Participants with an appendicolith were at a higher risk for appendectomy and for complications than those without an appendicolith. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; CODA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02800785.).

Emergence of Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase Urinary Tract Infections Among Hospitalized Emergency Department Patients in the United States

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Enterobacteriaceae resistant to ceftriaxone, mediated through extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs), commonly cause urinary tract infections worldwide, but have been less prevalent in North America. Current US rates are unknown. We determine Enterobacteriaceae antimicrobial resistance rates among US emergency department (ED) patients hospitalized for urinary tract infection.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled adults hospitalized for urinary tract infection from 11 geographically diverse university-affiliated hospital EDs during 2018 to 2019. Among participants with culture-confirmed infection, we evaluated prevalence of antimicrobial resistance, including that caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae, resistance risk factors, and time to in vitro-active antibiotics.

RESULTS

Of 527 total participants, 444 (84%) had cultures that grew Enterobacteriaceae; 89 of 435 participants (20.5%; 95% confidence interval 16.9% to 24.5%; 4.6% to 45.4% by site) whose isolates had confirmatory testing had bacteria that were ESBL producing. The overall prevalence of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae infection among all participants with urinary tract infection was 17.2% (95% confidence interval 14.0% to 20.7%). ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae infection risk factors were hospital, long-term care, antibiotic exposure within 90 days, and a fluoroquinolone- or ceftriaxone-resistant isolate within 1 year. Enterobacteriaceae resistance rates for other antimicrobials were fluoroquinolone 32.3%, gentamicin 13.7%, amikacin 1.3%, and meropenem 0.3%. Ceftriaxone was the most common empirical antibiotic. In vitro-active antibiotics were not administered within 12 hours of presentation to 48 participants (53.9%) with ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae infection, including 17 (58.6%) with sepsis. Compared with other Enterobacteriaceae infections, ESBL infections were associated with longer time to in vitro-active treatment (17.3 versus 3.5 hours).

CONCLUSION

Among adults hospitalized for urinary tract infection in many US locations, ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae have emerged as a common cause of infection that is often not initially treated with an in vitro-active antibiotic.

Why are epilepsy mortality rates rising in the United States? A population-based multiple cause-of-death study

INTRODUCTION

Epilepsy mortality rates are rising. It is unknown whether rates are rising due to an increase in epilepsy prevalence, changes in epilepsy causes of death, increase in the lethality or epilepsy or failures of treatment. To address these questions, we compare epilepsy mortality rates in the USA with all-cause and all-neurological mortality for the years 1999 to 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To determine changes in US epilepsy mortality rates versus all-cause mortality, and to evaluate changes in the leading causes of death in people with epilepsy.

DESIGN

Retrospective population-based multiple cause-of-death study.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Change in age-adjusted epilepsy mortality rates compared with mortality rates for all-cause and all-neurological mortality.

SECONDARY OUTCOME

Changes in the leading causes of death in epilepsy.

RESULTS

From 1999 to 2017, epilepsy mortality rates in the USA increased 98.8%, from 5.83 per million in 1999 to 11.59 per million (95% CI 88.2%-110.0%), while all-cause mortality declined 16.4% from 8756.34 per million to 7319.17 per million (95% CI 16.3% to 16.6%). For the same period, all-neurological mortality increased 80.8% from 309.21 to 558.97 per million (95% CI 79.4%-82.1%). The proportion of people with epilepsy who died due to neoplasms, vascular dementia and Alzheimer's increased by 52.3%, 210.1% and 216.8%, respectively. During the same period, the proportion who died due to epilepsy declined 27.1%, while ischaemic heart disease as a cause of death fell 42.6% (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Epilepsy mortality rates in the USA increased significantly from 1999 to 2017. Likely causes include increases in all-neurological mortality, increased epilepsy prevalence and changes in the underlying causes of death in epilepsy, led by increases in vascular dementia and Alzheimer's. An important finding is that ischaemic heart disease and epilepsy itself are declining as underlying causes of death in people with epilepsy.

500. Prevalence of Extended-Spectrum β-lactamase and Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria in Patients with Urinary Tract Infection and Urosepsis Admitted through Emergency Departments in the United States

Background

Gram-negative infections due to extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae, and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) and non-fermenting (CR-NF) strains, are increasingly encountered. Study objectives were to determine prevalence and associated risk factors and outcomes for these strains among emergency department patients hospitalized for urinary tract infection (UTI) at 11 US hospitals.

Methods

This was a prospective observational study of patients ≥18 years hospitalized for UTI. Clinical data were collected at the index visit. Urine was obtained for culture and susceptibility testing. Electronic medical record and telephone follow-up were conducted after 30 days for site laboratory results, treatment, and clinical outcomes. Positive culture was defined as 1 uropathogen with growth at ≥10⁴ cfu/mL, or 2 with 1 or both at ≥10⁵ cfu/mL, or ≥3 with 1 or 2 at ≥10⁵ cfu/mL. Isolates with ceftriaxone (CRO) or meropenem MIC >1 μg/mL will undergo reference laboratory (IHMA, Inc., Schaumburg, IL) susceptibility testing, including against newer antibiotics and cefiderocol.

Results

We enrolled 774 participants between 2018 and 2019; 289 (37.3%) excluded due to urine culture not done, no growth, or contamination. Of 485 culture-positive participants (median age 56 years, 62.0% female), 432 (89.1%) grew 1 uropathogen, 48 (9.9%) 2, and 5 (1.0%) ≥3. Prevalences of CRO-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, CRE, and CR-NF were 19.9%, 2.1%, and 10.7%, respectively. At sites, 95.7% of CRO-resistant Enterobacteriaceae isolates were ESBL. Among participants with any or no antibiotic resistance risk factors, i.e., antibiotics, hospitalization, long-term care, or travel within 90 days, prevalence of CRO-resistant Enterobacteriaceae was 68/228 (29.8%) and 10/155 (6.5%), respectively. Among those with CRO-resistant vs. susceptible Enterobacteriaceae infections, ICU admission and death occurred in 9.9% vs. 6.6% and 3.7% vs. 1.0%, with median time home over 30 days, 24 vs. 27 days, respectively.

Conclusion

Among US hospitalized patients with UTI, infections due to CRE remain uncommon; however, ESBL and CR-NF now account for a substantial proportion of cases and are associated with resistance risk factors and worse outcomes.

Disclosures

All authors: No reported disclosures.

Effect of Initial Bedside Ultrasonography on Emergency Department Skin and Soft Tissue Infection Management

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We examine the utility of emergency department (ED) ultrasonography in treatment of skin and soft tissue infections.

METHODS

We enrolled ED patients with skin and soft tissue infections and surveyed clinicians in regard to their pre-ultrasonography certainty about the presence or absence of an abscess, their planned management, post-ultrasonography findings, and actual management. We determined sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography and clinical evaluation, and assessed appropriateness of management changes based on initial clinical assessment and outcomes through 1-week follow-up.

RESULTS

Among 1,216 patients, clinicians were uncertain of abscess presence in 105 cases (8.6%) and certain for 1,111 cases (91.4%). Based on surgical exploration and follow-up through 1 week, sensitivity and specificity for abscess detection by clinical evaluation were 90.3% and 97.7%, and by ultrasonography were 94.0% and 94.1%, respectively. Among 1,111 cases for which the clinician was certain, sensitivity and specificity of clinical evaluation were 96.6% and 97.3% compared with ultrasonographic evaluation sensitivity and specificity of 95.7% and 96.2%, respectively. Of 105 uncertain cases, sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography were 68.5% and 80.4%. Ultrasonography changed management in 13 of 1,111 certain cases (1.2%), appropriately in 10 of 13 (76.9%) and inappropriately in 3 of 13 (23.1%). Of 105 uncertain cases, ultrasonography changed management in 25 (23.8%), appropriately in 21 of 25 (84.0%) and inappropriately in 4 of 25 (16.0%).

CONCLUSION

Ultrasonography rarely changed management when clinicians were certain about the presence or absence of an abscess. When they were uncertain, ultrasonography changed drainage decisions in approximately one quarter of cases, of which most (84%) were appropriate.

Fluoroquinolone-Resistant and Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase-Producing Escherichia coli Infections in Patients with Pyelonephritis, United States(1)

For 2013-2014, we prospectively identified US adults with flank pain, temperature >38.0°C, and a diagnosis of acute pyelonephritis, confirmed by culture. Cultures from 453 (86.9%) of 521 patients grew Escherichia coli. Among E. coli isolates from 272 patients with uncomplicated pyelonephritis and 181 with complicated pyelonephritis, prevalence of fluoroquinolone resistance across study sites was 6.3% (range by site 0.0%-23.1%) and 19.9% (0.0%-50.0%), respectively; prevalence of extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) production was 2.6% (0.0%-8.3%) and 12.2% (0.0%-17.2%), respectively. Ten (34.5%) of 29 patients with ESBL infection reported no exposure to antimicrobial drugs, healthcare, or travel. Of the 29 patients with ESBL infection and 53 with fluoroquinolone-resistant infection, 22 (75.9%) and 24 (45.3%), respectively, were initially treated with in vitro inactive antimicrobial drugs. Prevalence of fluoroquinolone resistance exceeds treatment guideline thresholds for alternative antimicrobial drug strategies, and community-acquired ESBL-producing E. coli infection has emerged in some US communities.

Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial: a protocol for the pragmatic randomised study of appendicitis treatment

INTRODUCTION

Several European studies suggest that some patients with appendicitis can be treated safely with antibiotics. A portion of patients eventually undergo appendectomy within a year, with 10%-15% failing to respond in the initial period and a similar additional proportion with suspected recurrent episodes requiring appendectomy. Nearly all patients with appendicitis in the USA are still treated with surgery. A rigorous comparative effectiveness trial in the USA that is sufficiently large and pragmatic to incorporate usual variations in care and measures the patient experience is needed to determine whether antibiotics are as good as appendectomy.

OBJECTIVES

The Comparing Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial for acute appendicitis aims to determine whether the antibiotic treatment strategy is non-inferior to appendectomy.

METHODS/ANALYSIS

CODA is a randomised, pragmatic non-inferiority trial that aims to recruit 1552 English-speaking and Spanish-speaking adults with imaging-confirmed appendicitis. Participants are randomised to appendectomy or 10 days of antibiotics (including an option for complete outpatient therapy). A total of 500 patients who decline randomisation but consent to follow-up will be included in a parallel observational cohort. The primary analytic outcome is quality of life (measured by the EuroQol five dimension index) at 4 weeks. Clinical adverse events, rate of eventual appendectomy, decisional regret, return to work/school, work productivity and healthcare utilisation will be compared. Planned exploratory analyses will identify subpopulations that may have a differential risk of eventual appendectomy in the antibiotic treatment arm.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial was approved by the University of Washington's Human Subjects Division. Results from this trial will be presented in international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02800785.

EMERGEncy ID NET: Review of a 20-Year Multisite Emergency Department Emerging Infections Research Network

As providers of frontline clinical care for patients with acute and potentially life-threatening infections, emergency departments (EDs) have the priorities of saving lives and providing care quickly and efficiently. Although these facilities see a diversity of patients 24 hours per day and can collect prospective data in real time, their ability to conduct timely research on infectious syndromes is not well recognized. EMERGEncy ID NET is a national network that demonstrates that EDs can also collect data and conduct research in real time. This network collaborates with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other partners to study and address a wide range of infectious diseases and clinical syndromes. In this paper, we review selected highlights of EMERGEncy ID NET's history from 1995 to 2017. We focus on the establishment of this multisite research network and the network's collaborative research on a wide range of ED clinical topics.

Subgroup Analysis of Antibiotic Treatment for Skin Abscesses

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Two large randomized trials recently demonstrated efficacy of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-active antibiotics for drained skin abscesses. We determine whether outcome advantages observed in one trial exist across lesion sizes and among subgroups with and without guideline-recommended antibiotic indications.

METHODS

We conducted a planned subgroup analysis of a double-blind, randomized trial at 5 US emergency departments, demonstrating superiority of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (320/1,600 mg twice daily for 7 days) compared with placebo for patients older than 12 years with a drained skin abscess. We determined between-group differences in rates of clinical (no new antibiotics) and composite cure (no new antibiotics or drainage) through 7 to 14 and 42 to 56 days after treatment among subgroups with and without abscess cavity or erythema diameter greater than or equal to 5 cm, history of MRSA, fever, diabetes, and comorbidities. We also evaluated treatment effect by lesion size and culture result.

RESULTS

Among 1,057 mostly adult participants, median abscess cavity and erythema diameters were 2.5 cm (range 0.1 to 16.0 cm) and 6.5 cm (range 1.0 to 38.5), respectively; 44.3% grew MRSA. Overall, for trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and placebo groups, clinical cure rate at 7 to 14 days was 92.9% and 85.7%; composite cure rate at 7 to 14 days was 86.5% and 74.3%, and at 42 to 56 days, it was 82.4% and 70.2%. For all outcomes, across lesion sizes and among subgroups with and without guideline antibiotic criteria, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was associated with improved outcomes. Treatment effect was greatest with history of MRSA infection, fever, and positive MRSA culture.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was associated with improved outcomes regardless of lesion size or guideline antibiotic criteria.

How Do Advanced Molecular Tests Compare to Routine Clinical Laboratory Evaluation of CSF in Meningoencephalitis? A Study in 10 Urban Emergency Departments Across the USA

Background

The EMERGEncy ID Net Study Group is investigating whether advanced molecular tests (AMT) increase the detection of causative agents in the CSF of patients presenting with meningoencephalitis (ME). We report findings from a pilot study using AMT on 18 CSF samples from 10 US Urban Emergency Departments. The purpose of the pilot was to compare the performance of these four AMT to established clinical laboratory methods.

Methods

We investigated four AMT: (1) BioFire FilmArray ME Panel targeting 14 causative agents; (2) an in-house target-directed next generation sequencing assay targeting 25 agents; (3) a microarray capable of detecting >2,500 agents; and (4) deep metagenomic next generation sequencing. For targeted sequencing, loci from 12 DNA-based and 13 RNA-based pathogens were amplified from the extracts by multiplex PCR. All sequencing was performed on an Illumina MiSeq using 500 cycle v2 Reagent Kits. Reads from the targeted sequencing were aligned to the 25 specific reference target sequences using Bowtie2 while metagenomics reads were processed with the taxonomic sequence classifying software Kraken. For microarray analysis, Lawrence Livermore Microbial Detection Array v2 arrays were hybridized with Cy3-labeled DNA or cDNA. Scanned images of arrays were analyzed by CLiMax 3.1.

Results

Eight CSF samples had results positive for well-established causes of ME from prior testing (Table). The pilot study demonstrated none of the four AMT detected all causative agents in the eight CSF samples known to have well-established causes of ME. BioFire and targeted sequencing performed best, both detecting 6/8, metagenomics deep sequencing detected 3/8, and microarray detected 1/8.

Conclusion

Despite the sophistication of AMT, they cannot detect pathogens they do not target, that are present in small numbers, or that have been eliminated from the CSF by the immune response. Despite the theoretical potential for microarray and metagenomic sequencing to detect thousands of different agents, the agents probably must be present at high levels for detection.

Disclosures

All authors: No reported disclosures.

Effect of Cephalexin Plus Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole vs Cephalexin Alone on Clinical Cure of Uncomplicated Cellulitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Emergency department visits for skin infections in the United States have increased with the emergence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). For cellulitis without purulent drainage, β-hemolytic streptococci are presumed to be the predominant pathogens. It is unknown if antimicrobial regimens possessing in vitro MRSA activity provide improved outcomes compared with treatments lacking MRSA activity.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole yields a higher clinical cure rate of uncomplicated cellulitis than cephalexin alone.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Multicenter, double-blind, randomized superiority trial in 5 US emergency departments among outpatients older than 12 years with cellulitis and no wound, purulent drainage, or abscess enrolled from April 2009 through June 2012. All participants had soft tissue ultrasound performed at the time of enrollment to exclude abscess. Final follow-up was August 2012.

INTERVENTIONS

Cephalexin, 500 mg 4 times daily, plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, 320 mg/1600 mg twice daily, for 7 days (n = 248 participants) or cephalexin plus placebo for 7 days (n = 248 participants).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome determined a priori in the per-protocol group was clinical cure, defined as absence of these clinical failure criteria at follow-up visits: fever; increase in erythema (>25%), swelling, or tenderness (days 3-4); no decrease in erythema, swelling, or tenderness (days 8-10); and more than minimal erythema, swelling, or tenderness (days 14-21). A clinically significant difference was defined as greater than 10%.

RESULTS

Among 500 randomized participants, 496 (99%) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis and 411 (82.2%) in the per-protocol analysis (median age, 40 years [range, 15-78 years]; 58.4% male; 10.9% had diabetes). Median length and width of erythema were 13.0 cm and 10.0 cm. In the per-protocol population, clinical cure occurred in 182 (83.5%) of 218 participants in the cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group vs 165 (85.5%) of 193 in the cephalexin group (difference, -2.0%; 95% CI, -9.7% to 5.7%; P = .50). In the modified intention-to-treat population, clinical cure occurred in 189 (76.2%) of 248 participants in the cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group vs 171 (69.0%) of 248 in the cephalexin group (difference, 7.3%; 95% CI, -1.0% to 15.5%; P = .07). Between-group adverse event rates and secondary outcomes through 7 to 9 weeks, including overnight hospitalization, recurrent skin infections, and similar infection in household contacts, did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with uncomplicated cellulitis, the use of cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole compared to cephalexin alone did not result in higher rates of clinical resolution of cellulitis in the per-protocol analysis. However, because imprecision around the findings in the modified intention-to-treat analysis included a clinically important difference favoring cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, further research may be needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00729937.

Antibiotics-First Versus Surgery for Appendicitis: A US Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Allowing Outpatient Antibiotic Management

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Randomized trials suggest that nonoperative treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis with antibiotics-first is safe. No trial has evaluated outpatient treatment and no US randomized trial has been conducted, to our knowledge. This pilot study assessed feasibility of a multicenter US study comparing antibiotics-first, including outpatient management, with appendectomy.

METHODS

Patients aged 5 years or older with uncomplicated appendicitis at 1 US hospital were randomized to appendectomy or intravenous ertapenem greater than or equal to 48 hours and oral cefdinir and metronidazole. Stable antibiotics-first-treated participants older than 13 years could be discharged after greater than or equal to 6-hour emergency department (ED) observation with next-day follow-up. Outcomes included 1-month major complication rate (primary) and hospital duration, pain, disability, quality of life, and hospital charges, and antibiotics-first appendectomy rate.

RESULTS

Of 48 eligible patients, 30 (62.5%) consented, of whom 16 (53.3%) were randomized to antibiotics-first and 14 (46.7%) to appendectomy. Median age was 33 years (range 9 to 73 years), median WBC count was 15,000/μL (range 6,200 to 23,100/μL), and median computed tomography appendiceal diameter was 10 mm (range 7 to 18 mm). Of 15 antibiotic-treated adults, 14 (93.3%) were discharged from the ED and all had symptom resolution. At 1 month, major complications occurred in 2 appendectomy participants (14.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8% to 42.8%) and 1 antibiotics-first participant (6.3%; 95% CI 0.2% to 30.2%). Antibiotics-first participants had less total hospital time than appendectomy participants, 16.2 versus 42.1 hours, respectively. Antibiotics-first-treated participants had less pain and disability. During median 12-month follow-up, 2 of 15 antibiotics-first-treated participants (13.3%; 95% CI 3.7% to 37.9%) developed appendicitis and 1 was treated successfully with antibiotics; 1 had appendectomy. No more major complications occurred in either group.

CONCLUSION

A multicenter US trial comparing antibiotics-first to appendectomy, including outpatient management, is feasible to evaluate efficacy and safety.

A Randomized Trial of Clindamycin Versus Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for Uncomplicated Wound Infection

BACKGROUND

With the emergence of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in the United States, visits for skin infections greatly increased. Staphylococci and streptococci are considered predominant causes of wound infections. Clindamycin and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) are commonly prescribed, but the efficacy of TMP-SMX has been questioned.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, superiority trial at 5 US emergency departments. Patients >12 years of age with an uncomplicated wound infection received oral clindamycin 300 mg 4 times daily or TMP-SMX 320 mg/1600 mg twice daily, each for 7 days. We compared the primary outcome, wound infection cure at 7-14 days, and secondary outcomes through 6-8 weeks after treatment, in the per-protocol population.

RESULTS

Subjects had a median age of 40 years (range, 14-76 years); 40.1% of wound specimens grew MRSA, 25.7% methicillin-susceptible S. aureus, and 5.0% streptococci. The wound infection was cured at 7-14 days in 187 of 203 (92.1%) clindamycin-treated and 182 of 198 (91.9%) TMP-SMX-treated subjects (difference, 0.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.8% to 6.2%; P = not significant). The clindamycin group had a significantly lower rate of recurrence at 7-14 days (1.5% vs 6.6%; difference, -5.1%; 95% CI, -9.4% to -.8%) and through 6-8 weeks following treatment (2.0% vs 7.1%; difference, -5.1%; 95% CI, -9.7% to -.6%). Other secondary outcomes were statistically similar between groups but tended to favor clindamycin. Adverse event rates were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

In settings where MRSA is prevalent, clindamycin and TMP-SMX produce similar cure and adverse event rates among patients with an uncomplicated wound infection. Further study evaluating differential effects of antibiotics on recurrent infection may be warranted.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT00729937.

Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole versus Placebo for Uncomplicated Skin Abscess

BACKGROUND

U.S. emergency department visits for cutaneous abscess have increased with the emergence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The role of antibiotics for patients with a drained abscess is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized trial at five U.S. emergency departments to determine whether trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (at doses of 320 mg and 1600 mg, respectively, twice daily, for 7 days) would be superior to placebo in outpatients older than 12 years of age who had an uncomplicated abscess that was being treated with drainage. The primary outcome was clinical cure of the abscess, assessed 7 to 14 days after the end of the treatment period.

RESULTS

The median age of the participants was 35 years (range, 14 to 73); 45.3% of the participants had wound cultures that were positive for MRSA. In the modified intention-to-treat population, clinical cure of the abscess occurred in 507 of 630 participants (80.5%) in the trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group versus 454 of 617 participants (73.6%) in the placebo group (difference, 6.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1 to 11.7; P=0.005). In the per-protocol population, clinical cure occurred in 487 of 524 participants (92.9%) in the trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group versus 457 of 533 participants (85.7%) in the placebo group (difference, 7.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.2 to 11.2; P<0.001). Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was superior to placebo with respect to most secondary outcomes in the per-protocol population, resulting in lower rates of subsequent surgical drainage procedures (3.4% vs. 8.6%; difference, -5.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.2 to -2.2), skin infections at new sites (3.1% vs. 10.3%; difference, -7.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -10.4 to -4.1), and infections in household members (1.7% vs. 4.1%; difference, -2.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.6 to -0.2) 7 to 14 days after the treatment period. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was associated with slightly more gastrointestinal side effects (mostly mild) than placebo. At 7 to 14 days after the treatment period, invasive infections had developed in 2 of 524 participants (0.4%) in the trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group and in 2 of 533 participants (0.4%) in the placebo group; at 42 to 56 days after the treatment period, an invasive infection had developed in 1 participant (0.2%) in the trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group.

CONCLUSIONS

In settings in which MRSA was prevalent, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole treatment resulted in a higher cure rate among patients with a drained cutaneous abscess than placebo. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00729937.).

Patient perspectives on antibiotics for appendicitis at one hospital

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis has long been considered a progressive inflammatory condition best treated by prompt appendectomy. Recently, several trials comparing initial treatment with antibiotics alone to appendectomy suggest that antibiotic therapy may be a safe option in select patients. However, little is known about patients' understanding of appendicitis, prioritized outcomes, and treatment preferences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective, observational survey at a Los Angeles County public hospital emergency department. Trained study coordinators recorded the following data on each subject: basic knowledge of appendicitis, past surgical and antibiotic history, and medical illness outcome priorities. Participants were then educated about appendicitis and were told that studies had demonstrated that appendicitis can be treated safely with antibiotics alone. Subjects were then surveyed as to their preference for urgent surgery or antibiotics alone in a hypothetical scenario of acute uncomplicated appendicitis.

RESULTS

Of 129 subjects interviewed, 56 (43%) correctly defined appendicitis, and 69 (53%) identified the treatment for appendicitis as surgery. When presented with a hypothetical acute appendicitis scenario, 57% chose antibiotics over surgery. Persons with previous appendectomy and parents of minors more often chose antibiotics alone, 74% and 63%, respectively. Dying was the most frequently cited and highest-ranked concern about medical illness.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that, among persons at one US public hospital, understanding of appendicitis is poor. Once presented with background information about appendicitis and being informed that antibiotics can safely treat appendicitis, many people would prefer an antibiotic approach over appendectomy. Death is the most prioritized concern.

Inability of polymerase chain reaction, pyrosequencing, and culture of infected and uninfected site skin biopsy specimens to identify the cause of cellulitis

BACKGROUND

The cause of cellulitis is unclear. Streptococcus pyogenes, and to a lesser extent, Staphylococcus aureus, are presumed pathogens.

METHODS

We conducted a study of adults with acute cellulitis without drainage presenting to a US emergency department research network. Skin biopsy specimens were taken from the infected site and a comparable uninfected site on the opposite side of the body. Microbiology was evaluated using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR), pyrosequencing, and standard culture techniques. To determine the cause, the prevalence and quantity of bacterial species at the infected and uninfected sites were compared.

RESULTS

Among 50 subjects with biopsy specimens from infected and uninfected sites, culture rarely identified a bacterium. Among 49 subjects with paired specimens from infected and uninfected sites tested with PCR, methicillin-susceptible S. aureus was identified in 20 (41%) and 17 (34%), respectively. Pyrosequencing identified abundant atypical bacteria in addition to streptococci and staphylococci. Among 49 subjects with paired specimens tested by pyrosequencing, S. aureus was identified from 11 (22%) and 15 (31%) and streptococci from 15 (31%) and 20 (41%) of the specimens, respectively. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus was not found by culture or PCR, and S. pyogenes was not identified by any technique.

CONCLUSIONS

The bacterial cause of cellulitis cannot be determined by comparing the prevalence and quantity of pathogens from infected and uninfected skin biopsy specimens using current molecular techniques. Methicillin-susceptible S. aureus was detected but not methicillin-resistant S. aureus or S. pyogenes from cellulitis tissue specimens. For now, optimal treatment will need to be guided by clinical trials. Noninfectious causes should also be explored.

Factors associated with decision to hospitalize emergency department patients with skin and soft tissue infection

Introduction

Emergency department (ED) hospitalizations for skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) have increased, while concern for costs has grown and outpatient parenteral antibiotic options have expanded. To identify opportunities to reduce admissions, we explored factors that influence the decision to hospitalize an ED patient with a SSTI.

Methods

We conducted a prospective study of adults presenting to 12 U.S. EDs with a SSTI in which physicians were surveyed as to reason(s) for admission, and clinical characteristics were correlated with disposition. We employed chi-square binary recursive partitioning to assess independent predictors of admission. Serious adverse events were recorded.

Results

Among 619 patients, median age was 38.7 years. The median duration of symptoms was 4.0 days, 96 (15.5%) had a history of fever, and 46 (7.5%) had failed treatment. Median maximal length of erythema was 4.0cm (IQR, 2.0–7.0). Upon presentation, 39 (6.3%) had temperature >38°C, 81 (13.1%) tachycardia, 35 (5.7%), tachypnea, and 5 (0.8%) hypotension; at the time of the ED disposition decision, these findings were present in 9 (1.5%), 11 (1.8%), 7 (1.1%), and 3 (0.5%) patients, respectively. Ninety-four patients (15.2%) were admitted, 3 (0.5%) to the intensive care unit (ICU). Common reasons for admission were need for intravenous antibiotics in 80 (85.1%; the only reason in 41.5%), surgery in 23 (24.5%), and underlying disease in 11 (11.7%). Hospitalization was significantly associated with the following factors in decreasing order of importance: history of fever (present in 43.6% of those admitted, and 10.5% discharged; maximal length of erythema >10cm (43.6%, 11.3%); history of failed treatment (16.1%, 6.0%); any co-morbidity (61.7%, 27.2%); and age >65 years (5.4%, 1.3%). Two patients required amputation and none had ICU transfer or died.

Conclusion

ED SSTI patients with fever, larger lesions, and co-morbidities tend to be hospitalized, almost all to non-critical areas and rarely do they suffer serious complications. The most common reason for admission is administration of intravenous antibiotics, which is frequently the only reason for hospitalization. With the increasing outpatient intravenous antibiotic therapy options, these results suggest that many hospitalized patients with SSTI could be managed safely and effectively as outpatients.

Antibiotic prescribing practices of emergency physicians and patient expectations for uncomplicated lacerations

INTRODUCTION

Prophylactic antibiotics have not been found to have a benefit in the setting of uncomplicated lacerations. We evaluated the proportion of patients with uncomplicated lacerations who are prescribed prophylactic antibiotics in the emergency department (ED), factors that physicians considered when prescribing antibiotics, and factors associated with patient satisfaction.

METHODS

Adults and children presenting to 10 academic EDs with acute lacerations were enrolled. Enrolled patients were interviewed before and after their physician encounter in the ED and 2 weeks later. Physicians were interviewed in the ED after the patient encounter about factors that influenced their management decisions, including their perceptions of patients' expectations. We included patients with uncomplicated lacerations (without contamination, infection, bone, tendon, or joint involvement) for analysis.

RESULTS

Of 436 patients enrolled, 260 had uncomplicated lacerations, and of these, 55 (21%) were treated with antibiotics in the ED or by prescription. Physicians were more likely to use antibiotics when the wound was more than 8 hours old, involved a puncture or amputation, and when the patient lacked medical insurance. A treatment course of 7 days or greater was given to 24 of 45 patients (53%) receiving outpatient prescriptions. Patient satisfaction was not associated with antibiotic use.

CONCLUSION

Antibiotics were used for about one fifth of ED patients with uncomplicated lacerations despite a lack of evidence for efficacy.

Prevalence of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus as an etiology of community-acquired pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a common cause of skin infections. Recent case series describe severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) caused by MRSA, but the prevalence and risk factors are unknown.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled adults hospitalized with CAP from 12 university-affiliated emergency departments during the winter-spring of 2006 and 2007. Clinical information and culture results were collected, and factors associated with MRSA were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 627 patients, 595 (95%) had respiratory (50%) and/or blood cultures (92%) performed. A pathogen was identified in 102 (17%); MRSA was identified in 14 (2.4%; range by site, 0%-5%) patients and in 5% of patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Two (14%) MRSA pneumonia patients died. All 9 MRSA isolates tested were pulsed-field type USA300. Features significantly associated with isolation of MRSA (as compared with any other or no pathogen) included patient history of MRSA; nursing home admission in the previous year; close contact in the previous month with someone with a skin infection; multiple infiltrates or cavities on chest radiograph; and comatose state, intubation, receipt of pressors, or death in the emergency department.

CONCLUSIONS

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus remains an uncommon cause of CAP. Detection of MRSA was associated with more severe clinical presentation.

Association Between Appendectomy and Clostridium difficile Infection

BACKGROUND

Recent theory proposes that the appendix functions as a reservoir for commensal bacteria, and serves to re-inoculate the colon with normal flora in the event of pathogen exposure or purging of intestinal flora. If true, we reasoned that flora from a normal appendix could provide protection against Clostridium difficile. We conducted this investigation to examine the protective effect of an intact appendix and test the hypothesis that prior appendectomy will be more common among patients with a positive test for C. difficile as compared with patients who test negative.

METHODS

We contacted patients who had undergone C. difficile testing and asked them whether or not they had a prior appendectomy. Using their responses and results from Toxin A & B EIA tests, we calculated the difference in appendectomy rates between those who tested positive for C. difficile, and those who tested negative. We considered a positive 15% absolute difference to represent a significant increase in appendectomy rate.

RESULTS

We enrolled 257 patients. Among the 136 who tested positive for C. difficile, 27 (19.9%) had prior appendectomies, while among 121 patients testing negative for C. difficile, 38 (31.4%) had prior appendectomies, yielding a difference in appendectomy rates of -11.6% (95% Confidence Interval: -21.6% to -0.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of prior appendectomy was actually lower among patients with a positive C. difficile test as compared to those with a negative test. Conversely, patients who tested positive for C. difficile were more likely to have an intact appendix than those who tested negative. These results suggest that rather than being protective, an intact appendix appears to promote C. difficile acquisition, carriage, and disease.

KEYWORDS

Clostridium difficile; Appendix; Appendectomy; Microbial reservoir; Infection.