Lucas T. Schulz

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic caused unprecedented operational stress on hospital-based antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP). We utilized a systems engineering framework to characterize multi-level systems challenges to and strategies for resilient, hospital-based antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Using a national data set, we identified hospitals that had significant COVID-19 burden. We conducted semi-structured interviews with pharmacists, physicians and quality leaders involved in ASPs during the pandemic at those hospitals. Interview guides were developed using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) framework. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using deductive content analysis. Results: We interviewed 37 participants from 22 different healthcare systems across the country. Challenges to resilient ASP included physician employment model; limited AMS resources; staff shortages due to illness; shift in priorities; increased workload; remote work; and therapeutic momentum. Preexisting strategies to promote resilient AMS included system-wide AMS; decentralized AMS; excellent interprofessional relationships; strong culture of AMS and embracing incremental change. Real-time response strategies included ability to prioritize well; consistency with AMS work; being flexible and adopting change; intensifying infectious disease engagement; dedication to the profession; and reliance on automated tools and technology. Conclusion: Using a systems engineering informed qualitative approach, participants identified many modifiable challenges to AMS resiliency. Given the unfortunate reality that infectious disease pandemics and periods of operational stress are likely to occur in the future, we recommend that healthcare system leadership utilize the preexisting and real-time response strategies identified in this manuscript as a roadmap to ASP preparedness and a more proactive future response.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly contagious, airborne viral infection that can infect anyone. Those with certain underlying conditions may be at higher risk for infection to develop into a severe disease requiring hospitalization. This report summarizes use of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19 in high-risk patients at a single academic medical center through a pharmacist delegation protocol and demonstrates real-world efficacy and safety of treatment. Methods This retrospective, single-center, observational study analyzed all patients who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir ordered by a clinical pharmacist for treatment of COVID-19 infection. The primary outcomes were safety and efficacy of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Safety was evaluated by analyzing drug interaction management and adverse events. Efficacy was evaluated through hospitalization and death within 28 days of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir use. Results Sixty patients were eligible for inclusion. No patients were hospitalized or died within 28 days after initiation of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Pharmacists identified 101 drug interactions with 60% considered clinically significant, requiring modification of home medications. Adverse outcomes associated with the use of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir were reported in 13 patients (21.7%). Conclusions A comprehensive program to mitigate drug interactions and prescribe nirmatrelvir-ritonavir ensured timely access to COVID-19 therapy, which may be associated with the prevention of hospitalization and death.

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. A systematic review was performed to determine if remote stewardship (telestewardship) provides clinical and fiscal benefit and is a feasible alternative to local stewardship programs. Antibiotic resistance is an increasingly important national and global threat. US regulators have made antimicrobial stewardship programs a condition of participation in federally funded healthcare programs, and stewardship programs are surveyed during accreditation visits. Small and rural hospitals are at risk for stewardship noncompliance because lack of resources limits comprehensive stewardship program implementation. Remote stewardship programs are established to remedy this area of partial compliance. To characterize the impact of remote stewardship on selected clinical and fiscal outcomes, PubMed was searched for studies involving telestewardship that reported data on antimicrobial utilization, patient length of stay, mortality, bacterial susceptibility, hospital-acquired Clostridioides difficile infection (HA-CDI) , and/or antimicrobial costs. A systematic approach was used to screen study titles, abstracts, and content and data extracted. Study quality was analyzed using Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tools. Fourteen studies were included in the final review. Collectively, the antimicrobial utilization data was positive, with utilization of targeted antimicrobials decreasing after telestewardship implementation. Mixed (both positive and neutral) results were found for patient length of stay, mortality, and HA-CDI rates. Fiscal outcomes were consistently positive. Based on the reviewed evidence, remote antimicrobial stewardship programs may aid in the more judicious use of antimicrobials by decreasing utilization rates. More studies are needed to clarify patient-oriented outcomes. Telestewardship has positive effects in terms of cost savings, although savings may be offset by the structure of the program.

Objective: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has required healthcare systems and hospitals to rapidly modify standard practice, including antimicrobial stewardship services. Our study examines the impact of COVID-19 on the antimicrobial stewardship pharmacist. Design: A survey was distributed nationally to all healthcare improvement company members. Participants: Pharmacist participants were mostly leaders of antimicrobial stewardship programs distributed evenly across the United States and representing urban, suburban, and rural health-system practice sites. Results: Participants reported relative increases in time spent completing tasks related to medication access and preauthorization (300%; P = .018) and administrative meeting time (34%; P = .067) during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before the pandemic. Time spent rounding, making interventions, performing pharmacokinetic services, and medication reconciliation decreased. Conclusion: A shift away from clinical activities may negatively affect the utilization of antimicrobials.

Courtney J Baus, PharmD, Lucas T Schulz, PharmD, Alexander J Lepak, MD, Nasia Safdar, MD, PhD; Letter to the Editor: Response to Maziade et al; Enhanced Clostri

Small community hospitals often lack the human, financial, and technological resources necessary to implement and maintain successful antimicrobial stewardship programs now required by national regulatory and accrediting bodies. Creative solutions are needed to address this problem. A 3-stage, quasi-experimental study including patients receiving antibiotics for pneumonia, skin and soft tissue infections, and urinary tract infections at a community hospital in Wisconsin from June 2013 to December 2015 was conducted. Remote telehealth prospective audit and feedback, guideline and order set management, and staff education targeting pharmacists, nurses, and physicians were provided during the 7-month intervention phase; these services were then removed for the postintervention period. Antimicrobial utilization (days of therapy [DOT] per 1,000 patient-days), hospital length of stay, and readmission and 30-day mortality rates were assessed to determine the impact of telehealth services on these outcomes. During the preintervention (baseline), intervention, and postintervention periods, 1,037 patients received antibiotics for the targeted infectious disease conditions. Patient demographics and rates of infectious disease conditions were similar among the different periods. Telehealth antimicrobial stewardship reduced broad-spectrum antibiotic use, including use of imipenem (from 83 to 31 DOT, P < 0.001), levofloxacin (from 123 to 99 DOT, P < 0.001), and vancomycin (from 104 to 85 DOT, P < 0.001), compared to utilization during the baseline period; mean (SD) length of stay also decreased (from 4.6 [2.8] days to 4.2 [2.6] days, P = 0.02). After nonrenewal of telehealth stewardship, vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam usage returned to or exceeded baseline levels. The partnership between an academic medical center and a small community hospital improved antimicrobial utilization and clinical outcomes. Successful telehealth antimicrobial stewardship models should be explored further as a means to provide optimal patient care.

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

Objective: Evaluate the difference in antibiotic prescribing between various levels of resident training or attending types.Design: Observational, retrospective study.Setting: Tertiary-care, academic medical center in Madison, Wisconsin.Methods: We measured antibiotic utilization from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2018, in our general medicine (GM) and hospitalist services. The GM1 service is staffed by outpatient internal medicine physicians, the GM2 service is staffed by geriatricians and hospitalists, and the GM3 service is staffed by only hospitalists. The GMA service is led by junior resident physicians, and the GMB service is led by senior resident physicians. We measured utilization using days of therapy (DOT) per 1,000 patient days (PD). In a secondary analysis based on antibiotic spectrum, we used average DOT per 1,000 PD.Results: Teaching services prescribed more antibiotics than nonteaching services (671.6 vs 575.2 DOT per 1,000 PD; P < .0001). Junior resident–led services used more antibiotics than senior resident–led services (740.9 vs 510.0 DOT per 1,000 PD; P < .0001). Overall, antibiotic prescribing was numerically similar between various attending physician backgrounds. A secondary analysis showed that GM services prescribed more broad-spectrum, anti-MRSA, and anti-pseudomonal antibiotics than the hospitalist services. GM junior resident–led services prescribed more broad-spectrum, anti-MRSA, and antipseudomonal therapy compared to their senior counterparts.Conclusions: Antibiotics were prescribed at a significantly higher rate in services associated with trainees than those without. Services led by a junior resident physician prescribed antibiotics at a significantly higher rate than services led by a senior resident. Interventions to reduce unnecessary antibiotic exposure should be targeted toward resident physicians, especially junior trainees.