Search

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.

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.

Objectives: Uncomplicated urinary tract infections (uUTIs) are a common problem in female patients. Management is mainly based on empirical prescribing, but there are concerns about overtreatment and antimicrobial resistance (AMR), especially in patients with recurrent uUTIs., Methods: A multidisciplinary panel of experts met to discuss diagnosis, treatment, prevention, guidelines, AMR, clinical trial design and the impact of COVID-19 on clinical practice., Results: Symptoms remain the cornerstone of uUTI diagnosis, and urine culture is necessary only when empirical treatment fails or rapid recurrence of symptoms or AMR is suspected. Specific antimicrobials are first-line therapy (typically nitrofurantoin, fosfomycin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and pivmecillinam, dependent on availability and local resistance data). Fluoroquinolones are not first-line options for uUTIs primarily due to safety concerns but also rising resistance rates. High-quality data to support most non-antimicrobial approaches are lacking. Local AMR data specific to community-acquired uUTIs are needed, but representative information is difficult to obtain; instead, identification of risk factors for AMR can provide a basis to guide empirical antimicrobial prescribing. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the management of uUTIs in some countries and may have long-lasting implications for future models of care., Conclusion: Management of uUTIs in female patients can be improved without increasing complexity, including simplified diagnosis and empirical antimicrobial prescribing based on patient characteristics, including a review of recent antimicrobial use and past pathogen resistance profiles, drug availability and guidelines. Current data for non-antimicrobial approaches are limited. The influence of COVID-19 on telehealth could provide an opportunity to enhance patient care in the long term., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

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., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Rothman, Hsieh, DuVal, Talan, Moran, Krishnadasan, Shaw-Saliba and Dugas.)

Objectives: Emergency department (ED) patients with serious skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are often hospitalized to receive intravenous (IV) antibiotics. Appropriate patients may avoid admission following a single-dose, long-acting IV antibiotic., Methods: We conducted a preintervention versus postintervention design trial at 11 U.S. EDs comparing hospitalization rates under usual care to those using a clinical pathway that included a single IV dalbavancin dose. We enrolled adults with cellulitis, abscess, or wound infection with an infected area of ≥75 cm 2 without other indications for hospitalization. Clinical pathway participants discharged from the ED received a 24-hour follow-up telephone call and had a 48- to 72-hour in-person visit. We hypothesized that, compared to usual care, the clinical pathway would result in a significant reduction in the initial hospitalization rate., Results: Of 156 and 153 participants in usual care and clinical pathway periods, median infection areas were 255.0 (interquartile range [IQR] = 150.0 to 500.0) cm 2 and 289.0 (IQR = 161.3 to 555.0) cm 2 , respectively. During their initial care, 60 (38.5%) usual care participants were hospitalized and 27 (17.6%) pathway participants were hospitalized (difference = 20.8 percentage points [PP], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10.4 to 31.2 PP). Over 44 days, 70 (44.9%) usual care and 44 (28.8%) pathway participants were hospitalized (difference = 16.1 PP, 95% CI = 4.9 to 27.4 PP)., Conclusions: Implementation of an ED SSTI clinical pathway for patient selection and follow-up that included use of a single-dose, long-acting IV antibiotic was associated with a significant reduction in hospitalization rate for stable patients with moderately severe infections. Registration: NCT02961764., (© 2021 The Authors. Academic Emergency Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

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., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, health care personnel (HCP) have been at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, through patient interactions and community exposure (1). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended prioritization of HCP for COVID-19 vaccination to maintain provision of critical services and reduce spread of infection in health care settings (2). Early distribution of two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) to HCP allowed assessment of the effectiveness of these vaccines in a real-world setting. A test-negative case-control study is underway to evaluate mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic illness among HCP at 33 U.S. sites across 25 U.S. states. Interim analyses indicated that the VE of a single dose (measured 14 days after the first dose through 6 days after the second dose) was 82% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 74%-87%), adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and underlying medical conditions. The adjusted VE of 2 doses (measured ≥7 days after the second dose) was 94% (95% CI = 87%-97%). VE of partial (1-dose) and complete (2-dose) vaccination in this population is comparable to that reported from clinical trials and recent observational studies, supporting the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic disease in adults, with strong 2-dose protection., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Deverick Anderson is the owner of Infection Control Education for Major Sports, LLC, and reports grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and personal fees from UpToDate, outside the submitted work. Ghinwa Dumyati reports grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Roche Diagnostics. Gregory Moran reports grants from I-Mab Biopharma and BeiGene and personal fees from Light AI. Mark Steele reports personal fees from Light AI, during the conduct of the study. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Introduction: Febrile neutropenia is an oncologic emergency associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The objective of our study was to assess guideline adherence and clinical outcomes associated with the management of high- and low-risk febrile neutropenia patients presenting to the emergency department., Methods: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted at a 60,000-visit emergency department at an academically-affiliated tertiary referral hospital. Patients were identified as low- or high-risk using the guideline-recommended Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer score. The primary outcome was the proportion of cases in which the management was concordant with applicable febrile neutropenia guidelines. Guideline adherence was defined as hospital admission and intravenous antimicrobial therapy for high-risk patients and discharge home with oral antimicrobial therapy for low-risk patients. Secondary outcomes included appropriate vancomycin administration, hospital length of stay, rates of acute kidney injury, in-hospital Clostridium difficile infection rates, and 30-day mortality., Results: Of the 237 patients included, 94 (39.7%) were low-risk patients and 143 (60.3%) were high-risk patients. Guideline adherence occurred in 96.8% of high-risk patients and 0.4% of low-risk patients. Mean hospital length of stay of the low-risk group was 5 ± 5.0 days compared to 7.2 ± 7.3 days in the high-risk group. Vancomycin was often inappropriately given in 69.5% of high-risk patients. Clostridium difficile occurred in 15 (10.3%) adherent and 4 (4.4%) non-adherent patients. By 30 days, 4 (4.3%) low-risk and 15 (10.7%) high-risk patients died., Conclusion: Adherence to the febrile neutropenia guidelines was low resulting in unnecessary hospital admissions of low-risk patients and frequent over-prescription of empirical vancomycin.

Background: An accurate diagnosis of influenza is essential for appropriate antiviral treatment, in accordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. However, no clear guidance exists on which patients should be tested. We sought to develop a clinical decision guideline (CDG) to inform influenza testing decisions for those adult emergency department (ED) patients deemed appropriate for antiviral treatment by CDC guidelines., Methods: A prospective cohort study was performed at 4 US EDs. From November 2013 to April 2014, we enrolled adult ED patients with fever or respiratory symptoms who met criteria for antiviral treatment, per 2013 CDC guidelines. All patients were tested for influenza using polymerase chain reaction. Data were randomly split into derivation (80%) and validation (20%) data sets. A discrete set of independent variables was selected by logistic regression, using the derivation set to create a scoring system, with a target sensitivity of at least 90%. The derived CDG was then validated., Results: Of 1941 enrolled participants, 183 (9.4%) had influenza. The derived CDG included new or increased cough (2 points), headache (1 point), subjective fever (1 point), and triage temperature >100.4°C (1 point), with a score of ≥3 indicating influenza testing was warranted. The CDG had a sensitivity and specificity of 94.1% and 36.6%, respectively, in the derivation set and of 91.5% and 34.6%, respectively, in the validation set., Conclusions: A CDG with high sensitivity was derived and validated. Incorporation into practice could standardize testing for high-risk patients in adult EDs during influenza seasons, potentially improving diagnoses and treatment., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01947049., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Study Objective: Efforts to reduce unnecessary and unnecessarily long antibiotic treatment for community-acquired pneumonia have been attempted through use of procalcitonin and through guidelines based on serial clinical assessment. Our aim is to compare guideline-based clinical assessment- and procalcitonin algorithm-guided antibiotic use among patients with community-acquired pneumonia., Methods: We performed a pragmatic, randomized, multicenter trial from November 2012 to April 2015 at 12 French hospitals. We included emergency department (ED) patients older than 18 years with community-acquired pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned to either the procalcitonin-guided or clinical assessment group. In accordance with past studies, we hypothesized that serial clinical assessment would be superior to procalcitonin-guided care. The primary outcome was antibiotic duration, and secondary outcomes included rates of antibiotic duration less than or equal to 5 days, and clinical success and combined serious adverse outcomes at 30 days in the intention-to-treat population., Results: Of 370 eligible patients, 285 (77%) were randomly assigned to either clinical assessment- (n=143) or procalcitonin-guided care (n=142). Median age was 67 years (range 18 to 93 years) and 40% of patients were deemed to have Pneumonia Severity Index class IV or V. Procalcitonin algorithm adherence was 76%. Antibiotic duration was not significantly different between clinical assessment- and procalcitonin-guided groups (median 9 versus 10 days, respectively). Clinical success rate was 92% in each group and serious adverse outcome rates were similar (15% versus 20%, respectively)., Conclusion: Guideline-based serial clinical assessment did not reduce antibiotic exposure compared with procalcitonin-guided care among ED patients with community-acquired pneumonia. The strategies were similar in terms of duration of antibiotic use and clinical outcomes., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Objective: Serious adverse outcomes associated with skin and soft tissue infections are uncommon, and current hospitalization rates appear excessive. It would be advantageous to be able to differentiate between patients who require high-level inpatient services and those who receive little benefit from hospitalization. We sought to identify characteristics associated with the need for high-level inpatient care among emergency department patients presenting with skin and soft tissue infections., Methods: We conducted a nonconcurrent review of existing records to identify emergency department (ED) patients treated for skin and soft tissue infections. For each case, we recorded the presence or absence of select criteria and whether the patient needed high-level care, defined as ICU admission, operating room surgical intervention, or death as the primary outcome. We applied recursive partitioning to identify the principal criteria associated with high-level care., Results: We identified 2,923 patients, including 84 experiencing high-level events. Recursive partitioning identified 6 variables associated with high-level outcomes: abnormal computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or ultrasonographic imaging result; systemic inflammatory response syndrome; history of diabetes; previous infection at the same location; older than 65 years; and an infection involving the hand. One or more of these variables were present in all 84 patients requiring high-level care., Conclusion: A limited number of simple clinical characteristics appear to be able to identify skin and soft tissue infection patients who require high-level inpatient services. Further research is needed to determine whether patients who do not exhibit these criteria can be safely discharged from the ED., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Meta-analyses and a recent guideline acknowledge that conservative management of uncomplicated appendicitis with antibiotics can be successful for patients who wish to avoid surgery. However, guidance as to specific management does not exist., Methods: PUBMED and EMBASE search of trials describing methods of conservative treatment was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines., Results: Thirty-four studies involving 2,944 antibiotic-treated participants were identified. The greatest experience with conservative treatment is in persons 5 to 50 years of age. In most trials, imaging was used to confirm localized appendicitis without evidence of abscess, phlegmon, or tumor. Antibiotics regimens were generally consistent with intra-abdominal infection treatment guidelines and used for a total of 7 to 10 days. Approaches ranged from 3-day hospitalization on parenteral agents to same-day hospital or ED discharge of stable patients with outpatient oral antibiotics. Minimum time allowed before response was evaluated varied from 8 to 72 hours. Although pain was a common criterion for nonresponse and appendectomy, analgesic regimens were poorly described. Trials differed in use of other response indicators, that is, white blood cell count, C-reactive protein, and reimaging. Diet ranged from restriction for 48 hours to as tolerated. Initial response rates were generally greater than 90% and most participants improved by 24 to 48 hours, with no related severe sepsis or deaths. In most studies, appendectomy was recommended for recurrence; however, in several, patients had antibiotic retreatment with success., Conclusion: While further investigation of conservative treatment is ongoing, patients considering this approach should be advised and managed according to study methods and related guidelines to promote informed shared decision-making and optimize their chance of similar outcomes as described in published trials. Future studies that address biases associated with enrollment and response evaluation, employ best-practice pain control and antibiotic selection, better define cancer risk, and explore longer time thresholds for response, minimized diet restriction and hospital stays, and antibiotic re-treatment will further our understanding of the potential effectiveness of conservative management., Level of Evidence: Systematic review, level II.

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., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

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. EMERGE ncy 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 EMERGE ncy 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.

Study Objective: The incidence of Clostridium difficile infection has increased and has been observed among persons from the community who have not been exposed to antibiotics or health care settings. Our aims are to determine prevalence of C difficile infection among emergency department (ED) patients with diarrhea and the prevalence among patients without traditional risk factors., Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of patients aged 2 years or older with diarrhea (≥3 episodes/24 hours) and no vomiting in 10 US EDs (2010 to 2013). We confirmed C difficile infection by positive stool culture result and toxin assay. C difficile infection risk factors were antibiotic use or overnight health care stay in the previous 3 months or previous C difficile infection. We typed strains with pulsed-field gel electrophoresis., Results: Of 422 participants, median age was 46 years (range 2 to 94 years), with median illness duration of 3.0 days and 43.4% having greater than or equal to 10 episodes of diarrhea during the previous 24 hours. At least one risk factor for C difficile infection was present in 40.8% of participants; 25.9% were receiving antibiotics, 26.9% had health care stay within the previous 3 months, and 3.3% had previous C difficile infection. Forty-three participants (10.2%) had C difficile infection; among these, 24 (55.8%) received antibiotics and 19 (44.2%) had health care exposure; 17 of 43 (39.5%) lacked any risk factor. Among participants without risk factors, C difficile infection prevalence was 6.9%. The most commonly identified North American pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (NAP) strains were NAP type 1 (23.3%) and NAP type 4 (16.3%)., Conclusion: Among mostly adults presenting to US EDs with diarrhea and no vomiting, C difficile infection accounted for approximately 10%. More than one third of patients with C difficile infection lacked traditional risk factors for the disease. Among participants without traditional risk factors, prevalence of C difficile infection was approximately 7%., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Context: Lack of engagement with healthcare stakeholders results in missed opportunities to understand translation of evidence into practice., Case: Stakeholder engagement is a key component of the Comparing Outcomes of Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) Study, a pragmatic clinical trial funded by PCORI to evaluate the effectiveness of antibiotics versus urgent appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis. We provide a framework for developing a stakeholder coordinating center (SCC) and describe two examples of how stakeholder engagement can inform study development., Findings: Coordinating engagement activities through the SCC established a commitment to the important partnership with stakeholders. It also facilitated communication and provided a central mechanism for obtaining input on key decisions such as development of patient-centered consent documents and appropriate stopping rules for a specific sub-population of patients with appendicitis., Major Themes: Translatable lessons include thoughtful planning for engagement, identifying stakeholders with a direct interest in the study conduct and findings, and integration of input received into the decisions that drive the conduct of the study., Conclusions: Standards for conducting patient-centered research should address the ability to successfully engage patients by demonstrating the capacity to recruit study participants, engage them over the duration of the study, and disseminate findings that are congruent with stakeholder needs. The process of sharing important clinical research findings has improved patient care, and we believe that dissemination of novel engagement strategies can lead to increased success in study design and execution.

Introduction: Attending physician judgment is the traditional standard of care for emergency department (ED) admission decisions. The extent to which variability in admission decisions affect cost and quality is not well understood. We sought to determine the impact of variability in admission decisions on cost and quality., Methods: We performed a retrospective observational study of patients presenting to a university-affiliated, urban ED from October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008. The main outcome measures were admission rate, fiscal indicators (Medicaid-denied payment days), and quality indicators (15- and 30-day ED returns; delayed hospital admissions). We asked each Attending to estimate their inpatient admission rate and correlated their personal assessment with actual admission rates., Results: Admission rates, even after adjusting for known confounders, were highly variable (15.2%-32.0%) and correlated with Medicaid denied-payment day rates (p=0.038). There was no correlation with quality outcome measures (30-day ED return or delayed hospital admission). There was no significant correlation between actual and self-described admission rate; the range of mis-estimation was 0% to 117%., Conclusion: Emergency medicine attending admission rates at this institution are highly variable, unexplained by known confounding variables, and unrelated to quality of care, as measured by 30-day ED return or delayed hospital admission. Admission optimization represents an important untapped potential for cost reduction through avoidable hospitalizations, with no apparent adverse effects on quality.

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.

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., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.).

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., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) is a prevalent cause of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI), but the association between CA-MRSA colonization and infection remains uncertain. We studied the carriage frequency at several body sites and the diversity of S. aureus strains from patients with and without SSTI. Specimens from the nares, throat, rectum, and groin of case subjects with a closed skin abscess (i.e., without drainage) and matched control subjects without a skin infection (n = 147 each) presenting to 10 U.S. emergency departments were cultured using broth enrichment; wound specimens were cultured from abscess cases. Methicillin resistance testing and spa typing were performed for all S. aureus isolates. S. aureus was found in 85/147 (57.8%) of abscesses; 49 isolates were MRSA, and 36 were methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA). MRSA colonization was more common among cases (59/147; 40.1%) than among controls (27/147; 18.4%) overall (P < 0.001) and at each body site; no differences were observed for MSSA. S. aureus-infected subjects were usually (75/85) colonized with the infecting strain; among MRSA-infected subjects, this was most common in the groin. The CC8 lineage accounted for most of both infecting and colonizing isolates, although more than 16 distinct strains were identified. Nearly all MRSA infections were inferred to be USA300. There was more diversity among colonizing than infecting isolates and among those isolated from controls versus cases. CC8 S. aureus is a common colonizer of persons with and without skin infections. Detection of S. aureus colonization, and especially MRSA, may be enhanced by extranasal site culture., (Copyright © 2015, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.)

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.