Search

Context: The optimal antimicrobial regimen and treatment duration for acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis are unknown.Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of a 7-day ciprofloxacin regimen and a 14-day trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole regimen for the treatment of acute pyelonephritis in women.Design: Randomized, double-blind comparative trial conducted from October 1994 through January 1997.Setting: Twenty-five outpatient centers in the United States.Patients: Of 378 enrolled premenopausal women aged at least 18 years with clinical diagnosis of acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis, 255 were included in the analysis. Other individuals were excluded for no baseline causative organism, inadequate receipt of study drug, loss to follow-up, no appropriate cultures, and other reasons.Interventions: Patients were randomized to oral ciprofloxacin, 500 mg twice per day for 7 days (with or without an initial 400-mg intravenous dose) followed by placebo for 7 days (n = 128 included in analysis) vs trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, 160/800 mg twice per day for 14 days (with or without intravenous ceftriaxone, 1 g) (n = 127 included in the analysis).Main Outcome Measure: Continued bacteriologic and clinical cure, such that alternative antimicrobial drugs were not required, among evaluable patients through the 4- to 11-day posttherapy visit, compared by treatment group.Results: At 4 to 11 days posttherapy, bacteriologic cure rates were 99% (112 of 113) for the ciprofloxacin regimen and 89% (90 of 101) for the trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole regimen (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference, 0.04-0.16; P = .004). Clinical cure rates were 96% (109 of 113) for the ciprofloxacin regimen and 83% (92 of 111) for the trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole regimen (95% CI, 0.06-0.22; P = .002). Escherichia coli, which caused more than 90% of infections, was more frequently resistant to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (18%) than to ciprofloxacin (0%; P<.001). Among trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole-treated patients, drug resistance was associated with greater bacteriologic and clinical failure rates (P<.001 for both). Drug-related adverse events occurred in 24% of 191 ciprofloxacin-treated patients and in 33% of 187 trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole-treated patients, respectively (95% CI, -0.001 to 0.2).Conclusions: In our study of outpatient treatment of acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis in women, a 7-day ciprofloxacin regimen was associated with greater bacteriologic and clinical cure rates than a 14-day trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole regimen, especially in patients infected with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole-resistant strains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intimidated by the scope of possible illness in your AIDS patients? Jump start your diagnosis with a working knowledge of the most frequently encountered syndromes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is increasingly recognized in infections among persons in the community without established risk factors for MRSA.Methods: We enrolled adult patients with acute, purulent skin and soft-tissue infections presenting to 11 university-affiliated emergency departments during the month of August 2004. Cultures were obtained, and clinical information was collected. Available S. aureus isolates were characterized by antimicrobial-susceptibility testing, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, and detection of toxin genes. On MRSA isolates, we performed typing of the staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec), the genetic element that carries the mecA gene encoding methicillin resistance.Results: S. aureus was isolated from 320 of 422 patients with skin and soft-tissue infections (76 percent). The prevalence of MRSA was 59 percent overall and ranged from 15 to 74 percent. Pulsed-field type USA300 isolates accounted for 97 percent of MRSA isolates; 74 percent of these were a single strain (USA300-0114). SCCmec type IV and the Panton-Valentine leukocidin toxin gene were detected in 98 percent of MRSA isolates. Other toxin genes were detected rarely. Among the MRSA isolates, 95 percent were susceptible to clindamycin, 6 percent to erythromycin, 60 percent to fluoroquinolones, 100 percent to rifampin and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and 92 percent to tetracycline. Antibiotic therapy was not concordant with the results of susceptibility testing in 100 of 175 patients with MRSA infection who received antibiotics (57 percent). Among methicillin-susceptible S. aureus isolates, 31 percent were USA300 and 42 percent contained pvl genes.Conclusions: MRSA is the most common identifiable cause of skin and soft-tissue infections among patients presenting to emergency departments in 11 U.S. cities. When antimicrobial therapy is indicated for the treatment of skin and soft-tissue infections, clinicians should consider obtaining cultures and modifying empirical therapy to provide MRSA coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A pathway for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) with a single intravenous (IV) dose of dalbavancin was previously shown to reduce hospital admissions and shorten inpatient length of stay (LOS)., Objectives: To describe pathway implementation at the emergency department (ED) and evaluate cost-effectiveness of a single-dose dalbavancin administered to ED patients who would otherwise be hospitalized to receive usual care with multidose IV antibiotics., Methods: The dalbavancin pathway was previously implemented at 11 U.S. EDs (doi:10.1111/acem.14258). Patients with ABSSSI, without an unstable comorbidity or infection complication requiring complex management, were treated with a single dose of dalbavancin. At the emergency physicians' discretion, patients were either discharged and received outpatient follow-up or were hospitalized for continued management. A decision analytic cost-effectiveness model was developed from the U.S. healthcare's perspective to evaluate costs associated with the dalbavancin pathway compared with inpatient usual care. Costs (2021 USD) were modeled over a 14-day horizon and included ED visits, drug costs, inpatient stay, and physician visits. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses examined input parameter uncertainty., Results: Driven largely by the per diem inpatient cost and LOS for usual care, the dalbavancin pathway was associated with savings of $5133.20 per patient and $1211.57 per hospitalization day avoided, compared with inpatient usual care. The results remained robust in sensitivity and scenario analyses., Conclusion: The new single-dose dalbavancin ED pathway for ABSSSI treatment, which was previously implemented at 11 U.S. EDs, offers robust cost savings compared to inpatient usual care., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Frank LoVecchio was a consultant for AbbVie and has been paid for participating in speakers bureaus for AbbVie. Matthew W. McCarthy has no disclosures or conflict of interest. Xiaolan Ye, John L. Lock, Todd Riccobene, and Rosie D. Lyles are full-time employees of AbbVie and may own stocks/shares of the company. Alasdair D. Henry and Quan V. Doan are employees of Genesis Research and have received funding from AbbVie. David A. Talan was a consultant for AbbVie., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In 2022, a global mpox outbreak occurred, primarily affecting gay and bisexual men who have sex with men (GBMSM). To screen for mpox's reemergence and investigate potentially unsuspected cases among non-GBMSM, prospective surveillance of patients aged ≥3 months with an mpox-compatible rash (vesicular, pustular, ulcerated, or crusted) was conducted at 13 U.S. emergency departments (EDs) during June-December 2023. Demographic, historical, and illness characteristics were collected using questionnaires and electronic health records. Lesions were tested for monkeypox virus using polymerase chain reaction. Among 196 enrolled persons, the median age was 37.5 years (IQR = 21.0-53.5 years); 39 (19.9%) were aged <16 years, and 108 (55.1%) were male. Among all enrollees, 13 (6.6%) were GBMSM. Overall, approximately one half (46.4%) and one quarter (23.5%) of enrolled persons were non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black or African American, respectively, and 38.8% reported Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) ethnicity. Unstable housing was reported by 21 (10.7%) enrollees, and 24 (12.2%) lacked health insurance. The prevalence of mpox among ED patients evaluated for an mpox-compatible rash was 1.5% (95% CI = 0.3%-4.4%); all persons with a confirmed mpox diagnosis identified as GBMSM and reported being HIV-negative, not being vaccinated against mpox, and having engaged in sex with one or more partners met through smartphone dating applications. No cases were identified among women, children, or unhoused persons. Clinicians should remain vigilant for mpox and educate persons at risk for mpox about modifying behaviors that increase risk and the importance of receiving 2 appropriately spaced doses of JYNNEOS vaccine to prevent mpox., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Kavitha Pathmarajah reports institutional support from the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Carl T. Berdahl reports institutional support from the Emergency Medicine Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine, and VisualDx, and receipt of consulting fees from INFOTECHSoft, Inc. Gregory J. Moran reports institutional support from AbVacc, receipt of consulting fees from Light AI and Hippo Education, and stock options in Light AI. Matthew Waxman reports provision of expert consultation in medical malpractice cases in the past and unpaid membership on the Refugee Health Alliance board and the Drugs and Diagnostics for Tropical Diseases board. William Mower reports institutional support from NIH, receipt of payment for medicolegal consulting with numerous firms, and shares of common stock in Medtronics, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer. David A. Talan reports institutional support from NIAID and the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group, consulting fees from bioMerieux, Inc. and GSK, honoraria from New York University and Vanderbilt University, and stock options in Light AI. Sam S. Torbati reports payment for expert testimony from Ikuta Hemesath, LLP and Mokri Vanis & Jones, LLP and unpaid membership on the Los Angeles Region Chapter of the American Red Cross board. Omai B. Garner reports institutional support from National Science Foundation, bioMerieux, Inc., Beckman Coulter, and Diasorin, receipt of consulting fees from Seegene Diagnostics, and lecture honorarium from Roche Diagnostics. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Background: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are commonly treated in the emergency department (ED), and unfortunately, resistance to first-line agents is increasing., Objectives: To characterize treatment of pyelonephritis in a nationally representative sample of ED patients and to identify patient- and treatment-specific factors associated with receiving initial inactive antibiotics., Methods: We conducted a multicentre, observational cohort study utilizing the Emergency Medicine PHARMacotherapy Research NETwork (EMPHARM-NET), comprising 15 geographically diverse US EDs. All patients ≥18 years of age with a diagnosis of pyelonephritis between 2018 and 2020 were included. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received initial inactive empirical antibiotic therapy and to identify predictive factors of inactive antibiotic therapy., Results: Of the 3714 patients evaluated, 223 had culture-positive pyelonephritis. Median patient age was 50.1 years and patients were mostly female (78.3%). Overall, 40.4% of patients received an IV antibiotic, most commonly ceftriaxone (86.7%). The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were cefalexin (31.8%), ciprofloxacin (14.3%), cefdinir (13.5%) and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (12.6%). Overall, 10.3% of patients received initial inactive therapy. After adjustment in a multivariable analysis, long-acting IV antibiotic was predictive of inactive therapy (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07-0.83)., Conclusions: In our prospective, multicentre observational study, we found that only 40.4% of patients with pyelonephritis received empirical IV antibiotics in the ED, contributing to inactive therapy. Receipt of long-acting IV antibiotics was independently associated with a decreased rate of initial inactive therapy. This reinforces guideline recommendations to administer long-acting IV antibiotics empirically in the ED upon suspicion of pyelonephritis., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., Competing Interests: The authors have declared no competing interests exist., (Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [Monica Brackney owned stock in Moderna from November 2022–April 2023 stock as part of portfolio managed by Parametric Investments Portfolio LLC. All other authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.]., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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.

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.

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., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. M. B. owned stock in Moderna from November 2022 to April 2023, as part of portfolio managed by Parametric Investments Portfolio. All other authors report no potential conflicts., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2023.)

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.

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., Competing Interests: The authors report information from Price and Faine should read the remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Importance: Acute appendicitis is a common cause of abdominal pain and the most common reason for emergency surgery in several countries. Increased cases during summer months have been reported., Objective: To investigate the incidence of acute appendicitis by considering local temperature patterns in geographic regions with different climate over several years., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used insurance claims data from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database and the Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits Database from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2017. The cohort included individuals at risk for appendicitis who were enrolled in US insurance plans that contribute data to the MarketScan databases. Cases of appendicitis in the inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department settings were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification or International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes. Local weather data were obtained for individuals living in a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) from the Integrated Surface Database. Associations were characterized using a fixed-effects generalized linear model based on a negative binomial distribution. The model was adjusted for age, sex, and day of week and included fixed effects for year and MSA. The generalized linear model was fit with a piecewise linear model by searching each 0.56 °C in temperature for change points. To further isolate the role of temperature, observed temperature was replaced with the expected temperature and the deviation of the observed temperature from the expected temperature for a given city on a given day of year. Data were analyzed from October 1, 2021, to July 31, 2022., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the daily number of appendicitis cases in a given city stratified by age and sex, with mean temperature in the MSA over the previous 7 days as the independent variable., Results: A total of 450 723 744 person-years at risk and 689 917 patients with appendicitis (mean [SD] age, 35 [18] years; 347 473 male [50.4%] individuals) were included. Every 5.56 °C increase in temperature was associated with a 1.3% increase in the incidence of appendicitis (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02) when temperatures were 10.56 °C or lower and a 2.9% increase in incidence (IRR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.03-1.03) for temperatures higher than 10.56 °C. In terms of temperature deviations, a higher-than-expected temperature increase greater than 5.56 °C was associated with a 3.3% (95% CI, 1.0%-5.7%) increase in the incidence of appendicitis compared with days with near-0 deviations., Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study observed seasonality in the incidence of appendicitis and found an association between increased incidence and warmer weather. These results could help elucidate the mechanism of appendicitis.

Background: Uropathogen resistance, fluoroquinolone-resistance (FQR), and extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL), has been observed to be emerging worldwide with prevalences above recommended thresholds for routine empirical treatment. The primary aim of our study was to determine the prevalence of FQR from a geographically diverse sample of United States emergency departments (EDs)., Methods: We conducted a multi-center, observational cohort study using a network of 15 geographically diverse US EDs. All patients ≥18 years of age with the primary or secondary diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) in the ED identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) diagnosis code of cystitis, pyelonephritis, or UTI from 2018 to 2020 were included. We calculated descriptive statistics for uropathogens and susceptibilities. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify antimicrobial resistance risk factors associated with FQR Escherichia coli., Results: Among 3779 patients who met inclusion criteria, median age was 62.9 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 41-77.6) and 76.3% were female. The most common diagnoses were complicated (41.2%) and uncomplicated cystitis (40.3%). E. coli was the most common pathogen (63.2%), followed by Klebsiella pneumoniae (13.2%) and Enterococcus species (5.8%). Across all sites, overall E. coli FQ-resistance prevalence was 22.1%, ranging from 10.5 to 29.7% by site. The prevalence of ESBL-producing uropathogen was 7.4%, ranging from 3.6% to 11.6% by site. Previous IV or oral antimicrobial use in the past 90-days and history of a multi-drug resistant pathogen were associated with FQ-resistant E. coli (odds ratio [OR] 2.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.04-3.51, and OR 6.93, 95% CI: 4.95-9.70, respectively). Of the patients who had FQ-resistant E. coli or an ESBL-producing uropathogen isolated, 116 (37.1%) and 61 (36.7%) did not have any documented risk factors for resistance., Conclusion: FQ-resistant E. coli is widely prevalent across US sites highlighting the need for ongoing monitoring of antimicrobial resistance and, at some locations, modification of empirical treatments., (© 2022 The Authors. Academic Emergency Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

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., Competing Interests: The authors have declared no competing interests exist.

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.