Limited Role for Antibiotics in COVID-19: Scarce Evidence of Bacterial Coinfection

  1. Wenjing Wei
  2. Jessica K. Ortwine
  3. Norman S. Mang
  4. Christopher Joseph
  5. Brenton C. Hall
  6. Bonnie C. Prokesch

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

There is currently a paucity of data describing bacterial coinfections, related antibiotic prescribing patterns, and the potential role of antimicrobial stewardship in the care of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Methods

This prospective, observational study was conducted from March 10, 2020 to April 21, 2020 in admitted patients with confirmed COVID-19. Patients were included if ≥ 18 years old and admitted to the hospital for further treatment. Data was collected via chart review from the enterprise electronic health record database. Data collected include factors driving antibiotic choice, indication, and duration of therapy as well as microbiological data.

Findings

Antibiotics were initiated on admission in 87/147 (59%) patients. Of these, 85/87 (98%) prescriptions were empiric. The most common indication for empiric antibiotics was concern for community-acquired pneumonia (76/85, 89%) with the most prescribed antibiotics being ceftriaxone and azithromycin. The median duration of antibiotic therapy was two days (interquartile range 1-5). No patients had a community-acquired bacterial respiratory coinfection, but 10/147 (7%) of patients were found to have concurrent bacterial infections from a non-respiratory source, and one patient was diagnosed with active pulmonary tuberculosis at the time of admission for COVID-19.

Interpretation

Bacterial coinfection in patients with COVID-19 was infrequent. Antibiotics are likely unnecessary in patients with mild symptoms. There is little role for broad-spectrum antibiotics to empirically treat multidrug resistant organisms in patients with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. Antimicrobial stewardship remains important in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Funding

The authors received no funding for this work.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.16.20133181: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The study was approved by the UTSW Medical Center institutional review board and informed consent was waived.
    Consent: The study was approved by the UTSW Medical Center institutional review board and informed consent was waived.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.16.20133181v1 on medRxiv