Antibiotic use is necessary in the outpatient hemodialysis setting because patients receiving hemodialysis are at increased risk for infections and sepsis. However, inappropriate antibiotic use can lead to adverse drug events, including adverse drug reactions and infections with Clostridioides difficile and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Optimizing antibiotic use can decrease adverse events and improve infection cure rates and patient outcomes. The American Society of Nephrology and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention created the Antibiotic Stewardship in Hemodialysis White Paper Writing Group, comprising experts in antibiotic stewardship, infectious diseases, nephrology, and public health, to highlight strategies that can improve antibiotic prescribing for patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis. Based on existing evidence and the unique patient and clinical setting characteristics, the following strategies for improving antibiotic use are reviewed: expanding infection and sepsis prevention activities, standardizing blood culture collection processes, treating methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus infections with β-lactams, optimizing communication between nurses and prescribing providers, and improving data sharing across transitions of care. Collaboration among the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; American Society of Nephrology; other professional societies such as infectious diseases, hospital medicine, and vascular surgery societies; and dialysis provider organizations can improve antibiotic use and the quality of care for patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis.

Rationale & Objective: Most new patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) initiate hemodialysis (HD) with a central venous catheter (CVC) and later transition to a permanent vascular access with lower infection risk. The benefit of early fistula use in preventing severe infections is incompletely understood. We examined patients’ first access and subsequent transitions between accesses during the first year of HD to estimate the risk for bloodstream infection (BSI) associated with incident and time-dependent use of HD access. Study Design: A retrospective cohort study using enhanced 5% Medicare claims data. Setting & Participants: New patients with ESRD initiating HD between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2012, and having complete pre-ESRD Medicare fee-for-service coverage for 2 years. Exposure: The incident and prevalent use of CVC, graft, or fistula as determined from monthly reports to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services by HD providers. Outcome: Incident hospitalization with a primary/secondary diagnosis of BSI (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 038.xx or 790.7). Analytical Approach: Extended survival analysis accounting for patient confounders. Results: Of 2,352 study participants, 1,870 (79.5%), 77 (3.3%), and 405 (17.2%) initiated HD with a CVC, graft, and fistula, respectively. During the first year, the incident BSI hospitalization rates per 1,000 person-days were 1.3, 0.8, and 0.3 (P<0.001) in patients initiating with a CVC, graft, and fistula, respectively. After adjusting for confounders, incident fistula use was associated with 61% lower risk for BSI (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28-0.54; P<0.001) compared with incident CVC or graft use. The prevalent fistula or graft use was associated with lower risk for BSI compared with prevalent CVC use (HRs of 0.30 [95% CI, 0.22-0.42] and 0.47 [95% CI, 0.31-0.73], respectively). Limitations: Restricted to an elderly population; potential residual confounding. Conclusions: Incident fistula use was associated with lowest rates of BSI, but the majority of beneficiaries with pre-ESRD insurance initiated HD with a CVC. Strategies are needed to improve pre-ESRD fistula placement.

Rationale & Objective Hepatitis B virus (HBV) transmission in hemodialysis units has become a rare event since implementation of hemodialysis-specific infection control guidelines: performing hemodialysis for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive patients in an HBV isolation room, vaccinating HBV-susceptible (HBV surface antibody and HBsAg negative) patients, and monthly HBsAg testing in HBV-susceptible patients. Mutations in HBsAg can result in false-negative HBsAg results, leading to failure to identify HBsAg seroconversion from negative to positive. We describe 4 unique cases of HBsAg seroconversion caused by mutant HBV infection or reactivation in hemodialysis patients. Study Design Following identification of a possible HBsAg seroconversion and mutant HBV infection, public health investigations were launched to conduct further HBV testing of case patients and potentially exposed patients. A case patient was defined as a hemodialysis patient with suspected mutant HBV infection because of false-negative HBsAg testing results. Confirmed case patients had HBV DNA sequences demonstrating S-gene mutations. Setting & Participants Case patients and patients potentially exposed to the case patient in the respective hemodialysis units in multiple US states. Results 4 cases of mutant HBV infection in hemodialysis patients were identified; 3 cases were confirmed using molecular sequencing. Failure of some HBsAg testing platforms to detect HBV mutations led to delays in applying HBV isolation procedures. Testing of potentially exposed patients did not identify secondary transmissions. Limitations Lack of access to information on past HBsAg testing platforms and results led to challenges in ascertaining when HBsAg seroconversion occurred and identifying and testing all potentially exposed patients. Conclusions Mutant HBV infections should be suspected in patients who test HBsAg negative and concurrently test positive for HBV DNA at high levels. Dialysis providers should consider using HBsAg assays that can also detect mutant HBV strains for routine HBV testing.

To the Editor—In their article, “Inappropriate intravenous antimicrobial starts: An antimicrobial stewardship metric for hemodialysis facilities,” Hahn et al1 describe their application of data reported to CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) to determine appropriateness of IV antibiotic use in outpatient hemodialysis centers. NHSN’s Dialysis Event (DE) surveillance system was designed to track bloodstream infections (BSIs) and other vascular access infections in hemodialysis outpatients through monitoring of events such as positive blood cultures. The authors examined outpatient IV antimicrobial start (IVAS) events reported to NHSN and considered any IVAS without documentation of coreported positive blood culture, collection of blood sample for culture, or local access site infection to be inappropriate, even when symptoms such as fever, chills, rigors, or drop in blood pressure were present. We applaud these investigators for drawing necessary attention to the issue of antibiotic use in dialysis patients, which is an important area of study with limited data, and for exploring the use of data to inform improvement in practice. However, we have concerns about their approach to the categorization of antibiotic use without incorporation of relevant clinical information or validation of NHSN data for this purpose, and the potential for unintended consequences among patients at high risk for infections and sepsis.

Background: The epidemiological features and outcomes of hospitalized adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been described; however, the temporal progression and medical complications of disease among hospitalized patients require further study. Detailed descriptions of the natural history of COVID-19 among hospitalized patients are paramount to optimize health care resource utilization, and the detection of different clinical phenotypes may allow tailored clinical management strategies. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of 305 adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in 8 academic and community hospitals. Patient characteristics included demographics, comorbidities, medication use, medical complications, intensive care utilization, and longitudinal vital sign and laboratory test values. We examined laboratory and vital sign trends by mortality status and length of stay. To identify clinical phenotypes, we calculated Gower's dissimilarity matrix between each patient's clinical characteristics and clustered similar patients using the partitioning around medoids algorithm. Results: One phenotype of 6 identified was characterized by high mortality (49%), older age, male sex, elevated inflammatory markers, high prevalence of cardiovascular disease, and shock. Patients with this severe phenotype had significantly elevated peak C-reactive protein creatinine, D-dimer, and white blood cell count and lower minimum lymphocyte count compared with other phenotypes (P < .01, all comparisons). Conclusions: Among a cohort of hospitalized adults, we identified a severe phenotype of COVID-19 based on the characteristics of its clinical course and poor prognosis. These findings need to be validated in other cohorts, as improved understanding of clinical phenotypes and risk factors for their development could help inform prognosis and tailored clinical management for COVID-19.