Introduction: Innovative discovery begins with diverse perspectives; research teams should harness this model. Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) and women are underrepresented as researchers. Team science leverages collaborative and cross-disciplinary approaches to diversify the research workforce, and introduces academic (and non-academic) faculty with limited research exposure/experience to clinical research. Methods: In 2020, two Black women academic physicians implemented an academic collaborative – COVID-19 Characteristics, Readmissions, Outcomes, and Social Determinants of Health (CROSS) – to investigate COVID-19 health inequities, with intentional recruitment of BIPOC and women. The 37 CROSS team members were of diverse races, ethnicities, sex, specialties, and disciplines, and represented eight hospitals. Team members were electronically surveyed to determine their interest, desired activities, and level of participation in research activities; concurrently, self-identified demographics (including race, ethnicity, sex, and language(s) spoken) were obtained. Results: All team members completed the survey: 78.4% (n = 29) were BIPOC and 78.4% (n = 29) were women. Team members spoke 18 languages (including English). Academic medical ranks included Assistant Professor (32.4%; n = 12), Associate Professor (16.2%; n = 6), and Full Professor (2.7%; n = 1). Each member identified desired activities (data collection, data analytics, manuscript development, abstract development/poster presentation, serving as a consultant) and the percentage of time they intended to allocate to each. Between June 2020 and February 2023, the team produced five original peer-reviewed manuscripts (including this article); five members served as first or senior authors. Twenty-one abstracts were presented at local conferences, and 10 at national and regional conferences. Five members achieved academic promotion, and team members were awarded three intramural grants resulting directly from team collaborations. Conclusion: Intentional recruitment and assessment of team members’ desired levels of participation in an integrated clinical research team is an effective strategy to engage BIPOC and women. The CROSS Collaborative is a model for diversity and inclusion in team science and clinical research.

Objective: To determine the impact of an inpatient stewardship intervention targeting fluoroquinolone use on inpatient and postdischarge Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). Design: We used an interrupted time series study design to evaluate the rate of hospital-onset CDI (HO-CDI), postdischarge CDI (PD-CDI) within 12 weeks, and inpatient fluoroquinolone use from 2 years prior to 1 year after a stewardship intervention. Setting: An academic healthcare system with 4 hospitals. Patients: All inpatients hospitalized between January 2017 and September 2020, excluding those discharged from locations caring for oncology, bone marrow transplant, or solid-organ transplant patients. Intervention: Introduction of electronic order sets designed to reduce inpatient fluoroquinolone prescribing. Results: Among 163,117 admissions, there were 683 cases of HO-CDI and 1,104 cases of PD-CDI. In the context of a 2% month-to-month decline starting in the preintervention period (P <.01), we observed a reduction in fluoroquinolone days of therapy per 1,000 patient days of 21% after the intervention (level change, P <.05). HO-CDI rates were stable throughout the study period. In contrast, we also detected a change in the trend of PD-CDI rates from a stable monthly rate in the preintervention period to a monthly decrease of 2.5% in the postintervention period (P <.01). Conclusions: Our systemwide intervention reduced inpatient fluoroquinolone use immediately, but not HO-CDI. However, a downward trend in PD-CDI occurred. Relying on outcome measures limited to the inpatient setting may not reflect the full impact of inpatient stewardship efforts.

There is limited information regarding how telemedicine visits compare with in-person visits regarding diabetes outcomes in an ambulatory care setting. Our objective was to compare proportions of patients in ambulatory setting with uncontrolled diabetes among those with telemedicine visits versus in-person only visits and examine differences by age, race, gender, ethnicity, and insurance status. Adults with diabetes who attended an ambulatory primary or specialty clinic visit between May 2020 and May 2021 were included. Demographics including age, race, ethnicity, gender, insurance, and comorbidities were extracted from the electronic medical record. Patients were compared among three visit groups: those with in-person only visits, those with only one telemedicine visit, and those with 2 + telemedicine visits. The primary outcome was uncontrolled diabetes, defined as HbA1c ≥ 9.0 %. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess differences in uncontrolled diabetes between visit groups following risk adjustment. A total of 18,148 patients met inclusion criteria and 2,101 (11.6 %) had uncontrolled diabetes. There was no difference in proportion of patients with uncontrolled diabetes between visit groups (in-person only visits: 834 (11.6 %); one telemedicine visit: 558 (11.8 %); 2 + telemedicine visits: 709 (11.4 %); p = 0.80)). Patients with 2 + telemedicine visits had significantly lower odds of uncontrolled diabetes compared to in-person only visits after risk adjustment (OR: 0.88; 95 % CI: 0.79–0.99, p = 0.03). Compared with in-person ambulatory visits, telemedicine visits were associated with a lower odds of uncontrolled diabetes. Further work is warranted to explore the relationship between telemedicine visits and diabetes outcomes.

To the Editor—Antimicrobial stewardship programs responded to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic by developing treatment pathways to monitor the use of potential COVID-19 therapies to ensure appropriate management and to mitigate toxicities.1,2 These approaches mimicked traditional stewardship efforts by using the shortest effective duration of therapy, assessing drug–drug interactions, and monitoring drug safety and efficacy parameters. Given the rapid rise in the number of patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases combined with the national shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE), we identified an immediate opportunity for pharmacists, as integral members of the antimicrobial stewardship team, to help conserve PPE and limit healthcare worker (HCW) exposure by consolidating the number of times medications needed to be administered throughout the day. In our hospital’s pharmacy practice model, decentralized pharmacists perform daily patient chart reviews to optimize pharmacotherapy, including antimicrobials. Pharmacists utilize a clinical surveillance software (Theradoc, Premier, Charlotte, NC) using both real-time alerts and structured workflows for anticoagulation monitoring, renal dose adjustments, therapeutic drug monitoring, and microbiology review. We leveraged existing work flow and infrastructure to develop this consolidation initiative. By incorporating positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR results into pharmacists’ daily workflow via our surveillance software, pharmacists can easily identify these patients and assess their medication administration record for optimization. Persons under investigation were identified during routine chart review. The initiative provided pharmacists with guidance on strategic methods of consolidating the medication administration record based on 3 domains: (1) consolidation of medication administration times, (2) optimizing pharmacotherapy, and (3) therapeutic drug monitoring.

IMPORTANCE: SARS-CoV-2 infection can result in ongoing, relapsing, or new symptoms or other health effects after the acute phase of infection; termed post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), or long COVID. The characteristics, prevalence, trajectory and mechanisms of PASC are ill-defined. The objectives of the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Multi-site Observational Study of PASC in Adults (RECOVER-Adult) are to: (1) characterize PASC prevalence; (2) characterize the symptoms, organ dysfunction, natural history, and distinct phenotypes of PASC; (3) identify demographic, social and clinical risk factors for PASC onset and recovery; and (4) define the biological mechanisms underlying PASC pathogenesis. METHODS: RECOVER-Adult is a combined prospective/retrospective cohort currently planned to enroll 14,880 adults aged ≥18 years. Eligible participants either must meet WHO criteria for suspected, probable, or confirmed infection; or must have evidence of no prior infection. Recruitment occurs at 86 sites in 33 U.S. states, Washington, DC and Puerto Rico, via facility- and community-based outreach. Participants complete quarterly questionnaires about symptoms, social determinants, vaccination status, and interim SARS-CoV-2 infections. In addition, participants contribute biospecimens and undergo physical and laboratory examinations at approximately 0, 90 and 180 days from infection or negative test date, and yearly thereafter. Some participants undergo additional testing based on specific criteria or random sampling. Patient representatives provide input on all study processes. The primary study outcome is onset of PASC, measured by signs and symptoms. A paradigm for identifying PASC cases will be defined and updated using supervised and unsupervised learning approaches with cross-validation. Logistic regression and proportional hazards regression will be conducted to investigate associations between risk factors, onset, and resolution of PASC symptoms. DISCUSSION: RECOVER-Adult is the first national, prospective, longitudinal cohort of PASC among US adults. Results of this study are intended to inform public health, spur clinical trials, and expand treatment options. REGISTRATION: NCT05172024.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted racial and ethnic minority communities, particularly African American and Latino communities. The impacts of social determinants of health, structural racism, misinformation, and mistrust have contributed to a decreased COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Effective methods of addressing and combatting these barriers are essential. Accurate and targeted messaging delivered by trusted voices from community-based organizations, government health systems and organizations, and healthcare and academic systems is imperative. Outreach and communication should be culturally sensitive, provided in the preferred language of the community, flexible, and tailored for in-person and virtual outlets. This communication must also increase trust, combat misinformation, and inspire COVID-19 vaccine confidence. In this manuscript, we outline a framework for inspiring COVID-19 vaccine confidence in African American and Latino communities. These methods of targeted outreach should be considered and implemented for urgent and nonurgent community public health efforts beyond the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., monkeypox) and as a framework to inspire vaccine confidence in those living in racial and ethnic minority communities globally.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection is commonly associated with neurological complications. Patients with sickle cell disease are at increased risk of developing neurologic complications throughout their lifetimes and often have underlying cardiopulmonary comorbidities that may predispose them to poor outcomes during serious infections. In this case series, we describe 2 patients with sickle cell disease who developed devastating neurologic complications following SARS-CoV-2 infection, which ultimately led to brain edema and death. We highlight the unusual manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 in patients with sickle cell disease and address the risk of these patients to develop catastrophic neurologic injury due to COVID-19, if not recognized promptly.

This consensus statement by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine (AMDA), the Association for Professionals in Epidemiology and Infection Control (APIC), the HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (PIDS), and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP) recommends that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination should be a condition of employment for all healthcare personnel in facilities in the United States. Exemptions from this policy apply to those with medical contraindications to all COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States and other exemptions as specified by federal or state law. The consensus statement also supports COVID-19 vaccination of nonemployees functioning at a healthcare facility (eg, students, contract workers, volunteers, etc).

Little is known about cancellation frequencies in telemedicine vs. in-person appointments and its impact on clinical outcomes. Our objective was to examine differences between in-person and video telemedicine appointments in terms of cancellation rates by age, race, ethnicity, gender, and insurance, and compare 30-day inpatient hospitalizations rates and 30-day emergency department visit rates between the two visit types. Demographic characteristics and comorbidities for adults scheduled for an Emory Healthcare ambulatory clinic appointment from June 2020 to December 2020 were extracted from the electronic medical record. Each appointment was identified as either a video telemedicine or in-person clinic appointment. The outcomes were ambulatory clinic cancellation rates, 30-day hospitalization rates, and 30-day emergency department visit rates. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess differences between appointment types. A total of 1,652,623 ambulatory clinic appointments were scheduled. Ambulatory appointment cancellations rates were significantly lower among telemedicine compared to in-person appointments overall (20.4% vs. 31.0%, p < .001) and regardless of gender, age, race, ethnicity, insurance, or specialty (p < .05 for all sub-groups). Telemedicine appointments were associated with lower 30-day hospitalization rates compared to in-person appointments (AOR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.71–0.74). There was no difference in 30-day emergency department visit rates between telemedicine and in-person appointment patients (AOR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98–1.02). Our findings suggest that there are fewer barriers to attending an ambulatory care visit via telemedicine relative to in-person. Using video telemedicine was not associated with more frequent adverse clinical events compared with in-person visits.

This article is a narrative review of the rapidly moving coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine field with an emphasis on clinical efficacy established in both randomized trials and postmarketing surveillance of clinically available vaccines. We review the major clinical trials that supported authorization for general use of the Janssen (Ad.26.CoV2), Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), and Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccines and the publicly available postmarketing information with the goal of providing a broad, clinically relevant comparison of efficacy and safety. This review is primarily focused on the US market.