Search

Background Despite multiple studies indicating a low prevalence of bacterial coinfection in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, the majority of hospitalized COVID-19 patients receive one or more antibiotics. Patients with coinfection usually have multiple risk factors and poor clinical outcomes. Methods A retrospective case control study was conducted comparing clinical characteristics and antimicrobial use in hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients with bacterial co-infections vs. randomly selected patients without co-infections (matched on month of admission). The study was conducted at three hospitals within the Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY between March 1, 2020 and October 31, 2020. A multivariable logistic regression model was developed to assess the relationship of each predictor variable with coinfection status. Secondary outcomes included hospital mortality, antibiotic days of therapy (DOT), and C. difficile infection. Results A total of 150 patients with coinfection and 150 patients without co-infection were included in the analysis. Table 1 summarized baseline characteristics and risk factors. The multivariable logistic regression model indicated that presence of a central line (OR=5.4, 95% CI: 2.7-11.1), prior antibiotic exposure within 30 days (OR=5.3, 95% CI: 2.8-10.0), prior ICU admission (OR=3.6, 95% CI: 1.7-7.6), steroid use (OR=2.7, 95% CI: 1.4-4.9), and any comorbid condition (OR=2.7, 95% CI: 1.4-5.2) were significantly associated with the development of coinfection (table 2). Mortality was higher in patients with coinfection (56% vs. 11%, p < 0.0001) (table 3). Average antibiotic DOT was 10.5 in coinfected patients compared to 4 in non-coinfected patients, (p < 0.0001). Forty-one percent of coinfected patients had a multidrug resistant organism isolated. C. difficile rate was higher in coinfected patients (4% vs. 0%, p=0.03). Conclusion As the healthcare community contends with a 3rd year of COVID-19 pandemic, understanding risk factors most predictive of bacterial coinfection can guide empiric antimicrobial therapy and targeted stewardship interventions. Ideally, co-infection risk scores are developed which may be useful for future inpatient surges. Disclosures Yi Guo, PharmD, BCIDP, Merck: Grant/Research Support Kelsie Cowman, MPH, Merck: Grant/Research Support.

We partnered with the US Department of Health and Human Services to treat high-risk, nonadmitted coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with bamlanivimab in the Bronx, New York per Emergency Use Authorization criteria. Increasing posttreatment hospitalizations were observed monthly between December 2020 and March 2021 in parallel to the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variants in New York City., Graphical Abstract

Background Infection is a leading cause of admission to intensive care units (ICUs), with critically ill patients often receiving empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics. Nevertheless, a dedicated infectious diseases (ID) consultation and stewardship team is not routinely established. An ID–critical care medicine (ID-CCM) pilot program was designed at a 400-bed tertiary care hospital in which an ID attending was assigned to participate in daily rounds with the ICU team, as well as provide ID consultation on select patients. We sought to evaluate the impact of this dedicated ID program on antibiotic utilization and clinical outcomes in patients admitted to the ICU. Methods In this single-site retrospective study, we analyzed antibiotic utilization and clinical outcomes in patients admitted to an ICU during the postintervention period from January 1 to December 31, 2017, and compared it to antibiotic utilization in the same ICUs during the preintervention period from January 1 to December 31, 2015. Results Our data showed a statistically significant reduction in usage of most frequently prescribed antibiotics including vancomycin, piperacillin-tazobactam, and cefepime during the intervention period. When compared to the preintervention period there was no difference in-hospital mortality, hospital length of stay, and readmission. Conclusions With this multidisciplinary intervention, we saw a decrease in the use of the most frequently prescribed broad-spectrum antibiotics without a negative impact on clinical outcomes. Our study shows that the implementation of an ID-CCM service is a feasible way to promote antibiotic stewardship in the ICU and can be used as a strategy to reduce unnecessary patient exposure to broad-spectrum agents.

Background Monoclonal antibodies were given emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of high-risk, outpatient COVID-19 infection. In New York City (NYC), the emergence and rapid growth of the B.1.526 variant of concern (VOC) possessing the E484K mutation was first noted in February 2021. In-vitro studies subsequently confirmed attenuated monoclonal antibody neutralization against VOCs. At our institution, bamlanivimab (BAM) alone or with etesevimab (B/E) and casirivimab/imdevimab (C/I) were utilized at different phases of the pandemic. The objective of this study was to assess their comparative efficacies in a highly variant prevalent setting. Methods This retrospective analysis was conducted at an urban hospital in the Bronx, NY and evaluated adult monoclonal antibody recipients from any of our infusion sites. Patients initially received BAM but given the high prevalence of variants, treatment was transitioned to first B/E and then C/I exclusively. We compared BAM versus combination therapy as well as B/E versus C/I individually. The primary outcome was all-cause hospital admission within 30 days post infusion. Results From February 1 to March 7, 2021, 358 patients received BAM and from March 17 to May 9, 2021, 86 and 179 patients received B/E and C/I, respectively. Compared to any combination infusion, patients who received BAM were significantly older, more likely to possess ≥ 2 qualifying EUA criteria, and less likely to be vaccinated for COVID-19 prior to infusion (Table 1). Following B/E and C/I, 4.5% of patients were admitted versus 10.1% for BAM, p=0.011. There were no significant differences in admission between B/E and C/I recipients, p=0.485. After excluding fully vaccinated patients (n=14) and adjusting for age and ≥ 2 EUA criteria, combination therapy remained associated with decreased odds of hospitalization compared to BAM (odds ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.94). Conclusion Combination therapy may be associated with fewer hospital admissions following infusion, although there were no statistically significant differences between the individual combination infusions. We suggest similar studies be conducted by other sites to understand the clinical impact of local SARS-CoV-2 variants on antibody efficacy. Disclosures Yi Guo, PharmD, BCIDP, Merck (Research Grant or Support) Kelsie Cowman, MPH, Merck (Research Grant or Support) Priya Nori, MD, Merck (Grant/Research Support) Priya Nori, MD, Nothing to disclose

Background The 2018 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) C. difficile infection (CDI) treatment guideline no longer recommends metronidazole as first-line therapy in adults, instead recommending vancomycin or fidaxomicin. At our 1500-bed academic medical center, a new CDI treatment protocol was initiated by the antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) to guide treatment based on disease severity and risk factors for recurrence. In this study, we compared the clinical cure rate and 30-day recurrence rate in patients who are adherent and non-adherent to our institutional CDI treatment protocol. Methods Patients with CDI between September-December 2018 were identified using electronic health record (EHR) reports. A retrospective chart review was conducted to collect the following information: baseline demographics, white blood cell count, CDI severity, and risk factors, etc. Outcome measures included clinical cure rate, 30-day recurrence rate, and global cure rate, stratified by whether treatment was adherent or non-adherent to institutional protocol. Student’s t-test was used for continuous variables. Fisher exact test or Chi-square test was used for categorical variables. Results A total of 188 patients (adherent group n = 100; non-adherent group n = 88) were included. Patient demographics and baseline risk factors did not differ between groups. Clinical cure rate was higher in adherent group (P < 0.05), while no significant differences were observed in recurrence and global cure rates between the two groups (Figure 1). The overall protocol adherence rate was 53%. The most common reasons for non-adherence are inappropriate vancomycin dose for fulminant CDI (69%) and insufficient duration of treatment (27%). Conclusion An ASP directed new CDI treatment protocol was successfully implemented at our institution. Patients treated according to our institutional protocol resulted in a higher overall cure rate than those non-adherent. Global cure and 30-day recurrence rates were similar. An overall protocol adherence rate of 53% is consistent with previously published literature. Future direction to develop an EHR order set with targeted recommendations is anticipated to further improve adherence and clinical outcomes. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Background The National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) provides risk-adjusted Standardized Antimicrobial Administration Ratios (SAAR) as a benchmark for medical and surgical intensive care units (ICU). Antibiotic use (AU) data does not provide patient-level information (e.g., antibiotic appropriateness, indications, durations, etc.). However, we hypothesize that AU data can help define high impact stewardship targets, particularly in the context of critical care Clostridioides difficile rates. Methods Units with high rates of AU and hospital-onset (HO) C. difficile were selected for review. A monthly AU and C. difficile dashboard was created for ICU providers, inclusive of data from May 2018 onwards. We also performed chart audits for indication, duration, and location of initiation for all medical intensive care unit (MICU) patients receiving piperacillin/tazobactam (P/T) or vancomycin (Van) during February 2019 per request of ICU stakeholders. Data were used to obtain stewardship buy-in from local MICU champions. Results AU data indicated that (1) all 3 MICUs consistently had SAARs >1 for broad-spectrum categories and (2) Van and P/T were the highest volume agents on these units (Figure 1). Chart audit of 135 MICU patients showed that 17 patients received P/T, 34 Van, and 84 (62%) both agents; median duration was 2 days for Van and 3 days for P/T (Figure 2). Approximately half of initiations occurred in the emergency department (ED) (50% Van, 47% P/T); most common indications were “respiratory tract infection” and “severe sepsis/septic shock” for both P/T (77%) and Van (74%) (Figure 2). HO C. difficile in MICUs accounted for 6%, 13%, and 16% of total HO C. difficile cases in campuses A, B, and C, respectively during the time frame (Figure 1). Conclusion We feel that NHSN data scratches the surface of the deep-rooted challenges of ICU stewardship. However, it can identify AU trends and most frequently prescribed antibiotics in the context of unit-specific C. difficile rates. Intensive stewardship audit can further uncover areas for intervention, such as ED Van and P/T overprescribing. We suggest presenting clinical stakeholders with a quarterly “stewardship dashboard” combining AU rates, patient-level data, and C. difficile rates to maximize the impact of stewardship endeavors. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Background Infection is a leading cause of admission to intensive care units (ICU), with critically ill patients often receiving a high volume of empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics. Nevertheless, a dedicated infectious diseases (ID) consultation and stewardship team is not routinely implemented. An ID-Critical Care Medicine (ID-CCM) pilot program was designed at a large tertiary hospital in which an ID attending was assigned to participate in daily rounds with the ICU team, as well as provide an ID consult on select patients. We sought to evaluate the impact of this dedicated ID consultation and stewardship program on antibiotic utilization in the ICU. Methods This is an IRB-approved single-site retrospective study. We analyzed antibiotic utilization in the ICU during the post-intervention period from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 and compared it to antibiotic utilization in the same ICU during the pre-intervention period from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015. Using Poisson regression analysis, we evaluated antibiotic utilization of each agent, expressed as days of therapy (DOT) per 1,000 patient-days, between the two groups. Results The six most commonly used broad-spectrum antibiotic agents were included in the final analysis. During the intervention period, statistically significant reductions were seen in cefepime (131 vs. 101 DOT per 1,000 patient-days, P = 0.01), piperacillin-tazobactam (268 vs. 251 DOT per 1,000 patient-days, P = 0.02) and vancomycin (265 vs. 228 DOT per 1,000 patient-days, P = 0.01). The utilization of other antibiotics including daptomycin, linezolid, and meropenem did not differ significantly (Figure 1). Conclusion With this multidisciplinary intervention, we saw a decrease in the use of the most frequently administered broad-spectrum antibiotics. Our study shows that the implementation of an ID-CCM service is a feasible way to promote antibiotic stewardship in the ICU and can be used as a strategy to reduce unnecessary patient exposure to broad-spectrum agents. Disclosures All Authors: No reported Disclosures.