Search

BackgroundCeftriaxone-resistant (CRO-R) Escherichia coli bloodstream infections (BSIs) are common.MethodsThis is a prospective cohort of patients with E coli BSI at 14 United States hospitals between November 2020 and April 2021. For each patient with a CRO-R E coli BSI enrolled, the next consecutive patient with a ceftriaxone-susceptible (CRO-S) E coli BSI was included. Primary outcome was desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) at day 30, with 50% probability of worse outcomes in the CRO-R group as the null hypothesis. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to reduce confounding.ResultsNotable differences between patients infected with CRO-R and CRO-S E coli BSI included the proportion with Pitt bacteremia score ≥4 (23% vs 15%, P = .079) and the median time to active antibiotic therapy (12 hours [interquartile range {IQR}, 1-35 hours] vs 1 hour [IQR, 0-6 hours]; P < .001). Unadjusted DOOR analyses indicated a 58% probability (95% confidence interval [CI], 52%-63%) for a worse clinical outcome in CRO-R versus CRO-S BSI. In the IPW-adjusted cohort, no difference was observed (54% [95% CI, 47%-61%]). Secondary outcomes included unadjusted and adjusted differences in the proportion of 30-day mortality between CRO-R and CRO-S BSIs (-5.3% [95% CI, -10.3% to -.4%] and -1.8 [95% CI, -6.7% to 3.2%], respectively), postculture median length of stay (8 days [IQR, 5-13 days] vs 6 days [IQR, 4-9 days]; P < .001), and incident admission to a long-term care facility (22% vs 12%, P = .045).ConclusionsPatients with CRO-R E coli BSI generally have poorer outcomes compared to patients infected with CRO-S E coli BSI, even after adjusting for important confounders.

BackgroundIn November 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provided Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for 2 novel virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibody therapies, bamlanivimab and REGN-COV2 (casirivimab plus imdevimab), for the treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adolescents and adults in specified high-risk groups. This has challenged clinicians to determine the best approach to use of these products.MethodsA panel of experts in pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric infectious diseases pharmacy, pediatric intensive care medicine, and pediatric hematology from 29 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a guidance statement was developed and refined based on review of the best available evidence and expert opinion.ResultsThe course of COVID-19 in children and adolescents is typically mild and there is no high-quality evidence supporting any high-risk groups. There is no evidence for safety and efficacy of monoclonal antibody therapy for treatment of COVID-19 in children or adolescents, limited evidence of modest benefit in adults, and evidence for potential harm associated with infusion reactions or anaphylaxis.ConclusionsBased on evidence available as of December 20, 2020, the panel suggests against routine administration of monoclonal antibody therapy (bamlanivimab, or casirivimab and imdevimab), for treatment of COVID-19 in children or adolescents, including those designated by the FDA as at high risk of progression to hospitalization or severe disease. Clinicians and health systems choosing to use these agents on an individualized basis should consider risk factors supported by pediatric-specific evidence and ensure the implementation of a system for safe and timely administration that does not exacerbate existing healthcare disparities.

Clinical trials that compare strategies to optimize antibiotic use are of critical importance but are limited by competing risks that distort outcome interpretation, complexities of noninferiority trials, large sample sizes, and inadequate evaluation of benefits and harms at the patient level. The Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group strives to overcome these challenges through innovative trial design. Response adjusted for duration of antibiotic risk (RADAR) is a novel methodology utilizing a superiority design and a 2-step process: (1) categorizing patients into an overall clinical outcome (based on benefits and harms), and (2) ranking patients with respect to a desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR). DOORs are constructed by assigning higher ranks to patients with (1) better overall clinical outcomes and (2) shorter durations of antibiotic use for similar overall clinical outcomes. DOOR distributions are compared between antibiotic use strategies. The probability that a randomly selected patient will have a better DOOR if assigned to the new strategy is estimated. DOOR/RADAR represents a new paradigm in assessing the risks and benefits of new strategies to optimize antibiotic use.

Legislation aimed at controlling antimicrobial-resistant pathogens through the use of active surveillance cultures to screen hospitalized patients has been introduced in at least 2 US states. In response to the proposed legislation, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc., (APIC) have developed this joint position statement. Both organizations are dedicated to combating health care-associated infections with a wide array of methods, including the use of active surveillance cultures in appropriate circumstances. This position statement reviews the proposed legislation and the rationale for use of active surveillance cultures, examines the scientific evidence supporting the use of this strategy, and discusses a number of unresolved issues surrounding legislation mandating use of active surveillance cultures. The following 5 consensus points are offered. (1) Although reducing the burden of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), is of preeminent importance, the APIC and the SHEA do not support legislation to mandate use of active surveillance cultures to screen for MRSA, VRE, or other antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. (2) The SHEA and the APIC support the continued development, validation, and application of efficacious and cost-effective strategies for the prevention of infections caused by MRSA, VRE, and other antimicrobial-resistant and antimicrobial-susceptible pathogens. (3) The APIC and the SHEA welcome efforts by health care consumers, together with private, local, state, and federal policy makers, to focus attention on and formulate solutions for the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance and health care-associated infections. (4) The SHEA and the APIC support ongoing additional research to determine and optimize the appropriateness, utility, feasibility, and

Legislation aimed at controlling antimicrobial-resistant pathogens through the use of active surveillance cultures to screen hospitalized patients has been introduced in at least 2 US states. In response to the proposed legislation, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc., (APIC) have developed this joint position statement. Both organizations are dedicated to combating health care-associated infections with a wide array of methods, including the use of active surveillance cultures in appropriate circumstances. This position statement reviews the proposed legislation and the rationale for use of active surveillance cultures, examines the scientific evidence supporting the use of this strategy, and discusses a number of unresolved issues surrounding legislation mandating use of active surveillance cultures. The following 5 consensus points are offered. (1) Although reducing the burden of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), is of preeminent importance, the APIC and the SHEA do not support legislation to mandate use of active surveillance cultures to screen for MRSA, VRE, or other antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. (2) The SHEA and the APIC support the continued development, validation, and application of efficacious and cost-effective strategies for the prevention of infections caused by MRSA, VRE, and other antimicrobial-resistant and antimicrobial-susceptible pathogens. (3) The APIC and the SHEA welcome efforts by health care consumers, together with private, local, state, and federal policy makers, to focus attention on and formulate solutions for the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance and health care-associated infections. (4) The SHEA and the APIC support ongoing additional research to determine and optimize the appropriateness, utility, feasibility, and