Search

Background Eravacycline (ERV) is approved in the United States (US) for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections in adults. We aimed to evaluate the independent predictors of clinical success in patients treated with ERV for various infections. Methods Multicenter, retrospective, observational study conducted from September, 2018 to April, 2021. We included adults treated with ERV for ≥ 72hours. Clinical success was defined as 30-day survival, lack of 30-day infection-recurrence, and resolution of infection signs/symptoms. All outcomes were measured from ERV initiation. Multivariable logistic regression (MLR) was performed to identify independent predictors of clinical success. Clinically relevant variables were selected for model entry based on bivariate comparisons (P< 0.2) in a backward fashion. Results We included 223 patients from 16 medical centers in 13 geographically unique states. The median (IQR) age was 61 (50-69) years, 57% were male and 62% were Caucasian. Median (IQR) APACHE II, and Charlson Comorbidity scores were 15 (10-21), and 3 (1-5), respectively. Sources of infection were primarily intra-abdominal (27%) and respiratory (27%). Common pathogens included Acinetobacter baumannii (21%) and those of the Enterobacterales order (36%). Infectious diseases consultation and surgical interventions were obtained in 93.7% and 52% respectively. Clinical success occurred in 64%, specifically 30-day survival in 78%, absence of 30-day infection-recurrence in 93%, and 74% experienced resolution of infection signs/symptoms. Since characteristics and outcomes were similar among various pathogens, MLR was conducted using the overall cohort. Skin as a source and combination therapy with ERV were independently associated with higher clinical success: odds ratio 3.3 [CI 1.1-10.2] and 2.9 [1.4-5.9], respectively. Whereas, ICU admission at culture time and undergoing surgery within 30 days of culture were independently associated with reduced odds of clinical success: 0.4 [0.17-0.80] and 0.3 [0.11-0.63] respectively. Conclusion Although most ERV treated patients experienced clinical success, factors independently associated with higher clinical success are crucial to consider for optimum antibiotic selection. Disclosures Kimberly C. Claeys, PharmD, GenMark (Speaker’s Bureau) Madeline King, PharmD, tetraphase (Speaker’s Bureau) Michael P. Veve, Pharm.D., Cumberland (Grant/Research Support)Paratek Pharmaceuticals (Research Grant or Support) Bruce M. Jones, PharmD, BCPS, Abbvie (Consultant, Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau)La Jolla (Speaker’s Bureau)Melinta (Consultant)Merck (Consultant)Paratek (Consultant, Speaker’s Bureau) Susan L. Davis, PharmD, Nothing to disclose Michael J. Rybak, PharmD, MPH, PhD, Paratek Pharmaceuticals (Research Grant or Support)

Background Eravacycline (ERV) is Food and Drug Administration approved in patients for the treatment of adults complicated intra-abdominal infections in 2018. Real-world data regarding the indications for ERV use are is limited. We evaluated the clinical/safety outcomes of patients treated with ERV in FDA and non-FDA approved indications. Methods Multicenter, retrospective, observational study from September 2018 to June 2020. Adult patients treated with ERV for ³ 72 hours were included. The primary outcome was 30-day survival. Secondary outcomes included a lack of 30-day infection-recurrence, resolution of signs/symptoms of infection and safety. All outcomes were measured from ERV start date. Results Overall, 108 patients were included from 12 geographically-distinct medical centers across the United States. The median(IQR) age was 60(52-67) years and 60% were male. Median(IQR) APACHE II and Charlson Comorbidity scores were 15(11-21) and 3 (2-6), respectively. The most common sources of infection were intra-abdominal (32%), and respiratory (24%). Common pathogens included Acinetobacter baumannii (19%), Klebsiella pneumoniae and Enterococcus faecium (16%). Infectious diseases consultation was obtained in 98%, and surgical interventions in 51% of cases. Patients often received active therapy prior to ERV(40%). Median(IQR) ERV therapy duration was 7.7(4.4-14.0) days. Among cases with documented cultures, ERV was initiated within a median(IQR) of 4.8(2.5-9.9) days. Combination therapy ³ 48 hours was given in 45%. The primary endpoint was achieved in 79%(85/108). Of patients who died(n=23), 57% were on monotherapy, 39% were critically ill, 39% had intra-abdominal as a source, and 30% had positive blood cultures. For secondary outcomes, 94%(102/108) lacked 30-day infection-recurrence and 74%(80/108) resolved signs/symptoms of infection. ERV was selected primarily for consolidation of the regimen(40%). Eight patients experienced a probable ERV-related adverse event, mainly gastrointestinal(87.5%) and none experienced clostridium difficile. Conclusion 30-day survival was achieved in the majority of patients treated with ERV. Studies with longer follow-up are required to confirm these findings. Disclosures Madeline King, PharmD, Tetraphase (Speaker’s Bureau) Bruce M. Jones, PharmD, BCPS, ALK-Abello (Research Grant or Support)Allergan/Abbvie (Speaker’s Bureau) Michael J. Rybak, PharmD, MPH, PhD, Paratek (Grant/Research Support)

Background Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) are a frequent cause of emergency department (ED) visits. Providers in the ED have many decisions to make during the initial treatment of ABSSSI. There are limited data on the patient factors that influence these provider decisions. Methods An anonymous survey was administered to providers at 6 EDs across the United States. The survey presented patient cases with ABSSSIs ≥75 cm2 and escalating clinical scenarios including relapse, controlled diabetes, and sepsis. For each case, participants were queried on their decision for admission vs discharge and antibiotic therapy (intravenous, oral, or both) and to rank the factors that influenced their antibiotic decision. Results The survey was completed by 130 providers. For simple ABSSSI, the majority of providers chose an oral antibiotic and discharged patients home. The presence of recurrence or controlled diabetes resulted in more variation in responses. Thirty-four (40%) and 51 (60%) providers chose intravenous followed by oral antibiotics and discharged the recurrence and diabetes cases, respectively. Presentation with sepsis resulted in initiation with intravenous antibiotics (122, 95.3%) and admission (125, 96.1%) in most responses. Conclusions Variability in responses to certain patient scenarios suggests opportunities for education of providers in the ED and the development of an ABSSSI clinical pathway to help guide treatment.

Background Reducing hospital admission and improving transitions of care can lessen the burden of ABSSSIs in EDs and hospitals. Limited research to date has assessed the patient’s preference for ABSSSI treatment. Understanding patient preferences may provide insights that encourage optimal treatment plans and improve satisfaction with their care. Methods A patient survey was conducted across 5 hospital EDs in the US. After providing informed consent, patients with ABSSSI completed a baseline survey assessing their ABSSSI history and preferences for antibiotic (ABX) therapy [intravenous (IV) vs. oral] and treatment location. Patient characteristics and ensuing treatment details were collected from the medical record after the ED or hospitalization was completed. Descriptive statistics were used for analyses. Results Seventy-one patients were enrolled and completed the baseline survey. The mean ± SD age was 50 ± 17 years, 22 (31%) had diabetes, and 47 (66.2%) had a previous ABSSSI. The median (25th-75th quartile) lesion size was 190 (53-613) cm2; 51 (71.8%) presented with cellulitis, an abscess, or both. Fifty-four (76.1%) were admitted to the hospital with a median (25th-75thquartile) length of stay of 4.5 (2-9) days. In the ED, vancomycin (39.4%) and β-lactams (36.6%) were the most common ABX; IV was prescribed in 58/63 (92.1%) patients. Once admitted, 37 (68.5%) and 34 (63%) patients received vancomycin and β-lactams, respectively. When surveyed, 26 (36.6%) patients preferred to receive ABX at home, while 22 (31.0%) chose hospital stay for one or more nights. The most common ABX preference was a single IV dose to complete treatment, selected by 29 (40.8%) patients. The most important ABX factors were efficacy and their doctor’s opinion, then convenience and route of administration; least important were treatment location, adverse events, and cost. Conclusion In these patients presenting to the ED with ABSSSI, the majority were admitted to the hospital and received IV ABX. Patient preferences for treatment location varied, but many valued therapies that could prevent admission. These data suggest opportunities for improving ABSSSI care by engaging the patient and offering treatment alternatives they may not be aware of. Disclosures K. R. Keyloun, Allergan: Employee, Salary. D. P. Nicolau, Allergan: Grant Investigator, Scientific Advisor and Speaker’s Bureau, Consulting fee, Research grant and Speaker honorarium. J. L. Kuti, Allergan: Grant Investigator, Investigator, Scientific Advisor and Speaker’s Bureau, Consulting fee, Research grant and Speaker honorarium

Background ABSSSI are a frequent cause of emergency room visits. Physicians (PHY) and Advanced Practice Providers (APP) have many decisions to make during the initial treatment of ABSSSI, including intravenous (IV) vs. oral (PO) ABX, and hospital admission vs. discharge home. There are limited data, however, on factors that influence the provider’s decision for the treatment of ABSSSI. Methods An anonymous survey was offered to EM providers at 5 hospitals across the US. The survey presented patient cases with ABSSSI ≥ 75cm2 and escalating clinical scenarios including relapse, controlled diabetes (DM), and SIRS. For each case, participants were queried on their decision for admission vs. discharge, ABX therapy (IV, PO, or both), and to rank factors that influenced their ABX decision. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used for analyses. Results Across the 5 hospitals, 104 providers completed the survey; 59 (56.7%) were PHY and 45 (43.3%) were APP. Experience was evenly represented with 50 (48.1%) providers practicing for ≥5 years and 54 (51.9%) less than 5 years. For the first case with no relapse, DM, or SIRS, most providers selected PO ABX [95 (91.4%)] and discharge [100 (96.2%)]. In case 2, the presence of relapse resulted in PO ABX for 50 (48.1%) and discharge in 54 (51.9%) of responses. In case 3, the presence of controlled DM resulted in PO ABX for 55 (53.4%) and discharge home in 65 (63.1%) of responses. Four (3.8%) and 13 (12.5%) providers chose to give 1–2 IV doses followed by PO and discharge the relapsed and DM cases, respectively. Compared with APP, PHY more frequently prescribed PO ABX for the DM case (62.7% vs. 40.9%, P = 0.046) and incorporated PO ABX into the treatment of the SIRS case (48.3% vs. 22.7%, P = 0.015). The addition of SIRS criteria in case 4 resulted in initiation with IV ABX [97 (95.1%)] and admission [100 (96.2%)]. The highest ranked factors influencing ABX selection were infection severity and co-morbidities; the lowest were patient convenience, adverse events, and cost. Conclusion These data highlight factors influencing EM provider decisions in the treatment of ABSSSI. Variability in responses to patient cases suggests opportunities for education and the development of an ABSSSI clinical pathway to guide treatment. Disclosures K. R. Keyloun, Allergan: Employee, Salary. D. P. Nicolau, Allergan: Grant Investigator, Scientific Advisor and Speaker’s Bureau, Consulting fee, Research grant and Speaker honorarium. J. L. Kuti, Allergan: Grant Investigator, Investigator, Scientific Advisor and Speaker’s Bureau, Consulting fee, Research grant and Speaker honorarium