Search

Objective: To evaluate the need for mandatory infectious diseases consultation (IDC) for candidemia in the setting of antimicrobial stewardship guidance. Design: Retrospective cohort study from January 2016 to December 2019. Setting: Academic quaternary-care referral center. Patients: All episodes of candidemia in adults (n = 92), excluding concurrent bacterial infection or death or hospice care within 48 hours. Methods: Primary outcome was all-cause 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included guideline-adherence and treatment choice. Guideline-adherence was assessed with the EQUAL Candida score. Results: Of 186 episodes of candidemia, 92 episodes in 88 patients were included. Central venous catheters (CVCs) were present in 66 episodes (71.7%) and were the most common infection source (N = 38, 41.3%). The most frequently isolated species was Candida glabrata (40 of 94, 42.6%). IDC was performed in 84 (91.3%) of 92 candidemia episodes. Mortality rates were 20.8% (16 of 77) in the IDC group versus 25% (2 of 8) in the no-IDC group (P = .67). Other comparisons were numerically different but not significant: repeat blood culture (98.8% vs 87.5%; P = .17), echocardiography (70.2% vs 50%; P = .26), CVC removal (91.7% vs 83.3%; P = .45), and initial echinocandin treatment (67.9% vs 50%; P = .44). IDC resulted in more ophthalmology examinations (67.9% vs 12.5%; P = .0035). All patients received antifungal therapy. Antimicrobial stewardship recommendations were performed in 19 episodes (20.7%). The median EQUAL Candida score with CVC was higher with IDC (16 vs 11; P = .001) but not in episodes without CVC (12 vs 11.5; P = .81). Conclusions: In the setting of an active antimicrobial stewardship program and high consultation rates, mandatory IDC may not be warranted for candidemia.

Objective To describe the protocol of a statewide educational program for healthcare professionals (HCP) addressing COVID-19 disparities using quality improvement (QI) approach. Intervention A 19-month program to educate HCP has been developed in the priority areas of health equity, cultural sensitivity, infection prevention and control (IPC), and QI to address COVID-19 disparities. Method This innovative approach combines the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHOTM) model of learning with one-on-one coaching to assist participants with practical application. Participants are a diverse group of HCP and stakeholders working in healthcare and public health organizations. Participants meet twice monthly for 90-minute virtual interactive sessions led by subject matter experts and project consultants. The sessions are divided into didactic presentations, case discussions, COVID-19 updates, and pre/post-session assessments, and are eligible for continuing education credits. Participants are supported to develop a QI project addressing an area for health disparities in their work setting under the guidance of QI and health equity coaches. Using the RE-AIM framework, a mixed-mode approach is used to collect quantitative data on continuing education credit claims, participants’ characteristics, participation, satisfaction, and learning competence. Semi-structured qualitative interviews are used to gain insights into participants’ application of ECHO training and the project's impact on their competence and plan to implement relevant changes using QI approach. Conclusion The ECHO model has significant strengths based on its multidisciplinary approach and case-based learning that help interlinks priority areas to uniquely address COVID-19 disparities. Disseminating protocol for this novel intervention has the potential to generate additional projects addressing health disparities using this educational platform.

Background Simulation is a useful education tool for high-stakes clinical skills and decision-making. Recommending whether to accept or reject an organ for transplantation based on infection risk is a critical core competency in Transplant Infectious Disease (ID), however there are no published data that learners have opportunities to practice this during training. We created a novel simulation to expose learners to this real-life clinical scenario and evaluated their clinical decision-making in these situations. Methods We created 6 simulations with common ID consult questions about whether to accept or reject an organ for transplant based on infection risk (Table 1). During learners’ Transplant ID rotations, faculty periodically texted or paged them with the simulation cases as though they were the transplant coordinator. Learners had 15 minutes to ask follow up questions before deciding to accept or reject the organ and explain their decision-making process in a survey. Learners completed a survey 1 month after the simulation experience to evaluate its effectiveness. Results Between October 2021 and April 2022, 16 learners from 7 medical centers participated in the simulation (Table 2) and 94% (15/16) completed the follow up survey. Eighty-seven percent (13/15) of ID learners reported that the simulation was effective in teaching them when to accept or reject organs and 80% (12/15) felt more prepared to make these decisions in practice. Most learners correctly identified acceptable organs for transplant during the simulations (Figure 1). Of the 100 clinical reasoning decisions made during the activity, 19% were discordant, where the learner correctly decided to accept or decline the organ but with incorrect or incomplete reasoning for this decision (Figure 2). Conclusion ID learners perceived our transplant ID simulation as an effective educational tool to learn when to accept or reject an organ for transplant. By evaluating the clinical reasoning behind these decisions our simulation provides ID educators with nuanced insight into their learners' thought process and allows for targeted coaching to correct deficits in reasoning. Disclosures Rebecca Kumar, MD, Gilead: Grant/Research Support|Regeneron: Grant/Research Support Jonathan Hand, MD, GlaxoSmithKline: Grant/Research Support|Janssen: Grant/Research Support|Pfizer: Grant/Research Support Roderick Go, DO, Aptose Biosciences: Stocks/Bonds|Bristol Meyers Squibb: Stocks/Bonds|Cytodyn Inc.: Stocks/Bonds|Scynexis: Grant/Research Support Erica J. Stohs, MD, MPH, bioMerieux: Grant/Research Support.

Background Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe pneumonia are commonly treated for secondary bacterial pneumonia. The Biofire pneumonia panel, a rapid molecular diagnostic tool with 18 bacterial, 8 viral and 7 resistance gene targets, was made available to critical care and infectious disease clinicians in May 2020 at our institution. We sought to describe its utilization and influence on antibiotic use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). Methods Eligible patients with COVID-19 LRTI (positive PCR test and abnormal chest imaging) had sputum or bronchoalveolar lavage pneumonia panel (PNP) paired with a respiratory tract culture between May 4 and Dec. 8, 2020, were included. Demographics, comorbidities, clinical data including microbiologic testing, PNP indication(s), and antibiotic use after testing were abstracted through chart review. Descriptive statistics were utilized. Results Characteristics of 133 patients are provided in Table 1. Median age was 61 years, 93 (70%) were male, 93 (70%) were mechanically ventilated, and 68 (51%) died within 30 days on PNP testing. PNP results, including culture results are listed in Table 2. No target was identified in 63 (47%) patients. Staphylococcus aureus was the most common bacterial isolate identified (MSSA in 32 [24%], MRSA in 8 [6%]) with culture growth in 21 specimens. More than 1 target was identified in 29 patients (22%). Empiric antibiotics and subsequent modifications within 24h hours of pneumonia panel are provided in Table 3. Vancomycin and cefepime were most frequently prescribed. Antibiotic modifications were made in 71/133 patients. Cessation of the anti-MRSA agent occurred in 39/72 (54%) of eligible patients and the anti-Pseudomonal agent in 21/78 (27%). Conclusion The PNP is a useful tool to evaluate secondary bacterial pneumonia in critically ill COVID-19 patients and may assist clinicians and antimicrobial stewardship programs in expedited antibiotic discontinuation or de-escalation particularly where rates of secondary bacterial infection are low, such as COVID-19 LRTI. Disclosures Erica J. Stohs, MD, MPH, bioMerieux: Grant/Research Support Paul D. Fey, PhD, BioFire: Advisor/Consultant|BioFire: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Grant/Research Support Trevor C. Van Schooneveld, MD, bioMerieux: Advisor/Consultant|bioMerieux: Grant/Research Support|Insmed: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Grant/Research Support|Thermo-Fischer: Advisor/Consultant.

Beta-lactam allergies (BLAs) are common in hospitalized patients, including transplant recipients. BLA is associated with decreased use of preferred surgical site infection (SSI) prophylaxis and increased SSIs, but this has not been studied in the transplant population.We reviewed adult heart, kidney, and liver transplant recipients between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019 to characterize reported BLA and collect SSI prophylaxis regimens at time of transplant. We compared the use of preferred SSI prophylaxis and SSI incidence based on reported BLA status. Post hoc we collected antibiotic days of therapy (DOT) (excluding pneumocystis prophylaxis) in the 30-day period posttransplant for patients without SSI. We utilized descriptive statistics for comparisons.Of 691 patients included (116 heart, 400 kidney, and 175 liver transplant recipients), 118 (17%) reported BLA. Rash and hives were the two most reported BLA reactions (36% and 24%), categorized as potential T-cell mediated and IgE mediated, respectively. Preferred SSI prophylaxis was prescribed in 13 (11%) patients with BLA and 573 (92%) without BLA (p.001). No difference could be detected in SSI incidence between BLA and non-BLA patients (4.2 vs. 4.3%, p = 1.0). Of 659 without SSI, 169 (25.6%) received antibiotics within 30 days of transplant; mean antibiotic DOT for BLA and non-BLA patients were 3.5 ± 8.0 versus 2.3 ± 5.8, p = .12.BLA transplant recipients received nonpreferred SSI prophylaxis more frequently than non-BLA recipients, but there was no difference in 30-day SSIs between the groups. One-fourth of solid organ transplant recipients received systemic antibiotics within 30 days of transplant.

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common serious complication in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) requiring urgent evaluation and initiation of empiric broad spectrum antibiotics (BSA). The appropriate duration of BSA for FN in patients with negative cultures and no identifiable infection remains undefined. We retrospectively analyzed allogenic and autologous HSCT patients with FN and negative infectious work-up at our facility from 2012 to 2018. The early de-escalation group (EDG) included those who had BSA de-escalation to fluoroquinolone prophylaxis at least 24 h prior to absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovery after the patient was fever-free for at least 48 h. Among 297 patients undergoing their first HSCT who experienced FN with negative infectious work-up, 83 patients were de-escalated early with the remaining 214 in the standard of care group (SCG) whose BSA were continued until ANC was > 500. Duration of broad-spectrum antibiotics was shorter in EDG compared to SCG (3.86 days vs. 4.62 days, p = 0.03). Rates of mortality, new infections, and clinical decompensation requiring intensive care unit transfer and/or pressor use within 30 days were all similar between the two groups (0% vs. 0.4% p = 1.00, 0% vs. 1.4% p = 0.56, 13.2% vs. 8.4% p = 0.27). This indicates that it is safe to de-escalate antibiotics prior to ANC recovery, leading to less BSA exposure.

This review offers an approach to managing suspected invasive fungal infection (IFI) in a febrile neutropenic patient with hematologic malignancy or hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) while on mold-active prophylaxis. We take into consideration host characteristics, new diagnostic tools, and available therapeutics. Despite use of anti-Aspergillus prophylactic agents, invasive aspergillosis is the most commonly reported IFI breaking through common prophylactic agents including the newest azole, isavuconazole. While more fungal diagnostic modalities are available, how to best incorporate them in the work-up of IFI remains unclear, while sensitivity of any particular fungal biomarker or molecular test is low. In a febrile neutropenic patient with hematologic malignancy or HCT and suspected IFI, consider particularly invasive aspergillosis, regardless of the mold-active prophylactic agent. Early diagnosis and intervention are especially important to a favorable outcome; treatment is directed based on the suspected IFI syndrome and suspected organism. Switching azoles, consideration of combination therapy, and reducing immunosuppression are proposed strategies for the management of breakthrough IFI, while surgical debridement remains crucial for Mucormycoses. More study is needed into the optimal antifungal approach in these clinical scenarios. Meanwhile, therapeutic drug monitoring and attention to drug-drug interactions are encouraged.

Adenoviruses are an important cause of morbidity and mortality of solid organ transplant patients and remain a clinical challenge with regard to diagnosis and treatment. In this review, we provide an approach to identification and classification of adenovirus infection and disease, highlight risk factors, and outline management options for adenovirus disease in solid organ transplant patients.Additional clinical data and pathologic findings of adenovirus disease in different organs and transplant recipients are known. Unlike hematopoietic cell transplant recipients, adenovirus blood PCR surveillance and preemptive therapy is not supported in solid organ transplantation. Strategies for management of adenovirus disease continue to evolve with newer antivirals, such as brincidofovir and adjunctive immunotherapies, but more studies are needed to support their use.Distinguishing between adenovirus infection and disease is an important aspect in adenovirus management as treatment is warranted only in symptomatic solid organ transplant patients. Supportive care and decreasing immunosuppression remain the mainstays of management. Cidofovir remains the antiviral of choice for severe or disseminated disease. Given its significant nephrotoxic effect, administration of probenecid and isotonic saline precidofovir and postcidofovir infusion is recommended.

Background Candidemia is the second most common cause of healthcare-associated bloodstream infections in the US with mortality of approximately 25%. Studies demonstrate lower candidemia mortality with infectious diseases consultation (IDC). We evaluated effects of IDC on mortality and guideline-adherence at our institution to determine if mandatory IDC was warranted. Methods We retrospectively reviewed adults hospitalized with candidemia (≥ 1 blood culture positive for Candida) between 1/1/2016-12/31/2019. Exclusion criteria included age < 19 years, polymicrobial blood culture, or death or hospice within 48 hours. Primary outcome was all-cause 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included guideline-adherence and treatment choice. Guideline-adherence was assessed with a modified EQUAL Candida score (Table 1). Descriptive statistics were performed. Table 1. Original vs Modified EQUAL Candida Score Abbreviations. CVC: central venous catheter, BCx: blood culture Results Of 187 patients reviewed, 92 episodes of candidemia with 94 species of Candida were included. Patient characteristics are shown in Table 2. Central venous catheters (CVCs) were present in 66 (71.7%) patients and were the most common infection source (N=38 [41.3%]) followed by intra-abdominal (N=23 [25%]). The most isolated species were Candida glabrata (40/94 [42.6%]) and C. albicans/dublienensis (35/94 [37.2%]). 30-day mortality was 21.7%. IDC was performed in 84 (91.3%) cases. Outcomes are in Table 3. Mortality was not different between IDC vs no IDC (18 [21.4%] vs 2 [25%]); other comparisons were numerically different but not significant: repeat blood culture (98.8% vs 87.5%), echocardiography (70.2% vs 50%), CVC removal (91.7% vs 83.3%), and initial treatment echinocandin (67.9% vs 50%). All patients received antifungal therapy. IDC resulted in more ophthalmology consultations (77.4% vs 12.5%, p< 0.01). Mean modified EQUAL Candida score was higher with IDC (17.4 vs 13.9, p< 0.01). Table 2. Patient Characteristics Abbreviations. TPN: total parenteral nutrition, ICU: intensive care unit, AIDS: acquired immunodeficiency syndrome Table 3. Outcomes Abbreviations. NS: non-significant, CVC: central venous catheter Conclusion IDC was common in candidemic patients and not associated with significant differences in outcomes. Current antimicrobial stewardship and consultation practices at our center do not warrant mandated IDC for candidemia. Disclosures Trevor C. Van Schooneveld, MD, FACP, BioFire (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator; Insmed (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Scientific Research Study Investigator; Merck (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Scientific Research Study Investigator; Rebiotix (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Scientific Research Study Investigator

Patients pursuing solid organ transplantation are encouraged to receive many vaccines on an accelerated timeline. Vaccination prior to transplantation offers the best chance of developing immunity and may expand the pool of donor organs that candidates can accept without needing post-transplant therapy. Furthermore, transplant recipients are at greater risk for acquiring vaccine-preventable illnesses or succumbing to severe sequelae of such illnesses. However, a rising rate of vaccine refusal has challenged transplant centers to address the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy. Transplant centers may need to consider adopting a policy of denial of solid organ transplantation on the basis of vaccine refusal for non-medical reasons (i.e., philosophical or religious objections or personal beliefs that vaccines are unnecessary or unsafe). Arguments supporting such a policy are motivated by utility, stewardship, and beneficence. Arguments opposing such a policy emphasize justice and respect for persons, and seek to avoid worsening inequities or medical coercion. This paper examines these arguments and situates them within the special cases of pediatric transplantation, emergent transplantation, and living donation. Ultimately, a uniform national policy addressing vaccine refusal among transplant candidates is needed to resolve this ethical dilemma and establish a consistent, fair, and standard approach to vaccine refusal in transplantation.

Background No established guidelines exist regarding the role of oral antibiotic therapy (OAT) to treat uncomplicated bloodstream infections (uBSIs) and practices may vary depending on clinician specialty and experience. Methods An IRB-exempt web-based survey was emailed to Nebraska Medicine clinicians caring for hospitalized patients, and widely disseminated using social media. The survey was open access and once disseminated on social media, it was impossible to ascertain the total number of individuals who received the survey. Chi-squared analysis for categorical data was conducted to evaluate the association between responses and demographic groups. Results Of 275 survey responses, 51% were via social media, and 94% originated in the United States. Two-thirds of respondents were physicians, 16% pharmacists, and infectious diseases clinicians (IDC) represented 71% of respondents. The syndromes where most were comfortable using OAT routinely for uBSI were urinary tract infection (92%), pneumonia (82%), pyelonephritis (82%), and skin/soft tissue infections (69%). IDC were more comfortable routinely using OAT to treat uBSIs associated with vertebral osteomyelitis and prosthetic joint infections than non-infectious diseases clinicians (NIDC), but NIDC were more likely to report comfort with routine use of OAT to treat uBSIs associated with meningitis and skin/soft tissue infections. IDC were more likely to report comfort with routine use of OAT for uBSIs due to Enterobacteriaceae and gram-positive anaerobes, while NIDC were more likely to be comfortable with routinely using OAT to treat uBSIs associated with S. aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci and gram-positive bacilli. In one clinical vignette of S. aureus uBSI due to debrided abscess, 11% of IDC would be comfortable using OAT vs 28% of NIDC; IDC were more likely to report routinely repeating blood cultures (99% vs 83%, p< 0.05). Figure 1: Clinician comfort using oral antibiotic therapy to treat uncomplicated bacteremia due to specific syndromes Figure 2: Clinician comfort using oral antibiotic therapy to treat uncomplicated bacteremia due to specific organisms Conclusion Considerable variation in comfort using OAT for uBSIs among IDC vs NIDC exists, highlighting opportunities for IDC to continue to demonstrate their value in clinical practice. Understanding the reasons for variability may be helpful in creating best practice guidelines to standardize decision making. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Background Beta-lactam allergies (BLA) are common, but the prevalence and impact on solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients is largely unknown. We assessed the prevalence of BLA labels in SOT recipients at the time of transplant and evaluated their influence on surgical site infection (SSI) prophylaxis and SSI incidence. Methods All patients undergoing first heart, kidney, liver SOT at our institution were retrospectively reviewed (1/1/2015-12/31/2019). Antibiotic allergies, surgical antibiotic prophylaxis, and SSIs were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Reported BLA reactions were classified as potentially IgE-mediated, delayed, or non-allergic based on documentation. SSIs were reported according to NHSN definitions, and the incidence of SSI was compared between patients with and without reported BLA. SSI prophylaxis regimens were compared to institutional guidelines. Basic descriptive statistics were performed. Results Out of a total cohort of 751 patients (122 heart, 435 kidney, 209 liver, 4 multi-organ), 129 (17%) reported at least one BLA, with 104 (15%) with reactions to penicillins, 26 (3%) to cephalosporins, and 1 (0.1%) to carbapenems. Commonly reported reactions were rash (38%), hives (25%), and “other” (21%); 28% of documented reactions were not documented or classified as non-allergic. SSI developed in 7 (6.1%) of heart, 10 (2.5%) of kidney, and 16 (9.4%) of liver transplant recipients. Excluding 44 patients already on antibiotics for treatment of systemic infection, guideline concordant beta-lactam antibiotic surgical prophylaxis was administered to 6 (5.2%) of BLA group vs 490 (85.8%) in the non-BLA group (p< 0.01); among the BLA group who did not receive a beta-lactam, 96 (83%) received a regimen concordant with institutional guidelines for penicillin allergy and 14 (12%) received guideline non-adherent regimens. Patients reporting BLA did not have a higher incidence of SSIs compared to those without BLA: 6 (4.8%) vs 27 (4.5%) respectively, p=0.86. Conclusion BLA prevalence in our SOT population was similar to previously reported rates, but many reported reactions were not allergic in nature. Pre-transplant allergy evaluation for patients with reported BLA may improve SSI antibiotic prophylaxis compliance. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Background Sepsis disproportionately affects allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients and is challenging to define. Clinical criteria that predict mortality and intensive care unit end-points in patients with suspected infections (SIs) are used in sepsis definitions, but their predictive value among immunocompromised populations is largely unknown. Here, we evaluate 3 criteria among allogeneic HCT recipients with SIs. Methods We evaluated Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), and National Early Warning Score (NEWS) in relation to short-term mortality among recipients transplanted between September 2010 and July 2017. We used cut-points of ≥ 2 for qSOFA/SIRS and ≥ 7 for NEWS and restricted to first SI per hospital encounter during patients’ first 100 days posttransplant. Results Of the 880 recipients who experienced ≥ 1 SI, 58 (6.6%) died within 28 days and 22 (2.5%) within 10 days of an SI. In relation to 10-day mortality, SIRS was the most sensitive (91.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 72.0%–98.9%]) but least specific (35.0% [95% CI, 32.6%–37.5%]), whereas qSOFA was the most specific (90.5% [95% CI, 88.9%–91.9%]) but least sensitive (47.8% [95% CI, 26.8%–69.4%]). NEWS was moderately sensitive (78.3% [95% CI, 56.3%–92.5%]) and specific (70.2% [95% CI, 67.8%–72.4%]). Conclusions NEWS outperformed qSOFA and SIRS, but each criterion had low to moderate predictive accuracy, and the magnitude of the known limitations of qSOFA and SIRS was at least as large as in the general population. Our data suggest that population-specific criteria are needed for immunocompromised patients., Sepsis disproportionately affects hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients, but clinical criteria currently recommended in sepsis detection have not been validated in these patients. We demonstrate the limited predictive value of commonly used clinical criteria among HCT recipients with suspected infections.

Background Patients with reported β-lactam antibiotic allergies (BLAs) are more likely to receive broad-spectrum antibiotics and experience adverse outcomes. Data describing antibiotic allergies among solid organ transplant (SOT) and hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients are limited. Methods We reviewed records of adult SOT or allogeneic HCT recipients from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2017 to characterize reported antibiotic allergies at time of transplantation. Inpatient antibiotic use was examined for 100 days posttransplant. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) comparing antibiotic use in BLA and non-BLA groups were calculated using multivariable negative binomial models for 2 metrics: days of therapy (DOT) per 1000 inpatient days and percentage of antibiotic exposure-days. Results Among 2153 SOT (65%) and HCT (35%) recipients, 634 (29%) reported any antibiotic allergy and 347 (16%) reported BLAs. Inpatient antibiotics were administered to 2020 (94%) patients during the first 100 days posttransplantation; average antibiotic exposure was 41% of inpatient-days (interquartile range, 16.7%–62.5%). BLA patients had significantly higher DOT for vancomycin (IRR, 1.4 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.2–1.7]; P < .001), clindamycin (IRR, 7.6 [95% CI, 2.2–32.4]; P = .001), and aztreonam in HCT (IRR, 9.7 [95% CI, 3.3–35.0]; P < .001), and fluoroquinolones in SOT (IRR, 2.9 [95% CI, 2.1–4.0]; P < .001); these findings were consistent when using percentage of antibiotic exposure-days. Conclusions Transplant recipients are frequently exposed to antibiotics and have a high prevalence of reported antibiotic allergies. Reported BLA was associated with greater use of β-lactam antibiotic alternatives. Pretransplant antibiotic allergy evaluation may optimize antibiotic use in this population.

Background Outpatient antibiotic prescribing for acute upper respiratory infections (URIs) is a high-priority target for antimicrobial stewardship that has not been described for cancer patients. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients at an ambulatory cancer center with URI diagnoses from 1 October 2015 to 30 September 2016. We obtained antimicrobial prescribing, respiratory viral testing, and other clinical data at first encounter for the URI through day 14. We used generalized estimating equations to test associations of baseline factors with antibiotic prescribing. Results Of 341 charts reviewed, 251 (74%) patients were eligible for analysis. Nearly one-third (32%) of patients were prescribed antibiotics for URIs. Respiratory viruses were detected among 85 (75%) of 113 patients tested. Antibiotic prescribing (P = .001) and viral testing (P < .001) varied by clinical service. Sputum production or chest congestion was associated with higher risk of antibiotic prescribing (relative risk [RR], 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4–3.8; P < .001). Viral testing on day 0 was associated with lower risk of antibiotic prescribing (RR, 0.4; 95% CI 0.2–0.8; P = .01), though collinearity between viral testing and clinical service limited our ability to separate these effects on prescribing. Conclusions Nearly one-third of hematology–oncology outpatients were prescribed antibiotics for URIs, despite viral etiologies identified among 75% of those tested. Antibiotic prescribing was significantly lower among patients who received an initial respiratory viral test. The role of viral testing in antibiotic prescribing for URIs in outpatient oncology settings merits further study., Nearly one-third of hematology–oncology outpatients were prescribed antibiotics for upper respiratory infections (URIs), despite viral etiologies identified in 75% of patients tested. Antibiotic prescribing was significantly lower among patients who received a respiratory viral test and was not associated with subsequent upper respiratory infection-related healthcare visits.

Background Audit and feedback is a foundational approach used by antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) and has been our primary method for ASP intervention for over 7 years. We sought to evaluate and improve our ASP methods as well as identify barriers to effective antimicrobial management. Methods We distributed an online survey at our institution, to clinicians (prescribers and pharmacists). Results compared their perceptions of the ASP and barriers to antimicrobial stewardship. Descriptive statistics include counts and percentages for categorical variables. Fisher’s exact test was performed to describe the comparison groups for each survey response. We reviewed survey comments and categorized according to themes. Results We distributed the survey to 459 clinicians over 4 months with 110 surveys completed for a response rate of 24%. Prescribers comprised 77.3% of respondents. 74.5% of clinicians reported that antibiotic overuse is a problem at our institution. Prescribers were more likely to agree that conflicting priorities to core measures was a barrier to stewardship as well as disagree with current guidelines (P < 0.05) compared with pharmacists. Figure 1 demonstrates other barriers. Prescribers found ASP more helpful than pharmacists in antimicrobial dose adjustments (P < 0.05). Figure 2 demonstrates other scenarios where ASP provided input with varying degrees of perceived helpfulness. Pharmacists used the ASP website more than prescribers (P < 0.05). Text message and phone call were preferred methods of contact with prescribers favoring messages and pharmacists favoring phone calls. Clinicians infrequently used order-sets; Figure 3 demonstrates reasons for lack of use. 17.2% of participants commented about the ASP; of these, 42% were positive and 32% contained suggestions to improve communication and education. Comments are summarized in Figure 4. Conclusion Overall, clinicians agree that antimicrobial overuse is a concern at our institution. ASP is generally well received; however, after 7 years of operation, this survey shows that continued improvement is needed, notably in communication, education, and EMR order-sets. Results will be used to refine methods of effective communication and information delivery to nurture an effective relationship. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Background Antibiotic allergies impact the management of hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) patients who are often prescribed antibiotics for infection prophylaxis and treatment. We evaluated the feasibility and outcomes of an antibiotic allergy evaluation program prior to allogeneic HCT. Methods In August 2017, we implemented a program to expedite allergy clinic referrals for adult allogeneic HCT candidates who reported an antibiotic allergy at their initial pre-transplant evaluation visit (PTEV). Allergy labels and clinical data including outcomes of allergy evaluation were prospectively collected for patients with PTEVs between 8/10/17 and November 15/18. The use of selected antibiotics was collected in the 100 days following HCT among patients with a reported β-lactam allergy (BLA). Choice of prophylactic agent for Pneumocystis jiroveci among patients with reported sulfa allergies was assessed among HCT recipients after engraftment. Results Of 276 allogeneic HCT candidates, 109 (39.5%) reported >= 1 antibiotic allergy (Table 1). Of the 109, 69 (63%) were referred for allergy evaluation; 83% (57/69) of those referred were evaluated at a median of 14 days after PTEV, and a median of 18 days before transplant. Among evaluated patients, 45 (79%) had >= 1 antibiotic allergy de-labeled including 74% (28/38) of those with BLA (Figure 1). Of the 10 patients whose BLAs could not be delabeled, 1 had a possible immediate IgE-mediated reaction, 5 had a delayed type IV hypersensitivity, and 4 had other reactions or required additional testing. Post-transplant antibiotic use among evaluated vs. nonevaluated patients reporting BLA is shown in Figure 2. Among 31 patients with reported sulfa allergies who underwent HCT, those who were evaluated received TMP-SMX rather than alternative prophylaxis more often (48%; 11/23) than those who were not evaluated (25%; 2/8). 10 (43%) of 23 evaluated patients were delabeled; 7 of 10 delabeled patients received TMP-SMX. Conclusion Antibiotic allergies are frequently reported among HCT candidates. Pre-transplant antibiotic allergy evaluation was feasible, led to de-labeling of the majority of reported allergies, and may alter antibiotic prescribing and increase the use of preferred agents following transplant. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Background Patients with reported β-lactam antibiotic allergies (BLA) are more likely to receive broad-spectrum antibiotics and experience adverse outcomes. There are limited data on the burden of β-lactam and other antibiotic allergies among solid-organ transplant (SOT) and hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients. Methods We reviewed records of first-time adult SOT or allogeneic HCT recipients from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017 to characterize allergy labels at the time of transplant. Days of hospitalization and inpatient antibiotic use for pre-specified antimicrobials were collected for the first 100 days post-transplant, and incidence rate ratios (IRR) comparing BLA to non-BLA group were calculated using negative binomial models adjusted for transplant type, age, and diagnosis of cystic fibrosis as appropriate. If the adjusted estimates were significantly different for SOT and HCT recipients, separate models were presented. Results Among 2153 SOT (65%) and HCT (35%) recipients, 634 (29%) reported any antibiotic allergy and 347 (16%) reported BLAs (Figure 1). Of 634 patients with allergy labels, the most common were penicillins (40%), sulfa (29%), and cephalosporins (17%); 31% reported allergies to ≥2 classes of antibiotics. The most commonly reported reaction to β-lactams was rash (42%), followed by unknown (18%) and hives (17%). In a multivariable model (Table 1), patients with reported BLAs had significantly higher use of vancomycin (IRR 1.35 [95% CI 1.13, 1.60], P < 0.001) and significantly lower use of ampicillin-sulbactam (IRR 0.13 [0.05, 0.39], P < 0.001) and piperacillin–tazobactam (IRR 0.39 [0.25, 0.62], P < 0.001) compared with those without BLAs. For some antibiotics, the effect of BLA varied by SOT/HCT (Table 2). No significant differences in Clostridioides difficile infection or inpatient days were noted. Conclusion Transplant recipients have a high burden of reported antibiotic allergies, in particular BLAs. A BLA label was significantly associated with altered antibiotic prescribing in the early post-transplant period. Pre-transplant allergy evaluation may be helpful in directing antibiotic use following transplant as part of a comprehensive antibiotic stewardship program. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Background Isavuconazonium is an appealing anti-fungal due to its broad spectrum of activity, predictable pharmacokinetics, oral bioavailability, and lack of QTc prolongation, but real-world experience with it is limited. At our academic medical center, isavuconazonium is restricted to the infectious diseases (ID) service for treatment of invasive fungal infections, including endemic mycoses due to high prevalence, and is recommended for patients intolerant of first-line agents. The purpose of this study was to describe isavuconazonium use at our institution and assess adherence to its formulary guidelines. Methods Inpatients with an order for isavuconazonium between June 2016 and November 2018 were analyzed via retrospective chart review. Prescribing team, indication, and rationale for use were evaluated. Results There were 97 inpatient encounters with an isavuconazonium order among 57 patients. Of those, 30 were solid-organ transplants and 9 had bone marrow transplants. Indications for isavuconazonium were: histoplasmosis 25%, high-risk fungal prophylaxis 21%, invasive aspergillosis 9%, candidiasis 2%, and other 44% (Table 1). Preceding anti-fungal therapy included: voriconazole 49%, posaconazole 12%, fluconazole 9%, micafungin 7%, amphotericin B 5%, itraconazole 4%, and none 35%. The rationale for the use of isavuconazonium is described in Table 2. ID consultation occurred in 79% of patients. Those without a consult had an indication of prophylaxis or were continuation of therapy started outpatient or at an outside hospital (OSH). Conclusion Histoplasmosis was the most common infection treated with isavuconazonium, despite limited data for that indication. Further investigation of the clinical course for these patients is warranted. Reasons for use most commonly centered on concern for QTc prolongation, clinical failure, and drug interactions. Over one-third of patients received no anti-fungal therapy prior to initiation. Adherence to required ID consultation was high. Patients on isavuconazonium for prophylaxis or as continuation therapy without a consult may still benefit from ID review to assess the appropriateness of therapy. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Background Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common and serious complication in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). Typically, broad-spectrum antibiotics (BSA) are promptly initiated with controversy on timing of de-escalation. ECIL 2013 guidelines suggest de-escalation after 72 hours if the patient is infection free and afebrile for at least 48 hours. Conversely, the 2011 IDSA recommends continuing BSA in patients who defervesce until absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovery. In 2014, our center’s practice changed to early de-escalation and we sought to compare outcomes between the two practices. Methods We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent a HSCT in 2013 and 2017 with an episode of FN and negative infectious work up. The standard care group (SCG) were continued on BSA until ANC recovery. The early de-escalation group (EDG) de-escalated to fluoroquinolone prophylaxis at least 24 hours prior to ANC recovery after the patient was fever free for 48 hours. The primary end-point was duration of BSA. Secondary endpoints included 30-day mortality, re-hospitalization and length of stay (LOS) from FN. Median values were compared with the Mann–Whitney test. Results Among 229 HSCT patients, 155 (68%) developed FN post-transplant and of those 97 (63%) were without infection (13 EDG and 84 SCG). Initial FN duration of BSA was less in the EDG (3.09 days vs. 4.69 days, P = 0.069). Total antibiotic free days to 30 day follow-up were similar (EDG 24.08 vs SCG 25.19, P = 0.81). Duration of neutropenia was less in the SCG with 7.99 days compared with 11.69 days in the EDG (P = 0.007), but duration of initial fever was less in the EDG (2.55 days vs. 3.33 days, P = 0.023). 30 day mortality was 0% in both groups. Rates of re-hospitalization within 30 days were approximately the same (7.1% vs. 7.6%). LOS from FN was not significantly different with 6.68 days in SCG and 7.75 days in EDG (P = 0.140). More new bacterial infections were identified within 30 days of FN in the SCG than the EDG (10.7% vs. 7.6%). Conclusion Early BSA de-escalation resulted in no significant difference in LOS from FN and fewer days of BSA with 30-day mortality and re-hospitalization rates similar. This data suggest de-escalating BSA prior to ANC recovery is likely safe and leads to less BSA exposure, but more multi-center data are needed. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.