Search

Background Descriptions of changes in invasive bacterial disease (IBD) epidemiology during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States are limited. Methods We investigated changes in the incidence of IBD due to Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, group A Streptococcus (GAS), and group B Streptococcus (GBS). We defined the COVID-19 pandemic period as 1 March to 31 December 2020. We compared observed IBD incidences during the pandemic to expected incidences, consistent with January 2014 to February 2020 trends. We conducted secondary analysis of a health care database to assess changes in testing by blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) culture during the pandemic. Results Compared with expected incidences, the observed incidences of IBD due to S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, GAS, and GBS were 58%, 60%, 28%, and 12% lower during the pandemic period of 2020, respectively. Declines from expected incidences corresponded closely with implementation of COVID-19–associated nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). Significant declines were observed across all age and race groups, and surveillance sites for S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae. Blood and CSF culture testing rates during the pandemic were comparable to previous years. Conclusions NPIs likely contributed to the decline in IBD incidence in the United States in 2020; observed declines were unlikely to be driven by reductions in testing.

Objectives:The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic caused substantial changes to healthcare delivery and antibiotic prescribing beginning in March 2020. To assess pandemic impact on Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) rates, we described patients and trends in facility-level incidence, testing rates, and percent positivity during 2019–2020 in a large cohort of US hospitals.Methods:We estimated and compared rates of community-onset CDI (CO-CDI) per 10,000 discharges, hospital-onset CDI (HO-CDI) per 10,000 patient days, and C. difficile testing rates per 10,000 discharges in 2019 and 2020. We calculated percent positivity as the number of inpatients diagnosed with CDI over the total number of discharges with a test for C. difficile. We used an interrupted time series (ITS) design with negative binomial and logistic regression models to describe level and trend changes in rates and percent positivity before and after March 2020.Results:In pairwise comparisons, overall CO-CDI rates decreased from 20.0 to 15.8 between 2019 and 2020 (P < .0001). HO-CDI rates did not change. Using ITS, we detected decreasing monthly trends in CO-CDI (−1% per month, P = .0036) and HO-CDI incidence (−1% per month, P < .0001) during the baseline period, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic declaration. We detected no change in monthly trends for CO-CDI or HO-CDI incidence or percent positivity after March 2020 compared with the baseline period.Conclusions:While there was a slight downward trajectory in CDI trends prior to March 2020, no significant change in CDI trends occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic despite changes in infection control practices, antibiotic use, and healthcare delivery.

Background Studies describing risk factors for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) are often limited in their ability to identify potentially important exposures occurring long before diagnosis. We describe hospitalizations and antibiotic use (AU) occurring up to one year prior to CDI diagnosis among Medicare beneficiaries. Methods We studied incident CDI cases (positive C. difficile test in a person ≥65 years without a positive test in the prior 8 weeks) identified during 2016–2018 through population-based CDI surveillance from four states participating in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Emerging Infections Program. The analysis included specimens collected in all settings and was limited to case patients who were identified as having fee-for-service Medicare and Part D drug coverage for the year preceding specimen collection. Inpatient hospitalization data was extracted from Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) files and outpatient AU (prescriptions filled) was determined using Part D drug event files. Timing of hospitalizations and antibiotic prescriptions were described as recent (0–3 months prior to specimen collection) or remote (4–12 months prior). Results Of 1,953 CDI cases, 1,594 (82%) filled ≥1 course of outpatient antibiotics in the prior year; 805 (41%) filled an antibiotic both recently and remotely, 497 (25%) only remotely, and 292 (15%) only recently. Cases with outpatient AU received a median of 23.5 (IQR 12–46) total days supplied, and a median of 2 different antibiotic classes (IQR 1 – 3). The most frequent antibiotic classes filled include fluoroquinolones (17% of all antibiotics filled), 1st generation cephalosporins (10%), and folate pathway inhibitors (10%). Overall, 1,314 (67%) cases were hospitalized in the prior year; 569 (29%) were hospitalized both recently and remotely, 446 (23%) only recently, and 299 (15%) only remotely. Median length of stay was 13 days (IQR 6–28). A total of 142 cases (7%) did not have hospitalization or outpatient AU in the prior year, and 1,097 (56%) had both. Conclusion Incident CDI cases have substantial exposure to recent and remote hospitalization and outpatient AU. Understanding cumulative effects of multiple risk factors can guide prevention strategies, including antibiotic stewardship efforts. Disclosures Scott Fridkin, MD, Pfizer: Grant/Research Support Ghinwa Dumyati, MD, Pfizer: Grant/Research Support.

Background Several studies demonstrated an increase in hospital-onset (HO) infections during the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined trends in the rates of multidrug-resistant (MDR) infections among acute care hospitals in the United States (U.S.) for bacteria commonly associated with healthcare: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), extended-spectrum cephalosporin resistance in Enterobacteriaceae suggestive of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase production (ESBL), vancomycin resistant Enterococcus (VRE), MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa, carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter species (CRAB). Methods We measured incidence of clinical cultures yielding the bacterial species of interest among hospitalized patients in a dynamic cohort of hospitals submitting data to the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release during 2019-June 2021. Community-onset (CO) cultures were obtained ≤ day 3 of hospitalization; HO were obtained ≥ day 4. We determined monthly hospital-specific rates for each species. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) multivariable negative binomial regression models adjusting for hospital characteristics to examine trends. Results From 2019-June 2021, the overall number of hospitals contributing data was 318. Rates for each pathogen are shown in Figures 1 and 2. All pathogens’ HO rates were significantly higher in 2021 compared with 2019. The rates of ESBL, VRE, and CRE were also significantly higher in 2021 when compared to 2020 (Table 1a). For CO rates, we found that MRSA rates decreased significantly during the study period, while ESBL, VRE, and CRE increased with varying degree of significance (Table 1b). Rates of CO MDR Pseudomonas and CO CRAB did not significantly change. Conclusion Our study confirmed that the rates of several MDR infections increased during the COVID-19 pandemic through June 2021, especially HO infections. CO MRSA was the only pathogen with consistent and significant decline. As infections caused by MDR pathogens represent a serious threat to patient safety, further study of factors contributing to the emerging trends may inform prevention strategies during a pandemic. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

Background Previous estimates of methicillin-resistant and -sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA, MSSA) bacteremia rates in hospitalized patients showed decreases in hospital-onset (HO) MRSA, no changes in community-onset (CO) MRSA and HO MSSA, and slight increases in CO MSSA rates from 2012–2017; more recent trends have not been well characterized. Methods We calculated monthly S. aureus bacteremia rates using microbiology data from hospitals reporting antibiotic susceptibility results in the Premier Healthcare Database from January 2017- June 2021. S. aureus blood isolates resistant to methicillin, oxacillin, or cefoxitin were categorized as MRSA. Positive blood cultures collected on or before hospital day 3 were categorized as CO; those collected on day 4 or later were categorized as HO. Annual rate differences were assessed using generalized estimating equation models with a negative binomial distribution adjusting for hospital bed size, teaching status, urban/rural designation, discharge month, census division, distributions of patient age, sex and race and hospital-level clustering. Results Among 11 million discharges from 356 hospitals, we identified 5,627 HO S. aureus bacteremia events: 2,558 (45%) MRSA and 3,069 (55%) MSSA. In 2017, we observed HO MRSA bacteremia rates of 0.41 and HO MSSA rates of 0.49 per 10,000 patient-days. Compared with 2017, adjusted rates of HO MRSA and MSSA bacteremia were significantly higher in 2019, 2020, and 2021 (Figure 1). Of 42,587 CO S. aureus bacteremia events, 19,107 (45%) were MRSA and 23,480 (55%) MSSA. CO MRSA bacteremia rates were lowest in 2017 (1.52 per 1,000 discharges), and adjusted rates were significantly higher in all later years (Figure 2); we observed significant regional variability in annual differences (p=0.018). The observed CO MSSA bacteremia rate was 2.03 per 1,000 discharges in 2017, and adjusted rates were significantly higher in 2020 and 2021. Figure 1.Hospital-Onset MRSA and MSSA Bacteremia Incidence Rate Ratios* with 95% confidence intervals, 2017 – 2021**.*Reference year =2017.**2021 includes data during January – June.***Statistically significant at p Conclusion In contrast with previous trends, recent S. aureus bacteremia rates in this cohort have increased in comparison to 2017. Potential explanations warranting exploration include differences in regional trends and pandemic-associated changes in inpatient risk, severity of illness, length of stay, and hospital utilization Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

Background Reports suggest the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 was associated with increases in hospital-onset AR infections, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp., carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (E. coli, Klebsiella spp., and Enterobacter spp.) (CRE) and Acinetobacter spp. (CRAsp), extended-spectrum cephalosporin resistance suggestive of extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E), and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (MDR-PA). To evaluate whether trends were similar for susceptible and resistant strains, we estimated the proportions of these resistant phenotypes in U.S. hospitals. Figure 1.Proportion of hospital-onset pathogens expressing resistant phenotypes, 2018 – 2020 Methods We analyzed 2018–2020 hospital microbiology data in the Premier Healthcare and BD Insights Research Databases. Hospital-onset (HO) infections were those with positive cultures collected after hospital day 3. We used a raking procedure to produce weights to match national hospital characteristics, specifically: U.S. census division, bed size, teaching status, age, gender and urban/rural designation. We used a weighted means survey procedure for annual national estimates and generated annual comparisons with multivariable logistic regression adjusted by hospital characteristics. Results In 589 hospitals, the percentages of HO ESBL-E and CRAsp increased from 2019 to 2020 (Table). Among enterococci, the percentage with vancomycin resistance decreased. The percentages of MRSA, CRE, and MDR-PA did not change. Conclusion Our findings suggest pandemic-related factors, such as changes in antibiotic use or infection control, may have differentially affected susceptible and resistant phenotypes of hospital pathogens. Increases in the percentages of HO CRAsp and ESBL-E suggest these resistant phenotypes may have had a selective advantage over susceptible strains during the pandemic. In contrast, no changes in the percentages of HO MRSA or MDR-PA were observed, suggesting that infection rates increased similarly for resistant and susceptible strains. These findings underscore the importance of strategies to prevent hospital-associated infections and AR that are resilient to pandemic-related stresses on the healthcare system. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

Objective To evaluate if facility-level vaccination after an initial vaccination clinic was independently associated with COVID-19 incidence adjusted for other factors in January 2021 among nursing home residents. Design Ecological analysis of data from the CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) and from the CDC's Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program. Setting and Participants CMS-certified nursing homes participating in both NHSN and the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program. Methods A multivariable, random intercepts, negative binomial model was applied to contrast COVID-19 incidence rates among residents living in facilities with an initial vaccination clinic during the week ending January 3, 2021 (n = 2843), vs those living in facilities with no vaccination clinic reported up to and including the week ending January 10, 2021 (n = 3216). Model covariates included bed size, resident SARS-CoV-2 testing, staff with COVID-19, cumulative COVID-19 among residents, residents admitted with COVID-19, community county incidence, and county social vulnerability index (SVI). Results In December 2020 and January 2021, incidence of COVID-19 among nursing home residents declined to the lowest point since reporting began in May, diverged from the pattern in community cases, and began dropping before vaccination occurred. Comparing week 3 following an initial vaccination clinic vs week 2, the adjusted reduction in COVID-19 rate in vaccinated facilities was 27% greater than the reduction in facilities where vaccination clinics had not yet occurred (95% confidence interval: 14%-38%, P Conclusions and Implications Vaccination of residents contributed to the decline in COVID-19 incidence in nursing homes; however, other factors also contributed. The decline in COVID-19 was evident prior to widespread vaccination, highlighting the benefit of a multifaced approach to prevention including continued use of recommended screening, testing, and infection prevention practices as well as vaccination to keep residents in nursing homes safe.

Nursing home and long-term care facility residents live in congregate settings and are often elderly and frail, putting them at high risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and severe COVID-19-associated outcomes; therefore, this population was prioritized for early vaccination in the United States (1). Following rapid distribution and administration of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) under an Emergency Use Authorization by the Food and Drug Administration (2), observational studies among nursing home residents demonstrated vaccine effectiveness (VE) ranging from 53% to 92% against SARS-CoV-2 infection (3-6). However, concerns about the potential for waning vaccine-induced immunity and the recent emergence of the highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant† highlight the need to continue to monitor VE (7). Weekly data reported by the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare (CMS)-certified skilled nursing facilities or nursing homes to CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN)§ were analyzed to evaluate effectiveness of full vaccination (2 doses received ≥14 days earlier) with any of the two currently authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines during the period soon after vaccine introduction and before the Delta variant was circulating (pre-Delta [March 1-May 9, 2021]), and when the Delta variant predominated¶ (Delta [June 21-August 1, 2021]). Using 17,407 weekly reports from 3,862 facilities from the pre-Delta period, adjusted effectiveness against infection for any mRNA vaccine was 74.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 70.0%-78.8%). Analysis using 33,160 weekly reports from 11,581 facilities during an intermediate period (May 10-June 20) found that the adjusted effectiveness was 67.5% (95% CI = 60.1%-73.5%). Analysis using 85,593 weekly reports from 14,917 facilities during the Delta period found that the adjusted effectiveness was 53.1% (95% CI = 49.1%-56.7%). Effectiveness estimates were similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. These findings indicate that mRNA vaccines provide protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection among nursing home residents; however, VE was lower after the Delta variant became the predominant circulating strain in the United States. This analysis assessed VE against any infection, without being able to distinguish between asymptomatic and symptomatic presentations. Additional evaluations are needed to understand protection against severe disease in nursing home residents over time. Because nursing home residents might remain at some risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection despite vaccination, multiple COVID-19 prevention strategies, including infection control, testing, and vaccination of nursing home staff members, residents, and visitors, are critical. An additional dose of COVID-19 vaccine might be considered for nursing home and long-term care facility residents to optimize a protective immune response.

Nursing home residents continue to experience significant COVID-19 morbidity and mortality (1). On March 29, 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended a second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster dose for adults aged ≥50 years and all immunocompromised persons who had received a first booster ≥4 months earlier.* On September 1, 2022, ACIP voted to recommend bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine boosters for all persons aged ≥12 years who had completed the primary series using monovalent vaccines ≥2 months earlier (2). Data on COVID-19 booster dose vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the nursing home population are limited (3). For this analysis, academic, federal, and private partners evaluated routine care data collected from 196 U.S. community nursing homes to estimate VE of a second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster dose among nursing home residents who had received 3 previous COVID-19 vaccine doses (2 primary series doses and 1 booster dose). Residents who received second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster doses during March 29-June 15, 2022, with follow-up through July 25, 2022, were found to have 60-day VE of 25.8% against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19 infection), 73.9% against severe COVID-19 outcomes (a combined endpoint of COVID-19-associated hospitalizations or deaths), and 89.6% against COVID-19-associated deaths alone. During this period, subvariants BA.2 and BA.2.12.1 (March-June 2022), and BA.4 and BA.5 (July 2022) of the B.1.1.529 and BA.2 (Omicron) variant were predominant. These findings suggest that among nursing home residents, second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster doses provided additional protection over first booster doses against severe COVID-19 outcomes during a time of emerging Omicron variants. Facilities should continue to ensure that nursing home residents remain up to date with COVID-19 vaccination, including bivalent vaccine booster doses, to prevent severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Replication-competent virus has not been detected in individuals with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) more than 10 days after symptom onset. It is unknown whether these findings apply to nursing home residents. Of 273 specimens collected from nursing home residents >10 days from the initial positive test, none were culture positive.

During July–August 2021, a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak involving 21 residents (all fully vaccinated) and 10 staff (9 fully vaccinated) occurred in a Connecticut nursing home. The outbreak was likely initiated by a fully vaccinated staff member and propagated by fully vaccinated persons. Prior COVID-19 was protective among vaccinated residents.

The disruptions of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impacted the delivery and utilization of healthcare services with potential long-term implications for population health and the hospital workforce. Using electronic health record data from over 700 US acute care hospitals, we documented changes in admissions to hospital service areas (inpatient, observation, emergency room [ER], and same-day surgery) during 2019-2020 and examined whether surges of COVID-19 hospitalizations corresponded with increased inpatient disease severity and death rate. We found that in 2020, hospitalizations declined by 50% in April, with greatest declines occurring in same-day surgery (-73%). The youngest patients (0-17) experienced largest declines in ER, observation, and same-day surgery admissions; inpatient admissions declined the most among the oldest patients (65+). Infectious disease admissions increased by 52%. The monthly measures of inpatient case mix index, length of stay, and non-COVID death rate were higher in all months in 2020 compared with respective months in 2019.

One in six nursing home residents and staff with positive SARS-CoV-2 tests ≥90 days after initial infection had specimen cycle thresholds (Ct)

Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs), particularly those in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), have experienced disproportionately high levels of COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality and were prioritized for early COVID-19 vaccination (1,2). However, this group was not included in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, and limited postauthorization vaccine effectiveness (VE) data are available for this critical population (3). It is not known how well COVID-19 vaccines protect SNF residents, who typically are more medically frail, are older, and have more underlying medical conditions than the general population (1). In addition, immunogenicity of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was found to be lower in adults aged 65-85 years than in younger adults (4). Through the CDC Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program, SNF residents and staff members in Connecticut began receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on December 18, 2020 (5). Administration of the vaccine was conducted during several on-site pharmacy clinics. In late January 2021, the Connecticut Department of Public Health (CT DPH) identified two SNFs experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks among residents and staff members that occurred after each facility's first vaccination clinic. CT DPH, in partnership with CDC, performed electronic chart review in these facilities to obtain information on resident vaccination status and infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Partial vaccination, defined as the period from >14 days after the first dose through 7 days after the second dose, had an estimated effectiveness of 63% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 33%-79%) against SARS-CoV-2 infection (regardless of symptoms) among residents within these SNFs. This is similar to estimated effectiveness for a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adults across a range of age groups in noncongregate settings (6) and suggests that to optimize vaccine impact among this population, high coverage with the complete 2-dose series should be recommended for SNF residents and staff members.

Background Effective halting of outbreaks in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) depends on the earliest recognition of cases. We assessed confirmed COVID-19 cases at an SNF impacted by COVID-19 in the United States to identify early indications of COVID-19 infection. Methods We performed retrospective reviews of electronic health records for residents with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 during February 28–March 16, 2020. Records were abstracted for comorbidities, signs and symptoms, and illness outcomes during the 2 weeks before and after the date of positive specimen collection. Relative risks (RRs) of hospitalization and death were calculated. Results Of the 118 residents tested among approximately 130 residents from Facility A during February 28–March 16, 2020, 101 (86%) were found to test positive for SARS-CoV-2. At initial presentation, about two-thirds of SARS-CoV-2–positive residents had an abnormal vital sign or change in oxygen status. Most (90.2%) symptomatic residents had elevated temperature, change in mental status, lethargy, change in oxygen status, or cough; 9 (11.0%) did not have fever, cough, or shortness of breath during their clinical course. Those with change in oxygen status had an increased relative risk (RR) of 30-day mortality [51.1% vs 29.7%, RR 1.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0–3.0]. RR of hospitalization was higher for residents with underlying hepatic disease (1.6, 95% CI 1.1–2.2) or obesity (1.5, 95% CI 1.1–2.1); RR of death was not statistically significant. Conclusions and Implications Our findings reinforce the critical role that monitoring of signs and symptoms can have in identifying COVID-19 cases early. SNFs should ensure they have a systematic approach for responding to abnormal vital signs and oxygen saturation and consider ensuring common signs and symptoms identified in Facility A are among those they monitor.

We described bacterial/fungal coinfections and antibiotic-resistant infections among inpatients with a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and compared findings in those with a diagnosis of influenza like illness. Less than 10% of inpatients with COVID-19 had bacterial/fungal coinfection. Longer lengths of stay, critical care stay, and mechanical ventilation contribute to increased incidence of hospital-onset infections among inpatients with COVID-19.

Previously reported associations between hospital-level antibiotic use and hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infection (HO-CDI) were reexamined using 2012–2018 data from a new cohort of US acute-care hospitals. This analysis revealed significant positive associations between total, third-generation, and fourth-generation cephalosporin, fluoroquinolone, carbapenem, and piperacillin-tazobactam use and HO-CDI rates, confirming previous findings.

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can spread rapidly in nursing homes once it is introduced (1,2). To prevent outbreaks, more data are needed to identify sources of introduction and means of transmission within nursing homes. Nursing home residents who receive hemodialysis (dialysis) might be at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infections because of their frequent exposures outside the nursing home to both community dialysis patients and staff members at dialysis centers (3). Investigation of a COVID-19 outbreak in a Maryland nursing home (facility A) identified a higher prevalence of infection among residents undergoing dialysis (47%; 15 of 32) than among those not receiving dialysis (16%; 22 of 138) (p

Undetected infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) contributes to transmission in nursing homes, settings where large outbreaks with high resident mortality have occurred (1,2). Facility-wide testing of residents and health care personnel (HCP) can identify asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections and facilitate infection prevention and control interventions (3-5). Seven state or local health departments conducted initial facility-wide testing of residents and staff members in 288 nursing homes during March 24-June 14, 2020. Two of the seven health departments conducted testing in 195 nursing homes as part of facility-wide testing all nursing homes in their state, which were in low-incidence areas (i.e., the median preceding 14-day cumulative incidence in the surrounding county for each jurisdiction was 19 and 38 cases per 100,000 persons); 125 of the 195 nursing homes had not reported any COVID-19 cases before the testing. Ninety-five of 22,977 (0.4%) persons tested in 29 (23%) of these 125 facilities had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. The other five health departments targeted facility-wide testing to 93 nursing homes, where 13,443 persons were tested, and 1,619 (12%) had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. In regression analyses among 88 of these nursing homes with a documented case before facility-wide testing occurred, each additional day between identification of the first case and completion of facility-wide testing was associated with identification of 1.3 additional cases. Among 62 facilities that could differentiate results by resident and HCP status, an estimated 1.3 HCP cases were identified for every three resident cases. Performing facility-wide testing immediately after identification of a case commonly identifies additional unrecognized cases and, therefore, might maximize the benefits of infection prevention and control interventions. In contrast, facility-wide testing in low-incidence areas without a case has a lower proportion of test positivity; strategies are needed to further optimize testing in these settings.

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can spread rapidly within skilled nursing facilities. After identification of a case of Covid-19 in a skilled nursing facility, we assessed transmission and evaluated the adequacy of symptom-based screening to identify infections in residents. Methods We conducted two serial point-prevalence surveys, 1 week apart, in which assenting residents of the facility underwent nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal testing for SARS-CoV-2, including real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), viral culture, and sequencing. Symptoms that had been present during the preceding 14 days were recorded. Asymptomatic residents who tested positive were reassessed 7 days later. Residents with SARS-CoV-2 infection were categorized as symptomatic with typical symptoms (fever, cough, or shortness of breath), symptomatic with only atypical symptoms, presymptomatic, or asymptomatic. Results Twenty-three days after the first positive test result in a resident at this skilled nursing facility, 57 of 89 residents (64%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Among 76 residents who participated in point-prevalence surveys, 48 (63%) tested positive. Of these 48 residents, 27 (56%) were asymptomatic at the time of testing; 24 subsequently developed symptoms (median time to onset, 4 days). Samples from these 24 presymptomatic residents had a median rRT-PCR cycle threshold value of 23.1, and viable virus was recovered from 17 residents. As of April 3, of the 57 residents with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 11 had been hospitalized (3 in the intensive care unit) and 15 had died (mortality, 26%). Of the 34 residents whose specimens were sequenced, 27 (79%) had sequences that fit into two clusters with a difference of one nucleotide. Conclusions Rapid and widespread transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was demonstrated in this skilled nursing facility. More than half of residents with positive test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing and most likely contributed to transmission. Infection-control strategies focused solely on symptomatic residents were not sufficient to prevent transmission after SARS-CoV-2 introduction into this facility.

Background Multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria that are commonly associated with health care cause a substantial health burden. Updated national estimates for this group of pathogens are ne...

Rationale & Objective Most new patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) initiate hemodialysis (HD) with a central venous catheter (CVC) and later transition to a permanent vascular access with lower infection risk. The benefit of early fistula use in preventing severe infections is incompletely understood. We examined patients’ first access and subsequent transitions between accesses during the first year of HD to estimate the risk for bloodstream infection (BSI) associated with incident and time-dependent use of HD access. Study Design A retrospective cohort study using enhanced 5% Medicare claims data. Setting & Participants New patients with ESRD initiating HD between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2012, and having complete pre-ESRD Medicare fee-for-service coverage for 2 years. Exposure The incident and prevalent use of CVC, graft, or fistula as determined from monthly reports to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services by HD providers. Outcome Incident hospitalization with a primary/secondary diagnosis of BSI (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 038.xx or 790.7). Analytical Approach Extended survival analysis accounting for patient confounders. Results Of 2,352 study participants, 1,870 (79.5%), 77 (3.3%), and 405 (17.2%) initiated HD with a CVC, graft, and fistula, respectively. During the first year, the incident BSI hospitalization rates per 1,000 person-days were 1.3, 0.8, and 0.3 (P, Graphical Abstract

Background Rises in the incidence of bacterial infections, such as infective endocarditis (IE), have been reported in conjunction with the opioid crisis. However, recent trends for IE and other serious infections among persons with substance use disorders (SUDs) are unknown. Methods Using the Premier Healthcare Database, we identified hospitalizations from 2012 through 2017 among adults with primary discharge diagnoses of bacterial infections and secondary SUD diagnoses, using International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification Ninth and Tenth Revision codes. We calculated annual rates of infections with SUD diagnoses and evaluated temporal trends. Blood and cardiac tissue specimens were identified from IE hospitalizations to describe the microbiology distribution and temporal trends among hospitalizations with and without SUDs. Results Among 72 481 weighted IE admissions recorded, SUD diagnoses increased from 19.9% in 2012 to 39.4% in 2017 (P < .0001). Hospitalizations with SUDs increased from 1.1 to 2.1 per 100 000 persons for IE, 1.4 to 2.4 per 100 000 persons for osteomyelitis, 0.5 to 0.9 per 100 000 persons for central nervous system abscesses, and 24.4 to 32.9 per 100 000 persons for skin and soft tissue infections. For adults aged 18–44 years, IE-SUD hospitalizations more than doubled, from 1.6 in 2012 to 3.6 in 2017 per 100 000 persons. Among all IE-SUD hospitalizations, 50.3% had a Staphylococcus aureus infection, compared with 19.4% of IE hospitalizations without SUDs. Conclusions Rates of hospitalization for serious infections among persons with SUDs are increasing, driven primarily by younger age groups. The differences in the microbiology of IE hospitalizations suggest that SUDs are changing the epidemiology of these infections.

Background and aims The COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant changes in healthcare delivery. In response to these changes, patients have increasingly reduced healthcare utilization in several ways, such as medication compliance, cancer screenings, and routine wellness appointments. This study aims to quantify patient adherence rates to routine and symptom indicated colonoscopies during the COVID-19 and to assess patient medication compliance and utilization of healthcare facilities. Methods A cross-sectional study was performed at a single-center internal medicine clinic from January 2021 to April 2021. A 28-item survey was administered to patients to evaluate for adherence rates to routine and symptom indicated colonoscopies. Patients were also evaluated for rates of healthcare facility usage and medication compliance. Results Among 103 participants, 30.8% of patients who were due for routine colonoscopy either missed, refused, or rescheduled, while 16.7% of patients did so for symptom indicated colonoscopies. Nearly all respondents (94.2%) reported no change to medication compliance when compared to pre-COVID. A significant portion (36.9%) of patients reported missing a healthcare appointment at some point during the pandemic, and of the respondents who felt sick enough to visit the emergency department, 23.1% decided not to go. Conclusions During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients are deferring colorectal cancer surveillance, reducing the usage of acute care facilities, and missing routine healthcare appointments. It is important for providers to address the risks and benefits of delaying colorectal cancer screenings as well as identify physical and psychosocial barriers to patient utilization of both acute and chronic healthcare facilities. As COVID-19 restrictions inevitably continue to ease, medical providers should be aware of these potential lapses in cancer screenings and healthcare visits and be vigilant in catching patients up on their preventative health screenings.

Previously reported associations between hospital-level antibiotic use and hospital-onset

In the Seattle, Washington metropolitan area, where the first case of novel coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) in the United States was reported (1), a community-level outbreak is ongoing with evidence of rapid spread and high morbidity and mortality among older adults in long-term care skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) (2,3). However, COVID-19 morbidity among residents of senior independent and assisted living communities, in which residents do not live as closely together as do residents in SNFs and do not require skilled nursing services, has not been described. During March 5-9, 2020, two residents of a senior independent and assisted living community in Seattle (facility 1) were hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 infection; on March 6, social distancing and other preventive measures were implemented in the community. UW Medicine (the health system linked to the University of Washington), Public Health - Seattle & King County, and CDC conducted an investigation at the facility. On March 10, all residents and staff members at facility 1 were tested for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and asked to complete a questionnaire about their symptoms; all residents were tested again 7 days later. Among 142 residents and staff members tested during the initial phase, three of 80 residents (3.8%) and two of 62 staff members (3.2%) had positive test results. The three residents had no symptoms at the time of testing, although one reported an earlier cough that had resolved. A fourth resident, who had negative test results in the initial phase, had positive test results 7 days later. This resident was asymptomatic on both days. Possible explanations for so few cases of COVID-19 in this residential community compared with those in several Seattle SNFs with high morbidity and mortality include more social distancing among residents and less contact with health care providers. In addition, early implementation of stringent isolation and protective measures after identification of two COVID-19 cases might have been effective in minimizing spread of the virus in this type of setting. When investigating a potential outbreak of COVID-19 in senior independent and assisted living communities, symptom screening is unlikely to be sufficient to identify all persons infected with SARS-CoV-2. Adherence to CDC guidance to prevent COVID-19 transmission in senior independent and assisted living communities (4) could be instrumental in preventing a facility outbreak.

Introduction Staphylococcus aureus is one of the most common pathogens in health care facilities and in the community, and can cause invasive infections, sepsis, and death. Despite progress in preventing methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) infections in health care settings, assessment of the problem in both health care and community settings is needed. Further, the epidemiology of methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) infections is not well described at the national level. Methods Data from the Emerging Infections Program (EIP) MRSA population surveillance (2005–2016) and from the Premier and Cerner Electronic Health Record databases (2012–2017) were analyzed to describe trends in incidence of hospital-onset and community-onset MRSA and MSSA bloodstream infections and to estimate the overall incidence of S. aureus bloodstream infections in the United States and associated in-hospital mortality. Results In 2017, an estimated 119,247 S. aureus bloodstream infections with 19,832 associated deaths occurred. During 2005–2012 rates of hospital-onset MRSA bloodstream infection decreased by 17.1% annually, but the decline slowed during 2013–2016. Community-onset MRSA declined less markedly (6.9% annually during 2005–2016), mostly related to declines in health care–associated infections. Hospital-onset MSSA has not significantly changed (p = 0.11), and community-onset MSSA infections have slightly increased (3.9% per year, p

Introduction By 2007, all Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers (VAMCs) had initiated a multifaceted methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) prevention program. MRSA and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) infection rates among VAMC inpatients from 2005 to 2017 were assessed. Methods Clinical microbiology data from any patient admitted to an acute-care VAMC in the United States from 2005 through 2017 and trends in hospital-acquired MRSA colonization were examined. Results S. aureus infections decreased by 43% overall during the study period (p

Q fever is a zoonotic bacterial infection caused by Coxiella burnetii. Chronic Q fever comprises less than five percent of all Q fever cases and, of those, endocarditis is the most common presentation (up to 78% of cases), followed by vascular involvement. Risk factors for chronic Q fever with vascular involvement include previous vascular surgery, preexisting valvular defects, aneurysms, and vascular prostheses. The most common symptoms of chronic Q fever with vascular involvement are nonspecific, including weight loss, fatigue, and abdominal pain. Criteria for diagnosis of chronic Q fever include clinical evidence of infection and laboratory criteria (antibody detection, detection of Coxiella burnetii DNA, or growth in culture). Treatment of chronic Q fever with vascular involvement includes a prolonged course of doxycycline and hydroxychloroquine (≥18 months) as well as early surgical intervention, which has been shown to improve survival. Mortality is high in untreated chronic Q fever. We report a case of chronic Q fever with vascular involvement in a 77-year-old man with prior infrarenal aortic aneurysm repair, who lived near a livestock farm in the southeastern United States.

Background Up to 40% of hospitalized patients receive unnecessary or inappropriately broad antibiotics despite a low risk of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) infection. Empiric standard spectrum antibiotic use would reduce extended-spectrum (ES) antibiotic exposure and future resistance. We evaluated whether computerized prescriber order entry prompts providing patient-specific MDRO risk estimates could reduce ES antibiotic use compared to routine stewardship practices in patients hospitalized with urinary tract infection (UTI). Methods This 59-hospital cluster randomized trial compared: 1) INSPIRE prompts providing patient-specific MDRO UTI risk estimates at order entry and recommended standard spectrum antibiotics for risk < 10% versus 2) routine stewardship practices. Prompt used an absolute MDRO risk algorithm based on a 140 hospital data set. Trial population included adults treated with antibiotics for UTI in ED or non-ICU wards in first 3 days of admission (empiric days); prompt was triggered if ES antibiotics were ordered. Prescribers received feedback on prompt response. Trial periods: 18-month Baseline (Apr 2017–Sept 2018); 6-month Phase-in (Oct 2018–Mar 2019); 15-month Intervention (Apr 2019 – June 2020). Primary outcome was ES antibiotic days of therapy (ES-DOT) per empiric day; secondary outcomes were a) vancomycin and b) anti-pseudomonal DOT per empiric day. Unadjusted, as-randomized analyses used generalized linear mixed effects models to assess differences in ES-DOT rates between the intervention vs baseline period across arms (difference in differences), while clustering by patient and hospital. Results Results: We randomized 59 hospitals in 12 states, with 87,749 and 66,996 non-ICU UTI admissions in baseline and intervention periods, respectively. Intervention group had a a 21% reduction in ES-DOT compared to routine care. Vancomycin and anti-pseudomonal DOT were similarly reduced in the intervention group by 17% and 23%, respectively (Table). Conclusion Conclusion: INSPIRE order entry prompts providing real-time, patient-specific MDRO risk estimates with recommendation to use standard spectrum antibiotics in low risk patients significantly reduced empiric ES prescribing in adults admitted with UTI. Disclosures Shruti K. Gohil, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Edward Septimus, MD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products) Ken Kleinman, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products) Lauren Heim, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product) Syma Rashid, MD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product) Taliser R. Avery, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Kenneth Sands, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Julia Moody, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Kimberly N. Smith, MBA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Brandon Carver, BA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Caren Spencer-Smith, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Russell Poland, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Jason Hickok, MBA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Arjun Srinivasan, MD, Nothing to disclose John A. Jernigan, MD, MS, Nothing to disclose Jonathan B. Perlin, MD, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Richard Platt, MD, MSc, Medline (Research Grant or Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Susan S. Huang, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)

Background Up to 40% of hospitalized patients receive unnecessary or inappropriately broad antibiotics despite a low risk of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) infection. Empiric standard spectrum antibiotic use would reduce extended-spectrum (ES) antibiotic exposure and future resistance. We evaluated whether computerized prescriber order entry prompts providing patient-specific MDRO risk estimates could reduce ES antibiotic use compared to routine stewardship practices in patients hospitalized with pneumonia. Methods This 59 hospital cluster-randomized trial compared: 1) INSPIRE prompts providing patient-specific MDRO pneumonia risk estimates at order entry and recommended standard spectrum antibiotics for risk < 10% versus 2) routine stewardship practices. Prompt used an absolute MDRO risk algorithm based on a 140 hospital data set. Trial population included adults treated with antibiotics for pneumonia in ED or non-ICU wards in first 3 days of admission (empiric days); prompt was triggered if ES antibiotics were ordered. Prescribers received feedback on prompt response. Trial periods: 18-month Baseline (Apr 2017–Sept 2018); 6-month Phase-in (Oct 2018–Mar 2019); 15-month Intervention (Apr 2019 – June 2020). Primary outcome was ES antibiotic days of therapy (ES-DOT) per empiric day; secondary outcomes were a) vancomycin and b) anti-pseudomonal DOT per empiric day. Unadjusted, as-randomized analyses used generalized linear mixed effects models to assess differences in ES-DOT rates between the intervention vs baseline period across arms (difference in differences), while clustering by patient and hospital. Results We randomized 59 hospitals in 12 states, with 59,897 and 51,486 non-ICU pneumonia admissions in baseline and intervention periods, respectively. Intervention group had a 33% reduction in ES-DOT compared to routine care. Vancomycin and anti-pseudomonal DOT were similarly reduced in the intervention group by 27% and 33%, respectively (Table). Conclusion INSPIRE order entry prompts providing real-time, patient-specific MDRO risk estimates with recommendation to use standard spectrum antibiotics in low risk patients significantly reduced empiric ES prescribing in adults admitted with pneumonia. Disclosures Shruti K. Gohil, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Edward Septimus, MD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products) Ken Kleinman, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products) Lauren Heim, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product) Syma Rashid, MD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product) Taliser R. Avery, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Kenneth Sands, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Julia Moody, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Micaela H. Coady, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Kimberly N. Smith, MBA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Brandon Carver, BA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Caren Spencer-Smith, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Russell Poland, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Jason Hickok, MBA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Arjun Srinivasan, MD, Nothing to disclose John A. Jernigan, MD, MS, Nothing to disclose Jonathan B. Perlin, MD, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Richard Platt, MD, MSc, Medline (Research Grant or Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Susan S. Huang, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)

Background ICU universal decolonization with daily chlorhexidine (CHG) baths plus mupirocin nasal decolonization reduces all-cause bloodstream infections (BSI) and MRSA clinical cultures. We assessed nasal iodophor, an antiseptic less susceptible to resistance, in place of mupirocin. Methods We conducted a cluster randomized non-inferiority trial in ICUs, comparing universal decolonization with: 1) Mupirocin-CHG: daily CHG baths and 5 days of twice daily nasal mupirocin, to 2) Iodophor-CHG: same regimen, substituting twice daily 10% povidone-iodine for mupirocin. All adult ICUs in a hospital were assigned to the same strategy. We compared each hospital’s outcomes during the 18-month intervention (Nov 2017-Apr 2019) to its own baseline (May 2015-Apr 2017), during which all hospitals used mupirocin-CHG. The primary outcome was ICU-attributable S. aureus clinical isolates. Secondary outcomes included ICU-attributable MRSA clinical isolates and all-cause BSI. As randomized and as treated analyses used unadjusted proportional hazards models assessing differences in outcomes between baseline and intervention periods across the two groups, accounting for clustering by hospital and patient. Results We randomized 137 hospitals with 233 ICUs in 18 states. There were 442,544 admissions in the baseline period and 349,262 in the intervention period. Median ICU length of stay was 4 days. ICU types included mixed medical surgical (56%), medical (9%), surgical (11%), cardiac (15%), and neurologic (9%). CHG adherence was similar in both arms (85%), but adherence was greater for mupirocin (90%) than iodophor (82%). Primary as-randomized results (Table, Figure) exceeded the non-inferiority margin in favor of mupirocin, for S. aureus clinical cultures (21% superiority, P< 0.001) and for MRSA clinical cultures (20% superiority, P< 0.001). The regimens had similar BSI hazards. Analyses of fully adherent patients are in progress. Figure - Primary and Secondary Outcomes of Mupirocin Iodophor Swap Out Trial Conclusion Universal iodophor-CHG was equivalent to mupirocin-CHG for ICU BSI prevention. Mupirocin-CHG was superior to iodophor-CHG for S. aureus and MRSA clinical isolates, potentially due to greater adherence to mupirocin. Disclosures Susan S. Huang, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Edward Septimus, MD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products) Ken Kleinman, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products) Lauren Heim, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product) Julia Moody, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Taliser R. Avery, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Syma Rashid, MD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product) Katherine Haffenreffer, BS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Lauren Shimelman, BA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Caren Spencer-Smith, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Selsebil Sljivo, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Ed Rosen, BS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Russell Poland, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Micaela H. Coady, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Eunice J. Blanchard, MSN RN, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Kimberly Reddish, DNP, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Brandon Carver, BA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Kimberly N. Smith, MBA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Jason Hickok, MBA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Karen Lolans, BS, Medline (Research Grant or Support) Nadia Khan, BS, Medline (Research Grant or Support) John A. Jernigan, MD, MS, Nothing to disclose Kenneth Sands, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Jonathan B. Perlin, MD, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Richard Platt, MD, MSc, Medline (Research Grant or Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)

Background Background. Understanding the viral load and potential infectivity of individuals in nursing homes (NH) with repeat positive SARS-CoV-2 tests ≥ 90 days after initial infection has important implications for safety related to transmission in this high-risk setting. Methods Methods. We collected epidemiologic data by reviewing records of a convenience sample of NH residents and staff with respiratory specimens who had positive SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR test results from July 2020 through March 2021 and had a SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosed ≥ 90 days prior. No fully vaccinated individuals were included. Each contributed one repeat positive specimen ≥ 90 days after initial, which was sent to CDC and retested using rRT-PCR. Specimens were assessed for replication-competent virus in cell culture if Cycle threshold (Ct) < 34 and sequenced if Ct < 30. Using Ct values as a proxy for viral RNA load, specimens were categorized as high (Ct < 30) or low (if Ct ≥ 30 or rRT-PCR negative at retesting). Continuous variables were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Proportions were compared using Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests. Results Results. Of 64 unvaccinated individuals with specimens from 61 unique NHs, 14 (22%) were sent for culture and sequencing. Ten of 64 (16%) had a high viral RNA load, of which four (6%) were culture positive and none were known variants of interest or concern (Figure 1). Median days to repeat positive test result were 122 (Interquartile range (IQR): 103–229) and 201 (IQR: 139–254), respectively, for high versus low viral load specimens (p=0.13). More individuals with high viral loads (5/10, 50%) reported COVID-19 symptoms than with a low viral load (1/27, 4%, p=0.003). Most individuals (46/58, 79%) were tested following known or suspected exposures, with no significant differences between high and low viral load (p=0.18). Conclusion In this study, nearly 1 in 6 NH residents and staff with repeat positive tests after 90 days demonstrated high viral RNA loads and viable virus, indicating possible infectivity. While individuals with high RNA viral load may be more likely to be symptomatic, distinguishing asymptomatic individuals who have high viral loads may be difficult with timing since initial infection, other test results, or exposure history alone. Disclosures John A. Jernigan, MD, MS, Nothing to disclose.

Background Although studies have shown blood culture rates have remained stable in recent years, understanding the variability in positivity over time and among hospitals may inform diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship efforts. Methods We included all discharges from hospitals participating in the Premier Healthcare Database and Cerner Health Facts from 2012-2017 in months where a hospital reported at least one blood culture with antimicrobial susceptibility results. A blood culture episode was defined as one or more cultures drawn within 1 hour. Episodes on or before day 3 were defined as admission episodes (AE), and those drawn on day 4 or later were defined as post-admission episodes (PAE). Culture episodes yielding any organism were categorized as pathogen+ (i.e., at least 1 non-commensal organism identified) or commensal (i.e., only commensal organisms identified). Positive or commensal episode rates were calculated as the percentage of pathogen+ or commensal episodes among all blood culture episodes for AE and PAE. Logistic regression with generalized estimating equation models accounting for hospital-level clustering were used to measure time trends and facility level associations. Results Among 19.6 million discharges in 493 hospitals, 7.5 million blood culture episodes were identified; 336,102 (4.5%) were pathogen+, and 110,236 (1.5%) were commensals. The rate of pathogen+ AEs increased from 4.2% to 4.7% over the study period (p< .0001) and there was no significant temporal trend in the rate of pathogen+ PAEs (p=.7956) (Figure 1). AE commensals decreased significantly in 2016-2017 compared to previous years (1.6% in 2012 to 1.3% in 2017; p=.0092), and PAE commensals decreased significantly over the study period from 2.0% to 1.2% (p< .0001) (Figure 1). We observed substantial inter-hospital variability for each outcome (Figure 2). In addition, differences among hospital characteristics and seasonality were noted for AE and PAE pathogen+ rates and AE commensal rates (Figure 3), but not urbanicity or teaching hospital status. Monthly Positivity Rate of Blood Culture Episodes, Premier Healthcare Database and Cerner Health Facts, 2012-2017 Adjusted Odds Ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals of Blood Culture Episode Positive (Non-Commensal) and Commensal Rates and Associated Characteristics Conclusion While an increase AE pathogen+ rates and decrease in commensal rates could indicate improved culture ordering and collection practices, significant seasonal, regional, and facility-level variability calls for further investigation. Disclosures John A. Jernigan, MD, MS, Nothing to disclose

OBJECTIVE: To assess the variability in short term sepsis mortality by hospital among Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services beneficiaries in the United States during 2013–2014. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort design SETTING: Hospitalizations from 3,068 acute care hospitals that participated in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services inpatient prospective payment system in 2013 and 2014. PATIENTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries greater than or equal to 65 years old who had an inpatient hospitalization coded with present at admission severe sepsis or septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS, MAIN RESULTS: Individual level mortality was assessed as death at or within 7 days of hospital discharge and aggregated to calculate hospital-level mortality rates. We used a logistic hierarchal linear model to calculate mortality risk-adjusted for patient characteristics. We quantified variability among hospitals using the median odds ratio (MOR), and calculated risk-standardized mortality rates (risk-standardized mortality rates) for each hospital. The overall crude mortality rate was 34.7%. We found significant variability in mortality by hospital (p