O'Horo, John C

AbstractBackgroundBamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab are authorized for emergency use treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients at high risk for developing severe disease or hospitalization. Their safety and efficacy have not been specifically evaluated in solid organ transplant recipients.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed solid organ transplant recipients who received monoclonal antibody infusion for COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic sites through January 23, 2021. Outcomes included emergency department visit, hospitalization, mortality, and allograft rejection.ResultsSeventy-three patients were treated, most commonly with bamlanivimab (75.3%). The median age was 59 years, 63% were male, and the median Charlson comorbidity index was 5. Transplant type included 41 kidney (56.2%), 13 liver (17.8%), 11 heart (15.1%), 4 kidney-pancreas (5.5%), 2 lung (2.7%), 1 heart-liver, and 1 pancreas. Eleven (15.1%) patients had an emergency department visit within 28 days of infusion, including 9 (12.3%) who were hospitalized for a median of 4 days. One patient required intensive care unit admission for a nonrespiratory complication. No patients required mechanical ventilation, died, or experienced rejection. Ten adverse events occurred, with 1 seeking medical evaluation. Hypertension was associated with hospital admission (P < .05), while other baseline characteristics were similar. The median time from symptom onset to antibody administration was 4 days in nonhospitalized patients compared with 6 days among hospitalized patients (P < .05).ConclusionsMonoclonal antibody treatment has favorable outcomes with minimal adverse effects in solid organ transplant recipients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Earlier administration of monoclonal antibody therapy appears to be more efficacious.

Purpose The purpose of the present study was to investigate body mass index, multi-morbidity, and COVID-19 Risk Score as predictors of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Patients Patients from this study are from a well-characterized patient cohort collected at Mayo Clinic between January 1, 2020 and May 23, 2020; with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis defined as a positive result on reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assays from nasopharyngeal swab specimens. Measures Demographic and clinical data were extracted from the electronic medical record. The data included: date of birth, gender, ethnicity, race, marital status, medications (active COVID-19 agents), weight and height (from which the Body Mass Index (BMI) was calculated, history of smoking, and comorbid conditions to calculate the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and the U.S Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) multi-morbidity score. An additional COVID-19 Risk Score was also included. Outcomes included hospital admission, ICU admission, and death. Results Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the impact on mortality or hospital admission. Age, sex, and race (white/Latino, white/non-Latino, other, did not disclose) were adjusted for in the model. Patients with higher COVID-19 Risk Scores had a significantly higher likelihood of being at least admitted to the hospital (HR = 1.80; 95% CI = 1.30, 2.50; P < .001), or experiencing death or inpatient admission (includes ICU admissions) (HR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.42; P = .028). Age was the only statistically significant demographic predictor, but obesity was not a significant predictor of any of the outcomes. Conclusion Age and COVID-19 Risk Scores were significant predictors of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Further work should examine the properties of the COVID-19 Risk Factors Scale.

Objective To describe the process and outcome of creating a patient cohort in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in order to better understand the process of and predict the outcomes of COVID-19. Patients and Methods A total of 1169 adults aged 18 years of age or older who tested positive in Mayo Clinic Rochester or the Mayo Clinic Midwest Health System between January 1 and May 23 of 2020. Results Patients were on average 43.9 years of age and 50.7% were female. Most patients were white (69.0%), and Blacks (23.4%) and Asians (5.8%) were also represented in larger numbers. Hispanics represented 16.3% of the sample. Just under half of patients were married (48.4%). Common comorbid conditions included: cardiovascular diseases (25.1%), dyslipidemia (16.0%), diabetes mellitus (11.2%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (6.6%), asthma (7.5%), and cancer (5.1%). All other comorbid conditions were less the 5% in prevalence. Data on 3 comorbidity indices are also available including the: DHHS multi-morbidity score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and Mayo Clinic COVID-19 Risk Factor Score. Conclusion In addition to managing the ever raging pandemic and growing death rates, it is equally important that we develop adequate resources for the investigation and understanding of COVID-19-related predictors and outcomes.

Abstract Background Nocardial brain abscesses are rare, and published literature describing brain abscesses due to Nocardia species is limited to individual case reports or small series. We report one of the largest contemporary retrospective studies describing risk factors, diagnostic evaluation, management, and outcomes of nocardial brain abscess. Methods Retrospective review of all adults with brain abscess due to culture-confirmed Nocardia species at our institution between January 1, 2009, and June 30, 2020. Results Overall, 24 patients had nocardial brain abscesses during the study period. The median age at presentation was 64 years, and 62.5% were immunocompromised. Pulmonary and cutaneous infections were the most common primary sites of nocardial infection. All 24 patients had magnetic resonance imaging performed, and the frontal lobe was the most commonly involved. The most common organism isolated was Nocardia farcinica, followed by Nocardia wallacei and Nocardia cyriacigeorgica. Thirteen patients were managed with antimicrobial therapy alone, while 11 had both medical and surgical management. In all patients, dual therapy was recommended for the initial 6 weeks of treatment, and 22 patients received at least 1 oral agent as part of their final antibiotic regimen, predominantly trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and linezolid. Fourteen patients achieved complete clinical and radiographic resolution of infection. Conclusions Nocardia is an important cause of brain abscess in the immunocompromised host. Early diagnostic and therapeutic aspiration may help health care providers confirm the diagnosis, choose an appropriate antimicrobial regimen, and achieve source control.

Abstract Here we analyze hospitalized andintensive care unit coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) patient outcomes from the international VIRUS registry ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04323787 ). We find that COVID‐19 patients administered unfractionated heparin but not enoxaparin have a higher mortality‐rate (390 of 1012 = 39%) compared to patients administered enoxaparin but not unfractionated heparin (270 of 1939 = 14%), presenting a risk ratio of 2.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: [2.42, 3.16]; p = 4.45e−52). This difference persists even after balancing on a number of covariates including demographics, comorbidities, admission diagnoses, and method of oxygenation, with an increased mortality rate on discharge from the hospital of 37% (268 of 733) for unfractionated heparin versus 22% (154 of 711) for enoxaparin, presenting a risk ratio of 1.69 (95% CI: [1.42, 2.00]; p = 1.5e−8). In these balanced cohorts, a number of complications occurred at an elevated rate for patients administered unfractionated heparin compared to patients administered enoxaparin, including acute kidney injury, acute cardiac injury, septic shock, and anemia. Furthermore, a higher percentage of Black/African American COVID patients (414 of 1294 [32%]) were noted to receive unfractionated heparin compared to White/Caucasian COVID patients (671 of 2644 [25%]), risk ratio 1.26 (95% CI: [1.14, 1.40]; p = 7.5e−5). After balancing upon available clinical covariates, this difference in anticoagulant use remained statistically significant (311 of 1047 [30%] for Black/African American vs. 263 of 1047 [25%] for White/Caucasian, p = .02, risk ratio 1.18; 95% CI: [1.03, 1.36]). While retrospective studies cannot suggest any causality, these findings motivate the need for follow‐up prospective research into the observed racial disparity in anticoagulant use and outcomes for severe COVID‐19 patients.

Abstract Background The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in critically ill adults is increasing. There are currently no guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis. We analyzed 7 years of prophylactic antimicrobial use across 3 time series for patients on ECMO at our institution in the development, improvement, and streamlining of our ECMO antimicrobial prophylaxis protocol. Methods In this quasi-experimental interrupted time series analysis, we evaluated the impact of an initial ECMO antimicrobial prophylaxis protocol, implemented in 2014, on antimicrobial use and National Healthcare Safety Network–reportable infection rates. Then, following a revision and streamlining of the protocol in November 2018, we reevaluated the same metrics. Results Our study population included 338 intensive care unit patients who received ECMO between July 2011 and November 2019. After implementation of the first version of the protocol, we did not observe significant changes in antimicrobial use or infection rates in these patients; however, following revision and streamlining of the protocol, we demonstrated a significant reduction in broad-spectrum antimicrobial use for prophylaxis in patients on ECMO without any evidence of a compensatory increase in infection rates. Conclusions Our final protocol significantly reduces broad-spectrum antimicrobial use for prophylaxis in patients on ECMO. We propose a standard antimicrobial prophylaxis regimen for patients on ECMO based on current evidence and our experience. Summary: There are no guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). A rational approach employing concepts of antimicrobial stewardship can drive logical antimicrobial selection for prophylaxis in patients on ECMO without adversely impacting outcomes.

Objectives: Thrombocytopenia is common in critically ill patients treated with continuous renal replacement therapy and decreases in platelets following continuous renal replacement therapy initiation have been associated with increased mortality. Platelets play a role in innate and adaptive immunity, making it plausible that decreases in platelets following continuous renal replacement therapy initiation predispose patients to development of infection. Our objective was to determine if greater decreases in platelets following continuous renal replacement therapy correlate with increased rates of secondary infection. Design: Retrospective cohort analysis. Setting: This study uses a continuous renal replacement therapy database from Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN), a tertiary academic center. Participants: Adult patients who survived until ICU discharge and were on continuous renal replacement therapy for less than 30 days were included. A subgroup analysis was also performed in patients with thrombocytopenia (platelets < 100 × 103/µL) at continuous renal replacement therapy initiation. Measurements and Main Results: The primary predictor variable was a decrease in platelets from precontinuous renal replacement therapy levels of greater than 40% or less than or equal to 40%, although multiple cut points were analyzed. The primary outcome was infection after ICU discharge, and secondary endpoints included post-ICU septic shock and post-ICU mortality. Univariable, multivariable, and propensity-adjusted analyses were used to determine associations between the predictor variable and the outcomes. Results: Among 797 eligible patients, 253 had thrombocytopenia at continuous renal replacement therapy initiation. A greater than 40% decrease in platelets after continuous renal replacement therapy initiation was associated in the multivariable-adjusted models with increased odds of post-ICU infection in the full cohort (odds ratio, 1.49; CI, 1.02–2.16) and in the thrombocytopenia cohort (odds ratio, 2.63; CI, 1.35–5.15) cohorts. Conclusions: Platelet count drop by greater than 40% following continuous renal replacement therapy initiation is associated with an increased risk of secondary infection, particularly in patients with thrombocytopenia at the time of continuous renal replacement therapy initiation. Further research is needed to evaluate the impact of both continuous renal replacement therapy and platelet loss on subsequent infection risk.

AbstractBackgroundAscertaining involvement of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in a patient presenting with bloodstream infection (BSI) can be challenging, frequently leading to use of chronic antimicrobial suppressive (CAS) therapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy of CAS therapy to prevent relapse of BSI from LVAD and non-LVAD sources.MethodsWe retrospectively screened adults receiving LVAD support from 2010 through 2018, to identify cases of BSI. Bloodstream infection events were classified into LVAD-related, LVAD-associated, and non-LVAD BSIs.ResultsA total of 121 episodes of BSI were identified in 80 patients. Of these, 35 cases in the LVAD-related, 14 in the LVAD-associated, and 46 in the non-LVAD BSI groups completed the recommended initial course of therapy and were evaluated for CAS therapy. Chronic antimicrobial suppressive therapy was prescribed in most of the LVAD-related BSI cases (32 of 35, 91.4%) and 12 (37.5%) experienced relapse. Chronic antimicrobial suppressive therapy was not prescribed in a majority of non-LVAD BSI cases (33, 58.9%), and most (31, 93.9%) did not experience relapse. Chronic antimicrobial suppressive therapy was prescribed in 9 of 14 (64.2%) cases of LVAD-associated BSI and none experienced relapse. Of the 5 cases in this group that were managed without CAS, 2 had relapse.ConclusionsPatients presenting with LVAD-related BSI are at high risk of relapse. Consequently, CAS therapy may be a reasonable approach in the management of these cases. In contrast, routine use of CAS therapy may be unnecessary for non-LVAD BSIs.