Stevens, Ryan W.

Abstract Background Multi-drug resistant (MDR) pathogens are a continuously evolving threat for which there are limited effective treatment modalities. Omadacycline (OMC) is a novel oral and intravenously administered aminomethylcycline with potent in-vitro activity against MDR gram-negative and gram-positive pathogens. Post-marketing data investigating its potential place in the antibiotic armamentarium is limited. This study aimed at describing the clinical success and tolerability of patients receiving OMC for various infections. Methods This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational study conducted from January 2020 to March 30, 2022. We included all patients ≥ 18 years of age that received OMC for any infection not related to Mycobacterium spp. for ≥72 hours. The primary outcome was clinical success at 30 days, defined as survival, the absence of persistence or re-emergence of infection during or after therapy, and the absence of escalation or alteration of OMC. Incidence of adverse effects while on OMC and reasons for OMC utilization were also analyzed. Results This analysis included 19 patients from 10 distinct academic centers. The median age was 50 years (IQR, 37-63), 58% were male, 63% were Caucasian, and the median APACHE II, Charlson and SOFA scores were 10 (IQR 5-12.5), 4 (IQR 2-6.3), and 1 (IQR 0 – 2.25), respectively. Most patients had a bone and joint (8/19, 42.1%) or intra-abdominal infections (4/19, 21.1%), all with positive cultures. Eight patients (44.1%) had a polymicrobial infection and 4 (22.2%) had bacteremia. The most common pathogens encountered were Carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii (5/19, 27.8%), E. coli (5/19, 27.8%), Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. (4/19, 22.2%), and K. pneumoniae (3/19, 16.7%). Clinical success was observed in 14 patients (74%) and 7 (36.8%) received combination therapy. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 3 patients (15.8%) and of those patients, none discontinued therapy. Reasons for prescribing OMC were mostly attributed to oral availability (12/14, 85.7%) and resistance to other agents (7/14, 50%). Conclusion OMC demonstrated clinical effectiveness and safety against a large number of MDR pathogens. More robust, prospective, comparative studies are needed to confirm our preliminary findings. Disclosures P. Brandon Bookstaver, PharmD, Spero Therapeutics: Advisor/Consultant.

Abstract Background Itraconazole is first-line treatment for mild-moderate blastomycosis and consolidation of moderate-severe disease. Itraconazole is metabolized to 3 metabolites, including an active metabolite hydroxy-itraconazole. The sum of itraconazole and hydroxy-itraconazole levels > 1.0 mcg/mL is guideline recommended for treatment of invasive fungal infections; conversely, some experts suggest targeting a parent compound level alone > 1.0 mcg/mL. This study aims to compare clinical outcomes and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of combined itraconazole and hydroxy-itraconazole levels > 1.0 mcg/mL versus itraconazole parent compound alone > 1.0 mcg/mL in patients with blastomycosis. Methods This study is a single-center, retrospective chart review of patients ≥ 18 years with probable or proven Blastomyces infection who received itraconazole with at least one documented serum itraconazole level. The primary outcome was rate of partial or complete treatment response in patients with a combined itraconazole and hydroxy-itraconazole level > 1.0 mcg/mL versus itraconazole parent compound > 1.0 mcg/mL for > 75% of measured levels. ADRs attributable to itraconazole were compared between the groups. Treatment response rates and ADRs were compared between groups using two proportion z-tests. Results Total of 80 patients were included: 36 = combined itraconazole and hydroxy-itraconazole > 1.0, 32 = itraconazole parent alone > 1.0, 12 = 75% of all levels < 1.0. No statistically significant difference was observed between groups for blastomycosis rate of partial or complete treatment response (94.3% combined vs 96.6% parent, p=0.99). Significantly higher mortality was observed in patients failing to achieve itraconazole or itraconazole/hydroxy-itraconazole > 1.0 (2.8% combined vs 0% parent vs 25% neither, p=0.01). There was no significant difference in total ADRs between the three groups (p=0.56). Conclusion This limited evidence supports an itraconazole therapeutic target combining itraconazole and hydroxy-itraconazole > 1.0 for blastomycosis treatment. Disclosures Paschalis Vergidis, MD, AbbVie: DSMB|Cidara: Grant/Research Support|Scynexis: Grant/Research Support Christina G. Rivera, PharmD, Gilead: Grant/Research Support|Gilead: Honoraria|Insmed: Honoraria.

Elizabethkingia species are Gram-negative bacilli that were most recently linked to a cluster of infections in the Midwestern United States from 2016 to 2017. Inappropriate empirical and directed antibiotic selection for this organism is common among providers and is an independent risk factor for mortality.

Abstract Background In 2018, the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory at our institution adopted updated daptomycin Enterococcus–susceptible dose-dependent breakpoints. While the introduction of susceptible dose-dependent (SDD) was intended to guide practice toward optimal dosing, the understanding and application of daptomycin SDD breakpoints for enterococci were unknown. Methods This mixed-methods study combined a clinician survey with a retrospective pre–post prescribing analysis. An 8-question survey was distributed to infectious diseases (ID) and internal medicine (IM) clinicians. A retrospective chart review of hospitalized adults with infections due to Enterococcus spp. was conducted before (pre-SDD) and after (post-SDD) adoption of SDD reporting for enterococci. Results Survey response rates were 40 of 98 (41%) for IM and 22 of 34 (65%) for ID clinicians. ID clinicians scored significantly higher than IM clinicians in knowledge of SDD. Chart review of 474 patients (225 pre- vs 249 post-SDD) showed that daptomycin dosage following susceptibility testing was significantly higher post-SDD compared with pre-SDD (8.5 mg/kg vs 6.4 mg/kg; P < .001) with no difference in empiric dosing (6.3 mg/kg vs 6.2 mg/kg; P = .67). Definitive daptomycin use varied between the pre- and post-SDD periods (35.1% vs 16.9%; P < .001). Conclusions The survey revealed that ID clinicians placed more importance on and had more confidence in the SDD category over IM clinicians. SDD reporting was associated with a change in definitive daptomycin dosing. ID specialist involvement is recommended in the care of infections due to enterococci for which daptomycin is reported as SDD given their expertise.

Abstract Background Elizabethkingia spp. are non-enteric, gram-negative bacilli that are ubiquitous in environment. It has recently been identified as a causative pathogen in hospital outbreaks of life-threatening bloodstream infections in the Midwestern United States. Methods Retrospective electronic medical record review was performed for patients with Elizabethkingia spp. isolated from any site between November 2011 and September 2020 at our tertiary academic medical center. Antimicrobial susceptibilities are performed using Wadsworth agar dilution method. Results Fifteen cases with Elizabethkingia spp. were included. Ten patients (66.7%) were male and fourteen (93.3%) were Caucasian. The median age was 58 years (IQR 42-67). Four patients had diabetes mellitus, with two of these having end-organ damage (nephropathy, neuropathy, or retinopathy). Five patients had a tracheostomy, two patients had a history of lung transplantation, and four patients had active malignancy at the time of diagnosis (table 1). The most common clinical syndrome was respiratory infection (n=6), followed by catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) (n=4). Three patients were considered to be asymptomatically colonized. Five patients (33.3%) died, one of which was attributable to Elizabethkingia infection. A total of 55 isolates from all sites were available from the fifteen patients. The most common site of isolation was respiratory tract (23/55, 41.8%). In total, 33 of 55 isolates had polymicrobial growth, with the highest rate occurring in respiratory tract specimens (Table 2). A total of 23 clinical isolates were included in tabulation of antimicrobial susceptibility profiles; except for aztreonam (n=13). 95.7% of Elizabethkingia isolates were susceptible to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, followed by levofloxacin and piperacillin-tazobactam (87% and 73.9%, respectively). All isolates were uniformly resistant to amikacin, aztreonam, and tobramycin (Table 3). Conclusion Elizabethkingia spp. can result in respiratory, bloodstream, and sinus infections especially in patients with active malignancy and tracheostomy. Amongst tested antimicrobials, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole showed the most favorable susceptibility profile (Figure 1). Figure 1. AN, amikacin; ATM, aztreonam; CAZ, ceftazidime; CIP, ciprofloxacin; FEP, cefepime; GM, gentamicin; LVX, levofloxacin; MEM, meropenem; NN, tobramycin; SXT, sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim; TZP, piperacillin/tazobactam. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Abstract Background Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) are resistant to numerous antibiotics and lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Omadacycline (OMC) is an aminomethylcycline antibiotic that is Food and Drug Administration-approved for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Furthermore, OMC has shown in vitro activity against NTM. Given that real-world evidence is lacking, our primary objective was to evaluate the clinical success and tolerability of OMC when used for a variety of NTM infections. Methods This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational study conducted from January 2020 to June 2021. We included all patients ≥ 18 years of age that received OMC of any indication for Mycobacterium spp. The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as a lack of all-cause mortality, lack of persistence or re-emergence of infection during or after therapy, and lack of alteration of OMC. Incidence of adverse effects potentially attributable to OMC and reasons for OMC utilization were also analyzed. Results A total of 31 patients were included from 12 geographically distinct academic health systems (median age: 57 (IQR, 45-63) years; 45% male; 81% Caucasian). The majority of isolated pathogens were Mycobacterium abscessus complex (84%) and of those with subspeciation performed (54%), the majority (86%) were subsp. abscessus. The primary infections were of pulmonary origin (67%) and the median (IQR) duration of OMC therapy was 5.3 (3.2-9.4) months. Most isolates did not have OMC susceptibility conducted (87%), while the majority did for tigecycline (90%). Clinical success was reported in 81% of the population. Most patients were on combination antimicrobial therapy, and 39% of patients reported an adverse effect while on OMC (58% gastrointestinal distress). The majority of patients were prescribed OMC due to ease of administration (61%) and antimicrobial resistance to previous antibiotics (42%). Conclusion OMC may be a potential option for the therapy of NTM infections. Prospective, randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm our preliminary findings. Disclosures Julie V. Philley, MD, Paratek Pharmaceuticals (Advisor or Review Panel member)Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Consultant) Michael P. Veve, Pharm.D., Cumberland (Grant/Research Support)Paratek Pharmaceuticals (Research Grant or Support) Michael J. Rybak, PharmD, MPH, PhD, Paratek Pharmaceuticals (Research Grant or Support)

Abstract Objectives Despite low rates of bacterial coinfection in patients admitted with COVID-19, antimicrobials are frequently prescribed. Our primary objective was to evaluate antimicrobial prescribing over time in patients admitted with COVID-19. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the role of ID providers in antimicrobial utilization, describe the rate of confirmed bacterial infection and determine factors associated with empirical antimicrobial prescribing in COVID-19. Materials and methods Retrospective review was performed for adult patients admitted to a tertiary care centre with COVID-19 between 1 March 2020 and 30 November 2020. Patient demographics, disease severity, risk factors for severe disease, clinical outcomes, antimicrobial prescribing and respiratory microbiological testing were collected and analysed. Prescribing trends were evaluated by month, and factors contributing to prescribing were established using univariate and multivariable analysis. Results Antibiotics were prescribed during admission in 37.9% of the study cohort, with 85.1% of patients who received antibiotics having therapy initiated within 48 h of admission. Antibiotic prescribing incidence increased with disease. Over the study period, antimicrobial prescribing rates decreased by 8.7% per month. Multivariable analysis found ICU admission, obtainment of procalcitonin values, intubation, heart failure, haemodialysis and nursing home residence were associated with empirical antimicrobial prescribing. Conclusions Unnecessary antimicrobial prescribing in patients with viral syndromes like COVID-19 continues to represent an area of concern. Antimicrobial stewardship efforts during COVID-19 should consider patient-specific factors associated with antibiotic prescribing. Recognition of such factors, in combination with application of well-established antimicrobial stewardship tactics, may serve to impact antimicrobial prescribing trends, even as patient volumes rise.

AbstractHuman antimicrobial consumption largely occurs in the ambulatory setting, with inappropriate or unnecessary antimicrobial prescribing well documented in the literature. In 2020, The Joint Commission implemented a regulatory standard requiring the development and implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) in those institutions surveyed under the ambulatory accreditation standard. While experience with inpatient antimicrobial stewardship has continued to increase, ambulatory ASPs are programmatically distinct and can present unique challenges with regards to operationalizing regulatory components. Herein, we lay a framework for addressing the task of developing an ambulatory ASP for a large health system by reviewing the regulatory requirements, examining relevant recent publications, and describing our institutional experience.

AbstractOutpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is a well‐established mechanism to facilitate patient discharge, lower inpatient admission cost, and decrease the risk of health care–acquired infections. Although there are numerous benefits to patients and health care institutions, OPAT is complex and not without risks. Patients may be discharged on long courses of oral antimicrobials, known as complex outpatient antimicrobial therapy (COpAT), which also requires careful monitoring and oversight. This, coupled with the need for antimicrobial stewardship across the continuum of care, positions pharmacists with infectious diseases (ID) training as crucial leaders in the field of OPAT. The development, implementation, and maintenance of these services requires the careful attention of health care personnel in discharge antimicrobial selection, continuity of care at key care transitions, implementation of optimal care bundles, provision of thorough patient education throughout the OPAT process, coordination with a multidisciplinary team including home infusion and nursing, and monitoring of program metrics to determine successes and opportunities for improvement. Ongoing support for optimal delivery of patient care will be required as OPAT practice, and health care delivery at large, continues to evolve. This involves continued advocacy for collaborative practice development, optimizing payment for nondispensatory OPAT services, and integration of effective telehealth programs. This article summarizes the need for practice expansion of ID pharmacist specialists in OPAT/COpAT management across the care continuum and best practices for establishment of these services.

Abstract Purpose To identify risk factors that may predispose patients to rifampin- and cefazolin-induced coagulopathy. Summary An 86-year-old man with a history of rheumatoid arthritis on chronic prednisone and stage 3 chronic kidney disease, notably not on warfarin, presented to the hospital with a 10-day history of right hip pain, swelling, and drainage after a recent right total-hip arthroplasty. The patient underwent a combination of surgical intervention and medication therapy with rifampin and ceftriaxone. After discharge and at postoperative day 9, ceftriaxone was changed to cefazolin due to increasing alkaline phosphatase levels. Four weeks after the initial debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention, the patient underwent a second irrigation and debridement due to persistent infection. Cefazolin and rifampin therapy was extended. Three days later, the patient presented to the emergency room with significant bleeding at the surgical site and a profoundly elevated prothrombin time and international normalized ratio (INR). No potential contributors were identified. The Naranjo adverse drug reaction probability scale identified cefazolin and rifampin as the probable cause of elevated INR. The Liverpool adverse drug reaction avoidability assessment tool classified this adverse event as “definitely avoidable.” Conclusion Rifampin-containing regimens are often recommended to treat staphylococcal prosthetic joint infections when the implant is retained. In methicillin-susceptible staphylococcal infections, cefazolin is routinely employed as the β-lactam backbone of definitive antimicrobial regimens. Although rifampin- and cefazolin-induced hypoprothrombinemia seems to be rare, adverse consequences of its occurrence may be prevented with appropriate monitoring.