Schuetz, Audrey N.

Abstract Background: Clostridium ramosum ( C. ramosum ) is an anaerobic gram-positive bacillus of the human intestine and a rare cause of bacteremia. This retrospective cohort study evaluated clinical characteristics and outcomes of a multicenter cohort of adults with C. ramosum bacteremia. Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort included adults (≥ 18 years) with true C. ramosum bacteremia at Mayo Clinic hospitals in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin from September 1, 2012, through December 31, 2025. Data were collected through search for C. ramosum in microbiological culture records. Clinical characteristics assessed included immune status, source of bacteremia, presence of sepsis, neutropenic fever, monomicrobial vs. polymicrobial bacteremia, antimicrobial resistance patterns, antimicrobial therapy, length of stay and 30-day all cause mortality. Exploratory odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. Results: Among 90 patients with a positive C. ramosum blood culture, 17 were classified as contaminants and 73 comprised the study cohort. Median age was 66.0 years (IQR, 56.0–75.0); 44 (60.3%) were male and 33 (45.2%) were immunocompromised (including 26 with active malignancy, while the remaining 7 were received biologic immunosuppression). The most common infection sources were gastrointestinal (32/73, 43.8%) and central line-related (8/73, 11%). At presentation, 50.7% of patients met criteria for sepsis and 15/73 (20.5%), were in septic shock. Of 73 isolates tested, 31/73 (44.3%) were clindamycin resistant and 9/73 (12.9%) tested intermediate. Anaerobic-active antimicrobial therapy was received by 53/73 (72.6%). Thirty-day mortality was 11/73 (15.1%). Mortality was 30.0% (6/20) with therapy without reliable anaerobic activity and 9.4% (5/53) with anaerobic-active antimicrobial therapy (OR, 4.02; 95% CI, 0.88–19.46; P = 0.060). The median hospital LOS was 8.0 days. Among 30-day survivors, anaerobic active antimicrobial therapy was associated with a shorter median LOS compared to therapy without reliable anaerobic activity (8.5 vs. 12.0 days). Immunocompromised patients had higher odds of monomicrobial C. ramosum bacteremia than immunocompetent patients (OR 3.16, 95% CI 1.19–8.39; p = 0.03). Patients with polymicrobial bacteremia had higher odds of sepsis (OR, 3.89; 95% CI, 1.43–10.55; P = 0.008) and septic shock (OR, 5.66; 95% CI, 1.17–27.36; P = 0.020). Patients with malignancy or neutropenia demonstrated significantly lower odds of presenting in septic shock (p = 0.018; p = 0.029 retrospectively). Microbiological clearance was achieved in 91.3% (42/46) of evaluable cases. Conclusions: This largest reported cohort defines the clinical and microbiological profile of C. ramosum bacteremia. Frequent clindamycin nonsusceptibility is clinically actionable. Several clinical associations found on univariable analysis should be further investigated in larger studies.

ABSTRACT Beta‐lactam antibiotics (beta‐lactams) are first‐line treatments for most major infectious syndromes in acutely ill patients, with in vitro activity against common pathogens, demonstrated efficacy in trials, and a perceived low risk of adverse effects. The current dosing approach, informed by population‐level data, tends to be simplistically reduced to a “one size fits all” dosing method which only accounts for body weight (i.e., in pediatrics) and end organ function to estimate drug clearance (e.g., estimated glomerular filtration rate); this approach results in substantial variability in observed serum concentrations in acutely ill patients, which can compromise real‐world effectiveness and safety. Beta‐lactam dose individualization, therefore, defined as a dosing regimen for one patient informed by measured concentrations from that patient, has been recommended in international clinical guidelines. Comprehensive guidance on best practices for beta‐lactam dose individualization is lacking. To address this knowledge gap and develop guidance, a multidisciplinary panel of international experts was assembled from the disciplines of infectious diseases, critical care, pharmacometrics, and laboratory medicine, representing both adults and pediatrics. The panel systematically evaluated the literature, using the GRADE approach where feasible, to address broad thematic questions pertaining to whether beta‐lactam dose individualization should be pursued, for what indications beta‐lactam dose individualization is warranted, and the most critical considerations and best practices for implementation of beta‐lactam individualization. The resultant consensus recommendations will equip healthcare professionals caring for acutely ill patients treated with beta‐lactam therapy with the evidence and tools necessary to guide optimal use of beta‐lactam dose individualization.

ABSTRACT Blood culture contamination can lead to false-positive blood culture results, potentially contributing to increased costs and unneeded antibiotic utilization. Initial specimen diversion devices (ISDD) have been proposed to reduce blood culture contamination rates. A single-center, observational study conducted at Mayo Clinic Rochester compared blood culture contamination rates using Steripath or Kurin ISDDs versus standard blood culture collection protocols. Over 255 phlebotomists were trained in the use of the ISDDs, with 31,215 blood cultures, 410 of which were contaminated, collected from adults in the emergency department and inpatient wards. Baseline contamination rates were 1.29%–2.53% with standard collection methods. The Steripath ISDD with direct-to-media inoculation of blood culture bottles (Steripath-DTM) reduced blood culture contamination compared to standard practice (0.34% vs. 1.43%, respectively, P < 0.001). Follow-up studies with the alternative Steripath configuration with an integrated syringe (Steripath-syringe), and then the Kurin ISDD with syringe collection (Kurin-syringe), did not meet the primary endpoint of <0.5% contamination (Steripath-syringe: 1.28%; Kurin-syringe: 1.76%). All three ISDD configurations failed to meet our goal of >75% utilization, with an average measured utilization of 26% for the Steripath-DTM, 26.4% for the Steripath ISDD (combined DTM and syringe) in a follow-up study, and 41.5% in the Kurin study. Additionally, a survey of phlebotomists revealed low staff satisfaction with both Steripath ISDD configurations. Staff reported multiple ergonomic barriers limiting the Steripath ISDD’s utility, which precluded implementation of the Steripath-DTM in routine clinical practice. IMPORTANCE We conducted a very large, real-world study of two blood diversion devices to determine whether either would meet goals for reduced blood culture contamination and a high rate of utilization by phlebotomists.

ABSTRACT The Burkholderia cepacia complex (BCC) is comprised of 24 species of Gram-negative bacteria that cause opportunistic infections. While antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) has historically been used to guide treatment for BCC infections, recent work highlighting problems with AST for these organisms led the Clinical and Laboratory Sciences Institute (CLSI) to remove disk diffusion (DD) and minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) breakpoints for BCC from its M100 standards document. Epidemiological cut-off values (ECVs) may be helpful to clinicians in the absence of breakpoints, as they may be used to determine whether an isolate has a wild-type or non-wild-type phenotype. Here we present an analysis of BCC ECVs for ceftazidime (CAZ), levofloxacin (LVX), meropenem (MEM), minocycline (MIN), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX). ECVs were calculated using MIC data from 3 previous studies and 3 independent laboratories for 1,896 BCC isolates. ECVs were 16 μg/ml for CAZ, 8 μg/ml for LVX, 16 μg/ml for MEM, and 8 μg/ml for MIN. The ECV for TMP-SMX varied depending on the analysis from 2 μg/ml, 8 μg/ml, and 16 μg/ml and therefore could not be reliably established. Challenges with establishing ECVs for BCC include limitations with the pooled MIC dataset, broad MIC distributions, and high ECVs that are above the obsolete susceptible MIC breakpoints. These challenges limit the clinical utility of ECVs for these organisms and supported removal of ECVs from the CLSI M100 standards document. IMPORTANCE The Burkholderia cepacia complex is a group of bacterial species that cause difficult-to-treat opportunistic infections. Recently, clinical breakpoints, which are used to determine whether organisms are susceptible to certain antimicrobials, were removed from Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) standards for these organisms due to problems with antimicrobial susceptibility testing performance. Clinicians are now faced with the challenge of how to treat these complex infections without clinical breakpoints. Here we determine epidemiological cut-off values (ECVs) for relevant antimicrobials for the B. cepacia complex. While we established ECVs for four antimicrobials, we encountered significant challenges in our analyses, including limitations with data for these organisms and high ECVs that are not clinically useful. These challenges limit the practical use of these ECVs in helping guide clinicians on treatment and supported the eventual removal of ECVs from the CLSI M100 standards document.

ABSTRACT The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Subcommittee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (AST) publishes annual updates to the M100 Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing . This important document contains key information critical to the laboratory’s performance of accurate and current AST. This minireview will highlight and provide supporting data for major changes in the M100 32nd and 33rd editions published in February 2022 and March 2023, respectively. New and revised breakpoints for gram-negative and gram-positive organisms are explained. Proper use of the restructured M100 Table 1 guidance for antimicrobial agents to be considered for testing and reporting is outlined. Reporting guidance for multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacilli is discussed. Other topics within this minireview include additional agents to test and report for direct blood disk diffusion of gram-negative bacilli and quality control range changes and troubleshooting. The minireview concludes with other issues under consideration by the AST Subcommittee.

ABSTRACT Pneumonia may be caused by a diverse group of microorganisms; however, a microbiologic diagnosis is not universally made. Molecular tests such as the BIOFIRE FILMARRAY Pneumonia Panel (BF-PP) offer the possibility of rapid identification of potential pneumonia pathogens. This retrospective analysis was conducted as a sub-study of a recently published randomized controlled trial. Specimens from patients with suspected pneumonia were tested by the BF-PP, with results compared to cultures. The overall BF-PP positivity rate was 44.8% (252/563), and was higher [64.6% (164/254)] in specimens from patients ultimately diagnosed with pneumonia. Discrepancies between the BF-PP and cultures were most common for Streptococcus pneumoniae , Haemophilus influenzae , Moraxella catarrhalis, and Streptococcus agalactiae . Positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) between the BF-PP and culture were 91.4% (CI 86.3%–94.9%) and 83.6% (CI 79.5%–87.2%), respectively. For most bacteria, a correlation between high genomic abundance (genomic copies/mL) reported from the BF-PP and culture growth abundance was found. In specimens from patients ultimately diagnosed with pneumonia, clinical consistency—assessed based on whether BF-PP results aligned with associated culture results—was 79.9% and was highest for bronchoalveolar lavage fluid specimens. The BF-PP has reliable analytical performance and offers the potential advantage over conventional cultures of providing higher detection rates and more rapid results. Interestingly, despite the use of this advanced molecular diagnostic tool, one-third of pneumonia cases remained without a microbiologic etiology. IMPORTANCE This study evaluates the BIOFIRE FILMARRAY Pneumonia Panel by comparing its performance to conventional cultures in a real-world patient population (including patients ultimately diagnosed as not having pneumonia) using different types of specimens. Findings show a higher detection rate of microorganisms with the panel compared to cultures, suggesting that this test could aid in tailoring treatments for pneumonia. However, challenges remain and require further study, including distinguishing true pathogens from colonizing microorganisms and determinig why one-third of patients diagnosed with pneumonia still lacked a microbiologic etiology.

Abstract Background Antibiograms are an important stewardship tool that can inform optimal empiric therapy; most antibiograms are hospital-wide. Unit-specific antibiogram data for unique patient populations including intensive care unit and pediatrics is robust; however, published experience with unit-specific antibiograms in the hematology-oncology (heme-onc) population is limited. These patients are unique because of the common use of antimicrobial prophylaxis, prolonged broad-spectrum antibiotics, and an immunocompromised state. We sought to examine the trends in antibiogram antimicrobial susceptibility over time. Methods This retrospective quality initiative included microbiology results (first isolates per patient per timeframe) from Mayo Clinic Rochester from 2012 to 2022. Eligible cultures were those identified as being obtained from one of 8 hematology, oncology, or bone marrow transplant inpatient units. Agar dilution susceptibility testing and Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) breakpoints were used. Screening PCRs (eg, VRE PCR) were excluded. Culture and susceptibilities were identified by an EMR based report, compiled annually, and reported for two-year periods. Susceptibility rates were compared using the Chi-square test and Chi-square analysis for trends. Results There were 4 gram-negative and 5 gram-positive organism groups that met CLSI antibiogram criteria of ≥ 30 isolates and were included (tables 1-4). There were several significant differences in comparison to the hospital-wide antibiogram, with lower antibiotic susceptibility rates in the heme-onc units for multiple organisms, notably fluoroquinolones to E.coli and P. aeruginosa and several cephalosporins to Enterobacterales as well as penicillin and levofloxacin to Viridans group Streptococcus and vancomycin to E. faecium (tables 1&2). Over the period of 2012-2013 to 2021-2022, susceptibility rates remained stable among the heme-onc antibiogram, with few significant changes (tables 3&4). Conclusion Heme-onc antibiograms illustrated susceptibility rate differences compared to our hospital-wide antibiograms, particularly for antimicrobials used as prophylaxis. Through population-specific antibiograms, providers may be able to improve empiric antibiotic selection. Disclosures Christina G. Rivera (O'Connor), Pharm.D, Gilead Sciences: Board Member

ABSTRACT The Burkholderia cepacia complex (BCC) is a group of Gram-negative bacteria that cause opportunistic infections, most notably in people with cystic fibrosis (CF), and have been associated with outbreaks caused by contaminated medical products. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is often used to guide treatment for BCC infections, perhaps most importantly in people with CF who are being considered for lung transplant. However, recent studies have highlighted problems with AST methods. Here, we address limitations from previous studies to further evaluate BCC AST methods. We assessed the performance of reference broth microdilution (BMD), disk diffusion (DD) using Mueller-Hinton agar (MHA) from three manufacturers, agar dilution (AD), and gradient diffusion (ETEST) for ceftazidime (CAZ), levofloxacin (LVX), meropenem (MEM), minocycline (MIN), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) on a set of 205 BCC isolates. The isolate set included 100 isolates from people with CF and 105 isolates from people without CF from a variety of sources, which enabled us to systematically evaluate whether specimen source impacts AST performance. For all BCC isolates, BMD reproducibility was 93%, 98%, 99%, 98%, and 96% for CAZ, LVX, MEM, MIN, and TMP-SMX, respectively. Using BMD as the comparator method, we show that DD, AD, and ETEST perform poorly, with neither MHA manufacturer nor specimen source significantly impacting method performance. Based on our data, we recommend that routine AST should not be performed for BCC isolates. If a provider requests AST, clinical microbiology laboratories should perform Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute reference methodology for BMD (stored frozen) and report MIC only. IMPORTANCE Antimicrobial susceptibility testing for the Burkholderia cepacia complex (BCC) is often used to determine eligibility for lung transplant in people with cystic fibrosis. However, problems with method performance have been reported. Here, we systematically evaluate the performance of reference broth microdilution, disk diffusion, agar dilution, and gradient diffusion (ETEST) for BCC organisms isolated from people with and without cystic fibrosis. We show that broth microdilution reproducibility is acceptable for levofloxacin, meropenem, minocycline, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, while ceftazidime was just below the acceptability cut-off. Regardless of specimen source, the results from disk diffusion, agar dilution, and ETEST do not correlate with broth microdilution. Based on these findings, we recommend that antimicrobial susceptibility testing should not be routinely performed for BCC, and if requested by the provider, only broth microdilution following Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines should be used. Providers should be aware of the significant limitations of antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for BCC.

Background Identifying a microorganism in patients with native vertebral osteomyelitis presents diagnostic challenges. Microorganism identification through culture-based methods is constrained by prolonged processing times and sensitivity limitations. Despite the availability of molecular diagnostic techniques for identifying microorganisms in native vertebral osteomyelitis, there is considerable variability in reported sensitivity and specificity across studies, leading to uncertainty in their clinical utility. Questions/purposes What are the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios for 16S broad-range PCR followed by Sanger sequencing (16S) and metagenomic next-generation sequencing (NGS) for detecting bacteria in native vertebral osteomyelitis? Methods On June 29, 2023, we searched Cochrane, Embase, Medline, and Scopus for results from January 1970 to June 2023. Included studies involved adult patients with suspected native vertebral osteomyelitis undergoing molecular diagnostics—16S bacterial broad-range PCR followed by Sanger sequencing and shotgun or targeted metagenomic NGS—for bacteria detection. Studies involving nonnative vertebral osteomyelitis and cases of brucellar, tubercular, or fungal etiology were excluded. The reference standard for the diagnosis of native vertebral osteomyelitis was a composite clinical- and investigator-defined native vertebral osteomyelitis diagnosis. Diagnostic performance was assessed using a bivariate random-effects model. Risk of bias and diagnostic applicability were evaluated using the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. After a manual screening of 3403 studies, 10 studies (5 on 16S, 5 on NGS) were included in the present analysis, from which 391 patients were included from a total of 958 patients overall. Quality assessment via QUADAS-2 criteria showed moderate risk of bias and good applicability. Results 16S showed 78% (95% confidence interval [CI] 95% CI 31% to 96%) sensitivity and 94% (95% CI 73% to 99%) specificity, whereas NGS demonstrated 82% (95% CI 63% to 93%) sensitivity and 71% (95% CI 37% to 91%) specificity. In addition, the diagnostic ORs were 59 (95% CI 9 to 388) and 11 (95% CI 4 to 35) for 16S and NGS, respectively. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves showed high test performance for 16S (area under the curve for 16S 95% [95% CI 93% to 97%] and for NGS 89% [95% CI 86% to 92%]). Certainty in estimates was moderate because of sample size limitations. Conclusion This meta-analysis found moderate-to-high diagnostic performance of molecular methods on direct patient specimens for the diagnosis of native vertebral osteomyelitis. When used as a complementary test to microbiological analyses, a positive 16S result rules in the diagnosis of native vertebral osteomyelitis, while further studies are needed to understand the role of NGS in the diagnosis of native vertebral osteomyelitis. When available, these tests should be used in addition to conventional microbiology, especially in complex cases with extensively negative standard microbiological test results, to detect fastidious bacteria or to confirm the causative bacteria when their isolation and pathogenicity are unclear. A large sample size is needed in future research to understand the use of these techniques as standalone tests for diagnosis. Level of Evidence Level III, diagnostic study.