Virk, Abinash

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess the impact of an interdisciplinary remote patient monitoring (RPM) program on clinical outcomes and acute care utilization in cancer patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis following a prospective observational study performed at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Adult patients receiving cancer-directed therapy or in recent remission on active surveillance with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18 and July 31, 2020, were included. RPM was composed of in-home technology to assess symptoms and physiologic data with centralized nursing and physician oversight. RESULTS: During the study timeframe, 224 patients with cancer were diagnosed with COVID-19. Of the 187 patients (83%) initially managed in the outpatient setting, those who did not receive RPM were significantly more likely to experience hospitalization than those receiving RPM. Following balancing of patient characteristics by inverse propensity score weighting, rates of hospitalization for RPM and non-RPM patients were 2.8% and 13%, respectively, implying that the use of RPM was associated with a 78% relative risk reduction in hospital admission rate (95% CI, 54 to 102; P = .002). Furthermore, when hospitalized, these patients experienced a shorter length of stay and fewer prolonged hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths, although these trends did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The use of RPM and a centralized virtual care team was associated with a reduction in hospital admission rate and lower overall acute care resource utilization among cancer patients with COVID-19.

1503 Background: Patients with cancer and COVID-19 are at risk for poor clinical outcomes. An established multi-site remote patient monitoring (RPM) service was rapidly adapted to support a novel, interdisciplinary COVID-19 program for outpatient management of patients at high-risk for severe illness. The goal of this study was to assess the impact of the RPM program on clinical outcomes and acute care utilization in cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Methods: This is a cross-sectional analysis following a multi-site prospective observational study performed at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center (MCCC). All adult patients with active cancer – defined as currently receiving cancer-directed therapy or in recent remission on active surveillance – and PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18 and July 31, 2020 were included. RPM was comprised of in-home technology to assess symptoms and physiologic data with centralized nurse and physician oversight. Results: During the study timeframe 224 cancer patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 at MCCC. Initial management included urgent hospitalization (within 48 hours of diagnosis) in 34 patients (15%). Of the remaining 190 patients (85%) initially managed in the outpatient setting, those who did not receive RPM were significantly more likely to experience hospitalization than those receiving RPM (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.036 to 12.01, P = 0.044). Following balancing of patient characteristics by inverse propensity weighting, rates of hospital admission for RPM and non-RPM patients were 3.1% and 11% respectively, implying that RPM was associated with an 8% reduction in hospital admission rate (-0.077; 95% CI: -0.315 to -0.019, P = 0.009). Use of RPM was also associated with lower rates of prolonged hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality, though these trends did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: In the midst of a global pandemic associated with inpatient bed, ventilator, and PPE shortages, the RPM program provided an effective strategy for outpatient clinical management and was associated with decreased rates of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality in cancer patients with COVID-19. This care model enabled simultaneous opportunity to mitigate the increased risks of exposure, transmission, and resource utilization associated with conventional care.

Abstract In a large cohort of United States healthcare personnel without prior coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, 94 382 doses of messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine were administered to 49 220 individuals. The adjusted vaccine effectiveness following 2 doses of each of the 2 available brands of mRNA vaccine exceeded 96%.

Abstract Background Several vaccines are now available under emergency use authorization in the United States and have demonstrated efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19. Vaccine impact on asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is largely unknown. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutive, asymptomatic adult patients (n = 39 156) within a large US healthcare system who underwent 48 333 preprocedural SARS-CoV-2 molecular screening tests between 17 December 2020 and 8 February 2021. The primary exposure of interest was vaccination with ≥1 dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. The primary outcome was relative risk (RR) of a positive SARS-CoV-2 molecular test among those asymptomatic persons who had received ≥1 dose of vaccine compared with persons who had not received vaccine during the same time period. RR was adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, patient residence relative to the hospital (local vs nonlocal), healthcare system regions, and repeated screenings among patients using mixed-effects log-binomial regression. Results Positive molecular tests in asymptomatic individuals were reported in 42 (1.4%) of 3006 tests and 1436 (3.2%) of 45 327 tests performed on vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, respectively (RR, .44; 95% CI, .33–.60; P < .0001). Compared with unvaccinated patients, risk of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was lower among those >10 days after the first dose (RR, .21; 95% CI, .12–.37; P < .0001) and >0 days after the second dose (RR, .20; 95% CI, .09–.44; P < .0001) in the adjusted analysis. Conclusions COVID-19 vaccination with an mRNA-based vaccine showed a significant association with reduced risk of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection as measured during preprocedural molecular screening. Results of this study demonstrate the impact of the vaccines on reduction in asymptomatic infections supplementing the randomized trial results on symptomatic patients.

Abstract Background Fluoroquinolones (FQs) are known to be accompanied by significant risks. However, the incidence of adverse events (ADEs) resulting in unplanned drug discontinuation when used for periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) is currently unknown. Methods This study included 156 patients over the age of 18 treated for staphylococcal PJI with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention between 1 January 2007 and 21 November 2019. Of the 156 patients, 64 had total hip arthroplasty (THA) and 92 had total knee arthroplasty (TKA) infections. The primary outcome was rate of unplanned drug discontinuation. Secondary outcomes included incidence of severe ADEs, unplanned rifamycin discontinuation, mean time to unplanned regimen discontinuation, and all-cause mortality. Results Overall, unplanned drug discontinuation occurred in 35.6% of patients in the FQ group and 3% of patients in the non-FQ group. The rate of unplanned discontinuation of FQ regimens as compared with non-FQ regimens was 27.5% vs 4.2% (P = .021) in THA infections and 42% vs 2.4% (P < .001) in TKA infections. There was no significant difference in severe ADEs between FQ and non-FQ regimens in both THA and TKA infections. The overall rate of nonsevere ADEs in FQ compared with non-FQ regimens was 43.3% vs 6.1% (P < .001). FQs were associated with tendinopathy, myalgia, arthralgia, and nausea. Conclusions A significantly higher rate of unplanned drug discontinuation was associated with FQ as compared with non-FQ regimens. This provides a real-world view of the implications of FQ-related ADEs on unplanned discontinuation when used in prolonged durations for the management of staphylococcal PJIs.

Abstract Background More than 90% of reported penicillin allergies are found inaccurate when formally assessed. These allergy labels lead to decreased utilization of first-line beta-lactam antibiotics, and adverse clinical outcomes. The objective of this study was to develop a multi-disciplinary approach to decrease inaccurate labeling among hospitalized patients with documented penicillin allergy. Methods A team of clinicians, pharmacists, and nurses utilized the DMAIC quality strategy to improve accuracy of penicillin allergy labeling. Allergic reactions were stratified to develop a penicillin allergy de-labeling algorithm (Figure 1). Admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) for anaphylaxis was defined as a balancing measure. We reviewed baseline data from patients with a documented penicillin allergy admitted to a single inpatient floor at Mayo Clinic, Rochester between June and October 2019. A cause and effect diagram was used to conduct a root cause analysis. The intervention was then applied to patients who reported penicillin allergy admitted to the same floor from November 2019 to January 2020. Study data were collected and basic descriptive statistics generated. Figure 1: Penicillin allergy delabeling algorithm Results 96 patients were included in the control group with mean age of 71 years (range 65–84 years) and 55% females. Breakdown of documented allergic reactions are represented in Figure 2. 58 (60%) received an antibiotic for a median duration of 1.5 days (IQR: 0 – 6). Of these, 7(12%) received penicillin-class antibiotics, and 41 (70.6%) received non-beta-lactam antibiotics. 2 (2%) of these patients were de-labeled without any penicillin skin tests. Detailed metrics of each PDSA cycle are shown in Table 1. During PDSA cycle 2, inaccurate penicillin documentation was removed in 9/19 (47.4%) of hospitalized patients. There were no ICU admissions for anaphylaxis. Figure 2: Graphic representation of proportion of type of documented allergic reactions to penicillin Table 1: Metrics and outcomes at baseline and during successive PDSA cycles Conclusion Various factors contribute to penicillin allergy mislabeling. Our comprehensive algorithm addresses nuances of penicillin allergic reactions and increased accurate penicillin allergy labeling in 47.4% of the cases. Beta-lactam use also increased to 37% through our pilot project while maintaining patient safety. A multi-disciplinary and patient-centered approach aligned with institutional workflows is necessary to improve patient outcomes. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Abstract Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) drive many outpatient encounters and, despite being predominantly viral, are associated with high rates of antibiotic prescriptions. With rising antibacterial resistance, optimization of prescribing of antibiotics in outpatients with RTIs is a critical need. Fortunately, this challenge arises at a time of increasing availability of novel RTI diagnostics to help discern which patients have bacterial infections warranting treatment. Effective implementation of antibiotic stewardship is needed, but optimal approaches for ambulatory settings are unknown. Future research needs are reviewed in this summary of a research summit convened by the Infectious Diseases Society of America in the fall of 2019.

Abstract Background Current guidelines from the American Heart Association (AHA) recommend repeating transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in three to five days if there is high suspicion of IE despite an initial TEE that was negative. This recommendation, however, is based on limited published data. Objectives This investigation attempts to identify specific factors that prompted repeat TEE and evaluate the yield of IE‐related findings demonstrated by repeat TEE as compared to initial or prior TEE. Methods A retrospective cohort who had at least one repeat TEE during an index hospitalization or initial course of antimicrobial therapy for IE between January 2014 and September 2018. We assessed the impact of repeat TEE on IE diagnosis and patient management and included a comparative analysis of patients with initial TEE only. Results Overall, 59 (44.7%) of 132 IE patients underwent repeat TEE. In a comparative analysis that involved patients who had undergone an initial TEE only versus those who had repeat TEE, male gender ( P = .029) and presence of a prosthetic valve or annuloplasty ring ( P = .017) were significantly associated with repeat TEE. Importantly, 8 (17.4%) of repeat TEE were critical for IE diagnosis, 8 (17.4%) impacted antimicrobial management, and 11 (23.9%) supported cardiovascular surgical intervention. Conclusions From a population‐based cohort of incident IE cases, repeat TEE was more frequently (44.7%) done in patients with suspect or proven IE and associated complications than anticipated. Repeat TEE remains pivotal in a contemporary practice that involves critical aspects of IE diagnosis and management.

Abstract Background Rapid blood culture diagnostics are of unclear benefit for patients with gram-negative bacilli (GNB) bloodstream infections (BSIs). We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing outcomes of patients with GNB BSIs who had blood culture testing with standard-of-care (SOC) culture and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) vs rapid organism identification (ID) and phenotypic AST using the Accelerate Pheno System (RAPID). Methods Patients with positive blood cultures with Gram stains showing GNB were randomized to SOC testing with antimicrobial stewardship (AS) review or RAPID with AS. The primary outcome was time to first antibiotic modification within 72 hours of randomization. Results Of 500 randomized patients, 448 were included (226 SOC, 222 RAPID). Mean (standard deviation) time to results was faster for RAPID than SOC for organism ID (2.7 [1.2] vs 11.7 [10.5] hours; P < .001) and AST (13.5 [56] vs 44.9 [12.1] hours; P < .001). Median (interquartile range [IQR]) time to first antibiotic modification was faster in the RAPID arm vs the SOC arm for overall antibiotics (8.6 [2.6–27.6] vs 14.9 [3.3–41.1] hours; P = .02) and gram-negative antibiotics (17.3 [4.9–72] vs 42.1 [10.1–72] hours; P < .001). Median (IQR) time to antibiotic escalation was faster in the RAPID arm vs the SOC arm for antimicrobial-resistant BSIs (18.4 [5.8–72] vs 61.7 [30.4–72] hours; P = .01). There were no differences between the arms in patient outcomes. Conclusions Rapid organism ID and phenotypic AST led to faster changes in antibiotic therapy for gram-negative BSIs. Clinical Trials Registration NCT03218397.

AbstractBackgroundThe American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for infective endocarditis (IE) management recommend end-of-therapy (EOT) echocardiography (ETE) to “establish a new baseline” and based on “expert opinion.”MethodsMedical records of IE patients treated between January 2005 and December 2011 were reviewed. Utilization of ETE and cumulative incidence of re-treatment with antimicrobials or cardiovascular surgery (re-Rx/CVS) within 1 year after EOT were evaluated.ResultsA total of 243 patients completed clinical follow-up at EOT and 170 at 1 year after EOT. One hundred seventy-seven of 243 (72.8%) underwent ETE, the majority (51.4%) transthoracic echocardiography. One hundred thirty-three of 177 (75.1%) were without new/worsened signs or symptoms (new/w-SSx). One hundred forty-one of 177 (79.7%) overall and 117/133 (87.9%) patients without new/w-SSx had no new ETE findings as compared with initial echocardiography. Among 36/177 (20.3%) with new ETE findings, 20/36 (55.6%) had new/w-SSx; ETE findings were more likely in patients with new/w-SSx (39.2% vs 8.3%; P < 0.001) at EOT. Patients were at increased risk of re-Rx/CVS with either new ETE findings (hazard ratio [HR], 25.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.64–87.56; P < .001) or new/w-SSx (HR, 5.35; 95% CI, 2.87–9.95; P < .001). The highest risk of re-Rx/CVS was in patients with both new/w-SSx and new ETE findings (HR, 45.94; 95% CI, 19.07–110.71). Conversely, only 7/187 (3.4%) patients without new/w-SSx who had an ETE required re-Rx/CVS.ConclusionsThe majority of patients without new/w-SSx at EOT will not have new ETE findings or need re-Rx/CVS within 1 year after EOT. EOT new/w-SSx is associated with new ETE findings and predicts the need for re-Rx/CVS. Further study is needed to determine whether patients without new/w-SSx need ETE.