Rajapakse, Nipunie

Introduction: Invasive candidiasis has a high morbidity and mortality among premature neonates. Antifungal prophylaxis with fluconazole significantly lowers the risk of invasive fungal infection in this population. We noted the use of fluconazole prophylaxis in our level IV neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) was variable and sought to standardize prescribing of prophylactic fluconazole. Methods: We formed a multidisciplinary team to develop an evidence-based protocol using literature and expert consensus to guide appropriate use of fluconazole prophylaxis in our level IV NICU. After determining baseline fluconazole prophylaxis prescribing before protocol implementation, we used plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles to introduce protocolized prescribing and incorporate it into daily practice. A 6-month intervention phase was followed by a 2-year control phase, in which monthly audits were performed to evaluate protocol adherence. Results were displayed in a statistical process control chart. Results: Before protocol implementation, fluconazole prophylaxis prescribing adhered to the protocol in 81% of patients. During the first PDSA cycle, adherence increased significantly to 94.5% (86/91 patients), which further increased to 98.7% (74/75 patients) during the second PDSA cycle and remained at 96% (120/125 patients) during the control phase (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: A multidisciplinary group-designed protocol was successful in standardizing fluconazole prophylaxis prescribing for infants in the level IV NICU. Adherence to protocol was high following implementation and was sustained for the duration of the project. There were no cases of invasive candidiasis noted.

Abstract As outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) becomes more common, it may be difficult to stay current with recent related publications. A group of multidisciplinary OPAT clinicians reviewed and ranked all OPAT publications published in 2021. This article provides a high-level summary of the OPAT manuscripts that were voted the “top 10” publications of 2021.

Abstract We conducted a national survey of pediatric infectious diseases (ID) clinicians on outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) practices and post-discharge ID follow-up. Only 15% of sites required ID consultation for all OPAT. ID division resources for post-discharge care varied. Opportunities exist to increase ID involvement in post-discharge management of serious infections.

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.

Abstract Background Over the last decade, there have been sustained efforts to diversify the healthcare workforce. In 2016, the IDWeek Program Committee was charged to ensure gender equity in speaker sessions. Whether this intervention also resulted in more opportunities for underrepresented speakers has not been determined. Methods This project was supported by IDSA, who provided demographic information on IDWeek speakers (excluding poster sessions) from 2013-2019. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics, and chi-square analysis evaluated changes over time. Each speaker slot was considered an independent event. Data was combined for 2013-2016 (≤2016) and 2017-2019 (&gt;2016). IDSA membership demographics were available from 2014 for gender, race/ethnicity, from 2016 for age, and from 2018 for professional degree. Results A total of 3640 speaker slots were filled by 2504 individuals from 2013-2019. A larger proportion of speaker slots were filled by women &gt;2016 (51%) vs ≤ 2016 (43%), with a linear increase from 38.6% in 2013 to 52.1% in 2019 (p&lt; 0.001). Averaged across 2013-2019, IDSA membership was 67.5% White, 20.6% Asian, 7.7% Latinx, 3.9% Black, and 0.4% Other. IDWeek Speakers during that timeframe were 77.7% White, 13.9% Asian, 4.7% Latinx, 2.7% Black, and 1.0% Other; a larger proportion of slots were filled by Asian speakers &gt;2016 (16.3%) vs ≤ 2016 (12.8%) (p=0.005). The proportion of pharmacist speakers increased over time; 5.1% of speakers in 2019 reflected IDSA pharmacist membership (5.4%). The proportion of individuals invited to speak more than once differed by age (19% in &lt; 40yo, 28% 40-49yo, 32% 50-59yo, and 22% &gt;60yo; p&lt; 0.001), and professional degree (28% physicians, 18% pharmacists, 9% other doctorates, and 7% non-doctorate speakers; p&lt; 0.001). Figure 1: Trends in Gender Distribution of IDWeek Speakers and IDSA Members, 2013-2019 Figure 2: Trends in Race/Ethnicity Distribution of IDWeek Speakers and IDSA Members, 2013-2019 Conclusion Intentional consideration of gender equity by the Program Committee significantly improved equitable gender representation of invited speakers at IDWeek. This effort has not resulted in increased diversity of invited speakers from groups underrepresented in IDSA membership. To ensure that invited speakers represent the membership of IDSA/IDWeek partner organizations and more importantly, the communities we serve, we call for continued application of the principles of Inclusion, Diversity, Access, and Equity at IDWeek. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Abstract Background In November 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provided Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for 2 novel virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibody therapies, bamlanivimab and REGN-COV2 (casirivimab plus imdevimab), for the treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adolescents and adults in specified high-risk groups. This has challenged clinicians to determine the best approach to use of these products. Methods A panel of experts in pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric infectious diseases pharmacy, pediatric intensive care medicine, and pediatric hematology from 29 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a guidance statement was developed and refined based on review of the best available evidence and expert opinion. Results The course of COVID-19 in children and adolescents is typically mild and there is no high-quality evidence supporting any high-risk groups. There is no evidence for safety and efficacy of monoclonal antibody therapy for treatment of COVID-19 in children or adolescents, limited evidence of modest benefit in adults, and evidence for potential harm associated with infusion reactions or anaphylaxis. Conclusions Based on evidence available as of December 20, 2020, the panel suggests against routine administration of monoclonal antibody therapy (bamlanivimab, or casirivimab and imdevimab), for treatment of COVID-19 in children or adolescents, including those designated by the FDA as at high risk of progression to hospitalization or severe disease. Clinicians and health systems choosing to use these agents on an individualized basis should consider risk factors supported by pediatric-specific evidence and ensure the implementation of a system for safe and timely administration that does not exacerbate existing healthcare disparities.

AbstractBackgroundAlthough coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a mild infection in most children, a small proportion develop severe or critical illness. Data describing agents with potential antiviral activity continue to expand such that updated guidance is needed regarding use of these agents in children.MethodsA panel of pediatric infectious diseases physicians and pharmacists from 20 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a set of guidance statements was developed and refined based on review of the best available evidence and expert opinion.ResultsGiven the typically mild course of COVID-19 in children, supportive care alone is suggested for most cases. For children with severe illness, defined as a supplemental oxygen requirement without need for noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), remdesivir is suggested, preferably as part of a clinical trial if available. Remdesivir should also be considered for critically ill children requiring invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO. A duration of 5 days is appropriate for most patients. The panel recommends against the use of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir (or other protease inhibitors) for COVID-19 in children.ConclusionsAntiviral therapy for COVID-19 is not necessary for the great majority of pediatric patients. For children with severe or critical disease, this guidance offers an approach for decision-making regarding use of remdesivir.

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 &lt; .001) and AST (13.5 [56] vs 44.9 [12.1] hours; P &lt; .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 &lt; .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.

Abstract Background Rapid blood culture diagnostics increase cost and have unclear benefit for patients with Gram-negative bacilli (GNB) bloodstream infections (BSIs). We conducted a multicenter, prospective randomized controlled trial (RAPIDS-GN), comparing outcomes of patients with GNB BSI who had blood culture testing with standard of care (SOC) culture and antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) vs. rapid organism identification (ID) and phenotypic AST using the Accelerate Pheno System (AXDX). Methods Subjects with blood culture Gram stain showing GNB were randomized to receive SOC testing with antimicrobial stewardship review (AS) or AXDX plus SOC testing with AS, at two academic medical centers between October 2017 and October 2018. SOC testing included rapid MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry ID and agar dilution or broth microdilution AST. In a modified intention to treat analysis, subjects were excluded if: Gram stain was erroneous, culture was positive during off-hours, blood culture in the prior week had GNB, they were deceased/on comfort care, or admitted to a nonparticipating hospital. The primary outcome was time to first antibiotic modification within 72 hours after randomization. Subjects without antibiotic modifications were assigned a time of 72 hours. No censoring was observed. T-tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used for statistical analyses. Results Of 500 randomized subjects, 448 were included (226 SOC, 222 AXDX). Groups did not differ in baseline characteristics (Table 1). Median (IQR) hours to first antibiotic modification was faster in the AXDX vs. SOC group [8.6 (2.6, 27.6) vs. 14.9 (3.3, 41.1)], P = 0.02 (Figure 1). Median (IQR) hours to first Gram-negative antibiotic modification (including escalation and de-escalation) was faster in the AXDX than SOC group [17.4 (4.9, 72) vs. 42.1 (10.1, 72)], P < 0.001 (Figure 2). Groups did not differ in clinical outcomes (Table 2). Mean (S.D.) time to results was faster for AXDX than SOC for organism ID [2.7 (1.2) h vs. 15.6 (20.3) h, P < 0.001] and AST [13 (55.7) h vs. 54.6 (45.5) h, P < 0.001]. Conclusion In the largest trial to evaluate the clinical impact of a blood culture diagnostic for GNB BSI, we found that rapid organism ID and phenotypic AST led to faster changes in antibiotic therapy for Gram-negative bacteremia. Disclosures Ritu Banerjee, MD, PhD, Accelerate Diagnostics: Grant/Research Support; BioFire: Research Grant; Biomerieux: Research Grant; Roche: Research Grant Robin Patel, MD, ASM and IDSA: Other Financial or Material Support, Travel reimbursement, editor’s stipends; CD Diagnostics, Merck, Hutchison Biofilm Medical Solutions, Accelerate Diagnostics, ContraFect, TenNor Therapeutics Limited, Shionogi: Grant/Research Support; Curetis, Specific Technologies, NextGen Diagnostics, PathoQuest, Qvella: Consultant; NBME, Up-to-Date, the Infectious Diseases Board Review Course: Honorarium recipient, Other Financial or Material Support; Patent on Bordetella pertussis/parapertussis PCR issued, a patent on a device/method for sonication with royalties paid by Samsung to Mayo Clinic, and a patent on an anti-biofilm substance issued: Other Financial or Material Support, Patents.