Huskins, W. Charles

Abstract Background Starting in November 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for multiple novel virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibody therapies, including bamlanivimab monotherapy (now revoked), bamlanivimab and etesivimab, casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV), and sotrovimab, for treatment or postexposure prophylaxis of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adolescents (≥12 years of age) and adults with certain high-risk conditions. Previous guidance is now updated based on new evidence and clinical experience. Methods A panel of experts in pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric infectious diseases pharmacotherapy, and pediatric critical care medicine from 18 geographically diverse US institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a guidance statement was developed and refined based on a review of the best available evidence and expert opinion. Results The course of COVID-19 in children and adolescents is typically mild, though more severe disease is occasionally observed. Evidence supporting risk stratification is incomplete. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the benefit of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific monoclonal antibody therapies in adults, but data on safety and efficacy in children or adolescents are limited. Potential harms associated with infusion reactions or anaphylaxis are reportedly low in adults. Conclusions Based on evidence available as of August 31, 2021, the panel suggests a risk-based approach to administration of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody therapy. Therapy is suggested for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adolescents (≥12 years of age) at the highest risk of progression to hospitalization or severe disease. Therapeutic decision-making about those at moderate risk of severe disease should be individualized. Use as postexposure prophylaxis could be considered for those at the highest risk who have a high-risk exposure but are not yet diagnosed with COVID-19. Clinicians and health systems should ensure safe and timely implementation of these therapeutics that does not exacerbate existing healthcare disparities.

Abstract Background Myocarditis following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) has been increasingly reported. Incidence rates in the general population are lacking, with pericarditis rather than myocarditis diagnostic codes being used to estimate background rates. This comparison is critical for balancing the risk of vaccination with the risk of no vaccination. Methods A retrospective case series was performed using the Mayo Clinic COVID-19 Vaccine Registry. We measured the incidence rate ratio (IRR) for myocarditis temporally related to COVID-19 mRNA vaccination compared with myocarditis in a comparable population from 2016 through 2020. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of the affected patients were collected. A total of 21 individuals were identified, but ultimately 7 patients met the inclusion criteria for vaccine-associated myocarditis. Results The overall IRR of COVID-19–related myocarditis was 4.18 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.63–8.98), which was entirely attributable to an increased IRR among adult males (IRR, 6.69; 95% CI, 2.35–15.52) compared with females (IRR 1.41; 95% CI, .03–8.45). All cases occurred within 2 weeks of a dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, with the majority occurring within 3 days (range, 1–13) following the second dose (6 of 7 patients, 86%). Overall, cases were mild, and all patients survived. Conclusions Myocarditis is a rare adverse event associated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. It occurs in adult males with significantly higher incidence than in the background population. Recurrence of myocarditis after a subsequent mRNA vaccine dose is not known at this time.

Abstract Background Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) and specifically Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKp) are a global threat. CRE rapidly spreading in a healthcare network may infect a distinct patient cohort or have higher virulence. We determined the impact of cluster assignment of CRKp on transmission dynamics and clinical outcomes. Methods CRACKLE-2 is a multi-site, prospective, observational cohort study of hospitalized patients with a clinical CRE culture from any anatomic site. We analyzed 351 patients enrolled 4/30/2016–8/31/2017 in 42 US hospitals with clonal group 258 CRKp. Static clusters were set as ≤ 21 core single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), identified by Snippy, and sharing a recent common ancestor, using a maximum likelihood phylogeny (RAxML v8.2.4). Dynamic clusters were set as > 80% probability of being within 3 transmissions by the R program transcluster (λ = 4, β = 1.6). Clinical outcome was assessed by desirability of outcome ranking with best outcome as alive without events and worst outcome as death. Events were no clinical response, unsuccessful discharge, and adverse events. We compared patients in and out of clusters. For patients in clusters, we also compared intra- vs inter-hospital clusters. Results In total, there were 49 static (median: 5, IQR: 2, 8) and 45 dynamic clusters (median: 5, IQR: 2, 20). For static clusters, 176 patients (50%) were in clusters with 82 (47%) patients in intra-hospital clusters. A higher proportion of patients in clusters, vs not in clusters, had a CRKp culture > 3 days from admission (P = 0.037). More patients in inter-hospital, vs intra-hospital, clusters had diabetes (P = 0.02). For dynamic clusters, 179 patients (51%) were in clusters with 69 (39%) patients in intra-hospital clusters. A lower proportion of patients in clusters, vs not in clusters, had CRKp isolated from urine (P = 0.04). More patients in inter-hospital, vs intra-hospital, clusters had a CRKp culture 3 days from admission (P = 0.04). Clinical outcomes were the same for patients in clusters vs not in clusters for static and dynamic clusters. Conclusion This analysis shows that clinical outcomes are independent of clustering assignment. Static clustering better represented nosocomial spread, based on a higher proportion of patients in clusters having a later CRKp culture. Disclosures Gregory Weston, MD MSCR, Allergan (Grant/Research Support) W. Charles Huskins, MD, MSc, ADMA Biologics (Consultant)Pfizer, Inc (Consultant) Jason C. Gallagher, PharmD, Allergan (Consultant)Astellas (Consultant)Merck (Consultant)Nabriva (Consultant)Qpex (Consultant)scPharmaceuticals (Consultant)Shionogi (Consultant)Spero (Consultant)Tetraphase (Consultant) Robert A. Bonomo, MD, Entasis, Merck, Venatorx (Research Grant or Support) Cesar A. Arias, MD, MSc, PhD, FIDSA, Entasis Therapeutics (Scientific Research Study Investigator)MeMed (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Merck (Grant/Research Support) David van Duin, MD, PhD, Achaogen (Advisor or Review Panel member)Allergan (Advisor or Review Panel member)Astellas (Advisor or Review Panel member)MedImmune (Advisor or Review Panel member)Merck (Advisor or Review Panel member)NeuMedicine (Advisor or Review Panel member)Qpex (Advisor or Review Panel member)Roche (Advisor or Review Panel member)Sanofi-Pasteur (Advisor or Review Panel member)Shionogi (Advisor or Review Panel member)T2 Biosystems (Advisor or Review Panel member)Tetraphase (Advisor or Review Panel member)

Abstract Background Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in children is usually treated with 10 days of antibiotics. Shorter antibiotic courses may be beneficial if proven effective, with potentially fewer antibiotic adverse effects and decreased antibiotic exposure. Methods This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled superiority trial (NCT02891915) compared a strategy of short vs standard course ß-lactam therapy for outpatient CAP in children ages 6–71 months. Children demonstrating clinical improvement by day 3–5 of initial therapy were considered for enrollment. Enrolled children were randomized 1:1 to receive either 5 additional days of the originally prescribed antibiotic (standard) or matching placebo (short). The Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR; PMID: 26113652) was the primary outcome, and was defined by classifying the global experience of children into an ordinal clinical response (OCR) that combined the response to CAP treatment and antibiotic adverse effects 11–15 days after the start of therapy. For those subjects with equivalent OCR, documented days of antibiotic administration was used to further rank the desirability of the outcome with the a priori assumption that shorter antibiotic exposure was more desirable. The OCR was a secondary outcome. The intention to treat population was used to estimate the probability of a more desirable outcome for the strategy of short vs. standard course therapy for both outcomes. Results 385 children were enrolled; 380 had complete data for analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two strategies. In both strategies, > 90% of children had an adequate response to CAP treatment and most antibiotic adverse effects were minor (Table). In the OCR analysis, short course therapy had a 48% probability (95% CI: 42%-53%) of a more desirable outcome. In the DOOR analysis, short course therapy was superior to standard therapy with a 69% probability (95% CI: 63%-72%; p< 0.001) of a more desirable outcome. Conclusion Among children with CAP demonstrating initial clinical improvement with outpatient therapy, both strategies had a similar response to CAP treatment and antibiotic adverse effects, but short course therapy was superior in our a priori defined outcome that incorporated decreased antibiotic exposure. Disclosures Emmanuel B. Walter, MD, MPH, Moderna (Grant/Research Support)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support) Jason Newland, MD, MEd, FPIDS, Merck (Grant/Research Support)Pfizer (Other Financial or Material Support, Industry funded clinical trial) Vance G. Fowler, Jr., MD, MHS, Achaogen (Consultant)Actavis (Grant/Research Support)Advanced Liquid Logics (Grant/Research Support)Affinergy (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Affinium (Consultant)Allergan (Grant/Research Support)Ampliphi Biosciences (Consultant)Basilea (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Bayer (Consultant)C3J (Consultant)Cerexa (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Contrafect (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Cubist (Grant/Research Support)Debiopharm (Consultant)Destiny (Consultant)Durata (Consultant)Forest (Grant/Research Support)Genentech (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Integrated Biotherapeutics (Consultant)Janssen (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Karius (Grant/Research Support)Locus (Grant/Research Support)Medical Biosurfaces (Grant/Research Support)Medicines Co. (Consultant)Medimmune (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Merck (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)NIH (Grant/Research Support)Novadigm (Consultant)Novartis (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support)Regeneron (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Tetraphase (Consultant)Theravance (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Trius (Consultant)xBiotech (Consultant) W. Charles Huskins, MD, MSc, ADMA Biologics (Consultant)Pfizer, Inc (Consultant)

Abstract Background Carbapenem Resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) are an urgent public health threat. We describe the clinical and molecular epidemiology of CRE infection in a multicenter pediatric cohort. Methods Patients under 18 years of age with CRE positive cultures between April 30 2016 and August 31 2017 were identified from among 49 hospitals participating in the Consortium on Resistance Against Carbapenems in Klebsiella and Other Enterobacteriaceae. Isolates representing colonization or infection were included. Bacterial identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing were performed in each contributing clinical microbiology laboratory. Carbapenem resistance was defined per CDC criteria as those isolates displaying imipenem, doripenem, or meropenem MIC ≥4 μg/mL or ertapenem MIC ≥2 μg/mL. Clinical and epidemiological data were obtained from the electronic health record. Carbapenemase genes were detected using PCR. Results 51 pediatric patients with CRE were identified at 17 hospitals. All regions of the United States were represented, with highest prevalence in the South (46%), followed by the Northeast (24%), Midwest (20%) and West (10%). The mean age at time of positive culture was 4 years. 66% of children were under age 2. 53% were male. 40% were white, 38% black, and 18% Hispanic. Mean time from admission to culture was 25 days. 72% of children were in an ICU at the time of culture, including 18% in the neonatal ICU. 42% required mechanical ventilation prior to culture. History of malignancy was present in 14% of children. The most common source was urine (31%), followed by respiratory (25%), and blood (18%). The most common species were Enterobacter cloacae (29%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (24%) and E. coli (20%). Carbapenemase genes were detected in 8 out of 35 (23%) isolates tested. 90-day mortality was 18%. Mortality was highest for K. pneumoniae (42%). The majority of subjects (88%) did not receive effective antibiotic therapy on the day of culture collection. Table 1 Table 2 Conclusion CRE infection or colonization in children in the U.S. was geographically widespread, likely hospital-acquired, and associated with high mortality. A significant portion of patients were infants. Ineffective antibiotic therapy was common at illness onset. Disclosures W. Charles Huskins, MD, MSc, ADMA Biologics (Consultant)Pfizer, Inc (Consultant)

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.

Pediatric sepsis is a major public health problem. Published treatment guidelines and several initiatives have increased adherence with guideline recommendations and have improved patient outcomes, but the gains are modest, and persistent gaps remain. The Children’s Hospital Association Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes (IPSO) collaborative seeks to improve sepsis outcomes in pediatric emergency departments, ICUs, general care units, and hematology/oncology units. We developed a multicenter quality improvement learning collaborative of US children’s hospitals. We reviewed treatment guidelines and literature through 2 in-person meetings and multiple conference calls. We defined and analyzed baseline sepsis-attributable mortality and hospital-onset sepsis and developed a key driver diagram (KDD) on the basis of treatment guidelines, available evidence, and expert opinion. Fifty-six hospital-based teams are participating in IPSO; 100% of teams are engaged in educational and information-sharing activities. A baseline, sepsis-attributable mortality of 3.1% was determined, and the incidence of hospital-onset sepsis was 1.3 cases per 1000 hospital admissions. A KDD was developed with the aim of reducing both the sepsis-attributable mortality and the incidence of hospital-onset sepsis in children by 25% from baseline by December 2020. To accomplish these aims, the KDD primary drivers focus on improving the following: treatment of infection; recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of sepsis; de-escalation of unnecessary care; engagement of patients and families; and methods to optimize performance. IPSO aims to improve sepsis outcomes through collaborative learning and reliable implementation of evidence-based interventions.

Abstract Background Contact precautions for endemic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are under increasing scrutiny, in part due to limited clinical trial evidence. Methods We retrospectively analyzed data from the Strategies to Reduce Transmission of Antimicrobial Resistant Bacteria in Intensive Care Units (STAR*ICU) trial to model the use of contact precautions in individual intensive care units (ICUs). Data included admission and discharge times and surveillance test results. We used a transmission model to estimate key epidemiological parameters, including the effect of contact precautions on transmission. Finally, we performed multivariate meta-regression to identify ICU-level factors associated with contact precaution effects. Results We found that 21% of admissions (n = 2194) were placed on contact precautions, with most for MRSA and VRE. We found little evidence that contact precautions reduced MRSA transmission. The estimated change in transmission attributed to contact precautions was –16% (95% credible interval, –38% to 15%). VRE transmission was higher than MRSA transmission due to contact precautions, but not significantly. In our meta-regression, we did not identify associations between ICU-level factors and estimated contact precaution effects. Importation and transmission were higher for VRE than for MRSA, but clearance rates were lower for VRE than for MRSA. Conclusions We found little evidence that contact precautions implemented during the STAR*ICU trial reduced transmission of MRSA or VRE. We did find important differences in the transmission dynamics between MRSA and VRE. Differences in organism and healthcare setting may impact the efficacy of contact precautions.

Objectives: To describe the Children’s Hospital Association’s Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes sepsis definitions and the identified patients; evaluate the definition using a published framework for evaluating sepsis definitions. Design: Observational cohort. Setting: Multicenter quality improvement collaborative of 46 hospitals from January 2017 to December 2018, excluding neonatal ICUs. Patients: Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes Sepsis was defined by electronic health record evidence of suspected infection and sepsis treatment or organ dysfunction. A more severely ill subgroup, Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes Critical Sepsis, was defined, approximating septic shock. Interventions: Participating hospitals identified patients, extracted data, and transferred de-identified data to a central data warehouse. The definitions were evaluated across domains of reliability, content validity, construct validity, criterion validity, measurement burden, and timeliness. Measurements and Main Results: Forty hospitals met data quality criteria across four electronic health record platforms. There were 23,976 cases of Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes Sepsis, including 8,565 with Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes Critical Sepsis. The median age was 5.9 years. There were 10,316 (43.0%) immunosuppressed or immunocompromised patients, 4,135 (20.3%) with central lines, and 2,352 (11.6%) chronically ventilated. Among Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes Sepsis patients, 60.8% were admitted to intensive care, 26.4% had new positive-pressure ventilation, and 19.7% received vasopressors. Median hospital length of stay was 6.0 days (3.0–13.0 d). All-cause 30-day in-hospital mortality was 958 (4.0%) in Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes Sepsis; 541 (6.3%) in Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes Critical Sepsis. The Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes Sepsis definitions demonstrated strengths in content validity, convergent construct validity, and criterion validity; weakness in reliability. Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes Sepsis definitions had significant initial measurement burden (median time from case completion to submission: 15 mo [interquartile range, 13–18 mo]); timeliness improved once data capture was established (median, 26 d; interquartile range, 23–56 d). Conclusions: The Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes Sepsis definitions demonstrated feasibility for large-scale data abstraction. The patients identified provide important information about children treated for sepsis. When operationalized, these definitions enabled multicenter identification and data aggregation, indicating practical utility for quality improvement.