O’Horo, John C.

Abstract Background Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) is an important complication of long-term central venous catheters (CVCs) and is associated with high morbidity and cost. While line removal is optimal, it is not always feasible and is not without complications. Antibiotic lock therapy (ALT) may be an alternative strategy for line salvage, but the efficacy of this approach particularly among immunocompromised hosts is unknown. Methods We retrospectively reviewed adult patients with CRBSI managed with ALT between 2018 and 2022 at our tertiary medical center. We reviewed patient comorbidities, type and indications for CVC use, microbiology of CRBSI, ALT, and use of systemic antibiotics. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, 90-day microbiologic relapse (with same bacteria as index case), 90-day recurrent BSI (with different bacteria from index case), and adverse events. Results 86 patients were reviewed, a majority of whom were immunocompromised (91%) due to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (85%) and thrombocytopenic (platelet count 36; IQR 17-112). 78% had tunneled CVC for indications including peri-transplant therapy (72%), chemotherapy (15%), and TPN (6%) (Table 1). The median time to CRBSI following CVC insertion was 45 days (IQR 19-86). Infections were frequently monomicrobial (80%) due to Gram-positive organisms (n=75) including coagulase-negative staphylococci and Enterococcus spp. The minority of Gram-negative (n=17) infections were due to E coli and Enterobacter spp. 94% of patients received systemic antibiotics and all patients received ALT for a median of 11 days [IQR 6-15] and 11.5 days [IQR 6-14], respectively (Table 2). The 30-day attributable mortality rate was low at 1%. Rates of 90-day microbiologic relapse (20%) and recurrent BSI (16%) were high, occurring at a median of 42 days (IQR 12-55) and 35 days (IQR 25-50) following completion of ALT, respectively (Table 3). Conclusion Despite high rates of microbiologic relapse and recurrent BSI, ALT may be an effective line salvage strategy extending the use of CVC by up to 30 days with minimal impact on mortality even among immunocompromised patients. Disclosures John C. O'Horo, Sr., MD, MPH, Janssen Pharmaceuticals.: Grant/Research Support|nference: Grant/Research Support

Abstract Background As the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic subsides, an increasing number of individuals are recognized as having long COVID, affecting over 65 million people worldwide. Recent studies have suggested a potential link between long COVID and alterations in the gut microbiome. In this study, we examined the gut microbiome of a large outpatient cohort during acute phase of infection, with the ultimate goal of determining predictors of long-term COVID-19 health outcomes. Methods We conducted a study of 394 COVID-19 patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 testing from November 2020 to September 2021 at a multi-site healthcare system. Long COVID was defined as the persistence of symptoms for four weeks or more after illness onset. DNA extraction was performed using the MoBio PowerSoil Pro DNA isolation kit. Samples were sequenced using shotgun metagenomics. Stool SARS-CoV-2 RNA was tested using qRT-PCR of the E gene, and stool ELISA was performed for calprotectin levels. Standard biostatistical tools in R (v 4.2.3) were used for statistical analysis. Results Of the 394 COVID-19 patients, 84 (21%) had long COVID, with fatigue being the most common persistent symptom (Table 1). No significant differences were seen in age, BMI, and antibiotic use. Those with long COVID were more likely to be female, had higher Charlson's comorbidity scores, more severe index illnesses. However, the two groups had no difference in SARS-CoV-2 stool PCR positivity or stool calprotectin levels (Table 2). Principal coordinate analysis of Bray Curtis dissimilarities revealed that patients with long COVID had a distinct microbial composition compared with those without long COVID during the acute phase of infection (ANOSIM R2= 0.005, P= 0.01). Categorizing patients by number of long COVID symptoms showed significant differences among groups (ANOSIM R2=0.1, P=0.007), mainly between patients with >3 symptoms and those with 0-1 symptoms (Bonferroni, P= 0.018). Alpha diversity was lower in patients with > 3 symptoms, although this was not statistically significant (Shannon diversity, two-way-ANOVA, P=0.051). Figure 1 Conclusion Long COVID patients show distinct gut microbial composition during the acute phase of infection, suggesting a potential role in predicting long-term COVID health outcomes. Disclosures John C. O'Horo, Sr., MD, MPH, Janssen Pharmaceuticals.: Grant/Research Support|nference: Grant/Research Support Purna C. Kashyap, MD, Intrinsic Medicine: Advisor/Consultant|Novome Biotechnologies: Advisor/Consultant|Pendulum Therapeutics: Advisor/Consultant

ABSTRACT Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has had an unprecedented impact on human health and highlights the need for genomic epidemiology studies to increase our understanding of virus evolution and spread and to inform policy decisions. We sequenced viral genomes from over 22,000 patient samples tested at Mayo Clinic Laboratories between 2020 and 2022 and used Bayesian phylodynamics to describe county and regional spread in Minnesota. The earliest calculated introduction into Minnesota was to Hennepin County from a domestic source around 22 January 2020; 6 weeks before the first confirmed case in the state. This led to the virus spreading to Northern Minnesota and, eventually, the rest of the state. International introductions were most abundant in Hennepin (home to the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport) totaling 45 (out of 107) over the 2-year period. Southern Minnesota counties were most common for domestic introductions, with 19 (out of 64), potentially driven by bordering states such as Iowa and Wisconsin as well as Illinois, which is nearby. Hennepin also was, by far, the most dominant source of in-state transmissions to other Minnesota locations ( n = 772) over the 2-year period. We also analyzed the diversity of the location source of SARS-CoV-2 viruses in each county and noted the timing of state-wide policies as well as trends in clinical cases. Neither the number of clinical cases nor the major policy decisions, such as the end of the lockdown period in 2020 or the end of all restrictions in 2021, appeared to have an impact on virus diversity across each individual county. IMPORTANCE We analyzed over 22,000 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) genomes of patient samples tested at Mayo Clinic Laboratories during a 2-year period in the COVID-19 pandemic, which included Alpha, Delta, and Omicron variants of concern to examine the roles and relationships of Minnesota virus transmission. We found that Hennepin County, the most populous county, drove the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 viruses in the state after including the formation of earlier clades including 20A, 20C, and 20G, as well as variants of concern Alpha and Delta. We also found that Hennepin County was the source for most of the county-to-county introductions after an initial predicted introduction with the virus in early 2020 from an international source, while other counties acted as transmission “sinks.” In addition, major policies, such as the end of the lockdown period in 2020 or the end of all restrictions in 2021, did not appear to have an impact on virus diversity across individual counties.

(1) Background: Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) are an important group of organisms that can cause bloodstream infection (BSI) and infective endocarditis (IE). The prevalence of IE in patients with BSI due to different CoNS species, however, has received limited attention; (2) Methods: A retrospective study of adults with monomicrobial CoNS BSI who had undergone echocardiography and a risk factor analysis was done to determine the most common CoNS species that cause definite IE; (3) Results: 247 patients with CoNS BSI were included in the investigation; 49 (19.8%) had definite IE, 124 (50.2%) possible IE, and 74 (30.0%) BSI only. The latter two entities were grouped in one category for further analysis. The most common species in CoNS BSI was Staphylococcus epidermidis (79.4%) and most patients (83.2%) had possible IE/BSI only. 59.1% of patients with BSI due to S. lugdunensis had definite IE. The majority of CoNS were healthcare-associated/nosocomial bacteremia. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that valve disease (p = 0.002) and a foreign cardiovascular material (p < 0.001) were risk factors associated with definite IE. Patients with S. lugdunensis BSI had an 8-fold higher risk of definite IE than did those with S. epidermidis BSI and nearly a 13-fold higher risk than did patients with BSI due to other species of CoNS (p = 0.002); (4) Conclusions: The prevalence of definite IE in patients with BSI due to different CoNS species was significant. CoNS bacteremia, particularly with S. lugdunensis, confers a significant risk of IE, particularly in patients with a valve disease or intravascular foreign body material and should not be immediately dismissed as a contaminant.

Abstract Background Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) have an associated infection rate of 13%–80% postimplant. An optimal strategy for surgical infection prophylaxis (SIP) at the time of implantation has not been well defined. We aimed to evaluate the different LVAD implantation antibiotic prophylaxis regimens as well as the incidence of LVAD infection at our institution. Methods We performed a single-center, retrospective study of patients who underwent LVAD implantation between February 2007 and June 2019. The primary outcome was the incidence of LVAD infection (LVADI), within 3 months and 1 year of placement, between patients who received expanded or narrow-spectrum regimens for SIP. We assessed outcomes using Kaplan-Meier, time-to-first event. We used a noninferiority analysis, which was established if the narrow-spectrum event rate was no more than 5% greater than the expanded-spectrum event rate. Results We included 399 patients, 305 (76.4%) patients received narrow-spectrum SIP, whereas the remaining 94 (23.6%) patients received the expanded-spectrum regimen. Statistical noninferiority of the narrow spectrum to the multiple drug regimen was demonstrated at both time points, and statistical superiority of the narrow-spectrum group across 12-month follow up was further evident (P = .037). Conclusions We report evidence supporting noninferiority, or even superiority, of the narrow-spectrum over expanded-spectrum antimicrobial prophylaxis strategy with respect to LVADI. These findings support data-driven antimicrobial prophylaxis strategies.

AbstractBackgroundPneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) is a growing concern as the immunocompromised population expands. Current laboratory approaches are limited. This systematic review aimed to evaluate metagenomic next-generation sequencing (MNGS) tests’ performance in detecting PCP.MethodsFive databases were searched through December 19, 2022, to identify original studies comparing MNGS with clinically diagnosed PCP. To assess the accuracy, symmetric hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models were used.ResultsEleven observational studies reporting 1442 patients (424 with PCP) were included. Six studies focused exclusively on recipients of biologic immunosuppression (none with HIV-associated immunosuppression). Six were exclusively on bronchoalveolar lavage, while 1 was on blood samples. The sensitivity of MGNS was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.90–0.99), and specificity was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.92–0.98), with negative and positive likelihood ratios of 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01–0.05) and 19.31 (95% CI, 10.26–36.36), respectively. A subgroup analysis of studies exclusively including bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and blood samples demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.78–0.99) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.80–0.98) and a specificity of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.88–0.99) and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.76–1.00), respectively. The sensitivity analysis on recipients of biologic immunosuppression showed a sensitivity and specificity of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.90–0.98) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.84–0.98), respectively. The overall confidence in the estimates was low.ConclusionsDespite the low certainty of evidence, MNGS detects PCP with high sensitivity and specificity. This also applies to recipients of biologic immunosuppression and tests performed exclusively on blood samples without the need for BAL. Further studies are required in individuals with HIV-associated immunosuppression.

ImportanceEvidence on the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 therapies across a diverse population with varied risk factors is needed to inform clinical practice.ObjectiveTo assess the safety of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (nMAbs) for the treatment of COVID-19 and their association with adverse outcomes.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study included 167 183 patients from a consortium of 4 health care systems based in California, Minnesota, Texas, and Utah. The study included nonhospitalized patients 12 years and older with a positive COVID-19 laboratory test collected between November 9, 2020, and January 31, 2022, who met at least 1 emergency use authorization criterion for risk of a poor outcome.ExposureFour nMAb products (bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, and sotrovimab) administered in the outpatient setting.Main Outcomes and MeasuresClinical and SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequence data and propensity-adjusted marginal structural models were used to assess the association between treatment with nMAbs and 4 outcomes: all-cause emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalization, death, and a composite of hospitalization or death within 14 days and 30 days of the index date (defined as the date of the first positive COVID-19 test or the date of referral). Patient index dates were categorized into 4 variant epochs: pre-Delta (November 9, 2020, to June 30, 2021), Delta (July 1 to November 30, 2021), Delta and Omicron BA.1 (December 1 to 31, 2021), and Omicron BA.1 (January 1 to 31, 2022).ResultsAmong 167 183 patients, the mean (SD) age was 47.0 (18.5) years; 95 669 patients (57.2%) were female at birth, 139 379 (83.4%) were White, and 138 900 (83.1%) were non-Hispanic. A total of 25 241 patients received treatment with nMAbs. Treatment with nMAbs was associated with lower odds of ED visits within 14 days (odds ratio [OR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.85), hospitalization within 14 days (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.45-0.59), and death within 30 days (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.10-0.20). The association between nMAbs and reduced risk of hospitalization was stronger in unvaccinated patients (14-day hospitalization: OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.44-0.59), and the associations with hospitalization and death were stronger in immunocompromised patients (hospitalization within 14 days: OR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.24-0.41]; death within 30 days: OR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.06-0.27]). The strength of associations of nMAbs increased incrementally among patients with a greater probability of poor outcomes; for example, the ORs for hospitalization within 14 days were 0.58 (95% CI, 0.48-0.72) among those in the third (moderate) risk stratum and 0.41 (95% CI, 0.32-0.53) among those in the fifth (highest) risk stratum. The association of nMAb treatment with reduced risk of hospitalizations within 14 days was strongest during the Delta variant epoch (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.31-0.43) but not during the Omicron BA.1 epoch (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.68-2.47). These findings were corroborated in the subset of patients with viral genomic data. Treatment with nMAbs was associated with a significant mortality benefit in all variant epochs (pre-Delta: OR, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.08-0.33]; Delta: OR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.09-0.22]; Delta and Omicron BA.1: OR, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.03-0.35]; and Omicron BA.1: OR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.02-0.93]). Potential adverse drug events were identified in 38 treated patients (0.2%).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, nMAb treatment for COVID-19 was safe and associated with reductions in ED visits, hospitalization, and death, although it was not associated with reduced risk of hospitalization during the Omicron BA.1 epoch. These findings suggest that targeted risk stratification strategies may help optimize future nMAb treatment decisions.

Abstract Background Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midlines are commonly used devices for reliable vascular access. Infection and thrombosis are the main adverse effects of these catheters. We aimed to evaluate the relative risk of complications from midlines and PICCs. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. The primary outcomes were catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) and thrombosis. Secondary outcomes evaluated included mortality, failure to complete therapy, catheter occlusion, phlebitis, and catheter fracture. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results Of 8368 citations identified, 20 studies met the eligibility criteria, including 1 RCT and 19 observational studies. Midline use was associated with fewer patients with CRBSI compared with PICCs (odds ratio [OR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.15–0.38). This association was not observed when we evaluated risk per catheter. No significant association was found between catheters when evaluating risk of localized thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. A subgroup analysis based on location of thrombosis showed higher rates of superficial venous thrombosis in patients using midlines (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.48–3.57). We did not identify any significant difference between midlines and PICCs for the secondary outcomes. Conclusions Our findings suggest that patients who use midlines might experience fewer CRBSIs than those who use PICCs. However, the use of midline catheters was associated with greater risk of superficial vein thrombosis. These findings can help guide future cost-benefit analyses and direct comparative RCTs to further characterize the efficacy and risks of PICCs vs midline catheters.

Abstract Background The incidence of end-stage heart failure necessitating advanced cardiac therapy continues to increase in the United states. Implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) represent an important modality that is utilized both as a bridge to heart transplant or as destination therapy. LVAD-associated infections, ranging from driveline exit site or pocket infections to endovascular infections, are a major complication with high mortality. Antibiotic prophylaxis at time of LVAD implantation is therefore an important strategy to mitigate infections. However, a clear surgical infection prophylaxis regimen and associated outcomes have not been reported. Methods We performed a single center, retrospective cohort study evaluating the impact of antimicrobial prophylaxis on risk of infection in patients who underwent LVAD implantation between February 2007 and June 2019 at Mayo Clinic. LVAD-specific and related infections were defined according to the International Society of Heart Lung Transplantation criteria. Single drug prophylaxis (SDP) included cefazolin only, vancomycin only, or cefazolin and vancomycin; multidrug (MDP) regimen includes either of the SDP regimens plus another antibiotic. We compared incidence of infection within 90-day and within one-year of implantation, as well as risk of C. difficile infections between the SDP and MDP cohorts. Results We reviewed 403 patients who received LVAD implantation (Table 1), 402 of had information on surgical prophylaxis. 307 (76%) patients received SDP and 95 patients (24%) received MDP. 14 patients developed an infection within 1 year of implantation (Table 2). There was no difference in the incidence of infections between SDP and MDP arms both at 90 days and 1-year post-implantation (p=0.11). The median time of infection since LVAD implantation was similar between SDP and MDP (p=0.37) arms. Incidence of C. difficile infection was not different between groups (p=0.10) (Table 3). Conclusion There was no significant difference in incidence or time to first infection, within 90-day and 1-year of implantation, between single- and multidrug antibiotic surgical prophylaxis regimens administered at the time of LVAD implantation. Future prospective trials are needed to develop a clear LVAD antibiotic prophylaxis protocol. Disclosures John C. O'Horo, Sr., MD, MPH, Bates college: Advisor/Consultant|MITRE corporation: Grant/Research Support|nferenec, Inc: Grant/Research Support.

Abstract Background Antispike monoclonal antibodies are recommended for early treatment of high-risk persons with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, clinical outcomes of their use during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Omicron wave are limited. Methods This is a descriptive retrospective study of high-risk adult patients who received treatment with sotrovimab (January 1–March 20, 2022) or bebtelovimab (March 21–April 30, 2022). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who progressed to severe outcome within 30 days after receiving antispike-neutralizing monoclonal antibody infusion. Results A total of 3872 high-risk patients (median age, 62.7 years; 41.1% male) with mild to moderate COVID-19 received sotrovimab (n = 2182) or bebtelovimab (n = 1690). Among sotrovimab-treated patients, the most common comorbidities were an immunosuppressed condition (46.7%), hypertension (38.2%), and diabetes (21.2%). The rates of severe outcome, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality were 2.2%, 1.0%, and 0.4%, respectively, after sotrovimab infusion. Among bebtelovimab-treated patients, the most common comorbidities were hypertension (42.7%), diabetes (17.1%), and an immunosuppressed condition (17.0%). The rates of severe disease, ICU admission, and mortality were 1.3%, 0.5%, and 0.2%, respectively, after bebtelovimab infusion. Older age, immunosuppressed status, and several comorbidities were associated with severe disease progression, while COVID-19 vaccination was associated with lower risk. No anaphylaxis was reported during monoclonal antibody infusion. Conclusions This real-world analysis of a large cohort of high-risk patients demonstrates low rates of severe disease after treatment with sotrovimab during the era dominated by Omicron B.1.1.529 and after treatment with bebtelovimab during the era dominated by BA.2 and Omicron subvariants.