Citations

Abstract Background Optimizing antimicrobial regimens for outpatients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) represents an area of opportunity for ambulatory antimicrobial stewardship programs. A pre-populated, antibiotic order panel for outpatient respiratory syndromes was implemented in the Mayo Clinic Enterprise on 1/4/2021. For CAP, it provides national guideline adherent regimens (i.e., selection, dosing, and durations) by patient comorbidity and beta-lactam allergy status. We aimed to assess impacts of panel use on antibiotic prescribing in outpatients with CAP. Methods This retrospective review included Mayo Clinic outpatient encounters from Minnesota in 2021 and 2022. Eligible encounters used a CAP-related primary ICD-10 code, conveyed intention to treat CAP in encounter notes, and were performed by primary care, emergency department, or urgent care clinicians who managed ≥1 CAP patient with the panel and ≥1 without the panel during the study period. Encounters were excluded if patients were already receiving antibiotics at the time of encounter. The primary outcome was adherence (drug and duration) to guideline recommendations. Secondary outcomes included utilization rate by agent and therapy duration. Outcomes were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis rank sum and Pearson’s chi-squared tests (α level = 0.05). Results 352 encounters (134 panel vs. 218 non-panel) were included. Prescribing was guideline adherent in 61.9% and 29.4% (p< 0.01) of panel and non-panel encounters, respectively. The most common reason for guideline non-adherence during panel use was inappropriate drug selection (n = 45/51, 88.2%). This was predominantly driven by use of the incorrect section of the treatment panel based on patient comorbidity status (n = 30/45, 66.7%). Individual antibiotic utilization rates differed between panel and non-panel cohorts (Table 1), with higher rates of amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate use and lower rates of azithromycin and doxycycline use in the panel cohort. Durations >5 days were more common in the non-panel as compared to the panel cohort (34.4% vs. 7.5%, p < 0.01). Conclusion Use of a pre-populated antimicrobial order panel in outpatients with CAP resulted in greater adherence to national guideline recommendations. Disclosures Paschalis Vergidis, MD, MSc, AbbVie: Advisor/Consultant|Ansun: Grant/Research Support|Cidara: Grant/Research Support|Scynexis: Grant/Research Support

Abstract Background Implementing effective antimicrobial stewardship interventions is an important component of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Recently, stewardship research has shown that clinician characteristics may have an impact on antimicrobial stewardship intervention methods and acceptance rates. Methods A multisite health system antimicrobial stewardship prospective audit and feedback program interventions performed by stewardship staff using a standardized electronic medical record (EMR) tool were compared by stewardship clinician profession (pharmacist, physician, or advanced practice provider, APP) from 7/1/2017 to 6/30/2022. Outcomes assessed were intervention rates, communication methods, and intervention acceptance by patient age and intensive care unit (ICU) status of patient. Generalized estimating equations utilizing logistic regression were used to assess for associations between staff. Associations were assessed both univariately and after adjusting for other factors. Results Of 69,503 prospective audit and feedback EMR based rules, there were 14,699 rules associated with an intervention. The majority of rules were reviewed by pharmacists (90.7%) followed by physician (9.2%) and APP (< 1%). Of 9,034 interventions with an outcome documented, 7326 (85.5%) pharmacist interventions were accepted and 360 (77.3%) physician interventions were accepted (adjusted p=0.047). Pharmacists intervened by direct action (ie, adjust a medication order) in 6.6% of interventions; whereas, physicians did so rarely (0.4%). Pharmacists were more likely to use synchronous communication than physicians in the adjusted model (pharmacist vs. physician: 63.8% vs 52.5%; p=0.004). Patients in the ICU had a significantly lower intervention acceptance rate (non-ICU vs. ICU: 86.6% vs. 78.0%; adjusted OR 0.57 [95% CI 0.46-0.70], p< 0.001).Table 1.Intervention Rate by Baseline Demographics of Stewardship Clinicians and Patients. *% are reported as row % **Multivariable model was also adjusted for day of week and time of day APP-Advanced practice provider; ICU-intensive care unitTable 2.Intervention Acceptance. *% are reported as row % **Multivariable model was also adjusted for day of week and time of day APP-Advanced practice provider; ICU-intensive care unit Conclusion Antimicrobial stewardship pharmacists and physicians are both effective at prospective audit and feedback but used different intervention styles. Advanced practice providers were vastly underrepresented. Patients in the ICU may benefit from tailored ASP efforts. Disclosures Sara Ausman, PharmD, Gilead: Honoraria Caitlin Brown, PharmD, Alexion: Grant/Research Support|Trevena: Advisor/Consultant Christina G. Rivera (O'Connor), Pharm.D, Gilead Sciences: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead Sciences: Board Member|Gilead Sciences: Grant/Research Support|Gilead Sciences: Honoraria

Genotypic testing for mecA / mecC is heavily relied upon for rapid optimization of antimicrobial therapy in infections due to Staphylococcus aureus . Little is known regarding optimal reporting and/or therapy for patients demonstrating lack of genotypic evidence of mecA or mecC but phenotypic oxacillin resistance.

IMPORTANCE: Initial Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory illness Universal Study (VIRUS) Registry analysis suggested that improvements in critical care processes offered the greatest modifiable opportunity to improve critically ill COVID-19 patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The Structured Team-based Optimal Patient-Centered Care for Virus COVID-19 ICU Collaborative was created to identify and speed implementation of best evidence based COVID-19 practices. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This 6-month project included volunteer interprofessional teams from VIRUS Registry sites, who received online training on the Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and iNjury approach, a structured and systematic method for delivering evidence based critical care. Collaborators participated in weekly 1-hour videoconference sessions on high impact topics, monthly quality improvement (QI) coaching sessions, and received extensive additional resources for asynchronous learning. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes included learner engagement, satisfaction, and number of QI projects initiated by participating teams. RESULTS: Eleven of 13 initial sites participated in the Collaborative from March 2, 2021, to September 29, 2021. A total of 67 learners participated in the Collaborative, including 23 nurses, 22 physicians, 10 pharmacists, nine respiratory therapists, and three nonclinicians. Site attendance among the 11 sites in the 25 videoconference sessions ranged between 82% and 100%, with three sites providing at least one team member for 100% of sessions. The majority reported that topics matched their scope of practice (69%) and would highly recommend the program to colleagues (77%). A total of nine QI projects were initiated across three clinical domains and focused on improving adherence to established critical care practice bundles, reducing nosocomial complications, and strengthening patient- and family-centered care in the ICU. Major factors impacting successful Collaborative engagement included an engaged interprofessional team; an established culture of engagement; opportunities to benchmark performance and accelerate institutional innovation, networking, and acclaim; and ready access to data that could be leveraged for QI purposes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Use of a virtual platform to establish a learning collaborative to accelerate the identification, dissemination, and implementation of critical care best practices for COVID-19 is feasible. Our experience offers important lessons for future collaborative efforts focused on improving ICU processes of care.

Antistaphylococcal penicillins (ASP) and cefazolin are first-line treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia. Borderline oxacillin resistance (i.e., oxacillin MICs 1-8 μg/mL) is observed in strains hyperproducing beta-lactamases.

Objective: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) utilization is increasing on a global scale, and despite technological advances, minimal standardized approaches to pharmacotherapeutic management exist. This objective was to create a comprehensive review for medication dosing in ECMO based on the most current evidence. Data Sources: A literature search of PubMed was performed for all pertinent articles prior to 2022. The following search terms were utilized: ECMO, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, sedation, analgesia, antiepileptic, anticoagulation, antimicrobial, antifungal, nutrition. Retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies, case series, case reports, and ex vivo investigations were reviewed. Study Selection and Data Extraction: PubMed (1975 through July 2022) was the database used in the literature search. Non-English studies were excluded. Search terms included both drug class categories, specific drug names, ECMO, and pharmacokinetics. Data Synthesis: Medications with high protein binding (>70%) and high lipophilicity (logP > 2) are associated with circuit sequestration and the potential need for dose adjustment. Volume of distribution changes with ECMO may also impact dosing requirements of common critical care medications. Lighter sedation targets and analgosedation may help reduce sedative and analgesia requirements, whereas higher antiepileptic dosing is recommended. Vancomycin is minimally affected by the ECMO circuit and recommendations for dosing in critically ill adults are reasonable. Anticoagulation remains challenging as optimal aPTT goals have not been established. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review describes the anticipated impacts of ECMO circuitry on sedatives, analgesics, anticoagulation, antiepileptics, antimicrobials, antifungals, and nutrition support and provides recommendations for drug therapy management. Conclusions: Medication pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters should be considered when determining the potential impact of the ECMO circuit on attainment of therapeutic effect and target serum drug concentrations, and should guide therapy choices and/or dose adjustments when data are not available.