A Multicenter Retrospective Study Evaluating Intravenous to Oral Antibiotic Stepdown for Uncomplicated Streptococcal Bacteremia.

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) versus oral (PO) stepdown therapy for uncomplicated streptococcal bacteremia. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study included adult patients with uncomplicated streptococcal bacteremia between 1 July 2019 and 1 July 2022. Patients who received IV therapy for the full treatment course were compared to patients who transitioned to PO therapy after initial IV therapy. The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as absence of infection recurrence, infection-related readmission, and infection-related mortality at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included microbiological success, length of stay (LOS), and IV line-associated complications. Results: Of 238 patients included, 47.1% received PO stepdown therapy. Clinical success occurred in 94.4% and 94.6% in the IV only and PO stepdown groups, respectively (P = .946). Patients who transitioned to PO therapy received a median duration of IV therapy of 3.9 days (interquartile range, 2.9-7.3 days). Line complications were more frequent in the IV only group, primarily driven by catheter-related infections (7.2% vs 0%, P = .002). LOS was significantly shorter in the PO stepdown group (5.5 vs 9.2 days, P < .001). Conclusions: Patients transitioned to PO antibiotics for uncomplicated streptococcal bacteremia had similar rates of clinical success compared to patients who received only IV therapy. With consideration of infectious source, severity of illness, and comorbidities, PO stepdown following initial IV antibiotics for uncomplicated streptococcal bacteremia in select patients is a reasonable approach that may result in decreased LOS and line-related complications.

When is vancomycin prophylaxis necessary? Risk factors for MRSA surgical site infection.

Background: The 2022 SHEA/IDSA/APIC guidance for surgical site infection (SSI) prevention recommends reserving vancomycin prophylaxis to patients who are methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonized. Unfortunately, vancomycin prophylaxis remains common due to the overestimation of MRSA risk and the desire to cover MRSA in patients with certain healthcare-associated characteristics. To optimize vancomycin prophylaxis, we sought to identify risk factors for MRSA SSI. Methods: This was a single-center, case-control study of patients with a postoperative SSI after undergoing a National Healthcare Safety Network operative procedure over eight years. MRSA SSI cases were compared to non-MRSA SSI controls. Forty-two demographic, medical, and surgical characteristics were evaluated. Results: Of the 441 patients included, 23 developed MRSA SSIs (rate = 5.2 per 100 SSIs). In the multivariable model, we identified two independent risk factors for MRSA SSI: a history of MRSA colonization or infection (OR, 9.0 [95% CI, 1.9-29.6]) and hip or knee replacement surgery (OR, 3.8 [95% CI, 1.3-9.9]). Hemodialysis, previous hospitalization, and prolonged hospitalization prior to the procedure had no measurable association with odds of MRSA SSI. Conclusions: Patients with prior MRSA colonization or infection had 9-10 times greater odds of MRSA SSI and patients undergoing hip and knee replacement had 3-4 times greater odds of MRSA SSI. Healthcare-associated characteristics, such as previous hospitalization or hemodialysis, were not associated with MRSA SSI. Our findings support national recommendations to reserve vancomycin prophylaxis for patients who are MRSA colonized, as well as those undergoing hip and knee replacement, in the absence of routine MRSA colonization surveillance.

Impact of the sequential implementation of a pharmacy-driven methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal-swab ordering policy and vancomycin 72-hour restriction protocol on standardized antibiotic administration ratio (SAAR) data for antibiotics used for resistant gram-positive infections.

OBJECTIVE: Vancomycin is often initiated in hospitalized patients; however, it may be unnecessary or continued for longer durations than needed. Oversight of all vancomycin orders may not be feasible with widespread prescribing and strategies to enlist other clinicians to serve as stewards of vancomycin use are needed. We implemented 2 sequential interventions: a protocol in which the pharmacist orders MRSA nasal swab followed by a protocol requiring approval from pharmacists to continue vancomycin for >72 hours. METHODS: In this single-center, retrospective, quasi-experimental study, we evaluated vancomycin use after implementation of a pharmacy-driven MRSA nasal-swab ordering protocol and a vancomycin 72-hour restriction protocol. The primary outcome was the change in the standardized antibiotic administration ratio (SAAR) for antibacterial agents for resistant gram-positive infections. We also evaluated the impact on antibiotic utilization. RESULTS: Following the MRSA swab protocol, the SAAR decreased from 1.26 to 1.13 (P < .001; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.25). After the 72-hour approval process, the SAAR was 0.96 (P < .001; 95% CI, 1.0-1.12). Vancomycin utilization decreased from 138.9 to 125.3 days of therapy per 1,000 patient days following the MRSA swab protocol (P < .001) and to 112.7 (P < .001) following the 72-hour approval protocol. Interrupted time-series analysis identified a similar rate of decline in utilization following the 2 interventions (-0.3 and -0.5; P = .16). Both interventions combined resulted in a significant reduction (-1.5; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Implementation of a pharmacist-driven MRSA nasal-swab ordering protocol, followed by a 72-hour approval protocol, was associated with a significant reduction in the SAAR for antibiotics used in the treatment of resistant gram-positive infections and a reduction in vancomycin utilization. Leveraging the oversight of primary service clinical pharmacists through these protocols proved to be an effective strategy.

Reducing the use of empiric antibiotic therapy in COVID-19 on hospital admission.

BACKGROUND: Empiric antibiotics for community acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) are often prescribed to patients with COVID-19, despite a low reported incidence of co-infections. Stewardship interventions targeted at facilitating appropriate antibiotic prescribing for CABP among COVID-19 patients are needed. We developed a guideline for antibiotic initiation and discontinuation for CABP in COVID-19 patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of this intervention on the duration of empiric CABP antibiotic therapy among patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective, quasi-experimental study of adult patients admitted between 3/1/2020 to 4/25/2020 with COVID-19 pneumonia, who were initiated on empiric CABP antibiotics. Patients were excluded if they were initiated on antibiotics > 48 h following admission or if another source of infection was identified. The primary outcome was the duration of antibiotic therapy (DOT) prior to the guideline (March 1 to March27, 2020) and after guideline implementation (March 28 to April 25, 2020). We also evaluated the clinical outcomes (mortality, readmissions, length of stay) among those initiated on empiric CABP antibiotics. RESULTS: A total of 506 patients with COVID-19 were evaluated, 102 pre-intervention and 404 post-intervention. Prior to the intervention, 74.5% (n = 76) of patients with COVID-19 received empiric antibiotics compared to only 42% of patients post-intervention (n = 170), p < 0.001. The median DOT in the post-intervention group was 1.3 days shorter (p < 0.001) than the pre-intervention group, and antibiotics directed at atypical bacteria DOT was reduced by 2.8 days (p < 0.001). More patients in the post-intervention group were initiated on antibiotics based on criteria consistent with our guideline (68% versus 87%, p = 0.001). There were no differences between groups in terms of clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Following the implementation of a guideline outlining recommendations for initiating and discontinuing antibiotics for CABP among COVID-19 inpatients, we observed a reduction in antibiotic prescribing and DOT. The guideline also resulted in a significant increase in the rate of guideline-congruent empiric antibiotic initiation.

Remdesivir Use in the Setting of Severe Renal Impairment: A Theoretical Concern or Real Risk?

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir (RDV) is US FDA approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) but not recommended in severe renal impairment (SRI, Creatinine clearance <30mL/min or requiring renal replacement therapy). Few studies have evaluated RDV in patients with SRI. METHODS: Hospitalized patients who received RDV between 1 May 2020 and 31 October 2020 were analyzed in a retrospective chart review. We compared incident adverse events (AEs) in patients with and without SRI, including hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, any reported AE, mortality, and length of stay. RESULTS: Of a total of 135 patients, 20 had SRI. Patients with SRI were significantly older (70 vs 54 years, P = .0001). The incidence of possible AEs was 30% among those with SRI vs 11% without (P = .06). Liver function test (LFT) elevations occurred in 10% vs 4% (P = .28), and serum creatinine (SCr) elevations in 27% vs 6% (P = .02) of patients with SRI vs without, respectively. LFT and SCr elevations were not attributed to RDV in either group. Mortality and length of stay were consistent with historical controls. CONCLUSIONS: RDV AEs occurred infrequently and overall were not significantly different between those with and without SRI. While more of patients with SRI experienced SCr elevations, 3 (75%) patients had acute kidney injury prior to RDV. The use of RDV in this small series of patients with SRI appeared to be relatively safe, and the potential benefit outweighed the theoretical risk of liver or renal toxicity. Additional studies are needed to confirm this finding.

Automatic ID Consultation for Inpatients With COVID-19: Point, Counterpoint, and a Single-Center Experience.

There are many unknowns with regard to COVID-19 clinical management, including the role of Infectious Diseases Consultation (IDC). As hospitalizations for COVID-19 continue, hospitals are assessing how to optimally and efficiently manage COVID-19 inpatients. Typically, primary teams must determine when IDC is appropriate, and ID clinicians provide consultation upon request of the primary team. IDC has been shown to be beneficial for many conditions; however, the impact of IDC for COVID-19 is unknown. Herein, we discuss the potential benefits and pitfalls of automatic IDC for COVID-19 inpatients. Important considerations include the quality of care provided, allocation and optimization of resources, and clinician satisfaction. Finally, we describe how automatic IDC changed throughout the COVID-19 pandemic at a single academic medical center.

Evolution of Equations for Estimating Renal Function and Their Application to the Dosing of New Antimicrobials.

Objective: To address the background and rationale for the recent introduction of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation for renal dose adjustment of antimicrobials and to provide recommendations for pharmacists dosing new antimicrobial agents. Data Sources: Comprehensive MEDLINE and EMBASE literature searches (from August 2018 to October 2019) were performed. Search terms included creatinine clearance, Cockcroft-Gault, MDRD, and glomerular filtration rate and a subsequent search included the preceding terms AND antimicrobials OR antibiotics. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Available English-language studies on the derivation and/or use of the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) and MDRD study equation were evaluated as well as those that specifically discussed their use for dosing antimicrobial agents. Data Synthesis: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of delafloxacin and meropenem-vaborbactam in 2017 ushered in a new era in renal dosing of antibiotics, in that both agents are recommended to be dosed by the MDRD equation. Studies demonstrate that the CG and MDRD equations can result in discrepant dosing recommendations. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: The renal estimation equation recommended in a new antibiotic label should dictate the dosing of that medication. It is noteworthy that these equations are not interchangeable. Conclusion: Recently approved antimicrobials utilizing the MDRD equation for renal dose adjustment will be interspersed with old and new antimicrobials utilizing the CG equation because of lack of singular guidance by the FDA. This requires pharmacists to be vigilant in evaluating drug labels to determine which equation is recommended and to understand the differences, strengths, and limitations of each equation.