Biosafety and biohazard considerations of HSV-1-based oncolytic viral immunotherapy.

Oncolytic viral immunotherapies are agents which can directly kill tumor cells and activate an immune response. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) range from native/unmodified viruses to genetically modified, attenuated viruses with the capacity to preferentially replicate in and kill tumors, leaving normal tissue unharmed. Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is the only OV approved for patient use in the United States; however, during the last 20 years, there have been a substantial number of clinical trials using OV immunotherapies across a broad range of cancers. Like T-VEC, many OV immunotherapies in clinical development are based on the herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), with genetic modifications for tumor selectivity, safety, and immunogenicity. Despite these modifications, HSV-1 OV immunotherapies are often treated with the same biosafety guidelines as the wild-type virus, potentially leading to reduced patient access and logistical hurdles for treatment centers, including community treatment centers and small group or private practices, and healthcare workers. Despite the lack of real-world evidence documenting possible transmission to close contacts, and in the setting of shedding and biodistribution analyses for T-VEC demonstrating limited infectivity and low risk of spread to healthcare workers, barriers to treatment with OV immunotherapies remain. With comprehensive information and educational programs, our hope is that updated biosafety guidance on OV immunotherapies will reduce logistical hurdles to ensure that patients have access to these innovative and potentially life-saving medicines across treatment settings. This work reviews a comprehensive collection of data in conjunction with the opinions of the authors based on their clinical experience to provide the suggested framework and key considerations for implementing biosafety protocols for OV immunotherapies, namely T-VEC, the only approved agent to date.

Predictors of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron breakthrough infection after receipt of AZD7442 (tixagevimab-cilgavimab) for pre-exposure prophylaxis among hematologic malignancy patients.

AZD7442 (tixagevimab-cilgavimab) is a combination of two human monoclonal antibodies for pre-exposure prophylaxis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among high-risk patients who do not mount a reliable vaccine response. Foremost among these are hematologic malignancy patients with limited clinical trial or realworld experience to assess the effectiveness of this combination treatment since the emergence of Omicron and its subvariants. We performed a retrospective study of 892 high-risk hematologic malignancy patients who received AZD7442 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City from January 1, 2022 to July 31, 2022. We evaluated demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics and performed regression analyses to evaluate risk factors for breakthrough infection. We also evaluated the impact of updated AZD7442 dosing regimens on the risk of breakthrough infection. Among 892 patients, 98 (10.9%) had a breakthrough infection during the study period. A majority received early outpatient treatment (82%) and eventually eight (8.2%) required hospitalization for management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), with a single instance of severe COVID-19 and death. Patients who received a repeat dose or a higher firsttime dose of AZD7442 had a lower incidence of breakthrough infection. Univariate analyses did not reveal any significant predictors of breakthrough infection. While AZD7442 is effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection in patients with hematologic malignancies, no risk factors reliably predicted risk of infection. Patients who received updated dosing regimens as per Food and Drug Administration guidelines had better protection against breakthrough infection.

COVID-19 severity and cardiovascular outcomes in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Background: Data regarding outcomes among patients with cancer and co-morbid cardiovascular disease (CVD)/cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) after SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited. Objectives: To compare Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related complications among cancer patients with and without co-morbid CVD/CVRF. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients with cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2, reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from 03/17/2020 to 12/31/2021. CVD/CVRF was defined as established CVD or no established CVD, male ≥ 55 or female ≥ 60 years, and one additional CVRF. The primary endpoint was an ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome including need for hospitalization, supplemental oxygen, intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation, ICU or mechanical ventilation plus vasopressors, and death. Secondary endpoints included incident adverse CV events. Ordinal logistic regression models estimated associations of CVD/CVRF with COVID-19 severity. Effect modification by recent cancer therapy was evaluated. Results: Among 10,876 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with cancer (median age 65 [IQR 54-74] years, 53% female, 52% White), 6253 patients (57%) had co-morbid CVD/CVRF. Co-morbid CVD/CVRF was associated with higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted OR: 1.25 [95% CI 1.11-1.40]). Adverse CV events were significantly higher in patients with CVD/CVRF (all p<0.001). CVD/CVRF was associated with worse COVID-19 severity in patients who had not received recent cancer therapy, but not in those undergoing active cancer therapy (OR 1.51 [95% CI 1.31-1.74] vs. OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.90-1.20], pinteraction <0.001). Conclusions: Co-morbid CVD/CVRF is associated with higher COVID-19 severity among patients with cancer, particularly those not receiving active cancer therapy. While infrequent, COVID-19 related CV complications were higher in patients with comorbid CVD/CVRF. (COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry [CCC19]; NCT04354701).

Predictors of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalization After Sotrovimab in Patients With Hematologic Malignancy During the BA.1 Omicron Surge.

BACKGROUND: Sotrovimab is an anti-spike neutralization monoclonal antibody developed to reduce the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) progression and advancement to hospitalization in high-risk patients. Currently, there is limited research describing the association of sotrovimab treatment in patients with hematologic malignancy and the predictive factors of hospitalization. METHODS: We performed an observational study of 156 consecutive cancer patients who received sotrovimab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City during the BA.1 Omicron surge. We evaluated the demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics of the patients who had subsequent COVID-19-related hospitalization(s) compared to those who did not. RESULTS: Among the 156 study patients, 17 (11%) were hospitalized, of whom 4 were readmitted for COVID-19-related complications; 3 deaths were attributed to COVID-19. Results from multivariable logistic regression show that significant factors associated with hospitalization include patients on anti-CD20 therapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.59 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.73-18.12]; P = .004) and with relapse/refractory disease (aOR, 5.69 [95% CI, 1.69-19.16]; P = .005). Additionally, whole genome sequencing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 detected high occurrences of mutations in the spike gene associated with treatment-related resistance longitudinal samples from 11 patients treated with sotrovimab. CONCLUSIONS: While sotrovimab is effective at reducing COVID-19 hospitalization and disease severity in patients with hematologic malignancy when administered early, patients who received anti-CD20 antibodies showed substantial morbidity. Due to the high potential for resistance mutation to sotrovimab and increased morbidity in patients on anti-CD20 therapy, combination treatment should be explored to determine whether it provides added benefits compared to monotherapy.

Effectiveness of MRNA booster vaccine among healthcare workers in New York City during the Omicron surge, December 2021 to January 2022.

OBJECTIVE: To describe effectiveness of mRNA vaccines by comparing 2-dose (2D) and 3-dose (3D) healthcare worker (HCW) recipients in the setting of Omicron variant dominance. Performance of 2D and 3D vaccine series against SARS-CoV-2 variants and the clinical outcomes of HCWs may inform return-to-work guidance. METHODS: In a retrospective study from December 15, 2020 to January 15, 2022, SARS-CoV-2 infections among HCWs at a large tertiary cancer centre in New York City were examined to estimate infection rates (aggregated positive tests / person-days) and 95% CIs over the Omicron period in 3D and 2D mRNA vaccinated HCWs and were compared using rate ratios. We described the clinical features of post-vaccine infections and impact of prior (pre-Omicron) COVID infection on vaccine effectiveness. RESULTS: Among the 20857 HCWs in our cohort, 20,660 completed the 2D series with an mRNA vaccine during our study period and 12461 had received a third dose by January 15, 2022. The infection rate ratio for 3D versus 2D vaccinated HCWs was 0.667 (95% CI 0.623, 0.713) for an estimated 3D vaccine effectiveness of 33.3% compared to two doses only during the Omicron dominant period from December 15, 2021 to January 15, 2022. Breakthrough Omicron infections after 3D + 14 days occurred in 1,315 HCWs. Omicron infections were mild, with 16% of 3D and 11% 2D HCWs being asymptomatic. DISCUSSION: Study demonstrates improved vaccine-derived protection against COVID-19 infection in 3D versus 2D mRNA vaccinees during the Omicron surge. The advantage of 3D vaccination was maintained irrespective of prior COVID-19 infection status.

Coinfections in Patients With Cancer and COVID-19: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) Study.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of coinfections and their association with outcomes have not been adequately studied among patients with cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a high-risk group for coinfection. METHODS: We included adult (≥18 years) patients with active or prior hematologic or invasive solid malignancies and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection, using data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19, NCT04354701). We captured coinfections within ±2 weeks from diagnosis of COVID-19, identified factors cross-sectionally associated with risk of coinfection, and quantified the association of coinfections with 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 8765 patients (hospitalized or not; median age, 65 years; 47.4% male), 16.6% developed coinfections: 12.1% bacterial, 2.1% viral, 0.9% fungal. An additional 6.4% only had clinical diagnosis of a coinfection. The adjusted risk of any coinfection was positively associated with age >50 years, male sex, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and renal comorbidities, diabetes, hematologic malignancy, multiple malignancies, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, progressing cancer, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and baseline corticosteroids; the adjusted risk of superinfection was positively associated with tocilizumab administration. Among hospitalized patients, high neutrophil count and C-reactive protein were positively associated with bacterial coinfection risk, and high or low neutrophil count with fungal coinfection risk. Adjusted mortality rates were significantly higher among patients with bacterial (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.33-1.95) and fungal (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.28-3.76) coinfections. CONCLUSIONS: Viral and fungal coinfections are infrequent among patients with cancer and COVID-19, with the latter associated with very high mortality rates. Clinical and laboratory parameters can be used to guide early empiric antimicrobial therapy, which may improve clinical outcomes.

Risk of Healthcare-Associated Transmission of Sever Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Hospitalized Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information on the risk of hospital-acquired coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among high-risk hospitalized patients after exposure to an infected patient or healthcare worker (HCW) in a nonoutbreak setting. METHODS: This study was conducted at a tertiary care cancer center in New York City from 10 March 2020 until 28 February 2021. In early April 2020, the study institution implemented universal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing at admission and retesting every 3 days through the hospital stay. Contact tracing records were reviewed for all exposures to SARS-CoV-2 positive patients and HCWs. RESULTS: From 10 March 2020 to 28 February 2021, 11 348 unique patients who were SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) negative at the time of admission underwent 31 662 postadmission tests during their hospitalization, and 112 tested positive (0.98%). Among these, 49 patients housed in semiprivate rooms during admission resulted in 74 close contacts and 14 secondary infections within 14 days, for an overall attack rate of 18.9%. Among those exposed to a roommate undergoing an aerosol-generating procedure (AGP), the attack rate was 35.7%. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) corroborated transmission in 6/8 evaluated pairs. In addition, three transmission events occurred in 214 patients with significant exposure to 105 COVID-19 positive healthcare workers (1.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The overall risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 is low for hospitalized cancer patients, even during periods of high community prevalence. However, shared occupancy with an unrecognized case is associated with a high secondary attack rate in exposed roommates.

Clinical and Genomic Characterization of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) Infections in mRNA Vaccinated Health Care Personnel in New York City.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine-induced clinical protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) variants is an evolving target. There are limited genomic level data on SARS CoV-2 breakthrough infections and vaccine effectiveness (VE) since the global spread of the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant. METHODS: In a retrospective study from 1 November 2020 to 31 August 2021, divided as pre-Delta and Delta-dominant periods, laboratory-confirmed SARS CoV-2 infections among healthcare personnel (HCP) at a large tertiary cancer center in New York City were examined to compare the weekly infection rate-ratio in vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated HCP. We describe the clinical and genomic epidemiologic features of post-vaccine infections to assess for selection of variants of concern (VOC)/variants of interest (VOI) in the early post-vaccine period and impact of B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant domination on VE. RESULTS: Among 13658 HCP in our cohort, 12379 received at least 1 dose of a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine. In the pre-Delta period overall VE was 94.5%. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) of 369 isolates in the pre-Delta period did not reveal a clade bias for VOC/VOI specific to post-vaccine infections. VE in the Delta dominant phase was 75.6%. No hospitalizations occurred among vaccinated HCP in the entire study period, compared to 17 hospitalizations and 1 death among unvaccinated HCP. CONCLUSIONS: Findings show high VE among HCP in New York City in the pre-Delta phase, with moderate decline in VE post-Delta emergence. SARS CoV-2 clades were similarly distributed among vaccinated and unvaccinated infected HCP without apparent clustering during the pre-Delta period of diverse clade circulation. Strong vaccine protection against hospitalization was maintained through the entire study period.

Variable duration of viral shedding in cancer patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

In this retrospective study of 105 severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected cancer patients with longitudinal nasopharyngeal sampling, the duration of viral shedding and time to attain cycle threshold >30 was longer in patients with hematologic malignancy than in those with solid tumors. These findings have important public health implications.

Association of Convalescent Plasma Therapy With Survival in Patients With Hematologic Cancers and COVID-19.

Importance: COVID-19 is a life-threatening illness for many patients. Prior studies have established hematologic cancers as a risk factor associated with particularly poor outcomes from COVID-19. To our knowledge, no studies have established a beneficial role for anti-COVID-19 interventions in this at-risk population. Convalescent plasma therapy may benefit immunocompromised individuals with COVID-19, including those with hematologic cancers. Objective: To evaluate the association of convalescent plasma treatment with 30-day mortality in hospitalized adults with hematologic cancers and COVID-19 from a multi-institutional cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study using data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry with propensity score matching evaluated patients with hematologic cancers who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Data were collected between March 17, 2020, and January 21, 2021. Exposures: Convalescent plasma treatment at any time during hospitalization. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis with adjustment for potential confounders was performed. Hazard ratios (HRs) are reported with 95% CIs. Secondary subgroup analyses were conducted on patients with severe COVID-19 who required mechanical ventilatory support and/or intensive care unit admission. Results: A total of 966 individuals (mean [SD] age, 65 [15] years; 539 [55.8%] male) were evaluated in this study; 143 convalescent plasma recipients were compared with 823 untreated control patients. After adjustment for potential confounding factors, convalescent plasma treatment was associated with improved 30-day mortality (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97). This association remained significant after propensity score matching (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29-0.92). Among the 338 patients admitted to the intensive care unit, mortality was significantly lower in convalescent plasma recipients compared with nonrecipients (HR for propensity score-matched comparison, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20-0.80). Among the 227 patients who required mechanical ventilatory support, mortality was significantly lower in convalescent plasma recipients compared with nonrecipients (HR for propensity score-matched comparison, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.14-0.72). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest a potential survival benefit in the administration of convalescent plasma to patients with hematologic cancers and COVID-19.

Cellular Therapy During COVID-19: Lessons Learned and Preparing for Subsequent Waves.

An evidence-based triage plan for cellular therapy distribution is critical in the face of emerging constraints on healthcare resources. We evaluated the impact of treatment delays related to COVID-19 on patients scheduled to undergo hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy at our center. Data were collected in real time between March 19 and May 11, 2020, for patients who were delayed to cellular therapy. We evaluated the proportion of delayed patients who ultimately received cellular therapy, reasons for not proceeding to cellular therapy, and changes in disease and health status during delay. A total of 85 patients were delayed, including 42 patients planned for autologous HCT, 36 patients planned for allogeneic HCT, and 7 patients planned for CAR-T therapy. Fifty-six of these patients (66%) since received planned therapy. Five patients died during the delay. The most common reason for not proceeding to autologous HCT was good disease control in patients with plasma cell dyscrasias (75%). The most common reason for not proceeding to allogeneic HCT was progression of disease (42%). All patients with acute leukemia who progressed had measurable residual disease (MRD) at the time of delay, whereas no patient without MRD at the time of delay progressed. Six patients (86%) ultimately received CAR-T therapy, including 3 patients who progressed during the delay. For patients with high-risk disease such as acute leukemia, and particularly those with MRD at the time of planned HCT, treatment delay can result in devastating outcomes and should be avoided if at all possible.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Surveillance and Exposure in the Perioperative Setting With Universal Testing and Personal Protective Equipment Policies.

BACKGROUND: New York City (NYC) experienced a surge of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases in March and April 2020. Since then, universal polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based surveillance testing and personal protective equipment (PPE) measures are in wide use in procedural settings. There is limited published experience on the utility and sustainability of PCR-based surveillance testing in areas with receding and consistently low community COVID-19 rates. METHODS: The study was conducted at a tertiary care cancer center in NYC from 22 March to 22 August 2020. Asymptomatic patients underwent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing before surgeries, interventional radiology procedures, and endoscopy. Contact tracing in procedural areas was done if a patient with an initial negative screen retested positive within 48 hours of the procedure. RESULTS: From March 22 until August 22, 2020, 11 540 unique patients underwent 14 233 tests before surgeries or procedures at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Overall, 65 patients were positive, with a peak rate of 4.3% that fell below 0.3% after April 2020. Among the 65 positive cases, 3 were presymptomatic and 38 were asymptomatic. Among asymptomatic test-positive patients, 76% had PCR cycle threshold >30 at first detection. Five patients tested newly positive in the immediate postoperative period, exposing 82 employees with 1 case of probable transmission (1.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection identified on preprocedural surveillance was low in our study, which was conducted in an area with limited community spread at the later stage of the study. Universal PPE is protective in procedural settings. Optimal and flexible diagnostic strategies are needed to accomplish and sustain the goals of comprehensive preprocedure surveillance testing.

Determinants of Severity in Cancer Patients with COVID-19 Illness.

New York State had 180,458 cases of SARS-CoV-2 and 9385 reported deaths as of April 10th, 2020. Patients with cancer comprised 8.4% of deceased individuals1. Population-based studies from China and Italy suggested a higher COVID-19 death rate in patients with cancer2,3, although there is a knowledge gap as to which aspects of cancer and its treatment confer risk of severe COVID-19 disease4. This information is critical to balance the competing safety considerations of reducing SARS-CoV-2 exposure and cancer treatment continuation. Since March 10th, 2020 Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center performed diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients. Overall, 40% out of 423 patients with cancer were hospitalized for COVID-19 illness, 20% developed severe respiratory illness, including 9% that required mechanical ventilation, and 9% that died. On multivariate analysis, age ≥ 65 years and treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) within 90 days were predictors for hospitalization and severe disease, while receipt of chemotherapy within 30 days and major surgery were not. Overall, COVID-19 illness is associated with higher rates of hospitalization and severe outcomes in patients with cancer. Association between ICI and COVID-19 outcomes will need interrogation in tumor-specific cohorts.

Determinants of COVID-19 disease severity in patients with cancer.

As of 10 April 2020, New York State had 180,458 cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and 9,385 reported deaths. Patients with cancer comprised 8.4% of deceased individuals1. Population-based studies from China and Italy suggested a higher coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) death rate in patients with cancer2,3, although there is a knowledge gap as to which aspects of cancer and its treatment confer risk of severe COVID-194. This information is critical to balance the competing safety considerations of reducing SARS-CoV-2 exposure and cancer treatment continuation. From 10 March to 7 April 2020, 423 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 were diagnosed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (from a total of 2,035 patients with cancer tested). Of these, 40% were hospitalized for COVID-19, 20% developed severe respiratory illness (including 9% who required mechanical ventilation) and 12% died within 30 d. Age older than 65 years and treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) were predictors for hospitalization and severe disease, whereas receipt of chemotherapy and major surgery were not. Overall, COVID-19 in patients with cancer is marked by substantial rates of hospitalization and severe outcomes. The association observed between ICI and COVID-19 outcomes in our study will need further interrogation in tumor-specific cohorts.

Transmission of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) from patients less than 3 years of age in a pediatric oncology setting.

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is prevalent in pediatric oncology patients, but the transmission risk to peers is unknown. In 224 children with CDI, multilocus sequence typing (MLST) identified only 7 alleged transmission events (18%) originating from children <3 years old. None of these events were corroborated by WGS.

Viral oncolytic immunotherapy in the war on cancer: Infection control considerations.

Oncolytic viral immunotherapy is an emerging treatment modality for cancer that exploits in vivo replication and other viral properties to enhance immune killing of malignant cells. The potential for horizontal transmission of native or engineered oncolytic viruses creates several unique infection control challenges. In 2015, talimogene laherparepvec (TVEC) became the first agent in this class to gain FDA approval for treatment of melanoma, and several others are being developed. Although some data on the transmissibility of TVEC are available from clinical studies, the aftermarket or real-world experience remains limited. We conducted a PUBMED-based search of the medical literature focusing on the safety and risk of TVEC transmission to close contacts including healthcare workers. The findings are summarized in this review and are intended to provide infection preventionists with practical guidance on handling issues related to administration and care of patients receiving TVEC. Additionally, we describe the current mechanism for evaluating the risk related to similar new agents entering clinical trials at our institution. Development of standarized approaches for the safe administration and precautions for ongoing care, especially in immunocompromised patients, are essential to support the broad adoption of this novel therapy.

Effectiveness of ultraviolet disinfection in reducing hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus on a bone marrow transplant unit.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of ultraviolet (UV) environmental disinfection system on rates of hospital-acquired vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE) and Clostridium difficile. DESIGN: Using active surveillance and an interrupted time-series design, hospital-acquired acquisition of VRE and C. difficile on a bone marrow transplant (BMT) unit were examined before and after implementation of terminal disinfection with UV on all rooms regardless of isolation status of patients. The main outcomes were hospital-based acquisition measured through (1) active surveillance: admission, weekly, and discharge screening for VRE and toxigenic C. difficile (TCD) and (2) clinical surveillance: incidence of VRE and CDI on the unit. SETTING: Bone marrow transplant unit at a tertiary-care cancer center.ParticipantsStem cell transplant (SCT) recipients.InterventionTerminal disinfection of all rooms with UV regardless of isolation status of patients. RESULTS: During the 20-month study period, 579 patients had 704 admissions to the BMT unit, and 2,160 surveillance tests were performed. No change in level or trend in the incidence of VRE (trend incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-1.14; level IRR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.37-1.18) or C. difficile (trend IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.31; level IRR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.13-2.11) was observed after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of UV disinfection to supplement routine terminal cleaning of rooms was not effective in reducing hospital-acquired VRE and C. difficile among SCT recipients.

Reconstitution of the gut microbiota of antibiotic-treated patients by autologous fecal microbiota transplant.

Antibiotic treatment can deplete the commensal bacteria of a patient's gut microbiota and, paradoxically, increase their risk of subsequent infections. In allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT), antibiotic administration is essential for optimal clinical outcomes but significantly disrupts intestinal microbiota diversity, leading to loss of many beneficial microbes. Although gut microbiota diversity loss during allo-HSCT is associated with increased mortality, approaches to reestablish depleted commensal bacteria have yet to be developed. We have initiated a randomized, controlled clinical trial of autologous fecal microbiota transplantation (auto-FMT) versus no intervention and have analyzed the intestinal microbiota profiles of 25 allo-HSCT patients (14 who received auto-FMT treatment and 11 control patients who did not). Changes in gut microbiota diversity and composition revealed that the auto-FMT intervention boosted microbial diversity and reestablished the intestinal microbiota composition that the patient had before antibiotic treatment and allo-HSCT. These results demonstrate the potential for fecal sample banking and posttreatment remediation of a patient's gut microbiota after microbiota-depleting antibiotic treatment during allo-HSCT.

The Perils of Multiplex Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panels: Pseudo-outbreaks of Salmonellae and Entamoeba histolytica in Immunocompromised Hosts.

Two distinct clusters of gastroenteritis due to Salmonellae and Entamoeba histolytica (EH) were identified using a multiplex gastrointestinal pathogen panel (GPP) at a tertiary-care cancer center. Despite temporo-spatial overlap, our investigation did not corroborate transmission or true infection. In clinical practice, GPPs may render false-positive results.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;867-870.