Minimizing Low-Value, Uncompensated Work in Academic Infectious Diseases: A 6-Step Program.

Uncompensated work in academic infectious diseases (ID) may be high value (eg, important for academic promotion or necessary for advancement to leadership roles) or low value (eg, not aligning with or contributing to professional goals and aspirations). "Curbside" consultations, participation in hospital committees outside of professional interests, and other "citizenship" tasks are common examples of threats to our valuable time as ID providers. Herein, we define the scope of the problem of low-value uncompensated work in academic ID and outline a 6-step program to minimize these threats. Collaboration with professional sponsors, such as division chiefs, to align individual and team goals and use of a "value-versus-compensation" matrix to prioritize activities may help us establish our own agendas and reclaim our professional autonomy.

Are contact precautions "essential" for the prevention of healthcare-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus?

The recently updated SHEA/IDSA/APIC practice recommendations for MRSA prevention in acute care facilities list contact precautions (CP) for patients known to be infected or colonized with MRSA as an "essential practice", meaning that it should be adopted in all acute care facilities. We argue that existing evidence on benefits and harms associated with CP do not justify this recommendation. There are no controlled trials that support broad use of CP for MRSA prevention. Data from hospitals that have discontinued CP for MRSA have found no impact on MRSA acquisition or infection. The burden and harms of CP remain concerning, including the environmental impact of increased gown and glove use. We suggest that CP be included among other "additional approaches" to MRSA prevention that can be implemented under specific circumstances (e.g. outbreaks, evidence of ongoing transmission despite application of essential practices).

Defining the Optimal Duration of Therapy for Hospitalized Patients With Complicated Urinary Tract Infections and Associated Bacteremia.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available to guide effective antibiotic durations for hospitalized patients with complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs). METHODS: We conducted an observational study of patients ≥18 years at 24 US hospitals to identify the optimal treatment duration for patients with cUTI. To increase the likelihood patients experienced true infection, eligibility was limited to those with associated bacteremia. Propensity scores were generated for an inverse probability of treatment weighted analysis. The primary outcome was recurrent infection with the same species ≤30 days of completing therapy. RESULTS: 1099 patients met eligibility criteria and received 7 (n = 265), 10 (n = 382), or 14 (n = 452) days of therapy. There was no difference in the odds of recurrent infection for patients receiving 10 days and those receiving 14 days of therapy (aOR: .99; 95% CI: .52-1.87). Increased odds of recurrence was observed in patients receiving 7 days versus 14 days of treatment (aOR: 2.54; 95% CI: 1.40-4.60). When limiting the 7-day versus 14-day analysis to the 627 patients who remained on intravenous beta-lactam therapy or were transitioned to highly bioavailable oral agents, differences in outcomes no longer persisted (aOR: .76; 95% CI: .38-1.52). Of 76 patients with recurrent infections, 2 (11%), 2 (10%), and 10 (36%) in the 7-, 10-, and 14-day groups, respectively, had drug-resistant infections (P = .10). CONCLUSIONS: Seven days of antibiotics appears effective for hospitalized patients with cUTI when antibiotics with comparable intravenous and oral bioavailability are administered; 10 days may be needed for all other patients.

Non-randomized evaluation of hospitalization after a prescription for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus molnupiravir in high-risk COVID-19 outpatients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare subsequent hospital admissions within 30 days for patients after receiving a prescription for either oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or oral molnupiravir. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 3207 high-risk, non-hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients who received a prescription for molnupiravir (n = 209) or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 2998) at an academic medical centre in New York City from April to December 2022. Variables including age, vaccination status, high-risk conditions and demographic factors were pulled from the electronic medical record. We used multivariable logistic regression to adjust for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: All-cause 30 day hospitalization was not significantly different between patients who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir compared with molnupiravir (1.4% versus 1.9%, P value = 0.55). The association between COVID-related hospitalization and medication was also not significant (0.7%versus 0.5%, P value = 0.99). Patients who received molnupiravir were more likely to have more underlying high-risk conditions. After adjusting for potential confounders, the odds of all-cause hospitalizations were not significantly different between patients who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir compared with molnupiravir (OR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.4-3.3, P value = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: These data provide additional evidence to support molnupiravir as a suitable alternative when other COVID-19 antivirals cannot be given.

Evaluation of the Infectious Diseases Society of America's Core Antimicrobial Stewardship Curriculum for Infectious Diseases Fellows.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial stewardship (AS) programs are required by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and should ideally have infectious diseases (ID) physician involvement; however, only 50% of ID fellowship programs have formal AS curricula. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a workgroup to develop a core AS curriculum for ID fellows. Here we study its impact. METHODS: ID program directors and fellows in 56 fellowship programs were surveyed regarding the content and effectiveness of their AS training before and after implementation of the IDSA curriculum. Fellows' knowledge was assessed using multiple-choice questions. Fellows completing their first year of fellowship were surveyed before curriculum implementation ("pre-curriculum") and compared to first-year fellows who complete the curriculum the following year ("post-curriculum"). RESULTS: Forty-nine (88%) program directors and 105 (67%) fellows completed the pre-curriculum surveys; 35 (64%) program directors and 79 (50%) fellows completed the post-curriculum surveys. Prior to IDSA curriculum implementation, only 51% of programs had a "formal" curriculum. After implementation, satisfaction with AS training increased among program directors (16% to 68%) and fellows (51% to 68%). Fellows' confidence increased in 7/10 AS content areas. Knowledge scores improved from a mean of 4.6 to 5.1 correct answers of 9 questions (P = .028). The major hurdle to curriculum implementation was time, both for formal teaching and for e-learning. CONCLUSIONS: Effective AS training is a critical component of ID fellowship training. The IDSA Core AS Curriculum can enhance AS training, increase fellow confidence, and improve overall satisfaction of fellows and program directors.

Assessment of unvaccinated and vaccinated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treated with monoclonal antibodies during the delta wave (July 1-August 20, 2021): a retrospective observational monocentric study.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) prevent COVID-19 progression when administered early. We compared mAb treatment outcomes among vaccinated and unvaccinated patients during Delta wave and assessed the feasibility of implementing stricter eligibility criteria in the event of mAb scarcity. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study of casirivimab/imdevimab recipients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection in an emergency department or outpatient infusion center (July 1-August 20, 2021). Primary outcome was all-cause hospital admission within 30 days post-treatment between vaccinated vs. unvaccinated patients during Delta surge in the Bronx, NY. RESULTS: A total of 250 patients received casirivimab/imdevimab (162 unvaccinated vs. 88 vaccinated). The median age was 39 years for unvaccinated patients, and 52 years for vaccinated patients (p < 0.0001). The median number of EUA criteria met was 1 for unvaccinated and 2 for vaccinated patients (p < 0.0001). Overall, 6% (15/250) of patients were admitted within 30 days post-treatment. Eleven unvaccinated patients (7%) were admitted within 30-days compared to 4 (5%) vaccinated patients (p = 0.48). CONCLUSIONS: All-cause 30-day admission was not statistically different between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. When federal allocation of therapies is limited, programs must prioritize patients at highest risk of hospitalization and death regardless of vaccination status.

Investing in the Future: A Role for Professional Societies to Prepare the Next Generation of Healthcare Leaders Through Curriculum Development and Dissemination.

Professional societies serve many functions that benefit constituents; however, few professional societies have undertaken the development and dissemination of formal, national curricula to train the future workforce while simultaneously addressing significant healthcare needs. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) has developed 2 curricula for the specific purpose of training the next generation of clinicians to ensure the future infectious diseases (ID) workforce is optimally trained to lead antimicrobial stewardship programs and equipped to meet the challenges of multidrug resistance, patient safety, and healthcare quality improvement. A core curriculum was developed to provide a foundation in antimicrobial stewardship for all ID fellows, regardless of career path. An advanced curriculum was developed for ID fellows specifically pursuing a career in antimicrobial stewardship. Both curricula will be broadly available in the summer of 2021 through the IDSA website.

SARS-CoV-2 coinfection with additional respiratory virus does not predict severe disease: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) claimed over 4 million lives by July 2021 and continues to pose a serious public health threat. OBJECTIVES: Our retrospective study utilized respiratory pathogen panel (RPP) results in patients with SARS-CoV-2 to determine if coinfection (i.e. SARS-CoV-2 positivity with an additional respiratory virus) was associated with more severe presentation and outcomes. METHODS: All patients with negative influenza/respiratory syncytial virus testing who underwent RPP testing within 7 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test at a large, academic medical centre in New York were examined. Patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a negative RPP were compared with patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 and positive for a virus by RPP in terms of biomarkers, oxygen requirements and severe COVID-19 outcome, as defined by mechanical ventilation or death within 30 days. RESULTS: Of the 306 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients with RPP testing, 14 (4.6%) were positive for a non-influenza virus (coinfected). Compared with the coinfected group, patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a negative RPP had higher inflammatory markers and were significantly more likely to be admitted (P = 0.01). Severe COVID-19 outcome occurred in 111 (36.3%) patients in the SARS-CoV-2-only group and 3 (21.4%) patients in the coinfected group (P = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 along with a non-influenza respiratory virus had less severe disease on presentation and were more likely to be admitted-but did not have more severe outcomes-than those infected with SARS-CoV-2 alone.

Opportunities to Improve Antibiotic Appropriateness in U.S. ICUs: A Multicenter Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To use a standardized tool for a multicenter assessment of antibiotic appropriateness in ICUs and identify local antibiotic stewardship improvement opportunities. DESIGN: Pilot point prevalence conducted on October 5, 2016; point prevalence survey conducted on March 1, 2017. SETTING: ICUs in 12 U.S. acute care hospitals with median bed size 563. PATIENTS: Receiving antibiotics on participating units on March 1, 2017. INTERVENTIONS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tool for the Assessment of Appropriateness of Inpatient Antibiotics was made actionable by an expert antibiotic stewardship panel and implemented across hospitals. Data were collected by antibiotic stewardship program personnel at each hospital, deidentified and submitted in aggregate for benchmarking. hospital personnel identified most salient reasons for inappropriate use by category and agent. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty-seven ICUs participated. Most hospitals (83%) identified as teaching with median licensed ICU beds of 70. On March 1, 2017, 362 (54%) of 667 ICU patients were on antibiotics (range, 8-81 patients); of these, 112 (31%) were identified as inappropriate and administered greater than 72 hours among all 12 hospitals (range, 9-82%). Prophylactic antibiotic regimens and PICU patients demonstrated a statistically significant risk ratio of 1.76 and 1.90 for inappropriate treatment, respectively. Reasons for inappropriate use included unnecessarily broad spectrum (29%), no infection or nonbacterial syndrome (22%), and duration longer than necessary (21%). Of patients on inappropriate antibiotic therapy in surgical ICUs, a statistically significant risk ratio of 2.59 was calculated for noninfectious or nonbacterial reasons for inappropriate therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter point prevalence study, 31% of ICU antibiotic regimens were inappropriate; prophylactic regimens were often inappropriate across different ICU types, particularly in surgical ICUs. Engaging intensivists in antibiotic stewardship program efforts is crucial to sustain the efficacy of antibiotics and quality of infectious diseases care in critical care settings. This study underscores the value of standardized assessment tools and benchmarking to be shared with local leaders for targeted antibiotic stewardship program interventions.

Detection and Genetic Characterization of Community-Based SARS-CoV-2 Infections - New York City, March 2020.

To limit introduction of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the United States restricted travel from China on February 2, 2020, and from Europe on March 13. To determine whether local transmission of SARS-CoV-2 could be detected, the New York City (NYC) Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) conducted deidentified sentinel surveillance at six NYC hospital emergency departments (EDs) during March 1-20. On March 8, while testing availability for SARS-CoV-2 was still limited, DOHMH announced sustained community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (1). At this time, twenty-six NYC residents had confirmed COVID-19, and ED visits for influenza-like illness* increased, despite decreased influenza virus circulation.† The following week, on March 15, when only seven of the 56 (13%) patients with known exposure histories had exposure outside of NYC, the level of community SARS-CoV-2 transmission status was elevated from sustained community transmission to widespread community transmission (2). Through sentinel surveillance during March 1-20, DOHMH collected 544 specimens from patients with influenza-like symptoms (ILS)§ who had negative test results for influenza and, in some instances, other respiratory pathogens.¶ All 544 specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2 at CDC; 36 (6.6%) tested positive. Using genetic sequencing, CDC determined that the sequences of most SARS-CoV-2-positive specimens resembled those circulating in Europe, suggesting probable introductions of SARS-CoV-2 from Europe, from other U.S. locations, and local introductions from within New York. These findings demonstrate that partnering with health care facilities and developing the systems needed for rapid implementation of sentinel surveillance, coupled with capacity for genetic sequencing before an outbreak, can help inform timely containment and mitigation strategies.

Antimicrobial Stewardship Training for Infectious Diseases Fellows: Program Directors Identify a Curriculum Need.

A needs assessment survey of infectious diseases (ID) training program directors identified gaps in educational resources for training and evaluating ID fellows in antimicrobial stewardship. An Infectious Diseases Society of America-sponsored core curriculum was developed to address that need.

Confronting the Disruption of the Infectious Diseases Workforce by Artificial Intelligence: What This Means for Us and What We Can Do About It.

With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI), the field of infectious diseases (ID) faces both innovation and disruption. AI and its subfields including machine learning, deep learning, and large language models can support ID clinicians' decision making and streamline their workflow. AI models may help ensure earlier detection of disease, more personalized empiric treatment recommendations, and allocation of human resources to support higher-yield antimicrobial stewardship and infection prevention strategies. AI is unlikely to replace the role of ID experts, but could instead augment it. However, its limitations will need to be carefully addressed and mitigated to ensure safe and effective implementation. ID experts can be engaged in AI implementation by participating in training and education, identifying use cases for AI to help improve patient care, designing, validating and evaluating algorithms, and continuing to advocate for their vital role in patient care.

Dalbavancin as an alternative to traditional outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy for deep gram-positive infections - an observational, retrospective review.

Background: Treatment of invasive gram-positive infections in complex patient populations is challenging. Dalbavancin, approved for skin and soft tissue infections, offers advantages in this setting due to its long half-life and infrequent dosing. However, less is known about the outcomes of off-label dalbavancin for deeper infections. Objectives: The objective of this study is to examine the feasibility and outcomes of patients with complex gram-positive infections treated with dalbavancin as an alternative to standard outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT). Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective review of adult patients managed within an OPAT program with intravenous dalbavancin for off-label indications. Adult patients were included if they had treatment details and follow-up documented between January 2020 and June 2023. Details of dalbavancin use including indications for prescription were captured. Outcomes of interest included 90-day infection recurrence, prosthesis retention rates, 90-day mortality, and adverse medication events. Results: In all, 61 patients received dalbavancin, mostly as sequential therapy. Twenty-three percent received dalbavancin strictly in the outpatient setting. Dalbavancin was used primarily for hardware (fracture, spine, or joint), native bone or joint, and complicated soft tissue infections. The predominant pathogen was Staphylococcus aureus (61%). Dalbavancin was frequently prescribed as a two-dose 1500 mg regimen (49%) due to persistent infection (23%), difficult line access (30%), difficulty achieving therapeutic vancomycin levels (18%), or substance abuse history (18%). Overall, six patients (10%) had infection recurrence and no patients died during the follow-up period. Three of eight patients with hardware retention had infection recurrence. Adverse effects were minimal and mostly self-limiting. Conclusion: Dalbavancin is an efficacious and safe alternative to standard OPAT, especially in those with barriers to traditional long-term intravenous antibiotics. Improved outcomes may be achieved with hardware removal. Dalbavancin may facilitate early discharge or prevent hospitalizations. Comparative studies of standard OPAT regimens versus dalbavancin are needed.

Antiretroviral Stewardship: Top 10 Questions Encountered by Stewardship Teams and Solutions to Optimize Therapy.

PURPOSE: Infectious disease pharmacists and physicians overseeing antimicrobial stewardship programs possess expertise and often advanced certification in management of antiretrovirals to treat HIV. Stewardship programs are responsible for managing facility formularies and must stay up to date with the latest antiretrovirals, including once daily formulations and depot injectables. Furthermore, stewardship program members need to understand drug-interactions, short-, and long-term toxicities of these regimens, including dyslipidemia and cardiovascular effects. Patients receiving chronic antiretroviral therapy may present to the acute care, ambulatory care, and long-term care settings. Like other antimicrobials, audit-and-feedback, drug monitoring, and dose-optimization are often required to prevent antiretroviral associated medication errors and minimize resistance. METHODS: A narrative review was conducted on antiretroviral stewardship, addressing common clinical questions encountered by stewardship teams and best practices to optimize antiretroviral therapy and reduce the risk for treatment interruptions, resistance, drug interactions, long term toxicities, and other adverse effects. FINDINGS: People living with HIV are often hospitalized and treated by medical teams without formal HIV training. For this reason, these patients are at greater risk for medication errors during hospitalization and between transitions of care. Many opportunities are present for antiretroviral stewardship to mitigate these errors. Frequent updates to simplify HIV regimen, maintain select patients on fixed-dose combination tablets, and strategies to minimize drug interactions make it difficult for even the seasoned clinician to keep up regularly. IMPLICATIONS: Despite the availability of free online HIV resources and progress made in HIV management, significant opportunities for antiretroviral stewardship remain. Implementing electronic order entry updates, formulary upgrades, and formal pharmacy renal dose adjustments to optimize antiretroviral therapy will help clinicians harness these opportunities. Dedicated time and expertise for antiretroviral stewardship as part of local antimicrobial stewardship programs are needed.

Five steps to high quality antimicrobial stewardship research.

The escalating threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) necessitates impactful, reproducible, and scalable antimicrobial stewardship strategies. This review addresses the critical need to enhance the quality of antimicrobial stewardship intervention research. We propose five considerations for authors planning and evaluating antimicrobial stewardship initiatives. Antimicrobial stewards should consider the following mnemonic ABCDE: (A) plan Ahead using implementation science; (B) Be clear and thoroughly describe the intervention by using the TidIER checklist; (C) Use a Checklist to comprehensively report study components; (D) Select a study Design carefully; and (E) Assess Effectiveness and implementation by selecting meaningful outcomes. Incorporating these recommendations will help strengthen the evidence base of antimicrobial stewardship literature and support optimal implementation of strategies to mitigate AMR.

Use of matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry to resolve complex clinical cases of patients with recurrent bacteremias.

Matrix-assisted laser desorption-ionization time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) is a rapid and accurate method of identifying microorganisms. Throughout Europe, it is already in routine use but has not yet been widely implemented in the United States, pending FDA approval. Here, we describe two medically complex patients at a large tertiary-care academic medical center with recurring bacteremias caused by distinct but related species. Bacterial identifications were initially obtained using the Vitek-2 system with the GPI card for Enterococcus and the API system for staphylococci. Initial results misled clinicians as to the source and proper management of these patients. Retrospective investigation with MALDI-TOF MS clarified the diagnosis by identifying a single microorganism as the pathogen in each case. To our knowledge, this is one of the first reports in the United States demonstrating the use of MALDI-TOF MS to facilitate the clinical diagnosis in patients with recurrent bacteremias of unclear source.

Antimicrobial Stewardship and Pandemic Preparedness: Harnessing Lessons Learned to Advance Our Mission.

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) demonstrated poise and resilience in assisting with COVID-19 efforts across the globe, harnessing expertise in diagnostic stewardship, therapeutics, protocol development, and use of technology to rapidly expand their scope through strategic collaborations, dissemination of content expertise, and numerous contributions to the body of knowledge on COVID-19. Lessons learned from pandemic response should be used to advance the mission of ASPs and secure a "seat at the table" as health systems continue to expand and adapt to future public health crises.

What is the role of the clinical microbiology laboratory in the care of diagnostically challenging OPAT patients? Illustrative cases and literature review.

Optimal care of patients requiring long-term outpatient parenteral or oral antimicrobial therapy by infectious diseases (ID) specialists is facilitated by an accurate microbiologic diagnosis. Close collaboration between ID specialists and the clinical microbiology laboratory for routine or specialized molecular testing can result in more accurate diagnoses, streamlined antimicrobial regimens, and improved patient outcomes.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and risk of long COVID symptoms: a retrospective cohort study.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess whether treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was associated with a reduced risk of long COVID. We enrolled 500 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 who were eligible for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; 250 who took nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and 250 who did not. The primary outcome was the development of one or more of eleven prespecified long COVID symptoms, assessed through a structured telephone interview four months after the positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Multivariable logistic regression models controlled for age, sex, race/ethnicity, chronic conditions, and COVID-19 vaccination status. We found that participants who took nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were no less likely to develop long COVID symptoms, compared to those who did not take the medication (44% vs. 49.6%, p = 0.21). Taking nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was associated with a lower odds of two of the eleven long COVID symptoms, brain fog (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.88) and chest pain/tightness (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28-0.91). Our finding that treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was not associated with a lower risk of developing long COVID is different from prior studies that obtained data only from electronic medical records.