The national influenza pandemic response plan includes short-term school closures as an infection mitigation measure, based on modeling data regarding the role of pediatric populations and schools as drivers of disease spread. Modeled estimates regarding the role of children and their in-school contacts as drivers of community transmission of endemic respiratory viruses were used in part to justify prolonged school closures throughout the United States. However, disease transmission models extrapolated from endemic pathogens to novel ones may underestimate the degree to which spread is driven by population immunity and overestimate the impact of school closures as a means of reducing child contacts, particularly in the longer-term. These errors, in turn, may have caused incorrect estimations about the potential benefits of closing schools on a society level while simultaneously failing to account for the significant harms of long-term educational disruption.

Pandemic response plans need to be updated to include nuances regarding drivers of transmission such as pathogen type, population immunity, and contact patterns, and disease severity in different groups. Expected duration of impact also needs to be considered, recognizing that effectiveness of different interventions, particularly those focused on limiting social interactions, are short-lived. Additionally, future iterations should include risk–benefit assessments. Interventions that are particularly harmful to certain groups, such as school closures are on children, should be de-emphasized and time limited. Finally, pandemic responses should include ongoing and continuous policy re-evaluation and should include a clear plan for de-implementation and de-escalation.

Background: Antibiotic use was common in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection; however, data emerged demonstrating low rates of bacterial coinfection (6%–10%). Antimicrobial stewardship best practice was challenged during this time, requiring new strategies and education to limit the inappropriate use of antibiotics. At the Veterans’ Affairs Maryland Healthcare System, we evaluated the use of community acquired pneumonia (CAP) specific antibiotics in COVID-19–positive patients after successive interventions. Methods: We conducted a pre–post evaluation of common CAP antibiotics (ceftriaxone IV/IM, cefpodoxime PO, azithromycin PO/IV, ampicillin/sulbactam IV, amoxicillin-clavulanate PO, levofloxacin) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The preintervention period was April–October 2020 and the postintervention period was November 2020–April 2021. During the preintervention period, intervention A was carried out as follows: (1) inpatient weekly virtual interdisciplinary COVID-19 rounds were led by an antimicrobial stewardship champion, (2) χprocalcitonin was implemented in clinical decision making, and (3) inpatient audit and feedback of active antibiotics was conducted by the antimicrobial stewardship team. In the postintervention period, intervention B was added as follows: (1) weekly educational COVID-19 virtual seminars were conducted for providers, and (2) targeted education was provided to emergency department and hospitalist directors. Comparisons of the proportions of antibiotics prescribed were made between the pre- and postintervention periods using X2 statistic, and data were stratified by location. The rates of CAP antibiotic prescription per 100 COVID-19–positive patients were also compared using Poisson distribution. Results: During the study period, 814 unique patients had COVID-19 infection: 182 (22.4%) patients admitted to the acute-care center, 66 (8.1%) long-term care residents, and 566 (69.5%) were managed outside the hospital. Of these 814 patients, 211 (25%) were prescribed a CAP antibiotic. Of the antibiotics prescribed, 223 (61%) were ceftriaxone, cefpodoxime, amoxicillin-clavulanate, or ampicillin-sulbactam; 123 (34%) were azithromycin; and 16 (4.4%) were levofloxacin. We observed a decrease in the frequency of all antibiotic prescriptions after intervention B was added: 32% (86 of 273) vs 23% (125 of 541) (P = .01). Decreases in antibiotic prescriptions were observed in all locations: acute care (57% vs 44%), long-term care (53% vs 41%) and outpatient care (19% vs 15%). The rates of CAP antibiotic prescribing per 100 COVID-19–positive patients were 114 in the preintervention period and 45 in the postintervention period, a rate difference of −70 antibiotics per 100 COVID-19–positive patients (pConclusions: Curbing antibiotic use for CAP indication during the COVID-19 pandemic was a challenge. A multifaceted approach focusing on education was an impactful intervention leading to significant decreases in antibiotic prescribing despite COVID-19 cases increasing.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has strained antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) but offered new opportunities. This review summarizes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on ASPs, review the contributions ASPs have made in the pandemic response, and highlight the potential role of ASPs in future pandemics.

We evaluated the impact of preliminary blood-culture antibiotic susceptibility testing on time to optimal antibiotic therapy in a cohort of 503 patients with monomicrobial bloodstream infections. The median time from blood-culture collection to optimal antibiotics was 17 hours earlier in the preliminary antibiotic susceptibility testing group.

We examined the effect of an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP), procalcitonin testing and rapid blood-culture identification on hospital mortality in a prospective quality improvement project in critically ill septic adults. Secondarily, we have reported antimicrobial guideline concordance, acceptance of ASP interventions, and antimicrobial and health-resource utilization.

Changes in antimicrobial use during the pandemic in relation to long-term trends in utilization among different antimicrobial stewardship program models have not been fully characterized. We analyzed data from an integrated health system using joinpoint regression and found temporal fluctuations in prescribing as well as continuation of existing trends.

Background: Clinical pharmacists are a critical part of antibiotic stewardship. Stewardship often relies on relationships and persuasion, which may be affected by gender bias. Thus, we aimed to assess the association of sex with the acceptance of antibiotic stewardship recommendations. Methods: Between May and October 2019, medicine pharmacists at single hospital reviewed patients on antibiotics and–when a discharge was anticipated–led an antibiotic discussion (or “timeout”) prior to discharge. To explore differences in antibiotic timeout effectiveness by gender, we assessed the association of pharmacist sex with suggestion and acceptance of antibiotic changes using logistic regression controlling for patient characteristics. We also assessed whether hospitalist sex was associated with or moderated the effect of pharmacist sex on acceptance of timeout recommendations. Results: Between May 1, 2019, and October 31, 2019, pharmacists conducted 295 timeouts (patient characteristics in Fig. 1). Overall, 54% of timeouts were conducted by 12 female pharmacists and the remaining 46% were conducted by 8 male pharmacists. Overall, 82 (29%) of 295 timeouts resulted in a pharmacist recommending an antibiotic change, and male pharmacists were more likely to recommend a change: 52 (38%) of 137 versus 30 (19%) 158 (P Conclusions: In this discharge antibiotic intervention, timeouts conducted by women were less likely to result in an antibiotic change than those conducted by men. The difference in effectiveness resulted both from female pharmacists being less likely to recommend a change and from hospitalists being less likely to accept recommendations from a female pharmacist. These findings suggest that gender bias may play a role acceptance of antibiotic stewardship recommendations, which could affect antibiotic use, pharmacist job satisfaction, and patient outcomes.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

During the 2022 mpox outbreak, tecovirimat was accessed through an expanded access investigational new drug (EA-IND) protocol. We leveraged a unique public/private hospital partnership in New York City to create a novel infrastructure to navigate the EA-IND’s regulatory requirements and rapidly provide tecovirimat to patients.

Catheter-related infections increased during surges of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in an 11-hospital system in New York City. A disproportionate number of central-line infections occurred in larger hospitals. Patients with COVID-19 had shorter times from catheter insertion to infection and a higher incidence of infections with enterococci.

Background: Admission laboratory screening for asymptomatic COVID-19 has been utilized to mitigate healthcare-associated SARS-CoV-2 transmission. A better understanding of the impact of such testing across a variety of patient populations is needed. Methods: Beginning April 2020, every patient admitted within an academic healthcare system underwent SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing upon admission. Between April 20, 2020 through June 14, 2021, results were analyzed in asymptomatic patients across 4 inpatient facilities: a tertiary-care adult hospital, a free-standing pediatric hospital, a community-based hospital, and a behavioral health hospital. Positivity rates and the number needed to test (NNT) to identify 1 asymptomatic infected patient were calculated overall, by hospital type, by patient vaccination status, and by CDC-defined levels of community transmission. Weekly community incidence rates of COVID-19 for the system’s metropolitan service area (8 central Tennessee counties) were obtained from Tennessee Department of Health records. Weekly COVID-19 incidence rates per 100,000 people were calculated using US Census Bureau data. Using a national survey of hospital epidemiologists, a clinically meaningful NNT was identified (ie, 1 positive patient per 100 patients tested). A crude admission testing cost (covering testing supplies, reagents, and lab personnel costs) was obtained from operational data ($50 per test) to assess testing utility. Results: In total, 51,187 tests were collected during the study period with a positivity rate of 1.8%. No periods of low transmission were observed (Table 1). During high transmission periods, the NNT met the clinically relevant threshold in all populations. In addition, the NNT approached or met the 1:100 threshold for most locations during periods of less transmission, suggesting continued benefit even as infection rates decline. In all transmission periods, the NNT for non–fully vaccinated patients met the clinically meaningful threshold, in contrast to testing of fully vaccinated patients (Table 2). Discussion: Implementing an asymptomatic patient admission testing program can provide clinically relevant value based on the NNT, even during lower periods of transmission and in different patient populations. Limiting admission testing to non–fully vaccinated patients during periods of lower transmission may be a strategy to address cost and resource concerns around this practice. Further investigations into the impact of booster vaccination and newer SARS-CoV-2 variants on admission testing programs are also necessary. Although the impact of such testing on healthcare-associated COVID-19 among patients and healthcare workers could not be clearly determined, these data provide important information as facilities weigh the costs and benefits of such testing.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Over a 4-year period, the antimicrobial stewardship team reviewed all positive (PCR+/Tox+) and indeterminate (PCR+/Tox−) cases with the most responsible physician for classification of patients as infection or colonization. Among 501 indeterminate samples, 213 (43%) were considered to be clinical infection, suggesting the need for ongoing clinical assessment of indeterminates.

In a large healthcare worker cohort, we quantified the association between behaviors and risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during different pandemic phases, adjusting for prior infection and vaccination. Individual characteristics, including personal concerns, were associated with these behaviors. Public health messaging should target high-risk populations and behaviors as the pandemic evolves.

We developed and validated a set of fully automated surveillance algorithms for healthcare-onset CDI using electronic health records. In a validation data set of 750 manually annotated admissions, the algorithm based on International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code A04.7 had insufficient sensitivity. Algorithms based on microbiological test results with or without addition of symptoms performed well.