Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) can be expanded to the outpatient setting to serve as a first line of defense against coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) hospitalizations and to reduce the burden on emergency departments and acute-care hospitals. Given the numerous emergency use authorizations of monoclonal antibodies and oral antivirals, ASPs possess the expertise and leadership to direct ambulatory COVID-19 initiatives and transform it into a predominantly outpatient illness. In this review, we summarize the critical role and benefits of an ASP-championed ambulatory COVID-19 therapeutics program.

The Antimicrobial Stewardship Collaborative of South Carolina created quarterly Comparative SAAR Analysis Reports based on standardized antimicrobial administration ratio (SAAR) data from the NHSN Antimicrobial Use (AU) Option. These reports provide SAAR histograms and site-specific feedback to participating facilities in South Carolina. They were created to improve antimicrobial use throughout the state, especially in rural regions.

Background: Evidence-based hospital antimicrobial stewardship interventions, such as postprescription review with feedback, prior authorization, and handshake stewardship, involve communication between stewards and frontline prescribers. Hierarchy, asymmetric responsibility, prescribing etiquette, and autonomy can obstruct high-quality communication in stewardship. Little is known about the strategies that stewards use to overcome these barriers. The objective of this study was to identify how stewards navigate communication challenges when interacting with prescribers. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with antimicrobial stewards recruited from hospitals across the United States. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a flexible coding approach and the framework method. Social identity theory and role theory were used to interpret framework matrices. Results: Interviews were conducted with 58 antimicrobial stewards (25 physicians and 33 pharmacists) from 10 hospitals (4 academic medical centers, 4 community hospitals, and 2 children’s hospitals). Respondents who felt empowered in their interactions with prescribers explicitly adopted a social identity that conceptualized stewards and prescribers as being on the “same team” with shared goals (in-group orientation). Drawing on the meaning conferred via this social role identity, respondents engaged in communication strategies to build and maintain common bonds with prescribers. These strategies included moderating language to minimize defensive recommendations when delivering stewardship recommendations, aligning the goals of stewardship with the goals of the clinical team, communicating with prescribers about things other than stewardship, compromising for the sake of future interactions, and engaging in strategic face-to-face interaction. Respondents who felt less empowered in their interactions thought of themselves as outsiders to the clinical team and experienced a heightened sense of “us versus them” mentality with the perception that stewards primarily serve a gate-keeping function (ie, outgroup orientation). These respondents expressed deference to hierarchy, a reluctance to engage in face-to-face interaction, a feeling of cynicism about the impact of stewardship, and a sense of low professional accomplishment within the role. Respondents who exhibited an in-group orientation were more likely than those who did not to describe the positive impact of stewardship mentors or colleagues on their social role identity. Conclusions: The way antimicrobial stewards perceive their role and identity within the social context of their healthcare organization influences how they approach communication with prescribers. Social role identity in stewardship is shaped by the influence of mentors and colleagues, indicating the importance of supportive relationships for the development of steward skill and confidence.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Background: The estimated economic cost of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is $5.4 billion annually, primarily attributed to acute-care costs. We previously reported data from ECOSPOR III that SER-109, an investigational oral microbiome therapeutic, was superior to placebo in reducing recurrent CDI (rCDI) in adults at 8 weeks after treatment, with a 68% relative risk reduction. Adults with rCDI have more hospitalizations and emergency room (ER) visits (defined herein as healthcare resource utilization, HRU) compared to those without recurrence. Thus, we evaluated incidence of HRU. Methods: Adults with rCDI (≥3 episodes in 12 months) were screened at 56 US and Canadian sites and were randomized 1:1 to SER-109 (4 capsules × 3 days) or placebo following resolution of CDI with standard-of-care CDI antibiotics. The primary end point was rCDI at 8 weeks. Exploratory end points included cumulative incidence of hospitalizations through 24 weeks after treatment. Here, we report cumulative incidence of all-cause HRU through 8 weeks after treatment. Results: In total, 281 patients were screened and 182 were randomized (59.9% female; mean age 65.5 years; 98.9% outpatient). Overall, 31 patients (17%) had 38 hospitalizations or ER visits through week 8 (11 events in 10 SER-109 patients and 27 events in 21 placebo patients) (Table 1). The cumulative incidence of HRU was lower in SER-109–treated patients compared to placebo at both weeks 4 and 8 with most events (65.8%) recorded within 4 weeks after treatment. The adjusted HRU incidence rate (by person time, age, sex, and antibiotic use) was also lower in SER-109–treated patients compared to placebo at weeks 4 and 8 (0.256 [95% CI, 0.096–0.683] versus 0.417 [95% CI, 0.199–0.873], respectively). Conclusions: SER-109–treated patients had less HRU compared to placebo patients through 8 weeks after treatment in this mostly outpatient population. These data suggest a potential benefit of SER-109 in reducing HRU, thus lowering the healthcare burden of rCDI.

Funding: Seres Therapeutics

Disclosures: None

Background: Systemic racism results in health inequities based on patient race, ethnicity, and language preference. Whether these inequities exist in pediatric central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) is unknown. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with central lines hospitalized from October 2012 to June 2019 at our tertiary-care children’s hospital. Self-reported race, ethnicity, language preference, demographic, and clinical factors were extracted from the electronic health record. The primary outcome was non–mucosal barrier injury (non-MBI) CLABSI episodes as defined by the NHSN. CLABSI rates between groups were compared using χ2 tests and Cox proportional hazard regression. We adjusted for care unit, age, immunosuppressed status, diapered status, central-line type, line insertion within 7 days, daily CLABSI maintenance bundle compliance, number of blood draws and IV medication doses, and need for total parental nutrition, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and renal replacement therapy. In mid-2019, we engaged stakeholders in each care unit to describe preliminary findings and to identify and address potential drivers of observed inequities. Results: We included 337 non-MBI CLABSI events over 230,699 central-line days (CLDs). The overall non-MBI CLABSI rate during the study period was 1.46 per 1,000 CLDs. Unadjusted CLABSI rates for black or African American (henceforth, “black”), Hispanic, non-Hispanic white, and Asian (the 4 largest race or ethnicity groups by CLDs) patients were 2.74, 1.53, 1.42, 1.24 per 1,000 CLDs, respectively (P < .001) (Table 1). Unadjusted CLABSI rates for patients with limited-English proficiency (LEP) and English-language preference were 1.98 and 1.38 per 1,000 CLDs, respectively (P = .014). After adjusting for covariates, the hazard ratio (HR) point estimate for CLABSI rate remained higher for black patients (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.99–2.28) and patients with LEP (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.87–2.05), compared to the reference group based on largest CLD. The differences in CLABSI rate by race or ethnicity and language were more pronounced in 2 of our 6 care units. Stakeholder engagement and analysis of hospital data revealed opportunities on those units for improved (1) interpreter utilization and (2) line maintenance observation practices by race/ethnicity and language preference (data not shown). These findings and CLABSI rates over time by race/ethnicity and language preference (Figures 1 and 2) were shared with frontline staff. Conclusions: In our children’s hospital, CLABSI rates differed based on patients’ self-reported race, ethnicity, and language preference, despite controlling for factors commonly associated with CLABSI. Identifying inequities in CLABSI rates and mitigating their determinants are both essential to the goal of achieving equitable care.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Table 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Background: Inequities are seen in many health-related outcomes, and systemic and structural factors result in inequitable care based on social determinants of health (SDOH). However, whether disparities exist specifically in healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) based on these factors has not been well described. Furthermore, there are no national standards on whether information related to equity and SDOH should be included in HAI surveillance and how such information could be used. Methods: We surveyed US members of the SHEA Research Network (SRN), a consortium of healthcare facilities with leaders interested in healthcare epidemiology and infection prevention, via an online REDCap survey from October to December 2021. Results: Of the 68 eligible US SRN facilities, 28 (41%) responded. Among them, 27 institutions provide direct patient care and were analyzed. Of these 27 facilities, 8 (30%) collected data regarding variables related to equity including language for care, race or ethnicity, insurance status, and other. Of these faclilities, 38% are collecting but not otherwise using this information; other facilities use this information for a variety of reporting and intervention purposes (Fig. 2). Only 3 facilities (11%) analyzed whether disparities exist in any HAI rates. The most common barrier to collecting SDOH information is that facilities have not considered doing this work (Fig. 3). Of the 15 facilities not yet undertaking such work, 10 (67%) were interested in doing so. Specific recommendations about how to operationalize such collection are needed (Table 1). Conclusions: Most institutions in this sample are not collecting data that would allow for assessment of disparities in the rates of HAIs; however, there is interest in doing so. A minority of early adopter facilities are assessing whether disparities exist and are designing interventions. National guidance can play a key role in standardizing the collection of this information and translating early findings to identify and subsequently improve disparities within HAIs.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Electronic hand hygiene monitoring systems allow the collection of large volumes of data. However, significant resources are required to validate and maintain these systems. Additionally, data are lacking on the correlation with clinically important outcomes. Direct observation of hand hygiene remains the gold standard for monitoring hand hygiene compliance.

Hospital construction and renovation activities are the main cause of healthcare-associated fungal outbreaks. Infection control risk assessments (ICRAs) for renovation and construction decrease the risk of healthcare-associated fungal outbreaks, but they are typically not performed in developing countries. We reviewed an outbreak investigation to limit the construction-related fungal infections in a COVID-19 ICU in a resource-limited setting.

One fundamental strategy to address the public health threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is improved awareness among the public, prescribers, and policy makers with the aim of engaging these groups to act. World Antimicrobial Awareness Week is an opportunity for concerted and consistent communication regarding practical strategies to prevent and mitigate AMR. We highlight 10 ways for antimicrobial stewards to make the most of World Antimicrobial Awareness Week.

We tested 85 isolates of β-hemolytic Streptococcus spp. against trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX), clindamycin, and doxycycline by broth microdilution (BMD) and BD Phoenix. Susceptibility rates via BMD for TMP/SMX, clindamycin, and doxycycline were 100%, 85.5%, and 56.6%, respectively. TMP/SMX is a potential monotherapy agent for β-hemolytic Streptococcus skin and soft tissue infections.

We estimated the predictive value of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for blood, bone, and soft-tissue cultures. The specificities were 88.8%, 88.5%, and 92.7% for all cultures, blood cultures, and bone and soft-tissue cultures respectively, and the negative predictive values were 99.3%, 99.8%, and 92.7% respectively.

Background: Improving antibiotic use is a key strategy to combat antimicrobial resistance. Here, we have described national outpatient antibiotic prescribing trends during the COVID-19 pandemic. We compared the monthly numbers of prescriptions in 2020–2021 to those from 2019 to describe the impact of the pandemic and to highlight areas for improvement. Methods: We used the IQVIA National Prescription Audit (NPA) data set to identify all antibiotic prescriptions dispensed from US retail pharmacies during January 2019–October 2021. We calculated the percentage change in volume of prescriptions for each month during the pandemic (beginning in March 2020) compared to the baseline (defined as the corresponding month in 2019). Data were characterized by patient age group (0–19 years, 20–64 years, ≥65 years) and antibiotic class and drug, including azithromycin. Results: Antibiotic prescriptions were lower than baseline during March 2020–June 2021. The greatest decrease in antibiotic prescribing volume occurred in May 2020 (40.0% lower than May 2019) (Fig. 1), with the greatest decreases among children 0–19 years of age. However, prescribing was similar to baseline levels in July–August 2021 (Fig. 1). Specifically, azithromycin prescribing exceeded the 2019 baseline by 11.0% in July and further to a 34.5% increase in August 2021 (Fig. 2). Increases in azithromycin prescribing in August 2021 were observed across all age groups: 20–64 years (46.9% above baseline), ≥65 years (25.3% above baseline), and children 0–19 years (7.8% above baseline). Conclusions: Antibiotic prescribing volume was lower during 2020 and the first half of 2021 compared to the corresponding months in 2019. Decreases in outpatient antibiotic prescriptions during the pandemic likely reflect decreased utilization of outpatient healthcare and decreased transmission of non–COVID-19 infections secondary to nonpharmaceutical interventions (eg, masking, social distancing, school closures). However, outpatient antibiotic prescribing levels in general, and azithromycin prescribing in particular, approached or exceeded prepandemic levels in July and August 2021. Ongoing surveillance and sustained outpatient antibiotic stewardship efforts are needed to optimize antibiotic use during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None