C andida auris is an emerging, multidrug-resistant, healthcare-associated fungal pathogen that was first reported in Japan in 2009 and has now been isolated on 6 continents (1-9). C. auris has been identified as the causative pathogen in various invasive fungal infections, including bloodstream infections (2,4), and is associated with outbreaks across healthcare settings (6,10). Risk factors for C. auris infection are similar to other Candida infections including prolonged hospitalization, abdominal surgery, diabetes mellitus, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, use of central venous and urinary catheters, immunocompromising conditions, chronic kidney disease, and exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotic and antifungal agents (10-13). Investigations in the Chicago, Illinois, USA, area have found a high prevalence of C. auris colonization at ventilator-capable skilled nursing facilities (14) and have shown higher rates of C. auris colonization among patients who are mechanically ventilated, have a gastrostomy tube, or have a urinary catheter (15). Reported mortality rates attributable to invasive C. auris infection range from 30% to 59% globally (13,16) and from 22% to 57% in the United States (8,10,17). C. auris isolates are often resistant to fluconazole and have variable susceptibility to other antifungal agents (13,16). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) currently recommends echinocandins as empiric therapy for suspected or confirmed C. auris infections (18). However, recent reports have indicated reduced susceptibilities to echinocandins and suggest that resistance might be inducible under antifungal pressure (8,16). Previous reports of C. auris infections and outbreaks have largely focused on epidemiologic information, and data on treatment strategies and clinical outcomes are limited (6,8,10,16-21). We report microbiologic data for C. auris isolates from a multisite health system in Illinois and an assessment of clinical outcomes for patients treated for C. auris infections. Methods This study is a retrospective cohort analysis of patients at 8 hospitals within a single health system located in the Chicago metropolitan area. We included all patients >18 years old who had >1 positive culture for C. auris from any anatomic site during January 1,
Fluoroquinolones (FQs) are often preferred as oral step-down therapy for bloodstream infections (BSIs) due to favorable pharmacokinetic parameters; however, they are also associated with serious adverse events. The objective of this study was to compare clinical outcomes for patients who received an oral FQ versus an oral beta-lactam (BL) as step-down therapy for uncomplicated streptococcal BSIs. This multi-center, retrospective cohort study analyzed adult patients who completed therapy with an oral FQ or BL with at least one blood culture positive for a Streptococcus species from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2019. The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as lack of all-cause mortality, recurrent BSI with the same organism, and infection-related readmission at 90 days. A multivariable logistic regression model for predictors of clinical failure was conducted. A total of 220 patients were included, with 87 (40%) receiving a FQ and 133 (60%) receiving a BL. Step-down therapy with an oral BL was non-inferior to an oral FQ (93.2% vs. 92.0%; mean difference 1.2%, 90% CI -5.2 to 7.8). No differences were seen in 90-day mortality, 90-day recurrent BSI, 90-day infection-related readmission, or 90-day incidence of C. difficile-associated diarrhea. Predictors of clinical failure included: oral step-down transition before day three (OR = 5.18, 95% CI 1.21, 22.16) and low dose oral-step down therapy (OR = 2.74, 95% CI 0.95, 7.90). Our results suggest that oral step-down therapy for uncomplicated streptococcal BSI with a BL is non-inferior to a FQ.
Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of infectious diseases consultation (IDC) and a real-time antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) review on the management of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB). Methods This retrospective study included adult inpatients with SAB from January 2016 to December 2018 at 7 hospitals. Outcomes were compared between 3 time periods: before mandatory IDC and AMS review (period 1), after mandatory IDC and before AMS review (period 2), and after mandatory IDC and AMS review (period 3). The primary outcome was bundle adherence, defined as appropriate intravenous antimicrobial therapy, appropriate duration of therapy, appropriate surveillance cultures, echocardiography, and removal of indwelling intravenous catheters, if applicable. Secondary end points included individual bundle components, source control, length of stay (LOS), 30-day bacteremia-related readmission, and in-hospital all-cause mortality. Results A total of 579 patients met inclusion criteria for analysis. Complete bundle adherence was 65% in period 1 (n = 241/371), 54% in period 2 (n = 47/87), and 76% in period 3 (n = 92/121). Relative to period 3, bundle adherence was significantly lower in period 1 (odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37–0.93; P = .02) and period 2 (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.20–0.67; P = .0009). No difference in bundle adherence was noted between periods 1 and 2. Significant differences were seen in obtaining echocardiography (91% vs 83% vs 100%; P < .001), source control (34% vs 45% vs 45%; P = .04), and hospital LOS (10.5 vs 8.9 vs 12.0 days; P = .01). No differences were noted for readmission or mortality. Conclusions The addition of AMS pharmacist review to mandatory IDC was associated with significantly improved quality care bundle adherence.
BackgroundInfectious diseases consult (IDC) and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) intervention independently demonstrate improved management of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB). However, data supporting utilizing both strategies is limited. The objective of the current study is to assess evidence-based bundle adherence for SAB in the presence and absence of mandatory IDC and AMS pharmacist review in a multi-site health system.MethodsThis retrospective study included adult inpatients with SAB from January 2016 to December 2018 at seven hospitals. Outcomes were compared between three groups: pre-mandatory IDC and AMS review (group 1), post-mandatory IDC and pre-AMS review (group 2), and post-mandatory IDC and AMS review (group 3). The primary outcome was bundle adherence defined as: appropriate intravenous antimicrobial therapy, appropriate duration of therapy, 24–48-hour surveillance cultures until documented clearance, echocardiography, and removal of indwelling intravenous catheters, if applicable. Secondary endpoints included individual bundle components, source control, length of stay (LOS), 30-day bacteremia-related readmission, and in-hospital all-cause mortality.ResultsA total of 579 patients met the final inclusion criteria for analysis. Complete bundle adherence was achieved in 65% of patients for group 1 (n = 371), 54% for group 2 (n = 87), and 76% for group 3 (n = 121). Adherence to bundle elements was significantly higher in group 3 when compared with group 1 (odds ratio [OR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–0.93), and group 2 (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.20 – 0.67). No difference in bundle adherence was noted between groups 1 and 2. When comparing groups 1, 2 and 3, significant differences were seen in obtaining echocardiography (91% vs. 83% vs. 100%; P = 0.0378), and hospital LOS (10.5 vs. 8.85 vs. 12.0 days; P = 0.0149), respectively. Increased hospital LOS in group 3 may be due to nonsignificant higher rates of complicated bacteremia compared with groups 2 and 1 (32% vs. 44% vs. 43%, P = 0.09), respectively. No differences were noted for readmission or mortality.ConclusionThe addition of AMS pharmacist review to mandatory IDC significantly improved quality care bundle adherence.Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.