Studies in adults support the use of a negative methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nares screening (MNS) to help limit empiric anti-MRSA antibiotic therapy. We aimed to evaluate the use of MNS for anti-MRSA antibiotic de-escalation in hospitalized children (<18 years). Records of patients admitted between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2020 with a presumed infectious diagnosis who were started on anti-MRSA antibiotics, had a PCR-based MNS, and a clinical culture performed were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 95 children were included with a median age (range) of 2 (0–17) years. The top three diagnosis groups were skin and soft tissue infections (n = 38, 40%), toxin-mediated syndromes (n = 17, 17.9%), and osteoarticular infections (n = 14, 14.7%). Nasal MRSA colonization and growth of MRSA in clinical cultures was found in seven patients (7.4%) each. The specificity and the negative predictive value (NPV) of the MNS to predict a clinical MRSA infection were both 95.5%. About half (n = 55, 57.9%) had anti-MRSA antibiotics discontinued in-house. A quarter (n = 14, 25.5%) were de-escalated based on the negative MNS test alone, and another third (n = 21, 38.2%) after negative MNS test and negative culture results became available. A high NPV suggests that MNS may be useful for limiting unnecessary anti-MRSA therapy and thereby a useful antimicrobial stewardship tool for hospitalized children. Prospective studies are needed to further characterize the utility of MNS for specific infectious diagnoses.
Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected patients experience systemic inflammation and respiratory distress, which appears to be associated with increased cytokine release. During the peak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), tocilizumab was used to treat critically ill patients with potential cytokine storm. However, tocilizumab has an increased risk of developing serious infections. Methods This retrospective observational chart review was approved by Institutional Review Board and evaluated patients admitted from March to November 2020, who were SARS-CoV-2 positive and received tocilizumab for the treatment group and no tocilizumab for the control group. The primary endpoint is usage of antimicrobials. The secondary endpoints are development and outcomes of secondary infections and hospital length of stay and mortality. Chi-square test was used for categorical data and Mann-Whitney test was used for continuous data. Results A total of 160 patients were included in analysis, with 80 in each arm. 60% of patients in the treatment group required antibiotics compared to 35% in the control group (p = 0.0015), with the highest usage of anti-MRSA coverage, beta-lactams, cephalosporins, and carbapenems in both groups. Antifungal therapy was required in 21.3% of patients in the tocilizumab group compared to 6.3% in the control group (p = 0.0059), with echinocandins being the most used class in both groups. The median days of antimicrobial use in the tocilizumab group was 14 (IQR 7, 24.5) compared to 9 (IQR 6.5, 19) in the control group (p = 0.3346). In the treatment group, 60% of patients developed a secondary infection compared to 35% of patients in the control group (p < 0.0017). Secondary infection treatment failure was observed in 75% of tocilizumab patients compared to 60.7% of control patients (p = 0.1910). In hospital mortality was 50% in patients who received tocilizumab compared to 27.5% in the control group (p < 0.0039). Conclusion Patients on tocilizumab received more antimicrobials, but with a similar spectrum of antimicrobial coverage. Patients who received tocilizumab had higher odds of developing secondary infections and expiring during their hospital stay. There were similar durations of antimicrobial therapy and treatment outcomes. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures
Background Obesity impacts the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of medications. Pharmacokinetic studies of intravenous (IV) acyclovir have demonstrated that dosing obese patients according to their ideal body weight (IBW) may provide a sub-therapeutic dose, while dosing based on total body weight (TBW) may increase adverse effects. This has led to the use of adjusted body weight (AdjBW) for dosing in this population; however, this has not been evaluated clinically. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of different dosing strategies of IV acyclovir in obese patients. Methods This retrospective observational chart review evaluated adult patients admitted to Long Island Jewish Medical Center with a body mass index greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2 who received at least 48 hours of high-dose IV acyclovir therapy during the study period of January 2014 to August 2019. Patients were stratified to IBW, AdjBW, and TBW for analysis. The primary statistical tests utilized include descriptive statistics and logistic regression. The primary endpoint was the outcome of infection. The secondary endpoints included duration of therapy, length of stay, and adverse effects. Results 51 patients were included in the efficacy analysis and 84 patients were included in the safety analysis. Treatment failure occurred in 3 out of 51 patients (1 patient in IBW group, 2 patients in AdjBW group, p=0.445). There was no significant difference in median length of stay (p=0.977) or median duration of IV therapy (p=0.78). Nephrotoxicity occurred in 22.2%, 19.2%, and 22.7% of patients in the IBW, AdjBW, and TBW groups respectively (p=1). Conclusion When comparing different dosing modalities, there was no significant difference in the outcome of infection, duration of therapy, or length of stay. The results of this study were limited by small sample size. However, dosing patients according to AdjBW led to smaller doses of acyclovir, and therefore less drug exposure. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures
Background The transition to oral antibiotics in gram-negative bloodstream infections (BSI) can decrease length of stay, avoid central line access, and improve patient convenience. Some studies suggest that the bioavailability of the oral agent selected can impact outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine when the most appropriate time to oral step-down is, and assess if the bioavailability of the agent selected impacts outcomes. Methods This retrospective observational chart review evaluated adult patients admitted to Long Island Jewish Medical Center during the study period of January 2019 – December 2019 with a gram-negative BSI from a genitourinary source. The primary objective was to assess if the time to oral step-down therapy impacts clinical success. Secondary objectives included assessment of if continued IV therapy or oral step-down impacts outcome measures including clinical failure, length of stay, and duration of therapy, and to compare high versus low bioavailability agents on treatment outcomes. Results A total of 130 patients were included, with 88 patients in the oral step-down group and 42 patients in the IV therapy only group. Clinical failure occurred in 10 patients in the oral step-down group, with 2 de-escalated in the 1-3 day range and 8 de-escalated in the 4-6 day range (p=0.29). There was no difference in clinical failure when the oral step-down group was compared to the IV therapy group (11 vs. 17%; p=0.41). The length of stay was significantly shorter in the oral step-down group (p< 0.0001), while the duration of therapy was shorter in the IV therapy group (p=0.0015). When comparing high and low bioavailability agents, there was no difference in the rate of treatment failure (p=0.74), length of stay (p=0.08), or duration of therapy (p=0.02). Conclusion There was no significant difference in outcomes if patients were de-escalated to oral therapy early versus late in their treatment course. Step-down to oral antibiotics led to decreased length of stay, and the bioavailability of the oral agent selected did not impact outcomes. This study demonstrates the safety and efficacy of prompt oral step-down for gram-negative bacteremia secondary to a genitourinary source which can have positive impacts on patient care. 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.