Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:infection (CDI) while receiving systemic antibiotics to prevent CDI recurrence. However, this practice has not been studied in pediatric patients. The objective of this study was to assess the utility of secondary OVP in pediatric patients with previous CDI who received subsequent antibiotic exposure. METHODS:A multicampus, retrospective cohort evaluation was conducted among patients aged ≤18 years with any history of clinical CDI and receiving systemic antibiotics in a subsequent encounter from 2013-2019. Patients who received concomitant OVP with antibiotics were compared with unexposed patients. The primary outcome was CDI recurrence within 8 weeks after antibiotic exposure. Infection with vancomycin-resistant enterococci and risk factors for CDI recurrence were assessed. RESULTS:= .04). CONCLUSIONS:Secondary OVP while receiving systemic antibiotics reduces the risk of recurrent CDI in pediatric patients with a history of CDI.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:Nationwide shortages of small-volume parenteral solutions (SVPS) compelled hospitals to develop strategies including the use of intravenous push (IVP) administration of antibiotics to reserve SVPS for absolute necessities. It is unknown if administration of beta-lactam antibiotics (BL) via IVP results in worse clinical outcomes compared to intravenous piggyback (IVPB) due to the potential inability to achieve pharmacodynamic targets. METHODS:Our health-system implemented a mandatory IVP action plan for BL from October 2017 to September 2018. This was a retrospective study of adult patients with GNB who received empiric therapy with IVPB (30 minutes) or IVP (5 minutes) cefepime (FEP) or meropenem (MEM) for at least 2 days. Endpoints included clinical response, microbiological clearance and mortality. All data are presented as n (%) or median (interquartile range). RESULTS:The final cohort included 213 patients (IVPB n = 105, IVP n = 108). The primary source of bacteremia was urinary, with Escherichia coli being the primary pathogen. Escalation of therapy was similar between groups (15 [14%] vs 11 [10%], P = .36) at a median of 3 days (P = .68). No significant differences were observed in any secondary endpoints including microbiological clearance, bacteremia recurrence, time to defervescence, WBC normalization, vasopressor duration or in-hospital mortality. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest no differences in clinical response with the use of IVP compared to IVPB FEP and MEM for treatment of GNB. This form of administration may be considered as a fluid conservation strategy in times of shortage.

As New York became the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic early on, clinicians were challenged to provide optimal medical and pharmaceutical care, despite the paucity of supporting literature and guidance. We sought to describe prescribing patterns and outcomes of physician response to the urgent need to treat COVID-19 patients before initiation of randomized clinical trials.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Ceftriaxone (CTX) and penicillin G (PCN G) are considered reasonable treatment options for viridans group streptococci (VGS) bloodstream infections, but comparisons between these agents are limited. We evaluated clinical outcomes among patients treated with these agents for complicated VGS bacteremia. Methods/UNASSIGNED:infections, treatment modification or discontinuation due to AEs from therapy, and development of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase resistance. Secondary outcomes included individual safety end points, VGS bacteremia recurrence, hospital readmission, and all-cause mortality. Results/UNASSIGNED: = .139). The driver of the composite outcome was hospital readmission due to VGS bacteremia or therapy complications. No secondary end points differed significantly between groups. On multivariate analysis, source removal was a protective factor of the primary composite safety outcome. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Despite potential safety concerns with the prolonged use of CTX in complicated VGS bacteremia, this study did not demonstrate higher rates of treatment failure, adverse events, or resistance.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Effective therapies to combat coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has in vitro antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but the clinical benefit of HCQ in treating COVID-19 is unclear. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of HCQ for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods/UNASSIGNED:We conducted a multicenter, double-blind randomized clinical trial of HCQ among patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to HCQ or placebo for 5 days and followed for 30 days. The primary efficacy outcome was a severe disease progression composite end point (death, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and/or vasopressor use) at day 14. Results/UNASSIGNED: = .350). There were no significant differences in COVID-19 clinical scores, number of oxygen-free days, SARS-CoV-2 clearance, or adverse events between HCQ and placebo. HCQ was associated with a slight increase in mean corrected QT interval, an increased D-dimer, and a trend toward an increased length of stay. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, our data suggest that HCQ does not prevent severe outcomes or improve clinical scores. However, our conclusions are limited by a relatively small sample size, and larger randomized controlled trials or pooled analyses are needed.

Background. Secondary oral vancomycin prophylaxis (OVP) has been utilized in adults with a history of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) while receiving systemic antibiotics to prevent CDI recurrence. However, this practice is poorly described in pediatric patients. Rates of CDI recurrence in pediatric patients range from 10-40% and is associated with morbidity and mortality. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of secondary OVP in pediatric patients with subsequent antibiotic exposure. Methods. This retrospective study evaluated pediatric patients <=18 years with any history of clinical CDI and receiving systemic antibiotics in a subsequent encounter during the time period of 2013-2019. Patients who received OVP 10 mg/kg (up to 125 mg per dose) every 12 hours during concomitant antibiotics were compared to those who did not. The primary outcome was CDI recurrence within 8 weeks following antibiotic exposure. Secondary outcomes included time to recurrence, severity of recurrence, and isolation of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) from any site. Risk factors for CDI recurrence were assessed using logistic regression. Results. A total of 153 patients were screened for inclusion, of which 32 and 47 patients were assigned to the OVP and no OVP group, respectively. Median age was 8.6 years and the most common comorbidities were malignancy (47%) and immunosuppression (46%). Median time since last CDI to study inclusion was 64.5 days in the OVP group and 90 days in the no OVP group, P=0.320. Compared to the no OVP group, OVP patients had longer hospital stays (5 vs 14 days, P=0.001) and more concomitant antibiotic exposure (8 vs 12.5 days, P=0.001). Median duration of OVP was 12 days. CDI recurrence occurred in 12 patients and was significantly lower in the OVP vs no OVP group (3.1% vs 23.4%; odds ratio, 0.106; 95% confidence interval, 0.013-0.864; P=0.022). VRE was not isolated in any patients. After adjustment in a multivariate analysis, only secondary OVP remained as a protective factor against recurrence (odds ratio, 0.082; 95% confidence interval, 0.009- 0.748; P=0.027). Conclusion. Secondary OVP effectively reduces the risk of recurrent CDI in pediatric patients with a history of CDI while receiving systemic antibiotics. Future prospective studies should validate these findings

Background: Viridans group streptococci (VGS) is an infrequent yet significant cause of bloodstream infections, and complicated cases may require prolonged antibiotic therapy. Ceftriaxone (CTX) and penicillin G (PCN G) are both considered first line options for VGS infections, but comparisons between these agents are limited. We evaluated the clinical outcomes amongst patients treated with CTX and PCN G for complicated VGS bacteremia.
Method(s): This was a single-center, retrospective study of adult patients with >=1 positive VGS blood culture who were treated with either CTX or PCN G/ampicillin (both included in PCN G arm) between January 2013 and June 2019. The primary outcome was a composite of safety endpoints, including hospital readmission due to VGS or an adverse event (AE) from therapy, Clostridioides difficile infections, treatment modification or discontinuation due to an antibiotic-related AE, and development of extended-spectrum beta lactamase resistance. Secondary outcomes included the individual safety endpoints, VGS bacteremia recurrence, hospital readmission, and all-cause mortality.
Result(s): Of 328 patients screened for inclusion, 94 patients met eligibility criteria (CTX n= 64, PCN G n=34). Median age was 68 years (IQR 56-81) and 68% were male. Study patients did not present with critical illness, as reflected by a median Pitt bacteremia score of 0 in the CTX and 1 in the PCN G arms, P=0.764. Streptococcus mitis was the most common VGS isolate and infective endocarditis (IE) was the predominant source of infection. CTX was not significantly associated with increased risk of the primary outcome (14% vs. 27%; P= 0.139). The driver of the composite outcome was hospital readmission due to VGS bacteremia or therapy complications. Results were similar in the subgroup of patients with IE (12.5% vs. 23.5%). No secondary endpoints differed significantly between groups. On multivariate analysis, source removal was a protective factor of the primary outcome (OR 0.1; 95% CI 0.020-0.6771; P= 0.017).
Conclusion(s): Despite potential safety concerns with the prolonged use of CTX in complicated VGS bacteremia, this study did not demonstrate a higher rate of treatment failure, adverse events, or resistance. These findings warrant further exploration

OBJECTIVE:The data regarding the effectiveness of chemical prophylaxis against recurrent C. difficile infection (CDI) remain conflicting. DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study on the effectiveness of oral vancomycin for prevention of recurrent CDI. SETTING/METHODS:Two academic centers in New York. METHODS:Two participating hospitals implemented an automated alert recommending oral vancomycin 125 mg twice daily in patients with CDI history scheduled to receive systemic antimicrobials. Measured outcomes included breakthrough and recurrent CDI rates, defined as CDI during and 1 month after initiation of prophylaxis, respectively. A self-controlled, before-and-after study design was employed to examine the effect of vancomycin prophylaxis on the prevalence of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp (VRE) colonization and infection. RESULTS:We included 264 patients in the analysis. Breakthrough CDI was identified in 17 patients (6.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.8%-10.1%) and recurrent in 22 patients (8.3%; 95% CI, 5.3%-12.3%). Among the 102 patients with a history of CDI within the 3 months preceding prophylaxis, 4 patients (3.9%; 95% CIs, 1.1%-9.7%) had breakthrough CDI and 9 had recurrent disease (8.8%; 95% CIs, 4.1%-16.1%). In the 3-month period following vancomycin prophylaxis, we detected a statistically significant increase in both the absolute number of VRE (χ2, 0.003) and the ratio of VRE to VSE isolates (χ2, 0.003) compared to the combined period of 1.5 months preceding and the 3-4.5 months following prophylaxis. This effect persisted 6 months following prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS:Prophylactic vancomycin is an effective strategy to prevent CDI recurrence, but it increases the risk of VRE colonization. Thus, a careful selection of patients with high benefit-to-risk ratio is needed for the implementation of this preventive policy.

PURPOSE:A critical shortage of small-volume parenteral solutions in late 2017 led hospitals to develop strategies to ensure availability for critical patients, including administration of antibiotics as intravenous push (IVP). Minimal literature has been published to date that assesses the safety of administration of beta-lactams via this route. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of IVP administration of select beta-lactam antibiotics. METHODS:We performed a retrospective review of IVP administrations of aztreonam, ceftriaxone, cefepime, and meropenem at two campuses of the New York University Langone Health system after October 2017. Patients receiving surgical prophylaxis or more than one IVP antibiotic simultaneously were excluded. The primary endpoint was adverse events (ADE) following IVP administration of antibiotics. RESULTS:We evaluated 1000 patients who received IVP aztreonam (n = 43), ceftriaxone (n = 544), cefepime (n = 368) or meropenem (n = 45). There were 10 (1%) ADE observed, 5 of which were allergic reactions. Four ADE were neurotoxicity related to IVP cefepime. Based on the Naranjo score, 1 adverse event was "probably" and 3 were "possibly" related to cefepime IVP administration. Lastly, only 1 report of phlebitis was observed with the use of IVP ceftriaxone. CONCLUSIONS:The use of IVP as an alternative to intravenous piggyback (IVPB) during times of drug shortage for select beta-lactam antibiotics appears to be safe, and ADE are similar to those previously described for IVPB administration. Future studies evaluating clinical outcomes between IVP and IVPB administration may be of benefit.