Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccination access is complicated by insurance coverage limitations. This two-week study showed that at least 75% of eligible older adults were covered by Medicare Part D, which restricts vaccine administration to retail pharmacies. This increases complexity of care coordination, may decrease vaccination rates, and highlights the need for expanded vaccine coverage.

Bloodstream infections (BSIs) account for 18% of bacterial infections in the first year after solid organ transplantation (SOT). Enterococcus accounts for up to 20% of BSIs in this population, with vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE) posing a particular risk. This is a retrospective, case-control study of adult liver and kidney transplant recipients between 01/01/2016 and 06/30/2021 that characterizes the epidemiology and outcomes of enterococcal BSIs in liver and kidney transplantations at a single institution. Subjects with an enterococcal BSI within the first 6 months post-transplant were compared to those with non-enterococcal BSIs in the same period. We identified 26 subjects with enterococcal BSIs and 28 controls with non-enterococcal BSIs (n = 54; 10.3%). Cases were mostly liver transplant recipients (n = 20; 77%) with a median MELD at transplant of 33 (range 14-43); controls included 14 KT recipients (50%). Groups differed significantly (all p < .05) by factors including perioperative transfusion requirements, need for reoperation, and number of interventions post-transplant. Cases had a median time of 25.5 days to infection and controls 100.5 days (p < .0001). There were no differences in 1-year mortality between the groups. Enterococcus faecium was the predominant species of Enterococcus (n = 23; 88.5%), with a majority (91.3%) of the isolates being VRE. In our liver and kidney transplants, enterococcal BSIs occurred early among liver transplant recipients. The high incidence of VRE among E. faecium isolates in this population warrants further investigation into the optimal approach to empiric antimicrobials for bacteremia in the early post-transplant period.

Abstract Background Bloodstream infections (BSIs) account for 18% of bacterial infections in the first year after solid organ transplantation (SOT). Enterococcus is an important cause of nosocomial BSI, accounting for up to 20% of BSIs in this population, with Vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE) posing a particular risk. This study aims to characterize the epidemiology and outcomes of enterococcal BSIs in abdominal SOTs. Methods A retrospective, single-center, case-control study of adult abdominal organ transplant (kidney transplant (KT), liver transplant (LT), simultaneous liver-kidney transplant (SLK), pancreas transplant, or simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant) recipients between 01/01/2016 - 07/30/2021 was conducted at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Subjects were identified and reviewed using the Organ Transplant Tracking Record, their online medical record, and Vigilanz. Subjects with an enterococcal BSI within the first 6 months post-transplant were compared to those with non-enterococcal BSIs in the same period. Results We identified 26 subjects with enterococcal BSIs and 28 controls with non-enterococcal BSIs (n = 54; 10.2%). Cases were mostly LT recipients (n = 20; 77%) with a median MELD at transplant of 33 (range 14 - 43). Controls included 8 LT recipients (29%), 14 KT recipients (50%), and 6 SLK recipients (21.4%). Groups differed significantly (all p< 0.05) by factors including perioperative transfusion requirements, need for reoperation, and number of interventions post-transplant. Most cases (n = 16; 62%) and 11 controls (39%) had received antibiotics within the month prior to transplant. Cases had a median time of 25.5 days to infection and controls 100.5 days (p < 0.0001) (Figure 1). There were no differences in 1-year mortality (Figure 2) between the groups. E. faecium was the predominant species of Enterococcus (n = 23; 88.5%), with a majority (91.3%) of the isolates being VRE. The VRE rate was 80.8% among cases, 38.9% among all BSIs, and 4.0% among all transplants. Table 1:Demographic, Surgical, Hospitalization, and Antimicrobial Data. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of enterococcal BSI cases and non-enterococcal BSI controls are compared, along with transplant characteristics, transfusion requirements, surgical risk factors, hospitalization data, outcomes, and antibiotic exposures. Microbiological and resistance data are also presented. Enterococcal BSIs had lower odds of being a kidney transplant and having CKD or CKD on RRT; they had higher odds of being a liver transplant and having prior immunosuppression, steroid induction alone, reoperations, and macrolide exposure. Enterococcal BSIs had lower KDPIs, higher transfusion requirements, lower cold ischemia times, more procedures, and a shorter time to BSI (Chi-square and Fischer exact tests for categorical variables; Mann-Whitney tests for continuous variables). **Liver and simultaneous liver-kidney transplants; ***Kidney and simultaneous liver-kidney transplants; ****Reoperation within two weeks of primary closure; *****Biopsy proven acute antibody or cellular rejection within 6 months of transplant; ******ERCP stenting compared to IR stenting, among those with biliary complication. BSI – bloodstream infection; CKD – chronic kidney disease; HIV – human immunodeficiency virus; MELD – model of end stage liver disease; KDPI – kidney donor profile index; CMV – cytomegalovirus; pRBC – packed red blood cells; ERCP – endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; RRT – renal replacement therapy. Figure 1:Time to Bloodstream InfectionProbability of BSI-free survival illustrated, with enterococcal BSIs occurring significantly earlier than non-enterococcal BSIs post-transplantation (Kaplan-Meier survival analysis). BSI – bloodstream infection.Figure 2:MortalityProbability of survival, without significant difference between enterococcal and non-enterococcal BSIs. Data censored at one year of follow-up. BSI – bloodstream infection. Conclusion In our abdominal organ SOTs, enterococcal BSIs occurred early among LT recipients. The high incidence of VRE among E. faecium isolates in this population warrants further investigation into the optimal approach to empiric antimicrobials for bacteremia in the early post-transplant period. Disclosures Carolyn D. Alonso, MD, Cidara Therapeutics: Advisor/Consultant|Merck: Advisor/Consultant.

Professional societies serve many functions that benefit constituents; however, few professional societies have undertaken the development and dissemination of formal, national curricula to train the future workforce while simultaneously addressing significant healthcare needs. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) has developed 2 curricula for the specific purpose of training the next generation of clinicians to ensure the future infectious diseases (ID) workforce is optimally trained to lead antimicrobial stewardship programs and equipped to meet the challenges of multidrug resistance, patient safety, and healthcare quality improvement. A core curriculum was developed to provide a foundation in antimicrobial stewardship for all ID fellows, regardless of career path. An advanced curriculum was developed for ID fellows specifically pursuing a career in antimicrobial stewardship. Both curricula will be broadly available in the summer of 2021 through the IDSA website.

BACKGROUND Antimicrobial stewardship (AS) programs are required by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and should ideally have infectious diseases (ID) physician involvement; however, only 50% of ID fellowship programs have formal AS curricula. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a workgroup to develop a core AS curriculum for ID fellows. Here, we study its impact. METHODS ID program directors and fellows in 56 fellowship programs were surveyed regarding the content and effectiveness of their AS training before and after implementation of the IDSA curriculum. Fellows' knowledge was assessed using multiple-choice questions. Fellows completing their first year of fellowship were surveyed before curriculum implementation ("pre-curriculum") and compared to first-year fellows who complete the curriculum the following year ("post-curriculum"). RESULTS Forty-nine (88%) program directors and 105 (67%) fellows completed the pre-curriculum surveys; 35 (64%) program directors and 79 (50%) fellows completed the post-curriculum surveys. Prior to IDSA curriculum implementation, only 51% of programs had a "formal" curriculum. After implementation, satisfaction with AS training increased among program directors (16% to 68%) and fellows (51% to 68%). Fellows' confidence increased in 7/10 AS content areas. Knowledge scores improved from a mean of 4.6 to 5.1 correct answers of 9 questions (P=0.028). The major hurdle to curriculum implementation was time, both for formal teaching and for e-learning. CONCLUSION Effective AS training is a critical component of ID fellowship training. The IDSA Core AS Curriculum can enhance AS training, increase fellow confidence, and improve overall satisfaction of fellows and program directors.

Abstract Background The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) has supported the development of the Core and Advanced Antimicrobial Stewardship (AS) Curricula for fellows to ensure the future ID workforce is effectively prepared to practice, participate in and lead AS efforts in health care institutions. The Core AS Curriculum is currently available; the Advanced AS Curriculum pilot will begin July, 2020. Methods IDSA formed the AS Curriculum Workgroup, comprised of leaders in AS and medical education from institutions across the country, to lead the AS Curricula development process. The workgroup conducted two surveys of ID Fellowship Program Directors, one in 2016 for the core curriculum and a second in 2018 for the advanced curriculum, to assess existing AS educational resources and determine needs for additional AS educational and evaluation resources. The workgroup used the evaluation data to inform the content, delivery methods, and assessment tools for the curricula. The Core AS Curriculum is designed to provide fellows foundational knowledge and skills in AS. The Advanced AS Curriculum is designed to provide fellows the knowledge and skills to become leaders in AS. The Core AS Curriculum was piloted by 56 ID Fellowship Programs in 2018 and then made broadly available via IDSA Academy in 2019. Pilot data will be used to improve future iterations of the curriculum. The Advanced AS Curriculum pilot will begin in 2020 and will be broadly available in 2021. Results The curricular packages contain a variety of training resources including eLearning modules, lectures slides, case-based questions, videos, reading materials, pocket cards, group-based learning, role play exercises and simulations. The modules can be taught by faculty to fellows or conducted as a self-directed learning experience. Program directors and fellows who participated in the Core AS Curriculum pilot reported that their fellowship program was significantly more effective in teaching multiple key stewardship content areas (Table). Table. Conclusion Evaluation data from programs who piloted the Core AS Curriculum indicate that this blended learning experience is an effective method for teaching AS and in providing educational and assessment tools for ID fellowship programs. The Advanced AS Curriculum will be similarly evaluated. Disclosures Julie Ann Justo, PharmD, MS, BCPS-AQ ID, bioMerieux (Speaker’s Bureau)TRC Healthcare (Speaker’s Bureau)

A needs assessment survey of infectious diseases (ID) training program directors identified gaps in educational resources for training and evaluating ID fellows in antimicrobial stewardship. An Infectious Diseases Society of America-sponsored core curriculum was developed to address that need.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

AbstractObjectiveTo characterize the microbiology of hepatobiliary surgical site infections (SSIs) and to explore the relationship between specific antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens and the development of SSIs.DesignRetrospective matched case-control study comparing patient, procedure, and antimicrobial prophylaxis characteristics among patients undergoing a hepatobiliary surgical procedure with and without an SSI.SettingA tertiary referral acute-care facility.MethodsPatients undergoing procedures defined as “BILI” (bile duct, liver, or pancreas surgery) using National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) definitions, excluding those undergoing concomitant liver transplantation, from January 2013 through June 2016 were included in the study population. The SSIs were identified through routine infection control surveillance using NHSN definitions. All patients who developed an SSI were considered cases. Controls were selected randomly matched 2:1 with cases based on fiscal quarter of the procedure. Logistic regression modeling was performed to explore variables associated with SSI, including antimicrobial prophylaxis received.ResultsAmong 975 procedures, 80 (8.2%) resulted in an SSI. Most cases involved an organism nonsusceptible to standard prophylaxis regimens, including cefazolin (68.8%), cefazolin plus metronidazole (61.3%), and ampicillin-sulbactam (52.5%). In a multivariate model, antimicrobial coverage against Enterococcus spp (aOR, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17–2.04; P=.40) and against Pseudomonas spp (aOR, 2.40; 95% CI, 0.56–10.29; P=.24) were not protective against the development of an SSI. The presence of a documented β-lactam allergy was significantly associated with the development of an SSI (aOR, 3.54; 95% CI, 1.36–9.19; P=.009).ConclusionsAlthough SSIs at the study institution were associated with pathogens nonsusceptible to the most commonly used prophylaxis regimens, broader-spectrum coverage was not associated with a reduction in SSIs.

Regulatory bodies and quality groups have adopted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Core Elements for Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASP) as a measure for accreditation and scoring healthcare institutions across the United States. Multiple elements are driven by educating and integrating staff across the provider network. The ideal method of providing education and addressing gaps is unknown. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the familiarity of Nursing, Pharmacy, and Prescribers regarding local ASP activities and services, as well as perceptions regarding patient care and value. Secondary objectives were to determine what educational tools are currently utilized and the desired method for future education. Three distinct surveys were written for each provider type for Nurses, Pharmacists and Prescribers across ambulatory and inpatient sites. Each contained basic demographic data such as years in practice and primary practice site. Questions were developed to assess familiarity, perceived value, and overall satisfaction with the ASP. Additional items included the use of online ASP resources and desire for more education. The survey was delivered electronically to 5,091 providers. In total, 443 completed the survey, 267 Nurses, 160 Prescribers, and 16 Pharmacists. A majority of Nurses (67%) and Pharmacists (56%) worked on inpatient units. Prescribers were 48% from Medicine and 16% Hospitalists. Familiarity with the ASP was lowest among Nursing staff, 53% unaware, and highest among prescribers (55% very familiar, 8% not familiar) and pharmacists (56% very familiar and none unfamiliar) as seen in Figures 1 through 3. ASP-assisted harm prevention was identified by 43% and therapy optimization by 44%. Of the highly familiar prescribers and pharmacists, 90% rated ASP as a moderate to high value service. More than 80% of all disciplines expressed the desire for more education, primarily as didactic lectures (65%), intranet portal training (37%), or emails (36%). Nursing staff at our institution have the greatest need for orientation with the ASP. The ASP is highly valued across prescribers and pharmacists, but all disciplines desire further education. Resource allocation toward education is an important need. C. McCoy, Merck Inc.: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. Allergan: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee.

Abstract Background Judicious use of echinocandins may limit the development of resistance in Candida species. Guidelines endorse the use of echinocandins as initial therapy in candidemia, with fluconazole as an alternate choice in select patients. We compared the ability of providers to predict the need for echinocandin therapy in Candida bloodstream infections to that of a proposed institutional treatment algorithm designed to optimize empiric antifungal use. Methods In this retrospective study (10/2015–10/2016), patients were included with Candida isolated in ≥1 blood culture, without candidemia in the prior 14 days. Empiric treatment (the first antifungal prescribed for ≥24 hours after index blood culture draw) was considered “overly broad” if an echinocandin was administered to a fluconazole-susceptible isolate and “inappropriate” if fluconazole was administered to a fluconazole-non-susceptible isolate. An institutional algorithm was created recommending empiric echinocandin use based on the presence of ≥1 risk factors (Table 1). Provider choice and the recommended agent according to the algorithm were compared with the final fluconazole susceptibility of the organism. Results Among 65 episodes of candidemia, the majority of isolates were C. glabrata (Figure 1). Ninety-one percent of patients received non-azole therapy, primarily micafungin. Fluconazole was recommended by the algorithm in 25% of cases but initially prescribed in only 9% (Figure 2). Providers prescribed both overly broad and inappropriate treatment at a higher rate than algorithm recommendations (Figure 3). Conclusion An algorithm using risk factors for fluconazole-non-susceptible Candida was able to predict appropriate empiric antifungal therapy better than provider decision making in cases of candidemia. Implementation of this algorithm into local treatment guidelines may improve empiric antifungal prescribing. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.