Early pandemic in-hospital outcomes and mortality risk factors in COVID-19 solid organ transplant patients

Background

Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with COVID-19 have a higher risk of mortality than those without COVID-19. However, it is unclear how SOT patient outcomes compare to the general population without SOT who contract COVID-19.

Methods

We used the National Inpatient Sample from January to December 2020 to investigate inpatient outcomes seen in SOT recipients after contracting COVID-19 compared to nontransplant patients. We identified our study sample using ICD-10 CM and excluded those <18 years of age and those with dual organ transplants. Inpatient outcomes were compared in SOT and non-SOT COVID cohorts, and we further evaluated predictors of mortality in the SOT with COVID population.

Results

Out of the 1,416,445 COVID-19 admissions included in the study, 8315 (0.59%) were single SOT recipients. Our analysis that adjusted for multiple baseline characteristics and comorbidities demonstrated that COVID-19 in SOT patients was associated with higher rates of acute kidney injury (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.81-3.02, P < 0.01), lower rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.85, P < 0.01), and similar rates of cardiac arrest, pulmonary embolism, circulatory shock, cerebrovascular events, and in-hospital mortality. Age >65 was associated with mortality in SOT patients.

Conclusion

In this nationally representative sample, SOT patients presenting with COVID-19 experienced similar rates of mortality compared to those without SOT. SOT patients were more likely to develop acute kidney injury. Further research is needed to understand the complex relationship between transplant patient outcomes and COVID-19.

Analysis of a beta-lactam allergy assessment protocol challenging diverse reported allergies managed by an antimicrobial stewardship program

Objective

To assess the safety and efficacy of a novel beta-lactam allergy assessment algorithm managed by an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) team.

Design

Retrospective analysis.

Setting

One quaternary referral teaching hospital and one tertiary care teaching hospital in a large western Pennsylvania health network.

Patients or participants

Patients who received a beta-lactam challenge dose under the beta-lactam allergy assessment algorithm.

Interventions

A beta-lactam allergy assessment protocol was designed and implemented by an ASP team. The protocol risk stratified patients' reported allergies to identify patients appropriate for a challenge with a beta-lactam antibiotic. This retrospective analysis assessed the safety and efficacy of this protocol among patients receiving a challenge dose from November 2017 to July 2021.

Results

Over a 45-month period, 119 total patients with either penicillin or cephalosporin allergies entered the protocol. Following a challenge dose, 106 (89.1%) patients were treated with a beta-lactam. Eleven patients had adverse reactions to a challenge dose, one of which required escalation of care to the intensive care unit. Of the patients with an unknown or low-risk reported allergy, 7/66 (10.6%) had an observed adverse reaction compared to 3/42 (7.1%) who had an observed reaction with a reported high-risk or anaphylactic allergy.

Conclusions

Our implemented protocol was safe and effective, with over 90% of patients tolerating the challenge without incident and many going on to receive indicated beta-lactam therapy. This protocol may serve as a framework for other inpatient ASP teams to implement a low-barrier allergy assessment led by ASP teams.

2312. Utility of Intrathecal Antibiotic Administration in the Reduction of Ventriculoperitoneal (VP) Shunt Infections in our Urban Referral Health Center

Background

Infection is one of the primary causes of VP shunt failure, with an incidence rate of 7%-14%. Systemic antibiotics, administered intravenously (IV), are considered the standard of care (SOC) for perioperative prophylaxis. Prophylactic intrathecal (IT) administration of antibiotics, in addition to SOC, is practiced by some surgeons at our institution. Our objective was to study the impact of this modality on VP shunt infections.

Methods

A retrospective review of all VP shunt procedures at our institution from 2018–2020 was performed. Patients with active VP shunt infection were excluded. We compared the incidence of 90-day postoperative shunt infection in patients who received IT and SOC antibiotics (intervention group) to patients who only received SOC IV antibiotics (control group). Data collection included demographics, comorbidities, prophylactic antibiotics used, and pathogens implicated in shunt infections. T-test or Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison of continuous variables; chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was used to assess the relationship between categorical variables. A value of p &lt; 0.05, on two-tailed testing, was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 112 patients were included in the study. Control and intervention arms comprised 54 (48.2%) and 58 patients (51.8%), respectively. All patients received parenteral perioperative antibiotics. The most commonly used agent was cefazolin (83.9%). Patients in the intervention arm received 4 mg of gentamicin and 5 mg of vancomycin intrathecally.

Baseline characteristics were not statistically different between the groups.

Among the 112 patients, 12 (10.7%) developed shunt infection; 4 in the intervention and 8 in the control arm. Infection rates were not statistically different in these groups (χ2 (1) =1.83, p= 0.176). However, there was a statistically significant association between history of prior shunt (uninfected) placement and post-operative shunt infection (Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.025).

Conclusion

Our study did not reveal additional benefit of prophylactic IT antibiotic use in decreasing VP shunt infections. History of prior shunt placement was identified as risk factor, however. Limitations include relatively small sample size, retrospective, and a single-center study.

Disclosures

All Authors: No reported disclosures.

1655. Factors Associated with Acceptance of Telehealth-based Antimicrobial Stewardship Program Recommendations in a Community Hospital Health System

Background

Telehealth-based antimicrobial stewardship programs (TeleASPs) have led to reduced broad-spectrum antimicrobial utilization. Data on factors associated with acceptance of stewardship recommendations are limited.

Methods

A TeleASP, facilitated by remote infectious disease physicians and local pharmacists, was implemented in 2 community hospitals from February 2018 through July 2020. Variables potentially affecting acceptance of TeleASP recommendations were tracked. Odds ratios of acceptance were determined utilizing multiple logistic regression.

Results

During the 30 month period, 4863 (91.2%) of the total 5333 recommendations were accepted. Hospitalist and Critical Care Medicine services had significantly higher odds of acceptance in univariable analysis, while General Surgery, Private Practice Primary Care Physician, Pulmonology, and Urology had lower odds of acceptance. Only Critical Care Medicine remained significant on multivariable analysis (OR 3.23, 95%CI 1.4–7.5). Other factors associated with a higher odds of acceptance in multivariable analysis were recommendations for antimicrobial dose/frequency adjustment (OR 2.63, 95%CI 1.6–4.3) and order for labs/tests (OR 3.30, 95%CI 2.1–5.2), while recommendations for antimicrobial de-escalation (OR 0.75, 95%CI 0.60–0.95) and antimicrobial discontinuation (OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.42–0.76) were associated with lower odds of acceptance. Female physicians were more likely to accept recommendations compared to males (93.1% vs 90.3% acceptance, OR 1.65; 95%CI 1.3–2.2). Compared to physicians with less than 3 years of experience, who had the highest acceptance rate (96.3%), physicians with 21 or more years of experience had the lowest (87.1%, OR 0.26; 95%CI 0.15–0.45).

Conclusion

TeleASP recommendations were accepted at a high rate. Acceptance rates were higher among female physicians, and recommendations to stop or de-escalate antimicrobials led to lower acceptance. Recommendations made to the most experienced physicians were the least accepted, which may be an important factor for stewardship programs to consider in education and intervention efforts.

Disclosures

Thomas L. Walsh, MD, Accelerate Diagnostics: Honoraria.

Factors Associated with Acceptance of Telehealth-based Antimicrobial Stewardship Program Recommendations in a Community Hospital Health System

Background

Telehealth-based antimicrobial stewardship programs (TeleASPs) have led to reduced broad-spectrum antimicrobial utilization. Data on factors associated with acceptance of stewardship recommendations are limited.

Methods

A TeleASP, facilitated by remote infectious disease physicians and local pharmacists, was implemented in 2 community hospitals from February 2018 through July 2020. Variables potentially affecting acceptance of TeleASP recommendations were tracked. Odds ratios of acceptance were determined utilizing multiple logistic regression.

Results

During the 30-month period, 4863 (91.2%) of the total 5333 recommendations were accepted. Factors associated with a higher odds of acceptance in multivariable analysis were recommendations for antimicrobial dose/frequency adjustment (odds ratio [OR], 2.63; 95% CI, 1.6–4.3) and order for labs/tests (OR, 3.30; 95% CI, 2.1–5.2), while recommendations for antimicrobial de-escalation (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60–0.95) and antimicrobial discontinuation (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42–0.76) were associated with lower odds of acceptance. Female physicians were more likely to accept recommendations compared with males (93.1% vs 90.3% acceptance; OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.3–2.2). Compared with physicians with <3 years of experience, who had the highest acceptance rate (96.3%), physicians with ≥21 years of experience had the lowest (87.1%; OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.15–0.45).

Conclusions

TeleASP recommendations were accepted at a high rate. Acceptance rates were higher among female physicians, and recommendations to stop or de-escalate antimicrobials led to lower acceptance. Recommendations made to the most experienced physicians were the least accepted, which may be an important factor for stewardship programs to consider in education and intervention efforts.

Description of Hospitalizations due to the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant Based on Vaccination Status

Background

Limited descriptive data exist regarding the clinical characteristics of hospitalizations due to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Omicron variant based on vaccination status.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) between 15 January 2022 and 15 February 2022 across 9 hospitals in a large health network. Data were extracted by manual records review.

Results

A total of 351 of 452 (77.7%) unvaccinated, 209 of 331 (63.1%) fully vaccinated, and 107 of 163 (65.6%) boosted patients hospitalized with a COVID-19 diagnosis were determined to be admitted specifically due to COVID-19 (P < .001). Most (85%) boosted patients admitted due to COVID-19 were at least 65 years old and/or had severe immunosuppression, compared to 72.2% of fully vaccinated and 60.7% of unvaccinated patients (P < .001). Significantly more unvaccinated patients (34.2%) required >6 L/minute of supplemental oxygen compared to fully vaccinated (24.4%) and boosted (25.2%) patients (P = .027). The age-adjusted vaccine effectiveness (VE) against hospitalization due to COVID-19 was estimated to be 81.1% and 94.1% for full vaccination and boosted status, respectively, whereas VE against mortality related to COVID-19 was estimated to be 84.7% and 94.8%, respectively.

Conclusions

During the Omicron BA.1 sublineage wave, unvaccinated patients hospitalized with a COVID-19 diagnosis were more likely than vaccinated patients to be admitted specifically due to COVID-19. Despite being younger with fewer comorbidities, unvaccinated patients required higher levels of care. Vaccination with a booster provides the greatest protection against hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

Lack of Serologic Evidence of Infection Among Health Care Personnel and Other Contacts of First 2 Confirmed Patients With COVID-19 in Illinois, 2020

OBJECTIVES

Widespread global transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), continues. Many questions remain about asymptomatic or atypical infections and transmission dynamics. We used comprehensive contact tracing of the first 2 confirmed patients in Illinois with COVID-19 and serologic SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing to determine whether contacts had evidence of undetected COVID-19.

METHODS

Contacts were eligible for serologic follow-up if previously tested for COVID-19 during an initial investigation or had greater-risk exposures. Contacts completed a standardized questionnaire during the initial investigation. We classified exposure risk as high, medium, or low based on interactions with 2 index patients and use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Serologic testing used a SARS-CoV-2 spike enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay on serum specimens collected from participants approximately 6 weeks after initial exposure to either index patient. The 2 index patients provided serum specimens throughout their illness. We collected data on demographic, exposure, and epidemiologic characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 347 contacts, 110 were eligible for serologic follow-up; 59 (17% of all contacts) enrolled. Of these, 53 (90%) were health care personnel and 6 (10%) were community contacts. Seventeen (29%) reported high-risk exposures, 15 (25%) medium-risk, and 27 (46%) low-risk. No participant had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The 2 index patients had antibodies detected at dilutions >1:6400 within 4 weeks after symptom onset.

CONCLUSIONS

In serologic follow-up of the first 2 known patients in Illinois with COVID-19, we found no secondary transmission among tested contacts. Lack of seroconversion among these contacts adds to our understanding of conditions (ie, use of PPE) under which SARS-CoV-2 infections might not result in transmission and demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing is a useful tool to verify epidemiologic findings.

Enhanced contact investigations for nine early travel-related cases of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the respiratory disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first identified in Wuhan, China and has since become pandemic. In response to the first cases identified in the United States, close contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases were investigated to enable early identification and isolation of additional cases and to learn more about risk factors for transmission. Close contacts of nine early travel-related cases in the United States were identified and monitored daily for development of symptoms (active monitoring). Selected close contacts (including those with exposures categorized as higher risk) were targeted for collection of additional exposure information and respiratory samples. Respiratory samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Four hundred four close contacts were actively monitored in the jurisdictions that managed the travel-related cases. Three hundred thirty-eight of the 404 close contacts provided at least basic exposure information, of whom 159 close contacts had ≥1 set of respiratory samples collected and tested. Across all actively monitored close contacts, two additional symptomatic COVID-19 cases (i.e., secondary cases) were identified; both secondary cases were in spouses of travel-associated case patients. When considering only household members, all of whom had ≥1 respiratory sample tested for SARS-CoV-2, the secondary attack rate (i.e., the number of secondary cases as a proportion of total close contacts) was 13% (95% CI: 4-38%). The results from these contact tracing investigations suggest that household members, especially significant others, of COVID-19 cases are at highest risk of becoming infected. The importance of personal protective equipment for healthcare workers is also underlined. Isolation of persons with COVID-19, in combination with quarantine of exposed close contacts and practice of everyday preventive behaviors, is important to mitigate spread of COVID-19.

Enhanced contact investigations for nine early travel-related cases of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the respiratory disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first identified in Wuhan, China and has since become pandemic. In response to the first cases identified in the United States, close contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases were investigated to enable early identification and isolation of additional cases and to learn more about risk factors for transmission. Close contacts of nine early travel-related cases in the United States were identified and monitored daily for development of symptoms (active monitoring). Selected close contacts (including those with exposures categorized as higher risk) were targeted for collection of additional exposure information and respiratory samples. Respiratory samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Four hundred four close contacts were actively monitored in the jurisdictions that managed the travel-related cases. Three hundred thirty-eight of the 404 close contacts provided at least basic exposure information, of whom 159 close contacts had ≥1 set of respiratory samples collected and tested. Across all actively monitored close contacts, two additional symptomatic COVID-19 cases (i.e., secondary cases) were identified; both secondary cases were in spouses of travel-associated case patients. When considering only household members, all of whom had ≥1 respiratory sample tested for SARS-CoV-2, the secondary attack rate (i.e., the number of secondary cases as a proportion of total close contacts) was 13% (95% CI: 4-38%). The results from these contact tracing investigations suggest that household members, especially significant others, of COVID-19 cases are at highest risk of becoming infected. The importance of personal protective equipment for healthcare workers is also underlined. Isolation of persons with COVID-19, in combination with quarantine of exposed close contacts and practice of everyday preventive behaviors, is important to mitigate spread of COVID-19.

Clinical and virologic characteristics of the first 12 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States

Data on the detailed clinical progression of COVID-19 in conjunction with epidemiological and virological characteristics are limited. In this case series, we describe the first 12 US patients confirmed to have COVID-19 from 20 January to 5 February 2020, including 4 patients described previously^1-3. Respiratory, stool, serum and urine specimens were submitted for SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) testing, viral culture and whole genome sequencing. Median age was 53 years (range: 21-68); 8 patients were male. Common symptoms at illness onset were cough (n = 8) and fever (n = 7). Patients had mild to moderately severe illness; seven were hospitalized and demonstrated clinical or laboratory signs of worsening during the second week of illness. No patients required mechanical ventilation and all recovered. All had SARS-CoV-2 RNA detected in respiratory specimens, typically for 2-3 weeks after illness onset. Lowest real-time PCR with reverse transcription cycle threshold values in the upper respiratory tract were often detected in the first week and SARS-CoV-2 was cultured from early respiratory specimens. These data provide insight into the natural history of SARS-CoV-2. Although infectiousness is unclear, highest viral RNA levels were identified in the first week of illness. Clinicians should anticipate that some patients may worsen in the second week of illness.

First known person-to-person transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the USA

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), first detected in China in December, 2019. In January, 2020, state, local, and federal public health agencies investigated the first case of COVID-19 in Illinois, USA.

METHODS

Patients with confirmed COVID-19 were defined as those with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Contacts were people with exposure to a patient with COVID-19 on or after the patient's symptom onset date. Contacts underwent active symptom monitoring for 14 days following their last exposure. Contacts who developed fever, cough, or shortness of breath became persons under investigation and were tested for SARS-CoV-2. A convenience sample of 32 asymptomatic health-care personnel contacts were also tested.

FINDINGS

Patient 1-a woman in her 60s-returned from China in mid-January, 2020. One week later, she was hospitalised with pneumonia and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Her husband (Patient 2) did not travel but had frequent close contact with his wife. He was admitted 8 days later and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Overall, 372 contacts of both cases were identified; 347 underwent active symptom monitoring, including 152 community contacts and 195 health-care personnel. Of monitored contacts, 43 became persons under investigation, in addition to Patient 2. These 43 persons under investigation and all 32 asymptomatic health-care personnel tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

INTERPRETATION

Person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurred between two people with prolonged, unprotected exposure while Patient 1 was symptomatic. Despite active symptom monitoring and testing of symptomatic and some asymptomatic contacts, no further transmission was detected.

FUNDING

None.

In vitro transmission and attenuation of impact vibrations in the distal forelimb

An in vitro model was developed and validated in vivo to quantify the attenuation of impact vibrations, transmitted through the lower equine forelimb and to assess the effects of horseshoeing on this attenuation. The transsected forelimbs of 13 horses were equipped with custom-made hollow bone screws in the 4 distal bones, on each of which a tri-axial accelerometer could be mounted. The limbs were then preloaded while the impact was simulated by dropping a weight on the steel plate on which the hoof was resting. At the hoof wall, the distal, middle and proximal phalanx and at the metacarpal bone, the shock waves resulting from this impact were quantified. To assess the damping effects of shoeing, measurements were performed with unshod hooves, hooves shod with a normal flat shoe and hooves shod with an equisoft pad and a silicone packing between hoof and pad. The in vitro model was validated by performing in vivo measurements using one horse, and subjecting the limb of this horse to the same in vitro measurements after death. Approximately 67% of the damping of impact vibrations took place at the interface between the hoof wall and the distal phalanx. The attenuation of impact vibrations at the distal and proximal interphalangeal joints was considerably less (both 6%), while at the metacarpophalangeal joint 9% of the amplitude of that at the hoof wall was absorbed, leaving approximately 13% of the initial amplitude at the hoof wall detectable at the metacarpus. Compared to unshod hooves the amplitude at the hoof wall is 15% higher in shod hooves. No differences could be observed between shoe types. At the level of the first phalanx and metacarpus the difference between shod and unshod vanished; it was therefore concluded that, although shoeing might influence the amplitude of impact vibrations at the hoof wall, the effect of shoeing on the amplitude at the level of the metacarpophalangeal joint is minimal.