Background: The approved dosing of ertapenem in patients with chronic kidney disease stage 5 utilizing dialysis (CKD-5D) is 0.5 g intravenous daily. Several reports associated this dosing strategy with neurotoxicity. Objective: The purpose of this study is to identify the incidence of neurotoxicity in this population and the risk factors associated with this toxicity. The secondary objective was to review the literature and discuss a safer/cost-effective dosing strategy based on available data. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted screening all patients who received ertapenem and hemodialysis at our quaternary hospital between May 2015 and March 2019. Patients’ demographics, comorbidities, concomitant drugs (known to induce neurotoxicity), and seizure history were collected. Results: A total of 99 eligible patients were identified; 10 of them (10%) developed neurotoxicity. The patients who developed neurotoxicity were all male; mean age was 74 ± 9 years as compared with 68.9 ± 13 years in the sample. Bivariate relationships between all predictors and the seizures (dichotomously coded) were estimated to investigate the risk factors. The following were the significant predictors of seizures: male sex (17%; P = 0.014), dementia (27%; P = 0.012), and concomitant use of β-lactams, aminoglycosides, or fluoroquinolones (19.6%; P = 0.042). Conclusion and Relevance: The currently approved ertapenem dose imposes a risk of developing neurotoxicity in patients with CKD-5D. Utilizing the published data in this population, alternative post-dialysis dosing strategies administered through dialysis access such as 1 g loading dose, followed by either 0.5 g (for the 48 hours interdialytic time) or 1 g (for the 72 hours interdialytic time) might warrant further investigation for efficacy and safety.

Background Implementation of antimicrobial stewardship (AS) interventions in the emergency department (ED) has been associated with improved patient outcomes. One potentially promising AS strategy is the implementation of an ED-specific, evidence-based antimicrobial order set. In this study, we aimed to examine the impact of implementing an ED-specific order set (EDOS) on the appropriateness of empiric antimicrobial therapy. Methods We conducted a pre-post quasi experimental study on 160 adult patients presenting to the ED with suspected or confirmed common infections at our quaternary healthcare facility. The EDOS was implemented in December 2020, providing evidence-based recommendations for the management of common infectious diseases. Data was collected between September 2019 and March 2020 for the pre-EDOS implementation group and between January 2021 and April 2021 for the post-EDOS implementation group. Pregnant women and patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection were excluded. Data were analyzed using two-sample T-test and mixed effects logistic regression. The primary study outcome was the appropriateness of antimicrobials selected, and the secondary outcomes were clinical and microbiologic cure, length of hospital stay, Clostridioides difficile infection, and the number of changes in antimicrobial therapy on transition to inpatient setting. Results A total of 100 ED patients pre-EDOS implementation and 60 patients post-EDOS implementation were compared. At baseline, patients in the post-EDOS group were older (59.83±20.30 years vs. 50.17±19.97 years, P=0.0037). A higher number of patients in the post-EDOS group had a history of multiple comorbidities (76.67% vs. 54%, P=0.0039). There was a higher rate of appropriate antimicrobial use in the post-EDOS group as compared to the pre-EDOS group (88.3% vs. 50%, P< 0.001). Longer hospital stays were observed in the post-EDOS group (P=0.0005). Clinical cure was similar between the two groups (96.6% vs. 94%, P=0.4568). Conclusion In our study, we observed higher rates of appropriate antimicrobial selection after implementation of an EDOS. Use of an EDOS may represent a valuable AS intervention to guide appropriate antimicrobial prescribing in the ED, and larger studies are needed to confirm those findings. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Background: Several reports linked the use of repurposed drugs such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, and favipiravir with QT interval prolongation in patients with SARS-CoV2 infection. Little is known about the risk factors for QT interval prolongation in this population. We sought to describe the prevalence and identify the main risk factors associated with clinically significant corrected QT (QTc) prolongation in this population. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of critically ill patients who were admitted to our intensive care unit (ICU), had at least one electrocardiogram performed during their ICU stay, and tested positive for SARs-CoV-2. Clinically significant QTc interval prolongation was defined as QTc >500 milliseconds (ms). Results: Out of the 111 critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, QTc was significantly prolonged in 47 cases (42.3%). Patients with a clinically significant QTc prolongation had significantly higher proportions of history of cardiac diseases/surgery (22 [46.8%] vs. 10 [15.6%], P < .001), hypokalemia (10 [21.3] vs. 5 [7.8%], P = .04), and male gender (95% vs. 82.8%, P = .036) than patients with QTc ≤500 ms, respectively. A total of 46 patients (41.4%) received HCQ, 28 (25.2%) received lopinavir/ritonavir, and 5 (4.5%) received azithromycin. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that a history of cardiac disease was the only independent factor associated with clinically significant QTc prolongation ( P = .004 for the likelihood-ratio test). Conclusion: The prevalence of clinically significant QTc prolongation in critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection was high and independent of drugs used. Larger prospective observational studies are warranted to elucidate independent risk factors associated with clinically significant QTc prolongation in this study population.