This retrospective cohort study examined the impact of the pandemic on antimicrobial use (AU) in South Carolina hospitals. AU in days of therapy (DOT) per 1000 days-present was evaluated in 17 hospitals in South Carolina. Matched-pairs mean difference was used to compare AU during the pandemic (March-June 2020) to that during the same months in 2019 in hospitals that did and did not admit patients with COVID-19. There was a 6.6% increase in overall AU in the 7 hospitals admitting patients with COVID-19 (from 530.9 to 565.8; mean difference: 34.9 DOT/1000 days-present, 95% CI: 4.3, 65.6; p=0.03). There was no significant change in overall AU in the remaining 10 hospitals that did not admit patients with COVID-19 (mean difference 6.0 DOT/1000 days-present, 95% CI: -55.5, 67.6; p=0.83). Most of the increase in AU in the 7 hospitals that admitted patients with COVID-19 was observed in broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents. A 16.4% increase was observed in agents predominantly used for hospital-onset infections (from 122.3 to 142.5; mean difference: 20.1 DOT/1000 days-present, 95% CI: 11.1, 29.1, p=0.002). There was also a 9.9% increase in the use of anti-MRSA agents (from 66.7 to 73.3; mean difference: 6.6 DOT/1000 days-present, 95% CI: 2.3, 10.8; p=0.01). COVID-19 pandemic appears to drive overall and broad-spectrum antimicrobial use in South Carolina hospitals admitting patients with COVID-19. Additional antimicrobial stewardship resources are needed to curtail excessive antimicrobial use in hospitals to prevent subsequent increases in antimicrobial resistance and Clostridioides difficile infection rates given the continuing nature of the pandemic.

No abstract

Background Oral antibiotic stepdown therapy for Gram-negative (GN) bloodstream infection (BSI) appears to be a safe option, though high bioavailability drugs like fluoroquinolones (FQ) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole are often recommended without clear evidence demonstrating superiority. Due to increasing concerns of FQ resistance and collateral damage with an increasing community C. difficile rate, our organization sought to reduce overall FQ use and a shift toward oral beta-lactams (BL) was observed. A review was conducted to assess the outcomes of this shift. Methods This retrospective cohort included all patients within our 3-hospital system who had a positive GN blood culture and were transitioned to oral therapy to complete treatment outpatient for bacteremia between Jan 2017-Sept 2019. The primary outcome was recurrent BSI within 30 days of completing initial treatment. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, 30-day recurrence of organism at an alternate source, 30-day readmission, and 90-day BSI relapse. Results Of 191 GN BSIs, 77 patients were transitioned to oral therapy. The mean age was 68 years, 60% were female. The most common source of infection was described as urine (39/77), intra-abdominal (16/77), unknown (13/77). Mean total antibiotic duration (IV plus PO) was 14 days (range 7–33). Patients received an average of 5 days IV prior to transitioning to PO therapy. The most common PO class was a 1st gen cephalosporin (29/77), followed by BL/BL inhibitor (16/77), and a FQ (13/77). There were no 30-day relapse BSIs observed in this cohort. There was 1 patient discharged to inpatient hospice, and no other 30-day mortality observed. There were 4 recurrent UTIs observed within 30 days, none of which required readmission. Of the twelve 30-day readmissions, 1 was considered by the investigators to be related to the initial infection. Conclusion An opportunity for education regarding duration of therapy was identified. Oral beta lactam use in our limited population appears to be a reasonable option to facilitate discharge. Results should be confirmed in additional, larger studies. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

No abstract

BackgroundPenicillin (PCN) allergy has been approximated to be reported in 10% of the United States population. Studies utilizing PCN skin testing have demonstrated that less than 1% of the population have a true PCN allergy. With increasing data on the negative consequences associated with a PCN allergy diagnosis, correctly identifying these patients is imperative. PCN skin testing has resulted in high rates of penicillin de-labeling; however, there are limited data evaluating the impact of a pharmacist-led PCN allergy evaluation with removal through utilization of oral challenges. The aim of this study was to utilize pharmacists to correctly identify those who are not penicillin-allergic to help decrease unnecessary use of broad-spectrum antibiotics and to optimize therapy.MethodsThis is a single-center, prospective review looking at a 10-month period of a pharmacist-led de-labeling project of patients with a PCN allergy. The electronic medical record system and decision support software were used to identify eligible patients. Adults ≥18 years of age with a PCN allergy were included. During the evaluation, pharmacists utilized a series of standardized questions which was reviewed with the infectious disease physician to classify the patient’s allergy. Based on classification a protocol was followed that either led to the patient retaining their allergy, or removal. The primary objective is to evaluate the rate of removal of penicillin allergies. Secondary objectives reviewed removal rate of patients on active antibiotics, and evaluate how many were switched to β-lactam.ResultsA total of 492 patients with PCN allergies were interviewed by a pharmacist. Pharmacist de-labeled 99/492 (20%) PCN allergies. Of those patients, 23% were removed through oral challenge and 76% through patient history. There were 175 patients on active antibiotics and 52/175 (30%) had their allergies removed. Finally, 36/52 (69%) were switched to a β-lactam.ConclusionA pharmacist-led penicillin allergy de-labeling project is beneficial in reducing PCN allergies when skin testing is unavailable in community hospitals. As seen about 1 in 5 patients were able to remove their allergy through allergy evaluation or oral challenge. Furthermore, pharmacist evaluation of the allergy not only helped remove the allergy but also resulted in the most appropriate antibiotic. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.