Background ICU universal decolonization with daily chlorhexidine (CHG) baths plus mupirocin nasal decolonization reduces all-cause bloodstream infections (BSI) and MRSA clinical cultures. We assessed nasal iodophor, an antiseptic less susceptible to resistance, in place of mupirocin. Methods We conducted a cluster randomized non-inferiority trial in ICUs, comparing universal decolonization with: 1) Mupirocin-CHG: daily CHG baths and 5 days of twice daily nasal mupirocin, to 2) Iodophor-CHG: same regimen, substituting twice daily 10% povidone-iodine for mupirocin. All adult ICUs in a hospital were assigned to the same strategy. We compared each hospital’s outcomes during the 18-month intervention (Nov 2017-Apr 2019) to its own baseline (May 2015-Apr 2017), during which all hospitals used mupirocin-CHG. The primary outcome was ICU-attributable S. aureus clinical isolates. Secondary outcomes included ICU-attributable MRSA clinical isolates and all-cause BSI. As randomized and as treated analyses used unadjusted proportional hazards models assessing differences in outcomes between baseline and intervention periods across the two groups, accounting for clustering by hospital and patient. Results We randomized 137 hospitals with 233 ICUs in 18 states. There were 442,544 admissions in the baseline period and 349,262 in the intervention period. Median ICU length of stay was 4 days. ICU types included mixed medical surgical (56%), medical (9%), surgical (11%), cardiac (15%), and neurologic (9%). CHG adherence was similar in both arms (85%), but adherence was greater for mupirocin (90%) than iodophor (82%). Primary as-randomized results (Table, Figure) exceeded the non-inferiority margin in favor of mupirocin, for S. aureus clinical cultures (21% superiority, P< 0.001) and for MRSA clinical cultures (20% superiority, P< 0.001). The regimens had similar BSI hazards. Analyses of fully adherent patients are in progress. Figure - Primary and Secondary Outcomes of Mupirocin Iodophor Swap Out Trial Conclusion Universal iodophor-CHG was equivalent to mupirocin-CHG for ICU BSI prevention. Mupirocin-CHG was superior to iodophor-CHG for S. aureus and MRSA clinical isolates, potentially due to greater adherence to mupirocin. Disclosures Susan S. Huang, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Edward Septimus, MD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products) Ken Kleinman, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products) Lauren Heim, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product) Julia Moody, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Taliser R. Avery, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Syma Rashid, MD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product) Katherine Haffenreffer, BS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Lauren Shimelman, BA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Caren Spencer-Smith, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Selsebil Sljivo, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Ed Rosen, BS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Russell Poland, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Micaela H. Coady, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Eunice J. Blanchard, MSN RN, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Kimberly Reddish, DNP, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Brandon Carver, BA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Kimberly N. Smith, MBA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Jason Hickok, MBA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Karen Lolans, BS, Medline (Research Grant or Support) Nadia Khan, BS, Medline (Research Grant or Support) John A. Jernigan, MD, MS, Nothing to disclose Kenneth Sands, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Jonathan B. Perlin, MD, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Richard Platt, MD, MSc, Medline (Research Grant or Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)

In a survey of infection prevention programs, leaders reported frequent clinical and infection prevention practice modifications to avoid coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) exposure that exceeded national guidance. Future pandemic responses should emphasize balanced approaches to precautions, prioritize educational campaigns to manage safety concerns, and generate an evidence-base that can guide appropriate infection prevention practices.

Background The CLUSTER trial assessed the impact of prospective identification of clusters coupled with a response protocol on the containment of hospital clusters. Methods This 82-hospital CRT in 16 states compared clusters of bacterial and fungal healthcare pathogens using a statistical outbreak detection tool (WHONET-SaTScan) coupled with a standardized response protocol (automated cluster detection arm) compared to routine surveillance with the response protocol (control arm). Trial periods: 24 mo Baseline (2/17–1/19); 5 mo Phase-in (2/19–6/19); 30 mo Intervention (7/19–1/22). The primary outcome was the number of additional cases occurring after initial cluster detection. Analyses used generalized linear mixed models to assess differences in additional cases between the intervention vs baseline periods across arms, clustering by hospital. Results were assessed overall and, to account for the effect of COVID-19 on hospital operations, stratified into pre-COVID-19 (7/19–6/20) and during COVID-19 (7/20–1/22) intervention periods. We also assessed the probability that a patient was in a cluster. Results In the baseline period, the automated cluster detection and control arms had 0.09 and 0.07 additional cluster cases/1000 admissions, respectively. The automated cluster detection arm had a 22% greater relative reduction in additional cluster cases in the intervention vs baseline period compared to control (P=0.5). Within the intervention period, the automated cluster detection arm had a significant 64% relative reduction pre-COVID-19 (P< 0.05) and a non-significant 6% relative reduction during COVID-19 (P=0.9) compared to control (Figure). When evaluating patient risk of being part of a cluster across the entire intervention period, the automated cluster detection arm had a significant 35% relative reduction vs control (P< 0.01). Conclusion A statistical automated tool coupled with a response protocol improved cluster containment by 64% pre-COVID-19 but not during COVID-19; there were no significant differences between the arms when using the entire intervention period. Automated cluster detection may substantially improve outbreak containment in non-pandemic periods when infection prevention programs are able to optimize containment protocols. Disclosures Susan S. Huang, MD, MPH, Medline: Conducted studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and/or environmental cleaning products|Molnlyke: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals received contributed antiseptic product|Stryker: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products|Xttrium Laboratories: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product.