In this quality improvement project, we sought to increase the understanding and utilization of the antibiogram among physicians in family medicine, internal medicine, and surgery residency programs at a Midwest Academic Healthcare institution. Through simple, inexpensive measures the comfort with, access to, and utilization of the antibiogram can be improved.

Background: The estimated economic cost of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is $5.4 billion annually, primarily attributed to acute-care costs. We previously reported data from ECOSPOR III that SER-109, an investigational oral microbiome therapeutic, was superior to placebo in reducing recurrent CDI (rCDI) in adults at 8 weeks after treatment, with a 68% relative risk reduction. Adults with rCDI have more hospitalizations and emergency room (ER) visits (defined herein as healthcare resource utilization, HRU) compared to those without recurrence. Thus, we evaluated incidence of HRU. Methods: Adults with rCDI (≥3 episodes in 12 months) were screened at 56 US and Canadian sites and were randomized 1:1 to SER-109 (4 capsules × 3 days) or placebo following resolution of CDI with standard-of-care CDI antibiotics. The primary end point was rCDI at 8 weeks. Exploratory end points included cumulative incidence of hospitalizations through 24 weeks after treatment. Here, we report cumulative incidence of all-cause HRU through 8 weeks after treatment. Results: In total, 281 patients were screened and 182 were randomized (59.9% female; mean age 65.5 years; 98.9% outpatient). Overall, 31 patients (17%) had 38 hospitalizations or ER visits through week 8 (11 events in 10 SER-109 patients and 27 events in 21 placebo patients) (Table 1). The cumulative incidence of HRU was lower in SER-109–treated patients compared to placebo at both weeks 4 and 8 with most events (65.8%) recorded within 4 weeks after treatment. The adjusted HRU incidence rate (by person time, age, sex, and antibiotic use) was also lower in SER-109–treated patients compared to placebo at weeks 4 and 8 (0.256 [95% CI, 0.096–0.683] versus 0.417 [95% CI, 0.199–0.873], respectively). Conclusions: SER-109–treated patients had less HRU compared to placebo patients through 8 weeks after treatment in this mostly outpatient population. These data suggest a potential benefit of SER-109 in reducing HRU, thus lowering the healthcare burden of rCDI.

Funding: Seres Therapeutics

Disclosures: None

In this study, we used genomic sequencing to identify variants of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in healthcare workers with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after receiving a booster vaccination. We compared symptoms, comorbidities, exposure risks, and vaccine history between the variants. Postbooster COVID-19 cases increased as the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant predominated.

Background: Central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) arise from bacteria migrating from the skin along the catheter, by direct inoculation, or from pathogens that form biofilms on the interior surface of the catheter. However, given the oxygen-poor environments that obligate anaerobes require, these organisms are unlikely to survive long enough on the skin or on the catheter after direct inoculation to be the true cause of a CLABSI. Although some anaerobic CLABSIs may meet the definition for a mucosal-barrier-injury, laboratory-confirmed, bloodstream infection (MBI-LCBI), some may be not. We sought to determine the proportion of CLABSIs attributed to obligate anaerobic bacteria, and we sought to determine the pathophysiologic source of these infections. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected CLABSI data at 54 hospitals (academic and community) in the southeastern United States from January 2015 to December 2020. We performed chart reviews on a convenient sample for which medical records were available. We calculated the proportion of CLABSIs due to obligate anaerobes, and we have described a subset of anaerobic CLABSI cases. Results: We identified 60 anaerobic CLABSIs of 2,430 CLABSIs (2.5%). Of the 60 anaerobic CLABSIs, 7 were polymicrobial with nonanaerobic bacteria. The most common species we identified were Bacteroides, Clostridium, and Lactobacillus (Table 1). The proportion of anaerobic CLABSIs per year varied from 1.2% to 3.7% (Fig. 1). Of 60 anaerobic CLABSIs, 29 (48%) occurred in the only quaternary-care academic medical center in the database. In contrast, an average of 0.6 (SD, 0.6) anaerobic CLABSIs occurred in the 53 community hospitals over the 6-year study period. Of these 29 anaerobic CLABSIs, 23 (79%) were clinically consistent with secondary bloodstream infections (BSIs) due to gastrointestinal or genitourinary source, but they lacked appropriate documentation to meet NHSN criteria for secondary BSI or MBI-LCBI based on case reviews by infection prevention physicians. The other 6 anaerobic CLABSIs did not have a clear clinical etiology and did not meet MBI-LCBI criteria. In addition, 27 (93%) of 29 anaerobic CLABSIs occurred in patients who were either solid-organ transplant recipients, were stem-cell transplant recipients, or were receiving chemotherapy. Lastly, 27 (93%) of 29 anaerobic CLABSIs were treated with antibiotics. Conclusions: Anaerobic CLABSIs are uncommon events, but CLABSI may disproportionately affect large, academic hospitals caring for a high proportion of medically complex patients. Additional criteria could be added to the MBI-LCBI to better classify anaerobic BSI.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: Contact tracing alone is often inadequate to determine the source of healthcare personnel (HCP) COVID-19 when SARS-CoV-2 is widespread in the community. We combined whole-genome sequencing (WGS) with traditional epidemiologic analysis to investigate the frequency with which patients or other HCP with symptomatic COVID-19 acted as the source of HCP infection at a large tertiary-care center early in the pandemic. Methods: Cohort samples were selected from patients and HCP with PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection from a period with complete retention of samples (March 14, 2021–April 10, 2020) at Rush University Medical Center, a 664-bed hospital in Chicago, Illinois. During this period, testing was limited to symptomatic patients and HCP. Recommended respiratory equipment for HCP evolved under guidance, including a 19-day period when medical face masks were recommended for COVID-19 care except for aerosol-generating procedures. Viral RNA was extracted and sequenced (NovaSeq, Illumina) from remnant nasopharyngeal swab samples in M4RT viral transport medium. Genomes with >90% coverage underwent cluster detection using a 2 single-nucleotide variant genetic distance cutoff. Genomic clusters were independently evaluated for valid epidemiologic links by 2 infectious diseases physicians (with a third adjudicator) using metadata extracted from the electronic medical record and according to predetermined criteria (Table 1). Results: In total, 1,031 SARS-CoV-2 sequences were analyzed, identifying 49 genomic clusters with HCP (median, 8; range, 2–43 members per cluster; total, 268 patients and 115 HCP) (Fig. 1). Also, 20,190 flowsheet activities were documented for cohort HCP and patient interactions, including 686 instances in which a cohort HCP contributed to a cohort patient’s chart. Most HCP infections were considered not healthcare associated (88 of 115, 76.5%). We did not identify any strong linkages for patient-to-HCP transmission. Moreover, 13 HCP cases (11.3%) were attributed to patient source (weak linkage). Also, 14 HCP cases (12.2%) were attributed to HCP source (11 strong and 3 weak linkages). Weak linkages were due to lack of epidemiologic data for HCP location, particularly nonclinical staff (eg, an environmental service worker who lacked location documentation to rule out patient-specific contact). Agreement for epidemiologic linkage between the 2 evaluators was high (κ, 0.91). Conclusions: Using genomic and epidemiologic data, we found that most HCP COVID-19 infections were not healthcare associated. We found weak evidence to support symptomatic patient-to-HCP transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and stronger evidence for HCP-to-HCP transmission. Large genomic clusters without plausible epidemiologic links were identified, reflecting the limited utility of genomic surveillance alone to characterize chains of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during extensive community spread.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: Povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine gluconate are commonly used antiseptics that have broad antiviral properties, including against SARS-CoV-2. Nasal and oral antisepsis is a possible option to reduce viral transmission; however, effectiveness data are limited. The acceptability of this method for adjunct infection control is also unknown. We are conducting a clinical randomized controlled trial (NCT04478019) to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of nasal and oral antisepsis to prevent COVID-19. Methods: Healthcare and other essential workers with in-person job duties were recruited into a 10-week clinical trial. Participation did not require in-person activities: all communication was web- or telephone-based, supplies were shipped directly to the participant, and participants self-collected specimens. Participants completed a 3-week intervention and 3-week control phases and were randomized to the timing of these phases (Fig. 1). During the 3-week intervention phase, participants applied povidone-iodine nasal swabs 2 times per day and chlorhexidine gluconate oral rinse 4 times per day following the manufacturers’ instructions for use. Participants continued all usual infection control measures (eg, face masks, eye protection, gowns, hand hygiene) as required by their workplace. To measure effectiveness against viral transmission, participants collected midturbinate nasal swabs 3 times per week to measure SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Participants also self-reported COVID-19 tests they received and why (eg, symptoms or exposure). To assess acceptability, participants completed pre- and post-surveys about their perceived and actual experience with the interventions. Participants also self-reported adverse effects due to the intervention. Results: As of December 3, 2021, 221 participants (148 healthcare workers and 73 non–healthcare essential workers) had enrolled. Moreover, 20 adverse effects have been reported, including skin irritation, epistaxis, and mouth discoloration; 9 participants withdrew due to side effects. Laboratory analyses are ongoing to measure effectiveness in reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral load. We performed an interim analysis of intervention acceptability. Survey responses were given on a Likert scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Although 36% of respondents (n = 74) reported on the postsurvey that the intervention was less acceptable than they had expected on the presurvey, the overall acceptability measure was still relatively high (3.76) (Fig. 2). In addition, 76% of respondents reported that they would use the intervention in the future (n = 56). Conclusions: Participant recruitment is ongoing, and data continue to be collected to analyze effectiveness and feasibility. Preliminary data suggest that participants find the nasal and oral antisepsis intervention to be an acceptable option to complement standard infection control methods to prevent COVID-19.

Funding: Professional Disposables International, Healthcare Division (PDIHC)

Disclosures: None

Background: SARS-CoV-2 infection of healthcare workers (HCWs) occasionally occurs via acquisition from their colleagues. Data regarding the infection rates of HCWs with close contact and non–close contacts of HCWs are limited. In addition, the protective effect of COVID-19 vaccination against transmission between HCWs is unknown. We evaluated the infection rates of HCWs with close contact and non–close contact of infected HCWs and the effect of COVID-19 vaccination on transmission among HCWs in a tertiary-care hospital in South Korea. Methods: This study was performed in a tertiary-care hospital in Korea. We analyzed the COVID-19 cases and contacts among HCWs from January to December 2021. We reviewed the vaccination status of confirmed and exposed HCWs, the type of vaccination, and the infection rate according to the contact. We performed subgroup analyses in individuals who had been diagnosed since July 2021 when the δ (delta) variant became the dominant strain in South Korea. Transmission was defined based on their spatiotemporal epidemiologic association. Results: During the study period, 173 HCWs had COVID-19, and 2,693 HCWs were exposed to them. Among them, 18 (1.52%) of 1,186 close contacts and 13 (0.86%) of 1,507 non–close contacts had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (P = .11). When the index cases had been fully vaccinated, the infection rate of close contacts was 0.85% (7 of 820), whereas the infection rate of close contacts was 3.01% (11 of 366) when the index had not been fully vaccinated (P = .005). However, the infection rate of non–close contacts was not different according to the vaccination status of index (0.83% vs 0.89%; P = .90). During the period of δ (delta) variant being dominant, the infection rate of close contacts was significantly lower when the index case had been fully vaccinated index than in cases with a non–fully vaccinated index case (0.85% vs 5.88%; P < .001). Conclusions: Transmission to colleagues was significantly lower from vaccinated HCWs than from nonvaccinated HCWs, and this finding was more significant in the era of the δ (delta) variant. Our findings support the importance of vaccination in HCWs.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

We examined risk associated with antibiotics used for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) at a single site from 2018 through 2020. Overall, 78 patients had nonrecurrent infections. Among inpatient antibiotics, intravenous meropenem had the highest CDI rate (3.56 per 1,000 days of therapy; n = 2 cases). Among outpatient antibiotics, metronidazole had the highest rate (0.071 per 1,000 pills dispensed; n = 3 cases).

Background: During this pandemic, the public has struggled to navigate the abundance of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, and it is unclear how this misinformation has affected medical providers and their recommendations for patients. We sought to understand differences in COVID-19 vaccine knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes among Oregon healthcare provider types and regions of practice (rural, suburban, urban). Methods: A 36-question survey was constructed using Qualtrics with consultation from a survey methodologist. The survey was reviewed and approved by OHSU IRB and distributed via listserv or social media posting to provider societies in Oregon, including nurse practitioners (NPs), naturopathic doctors (NDs), physician assistants (PAs), doctors of medicine (MDs), doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs), or practioners with a bachelor of medicine–bachelor of surgery (MBBS), and via the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) immunization practice listserv. The survey accepted responses from July 9 to August 12, 2021. Participants were volunteers and responses were anonymous. Results: We collected 101 responses. Among them, 87 participants completed 100% of survey questions. Survey respondents were predominantly White females aged 41–50 years with an MD, DO, or MBBS. The overall COVID-19 vaccination rate of respondents was 94.6%. The vaccination rate was highest among the 4 NDs and 7 PAs at 100%, followed by 78 MDs, DOs, and MBBSs at 96.2%, and 12 NPs at 75%. Of NP respondents, 67% practiced rurally; 25.6% of MDs, DOs, and MBBSs practiced rurally; and 25% of NDs and 28.6% of PAs practiced rurally. In total, 22% of NPs did not feel comfortable recommending the COVID-19 vaccine to patients, compared to 1% of MDs, DOs, and MBBSs and 0% of NDs or PAs. All provider types had high rates of disagreement with the statement that the COVID-19 pandemic had increased their trust in vaccine safety: 44% of NPs; 29% of PAs; 25% of NDs; and 7% of MDs, DOs, and MBBSs. Among 19 rural providers, 19% indicated mistrust in public health to ensure that vaccines are safe versus 3% in suburban areas and 0% in urban areas. Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is prevalent among healthcare providers and may be higher in NPs and those practicing rurally. Unfortunately, the response rate of NPs was low. Future research should focus on these providers to better understand their knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes about COVID-19 vaccines. These results can also inform future targeted vaccine education to healthcare providers during public health crises.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19 infection, can significantly contaminate environmental surfaces and can remain viable on surfaces for up to 9 days. Although respiratory route remains the most significant mode of transmission, fomites and environmental sources of infection remain a concern for healthcare personnel who are working in dedicated COVID-19 units. We investigated the extent of detectable SARS-CoV-2 contamination in the environment of COVID-19 patients at a single VA hospital, with the intent of identifying potential high-touch surfaces at risk for viral contamination, which could be used to inform the development of simple COVID-19 prevention strategies. Methods: We conducted a cohort study at 1 VA hospital in a unit housing adult veterans admitted with COVID-19 between October and December 2020. In total, 11 swab specimens were collected for PCR analysis (SARS-CoV-2 env gene) from environmental surfaces inside and just outside the rooms of COVID-19 patients one time. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted to provide the SARS-CoV-2 epidemiologic context for environmental detection. Results: In total, 297 swabs were collected from the unit and environmental areas surrounding 27 hospitalized patients: average age, 72.5 years (range, 34–94); 100% male; 92% non-Hispanic white; average comorbidities, 1.8 (SD, 1.1). Of 297 swabs, 80 (27%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 19 (70%) of 27 patients had at least 1 positive site. The most contaminated site was the floor just outside the patient room (78% positive samples), followed by the patient’s bedrail (37%) and chair handle (37%) (Fig. 1). Traditionally high-touch surfaces, such as the door handle (outside patient room) and the light switch, did not have high positivity rates (<15%). Interestingly, both the personal protective equipment (PPE) cart outside patient’s room (33%) and the double doors leading out of the unit (19%) were positive, which are surfaces often touched with bare hands after handwashing. Analyses of clinical data are underway to examine whether specific care needs, based on activities of daily living disability, comorbidities, and clinical presentation of COVID-19, predict SARS-CoV-2 environmental contamination. Conclusions: The presence of environmental contamination by SARS-CoV-2 highlights the importance of transmission via direct or indirect contact. Studies targeting high-risk populations are needed to better understand the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 between infected patients and their environment. Our findings also suggest that handwashing and attention to using disinfecting wipes may mitigate the risk of transmission of virus from surfaces that one might consider safe to touch.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: Aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) performed on COVID-19–positive patients raise concerns about the dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 via aerosols and droplets. Infectious aerosols and droplets generated by SARS-CoV-2–positive patient AGPs or through direct COVID-19 patient coughing or exhalation could potentially contaminate surfaces, leading to the indirect spread of SARS-CoV-2 via fomites within the emergency department (ED). We sampled surfaces of ED patient rooms occupied by known SARS-CoV-2–positive patients or patients under investigation for COVID-19 and undergoing an AGP to determine the frequency of room contamination with SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Methods: Swabs were collected from 5 room surfaces in the ED following AGPs performed on patients under investigation for COVID-19 or positive for SARS-CoV-2. High- and low-touch surfaces 6 feet (2 m) from the patient (door handle and return vent, respectively) and reusable medical equipment were swabbed. Swabs were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RT-qPCR; positive samples were cultured in Vero E6 cells. Patient COVID-19 results were confirmed through the electronic medical record. Results: In total, 203 rooms were sampled: 43 SARS-CoV-2–positive patients with an AGP, 44 SARS-CoV-2–positive patients who did not have an AGP, and 116 SARS-CoV-2–negative patients with an AGP, for a total of 1,015 swabs. Overall, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected on 36 (3.5%) surfaces from 29 rooms (14.3%) (Table 1). RNA contamination was detected more frequently in rooms occupied by SARS-CoV-2–positive patients who did not have an AGP than rooms occupied by COVID-19 patients (30% vs 14%). SARS-CoV-2 RNA was also detected in rooms occupied by SARS-CoV-2–negative patients undergoing an AGP (9%). SARS-CoV-2 RNA was most frequently detected on air vents (n = 15), bedrails (n = 10), equipment and vital signs monitors (n = 4 each), and door handles (n = 3). One bedrail was positive by culture and confirmed by an RT-qPCR cycle threshold reduction from >40 to 13. Conclusions: We detected SARS-CoV-2 RNA contamination on room surfaces in the ED, regardless of patient AGP or COVID-19 status; however, RNA contamination of room surfaces was most common in rooms occupied by SARS-CoV-2–positive patients who did not have an AGP, which may be attributable to stage of disease and viral shedding. SARS-CoV-2 RNA contamination was also present in rooms where APGs were performed on SARS-CoV-2–negative patients, suggesting carryover from previous patients. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found most often on room air-return vents, further emphasizing the importance of aerosols in the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: An increase in candidemia has been observed throughout the world since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients with COVID-19 may have different risk factors, clinical presentations, and outcomes compared to patients without COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all inpatients with candidemia at a large, academic medical center from April 30, 2019, to February 19, 2021. The first case of COVID-19 was detected at our institution March 2020 and patients were sorted into pre– versus post–COVID-19 pandemic groups. Data regarding clinical characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes were collected. The rate of candidemia per 10,000 patient days was calculated from January 2013 through February 2021. Results: In total, 202 patients were identified with candidemia: 92 cases were identified before the pandemic and 110 cases were identified after the pandemic began. Moreover, 33 (16.3%) patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 during the admission and 169 (83.7%) did not have COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 were significantly more likely to be older (median, 64.5 vs 54.8 years; P = .0006) and to have a higher body mass index (32.8 vs 29.1; P = .03) than patients without COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 were less likely have some of the traditional risk factors (eg, abdominal surgery, total parenteral nutrition, history of injecting drugs) for candidemia compared to patients without COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 were significantly more likely to require ICU care (97.0% vs 67.5%; P < .001) and to require mechanical ventilation (90.9% vs 53.9%; P < .001), and they had higher mortality at 30 days (66.7% vs 31.4%; P < .001). A multivariate logistic regression model showed that COVID-19 (OR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.09–5.90) and higher age (OR 1.45, 95% CI, 1.11–1.91) were significant predictors of 30 day mortality. Using a Poisson regression model, the incidence rate ratio for candidemia per month after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic was 2.09 (95% CI, 1.85–2.36; P < .0001) compared to the years prior. Conclusions: Rates of candidemia significantly increased after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients with candidemia in the post–COVID-19 era tend to have nontraditional risk factors, to be more critically ill, and to have increased mortality compared to patients in the pre–COVID-19 era. COVID-19 and higher age were independent predictors of mortality. More studies are needed to further define risk factors for candidemia in patients with COVID-19.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background:Candida auris is an emerging multidrug-resistant yeast that is transmitted in healthcare facilities and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Environmental contamination is suspected to play an important role in transmission but additional information is needed to inform environmental cleaning recommendations to prevent spread. Methods: We conducted a multiregional (Chicago, IL; Irvine, CA) prospective study of environmental contamination associated with C. auris colonization of patients and residents of 4 long-term care facilities and 1 acute-care hospital. Participants were identified by screening or clinical cultures. Samples were collected from participants’ body sites (eg, nares, axillae, inguinal creases, palms and fingertips, and perianal skin) and their environment before room cleaning. Daily room cleaning and disinfection by facility environmental service workers was followed by targeted cleaning of high-touch surfaces by research staff using hydrogen peroxide wipes (see EPA-approved product for C. auris, List P). Samples were collected immediately after cleaning from high-touch surfaces and repeated at 4-hour intervals up to 12 hours. A pilot phase (n = 12 patients) was conducted to identify the value of testing specific high-touch surfaces to assess environmental contamination. High-yield surfaces were included in the full evaluation phase (n = 20 patients) (Fig. 1). Samples were submitted for semiquantitative culture of C. auris and other multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), extended-spectrum β-lactamase–producing Enterobacterales (ESBLs), and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE). Times to room surface contamination with C. auris and other MDROs after effective cleaning were analyzed. Results:Candida auris colonization was most frequently detected in the nares (72%) and palms and fingertips (72%). Cocolonization of body sites with other MDROs was common (Fig. 2). Surfaces located close to the patient were commonly recontaminated with C. auris by 4 hours after cleaning, including the overbed table (24%), bed handrail (24%), and TV remote or call button (19%). Environmental cocontamination was more common with resistant gram-positive organisms (MRSA and, VRE) than resistant gram-negative organisms (Fig. 3). C. auris was rarely detected on surfaces located outside a patient’s room (1 of 120 swabs; <1%). Conclusions: Environmental surfaces near C. auris–colonized patients were rapidly recontaminated after cleaning and disinfection. Cocolonization of skin and environment with other MDROs was common, with resistant gram-positive organisms predominating over gram-negative organisms on environmental surfaces. Limitations include lack of organism sequencing or typing to confirm environmental contamination was from the room resident. Rapid recontamination of environmental surfaces after manual cleaning and disinfection suggests that alternate mitigation strategies should be evaluated.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None