Search

Background Remdesivir (RDV) was the first agent with proven clinical benefit against COVID-19, shortening the time to recovery in a randomized placebo-controlled trial (RCT). Based on this trial, the Food and Drug Administration approved RDV via emergency use authorization. Despite its wide use, RDV remains controversial. Early use of RDV in patients requiring low flow nasal canula has robust evidence. However, benefit in mechanical ventilation (MV), high-flow nasal canula (HFNC) and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is conflicting. Multiple studies, most notably the SOLIDARITY and DisCoVeRy trial, have conflicting results on who benefits from RDV. Deploying novel therapeutics in this changing landscape is challenging. We seek to understand RDV practices and the role of antimicrobial stewardship (ASP) in hospitals across the US. Methods A survey was developed and disseminated through Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) IDea network, IDSA Antimicrobial Stewardship Centers for Excellence and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology messaging boards. Data collected included city, presence of RDV therapeutic restrictions, and RDV use by degree of oxygen needs for each COVID-19 wave. Results A total of 78 responses were collected, representing wide geographic reach in the US (Figure 1). RDV was restricted in 53% of facilities. Hospitals without restrictions commonly used RDV for patients on MV, NIPPV and HFNC, with more use on HFNC than on NC during the first winter, Delta and Omicron waves (Figure 2). Use on MV declined with each surge. Hospitals with RDV restrictions had more use of RDV on NC than all other ordinal scales (Figure 3). Use in MV, NIPPV and HFNC compared to NC declined in the restricted group with each COVID-19 surge. Figure 1.Geographic distribution of hospitals represented in the survey Figure 2. Remdesivir use by oxygen requirements in hospitals without remdesivir therapeutic restrictions. Figure 3 Remdesivir use by oxygen requirements in hospitals without remdesivir therapeutic restrictions. Conclusion A wide gap between evidence-based guidelines and actual practice exists. This gap was wider in hospitals without COVID-19 therapeutic restrictions in place for RDV. In the unrestricted group, RDV was commonly used for MV, HFNC and NIPPV, where robust RCT evidence of benefit is lacking. Though this practice occurred in both groups, the restricted RDV group prioritized RDV use in NC and did so at higher percentages each subsequent COVID-19 surge. ASP restrictions can have an important role in guiding COVID-19 therapy. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, evolving literature and emerging therapies have led to significant controversies on what constitutes optimal therapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. In addition, multiple guidelines emerged exhibiting variable recommendations in key areas of therapeutic management. Thus, interpreting emerging data and deploying novel therapeutics during the pandemic has been challenging. Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) have been proven to help promote evidence-based practices and are now common the United States (US). We seek to further understand the role of ASP during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A survey was developed and disseminated through Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) IDea network, IDSA Antimicrobial Stewardship Centers for Excellence and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology messaging boards. Data collected included city, hospital size, facility type, and existence of active ASP. COVID-19 therapeutic restrictions and type of provider who decides on treatment allocation was surveyed. Results A total of 92 surveys were completed, representing wide geographic reach within the United States (Figure 1). Hospital size by beds were 14% less than 200 (13), 18.5% 201-300 beds (17), 15.2% 301-400 beds (14), and 52.2% over 400 beds (48). Community hospitals accounted for 31.5% (29), county/public hospital 3.3% (3, 3.3%), University-affiliated Community-Based Teaching Hospitals 10.9% (10), University-based Teaching Hospital 45.7% (42), and 8.7% selected other. ASP were present in 97.2% of hospitals. COVID-19 therapeutic restrictions were common (Figure 2). Infectious diseases (ID) approval was required in 87.9% of facilities (Figure 3). Figure 1Geographic distribution of hospitals represented in the survey Figure 2. Restricted COVID-19 therapies by medication type (%) Figure 3 Specialties or providers that are able to order or approve restricted COVID-19 therapies (%) Conclusion COVID-19 therapeutics were commonly restricted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Approval by ID clinicians was required almost universally (87.9%). The role of other specialties was significantly lower, representing less than 45% of hospitals. ID clinicians have played a vital role in guiding therapy and supporting ASP during the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey highlights the value of ID clinicians to healthcare systems in allocating resources and promoting evidence-based practices through ASP. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

Background It is known that the pandemic increased the risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection in immunocompromised patients as compared to the general public. To combat this issue, telemedicine was utilized in various settings, but there is very little data on the adequate continuity of care (COC) and sustainability of telehealth throughout the pandemic. There is even less data on the effects of the pandemic in special populations, such as people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH) and within the correctional setting. The purpose of this study was to investigate rates of HIV virologic suppression (VS) and the sustainability of telemedicine throughout the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Methods This was a retrospective, pre-post cohort study of PLWH who received antiretroviral therapy (ART) within Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) / University of Illinois Chicago telemedicine clinic between 3/2019 and 3/2021. Patients who were released from IDOC or reincarcerated during the study period were excluded. The primary endpoint compared the rate of HIV VS pre-, peri- and post-SARS-CoV-2 restrictions. Secondary endpoints included change in immunologic function pre-, peri- and post-SARS-CoV-2 restrictions, incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, number of hospitalizations, development of virologic failure, and change in ART post-pandemic. Other factors known to influence COC were also collected. Results Of 320 patients screened, 225 were included. The majority were Black males (73.7%) and 95.1% had a CD4 T-cell count > 200 cells/mm3 at baseline. Approximately 88% of patients were on a single tablet regimen, with most receiving bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide. Rates of HIV VS are summarized in Figure 1 and secondary outcomes are summarized in table 1. Factors associated with disruption of COC included non-adherence to appointments (62.6%) and ART (4.4%). Figure 1Rates of HIV viral suppression ( Table 1 Secondary outcomes Conclusion Results demonstrated that PLWH within IDOC had sustained VS and COC throughout the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic with telemedicine. These results describe how the pandemic impacted PLWH in a correctional setting and future studies could contribute to creating national guidance for telemedicine models to streamline clinical practice. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a major public health crisis and is now a leading cause of death. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, treatment was limited to supportive care and off-label use of a variety of agents as we awaited the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our understanding of the disease has evolved and multiple evidence-based (EBM) treatment strategies supported by RCTs are now approved for use. Interpreting emerging data while responding to the pandemic can been challenging. We seek to understand the use of common medications during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A survey was developed and disseminated through Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) IDea network, IDSA Antimicrobial Stewardship Centers for Excellence and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology messaging boards. Data collected included city, therapeutic options including convalescent plasma (CP), hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), baricitinib and tocilizumab during each COVID-19 wave. Results A total of 78 responses were collected, representing wide geographic reach in the US (Figure 1). Use of HCQ declined by 96% and use of CP declined by 85% (Figure 2). The decline in CP was gradual each wave despite RCTs showing lack of benefit. Tocilizumab was used in 71% and 76% of hospitals during the first wave, prior to RCT data supporting its use. Baricitinib was used in 42% of hospitals prior to RCT data supporting its use. There was a 90% increase in baricitinib use after RCT data emerged. Figure 1Geographic distribution of hospitals represented in the survey Figure 2 Use of Hydroxychloroquine, Convalescent Plasma, Tocilizumab and Baricitinib Throughout Different COVID-19 Waves Conclusion The use of therapies before proven benefit was common through the pandemic. Similarly, the use of therapies after benefit was in question continued. Hydroxychloroquine was widely used in the first wave and then halted by the majority of hospitals in subsequent COVID-19 surges. IL-6 and JAK-2 inhibitors were commonly used prior to evidence of benefit and were more widely adopted once evidence emerged. Convalescent plasma use was common despite lack of evidence and its use continued despite multiple negative RCTs. Overall, our survey shows a gap between evidence and practice. Communicating evidence-based treatment strategies is a vital priority for major professional societies. Translating evidence into practice remains challenging during public health emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

Background At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals implemented infection control measures with limited data on predictors of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We aimed to quantify SARS-CoV-2 presence in an inpatient setting to understand nosocomial risk. Methods Patients admitted with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at an urban academic hospital were enrolled. Demographic/clinical characteristics, a PCR nasal swab(NS), and air samples on filter media in the near- (< 6ft) and far-field ( >6ft) of each patient for 3.5 hours were collected. PCR was used to detect SARS-CoV-2 on filter media. Associations between clinical characteristics and presence of SARS-CoV-2 in air samples used Fisher’s exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results Of 52 subjects, 46% had no detectable virus by nasal swab on the day of sampling. Of 104 room air samples, 16% had detectable virus from 25% of rooms, including 10 near and 7 far field samples. Subjects with a positive room air sample had fewer days from symptom-onset compared with those with a negative air sample (median 6 vs. 8, p=0.24). Being on room air and having a nasal swab positive increased the odds of detecting virus in air samples but were not statistically significant. Conclusion A small number of air samples with detectable SARS-CoV-2 may suggest lower nosocomial risk than previously anticipated. Multiple subject and environmental factors may have contributed to this finding including patient source control masking, anti-viral therapies and HEPA filtration. The decreased association of virus in the air of those with more days of symptoms but with the need for supplemental oxygen may be related to what is now known about the COVID-19 inflammatory response after the infectious period. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Background The disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, has caused a global public health crisis. Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) caused by COVID-19 has led to an increase in hospitalizations. Disease severity and concerns for bacterial co-infections can increase antimicrobial pressure. Our aim is to define and compare the impact of COVID-19 on antimicrobial use (AU) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in the Dominican Republic (DR) and the United States (US). Methods We performed a retrospective review of AU and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns from 2019-20 at a hospital in the US (H-US) and the DR (H-DR). Our sites are community teaching hospitals with 151 beds in H-US and 295 beds in H-DR. After AU was tabulated, percent changes between 2019-20 were calculated. Resistance patterns for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing (ESBL) E coli, ESBL Klebsiella pneumoniae (ESBL-Kp), carbapenem resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CR-PSAR) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (CR-Kp) were tabulated and percent changes between 2019-20 were calculated. Results AU increased by 10% in H-US and 25% in H-DR, with carbapenem use increasing by 268% and 144% respectively. Ceftriaxone use increased by 30% in H-US and 33% in H-DR. Azithromycin increased 54% in H-US and 338% in the H-DR. Resistance increased from 10% to 28% for ESBL-Kp and from 10% to 12% for ESBL E coli at H-US. CR-PSAR decreased from 20% to 12%, while cefepime and piperacillin resistance increased from 5% to 20% and 3% to 16% respectively (Figure 1). At H-DR, ESBL-Kp resistance decreased from 68% to 64% and increased from 58% to 59% for ESBL E coli. CR-PSAR and cefepime resistance increased from 5% to 19% and from 9% to 29% respectively (Figure 2). Figure 1. Antimicrobial resistance (%) for select organisms at H-US in 2019 and 2020 Figure 2. Antimicrobial resistance (%) for select organisms at H-DR in 2019 and 2020 Conclusion COVID-19 had a major impact on antimicrobial consumption and resistance in the US and DR. A greater impact was seen on ESBL rates in the US whilst a greater impact on carbapenem resistance was seen in the DR. The rise in carbapenem use in H-US reflected a rise in ESBL rates. In the DR, ESBL producing organisms were common prior to COVID-19 and carbapenem use was more widespread. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on AU may accelerate AMR worldwide. The scale up of antimicrobial stewardship across the globe is urgently needed to curb AMR. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Strategies for pandemic preparedness and response are urgently needed for all settings. We describe our experience using inverted classroom methodology (ICM) for COVID-19 pandemic preparedness in a small hospital with limited infection prevention staff. ICM for pandemic preparedness was feasible and contributed to an increase in COVID-19 knowledge and comfort.

Background Outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported in nursing homes and assisted living facilities; however, the extent of asymptomatic and presymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in this high-risk population remains unclear. Methods We conducted an investigation of the first known outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 at a skilled nursing facility (SNF) in Illinois on 15 March 2020 and followed residents for 30 days. We tested 126/127 residents for SARS-CoV-2 via reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction and performed symptom assessments. We calculated the point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 and assessed symptom onset over 30-day follow-up to determine: (1) the proportion of cases who were symptomatic, presymptomatic, and asymptomatic and (2) incidence of symptoms among those who tested negative. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to determine the 30-day probability of death for cases. Results Of 126 residents tested, 33 had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 on 15 March. Nineteen (58%) had symptoms at the time of testing, 1 (3%) developed symptoms over follow-up, and 13 (39%) remained asymptomatic. Thirty-five residents who tested negative on 15 March developed symptoms over follow-up; of these, 3 were re-tested and 2 were positive. The 30-day probability of death among cases was 29%. Conclusions SNFs are particularly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2, and residents are at risk of severe outcomes. Attention must be paid to preventing outbreaks in these and other congregate care settings. Widespread testing and infection control are key to help prevent COVID-19 morbidity and mortality in these high-risk populations.

Background: The disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, has caused a pandemic leading to strained healthcare systems worldwide and an unprecedented public health crisis. Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) and hypoxia caused by COVID-19 has led to an increase in hospitalizations. We sought to define the impact of COVID-19 on antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in an urban safety-net community hospital. Methods: Retrospective review of antimicrobial use and AMR in a 151-bed urban community hospital. Antimicrobial use was calculated in days of therapy per 1,000 patient days (DOT/1,000 PD) for ceftriaxone, piperacillin-tazobactam and meropenem during 2019 and 2020. Ceftriaxone, piperacillin-tazobactam and meropenem were reviewed for calendar year 2019 and 2020. AMR was assessed by comparing the carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infection incidence rate per 1,000 patient days between 2019 and 2020. Results: The average quarterly DOT/1,000 PD increased from 359.5 in 2019 to 394.25 in 2020, with the highest increase in the second and fourth quarters of 2020, which temporarily correspond to the first and second waves of COVID-19. Ceftriaxone and meropenem use increased during the first and second waves of COVID-19. Piperacillin-tazobactam use increased during the first wave and declined thereafter (Figure 1). Rates of CRE increased from a quarterly average of 0.57 to 0.68 (Figure 2). Conclusions: Antimicrobial pressure increased during the first and second waves of COVID-19. Ceftriaxone was the most commonly used antimicrobial, reflecting internal guidelines and ASP interventions. CRE rates increased during COVID-19. This finding may be due to an overall increase in antimicrobial pressure in the community and in critically ill patients. Antibiotics are a precious resource, and antimicrobial stewardship remains important during the COVID-19 pandemic. Appropriate use of antimicrobials is critical to preventing AMR.Funding: NoDisclosures: None

Background Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) bind to the receptor binding domain of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. In November 2020, several mAbs were issued an EUA by the FDA as single-dose intravenous (IV) infusions for treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19. mABs were allocated to local health facilities capable of administering infusions and managing side effects. Creating an outpatient infusion program during the COVID-19 winter surge can be logistically difficult. Our goal was to implement a mAb outpatient infusion program at an urban safety-net community hospital designed to serve communities most heavily impacted by COVID-19. Methods The emergency department (ED) fast-track was repurposed for the mAb program with protocols from the infectious diseases physician and antimicrobial stewardship. Education materials with indications for mAbs were distributed in surrounding clinics serving our community. The program was available to all patients meeting criteria outlined in the protocol, 24/7, including but not limited to current ED patients and referrals from facilities in the vicinity. Results Between December 1, 2020 and March 1, 2021, a total of 37 patients were treated: 51% male, 57% Hispanic or Latinx, 27% Black, and 95% (35) represented ZIP codes with high COVID-19 burden (Figure 1). Bamlanivimab was used for each instance and all infusions met criteria. Patient indications for mAb infusion are listed in Figure 2. Parenteral antibiotics were given to 10.8% and 35% received oral antibiotics upon discharge. At 30 days post-infusion, 8% (3) required hospitalization and there were no deaths. Zip codes with high COVID-19 disease burden served by our mAB infusion program Distribution of patients who received mAB infusions by indication Conclusion A mAb outpatient infusion program was successfully deployed in a safety-net community hospital. We believe strengths of the program included the flexible infusion hours and convenient referral site for patients and providers. Of importance, this program was able to provide services to minorities from ZIP codes most heavily impacted by COVID-19. Unfortunately, antibacterial use was common and may reflect broader unnecessary use in COVID-19 patients. Whilst mAb treatment was deemed appropriate in all instances via protocol inclusion criteria, antibacterial stewardship programs may need to expand to ED settings for COVID-19 management. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Background Although integrase inhibitor (INSTI)-based regimens have been associated with weight gain, there is limited data on whether INSTIs cause long-term metabolic consequences. This study evaluated the effect of INSTIs on the development of metabolic comorbidities compared to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) or protease inhibitor (PI)-based therapies in patients in the Illinois Department of Corrections. Methods This retrospective cohort study consisted of incarcerated adult patients living with HIV and receiving a guideline-recommended regimen between 7/12/10 and 12/31/19. Patients with a pre-existing diagnosis of diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia, or lack of medical follow-up data were excluded. The primary outcome was to compare the incidence of a metabolic comorbidity between regimens. Secondary outcomes compared the incidence of weight gain, diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia as separate outcomes between drug classes. Demographics and pertinent labs were collected. Data was analyzed with ANOVA, chi-squared, and paired t-tests. The primary outcome was adjusted for age, race, use of antipsychotic medications, and family history of metabolic comorbidities. Results A total of 206 patients were included in the analysis with mean follow-up time of 31.5 ± 19.4 months. Majority of patients were Black (69%) and male (91%). A total of 42 patients developed a metabolic comorbidity (Table 1). After adjustment for confounding factors, there was a significant difference in the development of comorbidities between the treatment groups (p=0.031) with INSTI use being more likely to develop a comorbidity than NNRTI (p=0.004). No difference was found between INSTI and PI use (p=0.518). Development of hypertension was significantly higher in the INSTI group than NNRTI group (p=0.014), while the development of diabetes and hyperlipidemia were not. Weight and BMI were significantly higher regardless of antiretroviral (Table 2). No differences were found in the primary outcome between agents within the same drug class or between 1st or 2nd generation INSTIs. Table 1. Results of Primary and Secondary Outcomes Table 2. Impact of HIV regimen on weight and BMI after 1 year Conclusion All antiretrovirals were linked to weight gain but INSTIs were associated with increased incidence of hypertension. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Background The 2018 American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) 2018 Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol included human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) as an atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk enhancer for the first time. Our study investigates if patients living with HIV in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) were prescribed appropriate HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) therapy following release of these guidelines based on risk. Methods This was a retrospective study of patients with > 1 visit in our multidisciplinary HIV IDOC Telemedicine Clinic from 1/1/19-6/1/19. Our prescriptive authority is limited to HIV and directly related conditions, and we provide recommendations to on-site providers for other comorbidities. Included patients were > 18 years of age, HIV positive, and incarcerated within IDOC. Excluded patients had existing ASCVD. Data from the first visit in the study period were extracted from the electronic medical record and analyzed utilizing descriptive statistics. Primary objectives were to quantify ASCVD risk and appropriate statin use in our population. Results Of the 158 patients included, average age was 42 years. The majority were male (89%), Black (73%), overweight/obese (117/148, 79%), on an integrase single-tablet regimen (78%), with CD4 >200 cells/µL (97%), and HIV RNA < 20 copies/mL (85%). Of the 18 females, 8 were transgender. Within the prior year, 65% had a lipid panel. For the 50 patients meeting criteria for 10-year ASCVD estimation, median (range) risk was 6.6% (0.8% - 31.9%). Only 12 patients were on statins. Of these, all were indicated per AHA/ACC guidelines with 10 prescribed appropriate intensity. An additional 45 patients had indications for statins but were untreated. In total, 47 patients (30%) were not receiving appropriate statin therapy. Conclusion Results of our study suggest ASCVD risk management is an area of improvement for inmates living with HIV, especially as we look towards caring for an aging HIV population. Future directions include comparing these data to data from a later time point to evaluate time for guideline uptake. Disclosures Thomas D. Chiampas, PharmD, BCPS, AAHIVP, Gilead (Employee)

Background: The disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, has caused a pandemic leading to strained healthcare systems worldwide and an unprecedented public health crisis. The hallmark of severe COVID-19 is lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) and hypoxia requiring hospitalization. A paucity of data on bacterial coinfection and a lack of therapeutic options for COVID-19 during the first surge of cases has increased pressure on antimicrobial use and has challenged antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). We implemented a multimodal approach to antimicrobial stewardship in an urban safety-net community hospital targeting selection and duration of therapy. Methods: Retrospective review of cases during the first wave of COVID-19 in a 151-bed urban safety-net community hospital from March to June 2020. EMR order sets (Figure 1) and prospective audit and feedback by ASPs targeting empiric antimicrobial selection and duration were implemented as part of the COVID-19 response. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were reviewed retrospectively. Demographic information was collected. Data on antimicrobial use were tabulated, including selection and duration of antimicrobials (Figure 1). Results: In total, 302 patients were reviewed, of whom 221 (73%) received empiric antimicrobials. The most commonly used antimicrobials were ceftriaxone and azithromycin (Figure 2). Days of therapy per 1,000 patient days (DOT/1,000 PD) for ceftriaxone increased from 71 in the quarter prior to 113 during the study period. Average duration of therapy was 6 days. In the ICU, average duration was 8 days compared to 5 days in non-ICU settings. Average durations of parenteral therapy were 5.54 days in the ICU and 3.36 days in non-ICU settings. Procalcitonin was obtained in 37 cases (17%) and ranged from 0.09 to 12.57 ng/mL, with an average of 1.21 ng/mL. No cases had documented bacterial coinfection (Figure 1). Conclusions: Antimicrobials were commonly prescribed during the first wave of COVID-19 in a safety-net community hospital. Procalcitonin did not guide therapy nor did lack of documented coinfection change physician behavior. With limited resources, ASP successfully guided clinicians toward IDSA guideline recommendations for selection and duration, as evidenced by antimicrobial use. During this unprecedented surge of LRTIs, a multimodal approach to antimicrobial stewardship was used and guided toward early transition to oral agents and shorter durations.Funding: NoDisclosures: None

Background Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) are one of the most common infectious disease-related emergency department (ED) visits in the United States. The ID Society of America and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the use of procalcitonin (PCT) for antimicrobial stewardship (ASP) in LRTI. Though not widely available, awareness and access to PCT is rising. At our facility, PCT became available in February 2018. The aim of our study is to assess the impact of PCT at an urban community hospital and identify possible targets for ASP interventions. Methods Retrospective review of cases from February to August 2018. Cases from the ED were selected for review. Appropriateness of testing was assessed, defined as guideline-based use for cessation of antibiotics in uncomplicated LRTIs without critical illness or immunosuppression. Demographic variables and clinical characteristics, such as, diagnosis, antimicrobial use and PCT levels were obtained. Results PCT was ordered 268 times hospital-wide, of which 160 (60%) were in the ED. Ages ranged from 0–90, with an average of 47. Most cases were male (51%). Appropriate testing for LRTI occurred in 33 (29%) cases. Antimicrobials were used in 75% of cases with low (< 0.5) PCT levels (Figure 1). Length of stay (LOS) was higher in groups that received antimicrobials (Figure 2). Testing was not appropriate in 127 cases (71%), with upper respiratory (21%), soft-tissue (17%), genitourinary (15%) and abdominal (13%) infections as the most common reasons for testing. Other diagnosis included alcohol withdrawal, seizures and altered mental status. Cumulative cost of PCT testing was $24000, of which $19050 was not consistent with guidelines. Conclusion Clinicians routinely ordered PCT in the ED. Antimicrobials were used for LRTIs despite low PCT levels. This may have contributed to higher LOS and excess antimicrobial use. Unwarranted PCT testing had a cost of $19050. As PCT becomes widely available in hospitals across the United States, education and decision support by ASP to clinicians may be needed to enhance guideline-appropriate evidence-based use of PCT. Targeted ASP interventions in the ED may have cost savings by reducing excess testing, length of stay and improving antimicrobial use. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Background The prevalence of multi-drug-resistant organisms (MDRO) is on the rise globally. MDRO infections carry high morbidity and mortality. There is a paucity of data on Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKp) in the Dominican Republic (DR). Evaluating CRKp in various settings will provide data on contrasting epidemiologic risk factors. We evaluated the epidemiology of CKRp in three contrasting settings, a 495-bed urban academic center (AC), a 151-bed urban community hospital (CH) and a 200 bed teaching hospital in the DR (DRH). Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with CRKp cultures from 2014 to 2016 from AC, CH and DRH. A comparative evaluation of the epidemiology of CRKp between the cohorts was performed. Demographics, co-morbid conditions, antibiotic sensitivity, and outcomes were compared between hospital cohorts. Results Cohort AC had 64 patients, compared with eight from CH and eight from DRH. AC (59%) and CH (62%) cohorts included more men than the DRH cohort (25%). Average age was 62, 66, and 51, respectively. History of MDRO, antibiotic use in the past 6 months and hospitalization within the past year were common risk factors (Figure 1). Diabetes and end-stage renal disease were common comorbidities at all facilities (Figure 2). Charleston Comorbidity Index (CCI) score was highest at AC (6.6) and DRH (6.4) compared with CH (4). Mortality was highest in DRH (63%, 6/8) and AC (11%, 7/64) while CH had no deaths. Urine was the most common source at AC (67%) and CH (75%) while blood was most common at DRH (62.5%). CRKp isolates were susceptible to colistin at varying rates (AC=85%, CH = 63%, DRH = 80%). Conclusion Prior antibiotic use and hospitalization were common risk factors in all settings. Mortality and CCI scores for CRKp was highest at AC and DRH, which are tertiary referral centers. CH had less overall mortality and higher rates of colistin resistance. Further studies are needed to understand these risk factors. Strengthening antimicrobial stewardship and infection control practices in the United States and abroad may help curb the spread of resistance in different clinical settings. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Background Establishing antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) in community hospitals with limited resources can be challenging. Many hospitals do not have infectious disease (ID) trained pharmacists (PharmD) available. We implemented a comprehensive ASP with syndrome-based prospective audit and feedback at an urban community hospital. Methods ASP was implemented at a 151-bed urban community hospital in October 2017. PharmD training on syndrome-based treatment guidelines, including definitions, severity, empiric regimens, de-escalation, and duration was created. Prospective audit by PharmDs was established. This program was implemented and overseen by an ID physician. Days of therapy per 1,000 patient-days (DOT/1,000) was assessed 3 months before and after ASP. Prospective audit and feedback data were reviewed. Results At 3 months, antimicrobial use decreased (370 vs. 350 DOT/1,000) while the proportion of oral antimicrobials used increased (32% vs. 43%). Antibiotic expenditures decreased by 11% ($42,500 vs. $37,900). Most cases reviewed by prospective audit (58%) fit pre-determined syndromes (Figure 1). Soft tissue and urinary tract infections were the most common syndromes. Interventions occurred in 53% of cases. De-escalation from broad-spectrum agents was more successful in noncritical care settings (Figure 2). Figure 1. ASP syndrome-based prospective audit and feedback. Figure 2. Antimicrobial use in medical surgical units after implementation of ASP. Conclusion Syndrome-based prospective audit and feedback was successfully implemented in an urban community hospital with non-ID trained PharmDs using ID physician leadership. Our program led to a decrease in antibiotic use, increase use of oral alternatives, and decreased antibiotic expenditures. Empiric use of broad-spectrum agents was common at our facility. ASP likely contributed to an increase in ceftriaxone and decrease in piperacillin–tazobactam use in medical-surgical floors. Stewardship in critically ill patients remains a challenge. Clear guidelines and access to an ID physician are necessary to provide adequate support for PharmDs without ID-specific training and can help curb antibiotic use. Expanding the list of syndromes may further impact antimicrobial use. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.