Sorabh Dhar

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) recommend pneumococcal urinary antigen testing (UAT) for a subset of inpatients admitted with pneumonia. Despite this, UAT testing is frequently performed on inpatients who do not meet the official IDSA criteria, and current evidence regarding antibiotic de-escalation in UAT-positive cases remains inconclusive. To explore this further, we conducted a retrospective cohort study examining antibiotic de-escalation patterns among hospitalized CAP patients who underwent UAT over a 60-day period during peak respiratory illness season (November and December, 2023). Patients with positive UAT results were compared to those who had negative UAT; the primary outcome was whether a positive UAT impacted antibiotic de-escalation prescribing. A total of 268 patients were analyzed—235 UAT-negative and 33 UAT-positive. Both groups were comparable in terms of disease severity, underlying health conditions, and readmission rates. Empiric therapy targeting Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was used in 40% of patients (36% in the UAT-positive group and 46% of the UAG-negative group). The use of atypical coverage, MRSA coverage, or anti-pseudomonal β-lactams was frequently de-escalated in both cohorts (p < 0.05); however, the UAT-positive group had significantly shorter durations of anti-pseudomonal therapy (p = 0.03) and anti-MRSA therapy (p = 0.02). Despite this, the UAT-positive group was more commonly given fluoroquinolones, such as levofloxacin or moxifloxacin, over narrow-spectrum β-lactams for final antibiotic coverage (p = 0.021). Overall, positive UAT appeared to support earlier discontinuation of anti-MRSA and anti-pseudomonal antibiotics; however, it did not impact fluoroquinolone use. Future antimicrobial stewardship efforts may benefit from promoting greater use of narrow-spectrum β-lactams in these patients.

Environmental disinfection is essential for reducing spread of healthcare associated infections (HAIs). Previous studies report conflicting results regarding the effects of ultraviolet light (UV) in reducing infections. This trial evaluated the impact of adding pulsed xenon UV (PX-UV) to standard terminal cleaning in reducing environmentally-implicated HAIs (eiHAIs). The LAMP trial was conducted in 2 hospitals (15 inpatient wards) utilizing a cluster randomized controlled, double-blinded, interventional crossover trial comparing standard terminal cleaning followed by either pulsed xenon ultraviolet (PX-UV) disinfection (intervention arm) or sham disinfection (control arm). The primary outcome was incidence of eiHAIs from clinical microbiology tests on the 4^th day of stay or later or within 3 days after discharge from the study unit. EiHAIs included clinical cultures positive for vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), extended spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli or Klebsiella pneumonia, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and Acinetobacter baumannii, and stool PCR positive for Clostridiodes difficile. Between May 18, 2017 to Jan 7, 2020, 25,732 patients were included, with an incidence of 601 eiHAI and 180,954 patient days. There was no difference in the rate of eiHAIs in the intervention and sham arms (3.49 vs 3.17 infections/1000 patient days respectively, RR 1.10 CI (0.94, 1.29, p= 0.23)). Study results were similar when stratified by eiHAI type, hospital, and unit type. The LAMP study failed to demonstrate an effect of the addition of UV light disinfection following terminal cleaning on reductions in rates of eiHAIs. Further investigations targeting hospital environmental surfaces and the role of no touch technology to reduce HAIs are needed. This graphical abstract is also available at Tidbit: https://tidbitapp.io/tidbits/lowering-the-acquisition-of-multi-drug-resistant-organism-mdros-with-pulsed-xenon-lamp-study-a-cluster-randomized-controlled-double-blinded-interventional-crossover-trial/update

The persistence of Acinetobacter on different surfaces and the continuous exposure of bacteria to disinfectants such as quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs) in the healthcare environment have led to microbicide tolerance. Acinetobacter baumannii have also rapidly acquired carbapenem resistance. Here we determined the prevalence of microbicide resistance genes in carbapenem susceptible and resistant clinical isolates of Acinetobacter. All clinical isolates were collected from two separate hospitals in Detroit between 2017-2021. Following DNA isolation using Qiagen kit, Nextera Flex kit was used for library preparation of Acinetobacter clinical isolates. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) was performed via Illumina NextSeq 550 using the prepared DNA library. The FASTQ files from the sequencing run were then subjected to bioinformatic analysis with Bionumerics software v7.6. ResFinder was used for determination of presence or absence of QAC resistant genes and results were tabulated by Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAb) or Carbapenem-Susceptible Acinetobacter baumannii (CSAb) with or without the QAC resistant genes. Different AMR genes and qacE in both CRAb and CSAb isolates Clinical isolates in our study had an even distribution of both CRAb and CSAb. The presence of qacE gene was more prevalent in the CRAb isolates compared to the CSAb isolates. While different STs harbored the qacE gene, the prevalence of qacE gene was highest in ST2 among all isolates. Future studies are needed to determine the reduced susceptibility to other commonly used hospital disinfectants. Keith S. Kaye, MD, MPH, Abbvie: Advisor/Consultant|Abbvie: Honoraria|Entasis: Advisor/Consultant|Entasis: Honoraria|GSK: Advisor/Consultant|GSK: Honoraria|Merck: Advisor/Consultant|Merck: Honoraria|Shionogi: Advisor/Consultant|Shionogi: Honoraria|VenatoRx: Advisor/Consultant|VenatoRx: Honoraria

(1) Background: Data on COVID-19 outcomes and disease course as a function of different medications used to treat cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease (CKD), as well as the presence of different comorbidities in primarily Black cohorts, are lacking. (2) Methods: We conducted a retrospective medical chart review on 327 patients (62.6% Black race) who were admitted to the Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, MI. Group differences (CKD vs. non-CKD) were compared using the Pearson χ² test. We conducted univariate and multivariate regression analyses for factors contributing to death during hospitalization due to COVID-19 (primary outcome) and ICU admission (secondary outcome), adjusting for age, sex, different medications, and comorbidities. A sub-analysis was also completed for CKD patients. (3) Results: In the fully adjusted model, a protective effect of ACEi alone, but not in combination with ARB or CCB, for ICU admission was found (OR = 0.400, 95% CI [0.183–0.874]). Heart failure was significantly associated with the primary outcome (OR = 4.088, 95% CI [1.1661–14.387]), as was COPD (OR = 3.747, 95% CI [1.591–8.828]). (4) Conclusions: Therapeutic strategies for cardiovascular disease and CKD in the milieu of different comorbidities may need to be tailored more prudently for individuals with COVID-19, especially Black individuals.