English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background E. faecalis (Efc) isolates are usually susceptible to ampicillin (AMP). AMP-based regimens are the standard of care for enterococcal infections, although other antibiotics are often used as definitive treatment. We thus compared outcomes of patients with cancer and Efc bacteremia treated with AMP-containing (ACR) and non-AMP-containing antibiotic regimens (NACR). Methods A multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study conducted at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Henry Ford Hospital, and Memorial Hermann Health System. Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years old, diagnosed with cancer, and had at least one Efc bloodstream isolate collected from 12/2015 to 12/2018. Patients with polymicrobial infections were excluded. Patients were divided into two groups: i) ACR and ii) NACR. ACR included patients who received AMP at any time during treatment; other antimicrobials were permitted. NACR patients did not receive AMP at any time. The primary outcome compared desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) between ACR and NACR at day 14. The DOOR consisted of six hierarchical levels: 1 - death; 2 - inpatient without microbiological cure (MC) and with acute kidney injury (AKI); 3 - inpatient without MC and without AKI; 4 - inpatient admitted with MC and with AKI; 5 - inpatient with MC and without AKI; 6 - alive and discharged. Comparison of DOORs between ACR and NACR was performed using inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) ordered logistic regression. Results Seventy-one patients were included (ACR, n = 35; NACR, n = 36). No difference was seen in DOORs at day 14 between ACR and NACR (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.45 – 2.92, p=0.78). No difference was observed for all-cause mortality at day 14 (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.09 – 3.77, p=0.58) or day 30 (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.09 – 1.94, p=0.27). Patients treated with ACR received a lower median duration of other antibiotics at any point during treatment compared to NACR: daptomycin (2 v 4 days) vancomycin (2 v 4 days), and linezolid (1 v 2 days). Conclusion Patients with cancer and Efc bloodstream infections had similar outcomes when treated with ACR and NACR. ACR were associated with less use of broad-spectrum antimicrobials. Future research should focus on the ecologic impact of use of NACR. Disclosures Marcus Zervos, MD, Melinta Therapeutics (Grant/Research Support) Cesar A. Arias, MD, MSc, PhD, FIDSA, Entasis Therapeutics (Scientific Research Study Investigator)MeMed (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Merck (Grant/Research Support)

273. Comparative Effectiveness of Ampicillin in the Treatment of Enterococcus faecalis Bloodstream Infections in Patients With Cancer