Temporal Trends in Antimicrobial Prescribing During Hospitalization for Potential Infection and Sepsis

Mortality of Patients With Sepsis Administered Piperacillin-Tazobactam vs Cefepime

Importance

Experimental and observational studies have suggested that empirical treatment for bacterial sepsis with antianaerobic antibiotics (eg, piperacillin-tazobactam) is associated with adverse outcomes compared with anaerobe-sparing antibiotics (eg, cefepime). However, a recent pragmatic clinical trial of piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime showed no difference in short-term outcomes at 14 days. Further studies are needed to help clarify the empirical use of these agents.

Objective

To examine the use of piperacillin-tazobactam compared with cefepime in 90-day mortality in patients treated empirically for sepsis, using instrumental variable analysis of a 15-month piperacillin-tazobactam shortage.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In a retrospective cohort study, hospital admissions at the University of Michigan from July 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018, including a piperacillin-tazobactam shortage period from June 12, 2015, to September 18, 2016, were examined. Adult patients with suspected sepsis treated with vancomycin and either piperacillin-tazobactam or cefepime for conditions with presumed equipoise between piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime were included in the study. Data analysis was conducted from December 17, 2022, to April 11, 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included organ failure-free, ventilator-free, and vasopressor-free days. The 15-month piperacillin-tazobactam shortage period was used as an instrumental variable for unmeasured confounding in antibiotic selection.

Results

Among 7569 patients (4174 men [55%]; median age, 63 [IQR 52-73] years) with sepsis meeting study eligibility, 4523 were treated with vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam and 3046 were treated with vancomycin and cefepime. Of patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam, only 152 (3%) received it during the shortage. Treatment groups did not differ significantly in age, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, or time to antibiotic administration. In an instrumental variable analysis, piperacillin-tazobactam was associated with an absolute mortality increase of 5.0% at 90 days (95% CI, 1.9%-8.1%) and 2.1 (95% CI, 1.4-2.7) fewer organ failure-free days, 1.1 (95% CI, 0.57-1.62) fewer ventilator-free days, and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.01-2.01) fewer vasopressor-free days.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients with suspected sepsis and no clear indication for antianaerobic coverage, administration of piperacillin-tazobactam was associated with higher mortality and increased duration of organ dysfunction compared with cefepime. These findings suggest that the widespread use of empirical antianaerobic antibiotics in sepsis may be harmful.

Heterogeneity of Benefit from Earlier Time-to-Antibiotics for Sepsis

Rationale: Shorter time-to-antibiotics improves survival from sepsis, particularly among patients in shock. There may be other subgroups for whom faster antibiotics are particularly beneficial.Objectives: Identify patient characteristics associated with greater benefit from shorter time-to-antibiotics.Methods: Observational cohort study of patients hospitalized with community-onset sepsis at 173 hospitals and treated with antimicrobials within 12 hours. We used three approaches to evaluate heterogeneity of benefit from shorter time-to-antibiotics: 1) conditional average treatment effects of shorter (⩽3 h) versus longer (>3-12 h) time-to-antibiotics on 30-day mortality using multivariable Poisson regression; 2) causal forest to identify characteristics associated with greatest benefit from shorter time-to-antibiotics; and 3) logistic regression with time-to-antibiotics modeled as a spline.Measurements and Main Results: Among 273,255 patients with community-onset sepsis, 131,094 (48.0%) received antibiotics within 3 hours. In Poisson models, shorter time-to-antibiotics was associated with greater absolute mortality reduction among patients with metastatic cancer (5.0% [95% confidence interval; CI: 4.3-5.7] vs. 0.4% [95% CI: 0.2-0.6] for patients without cancer, P < 0.001); patients with shock (7.0% [95% CI: 5.8-8.2%] vs. 2.8% [95% CI: 2.7-3.5%] for patients without shock, P = 0.005); and patients with more acute organ dysfunctions (4.8% [95% CI: 3.9-5.6%] for three or more dysfunctions vs. 0.5% [95% CI: 0.3-0.8] for one dysfunction, P < 0.001). In causal forest, metastatic cancer and shock were associated with greatest benefit from shorter time-to-antibiotics. Spline analysis confirmed differential nonlinear associations of time-to-antibiotics with mortality in patients with metastatic cancer and shock.Conclusions: In patients with community-onset sepsis, the mortality benefit of shorter time-to-antibiotics varied by patient characteristics. These findings suggest that shorter time-to-antibiotics for sepsis is particularly important among patients with cancer and/or shock.

Improving Sepsis Outcomes in the Era of Pay-for-Performance and Electronic Quality Measures: A Joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIDP Position Paper

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced the Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) as a pay-for-reporting measure in 2015 and is now planning to make it a pay-for-performance measure by incorporating it into the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. This joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIPD position paper highlights concerns with this change. Multiple studies indicate that SEP-1 implementation was associated with increased broad-spectrum antibiotic use, lactate measurements, and aggressive fluid resuscitation for patients with suspected sepsis but not with decreased mortality rates. Increased focus on SEP-1 risks further diverting attention and resources from more effective measures and comprehensive sepsis care. We recommend retiring SEP-1 rather than using it in a payment model and shifting instead to new sepsis metrics that focus on patient outcomes. CMS is developing a community-onset sepsis 30-day mortality electronic clinical quality measure (eCQM) that is an important step in this direction. The eCQM preliminarily identifies sepsis using systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, antibiotic administrations or diagnosis codes for infection or sepsis, and clinical indicators of acute organ dysfunction. We support the eCQM but recommend removing SIRS criteria and diagnosis codes to streamline implementation, decrease variability between hospitals, maintain vigilance for patients with sepsis but without SIRS, and avoid promoting antibiotic use in uninfected patients with SIRS. We further advocate for CMS to harmonize the eCQM with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Adult Sepsis Event surveillance metric to promote unity in federal measures, decrease reporting burden for hospitals, and facilitate shared prevention initiatives. These steps will result in a more robust measure that will encourage hospitals to pay more attention to the full breadth of sepsis care, stimulate new innovations in diagnosis and treatment, and ultimately bring us closer to our shared goal of improving outcomes for patients.

Impact of Reducing Time-to-Antibiotics on Sepsis Mortality, Antibiotic Use, and Adverse Events

Rationale: Shorter time-to-antibiotics is lifesaving in sepsis, but programs to hasten antibiotic delivery may increase unnecessary antibiotic use and adverse events. Objectives: We sought to estimate both the benefits and harms of shortening time-to-antibiotics for sepsis. Methods: We conducted a simulation study using a cohort of 1,559,523 hospitalized patients admitted through the emergency department with meeting two or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria (2013-2018). Reasons for hospitalization were classified as septic shock, sepsis, infection, antibiotics stopped early, and never treated (no antibiotics within 48 h). We simulated the impact of a 50% reduction in time-to-antibiotics for sepsis across 12 hospital scenarios defined by sepsis prevalence (low, medium, or high) and magnitude of "spillover" antibiotic prescribing to patients without infection (low, medium, high, or very high). Outcomes included mortality and adverse events potentially attributable to antibiotics (e.g., allergy, organ dysfunction, Clostridiodes difficile infection, and culture with multidrug-resistant organism). Results: A total of 933,458 (59.9%) hospitalized patients received antimicrobial therapy within 48 hours of presentation, including 38,572 (2.5%) with septic shock, 276,082 (17.7%) with sepsis, 370,705 (23.8%) with infection, and 248,099 (15.9%) with antibiotics stopped early. A total of 199,937 (12.8%) hospitalized patients experienced an adverse event; most commonly, acute liver injury (5.6%), new MDRO (3.5%), and Clostridiodes difficile infection (1.7%). Across the scenarios, a 50% reduction in time-to-antibiotics for sepsis was associated with a median of 1 to 180 additional antibiotic-treated patients and zero to seven additional adverse events per death averted from sepsis. Conclusions: The impacts of faster time-to-antibiotics for sepsis vary markedly across simulated hospital types. However, even in the worst-case scenario, new antibiotic-associated adverse events were rare.

Concordance Between Initial Presumptive and Final Adjudicated Diagnoses of Infection Among Patients Meeting Sepsis-3 Criteria in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Guidelines emphasize rapid antibiotic treatment for sepsis, but infection presence is often uncertain at initial presentation. We investigated the incidence and drivers of false-positive presumptive infection diagnosis among emergency department (ED) patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria.

METHODS

For a retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized after meeting Sepsis-3 criteria (acute organ failure and suspected infection including blood cultures drawn and intravenous antimicrobials administered) in 1 of 4 EDs from 2013 to 2017, trained reviewers first identified the ED-diagnosed source of infection and adjudicated the presence and source of infection on final assessment. Reviewers subsequently adjudicated final infection probability for a randomly selected 10% subset of subjects. Risk factors for false-positive infection diagnosis and its association with 30-day mortality were evaluated using multivariable regression.

RESULTS

Of 8267 patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED, 699 (8.5%) did not have an infection on final adjudication and 1488 (18.0%) patients with confirmed infections had a different source of infection diagnosed in the ED versus final adjudication (ie, initial/final source diagnosis discordance). Among the subset of patients whose final infection probability was adjudicated (n = 812), 79 (9.7%) had only "possible" infection and 77 (9.5%) were not infected. Factors associated with false-positive infection diagnosis included hypothermia, altered mental status, comorbidity burden, and an "unknown infection source" diagnosis in the ED (odds ratio: 6.39; 95% confidence interval: 5.14-7.94). False-positive infection diagnosis was not associated with 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large multihospital study, <20% of ED patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria had no infection or only possible infection on retrospective adjudication.

A Multi-Hospital Survey of Current Practices for Supporting Recovery From Sepsis

Sepsis survivors are at increased risk for morbidity and functional impairment. There are recommended practices to support recovery after sepsis, but it is unclear how often they are implemented. We sought to assess the current use of recovery-based practices across hospitals.

DESIGN

Electronic survey assessing the use of best practices for recovery from COVID-related and non-COVID-related sepsis. Questions included four-point Likert responses of "never" to "always/nearly always."

SETTING

Twenty-six veterans affairs hospitals with the highest (n = 13) and lowest (n = 13) risk-adjusted 90-day sepsis survival.

SUBJECTS

Inpatient and outpatient clinician leaders.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

For each domain, we calculated the proportion of "always/nearly always" responses and mean Likert scores. We assessed for differences by hospital survival, COVID versus non-COVID sepsis, and sepsis case volume. Across eight domains of care, the proportion "always/nearly always" responses ranged from: 80.7% (social support) and 69.8% (medication management) to 22.5% (physical recovery and adaptation) and 0.0% (emotional support). Higher-survival hospitals more often performed screening for new symptoms/limitations (49.2% vs 35.1% "always/nearly always," p = 0.02) compared with lower-survival hospitals. There was no difference in "always/nearly always" responses for COVID-related versus non-COVID-related sepsis, but small differences in mean Likert score in four domains: care coordination (3.34 vs 3.48, p = 0.01), medication management (3.59 vs 3.65, p = 0.04), screening for new symptoms/limitations (3.13 vs 3.20, p = 0.02), and anticipatory guidance and education (2.97 vs 2.84, p < 0.001). Lower case volume hospitals more often performed care coordination (72.7% vs 43.8% "always/nearly always," p = 0.02), screening for new symptoms/limitations (60.6% vs 35.8%, p < 0.001), and social support (100% vs 74.2%, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show variable adoption of practices for sepsis recovery. Future work is needed to understand why some practice domains are employed more frequently than others, and how to facilitate practice implementation, particularly within rarely adopted domains such as emotional support.