De-escalation of antimicrobials in the treatment of bacteraemia due to antibiotic-sensitive pathogens in immunocompetent patients

Effects of Inappropriate Administration of Empirical Antibiotics on Mortality in Adults With Bacteraemia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Bloodstream infections are associated with high mortality rates and contribute substantially to healthcare costs, but a consensus on the prognostic benefits of appropriate empirical antimicrobial therapy (EAT) for bacteraemia is lacking.

Methods

We performed a systematic search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases through July 2021. Studies comparing the mortality rates of patients receiving appropriate and inappropriate EAT were considered eligible. The quality of the included studies was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklists.

Results

We ultimately assessed 198 studies of 89,962 total patients. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for the prognostic impacts of inappropriate EAT was 2.06 (P < 0.001), and the funnel plot was symmetrically distributed. Among subgroups without between-study heterogeneity (I² = 0%), those of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock (OR, 2.14), Pitt bacteraemia scores of ≥4 (OR, 1.88), cirrhosis (OR, 2.56), older age (OR, 1.78), and community-onset/acquired Enterobacteriaceae bacteraemia infection (OR, 2.53) indicated a significant effect of inappropriate EAT on mortality. The pooled adjusted OR of 125 studies using multivariable analyses for the effects of inappropriate EAT on mortality was 2.02 (P < 0.001), and the subgroups with low heterogeneity (I² < 25%) exhibiting significant effects of inappropriate EAT were those of patients with vascular catheter infections (adjusted OR, 2.40), pneumonia (adjusted OR, 2.72), or Enterobacteriaceae bacteraemia (adjusted OR, 4.35). Notably, the pooled univariable and multivariable analyses were consistent in revealing the negligible impacts of inappropriate EAT on the subgroups of patients with urinary tract infections and Enterobacter bacteraemia.

Conclusion

Although the current evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the benefits of prompt EAT in specific bacteraemic populations, we indicated that inappropriate EAT is associated with unfavorable mortality outcomes overall and in numerous subgroups. Prospective studies designed to test these specific populations are needed to ensure reliable conclusions.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42021270274.

Clinical outcomes of intervention for carbapenems and anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus antibiotics by an antimicrobial stewardship team

BACKGROUND

There are no reports on the effects of interventions, such as discontinuation and change and/or de-escalation of carbapenems and anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) antibiotics by an antimicrobial stewardship team focusing on detailed patient outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate these effects.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital from December 2018 to November 2019.

RESULTS

Favorable clinical responses were obtained in 165 of 184 cases (89.7%) in the intervention-accepted group, higher than those in the not accepted group (14/19 cases, 73.7%; P = .056). All-cause 30 day mortality was lower in the accepted group than in the not accepted group (1.1% and 10.5%, respectively; P = .045). The microbiological outcomes were similar between the two groups. Duration of carbapenem and anti-MRSA antibiotic use in the accepted group was significantly lower than that in the not accepted group (median [interquartile range]: 8 days [5-13] versus 14 days [8-15], respectively, P = .026 for carbapenem; 10 days [5.3-15] vs 15.5 days [13.8-45.3], respectively, P = .014 for anti-MRSA antibiotic).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to investigate the effects of interventions such as discontinuation and change and/ or de-escalation of antibiotics on detailed outcomes. Our intervention could reduce the duration of carbapenem and anti-MRSA antibiotic use without worsening clinical and microbiological outcomes.

Combined use of a broad-panel respiratory multiplex PCR and procalcitonin to reduce duration of antibiotics exposure in patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia (MULTI-CAP): a multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, individual randomised trial conducted in French intensive care units

INTRODUCTION

At the time of the worrying emergence and spread of bacterial resistance, reducing the selection pressure by reducing the exposure to antibiotics in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a public health issue. In this context, the combined use of molecular tests and biomarkers for guiding antibiotics discontinuation is attractive. Therefore, we have designed a trial comparing an integrated approach of diagnosis and treatment of severe CAP to usual care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The multiplex PCR and procalcitonin to reduce duration of antibiotics exposure in patients with severe-CAP (MULTI-CAP) trial is a multicentre (n=20), parallel-group, superiority, open-label, randomised trial. Patients are included if adult admitted to intensive care unit for a CAP. Diagnosis of pneumonia is based on clinical criteria and a newly appeared parenchymal infiltrate. Immunocompromised patients are excluded. Subjects are randomised (1:1 ratio) to either the intervention arm (experimental strategy) or the control arm (usual strategy). In the intervention arm, the microbiological diagnosis combines a respiratory multiplex PCR (mPCR) and conventional microbiological investigations. An algorithm of early antibiotic de-escalation or discontinuation is recommended, based on mPCR results and the procalcitonin value. In the control arm, only conventional microbiological investigations are performed and antibiotics de-escalation remains at the clinician's discretion. The primary endpoint is the number of days alive without any antibiotic from the randomisation to day 28. Based on our hypothesis of 2 days gain in the intervention arm, we aim to enrol a total of 450 patients over a 30-month period.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The MULTI-CAP trial is conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, is registered in Clinical Trials and has been approved by the Committee for Protection of Persons and the National French Drug Safety Agency. Written informed consents are obtained from all the patients (or representatives). The results will be disseminated through educational institutions, submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication and presented at medical congresses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03452826; Pre-results.

Diagnosis and Management of Intraabdominal Infection: Guidelines by the Chinese Society of Surgical Infection and Intensive Care and the Chinese College of Gastrointestinal Fistula Surgeons

The Chinese guidelines for IAI presented here were developed by a panel that included experts from the fields of surgery, critical care, microbiology, infection control, pharmacology, and evidence-based medicine. All questions were structured in population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes format, and evidence profiles were generated. Recommendations were generated following the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system or Best Practice Statement (BPS), when applicable. The final guidelines include 45 graded recommendations and 17 BPSs, including the classification of disease severity, diagnosis, source control, antimicrobial therapy, microbiologic evaluation, nutritional therapy, other supportive therapies, diagnosis and management of specific IAIs, and recognition and management of source control failure. Recommendations on fluid resuscitation and organ support therapy could not be formulated and thus were not included. Accordingly, additional high-quality clinical studies should be performed in the future to address the clinicians' concerns.

The effect of intervention by an antimicrobial stewardship team on anaerobic bacteremia

The effect of antimicrobial stewardship (AS) on anaerobic bacteremia is uncertain. This study aimed to assess the effect of interventions by the AS team (AST) on clinical and microbiological outcomes and antimicrobial use. An AS program was introduced at Osaka City University Hospital in January 2014; an interdisciplinary AST was established. We enrolled patients with anaerobic bacteremia between January 2009 and December 2018. Patients were classified into the pre-intervention group (from January 2009 to December 2013) and the post-intervention group (from January 2014 to December 2018). A significant decrease in definitive carbapenem use (P = 0.0242) and an increase in empiric tazobactam/piperacillin use (P = 0.0262) were observed in the post-intervention group. The de-escalation rate increased significantly from 9.38% to 32.7% (P = 0.0316) in the post-intervention group. The susceptibility of Bacteroides species and 30-day mortality did not worsen in the post-intervention group. These results showed that interventions by an AST can reduce carbapenem use and increase the de-escalation rate without worsening patient outcomes.

Impact of antimicrobial de-escalation on mortality: a literature review of study methodology and recommendations for observational studies

Introduction: The safety of de-escalation of empirical antimicrobial therapy is largely based on observational data, with many reporting protective effects on mortality. As there is no plausible biological explanation for this phenomenon, it is most probably caused by confounding by indication.Areas covered: We evaluate the methodology used in observational studies on the effects of de-escalation of antimicrobial therapy on mortality. We extended the search for a recent systematic review and identified 52 observational studies. The heterogeneity in study populations was large. Only 19 (36.5%) studies adjusted for confounders and four (8%) adjusted for clinical stability during admission, all as a fixed variable. All studies had methodological limitations, most importantly the lack of adjustment for clinical stability, causing bias toward a protective effect.Expert opinion: The methodology used in studies evaluating the effects of de-escalation on mortality requires improvement. We depicted all potential confounders in a directed acyclic graph to illustrate all associations between exposure (de-escalation) and outcome (mortality). Clinical stability is an important confounder in this association and should be modeled as a time-varying variable. We recommend to include de-escalation as time-varying exposure and use inverse-probability-of-treatment weighted marginal structural models to properly adjust for time-varying confounders.

Pharmacist recommendations for carbapenem de-escalation in urinary tract infection within an antimicrobial stewardship program

BACKGROUND

Carbapenem antibiotics are considered the treatment of choice for serious extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacteria infections. Our objectives were to analyze the results of carbapenem de-escalation therapy in complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) attended in a third-level Spanish hospital and to evaluate the impact of pharmacist recommendation in this practice, the outcomes obtained, and associated factors.

METHODS

This prospective observational study of carbapenem prescriptions and de-escalation performance was conducted in a third-level hospital between August 1 2013 and July 31, 2014. Data were gathered on carbapenem treatment duration, de-escalation, length of hospital stay, mortality rate, and associated re-admissions.

RESULTS

De-escalation, which was only ordered for patients with positive cultures, was conducted in 49.7% of the 163 patients with complicated UTI. More than half (69.1%) of pharmacist interventions were accepted. De-escalation reduced the median hospital stay by five days (p=0.030). Crude hospital mortality was lower in the de-escalation group (7.4% vs. 29.3%, p<0.001), although their exposure to carbapenems was lower (4 vs 6 days, p<0.001). Factors associated with de-escalation were ICU stay for at least 48h, pharmacist recommendation and ESBL or AmpC producing Enterobacteriaceae. Factors associated with in-hospital mortality were age, previous admission and duration of hospital stay, but not pharmacist recommendation. Otherwise, carbapenem de-escalation was associated as a protective factor against in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Carbapenem de-escalation in accordance with pharmacist recommendation proved to be a safe approach in complicated UTI, reducing the hospital stay of patients without affecting the re-admission rate.

Impact of an automated antibiotic time-out alert on the de-escalation of broad-spectrum antibiotics at a large community teaching hospital

Broad-spectrum antibiotic de-escalation before and after implementation of a 72-hour antibiotic time-out alert within the electronic medical record was analyzed. De-escalation occurred significantly more often after the implementation of the alert (55.0% vs 35.1%; 95% confidence interval, -0.3491 to -0.0488; P < .01).

Efficacy and safety of antimicrobial de-escalation as a clinical strategy

INTRODUCTION

De-escalation is a widely recommended strategy in regard to guidelines, with an associated adherence to guidelines being around 50%. This review discusses data supporting de-escalation and possible obstacles for its implementation. Areas covered: Although it does not have a consensual definition, de-escalation consists of reducing the spectrum of empirical antimicrobial treatment based on the microbiological findings. Many observational studies have suggested that this strategy is likely safe and efficient for treating various types of infection. However, randomized controlled trials published as of now have not shown any improvement on the outcomes. Regarding the adverse effects of de-escalation on ecological pressure and multidrug resistance emergence, the data are contradictory. The implementation of new techniques, such as rapid diagnosis, can help guide clinicians. Expert opinion: De-escalation should be included as part of a large antibiotic stewardship program to balance the risk and benefit of each administration, and each physician prescribing antibiotics should be challenged for the quality of her/his prescription on a daily basis. In the future, one of our duties will involve determining whether a delay of antimicrobial treatment - making it possible to improve diagnostic performance and obtain the first laboratory results - is either safe or unsafe for our patients.

Management of complicated skin and soft tissue infections with a special focus on the role of newer antibiotics

Complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) represent the severe form of infectious disease that involves deeper soft tissues. Involvement of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) further complicates cSSTI with increased hospitalization, health care costs, and overall mortality. Various international guidelines provide recommendations on the management of cSSTIs, with the inclusion of newer antibiotics. This literature-based review discusses the overall management of cSSTI, including appropriate use of antibiotics in clinical practice. Successful treatment of cSSTIs starts with early and precise diagnosis, including identification of causative pathogen and its load, determination of infection severity, associated complications, and risk factors. The current standard-of-care for cSSTIs involves incision, drainage, surgical debridement, broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy, and supportive care. In recent years, the emergence of newer antibiotics (eg, ceftaroline, tigecycline, daptomycin, linezolid, etc) has provided clinicians wider options of antimicrobial therapy. Selection of antibiotics should be based on the drug characteristics, effectiveness, safety, and treatment costs, alongside other aspects such as host factors and local multidrug resistance rates. However, larger studies on newer antibiotics are warranted to refine the decision making on the appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Local Antimicrobial Stewardship Program strategies in health care settings could guide clinicians for early initiation of specific treatments to combat region-specific antimicrobial resistance, minimize adverse effects, and to improve outcomes such as reduction in Clostridium difficile infections. These strategies involving iv-to-oral switch, de-escalation to narrow-spectrum antibiotics, and dose optimization have an impact on the overall improvement of cSSTI therapy outcomes, especially in countries like Singapore that has a high disease burden.

Impact of interventions by an antimicrobial stewardship program team on appropriate antimicrobial therapy in patients with bacteremic urinary tract infection

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate antimicrobial therapy often leads to poor outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) team on appropriate therapy, in patients with bacteremic urinary tract infection (UTI).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the interventions by the ASP team in 807 patients with bacteremic UTI. Interventions were divided into 3 groups: group A (conventional report), group B (conventional report and written alert on the chart), and group C (conventional report and oral recommendation with/without written alert). The appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy was assessed at 2 time points, based on blood culture results.

RESULTS

The ASP team estimated that 166 and 576 patients received inappropriate antimicrobial therapy based on the results of Gram staining, and final report, respectively. Appropriate therapy after intervention was administered to 53.2% of group A, 63.5% of group B, and 89.3% of group C patients, respectively. Mortality was significantly lower in patients of de-escalation than in those with no antimicrobial changes, without prolonged hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

This study provides one plausible benchmark for appropriate antimicrobial therapy by ASP, while observer bias and survivor treatment selection bias exist, and further studies including evaluation for severity are needed.

Strategies to enhance rational use of antibiotics in hospital: a guideline by the German Society for Infectious Diseases

Introduction

In the time of increasing resistance and paucity of new drug development there is a growing need for strategies to enhance rational use of antibiotics in German and Austrian hospitals. An evidence-based guideline on recommendations for implementation of antibiotic stewardship (ABS) programmes was developed by the German Society for Infectious Diseases in association with the following societies, associations and institutions: German Society of Hospital Pharmacists, German Society for Hygiene and Microbiology, Paul Ehrlich Society for Chemotherapy, The Austrian Association of Hospital Pharmacists, Austrian Society for Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Austrian Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Robert Koch Institute.

Materials and methods

A structured literature research was performed in the databases EMBASE, BIOSIS, MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library from January 2006 to November 2010 with an update to April 2012 (MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library). The grading of recommendations in relation to their evidence is according to the AWMF Guidance Manual and Rules for Guideline Development.

Conclusion

The guideline provides the grounds for rational use of antibiotics in hospital to counteract antimicrobial resistance and to improve the quality of care of patients with infections by maximising clinical outcomes while minimising toxicity. Requirements for a successful implementation of ABS programmes as well as core and supplemental ABS strategies are outlined. The German version of the guideline was published by the German Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF) in December 2013.

De-escalation empirical antibiotic therapy improved survival for patients with severe aplastic anemia treated with antithymocyte globulin

We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of de-escalation empirical therapy for controlling infection in patients with severe aplastic anaemia (SAA) treated with antithymocyte globulin (ATG). Eighty-seven ATG-treated SAA patients who had microbiological culture-confirmed infections from 2006 to 2015 in our center were retrospectively analyzed. The efficacy of de-escalation and non-de-escalation therapy was compared. Among all 87 patients, 63 patients were treated with de-escalation therapy and 24 patients with non-de-escalation therapy. More patients showed response to anti-infection treatment in de-escalation group than in non-de-escalation group both on day 7 (60.32% vs. 25.00%, P = 0.003) and on day 30 (79.37% vs. 58.33%, P = 0.047) since the initial antimicrobial therapy. On day 30, more patients had increased absolute neutrophil count in de-escalation group compared with non-de-escalation group (76.19% vs. 45.83%, P = 0.007), and de-escalation group had lower morality rate (17.46% vs. 37.50%, P = 0.047) and better survival outcome (P = 0.023) on day 90. Twenty-three patients in de-escalation group and 5 patients in non-escalation group received granulocyte transfusions. Granulocyte transfusions helped to control infections in both de-escalation group (P = 0.027) and non-de-escalation group (P = 0.042) on day 7, but did not improve survival on day 90. We concluded that de-escalation antibiotics improved survival in SAA patients after ATG treatment. Early administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics pending microbiological cultures combined with a commitment to change to narrow-spectrum antibiotics should be recommended for controlling infections in SAA patients treated with ATG. Granulocyte transfusions might be an adjunctive therapy in controlling infections.

Frequency of empiric antibiotic de-escalation in an acute care hospital with an established Antimicrobial Stewardship Program

BACKGROUND

Expanding antimicrobial resistance patterns in the face of stagnant growth in novel antibiotic production underscores the importance of antibiotic stewardship in which de-escalation remains an integral component. We measured the frequency of antibiotic de-escalation in a tertiary care medical center with an established antimicrobial stewardship program to provide a plausible benchmark for de-escalation.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational study was performed by review of randomly selected electronic medical records of 240 patients who received simultaneous piperacillin/tazobactam and vancomycin from January to December 2011 at an 885-bed tertiary care medical center. Patient characteristics including antibiotic regimen, duration and indication, culture results, length of stay, and hospital mortality were evaluated. Antibiotic de-escalation was defined as the use of narrower spectrum antibiotics or the discontinuation of antibiotics after initiation of piperacillin/tazobactam and vancomycin therapy. Subjects dying within 72 h of antibiotic initiation were considered not de-escalated for subsequent analysis and were subtracted from the study population in determining a modified mortality rate.

RESULTS

The most commonly documented indications for piperacillin/tazobactam and vancomycin therapy were pneumonia and sepsis. Of the 240 patients studied, 151 (63%) had their antibiotic regimens de-escalated by 72 h. The proportion of patients de-escalated by 96 h with positive vs. negative cultures was similar, 71 and 72%, respectively. Median length of stay was 4 days shorter in de-escalated patients, and the difference in adjusted mortality was not significant (p = 0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

The empiric antibiotic regimens of approximately two-thirds of patients were de-escalated by 72 h in an institution with a well-established antimicrobial stewardship program. While this study provides one plausible benchmark for antibiotic de-escalation, further studies, including evaluations of antibiotic appropriateness and patient outcomes, are needed to inform decisions on potential benchmarks for antibiotic de-escalation.

Determinants of Deescalation Failure in Critically Ill Patients with Sepsis: A Prospective Cohort Study

Introduction. Deescalation refers to either discontinuation or a step-down of antimicrobials. Despite strong recommendations in the Surviving Sepsis Guidelines (2012) to deescalate, actual practices can vary. Our objective was to identify variables that are associated with deescalation failure. Methods. In this prospective study of patients with sepsis/septic shock, patients were categorized into 4 groups based on antibiotic administration: no change in antibiotics, deescalation, escalation (where antibiotics were changed to those with a broader spectrum of antimicrobial coverage), or mixed changes (where both escalation to a broader spectrum of coverage and discontinuation of antibiotics were carried out). Results. 395 patients were studied; mean APACHE II score was 24 ± 7.8. Antimicrobial deescalation occurred in 189 (48%) patients; no changes were made in 156 (39%) patients. On multivariate regression analysis, failure to deescalate was significantly predicted by hematologic malignancy OR 3.3 (95% CI 1.4-7.4) p < 0.004, fungal sepsis OR 2.7 (95% CI 1.2-5.8) p = 0.011, multidrug resistance OR 2.9 (95% CI 1.4-6.0) p = 0.003, baseline serum procalcitonin OR 1.01 (95% CI 1.003-1.016) p = 0.002, and SAPS II scores OR 1.01 (95% CI 1.004-1.02) p = 0.006. Conclusions. Current deescalation practices reflect physician reluctance when dealing with complicated, sicker patients or with drug-resistance or fungal sepsis. Integrating an antibiotic stewardship program may increase physician confidence and provide support towards increasing deescalation rates.

Is de-escalation of antimicrobials effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

De-escalation therapy is a strategy used widely to treat infections while avoiding the use of broad-spectrum antimicrobials. However, there is a paucity of clinical evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of de-escalation therapy compared to conventional therapy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on de-escalation therapy for a variety of infections. A search of the MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases up to July 2015 for relevant studies was performed. The primary outcome was relevant mortality, such as 30-day mortality and in-hospital mortality. A meta-analysis was to be conducted for the pooled odds ratio using the random-effects model when possible. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies were included in the analysis. There was no difference in mortality for most infections, and some studies favored de-escalation over non-de-escalation for better survival. The quality of most studies included was not high.

CONCLUSIONS

This review and analysis suggests that de-escalation therapy is safe and effective for most infections, although higher quality studies are needed in the future.

Antibiotic de-escalation for bloodstream infections and pneumonia: systematic review and meta-analysis

Antibiotic de-escalation is an appealing strategy in antibiotic stewardship programmes. We aimed to assess its safety and effects using a systematic review and meta-analysis. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing adults with bacteraemia, microbiologically documented pneumonia or severe sepsis, comparing between antibiotic de-escalation and no de-escalation. De-escalation was defined as changing an initially covering antibiotic regimen to a narrower spectrum regimen based on antibiotic susceptibility testing results within 96 hours. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. A search of published articles and conference proceedings was last updated in September 2015. Crude and adjusted ORs with 95% CI were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. Sixteen observational studies and three RCTs were included. Risk of bias related to confounding was high in the observational studies. De-escalation was associated with fewer deaths in the unadjusted analysis (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.39-0.73), 19 studies, moderate heterogeneity. In the adjusted analysis there was no significant difference in mortality (adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59-1.16), 11 studies, moderate heterogeneity and the RCTs showed non-significant increased mortality with de-escalation (OR 1.73, 95% 0.97-3.06), three trials, no heterogeneity. There was a significant unadjusted association between de-escalation and survival in bacteraemia/severe sepsis (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30-0.67) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26-0.95), but not with other pneumonia (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.45-2.12). Only two studies reported on the emergence of resistance with inconsistent findings. Observational studies suggest lower mortality with antibiotic susceptibility testing-based de-escalation for bacteraemia, severe sepsis and ventilator-associated pneumonia that was not demonstrated in RCTs.

Antimicrobial de-escalation of treatment for healthcare-associated pneumonia within the Veterans Healthcare Administration

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to measure quantitatively antimicrobial de-escalation utilizing electronic medication administration data based on the spectrum of activity for antimicrobial therapy (i.e. spectrum score) to identify variables associated with de-escalation in a nationwide healthcare system.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized for healthcare-associated pneumonia was conducted in Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (n = 119). Patients hospitalized for healthcare-associated pneumonia on acute-care wards between 5 and 14 days who received antimicrobials for ≥ 3 days during calendar years 2008-11 were evaluated. The spectrum score method was applied at the patient level to measure de-escalation on day 4 of hospitalization. De-escalation was expressed in aggregate and facility-level proportions. Logistic regression was used to assess variables associated with de-escalation. ORs with 95% CIs were reported.

RESULTS

Among 9319 patients, the de-escalation proportion was 28.3% (95% CI 27.4-29.2), which varied 6-fold across facilities [median (IQR) facility-level de-escalation proportion 29.1% (95% CI 21.7-35.6)]. Variables associated with de-escalation included initial broad-spectrum therapy (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.4-1.5 for each 10% increase in spectrum), collection of respiratory tract cultures (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0-1.2) and care in higher complexity facilities (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.6). Respiratory tract cultures were collected from 35.3% (95% CI 32.7-37.7) of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

De-escalation of antimicrobial therapy was limited and varied substantially across facilities. De-escalation was associated with respiratory tract culture collection and treatment in a high complexity-level facility.

De-escalation therapy among bacteraemic patients with community-acquired pneumonia

There is no evidence supporting the use of de-escalation therapy (DET) among patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). We assessed the outcomes associated with DET among bacteraemic CAP patients. We performed a secondary analysis of the Community-Acquired Pneumonia Organization database, which contains data on 660 bacteraemic patients hospitalized because of CAP in 35 countries (2001-2013). Exclusion criteria were death within 72 h from admission and an inappropriate empirical antibiotic regimen. DET was defined as changing an appropriate empirical broad-spectrum regimen to a narrower-spectrum regimen according to culture results within 7 days from hospital admission. Two study groups were identified: patients whose antibiotic therapy was de-escalated (the DET group), and patients whose antibiotic therapy was not de-escalated (the N-DET group). The primary study outcome was 30-day mortality. Two hundred and sixty-one bacteraemic CAP patients were included. Gram-positive bacteria were responsible for 88.1% of the cases (Streptococcus pneumoniae, 75.9%). Gram-negative bacteria were responsible for for 7.3% of the cases. DET was performed in 165 patients (63.2%). The N-DET group was characterized by a more severe presentation at admission. After adjustment for confounders, DET was not associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality. DET seems to be safe among bacteraemic patients with CAP. Randomized clinical trials are warranted to further explore these findings.

Safety and clinical outcomes of carbapenem de-escalation as part of an antimicrobial stewardship programme in an ESBL-endemic setting

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and clinical outcomes of patients who received carbapenem de-escalation as guided by an antimicrobial stewardship programme (ASP) in a setting where ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae are endemic.

METHODS

Patients receiving meropenem or imipenem underwent a prospective ASP review for eligibility for de-escalation according to defined institutional guidelines. Patients in whom carbapenem was de-escalated or not de-escalated, representing the acceptance and rejection of the ASP recommendation, respectively, were compared. The primary outcome was the clinical success rate; secondary outcomes included the 30 day readmission and mortality rates, the duration of carbapenem therapy, the incidence of adverse drug reactions due to antimicrobials, the acquisition of carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria and the occurrence of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea (CDAD).

RESULTS

The de-escalation recommendations for 300 patients were evaluated; 204 (68.0%) were accepted. The patient demographics and disease severity were similar. The clinical success rates were similar [de-escalated versus not de-escalated, 183/204 (89.7%) versus 85/96 (88.5%), P=0.84], as was the survival at hospital discharge [173/204 (84.8%) versus 79/96 (82.3%), P=0.58]. In the de-escalated group, the duration of carbapenem therapy was shorter (6 versus 8 days, P<0.001), the rate of adverse drug reactions was lower [11/204 (5.4%) versus 12/96 (12.5%), P=0.037], there was less diarrhoea [9/204 (4.4%) versus 12/96 (12.5%), P=0.015], there was a lower incidence of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii acquisition [4/204 (2.0%) versus 7/96 (7.3%), P=0.042] and there was a lower incidence of CDAD [2/204 (1.0%) versus 4/96 (4.2%), P=0.081].

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the ASP-guided de-escalation of carbapenems led to comparable clinical success, fewer adverse effects and a lower incidence of the development of resistance. This approach is safe and practicable, and should be a key component of an ASP.

Treatment of bloodstream infections in ICUs

Bloodstream infections (BSIs) are frequent in ICU and is a prognostic factor of severe sepsis. Community acquired BSIs usually due to susceptible bacteria should be clearly differentiated from healthcare associated BSIs frequently due to resistant hospital strains. Early adequate treatment is key and should use guidelines and direct examination of samples performed from the infectious source. Previous antibiotic therapy knowledge, history of multi-drug resistant organism (MDRO) carriage are other major determinants of first choice antimicrobials in heathcare-associated and nosocomial BSIs. Initial antimicrobial dose should be adapted to pharmacokinetic knowledge. In general, a high dose is recommended at the beginning of treatment.

If MDRO is suspected combination antibiotic therapy is mandatory because it increase the spectrum of treatment. Most of time, combination should be pursued no more than 2 to 5 days.

Given the negative impact of useless antimicrobials, maximal effort should be done to decrease the antibiotic selection pressure. De-escalation from a broad spectrum to a narrow spectrum antimicrobial decreases the antibiotic selection pressure without negative impact on mortality. Duration of therapy should be shortened as often as possible especially when organism is susceptible, when the infection source has been totally controlled.

The Japanese guidelines for the management of sepsis

This is a guideline for the management of sepsis, developed by the Sepsis Registry Committee of The Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine (JSICM) launched in March 2007. This guideline was developed on the basis of evidence-based medicine and focuses on unique treatments in Japan that have not been included in the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines (SSCG), as well as treatments that are viewed differently in Japan and in Western countries. Although the methods in this guideline conform to the 2008 SSCG, the Japanese literature and the results of the Sepsis Registry Survey, which was performed twice by the Sepsis Registry Committee in intensive care units (ICUs) registered with JSICM, are also referred. This is the first and original guideline for sepsis in Japan and is expected to be properly used in daily clinical practice.

This article is translated from Japanese, originally published as “The Japanese Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis” in the Journal of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine (J Jpn Soc Intensive Care Med), 2013; 20:124–73. The original work is at http://dx.doi.org/10.3918/jsicm.20.124.

Optimizing antimicrobial therapy in critically ill patients

Critically ill patients with infection in the intensive care unit (ICU) would certainly benefit from timely bacterial identification and effective antimicrobial treatment. Diagnostic techniques have clearly improved in the last years and allow earlier identification of bacterial strains in some cases, but these techniques are still quite expensive and not readily available in all institutions. Moreover, the ever increasing rates of resistance to antimicrobials, especially in Gram-negative pathogens, are threatening the outcome for such patients because of the lack of effective medical treatment; ICU physicians are therefore resorting to combination therapies to overcome resistance, with the direct consequence of promoting further resistance. A more appropriate use of available antimicrobials in the ICU should be pursued, and adjustments in doses and dosing through pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics have recently shown promising results in improving outcomes and reducing antimicrobial resistance. The aim of multidisciplinary antimicrobial stewardship programs is to improve antimicrobial prescription, and in this review we analyze the available experiences of such programs carried out in ICUs, with emphasis on results, challenges, and pitfalls. Any effective intervention aimed at improving antibiotic usage in ICUs must be brought about at the present time; otherwise, we will face the challenge of intractable infections in critically ill patients in the near future.

Safety and feasibility of antibiotic de-escalation in bacteremic pneumonia

Background

Antibiotic de-escalation is a potential strategy advocated to conserve the effectiveness of broad-spectrum antibiotics. The aim of this study was to examine the safety and feasibility of antibiotic de-escalation in patients admitted with bacteremic pneumonia.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was done for patients with bacteremic pneumonia admitted to Northwest Texas Hospital in Amarillo, TX, USA, during 2008. Antibiotic de-escalation was defined as changing the empiric antibiotic regimen to a culture-directed single agent with a narrower spectrum than the original regimen.

Results

Sixty-eight patients were admitted with bacteremic pneumonia. Eight patients were not eligible for de-escalation. Among the 60 patients who were eligible for de-escalation, the treating physicians failed to de-escalate antibiotics in 27 cases (45.0%). Discharge to a long-term care facility predicted failure to de-escalate antibiotics, while an infectious diseases consultation was significantly associated with antibiotic de-escalation. The average daily cost of antibacterial therapy in the de-escalation group was $25.7 compared with $61.6 in the group where de-escalation was not implemented. The difference in mean length of hospital stay and mortality between the two groups was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Antibiotic de-escalation is a safe management strategy but unfortunately is not widely adopted. Although bacterial resistance poses a significant threat and is rising, antimicrobial de-escalation has emerged as a potential intervention that can conserve the effectiveness of broad-spectrum antibiotics without compromising the patient’s outcome. This practice is becoming important in the face of slow development of new anti-infective agents.

Effect of antibiotic streamlining on patient outcome in pneumococcal bacteraemia

OBJECTIVES

In blood culture-proven pneumococcal infections, streamlining empirical therapy to monotherapy with a penicillin is preferred in order to reduce the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. However, adherence to this international recommendation is poor, and curiously it is unclear whether antibiotic streamlining may be harmful to individual patients. We investigated whether streamlining in bacteraemic pneumococcal infections is associated with mortality.

METHODS

Adults admitted to two Dutch hospitals between 2001 and 2011 with bacteraemic pneumococcal infections were retrospectively included. Detailed clinical data on patient characteristics, comorbidities and severity and outcome of disease were obtained in addition to data on antibiotic treatment. Those eligible for streamlining were selected for further analyses.

RESULTS

In the 45.8% of cases (126 of 275) where antibiotic treatment was streamlined, a lower mortality rate was observed (6.3% versus 15.4%, P = 0.021). The decision to streamline was only marginally explained by the 38 determinants accounted for. After correction for potential confounders, the OR for death while streamlining was 0.45 (95% CI: 0.18-1.11, P = 0.082) in all cases and 0.35 (95% CI: 0.12-0.99, P = 0.048) specifically in pneumonia cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that streamlining in eligible pneumococcal bacteraemia cases is safe, irrespective of patient characteristics, severity of disease or empirical treatment regimen.

Septic pulmonary embolism originated from subcutaneous abscess after living donor liver transplantation: a pitfall of postoperative management

The use of immunosuppressants after liver transplantation (LT) is associated with postoperative complications, including infections. A 49-year-old male underwent living-donor (LD) LT because of primary sclerosing cholangitis. He was treated with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids as immunosuppressants, discharged on postoperative day (POD) 40, and re-admitted because of severe acute cellular rejection on POD 48. Three courses of steroid pulse therapy were performed, and continuous peripheral intravenous drip infusion therapy via the left forearm was necessary for 20 days because of appetite loss. The patient was discharged on POD 83, but re-admitted on POD 87 with pyrexia. A subcutaneous abscess was present at a puncture wound on the left forearm formed by an intravenous drip during the last hospital stay. Furthermore, computed tomography showed five pieces of cavitary or wedge-shaped nodules in the bilateral lung. Because sputum revealed the presence of Gram-positive coccus, and subcutaneous abscess and blood cultures revealed Staphylococcus aureus, the pathogenesis was septic pulmonary embolism (SPE) secondary to S. aureus septicemia originating from a subcutaneous abscess formed by an intravenous drip. The patient was treated with drainage of the subcutaneous abscess and antibiotic therapy, and recovered immediately. Although there have been few reports of SPE after LDLT, SPE is fatal in up to 13.3 % of patients. Early diagnosis, drainage of the infectious source, and appropriate use of antimicrobial therapy should be necessary to overcome SPE. Furthermore, the identical intravenous catheters should be removed whenever possible to avoid infectious complications including SPE for patients who receive steroid pulse therapy after LDLT.

The "de-escalation concept" and antibiotic de-escalation: a missed opportunity?

"De-escalation therapy" is a term that suggests the need to reduce the spectrum or the number of antibiotics formerly prescribed for critical patients, upon clinical improvement and/or microorganism recovery. The major goal of this concept is the use of broad-spectrum antibiotic agents as initial drugs of choice for severe patients, instead of "reserving" the most potent agents after an inadequate clinical response, or after the microorganism is recovered. Despite possible commercial concerns and an unproven but possible relationship with enhancing global antibiotic use, the concept was correct and in accordance with scientific evidence. However, the "de-escalation" component of the concept is very seldom reported, and no large clinical trial on this issue is available until today. To definitely put in practice this concept, comparative large trials must be designed and sponsored to insert this strategy at the same level of evidence of wide initial empiric antibiotic treatments.

De-escalation of empirical therapy is associated with lower mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock

PURPOSES

We set out to assess the safety and the impact on in-hospital and 90-day mortality of antibiotic de-escalation in patients admitted to the ICU with severe sepsis or septic shock.

METHODS

We carried out a prospective observational study enrolling patients admitted to the ICU with severe sepsis or septic shock. De-escalation was defined as discontinuation of an antimicrobial agent or change of antibiotic to one with a narrower spectrum once culture results were available. To control for confounding variables, we performed a conventional regression analysis and a propensity score (PS) adjusted-multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 712 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock at ICU admission were treated empirically with broad-spectrum antibiotics. Of these, 628 were evaluated (84 died before cultures were available). De-escalation was applied in 219 patients (34.9%). By multivariate analysis, factors independently associated with in-hospital mortality were septic shock, SOFA score the day of culture results, and inadequate empirical antimicrobial therapy, whereas de-escalation therapy was a protective factor [Odds-Ratio (OR) 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36-0.93). Analysis of the 403 patients with adequate empirical therapy revealed that the factor associated with mortality was SOFA score on the day of culture results, whereas de-escalation therapy was a protective factor (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.33-0.89). The PS-adjusted logistic regression models confirmed that de-escalation therapy was a protective factor in both analyses. De-escalation therapy was also a protective factor for 90-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

De-escalation therapy for severe sepsis and septic shock is a safe strategy associated with a lower mortality. Efforts to increase the frequency of this strategy are fully justified.

Infection control team activity and recent antibiograms in the Kobe University Hospital

The hospital infection control team (ICT) has a major role in suppressing or preventing infectious diseases. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the work of the ICT had affected the antibiograms at the Kobe University Hospital in the past 3 years. The ICT's works are as follows: (1) to monitor whether physicians are instructed in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics; (2) to check whether measures for preventing the occurrence or spread of infectious disease are performed along with appropriate standard precautions; (3) to provide rapid communication with physicians in bacteremia cases and (4) reporting the antibiograms in the hospital. In addition, we investigated changes in the antibiograms every 6 months based on all materials. There were 193 physician interventions in 2010 and 491 in 2011. The representative isolated bacteria included no additional bacteria with lower susceptibilities found over the past 1.5 years compared with the initial 1.5 years in the 3-year investigation period. The ratio for performing two sets of blood culture tests in all blood culture tests showed an upward tendency from 58.1% in 2009 to 71.1% in 2010 and 80.3% in 2011 (r=0.995, P=0.063, b=0.089). In conclusion, since the introduction of an expanded ICT role, our data showed an increased antibiotic susceptibilities in bacteria such as Enteroccus faecalis and the total amount of hand disinfectant agents tended to increase year by year, even though direct statistical analyses could not easily be performed. Further observation may be necessary for a definitive evaluation of ICT activities.

De-escalation of antimicrobial treatment for adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock

BACKGROUND

Mortality rates among patients with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock are highly variable throughout different regions or services and can be upwards of 50%. Empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment is aimed at achieving adequate antimicrobial therapy, thus reducing mortality; however, there is a risk that empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment can expose patients to overuse of antimicrobials. De-escalation has been proposed as a strategy to replace empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment by using a narrower antimicrobial therapy. This is done by reviewing the patient's microbial culture results and then making changes to the pharmacological agent or discontinuing a pharmacological combination.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of de-escalation antimicrobial treatment for adult patients diagnosed with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock caused by any micro-organism.

SEARCH METHODS

In this updated version, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 10); MEDLINE via PubMed (from inception to October 2012); EMBASE (from inception to October 2012); LILACS (from inception to October 2012); Current Controlled Trials; bibliographic references of relevant studies; and specialists in the area. We applied no language restriction. We had previously searched the databases to August 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing de-escalation (based on culture results) versus standard therapy for adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock. The primary outcome was mortality (at 28 days, hospital discharge or at the end of the follow-up period). Studies including patients initially treated with an empirical but not adequate antimicrobial therapy were not considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors planned to independently select and extract data and to evaluate methodological quality of all studies. We planned to use relative risk (risk ratio) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals. We planned to use the random-effects statistical model when the estimate effects of two or more studies could be combined in a meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search strategy retrieved 493 studies. No published RCTs testing de-escalation of antimicrobial treatment for adult patients diagnosed with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic were included in this review. We found one ongoing RCT.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no adequate, direct evidence as to whether de-escalation of antimicrobial agents is effective and safe for adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock. This uncertainty warrants further research via RCTs and the authors are awaiting the results of an ongoing RCT testing the de-escalation of empirical antimicrobial therapy for severe sepsis.

Antibiotic strategies in severe nosocomial sepsis: why do we not de-escalate more often?

OBJECTIVES

To assess the use of antibiotic de-escalation in patients with hospital-acquired severe sepsis in an academic setting.

DESIGN

We reviewed all episodes of severe sepsis treated over a 1-yr period in the department of intensive care. Antimicrobial therapy was considered as appropriate when the antimicrobial had in vitro activity against the causative microorganisms. According to the therapeutic strategy in the 5 days after the start of antimicrobial therapy, we classified patients into four groups: de-escalation (interruption of an antimicrobial agent or change of antibiotic to one with a narrower spectrum); no change in antibiotherapy; escalation (addition of a new antimicrobial agent or change in antibiotic to one with a broader spectrum); and mixed changes.

SETTING

A 35-bed medico-surgical intensive care department in which antibiotic strategies are reviewed by infectious disease specialists three times per week.

PATIENTS

One hundred sixty-nine patients with 216 episodes of severe sepsis attributable to a hospital-acquired infection who required broad-spectrum β-lactam antibiotics alone or in association with other anti-infectious agents.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The major sources of infection were the lungs (44%) and abdomen (38%). Microbiological data were available in 167 of the 216 episodes (77%). Initial antimicrobial therapy was inappropriate in 27 episodes (16% of culture-positive episodes). De-escalation was applied in 93 episodes (43%), escalation was applied in 22 episodes (10%), mixed changes were applied in 24 (11%) episodes, and there was no change in empirical antibiotic therapy in 77 (36%) episodes. In these 77 episodes, the reasons given for maintaining the initial antimicrobial therapy included the sensitivity pattern of the causative organisms and previous antibiotic therapy. The number of episodes when the chance to de-escalate may have been missed was small (4 episodes [5%]).

CONCLUSION

Even in a highly focused environment with close collaboration among intensivists and infectious disease specialists, de-escalation may actually be possible in <50% of cases.

Recent Publications on Medications and Pharmacy

Hospital Pharmacy presents this feature to keep pharmacists abreast of new publications in the medical/pharmacy literature. Articles of interest regarding a broad scope of topics are abstracted monthly. Suggestions or comments may be addressed to Flint Russett, St. Claire Regional Medical Center, 222 Medical Circle, Morehead, KY 40351, or e-mail: FSRussett@st-claire.org .