Lessons learned from implementing Clostridium difficile-focused antibiotic stewardship interventions

Clinical impact of a Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile bedside infectious disease stewardship intervention

Objectives

To evaluate the clinical impact of a bedside visit to patients with a positive Clostridioides difficile test on the antimicrobial stewardship of C. difficile infection (CDI) and non-C. difficile infections.

Methods

All patients ≥18 years old with positive CDI laboratory tests hospitalized between January 2017 and August 2017 received an immediate bedside intervention that consisted mainly of checking protective measures and providing recommendations on infection control and the management of CDI and other infections.

Results

A total of 214 patients were evaluated. The infectious disease (ID) physician was the first to establish protective measures in 25.2% of the cases. In 22/29 (75.9%) cases, physicians in charge accepted ID consultant recommendations to stop CDI treatment in asymptomatic patients. Unnecessary non-CDI antibiotics were discontinued in 19.1% of the cases. ID recommendations were not accepted by physicians in charge in only 12.6% of the cases.

Conclusions

A bedside rapid intervention for patients with a CDI-positive faecal sample was effective in avoiding overdiagnosis and unnecessary antibiotic treatment, optimizing anti-CDI drugs, increasing compliance with infection control measures and providing educational advice.

Prospective evaluating the appropriate use of piperacillin /tazobactam in cardiac center of a tertiary care hospital

BACKGROUND

The appropriate use of Piperacillin/Tazobactam (Pip/Taz), including the correct dose, escalating and or de-escalation according to the microbiological culture is essential to reduce the antibiotic resistance. Resistant to antimicrobials in a major global problem and contributes significantly to morbidity, mortality and cost of care. Guidelines exists to ensure appropriate use of Pip/Taz. Antibiotics Stewardship guidelines (https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329404/9789241515481-eng.pdf) provides a detailed recommendation with regards to initiation, monitoring and escalation and de-escalation based on final culture results. Appling such guidelines ensures a more proper utilization of the empiric uses of antibiotics used in the hospital-based setting. Use of Pip/Taz in cases of suspected infection postoperatively is common practice in the cardiac surgery ward where this study was conducted.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study involving all patients who were admitted to the cardiac surgery unit of a tertiary care center. All patient prescribed at least 1 day of Pip/Taz as an empirical therapy were included and prospectively observed. We aimed to evaluate the use of Pip/Taz and its appropriateness based on Antibiotics Stewardship guidelines (ASG). Any deviation from the guidelines in initiation, escalation, de-escalation based on culture and sensitivity results was considered inappropriate use. Four patients died (1.3%) early as result of complications for surgery but included in the analysis. The study was conducted from October 2017 to October 2018.

RESULTS

Of the 300 patients who received Pip/Taz Cultures were done in 250 patients (83%). The overall appropriate use of Pip/Taz was seen in 166 patients (55.3%).

CONCLUSION

The empirical use of Pip/Taz in the surgical cardiac unit was largely inappropriate and not entirely driven by the culture test results. Interventions are needed to optimize the use of Pip/Taz including appropriate culture and sensitivity driven use and timely de-escalation or de-escalation when indicated. This will prevent emergence of resistance and reduce the patient toxicity and financial costs.

Calculated parenteral initial therapy of bacterial infections: Antibiotic treatment in the elderly

This is the fifteenth chapter of the guideline “Calculated initial parenteral treatment of bacterial infections in adults – update 2018” in the 2^nd updated version. The German guideline by the Paul-Ehrlich-Gesellschaft für Chemotherapie e.V. (PEG) has been translated to address an international audience.

Multimorbidity, an atypical symptomatology of infections in combination with multimedication, the associated interaction risks and serious consequences of synergistic side effects characterize the conditions when deciding on the use of antibiotics in old age. Strict decision regarding the indication itself, choice of the best antibiotic even considering rare side effects which may be dangerous in the elderly, determining the correct dose, dosing interval and the shortest possible duration according to the physiological status of the patient as well as monitoring effectiveness and toxicity detect expected and unexpected side effects early. Recommendations must reflect the peculiarities of antibiotic treatment in elderly patients.

Impact of Case-Specific Education and Face-to-Face Feedback to Prescribers and Nurses in the Management of Hospitalized Patients With a Positive Clostridium difficile Test

Background

Approaches to changing providers’ behavior around Clostridium difficile (CD) management are needed. We hypothesized that case-specific teaching points and face-to-face discussions with prescribers and nurses would improve management of patients with a positive CD test.

Methods

Charts of patients age ≥18 years with positive CD tests hospitalized July 2016 to May 2017 were prospectively reviewed to assess CD practices and generate management recommendations. The study had 4 periods: baseline (pre-intervention), intervention #1, observation, and intervention #2. Both interventions consisted of an in-person, real-time, case-based discussion and education by a CD Action Team (CDAT). Assessment occurred within 24 hours of a positive CD test for all periods; during the intervention periods, management was also assessed within 48 hours after CDAT-delivered recommendations. Outcomes included proportion of patients receiving optimized treatment and incidence rate ratios of practice changes (both CDAT-prompted and CDAT-independent).

Results

Overall, the CDAT made recommendations to 84 of 96 CD cases during intervention periods, and providers accepted 43% of CDAT recommendations. The implementation of the CDAT led to significant improvement in bowel movement (BM) documentation, use of proton pump inhibitors, and antibiotic selection for non-CD infections. Selection of CD-specific therapy improved only in the first intervention period. Laxative use and treatment of CD colonization cases remained unchanged. Only BM documentation, a nurse-driven task, was sustained independent of CDAT prompting.

Conclusions

A behavioral approach to changing the management of positive CD tests led to self-sustained practice changes among nurses but not physicians. Better understanding of prescribers’ decision-making is needed to devise enduring interventions.

Variation in antibiotic use among and within different settings: a systematic review

Objectives

Variation in antibiotic use may reflect inappropriate use. We aimed to systematically describe the variation in measures for antibiotic use among settings or providers. This study was conducted as part of the innovative medicines initiative (IMI)-funded international project DRIVE-AB.

Methods

We searched for studies published in MEDLINE from January 2004 to January 2015 reporting variation in measures for systemic antibiotic use (e.g. DDDs) in inpatient and outpatient settings. The ratio between a study's reported maximum and minimum values of a given measure [maximum:minimum ratio (MMR)] was calculated as a measure of variation. Similar measures were grouped into categories and when possible the overall median ratio and IQR were calculated.

Results

One hundred and forty-three studies were included, of which 85 (59.4%) were conducted in Europe and 12 (8.4%) in low- to middle-income countries. Most studies described the variation in the quantity of antibiotic use in the inpatient setting (81/143, 56.6%), especially among hospitals (41/81, 50.6%). The most frequent measure was DDDs with different denominators, reported in 23/81 (28.4%) inpatient studies and in 28/62 (45.2%) outpatient studies. For this measure, we found a median MMR of 3.7 (IQR 2.6-5.0) in 4 studies reporting antibiotic use in ICUs in DDDs/1000 patient-days and a median MMR of 2.3 (IQR 1.5-3.2) in 18 studies reporting outpatient antibiotic use in DDDs/1000 inhabitant-days. Substantial variation was also identified in other measures.

Conclusions

Our review confirms the large variation in antibiotic use even across similar settings and providers. Data from low- and middle-income countries are under-represented. Further studies should try to better elucidate reasons for the observed variation to facilitate interventions that reduce unwarranted practice variation. In addition, the heterogeneity of reported measures clearly shows that there is need for standardization.

Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic resistance is a major public health problem. Infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria are associated with prolonged hospital stay and death compared with infections caused by susceptible bacteria. Appropriate antibiotic use in hospitals should ensure effective treatment of patients with infection and reduce unnecessary prescriptions. We updated this systematic review to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effectiveness and safety of interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients and to investigate the effect of two intervention functions: restriction and enablement.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched for additional studies using the bibliographies of included articles and personal files. The last search from which records were evaluated and any studies identified incorporated into the review was January 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRS). We included three non-randomised study designs to measure behavioural and clinical outcomes and analyse variation in the effects: non- randomised trials (NRT), controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies. For this update we also included three additional NRS designs (case control, cohort, and qualitative studies) to identify unintended consequences. Interventions included any professional or structural interventions as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. We defined restriction as 'using rules to reduce the opportunity to engage in the target behaviour (or increase the target behaviour by reducing the opportunity to engage in competing behaviours)'. We defined enablement as 'increasing means/reducing barriers to increase capability or opportunity'. The main comparison was between intervention and no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. We performed meta-analysis and meta-regression of RCTs and meta-regression of ITS studies. We classified behaviour change functions for all interventions in the review, including those studies in the previously published versions. We analysed dichotomous data with a risk difference (RD). We assessed certainty of evidence with GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 221 studies (58 RCTs, and 163 NRS). Most studies were from North America (96) or Europe (87). The remaining studies were from Asia (19), South America (8), Australia (8), and the East Asia (3). Although 62% of RCTs were at a high risk of bias, the results for the main review outcomes were similar when we restricted the analysis to studies at low risk of bias.More hospital inpatients were treated according to antibiotic prescribing policy with the intervention compared with no intervention based on 29 RCTs of predominantly enablement interventions (RD 15%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 14% to 16%; 23,394 participants; high-certainty evidence). This represents an increase from 43% to 58% .There were high levels of heterogeneity of effect size but the direction consistently favoured intervention.The duration of antibiotic treatment decreased by 1.95 days (95% CI 2.22 to 1.67; 14 RCTs; 3318 participants; high-certainty evidence) from 11.0 days. Information from non-randomised studies showed interventions to be associated with improvement in prescribing according to antibiotic policy in routine clinical practice, with 70% of interventions being hospital-wide compared with 31% for RCTs. The risk of death was similar between intervention and control groups (11% in both arms), indicating that antibiotic use can likely be reduced without adversely affecting mortality (RD 0%, 95% CI -1% to 0%; 28 RCTs; 15,827 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Antibiotic stewardship interventions probably reduce length of stay by 1.12 days (95% CI 0.7 to 1.54 days; 15 RCTs; 3834 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One RCT and six NRS raised concerns that restrictive interventions may lead to delay in treatment and negative professional culture because of breakdown in communication and trust between infection specialists and clinical teams (low-certainty evidence).Both enablement and restriction were independently associated with increased compliance with antibiotic policies, and enablement enhanced the effect of restrictive interventions (high-certainty evidence). Enabling interventions that included feedback were probably more effective than those that did not (moderate-certainty evidence).There was very low-certainty evidence about the effect of the interventions on reducing Clostridium difficile infections (median -48.6%, interquartile range -80.7% to -19.2%; 7 studies). This was also the case for resistant gram-negative bacteria (median -12.9%, interquartile range -35.3% to 25.2%; 11 studies) and resistant gram-positive bacteria (median -19.3%, interquartile range -50.1% to +23.1%; 9 studies). There was too much variance in microbial outcomes to reliably assess the effect of change in antibiotic use. Heterogeneity of intervention effect on prescribing outcomesWe analysed effect modifiers in 29 RCTs and 91 ITS studies. Enablement and restriction were independently associated with a larger effect size (high-certainty evidence). Feedback was included in 4 (17%) of 23 RCTs and 20 (47%) of 43 ITS studies of enabling interventions and was associated with greater intervention effect. Enablement was included in 13 (45%) of 29 ITS studies with restrictive interventions and enhanced intervention effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-certainty evidence that interventions are effective in increasing compliance with antibiotic policy and reducing duration of antibiotic treatment. Lower use of antibiotics probably does not increase mortality and likely reduces length of stay. Additional trials comparing antibiotic stewardship with no intervention are unlikely to change our conclusions. Enablement consistently increased the effect of interventions, including those with a restrictive component. Although feedback further increased intervention effect, it was used in only a minority of enabling interventions. Interventions were successful in safely reducing unnecessary antibiotic use in hospitals, despite the fact that the majority did not use the most effective behaviour change techniques. Consequently, effective dissemination of our findings could have considerable health service and policy impact. Future research should instead focus on targeting treatment and assessing other measures of patient safety, assess different stewardship interventions, and explore the barriers and facilitators to implementation. More research is required on unintended consequences of restrictive interventions.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of an Antimicrobial Stewardship Program on Reducing the Incidence Rate of Healthcare-Associated Clostridium difficile Infection: A Non-Randomized, Stepped Wedge, Single-Site, Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The incidence rate of healthcare-associated Clostridium difficile infection (HA-CDI) is estimated at 1 in 100 patients. Antibiotic exposure is the most consistently reported risk factor for HA-CDI. Strategies to reduce the risk of HA-CDI have focused on reducing antibiotic utilization. Prospective audit and feedback is a commonly used antimicrobial stewardship intervention (ASi). The impact of this ASi on risk of HA-CDI is equivocal. This study examines the effectiveness of a prospective audit and feedback ASi on reducing the risk of HA-CDI.

METHODS

Single-site, 339 bed community-hospital in Barrie, Ontario, Canada. Primary outcome is HA-CDI incidence rate. Daily prospective and audit ASi is the exposure variable. ASi implemented across 6 wards in a non-randomized, stepped wedge design. Criteria for ASi; any intravenous antibiotic use for ≥ 48 hrs, any oral fluoroquinolone or oral second generation cephalosporin use for ≥ 48 hrs, or any antimicrobial use for ≥ 5 days. HA-CDI cases and model covariates were aggregated by ward, year and month starting September 2008 and ending February 2016. Multi-level mixed effect negative binomial regression analysis was used to model the primary outcome, with intercept and slope coefficients for ward-level random effects estimated. Other covariates tested for inclusion in the final model were derived from previously published risk factors. Deviance residuals were used to assess the model's goodness-of-fit.

FINDINGS

The dataset included 486 observation periods, of which 350 were control periods and 136 were intervention periods. After accounting for all other model covariates, the estimated overall ASi incidence rate ratio (IRR) was 0.48 (95% 0.30, 0.79). The ASi effect was independent of antimicrobial utilization. The ASi did not seem to reduce the risk of Clostridium difficile infection on the surgery wards (IRR 0.87, 95% CI 0.45, 1.69) compared to the medicine wards (IRR 0.42, 95% CI 0.28, 0.63). The ward-level burden of Clostridium difficile as measured by the ward's previous month's total CDI cases (CDI Lag) and the ward's current month's community-associated CDI cases (CA-CDI) was significantly associated with an increased risk of HA-CDI, with the estimated CDI Lag IRR of 1.21 (95% 1.15, 1.28) and the estimated CA-CDI IRR of 1.10 (95% CI 1.01, 1.20). The ward-level random intercept and slope coefficients were not significant. The final model demonstrated good fit.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, a daily prospective audit and feedback ASi resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of HA-CDI on the medicine wards, however, this effect was independent of an overall reduction in antibiotic utilization. In addition, the ward-level burden of Clostridium difficile was shown to significantly increase the risk of HA-CDI, reinforcing the importance of the environment as a source of HA-CDI.

Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients

BACKGROUND

The first publication of this review in Issue 3, 2005 included studies up to November 2003. This update adds studies to December 2006 and focuses on application of a new method for meta-analysis of interrupted time series studies and application of new Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Risk of Bias criteria to all studies in the review, including those studies in the previously published version. The aim of the review is to evaluate the impact of interventions from the perspective of antibiotic stewardship. The two objectives of antibiotic stewardship are first to ensure effective treatment for patients with bacterial infection and second support professionals and patients to reduce unnecessary use and minimize collateral damage.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effectiveness of professional interventions that, alone or in combination, are effective in antibiotic stewardship for hospital inpatients, to evaluate the impact of these interventions on reducing the incidence of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens or Clostridium difficile infection and their impact on clinical outcome.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE from 1980 to December 2006 and the EPOC specialized register in July 2007 and February 2009 and bibliographies of retrieved articles. The main comparison is between interventions that had a restrictive element and those that were purely persuasive. Restrictive interventions were implemented through restriction of the freedom of prescribers to select some antibiotics. Persuasive interventions used one or more of the following methods for changing professional behaviour: dissemination of educational resources, reminders, audit and feedback, or educational outreach. Restrictive interventions could contain persuasive elements.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCT), controlled before-after (CBA) and interrupted time series studies (ITS). Interventions included any professional or structural interventions as defined by EPOC. The intervention had to include a component that aimed to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients, either by increasing effective treatment or by reducing unnecessary treatment. The results had to include interpretable data about the effect of the intervention on antibiotic prescribing or microbial outcomes or relevant clinical outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data and assessed quality. We performed meta-regression of ITS studies to compare the results of persuasive and restrictive interventions. Persuasive interventions advised physicians about how to prescribe or gave them feedback about how they prescribed. Restrictive interventions put a limit on how they prescribed; for example, physicians had to have approval from an infection specialist in order to prescribe an antibiotic. We standardized the results of some ITS studies so that they are on the same scale (percent change in outcome), thereby facilitating comparisons of different interventions. To do this, we used the change in level and change in slope to estimate the effect size with increasing time after the intervention (one month, six months, one year, etc) as the percent change in level at each time point. We did not extrapolate beyond the end of data collection after the intervention. The meta-regression was performed using standard weighted linear regression with the standard errors of the coefficients adjusted where necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update we included 89 studies that reported 95 interventions. Of the 89 studies, 56 were ITSs (of which 4 were controlled ITSs), 25 were RCT (of which 5 were cluster-RCTs), 5 were CBAs and 3 were CCTs (of which 1 was a cluster-CCT).Most (80/95, 84%) of the interventions targeted the antibiotic prescribed (choice of antibiotic, timing of first dose and route of administration). The remaining 15 interventions aimed to change exposure of patients to antibiotics by targeting the decision to treat or the duration of treatment. Reliable data about impact on antibiotic prescribing data were available for 76 interventions (44 persuasive, 24 restrictive and 8 structural). For the persuasive interventions, the median change in antibiotic prescribing was 42.3% for the ITSs, 31.6% for the controlled ITSs, 17.7% for the CBAs, 3.5% for the cluster-RCTs and 24.7% for the RCTs. The restrictive interventions had a median effect size of 34.7% for the ITSs, 17.1% for the CBAs and 40.5% for the RCTs. The structural interventions had a median effect of 13.3% for the RCTs and 23.6% for the cluster-RCTs. Data about impact on microbial outcomes were available for 21 interventions but only 6 of these also had reliable data about impact on antibiotic prescribing.Meta-analysis of 52 ITS studies was used to compare restrictive versus purely persuasive interventions. Restrictive interventions had significantly greater impact on prescribing outcomes at one month (32%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 61%, P = 0.03) and on microbial outcomes at 6 months (53%, 95% CI 31% to 75%, P = 0.001) but there were no significant differences at 12 or 24 months. Interventions intended to decrease excessive prescribing were associated with reduction in Clostridium difficile infections and colonization or infection with aminoglycoside- or cephalosporin-resistant gram-negative bacteria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis. Meta-analysis of clinical outcomes showed that four interventions intended to increase effective prescribing for pneumonia were associated with significant reduction in mortality (risk ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97), whereas nine interventions intended to decrease excessive prescribing were not associated with significant increase in mortality (risk ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results show that interventions to reduce excessive antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients can reduce antimicrobial resistance or hospital-acquired infections, and interventions to increase effective prescribing can improve clinical outcome. This update provides more evidence about unintended clinical consequences of interventions and about the effect of interventions to reduce exposure of patients to antibiotics. The meta-analysis supports the use of restrictive interventions when the need is urgent, but suggests that persuasive and restrictive interventions are equally effective after six months.