Impact of Antibiotic Stewardship Rounds in the Intensive Care Setting: a prospective cluster-randomized crossover study

Carbapenem use in extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales infections in US hospitals and influence of IDSA guidance: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Disparate and rapidly changing practice recommendations from major professional infectious diseases societies for managing non-severe infections caused by extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales might hamper carbapenem stewardship. We aimed to understand the real-world management of extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant (ECR) Enterobacterales infections in US hospitals and factors influencing preference for carbapenems over alternative treatments.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with ECR Enterobacterales infections in the PINC AI database. Antibiotic regimens were assessed during empirical and targeted treatment periods and by infection severity and site. Likelihood of receiving targeted carbapenems over time and before or after initial release of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidance on Sept 8, 2020, was established with generalised estimating equations controlling for patient, hospital, and temporal confounders.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 1, 2018, and Dec 31, 2021, 30 041 inpatient encounters with ECR Enterobacterales infections were identified at 168 US hospitals, of which 16 006 (53·3%) encounters were in women and 14 035 (46·7%) were in men, with a mean age of 67·3 years (SD 15·1). Although few patients received carbapenems empirically (5324 [17·7%] of 30 041), many did so as targeted treatment (17 518 [58·3%] of 30 041), including subgroups of patients without septic shock (3031 [45·6%] of 6651) and patients with urinary tract infections without septic shock (1845 [46·8%] of 3943) in whom specific narrower-spectrum alternatives were active. Transitions from non-carbapenem to carbapenem antibiotics occurred most often on the day that the ECR phenotype was reported, regardless of illness severity. Carbapenems were the predominant choice to treat ECR Enterobacterales infections over time (adjusted odds ratio 1·00 [95% CI 1·00-1·00]), with no additional immediate change (1·07 [0·95-1·20]) or sustained change (0·99 [0·98-1·00]) after IDSA guidance release.

INTERPRETATION

High carbapenem use in targeting non-severe ECR Enterobacterales infections in US hospitals predates 2020 IDSA guidance and has persisted thereafter. Efforts to increase awareness and implementation of recommendations among clinicians to use carbapenem-sparing alternatives in ECR Enterobacterales infections might decrease global carbapenem selective pressure.

FUNDING

US National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and US Food and Drug Administration.

Positive effects of audit and feedback on antimicrobial use in hospitalized patients limited to audited patients

Objective

Audit and feedback is an antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategy, with the potential to also optimize antimicrobial use in non-audited patients. This study aimed to determine whether audit and feedback reduce antimicrobial use in both audited and non-audited patients.

Design

Before-after trial with a 1-year intervention period and 2.5-year historical cohort.

Setting

750-bed community hospital in the Netherlands.

Patients

All patients admitted to the urology wards during the 3.5-year study period were observed. Patients were classified as using antimicrobials if any antimicrobial was used for therapeutic reasons. Patients using antimicrobials prophylactically were excluded from measurements.

Intervention

The AMS team provided audit and feedback on antimicrobial use for patients using antimicrobials for 2 days. Retrospectively, antimicrobial use and length of stay (LOS) were compared with the historical cohort.

Results

Audits modified antimicrobial treatment in 52.8% of the cases. De-escalating, stopping, and switching from intravenous to oral treatment accounted for 72% of these modifications. Compared to patients from the cohort, who also used antimicrobials for 2 days, antimicrobial use decreased from 14.21 DDD/patient (95% CI, 13.08-15.34) to 11.45 DDD/patient (95% CI, 8.26-14.64; P = .047) for audited patients. Furthermore, mean LOS decreased from 7.42 days (95% CI, 6.79-8.06) to 6.13 days (95% CI, 5.38-6.89; P = .031). However, looking at all patients admitted to the urology wards, the percentage of patients using antimicrobials and total antimicrobial use remained unchanged.

Conclusions

Audit and feedback reduce antimicrobial use and LOS, but only for audited patients. Positive effects are not automatically transferred to patients for whom no audits have been performed.

Long-Term Effects of a Stepwise, Multimodal, Non-Restrictive Antimicrobial Stewardship Programme for Reducing Broad-Spectrum Antibiotic Use in the ICU

Information on the long-term effects of non-restrictive antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies is scarce. We assessed the effect of a stepwise, multimodal, non-restrictive AMS programme on broad-spectrum antibiotic use in the intensive care unit (ICU) over an 8-year period. Components of the AMS were progressively implemented. Appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing was also assessed by monthly point-prevalence surveys from 2013 onwards. A Poisson regression model was fitted to evaluate trends in the reduction of antibiotic use and in the appropriateness of their prescription. From 2011 to 2019, a total of 12,466 patients were admitted to the ICU. Antibiotic use fell from 185.4 to 141.9 DDD per 100 PD [absolute difference, -43.5 (23%), 95% CI -100.73 to 13.73; p = 0.13] and broad-spectrum antibiotic fell from 41.2 to 36.5 [absolute difference, -4.7 (11%), 95% CI -19.58 to 10.18; p = 0.5]. Appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing rose by 11% per year [IRR: 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; p = 0.048], while broad-spectrum antibiotic use showed a dual trend, rising by 22% until 2015 and then falling by 10% per year since 2016 [IRR: 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99; p = 0.03]. This stepwise, multimodal, non-restrictive AMS achieved a sustained reduction in broad-spectrum antibiotic use in the ICU and significantly improved appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing.

CLinician and patient characteristics effect on Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions (CLASI) study

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the gender of clinicians making antimicrobial stewardship recommendations has an impact on intervention acceptance rate.

DESIGN

A retrospective, multivariable analysis of antimicrobial stewardship prospective audit and feedback outcomes.

SETTING

A multisite healthcare system including Mayo Clinic Rochester (MN), Mayo Clinic Arizona, Mayo Clinic Florida and 17 health-system hospital sites, where prospective audit and feedback is performed and documented within an electronic tool embedded in the medical record.

PARTICIPANTS

The study included 143 Mayo Clinic clinicians (84 cisfemales and 59 cismales).

METHODS

Outcomes were analyzed from July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2022, for intervention rates, communication methods, and intervention acceptance by clinician gender, profession, patient age, and intensive care unit (ICU) status of patient.

RESULTS

Of 81,927 rules, 71,729 rules met study inclusion. There were 18,175 (25%) rules associated with an intervention. Most of the rules were reviewed by pharmacists (86.2%) and stewardship staff (85.5%). Of 10,363 interventions with an outcome documented, 8,829 (85.2%) were accepted and 1,534 (14.8%) were rejected. Female clinicians had 6,782 (86.5%) of 7,843 interventions accepted, and male clinicians had 2,047 (81.2%) of 2,520 interventions accepted (P = .19). Female patients had more interventions than male patients (female vs male: 25.9% vs 24.9%; OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08; P = .001). Patients in the ICU had a significantly lower intervention acceptance rate (ICU vs non-ICU: 78.2% vs 86.7%; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45-0.7; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Female and male clinicians were equally effective at prospective audit and feedback in a multisite antimicrobial stewardship program. Patients in the ICU were less likely to have stewardship interventions accepted.

Mixed methods evaluation of handshake antimicrobial stewardship on adult inpatient medicine floors

Objective

To evaluate the effects of handshake antimicrobial stewardship on medicine floors at a large tertiary care hospital.

Design

Retrospective observational study.

Setting

1,278-bed academic hospital.

Patients

Adults admitted to non-ICU medicine services.

Interventions

A handshake stewardship team consisting of an infectious diseases (ID) physician and pharmacist reviewed charts of patients receiving antimicrobials on medicine floors without a formal ID consult. Recommendations were communicated in-person to providers and acceptance rates were examined with descriptive statistics. Additional data regarding program perception among providers were obtained via surveys. Antibiotic usage trends were extracted from National Healthcare Safety Network Antimicrobial Use option data and evaluated using an interrupted time-series analysis pre- and post-intervention.

Results

The overall acceptance rate of interventions was 80%, the majority being recommendations either to discontinue (37%) or de-escalate therapy (28%). Medical residents and hospitalists rated the intervention favorably with 90% reporting recommendations were helpful all or most of the time. There was a statistically significant decrease in vancomycin (78 vs 70 DOT/1,000 d present (DP), p = 0.002) and meropenem (24 vs 17 DOT/1,000 DP, p = 0.007) usage and a statistically significant increase in amoxicillin-clavulanate usage (11 vs 15 DOT/1,000 DP, p < 0.001). Overall antibiotic usage remained unchanged by the intervention, though pre-intervention there was a nonsignificant overall increasing trend while post-intervention there was a nonsignificant decreasing trend in overall usage. There was no change in in-hospital mortality.

Conclusion

The addition of handshake stewardship with adult medicine services was favorably viewed by participants and led to shifts in antibiotic usage.

Preventing Multidrug-Resistant Bacterial Transmission in the Intensive Care Unit with a Comprehensive Approach: A Policymaking Manual

Patients referred to intensive care units (ICU) commonly contract infections caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria, which are typically linked to complications and high mortality. There are numerous independent factors that are associated with the transmission of these pathogens in the ICU. Preventive multilevel measures that target these factors are of great importance in order to break the chain of transmission. In this review, we aim to provide essential guidance for the development of robust prevention strategies, ultimately ensuring the safety and well-being of patients and healthcare workers in the ICU. We discuss the role of ICU personnel in cross-contamination, existing preventative measures, novel technologies, and strategies employed, along with antimicrobial surveillance and stewardship (AMSS) programs, to construct effective and thoroughly described policy recommendations. By adopting a multifaceted approach that combines targeted interventions with broader preventive strategies, healthcare facilities can create a more coherent line of defense against the spread of MDR pathogens. These recommendations are evidence-based, practical, and aligned with the needs and realities of the ICU setting. In conclusion, this comprehensive review offers a blueprint for mitigating the risk of MDR bacterial transmission in the ICU, advocating for an evidence-based, multifaceted approach.

Antibiotic stewardship in the ICU: time to shift into overdrive

Antibiotic resistance is a major health problem and will be probably one of the leading causes of deaths in the coming years. One of the most effective ways to fight against resistance is to decrease antibiotic consumption. Intensive care units (ICUs) are places where antibiotics are widely prescribed, and where multidrug-resistant pathogens are frequently encountered. However, ICU physicians may have opportunities to decrease antibiotics consumption and to apply antimicrobial stewardship programs. The main measures that may be implemented include refraining from immediate prescription of antibiotics when infection is suspected (except in patients with shock, where immediate administration of antibiotics is essential); limiting empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics (including anti-MRSA antibiotics) in patients without risk factors for multidrug-resistant pathogens; switching to monotherapy instead of combination therapy and narrowing spectrum when culture and susceptibility tests results are available; limiting the use of carbapenems to extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae, and new beta-lactams to difficult-to-treat pathogen (when these news beta-lactams are the only available option); and shortening the duration of antimicrobial treatment, the use of procalcitonin being one tool to attain this goal. Antimicrobial stewardship programs should combine these measures rather than applying a single one. ICUs and ICU physicians should be at the frontline for developing antimicrobial stewardship programs.

Antimicrobial Stewardship on Patients with Neutropenia: A Narrative Review Commissioned by Microorganisms

The emergence of antibiotic resistance poses a global health threat. High-risk patients such as those with neutropenia are particularly vulnerable to opportunistic infections, sepsis, and multidrug-resistant infections, and clinical outcomes remain the primary concern. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs should mainly focus on optimizing antibiotic use, decreasing adverse effects, and improving patient outcomes. There is a limited number of published studies assessing the impact of AMS programs on patients with neutropenia, where early appropriate antibiotic choice can be the difference between life and death. This narrative review updates the current advances in strategies of AMS for bacterial infections among high-risk patients with neutropenia. Diagnosis, drug, dose, duration, and de-escalation (5D) are the core variables among AMS strategies. Altered volumes of distribution can make standard dose regimens inadequate, and developing skills towards a personalized approach represents a major advance in therapy. Intensivists should partner antibiotic stewardship programs to improve patient care. Assembling multidisciplinary teams with trained and dedicated professionals for AMS is a priority.

Evaluation of an Opt-Out Protocol for Antibiotic De-Escalation in Patients With Suspected Sepsis: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Sepsis guidelines recommend daily review to de-escalate or stop antibiotics in appropriate patients. This randomized, controlled trial evaluated an opt-out protocol to decrease unnecessary antibiotics in patients with suspected sepsis.

METHODS

We evaluated non-intensive care adults on broad-spectrum antibiotics despite negative blood cultures at 10 US hospitals from September 2018 through May 2020. A 23-item safety check excluded patients with ongoing signs of systemic infection, concerning or inadequate microbiologic data, or high-risk conditions. Eligible patients were randomized to the opt-out protocol vs usual care. Primary outcome was post-enrollment antibacterial days of therapy (DOT). Clinicians caring for intervention patients were contacted to encourage antibiotic discontinuation using opt-out language. If continued, clinicians discussed the rationale for continuing antibiotics and de-escalation plans. To evaluate those with zero post-enrollment DOT, hurdle models provided 2 measures: odds ratio of antibiotic continuation and ratio of mean DOT among those who continued antibiotics.

RESULTS

Among 9606 patients screened, 767 (8%) were enrolled. Intervention patients had 32% lower odds of antibiotic continuation (79% vs 84%; odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], .47-.98). DOT among those who continued antibiotics were similar (ratio of means, 1.06; 95% CI, .88-1.26). Fewer intervention patients were exposed to extended-spectrum antibiotics (36% vs 44%). Common reasons for continuing antibiotics were treatment of localized infection (76%) and belief that stopping antibiotics was unsafe (31%). Thirty-day safety events were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

An antibiotic opt-out protocol that targeted patients with suspected sepsis resulted in more antibiotic discontinuations, similar DOT when antibiotics were continued, and no evidence of harm.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT03517007.

Exploring Antimicrobial Stewardship Influential Interventions on Improving Antibiotic Utilization in Outpatient and Inpatient Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Antimicrobial stewardship interventions are targeted efforts by healthcare organizations to optimize antimicrobial use in clinical practice. The study aimed to explore effective interventions in improving antimicrobial use in hospitals. Literature was systemically searched for interventional studies through PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus databases that were published in the period between January 2010 to April 2022. A random-effects model was used to pool and evaluate data from eligible studies that reported antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions in outpatient and inpatient settings. Pooled estimates presented as proportions and standardized mean differences. Forty-eight articles were included in this review: 32 in inpatient and 16 in outpatient settings. Seventeen interventions have been identified, and eight outcomes have been targeted. AMS interventions improved clinical, microbiological, and cost outcomes in most studies. When comparing non-intervention with intervention groups using meta-analysis, there was an insignificant reduction in length of stay (MD: -0.99; 95% CI: -2.38, 0.39) and a significant reduction in antibiotics' days of therapy (MD: -2.73; 95% CI: -3.92, -1.54). There were noticeable reductions in readmissions, mortality rates, and antibiotic prescriptions post antimicrobial stewardship multi-disciplinary team (AMS-MDT) interventions. Studies that involved a pharmacist as part of the AMS-MDT showed more significant improvement in measured outcomes than the studies that did not involve a pharmacist.