Tractable targets for meropenem-sparing antimicrobial stewardship interventions

A narrative review of the intermediate category of the antimicrobial susceptibility test: relation with dosing and possible impact on antimicrobial stewardship

The interpretation of 'susceptible (S)' or 'resistant (R)' results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing is easily understood, but the interpretation of the 'intermediate (I)' category can be confusing. This review critically discusses how this categorization (clinical breakpoints) comes into being with the emphasis on the use of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic data. It discusses the differences between the 'I' according to the CLSI and the EUCAST. This review also discusses the recent EUCAST change of the 'I' definition, and the impact of this change from laboratory and clinical points of view.

Impact of the Acceptance of the Recommendations Made by a Meropenem Stewardship Program in a University Hospital: A Pilot Study

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) promote appropriate antimicrobial use. We present a 4-year retrospective study that evaluated the clinical impact of the acceptance of the recommendations made by a meropenem-focused ASP. A total of 318 meropenem audits were performed. The ASP team (comprising infectious disease physicians, pharmacists and microbiologists) considered meropenem use in 96 audits (30.2%) to be inappropriate. The reasons to consider these uses inappropriate were the possibility of de-escalating to a narrower-spectrum antibiotic, in 66 (68.7%) audits, and unnecessary meropenem use, in 30 (31.3%) audits. The ASP team recommended de-escalation in 66 audits (68.7%) and discontinuation of meropenem in 30 audits (31.3%). ASP interventions were stratified according to whether or not recommendations were followed. The group in which recommendations were accepted and followed (i.e., accepted audit, AA) included 66 audits (68.7%) and the group in which recommendations were not followed (i.e., rejected audit, RA) included 30 (31.3%) audits. The comorbidity of the AA group (Charlson score) was higher than in the RA group (7.0 (5.0–9.0) vs. 6.0 (4.0–7.0), p = 0.02). Discontinuation of meropenem was recommended in 83.3% of audits in the AA group vs. 62.2% in the RA group (OR 3.05 (1.03–8.99), p = 0.04). Ertapenem de-escalation resulted in a 100% greater rate of follow-up compared with the non-carbapenem option (100% vs. 51.9%, OR 1.50 (1.21–1.860), p = 0.001). Significant differences were observed in the AA group when cultures were taken before antibiotic prescription—98.5% vs. 83.3% (p = 0.01, OR 13.0 (1.45–116.86))—or when screening cultures were taken—45.5% vs. 19.2% (p = 0.03, OR 3.5 (1.06–11.52)). There were no differences between the groups in terms of overall mortality and 30-day mortality, length of stay, Clostridiodes difficile infection, 30-day readmission or hospitalization costs. In conclusion, meropenem ASP recommendations contributed to a decrease in meropenem prescription without worsening clinical and economic outcomes.

Co-infections, secondary infections, and antimicrobial use in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 during the first pandemic wave from the ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study: a multicentre, prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Microbiological characterisation of co-infections and secondary infections in patients with COVID-19 is lacking, and antimicrobial use is high. We aimed to describe microbiologically confirmed co-infections and secondary infections, and antimicrobial use, in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.

METHODS

The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study is an ongoing, prospective cohort study recruiting inpatients from 260 hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales, conducted by the ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium. Patients with a confirmed or clinician-defined high likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were eligible for inclusion in the ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study. For this specific study, we excluded patients with a recorded negative SARS-CoV-2 test result and those without a recorded outcome at 28 days after admission. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, therapeutic, and outcome data were collected using a prespecified case report form. Organisms considered clinically insignificant were excluded.

FINDINGS

We analysed data from 48 902 patients admitted to hospital between Feb 6 and June 8, 2020. The median patient age was 74 years (IQR 59-84) and 20 786 (42·6%) of 48 765 patients were female. Microbiological investigations were recorded for 8649 (17·7%) of 48 902 patients, with clinically significant COVID-19-related respiratory or bloodstream culture results recorded for 1107 patients. 762 (70·6%) of 1080 infections were secondary, occurring more than 2 days after hospital admission. Staphylococcus aureus and Haemophilus influenzae were the most common pathogens causing respiratory co-infections (diagnosed ≤2 days after admission), with Enterobacteriaceae and S aureus most common in secondary respiratory infections. Bloodstream infections were most frequently caused by Escherichia coli and S aureus. Among patients with available data, 13 390 (37·0%) of 36 145 had received antimicrobials in the community for this illness episode before hospital admission and 39 258 (85·2%) of 46 061 patients with inpatient antimicrobial data received one or more antimicrobials at some point during their admission (highest for patients in critical care). We identified frequent use of broad-spectrum agents and use of carbapenems rather than carbapenem-sparing alternatives.

INTERPRETATION

In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, microbiologically confirmed bacterial infections are rare, and more likely to be secondary infections. Gram-negative organisms and S aureus are the predominant pathogens. The frequency and nature of antimicrobial use are concerning, but tractable targets for stewardship interventions exist.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, UK Department for International Development, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, EU Platform for European Preparedness Against (Re-)emerging Epidemics, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool, and NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London.