Does Antibiotic De-escalation for Nosocomial Pneumonia Impact Intensive Care Unit Length of Stay?

Early Discontinuation of Antibiotics in Patients Admitted With Clinically Suspected Serious Infection but Negative Cultures: Retrospective Cohort Study of Practice Patterns and Outcomes at 111 US Hospitals

Background

The optimal duration for antibiotics in patients hospitalized with culture-negative serious infection (CNSI) is unknown. We compared outcomes in patients with CNSI treated with 3 or 4 vs ≥5 days of antibiotics.

Methods

CNSI was identified among adults admitted to 111 US hospitals between 2009 and 2014 via electronic health record data, defined as suspected serious infection (blood cultures drawn and ≥3 days of antibiotics) and negative culture- and nonculture-based tests for infection. Patients treated with antibiotics on their last hospital day and patients with diagnosis codes for sepsis-mimicking conditions were excluded. Among patients without fevers/hypothermia or vasopressors by day 3, we calculated odds ratios for in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice associated with 3 or 4 vs ≥5 days of antibiotics, adjusting for confounders.

Results

Antibiotics were discontinued in 3 or 4 days in 1862 (9%) of 20 714 patients with CNSI. Early discontinuation was not associated with higher mortality odds overall (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.27; 95% CI, .98-1.65), in patients presenting with (1.39; .88-2.22) and without sepsis (1.17; .81-1.69), and in those with pulmonary (1.23; .65-2.34) and nonpulmonary CNSI (1.30; .99-1.72). Early discontinuation appeared detrimental with propensity score weighting (aOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.03-1.80) and when retaining patients with sepsis mimics (1.38; 1.16-1.65), but it was protective (0.48; .37-.64]) when retaining patients who received antibiotics on their last hospital day.

Conclusions

Early discontinuation of antibiotics in CNSI was not associated with significant harm in our primary analysis, but different conclusions based on alternative analytic decisions, as well as risk of residual confounding, indicate that randomized controlled trials are needed.

Antibiotic De-Escalation in Critically Ill Patients with Negative Clinical Cultures

(1) Background: Antibiotics are received by a majority of adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Guidelines recommend antibiotic de-escalation (ADE) when culture results are available; however, there is less guidance for patients with negative cultures. The purpose of this study was in investigate ADE rates in an ICU population with negative clinical cultures. (2) Methods: This single-center, retrospective, cohort study evaluated ICU patients who received broad-spectrum antibiotics. The definition of de-escalation was antibiotic discontinuation or narrowing of the spectrum within 72 h of initiation. The outcomes evaluated included the rate of antibiotic de-escalation, mortality, rates of antimicrobial escalation, AKI incidence, new hospital acquired infections, and lengths of stay. (3) Results: Of the 173 patients included, 38 (22%) underwent pivotal ADE within 72 h, and 82 (47%) had companion antibiotics de-escalated. Notable differences in patient outcomes included shorter durations of therapy (p = 0.003), length of stay (p < 0.001), and incidence of AKI (p = 0.031) in those that underwent pivotal ADE; no difference in mortality was found. (4) Conclusions: The results from this study show the feasibility of ADE in patients with negative clinical cultures without a negative impact on the outcomes. However, further investigation is needed to determine its effect on the development of resistance and adverse effects.

Impact of Positive Culture Reports of E. coli or MSSA on De-Escalation of Antibiotic Use in a Teaching Hospital in Pakistan and the Implications

Background

Antibiotic de-escalation is a key element of antimicrobial stewardship programs that restrict the spread and emergence of resistance. This study was performed to evaluate the impact of positive culture sensitivity reports of E. coli or Methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) on de-escalation of antibiotic therapy.

Methods

This prospective observational study was performed on 256 infected patients. The samples were obtained principally from the pus of infected sites for the identification of pathogens and culture-sensitivity testing. The data were collected from patient medical files, which included their demographic data, sample type, causative microbe and antimicrobial treatment as empiric or definitive treatment based on cultures. Data were analyzed using SPSS.

Results

Of 256 isolated microbes, 138 (53.9%) were MSSA and 118 were E. coli (46.1%). MSSA showed 100% sensitivity to cefoxitin, oxacillin, vancomycin, fosfomycin, colistin and more than 90% to linezolid (95.3%), tigecycline (93.1%), chloramphenicol (92.2%) and amikacin (90.2%). E. coli showed 100% sensitivity to only fosfomycin and more than 90% to colistin (96.7%), polymyxin-B (95.1%) and tigecycline (92.9%). The high use of cefoperazone+sulbactam (151), amikacin (149), ceftriaxone (33), metronidazole (30) and piperacillin + tazobactam (22) was seen with empiric prescribing. Following susceptibility testing, the most common antibiotics prescribed for E. coli were meropenem IV (34), amikacin (34), ciprofloxacin (29) and cefoperazone+sulbactam (25). For MSSA cases, linezolid (48), clindamycin (30), cefoperazone+ sulbactam IV (16) and amikacin (15) was used commonly. Overall, there was 23% reduction in antibiotic use in case of E. coli and 43% reduction in MSSA cases.

Conclusion

Culture sensitivity reports helped in the de-escalation of antimicrobial therapy, reducing the prescribing of especially broad-spectrum antibiotics. Consequently, it is recommended that local hospital guidelines be developed based on local antimicrobial susceptibility patterns while preventing the unnecessary use of broad-spectrum antibiotics for empiric treatment.

Antimicrobial De-Escalation in the ICU: From Recommendations to Level of Evidence

Antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) is a component of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) aimed to reduce exposure to broad-spectrum antimicrobials. In the intensive care unit, ADE is a strong recommendation that is moderately applied in clinical practice. Following a systematic review of the literature, we assessed the studies identified on the topic which included one randomized controlled trial and 20 observational studies. The literature shows a low level of evidence, although observational studies suggested that this procedure is safe. The effects of ADE on the level of resistance of ecological systems and especially on the microbiota are unclear. The reviewers recommend de-escalating antimicrobial treatment in patients requiring long-term antibiotic therapy and considering de-escalation in short-term treatments.

Antimicrobial de-escalation in the critically ill patient and assessment of clinical cure: the DIANA study

Purpose

The DIANA study aimed to evaluate how often antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) of empirical treatment is performed in the intensive care unit (ICU) and to estimate the effect of ADE on clinical cure on day 7 following treatment initiation.

Methods

Adult ICU patients receiving empirical antimicrobial therapy for bacterial infection were studied in a prospective observational study from October 2016 until May 2018. ADE was defined as (1) discontinuation of an antimicrobial in case of empirical combination therapy or (2) replacement of an antimicrobial with the intention to narrow the antimicrobial spectrum, within the first 3 days of therapy. Inverse probability (IP) weighting was used to account for time-varying confounding when estimating the effect of ADE on clinical cure.

Results

Overall, 1495 patients from 152 ICUs in 28 countries were studied. Combination therapy was prescribed in 50%, and carbapenems were prescribed in 26% of patients. Empirical therapy underwent ADE, no change and change other than ADE within the first 3 days in 16%, 63% and 22%, respectively. Unadjusted mortality at day 28 was 15.8% in the ADE cohort and 19.4% in patients with no change [p = 0.27; RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.60–1.14)]. The IP-weighted relative risk estimate for clinical cure comparing ADE with no-ADE patients (no change or change other than ADE) was 1.37 (95% CI 1.14–1.64).

Conclusion

ADE was infrequently applied in critically ill-infected patients. The observational effect estimate on clinical cure suggested no deleterious impact of ADE compared to no-ADE. However, residual confounding is likely.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-020-06111-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Antimicrobial de-escalation in critically ill patients: a position statement from a task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) and European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Critically Ill Patients Study Group (ESGCIP)

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) is a strategy of antimicrobial stewardship, aiming at preventing the emergence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) by decreasing the exposure to broad-spectrum antimicrobials. There is no high-quality research on ADE and its effects on AMR. Its definition varies and there is little evidence-based guidance for clinicians to use ADE in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

A task force of 16 international experts was formed in November 2016 to provide with guidelines for clinical practice to develop questions targeted at defining ADE, its effects on the ICU population and to provide clinical guidance. Groups of 2 experts were assigned 1-2 questions each within their field of expertise to provide draft statements and rationale. A Delphi method, with 3 rounds and an agreement threshold of 70% was required to reach consensus.

RESULTS

We present a comprehensive document with 13 statements, reviewing the evidence on the definition of ADE, its effects in the ICU population and providing guidance for clinicians in subsets of clinical scenarios where ADE may be considered.

CONCLUSION

ADE remains a topic of controversy due to the complexity of clinical scenarios where it may be applied and the absence of evidence to the effects it may have on antimicrobial resistance.

Implementation of a Health-System Wide Antimicrobial Stewardship Program in Omaha, NE

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have mandated that acute care and critical access hospitals implement an Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) Program. This manuscript describes the process that was implemented to ensure CMS compliance for AMS, across a 14-member health system (eight community hospitals, five critical access hospitals, and an academic medical center) in the Omaha metro area, and surrounding cities. The addition of the AMS program to the 14-member health system increased personnel, with a 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) infectious diseases (ID) physician, and 2.5 FTE infectious diseases trained clinical pharmacists to support daily AMS activities. Clinical decision support software had previously been implemented across the health system, which was also key to the success of the program. Overall, in its first year, the AMS program demonstrated a $1.2 million normalized reduction (21% total reduction in antimicrobial purchases) in antimicrobial expenses. The ability to review charts daily for antimicrobial optimization with ID pharmacist and physician support, identify facility specific needs and opportunities, and to collect available data endpoints to determine program effectiveness helped to ensure the success of the program.

Effect of antimicrobial stewardship with rapid MALDI-TOF identification and Vitek 2 antimicrobial susceptibility testing on hospitalization outcome

We sought to evaluate time for bacterial culture and initiation of appropriate therapy for patients, from 2017 (without rapid diagnostic test (RDT) and Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (ASP)) and 2018 (with RDT and ASP). Time to identification (ID) was significantly faster in 2018 (2018 24.9 ± 14.4, 2017 33.8 ± 17 h, P = 0.001). Time to antimicrobial susceptibility test (AST) results was significantly faster for patients in 2018 compared to 2017 (18.2 ± 14 h compared to 28.5 ± 14.9 h, P < 0.001). Length of hospital stay for enrolled patients was significantly shorter in 2018 compared to 2017 (2018 10.7 ± 11.1 days and 2017 15.5 ± 18.1 days, P = 0.05). Length of antimicrobial therapy for enrolled patients was significantly shorter for 2018 (2018 6.7 ± 3.8 d vs. 2017 8.8 ± 7.8 d, P = 0.036). These results demonstrate MALDI-TOF/Vitek 2 leads to an average 21.5 h faster ID and AST results that can be acted upon by ASP for antimicrobial recommendations.

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.

Antibiotic de-escalation in patients with pneumonia in the intensive care unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW

Antibiotic de-escalation is part of an antibiotic stewardship strategy to achieve adequate therapy for infections while avoiding the prolonged use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. However, there is a paucity of clinical evidence on the clinical impact of this strategy in pneumonia patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). This review aimed to evaluate the impact of antibiotic de-escalation therapy for adult patients diagnosed with pneumonia in the ICU.

METHODS USED TO CONDUCT THE REVIEW

This review was conducted in accordance with the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) recommendation. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Databases and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to March 2017 for relevant trials. The methodological quality of included trials was assessed by using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Case-Control and Cohort Studies. A meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effect model to combine the rate of mortality and length of stay outcomes.

FINDINGS OF THE REVIEW

Nine observational trials involving 2128 patients were considered eligible for inclusion. Although based on low quality evidence, there was a statistically significant difference in favour of the impact of de-escalation on hospital stay but not mortality (MD -5.96 days; 95% CI -8.39 to -3.52).

INTERPRETATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This review highlights the need for more rigorous studies to be carried out before a firm conclusion on the benefit of de-escalation therapy is supported.

De-Escalation and Discontinuation of Empirical Antibiotic Treatment in a Cohort of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Recipients during the Pre-Engraftment Period

To investigate rates and outcomes of antibiotic de-escalation during pre-engraftment neutropenia in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients. 110 consecutive HSCTs performed between January 2013 and March 2014 were analyzed. De-escalation was defined as narrowing the spectrum of antibiotic treatment either within (early) or after 96 hours (late) from starting antibiotics. Discontinuation, considered a form of de-escalation, was defined as stopping antibiotics before engraftment. De-escalation failure was defined as restarting/escalating antibiotics within 96 hours after de-escalation. Predictors of de-escalation were analyzed. Among 102 patients who started antibiotics and were included, 68 (67%) received monotherapy (mainly piperacillin-tazobactam, n = 58), whereas 34 (33%) received combination therapy (mainly meropenem plus glycopeptide, n = 24). Median duration of neutropenia was 17 days. Bloodstream infections (BSIs) were diagnosed in 28 patients (20%). Early de-escalation rate was 25.5% (n = 26) and mostly consisted of reducing the spectrum of β-lactams (n = 11, 42%). In comparison with theoretical scenario of continuing therapy until engraftment, the median savings in terms of antibiotic days were 10 for meropenem, 8 for piperacillin-tazobactam, and 7 for vancomycin. Failure rate of early de-escalation was 15% (4/26). Late de-escalation rate was 30.4% (n = 31) and failure rate 19% (6/31). The rate of de-escalation any time before engraftment was 55.9% (n = 57), including discontinuation in 33 patients (32%). Death at day 60 after HSCT occurred in 3 patients who never underwent de-escalation. Acute myeloid disease and BSIs were independent predictors of early de-escalation. De-escalation, including discontinuation, is feasible and safe in pre-engraftment neutropenia after allogeneic HSCT.

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.

Characteristics and outcomes of anti-infective de-escalation during health care-associated intra-abdominal infections

Background

De-escalation is strongly recommended for antibiotic stewardship. No studies have addressed this issue in the context of health care-associated intra-abdominal infections (HCIAI). We analyzed the factors that could interfere with this process and their clinical consequences in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with HCIAI.

Methods

All consecutive patients admitted for the management of HCIAI who survived more than 3 days following their diagnosis, who remained in the ICU for more than 3 days, and who did not undergo early reoperation during the first 3 days were analyzed prospectively in an observational, single-center study in a tertiary care university hospital.

Results

Overall, 311 patients with HCIAI were admitted to the ICU. De-escalation was applied in 110 patients (53 %), and no de-escalation was reported in 96 patients (47 %) (escalation in 65 [32 %] and unchanged regimen in 31 [15 %]). Lower proportions of Enterococcus faecium, nonfermenting Gram-negative bacilli (NFGNB), and multidrug-resistant (MDR) strains were cultured in the de-escalation group. No clinical difference was observed at day 7 between patients who were de-escalated and those who were not. Determinants of de-escalation in multivariate analysis were adequate empiric therapy (OR 9.60, 95 % CI 4.02–22.97) and empiric use of vancomycin (OR 3.39, 95 % CI 1.46–7.87), carbapenems (OR 2.64, 95 % CI 1.01–6.91), and aminoglycosides (OR 2.31 95 % CI 1.08–4.94). The presence of NFGNB (OR 0.28, 95 % CI 0.09–0.89) and the presence of MDR bacteria (OR 0.21, 95 % CI 0.09–0.52) were risk factors for non-de-escalation. De-escalation did not change the overall duration of therapy. The risk factors for death at day 28 were presence of fungi (HR 2.64, 95 % CI 1.34–5.17), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score on admission (HR 1.29, 95 % CI 1.16–1.42), and age (HR 1.03, 95 % CI 1.01–1.05). The survival rate expressed by a Kaplan-Meier curve was similar between groups (log-rank test p value 0.176).

Conclusions

De-escalation is a feasible option in patients with polymicrobial infections such as HCIAI, but MDR organisms and NFGNB limit its implementation.

Impact of de-escalation of beta-lactam antibiotics on the emergence of antibiotic resistance in ICU patients: a retrospective observational study

PURPOSE

Antibiotic de-escalation is promoted to limit prolonged exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics, but proof that it prevents the emergence of resistance is lacking. We evaluated determinants of antibiotic de-escalation in an attempt to assess whether the latter is associated with a lower emergence of antimicrobial resistance.

METHODS

Antibiotic treatments, starting with empirical beta-lactam prescriptions, were prospectively documented during 2013 and 2014 in a tertiary intensive care unit (ICU) and categorized as continuation, de-escalation or escalation of the empirical antimicrobial treatment. Determinants of the de-escalation or escalation treatments were identified by multivariate logistic regression; the continuation category was used as the reference group. Using systematically collected diagnostic and surveillance cultures, we estimated the cumulative incidence of antimicrobial resistance following de-escalation or continuation of therapy, with adjustment for ICU discharge and death as competing risks.

RESULTS

Of 478 anti-pseudomonal antibiotic prescriptions, 42 (9 %) were classified as escalation of the antimicrobial treatment and 121 (25 %) were classified as de-escalation, mainly through replacement of the originally prescribed antibiotics with those having a narrower spectrum. In multivariate analysis, de-escalation was associated with the identification of etiologic pathogens (p < 0.001). The duration of the antibiotic course in the ICU in de-escalated versus continued prescriptions was 8 (range 6-10) versus 5 (range 4-7) days, respectively (p < 0.001). Mortality did not differ between patients in the de-escalation and continuation categories. The cumulative incidence estimates of the emergence of resistance to the initial beta-lactam antibiotic on day 14 were 30.6 and 23.5 % for de-escalation and continuation, respectively (p = 0.22). For the selection of multi-drug resistant pathogens, these values were 23.5 (de-escalation) and 18.6 % (continuation) respectively (p = 0.35).

CONCLUSION

The emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria after exposure to anti-pseudomonal beta-lactam antibiotics was not lower following de-escalation.

A Systematic Review of the Definitions, Determinants, and Clinical Outcomes of Antimicrobial De-escalation in the Intensive Care Unit

Antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) is a strategy to reduce the spectrum of antimicrobials and aims to prevent the emergence of bacterial resistance. We present a systematic review describing the definitions, determinants and outcomes associated with ADE. We included 2 randomized controlled trials and 12 cohort studies. There was considerable variability in the definition of ADE. It was more frequently performed in patients with broad-spectrum and/or appropriate antimicrobial therapy (P= .05 to .002), when more agents were used (P= .002), and in the absence of multidrug-resistant pathogens (P< .05). Where investigated, lower or improving severity scores were consistently associated with ADE (P= .04 to <.001). The pooled effect of ADE on mortality is protective (relative risk, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, .52-.88). Because the determinants of ADE are markers of clinical improvement and/or of lower risk of treatment failure this effect on mortality cannot be retained as evidence. None of the studies were designed to investigate the effect of ADE on antimicrobial resistance.