Does de-escalation of antibiotic therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia affect the likelihood of recurrent pneumonia or mortality in critically ill surgical patients?

Ten golden rules for optimal antibiotic use in hospital settings: the WARNING call to action

Antibiotics are recognized widely for their benefits when used appropriately. However, they are often used inappropriately despite the importance of responsible use within good clinical practice. Effective antibiotic treatment is an essential component of universal healthcare, and it is a global responsibility to ensure appropriate use. Currently, pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to develop new antibiotics due to scientific, regulatory, and financial barriers, further emphasizing the importance of appropriate antibiotic use. To address this issue, the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery established an international multidisciplinary task force of 295 experts from 115 countries with different backgrounds. The task force developed a position statement called WARNING (Worldwide Antimicrobial Resistance National/International Network Group) aimed at raising awareness of antimicrobial resistance and improving antibiotic prescribing practices worldwide. The statement outlined is 10 axioms, or "golden rules," for the appropriate use of antibiotics that all healthcare workers should consistently adhere in clinical practice.

Safety of De-Escalating Empiric Antimicrobial Agents in Trauma Patients with Indigenous Oral Flora Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia

Background: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a frequently occurring nosocomial infection in critically ill trauma patients. When bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) returns with indigenous oral flora (IOF), de-escalating antimicrobial therapy is challenging. Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective review of trauma patients who received broad-spectrum empiric antimicrobial therapy for clinical VAP, and whose BAL culture resulted with >100,000 CFU/mL of IOF from September 1, 2017 to September 1, 2020. Patients were identified using the trauma database and microbiology reports of BALs with IOF. This review evaluated the effect of antibiotic de-escalation on recurrent or persistent pneumonia. Results: Of 51 trauma patients with clinical VAP and IOF, 18 patients (35.3%) had antimicrobial agents de-escalated. De-escalation was driven primarily by the discontinuation of vancomycin, with the continuation of a β-lactam antibiotic as monotherapy for the remainder of the treatment course (n = 15; 86.7%). The overall rate of either persistent or recurrent VAP in the cohort was 10%, and this did not differ statistically between those who received de-escalation therapy after isolation of IOF and those who did not (16.7% vs. 6.1%; p = 0.224), however, the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) was higher in the non-de-escalation group (39.4% vs. 11.1%; p = 0.034). There was no statistical difference in ventilator days, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, or hospital length of stay between treatment groups. Conclusions: Trauma patients who develop VAP with isolated BAL cultures of IOF or mixed flora can safely have anti-methicilllin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) antimicrobial agents discontinued, and this may result in decreased rates of AKI.

Factors Associated With Prolonged Antibiotic Use in the Setting of Suspected Pneumonia and Negative Bronchoalveolar Lavage Cultures

Background: Diagnostic criterion for pneumonia includes clinical data and bronchoalveolar lavage cultures (BALCx) to identify pathogens. Although ~60% of BALCx are negative, there may be reluctance to discontinue antibiotics, leading to prolonged antibiotic use (PAU). Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes of subjects with negative BALCx with PAU versus without prolonged antibiotic use (nPAU). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted including subjects admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), with suspected pneumonia, and negative BALCx. Data were compared based on length of exposure to antibiotics, PAU (antibiotics >4 days) versus nPAU (antibiotics <4 days). Results: A total of 128 subjects were included, 57 in the PAU group and 71 in the nPAU group. Baseline demographics were similar between groups. Severity of illness measured by multiple organ dysfunction scores at time of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) collection to final result showed a statistically significant decrease in the PAU group but not in the nPAU group. No differences were found in ICU days, ventilator-free days, or mortality; however, length of stay was longer for PAU (23 vs. 17, p = .04). In the PAU group, there were fewer BALCx results of "no growth" (23% vs. 45%, p = .04), more positive gram stains (83% vs. 60%, p = .01) and more positive non-BALCx (40% vs. 14%, p = .01). In a multivariate analysis, factors associated with PAU were positive BAL gram stains (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.1, p = .037) and positive non-BALCx (aOR 4.7, p = .002). Conclusion: For subjects with suspected pneumonia and negative BALCx, positive non-BALCx and positive BALCx gram stain influenced the length of exposure of antibiotics.

Physician Responsiveness to Positive Blood Culture Results at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Hospital-Is Anyone Paying Attention?

Background

Patients presenting with suspected infections are typically placed on empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics. With mounting evidence supporting the efficacy of using the narrowest spectrum of antimicrobial therapy to cover the suspected pathogen, current guidelines recommend decreasing the breadth of coverage in response to culture results both in relation to microbe identification and antibiotic sensitivity.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of electronic health records at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Minnesota was performed for 208 positive blood cultures with antibiotic spectrum analysis from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. The time of reporting for pathogen identification and subsequent pathogen susceptibilities were compared to the time at which any alterations to antibiotic coverage were made. The breadth of antibiotic coverage was recorded using a nonlinear spectrum score. The use of this score allowed for the reliable classification of antibiotic adjustments as either deescalation, escalation, or no change.

Results

The percentage of cases deescalated was higher in response to physician (house staff or attending physician) notification of pathogen susceptibility information when compared with a response to pathogen identification alone (33.2% vs 22.6%). Empiric antibiotics were not altered within 24 hours in response to pathogen identification in 70.7% of cases and were not altered within 24 hours in response to pathogen sensitivity determination in 58.6% of cases. However, when considering the time frame from when empiric antibiotics were started to 24 hours after notification of susceptibility information, 49.5% of cases were deescalated and 41.5% of cases had no net change in the antibiotic spectrum score. The magnitude of deescalations were notably larger than escalations. The mean (SD) time to deescalation of antibiotic coverage was shorter (P =.049) in response to pathogen identification at 8 (7.4) hours compared with sensitivity information at 10.4 (7) hours, but may not be clinically relevant.

Conclusion

Health care providers at the Minneapolis VAMC appear to be using positive blood culture results in a timely fashion consistent with best practices. Because empirically initiated antibiotics typically are broad in spectrum, the magnitude of deescalations were notably larger than escalations. Adherence to these standards may be a reflection of the infectious disease staff oversight of antibiotic administration. Furthermore, the systems outlined in this quality improvement study may be replicated at other VAMCs across the country by either in-house infectious disease staff or through remote monitoring of the electronic health record by other infectious disease experts at a more centralized VAMC. Widespread adoption throughout the Veterans Health Administration may result in improved antibiotic resistance profiles and better clinical outcomes for our nation's veterans.

Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole as de-escalation in ventilator-associated pneumonia: a cohort study subanalysis

Purpose

This is a subanalysis of a previous study which compared the effectiveness of trimetoprim-sulfametoxazole (TMP-SMX) with all other regimens for treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Aim of the current study was to focus on the effectiveness of a strategy based on TMP-SMX as de-escalation from β-lactam including regimens.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study including patients who were hospitalized for VAP from 2011 to 2019. Patients were distributed in two groups: NO SWITCH TO TMP-SMX group, including patients who received β-lactams for all treatment duration, and SWITCH TO TMP-SMX group, which included patients who switched to TMP-SMX from a β-lactam including regimen after microbiology diagnosis. Three clinical outcomes were analyzed: mortality at 30 days from the start of the antibiotic treatment (T30), mortality at the end of treatment (EoT), and acquisition of multidrug-resistant bacteria during hospitalization in intensive care unit.

Results

Overall, 70 patients were included in the current study, 32/70 (45.7%) in NO SWITCH TO TMP-SMX group and 38/70 (54.3%) in SWITCH TO TMP-SMX group, 37/70 (52.8%) had been already included in the previous study. No significant differences in clinical outcomes and patient’s characteristics were found when the two groups were compared.

Conclusions

De-escalation to TMP-SMX for VAP treatment was not associated with higher mortality at EoT and T30 than standard treatment with β-lactam. Monotherapy with TMP-SMX as de-escalation from broad-spectrum empirical regimens is a β-lactam sparing strategy worthy to be further investigated in either multicenter cohort studies or randomized clinical trials.

Safety and Feasibility of Antibiotic De-escalation in Critically Ill Children With Sepsis - A Prospective Analytical Study From a Pediatric ICU

Introduction: De-escalation is the key to balance judicious antibiotic usage for life-threatening infections and reducing the emergence of antibiotic resistance caused by antibiotic overuse. Robust evidence is lacking regarding the safety of antibiotic de-escalation in culture negative sepsis. Materials and Methods: Children admitted to the PICU during the first 6 months of 2019 with suspected infection were included. Based on the clinical condition, cultures and septic markers, antibiotics were de-escalated or continued at 48-72 h. Outcome data like worsening of primary infection, acquisition of hospital acquired infection, level of ICU support and mortality were captured. Results: Among the 360 admissions, 247 (68.6%) children received antibiotics. After excluding 92 children, 155 children with 162 episodes of sepsis were included in the study. Thirty four episodes were not eligible for de-escalation. Among the eligible group of 128 episodes, antibiotics were de-escalated in 95 (74.2%) and continued in 33 (25.8%). The primary infection worsened in 5 (5.2%) children in the de-escalation group and in 1 (3%) in non de-escalation group [Hazard ratio: 2.12 (95%CI: 0.39-11.46)]. There were no significant differences in rates of hospital acquired infection, mortality or length of ICU stay amongst the groups. Blood cultures and assessment of clinical recovery played a major role in de-escalation of antibiotics and the clinician's hesitation to de-escalate in critically ill culture negative children was the main reason for not de-escalating among eligible children. Conclusion: Antibiotic de-escalation appears to be a safe strategy to apply in criticallly ill children, even in those with negative cultures.

Surgical Infection Society Research Priorities: A Narrative Review of Fourteen Years of Progress

Background: In 2006, the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) utilized a modified Delphi approach to define 15 specific priority research questions that remained unanswered in the field of surgical infections. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the scientific progress achieved during the ensuing period in answering each of the 15 research questions and to determine if additional research in these fields is warranted. Methods: For each of the questions, a literature search using the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) was performed by the Scientific Studies Committee of the SIS to identify studies that attempted to address each of the defined questions. This literature was analyzed and summarized. The data on each question were evaluated by a surgical infections expert to determine if the question was answered definitively or remains unanswered. Results: All 15 priority research questions were studied in the last 14 years; six questions (40%) were definitively answered and 9 questions (60%) remain unanswered in whole or in part, mainly because of the low quality of the studies available on this topic. Several of the 9 unanswered questions were deemed to remain research priorities in 2020 and warrant further investigation. These included, for example, the role of empiric antimicrobial agents in nosocomial infections, the use of inotropes/vasopressors versus volume loading to raise the mean arterial pressure, and the role of increased antimicrobial dosing and frequency in the obese patient. Conclusions: Several surgical infection-related research questions prioritized in 2006 remain unanswered. Further high-quality research is required to provide a definitive answer to many of these priority knowledge gaps. An updated research agenda by the SIS is warranted at this time to define research priorities for the future.

Identification of Streptococcus pneumoniae in hospital-acquired pneumonia in adults

Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is often more severe and life-threatening than community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The role of Streptococcus pneumoniae in CAP is well-understood, but its role in HAP is unclear. The objective of this study was to summarize the available literature on the prevalence of S. pneumoniae in HAP episodes. We searched MEDLINE for peer-reviewed articles on the microbiology of HAP in individuals aged ≥18 years, published between 2008 and 2018. We calculated pooled estimates of the prevalence of S. pneumoniae in episodes of HAP using a random-effects, inverse-variance-weighted meta-analysis. Forty-seven of 1908 articles met the inclusion criteria. Bacterial specimen isolation techniques for microbiologically defined HAP episodes included bronchoalveolar lavage, protective specimen brush, tracheobronchial aspirate and sputum, as well as blood culture. Culture was performed in all studies; five studies also used urine antigen detection (5/47; 10.6%). S. pneumoniae was identified in 5.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.8-6.6%) of microbiologically defined HAP episodes (N = 20), with 5.4% (95% CI: 4.3-6.7%, N = 29) in ventilator-associated HAP and 6.0% (95% CI: 4.1-8.8%, N = 6) in non-ventilator-associated HAP. S. pneumoniae was identified in 5.3% (95% CI: 4.5-6.3%) of HAP occurring in the intensive care unit (ICU, N = 41) and in 5.6% (95% CI: 3.3-9.5%, N = 5) outside the ICU. A higher proportion of early-onset HAP (10.3%; 95% CI: 8.3-12.8%, N = 16) identified S. pneumoniae as compared with late-onset HAP (3.3%; 95% CI: 2.5-4.4%, N = 16). In conclusion, S. pneumoniae was identified by culture in 5.1% of microbiologically defined HAP episodes. The importance of HAP as part of the disease burden caused by S. pneumoniae merits further research.

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.

Clinical outcomes of carbapenem de-escalation regardless of microbiological results: A propensity score analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of de-escalation in patients under treatment with carbapenems and its impact on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted for 1year. Patients administered active carbapenems for at least 24h were included. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, mortality at 30 days after carbapenem prescription, and infection-related readmission within 30 days. De-escalation was defined as the substitution of carbapenem with narrower spectrum antimicrobial agents or its discontinuation during the first 96h of treatment.

RESULTS

The study included 1161 patients, and de-escalation was performed in 667 (57.5%) of these. In the de-escalation group, 54.9% of cultures were positive. After propensity score matching, 30-day mortality was lower (17.4% vs. 25.7%, p=0.036), carbapenem treatment was 4 days shorter (4 vs. 8 days, p<0.001), total antibiotic therapy duration was 2 days longer (12 vs. 10 days, p=0.003), and length of hospital stay was 5 days shorter (8 vs. 13 days, p=0.008) in the de-escalated versus non-de-escalated patients. In-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission rates did not differ significantly between these groups.

CONCLUSION

Carbapenem de-escalation is a safe strategy that does not compromise the clinical status of patients.

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.

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.

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia and Other Complications

Ventilator-associated pneumonia occurs in patients who have been intubated for two to three days with significant exposure to hospital-acquired organisms. Treatment should be initiated rapidly and cover P. aeruginosa, Escheriochia coli, Klebsiella pneumonia, and Acinetobacter species as well as methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Within 72 h or with the availability of culture results, antibiotics should be narrowed. Active research is on-going to identify patients at risk for ventilator-associated complications and to minimize the likelihood of infection in these patients.

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.

Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society

It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.These guidelines are intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients at risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), including specialists in infectious diseases, pulmonary diseases, critical care, and surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and any clinicians and healthcare providers caring for hospitalized patients with nosocomial pneumonia. The panel's recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of HAP and VAP are based upon evidence derived from topic-specific systematic literature reviews.

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.

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.

Antimicrobials: a global alliance for optimizing their rational use in intra-abdominal infections (AGORA)

Intra-abdominal infections (IAI) are an important cause of morbidity and are frequently associated with poor prognosis, particularly in high-risk patients. The cornerstones in the management of complicated IAIs are timely effective source control with appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Empiric antimicrobial therapy is important in the management of intra-abdominal infections and must be broad enough to cover all likely organisms because inappropriate initial antimicrobial therapy is associated with poor patient outcomes and the development of bacterial resistance. The overuse of antimicrobials is widely accepted as a major driver of some emerging infections (such as C. difficile), the selection of resistant pathogens in individual patients, and for the continued development of antimicrobial resistance globally. The growing emergence of multi-drug resistant organisms and the limited development of new agents available to counteract them have caused an impending crisis with alarming implications, especially with regards to Gram-negative bacteria. An international task force from 79 different countries has joined this project by sharing a document on the rational use of antimicrobials for patients with IAIs. The project has been termed AGORA (Antimicrobials: A Global Alliance for Optimizing their Rational Use in Intra-Abdominal Infections). The authors hope that AGORA, involving many of the world's leading experts, can actively raise awareness in health workers and can improve prescribing behavior in treating IAIs.

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.

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.

Clinical manifestations of pneumonia according to the causative organism in patients in the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Whether the causative organism influences the clinical course of pneumonia in the intensive care unit (ICU) is controversial. We assessed the clinical manifestations and prognosis of pneumonia according to the causative pathogens in patients in a medical ICU.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was performed in a medical ICU. Among 242 patients who were admitted to the ICU, 103 who were treated for pneumonia were analyzed.

RESULTS

The causative pathogen was identified in 50 patients (49.0%); 22 patients (21.6%) had multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens. The distribution of causative micro-organisms was Staphylococcus aureus (20%), Pseudomonas species (16%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (14%), and Acinetobacter baumannii (12%). No significant difference in ICU mortality rate, duration of ICU stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, or frequencies of re-intubation and tracheostomy were detected based on the identification of any pathogen. In sub-analyses according to the pneumonia classification, the number of pathogens identified did not differ between pneumonia types, and a higher incidence of identified MDR pathogens was detected in the hospital-acquired pneumonia group than in the community-acquired or healthcare- acquired pneumonia groups. However, the clinical outcomes of pneumonia according to identification status and type of pathogen did not differ significantly between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither the causative micro-organism nor the existence of MDR pathogens in critically ill patients with pneumonia was associated with the clinical outcome of pneumonia, including ICU mortality. This result was consistent regardless of the pneumonia classification.

Sepsis in head and neck cancer patients treated with chemotherapy and radiation: Literature review and consensus

The reporting of infection/sepsis in chemo/radiation-treated head and neck cancer patients is sparse and the problem is underestimated. A multidisciplinary group of head and neck cancer specialists from Italy met with the aim of reaching a consensus on a clinical definition and management of infections and sepsis. The Delphi appropriateness method was used for this consensus. External expert reviewers then evaluated the conclusions carefully according to their area of expertise. The paper contains seven clusters of statements about the clinical definition and management of infections and sepsis in head and neck cancer patients, which had a consensus. Furthermore, it offers a review of recent literature in these topics.

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.

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.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia: overdiagnosis and treatment are common in medical and surgical intensive care units

OBJECTIVE

Diagnosing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is difficult, and misdiagnosis can lead to unnecessary and prolonged antibiotic treatment. We sought to quantify and characterize unjustified antimicrobial use for VAP and identify risk factors for continuation of antibiotics in patients without VAP after 3 days.

METHODS

Patients suspected of having VAP were identified in 6 adult intensive care units (ICUs) over 1 year. A multidisciplinary adjudication committee determined whether the ICU team's VAP diagnosis and therapy were justified, using clinical, microbiologic, and radiographic data at diagnosis and on day 3. Outcomes included the proportion of VAP events misdiagnosed as and treated for VAP on days 1 and 3 and risk factors for the continuation of antibiotics in patients without VAP after day 3.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-one events were identified as possible VAP by the ICUs. On day 1, 135 (58.4%) of them were determined to not have VAP by the committee. Antibiotics were continued for 120 (76%) of 158 events without VAP on day 3. After adjusting for acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score and requiring vasopressors on day 1, sputum culture collection on day 3 was significantly associated with antibiotic continuation in patients without VAP. Patients without VAP or other infection received 1,183 excess days of antibiotics during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Overdiagnosis and treatment of VAP was common in this study and led to 1,183 excess days of antibiotics in patients with no indication for antibiotics. Clinical differences between non-VAP patients who had antibiotics continued or discontinued were minimal, suggesting that clinician preferences and behaviors contribute to unnecessary prescribing.

Inappropriate antibiotic use due to decreased compliance with a ventilator-associated pneumonia computerized clinical pathway: implications for continuing education and prospective feedback

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of noncompliance with a ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) computerized clinical pathway (CCP) on antibiotic use after removal of prospective antibiotic stewardship resources.

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational, quasi-experimental study.

SETTING

Three intensive care units (medical, surgical, and neurotrauma) in a large, tertiary care hospital.

PATIENTS

A total of 136 patients with culture-positive VAP; 72 were treated from September 2006-August 2007 (period 1), during which use of the CCP was mandatory along with aggressive stewardship support, and 64 were treated from September 2009-April 2010 (period 2), during which use of the CCP was voluntary.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Compliance with use of the CCP was 100% during period 1 and 44% (28/64 patients) during period 2. For the 36 patients (56%) whose antibiotic selection did not comply with the CCP, empiric antibiotics were selected by provider discretion. Most patients had late-onset VAP and were similar with respect to age, sex, and comorbidities between the two periods. Staphylococcus aureus (11-17% methicillin-resistant S. aureus) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were the most common pathogens during both periods. The proportion of patients with appropriate antibiotics within 24 hours of VAP identification was not significantly different between period 1 (70.8%) and period 2 (56.3%, p=0.112). During period 2, patients who were treated according to the CCP were more likely to receive appropriate antibiotic therapy compared with patients treated according to provider discretion (82.1% vs 36.1%, p ≤ 0.001). Time to appropriate therapy was also shorter for patients treated according to the CCP (mean ± SD 0.43 ± 1.14 vs 1.29 ± 1.36 days, p=0.003). Treatment with the CCP was the only variable significantly associated with appropriate antibiotic therapy (odds ratio 4.8, 95% confidence interval 2.1-10.9). Mortality was not significantly different between period 1 and period 2, and only Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score and admission with a head injury were predictive of death. Finally, a greater proportion of patients treated with the CCP were de-escalated from anti- Pseudomonas β-lactams (85.0% vs 33.3%, p=0.006) when they were not necessary.

CONCLUSION

These data highlight the importance of continued stewardship resources after CCP implementation to ensure compliance and to maximize antibiotic stewardship outcomes.

Locally derived versus guideline-based approach to treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia in the trauma intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Appropriate initial antibiotic therapy for presumed pneumonia in critically ill patients decreases the mortality rate. To achieve this goal, treatment guidelines developed by groups such as the American Thoracic Society (ATS) have been stressed. However, often overlooked is the importance of incorporating local microbiologic data into an empiric algorithm. Our hypothesis was that an empiric algorithm supported by our locally-driven analysis would predict more accurate coverage than one defined strictly by an unmodified guideline-driven approach.

METHODS

Retrospective review of all first hospital-acquired (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) pathogens in consecutive trauma intensive care unit (TICU) patients over 18 months. Microbiologic data were analyzed to update our TICU-specific empiric algorithm. The ATS guidelines define patients at risk for multidrug-resistant (MDR) organisms on the basis of standardized criteria and time since admission (early <5 days; late ≥5 days).

RESULTS

A total of 164 pathogens caused 117 pneumonias. For early coverage, ATS guidelines stress identification of MDR risks; these criteria failed to identify 8 of 13 (62%) early MDR pneumonias. For early HAP/VAP with no MDR risks, the ATS guidelines recommend monotherapy; susceptibility differed (49% to ciprofloxacin, 68% to ampicillin-sulbactam, 83% to ceftriaxone). A total of 15% of early pathogens were MDR gram-positive, so addition of vancomycin resulted in adequate predicted coverage of 100%, 79%, and 95% for ciprofloxacin, ampicillin-sulbactam, and ceftriaxone, respectively. For late HAP/VAP, ATS recommends regimens based on broad-spectrum drugs. Vancomycin with ciprofloxacin, cefepime, or piperacillin-tazobactam had predicted coverage of 95%, 94%, and 93%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The empiric algorithm derived from analysis of local microbiologic data predicted significantly better coverage than one defined by an unmodified guideline-driven approach for early HAP/VAP. Our locally-derived TICU algorithm of ceftriaxone+vancomycin for early pneumonia and piperacillin-tazobactam+vancomycin for late pneumonia optimizes the adequacy of initial therapy. Understanding local patterns of pneumonia ensures the creation and maintenance of empiric algorithms that achieve the best clinical outcomes.

Dose modulation: a new concept of antibiotic therapy in the critically ill patient?

Considerable evidence has shown that adequate antibiotic therapy is of utmost importance in the critically ill septic patient. However, antibiotic concentration may be insufficient early in infection course. We propose the concept of dose modulation, meaning front-line variability of antibiotic dose, according to patient and microorganism characteristics, followed by its reduction after clinical response and patient recovery. Therefore, dose modulation means concentrating the largest weight of antibiotics at the front-end, when the microbial load is higher and the pharmacokinetic changes poses the highest risk of underdosing and nibbling off antibiotic dose, when the sepsis syndrome is improving, guided by pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data.

Management of antimicrobial use in the intensive care unit

Critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) are frequently treated with antimicrobials. The appropriate and judicious use of antimicrobial treatment in the ICU setting is a constant clinical challenge for healthcare staff due to the appearance and spread of new multiresistant pathogens and the need to update knowledge of factors involved in the selection of multiresistance and in the patient's clinical response. In order to optimize the efficacy of empirical antibacterial treatments and to reduce the selection of multiresistant pathogens, different strategies have been advocated, including de-escalation therapy and pre-emptive therapy as well as measurement of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (pK/pD) parameters for proper dosing adjustment. Although the theoretical arguments of all these strategies are very attractive, evidence of their effectiveness is scarce. The identification of the concentration-dependent and time-dependent activity pattern of antimicrobials allow the classification of drugs into three groups, each group with its own pK/pD characteristics, which are the basis for the identification of new forms of administration of antimicrobials to optimize their efficacy (single dose, loading dose, continuous infusion) and to decrease toxicity. The appearance of new multiresistant pathogens, such as imipenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and/or Acinetobacter baumannii, carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria harbouring carbapenemases, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp., has determined the use of new antibacterials, the reintroduction of other drugs that have been removed in the past due to toxicity or the use of combinations with in vitro synergy. Finally, pharmacoeconomic aspects should be considered for the choice of appropriate antimicrobials in the care of critically ill patients.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia in burn patients: a cause or consequence of critical illness?

Infectious complications are a constant threat to thermally injured patients during hospitalizations and are a predominant cause of death. Most of the infections that develop in burn patients are nosocomial and of a pulmonary etiology. The bacteria that cause ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) take advantage of the fact that uniquely among intensive care unit patients endotracheal intubation allows them a 'free' passage to the sterile lower airways; however, the combination of severe thermal injury (systemic immunosuppression) and inhalation injury (local immunosuppression and tissue injury) create an ideal environment for development of VAP. Thus, strategies directed at preventing and treating VAP in burn patients must address not only rapid extubation and VAP prevention bundles known to work in other intensive care unit populations, but therapies directed to more rapid wound healing and restoration of pulmonary patency.

Antimicrobial de-escalation strategies in hospitalized patients with pneumonia, intra-abdominal infections, and bacteremia

Increasing numbers of serious hospital/healthcare- or community-acquired infections are caused by resistant (often multi-drug resistant) bacterial pathogens. Because delayed or ineffective initial therapy can have severe negative consequences, patients at risk for these types of infections typically receive initial empiric antibiotic therapy with a broad-spectrum regimen covering the most likely pathogens, based on local surveillance data and risk factors for infection with a resistant microorganism. While improving the likelihood of a successful outcome, use of broad-spectrum, often high-dose, empiric antimicrobial therapy also creates pressure for the selection or development of resistant microorganisms, as well as increasing costs and possibly exposing patients to adverse events or collateral damage such as Clostridium difficile-associated disease. De-escalation is a strategy that attempts to balance the competing aims of providing initial empiric therapy that is appropriate and covers the likely pathogens, and limiting antimicrobial exposure and increased risk for emergence of resistant pathogens. More specifically, the de-escalation strategy involves collection of cultures for later microbiological assessment before initiating broad-spectrum empiric therapy covering the most likely pathogens, with the intention of streamlining or de-escalating to a more narrow-spectrum antimicrobial regimen 2-3 days later if warranted by clinical status and culture results. In some cases, negative culture results and subsequent clinical review may allow for termination of initial empiric therapy. In this manner, de-escalation enables more effective targeting of the causative pathogen(s), elimination of redundant therapy, a decrease in antimicrobial pressure for emergence of resistance, and cost savings. This article examines application of the de-escalation strategy to 3 case patients, one with healthcare-associated pneumonia, another with complicated intra-abdominal infection, and a third with central line-associated bacteremia.

[Programs for optimizing the use of antibiotics (PROA) in Spanish hospitals: GEIH-SEIMC, SEFH and SEMPSPH consensus document]

The antimicrobial agents are unique drugs for several reasons. First, their efficacy is higher than other drugs in terms of reduction of morbidity and mortality. Also, antibiotics are the only group of drugs associated with ecological effects, because their administration may contribute to the emergence and spread of microbial resistance. Finally, they are used by almost all medical specialties. Appropriate use of antimicrobials is very complex because of the important advances in the management of infectious diseases and the spread of antibiotic resistance. Thus, the implementation of programs for optimizing the use of antibiotics in hospitals (called PROA in this document) is necessary. This consensus document defines the objectives of the PROA (namely, to improve the clinical results of patients with infections, to minimise the adverse events associated to the use of antimicrobials including the emergence and spread of antibiotic resistance, and to ensure the use of the most cost-efficacious treatments), and provides recommendations for the implementation of these programs in Spanish hospitals. The key aspects of the recommendations are as follows. Multidisciplinary antibiotic teams should be formed, under the auspices of the Infection Committees. The PROA need to be considered as part of institutional programs and the strategic objectives of the hospital. The PROA should include specific objectives based on measurable indicators, and activities aimed at improving the use of antimicrobials, mainly through educational activities and interventions based more on training activities directed to prescribers than just on restrictive measures.

Strategies for reduction in duration of antibiotic use in hospitalized patients

There is a global crisis of antibiotic resistance in part because of the collateral damage of antibiotic use. Reduction in antibiotic consumption is clearly important to minimize this problem. Limiting treatment duration may be the most clinically palatable means of reducing antibiotic consumption. Antimicrobial stewardship programs play an important role in this process. Their effectiveness may be increased by drawing on evidence from randomized controlled trials regarding optimal antibiotic duration. However, in most clinical scenarios, the recommended duration of therapy in published guidelines is based on expert opinion. Biological markers, such as procalcitonin, have been shown to reduce antimicrobial consumption with no adverse outcome in 11 randomized controlled trials. Although procalcitonin may not be the perfect biomarker, the concept of procalcitonin-guided antibiotic discontinuation after clinical stabilization, in conjunction with antimicrobial stewardship programs, appears to be ready for introduction into clinical practice.