Comparison of Hospitalwide and Custom Antibiograms for Clinical Isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Challenges of Antibiotic Stewardship in the Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care Units

The goals of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are to optimize antimicrobial prescribing habits in order to improve patient outcomes, reduce antimicrobial resistance, and reduce hospital costs. Multiple society-endorsed guidelines and government policies reinforce the importance of ASP implementation. Effective antimicrobial stewardship can impact unique patients, hospitals, and societal antibiotic-resistance burden. The role and subsequent success of these programs has largely been reported in the adult population. Pediatric and neonatal intensive care units present unique challenges for traditional antimicrobial stewardship approaches. The purpose of this review article is to explore the challenges of appropriate antibiotic use in the pediatric and neonatal intensive care units and to summarize strategies ASPs can use to overcome these challenges. These problems include non-specific disease presentations, limited evidence for definitive treatment durations in many pediatric infections, fewer pediatric-trained infectious disease physicians, and applicability of intensive laboratory obtainment, collection, and interpretation. Additionally, many ASP implementation studies evaluating the efficacy of ASPs exclude the PICU and NICU. Areas of focus for pediatric ASPs should likely include appropriate antibiotic initiation, appropriate antibiotic duration, and appropriate antibiotic de-escalation.

White Paper: Bridging the gap between surveillance data and antimicrobial stewardship in the outpatient sector-practical guidance from the JPIAMR ARCH and COMBACTE-MAGNET EPI-Net networks

Background

The outpatient setting is a key scenario for the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) activities, considering that overconsumption of antibiotics occurs mainly outside hospitals. This publication is the result of a joint initiative by the JPIAMR ARCH and COMBACTE-MAGNET EPI-Net networks, which is aimed at formulating a set of target actions for linking surveillance data with AMS activities in the outpatient setting.

Methods

A scoping review of the literature was carried out in three research areas: AMS leadership and accountability; antimicrobial usage and AMS; antimicrobial resistance and AMS. Consensus on the actions was reached through a RAND-modified Delphi process involving over 40 experts in infectious diseases, clinical microbiology, AMS, veterinary medicine or public health, from 18 low-, middle- and high-income countries.

Results

Evidence was retrieved from 38 documents, and an initial 25 target actions were proposed, differentiating between essential or desirable targets according to clinical relevance, feasibility and applicability to settings and resources. In the first consultation round, preliminary agreement was reached for all targets. Further to a second review, 6 statements were re-considered and 3 were deleted, leading to a final list of 22 target actions in the form of a practical checklist.

Conclusions

This White Paper is a pragmatic and flexible tool to guide the development of calibrated surveillance-based AMS interventions specific to the outpatient setting, which is characterized by substantial inter- and intra-country variability in the organization of healthcare structures, maintaining a global perspective and taking into account the feasibility of the target actions in low-resource settings.

Antibiograms Cannot Be Used Interchangeably Between Acute Care Medical Centers and Affiliated Nursing Homes

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether antibiograms for Veterans Affairs (VA) nursing homes (NHs), termed Community Living Centers, are similar to those from their affiliated acute care medical centers.

DESIGN

Descriptive study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We compared the 2017 antibiograms for VA NHs to their affiliated VA medical centers (VAMCs). Antibiograms included antibiotic susceptibility rates for commonly observed bacteria in this setting (Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus spp, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp, Proteus mirabilis, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa).

METHODS

Antibiograms were considered to be in complete agreement when the overall susceptibility rate between the NH and affiliated VAMC was either at or above 80% or below 80% across all bacteria and antibiotics. Average percentage of bacteria-antibiotic comparisons in disagreement per facility pair, and number of facilities with agreement for specific bacteria-antibiotic comparisons were also assessed. The chi-square test was used to compare disagreement between NH-VAMC facilities based on geographic proximity of the NH to the VAMC, culture source, and bed size.

RESULTS

A total of 119 NH-VAMC affiliate pairs were included in this analysis, with 71% (84/119) on the same campus and 29% (35/119) on geographically distinct campuses. None of the NH-VAMC pairs demonstrated complete agreement (all bacteria vs all antibiotics) between their antibiograms. On average, 20% of the bacteria-antibiotic comparisons from the antibiogram disagreed clinically per NH-VAMC pair, and almost twice as often the nursing home had lower susceptibility (higher resistance) than the acute care facility. Some bacteria-antibiotic comparisons agreed in all facilities (eg, E coli-imipenem; S aureus-linezolid; S aureus-vancomycin), while others showed greater disagreement (eg, Klebsiella spp-cefazolin; Klebsiella spp-ampicillin-sulbactam; P aeruginosa-ciprofloxacin). Rates of clinical disagreement were similar by geographic proximity of the NH to the VAMC, culture source, and bed size.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Overall, this study showed a moderate lack of agreement between VA NH antibiograms and their affiliate VAMC antibiograms. Our data suggest that antibiograms of acute care facilities are often not accurate approximations of the nursing home resistance patterns and therefore should be used with caution (if at all) in guiding empiric antibiotic therapy.

Analysis and Presentation of Cumulative Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Data--The Influence of Different Parameters in a Routine Clinical Microbiology Laboratory

Introduction

Many clinical microbiology laboratories report on cumulative antimicrobial susceptibility testing (cAST) data on a regular basis. Criteria for generation of cAST reports, however, are often obscure and inconsistent. Whereas the CLSI has published a guideline for analysis and presentation of cAST data, national guidelines directed at clinical microbiology laboratories are not available in Europe. Thus, we sought to describe the influence of different parameters in the process of cAST data analysis in the setting of a German routine clinical microbiology laboratory during 2 consecutive years.

Material and Methods

We developed various program scripts to assess the consequences ensuing from different algorithms for calculation of cumulative antibiograms from the data collected in our clinical microbiology laboratory in 2013 and 2014.

Results

One of the most pronounced effects was caused by exclusion of screening cultures for multi-drug resistant organisms which decreased the MRSA rate in some cases to one third. Dependent on the handling of duplicate isolates, i.e. isolates of the same species recovered from successive cultures on the same patient during the time period analyzed, we recorded differences in resistance rates of up to 5 percentage points for S. aureus, E. coli and K. pneumoniae and up to 10 percentage points for P. aeruginosa. Stratification by site of care and specimen type, testing of antimicrobials selectively on resistant isolates, change of interpretation rules and analysis at genus level instead of species level resulted in further changes of calculated antimicrobial resistance rates.

Conclusion

The choice of parameters for cAST data analysis may have a substantial influence on calculated antimicrobial resistance rates. Consequently, comparability of cAST reports from different clinical microbiology laboratories may be limited. We suggest that laboratories communicate the strategy used for cAST data analysis as long as national guidelines for standardized cAST data analysis and reporting do not exist in Europe.