Safety and feasibility of antibiotic de-escalation in bacteremic pneumonia

Association of hospital spending with care patterns and mortality in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Pneumonia is a leading cause of mortality and intensive therapy is costly. However, it is unclear whether more spending is associated with better patient outcomes or how hospitals could decrease costs.

OBJECTIVES

This study investigates the association between hospital spending and 14-day inpatient mortality among community-acquired pneumonia inpatients.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study focused on adult pneumonia patients discharged between July 2010 and June 2015 from 260 US hospitals in the Premier database. Hospitals were divided into four pneumonia cost-of-care quartiles and average cost was calculated for each hospital. Odds of 14-day inpatient mortality and care practices were compared among high and low-cost hospitals.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 534,038 patients with a mean age 69.5 (SD 16.3); 51.9% were female, 75% White, and 71.9% covered by Medicare. Hospitals were largely medium-sized (40.4%), located in the South (49.2%), and in urban areas (82.3%). The fully adjusted population-averaged cost was 14,486 US dollars (95% confidence interval [CI] 13,982-14,867). Hospital practices associated with cost included intensity of diagnostic work-up +$14 (95% CI +12 to +18; p < .0001) and de-escalation of antibiotic therapy, +$6836 (95% CI +2291 to +11,160; p = .004). There was no significant difference in odds of 14-day inpatient mortality between hospitals in the highest and lowest cost quartiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater spending at the hospital level was not associated with lower mortality. Lower diagnostic costs were associated with lower cost of care, suggesting that judicious use of diagnostic testing might reduce costs without worsening patient outcomes.

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.

Effect of positive microbiological testing on antibiotic de-escalation and outcomes in community-acquired pneumonia: A propensity score analysis

OBJECTIVES

The usefulness of routine microbiological testing for rationalizing antibiotic use in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) continues to be a subject of debate. We aim to determine the effect of positive microbiological testing on antimicrobial de-escalation and clinical outcomes in CAP.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected cohort of non-immunosuppressed adults hospitalized with CAP was performed. The primary study outcome was antimicrobial de-escalation. Secondary outcomes included 30-day case-fatality rate, adverse events, and CAP recurrence. Adjustment for confounders, was performed by inverse probability weighting propensity score (IPW-PS), logistic regression and cause-specific Cox model.

RESULTS

Of 3677 patients with CAP, 1924 (52.3%) had any positive microbiological test. Antimicrobial de-escalation was performed in 648/1924 (33.7%) of patients with positive microbiological testing and in 179/1753 (10.2%) of those with non positive results. When propensity score was entered into the multivariate analysis, positive microbiological testing (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] 2.59 (1.96 - 3.41) and clinical stability at day 3 (AOR 1.87; 1.45 - 2.10) were two of the main factors independently associated with antimicrobial de-escalation. After applying an adjusted cause-specific Cox model, antimicrobial de-escalation was not associated with a higher 30-day case-fatality rate (Adjusted Hazard Ratio [AHR] 0.44; 0.14 - 1.43), higher frequency of adverse events (AHR 0.77; 0.53 - 1.12) or CAP recurrence (AHR 0.77; 0.45 - 1.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Antimicrobial de-escalation was more often performed in hospitalized patients with CAP who had positive microbiological tests than in those with non positive results, and it did not adversely affect relevant clinical outcomes.

[Management of Adult Community-Acquired Pneumonia and Prevention - Update 2021 - Guideline of the German Respiratory Society (DGP), the Paul-Ehrlich-Society for Chemotherapy (PEG), the German Society for Infectious Diseases (DGI), the German Society of Medical Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (DGIIN), the German Viological Society (DGV), the Competence Network CAPNETZ, the German College of General Practitioneers and Family Physicians (DEGAM), the German Society for Geriatric Medicine (DGG), the German Palliative Society (DGP), the Austrian Society of Pneumology Society (ÖGP), the Austrian Society for Infectious and Tropical Diseases (ÖGIT), the Swiss Respiratory Society (SGP) and the Swiss Society for Infectious Diseases Society (SSI)]

The present guideline provides a new and updated concept of the management of adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia. It replaces the previous guideline dating from 2016.The guideline was worked out and agreed on following the standards of methodology of a S3-guideline. This includes a systematic literature search and grading, a structured discussion of recommendations supported by the literature as well as the declaration and assessment of potential conflicts of interests.The guideline has a focus on specific clinical circumstances, an update on severity assessment, and includes recommendations for an individualized selection of antimicrobial treatment.The recommendations aim at the same time at a structured assessment of risk for adverse outcome as well as an early determination of treatment goals in order to reduce mortality in patients with curative treatment goal and to provide palliation for patients with treatment restrictions.

Reducing the use of empiric antibiotic therapy in COVID-19 on hospital admission

BACKGROUND

Empiric antibiotics for community acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) are often prescribed to patients with COVID-19, despite a low reported incidence of co-infections. Stewardship interventions targeted at facilitating appropriate antibiotic prescribing for CABP among COVID-19 patients are needed. We developed a guideline for antibiotic initiation and discontinuation for CABP in COVID-19 patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of this intervention on the duration of empiric CABP antibiotic therapy among patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, quasi-experimental study of adult patients admitted between 3/1/2020 to 4/25/2020 with COVID-19 pneumonia, who were initiated on empiric CABP antibiotics. Patients were excluded if they were initiated on antibiotics > 48 h following admission or if another source of infection was identified. The primary outcome was the duration of antibiotic therapy (DOT) prior to the guideline (March 1 to March27, 2020) and after guideline implementation (March 28 to April 25, 2020). We also evaluated the clinical outcomes (mortality, readmissions, length of stay) among those initiated on empiric CABP antibiotics.

RESULTS

A total of 506 patients with COVID-19 were evaluated, 102 pre-intervention and 404 post-intervention. Prior to the intervention, 74.5% (n = 76) of patients with COVID-19 received empiric antibiotics compared to only 42% of patients post-intervention (n = 170), p < 0.001. The median DOT in the post-intervention group was 1.3 days shorter (p < 0.001) than the pre-intervention group, and antibiotics directed at atypical bacteria DOT was reduced by 2.8 days (p < 0.001). More patients in the post-intervention group were initiated on antibiotics based on criteria consistent with our guideline (68% versus 87%, p = 0.001). There were no differences between groups in terms of clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Following the implementation of a guideline outlining recommendations for initiating and discontinuing antibiotics for CABP among COVID-19 inpatients, we observed a reduction in antibiotic prescribing and DOT. The guideline also resulted in a significant increase in the rate of guideline-congruent empiric antibiotic initiation.

Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention of Urinary Tract Infections in Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Settings: A Consensus Statement From AMDA's Infection Advisory Subcommittee

The diagnosis and management of urinary tract infections (UTIs) among residents of post-acute and long-term care (PALTC) settings remains challenging. Nonspecific symptoms, complex medical conditions, insufficient awareness of diagnostic criteria, and unnecessary urine studies all contribute to the inappropriate diagnosis and treatment of UTIs in PALTC residents. In 2017, the Infection Advisory Subcommittee at AMDA-The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine convened a workgroup comprised of experts in geriatrics and infectious diseases to review recent literature regarding UTIs in the PALTC population. The workgroup used evidence as well as their collective clinical expertise to develop this consensus statement with the goal of providing comprehensive guidance on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of UTIs in PALTC residents. The recommendations acknowledge limitations inherent to providing medical care for frail older adults, practicing within a resource limited setting, and prevention strategies tailored to PALTC populations. In addition, the consensus statement encourages integrating antibiotic stewardship principles into the policies and procedures used by PALTC nursing staff and by prescribing clinicians as they care for residents with a suspected UTI.

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.

Diagnostic Value of C-reactive Protein and Interleukin-8 in Risk Stratification of Febrile Neutropenic Children with Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

In this analysis, the levels of CRP and IL-8 were employed as a guide for designing the duration of antibiotics administration in the condition of febrile neutropenia. The importance of laboratory biomarkers is in the early diagnosis of critical illness and adjustment of further management. IL-8 is a useful biomarker for the early identification of critically ill patients, compared to CRP in FN.

Antibiotic de-escalation therapy in patients with community-acquired nonbacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia

Background De-escalation therapy is recommended as an effective antibiotic treatment strategy for several infectious diseases. While there is limited evidence supporting its clinical and cost-effective outcomes in patients with community-acquired bacteremic pneumonia, there is no evidence in patients with nonbacteremic pneumonia. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the antibiotic costs in patients who did and did not receive de-escalation therapy, based on the 2017 Japanese guidelines for the management of community-acquired nonbacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia of the Japanese Respiratory Society (JRS). Setting Kobe university hospital, Japan. Methods A retrospective case series review including antibiotic use and length of hospital stay was conducted using the medical records from April 2008 to May 2019 at a university hospital in Japan. Main outcome measure Impact of antibiotic de-escalation therapy on the antibiotic costs. Results Among 55 patients who were eligible, the treating physicians de-escalated antibiotics in 28 (51%). The differences in the median length of hospital stay and the incidence of adverse drug reactions between the two groups were not statistically significant (p = 0.67 and 1.0, respectively). However, the median total antibiotic cost per infected patient in the de-escalated group was significantly lower than that in the non-de-escalated group [$269.8 ($195-$389) vs. $420.5 ($221-$799), p = 0.048]. Conclusion Antibiotic de-escalation based on the 2017 JRS guidelines leads to a reduction in total antibiotic costs for the management of community-acquired nonbacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia.

Impact of an automated antibiotic time-out alert on the de-escalation of broad-spectrum antibiotics at a large community teaching hospital

Broad-spectrum antibiotic de-escalation before and after implementation of a 72-hour antibiotic time-out alert within the electronic medical record was analyzed. De-escalation occurred significantly more often after the implementation of the alert (55.0% vs 35.1%; 95% confidence interval, -0.3491 to -0.0488; P < .01).

Antibiotic use in critical illness

OBJECTIVE

To provide a review on the current use of antimicrobials with a discussion on the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of antimicrobials in critically ill patients, the challenges of drug resistance, the use of diagnostic testing to direct therapy, and the selection of the most likely efficacious antimicrobial protocol.

ETIOLOGY

Patients in the intensive care unit often possess profound pathophysiologic changes that can complicate antimicrobial therapy. Although many antimicrobials have known pharmacodynamic profiles, critical illness can cause wide variations in their pharmacokinetics. The two principal factors affecting pharmacokinetics are volume of distribution and drug clearance. Understanding the interplay between critical illness, drug pharmacokinetics, and antimicrobial characteristics (ie, time-dependent vs concentration-dependent) may improve antimicrobial efficacy and patient outcome.

DIAGNOSIS

Utilizing bacterial culture and susceptibility can aid in identifying drug resistant infections, selecting the most appropriate antimicrobials, and hindering the future development of drug resistance.

THERAPY

Having a basic knowledge of antimicrobial function and how to use diagnostics to direct therapeutic treatment is paramount in managing this patient population. Diagnostic testing is not always available at the time of initiation of antimicrobial therapy, so empiric selections are often necessary. These empiric choices should be made based on the location of the infection and the most likely infecting bacteria.

PROGNOSIS

Studies have demonstrated the importance of moving away from a "one dose fits all" approach to antimicrobial therapy. Instead there has been a move toward an individualized approach that takes into consideration the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variabilities that can occur in critically ill patients.

Antibiotics De-Escalation in the Treatment of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Trauma Patients: A Retrospective Study on Propensity Score Matching Method

Background:

Antimicrobial de-escalation refers to starting the antimicrobial treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics, followed by narrowing the drug spectrum according to culture results. The present study evaluated the effect of de-escalation on ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in trauma patients.

Methods:

This retrospective study was conducted on trauma patients with VAP, who received de-escalation therapy (de-escalation group) or non-de-escalation therapy (non-de-escalation group). Propensity score matching method was used to balance the baseline characteristics between both groups. The 28-day mortality, length of hospitalization and Intensive Care Unit stay, and expense of antibiotics and hospitalization between both groups were compared. Multivariable analysis explored the factors that influenced the 28-day mortality and implementation of de-escalation.

Results:

Among the 156 patients, 62 patients received de-escalation therapy and 94 patients received non-de-escalation therapy. No significant difference was observed in 28-day mortality between both groups (28.6% vs. 23.8%, P = 0.620). The duration of antibiotics treatment in the de-escalation group was shorter than that in the non-de-escalation group (11 [8–13] vs. 14 [8–19] days, P = 0.045). The expenses of antibiotics and hospitalization in de-escalation group were significantly lower than that in the non-de-escalation group (6430 ± 2730 vs. 7618 ± 2568 RMB Yuan, P = 0.043 and 19,173 ± 16,861 vs. 24,184 ± 12,039 RMB Yuan, P = 0.024, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that high Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, high injury severity score, multi-drug resistant (MDR) infection, and inappropriate initial antibiotics were associated with patients' 28-day mortality, while high APACHE II score, MDR infection and inappropriate initial antibiotics were independent factors that prevented the implementation of de-escalation.

Conclusions:

De-escalation strategy in the treatment of trauma patients with VAP could reduce the duration of antibiotics treatments and expense of hospitalization, without increasing the 28-day mortality and MDR infection.

Modeling risk for developing drug resistant bacterial infections in an MDR-naive critically ill population

PURPOSE

To create a model predictive of an individual's risk of developing a de novo multidrug-resistant (MDR) infection while in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

This is a case-control study in which 189 ICU patients diagnosed with their first infection with an MDR organism were compared on the basis of demographic, past medical and clinical variables to randomly selected ICU patients without such an infection, era-matched in a 2:1 ratio. A prediction tool was derived using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Five features remained predictive of developing an infection with a drug-resistant pathogen: hospitalization within a year [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.14], chronic hemodialysis (3.86), underlying oxygen-dependent pulmonary disease (1.86), endotracheal intubation within 24 h (2.46) and reason for ICU admission (respiratory failure 2.89, non-respiratory failure, non-shock presentation 1.85). Using a scoring system (0-7 points) based on the adjusted OR, risk categories were derived (low: 0-2 points, intermediate: 3-4 points and high risk: 5-7 points). The negative predictive value at a score cutoff of 2 is excellent (88.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

A clinical prediction rule comprised of five easily measured ICU variables reasonably discriminates between patients who will develop their first MDR infection versus those who will not.

Antibiotic stewardship in community-acquired pneumonia

INTRODUCTION

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) continues to be associated with significant mortality and morbidity. As with other infectious diseases, in recent years there has been a marked increase in resistance to the antibiotics commonly used against the pathogens that cause CAP. Antimicrobial stewardship denotes coordinated interventions to improve and measure the appropriate use of antibiotics by encouraging the selection of optimal drug regimens. Areas covered: Several elements can be applied to antibiotic stewardship strategies for CAP in order to maintain or improve patient outcomes. In this regard, antibiotic de-escalation, duration of antibiotic treatment, adherence to CAP guidelines recommendations about empirical treatment, and switching from intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy may each be relevant in this context. Antimicrobial stewardship strategies, such as prospective audit with intervention and feedback, clinical pathways, and dedicated multidisciplinary teams, that have included some of these elements have demonstrated improvements in antimicrobial use for CAP without negatively affecting clinical outcomes. Expert commentary: Although there are a limited number of randomized clinical studies addressing antimicrobial stewardship strategies in CAP, there is evidence that antibiotic stewardship initiatives can be securely applied, providing benefits to both healthcare systems and patients.

De-escalation versus continuation of empirical antimicrobial therapy in community-acquired pneumonia

OBJECTIVES

To compare mortality between de-escalation and continued empirical treatment in patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

METHODS

Using a nationwide administrative database, we identified adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, other streptococci, Haemophilus influenzae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, or Escherichia coli (n = 10,231) or of unknown etiology (n = 8247), discharged between July 2010 and March 2013. De-escalation was determined by the spectrum and number of antimicrobials at day 4. We used propensity score matching to obtain 489 pairs of de-escalation and continuation groups among pathogen-identified patients and 278 pairs among culture-negative patients to compare mortalities.

RESULTS

In the pathogen-identified patients, de-escalation was noninferior to continuation in 15-day mortality [5.3% in de-escalation versus 4.3% in continuation, a difference of 1.0% (95% confidence interval, -1.7% to 3.7%)] and in-hospital mortality [8.0% in de-escalation versus 8.8% in continuation, a difference of -0.8% (95% confidence interval, -4.3% to 2.7%)]. In the culture-negative cases, de-escalation was noninferior to continuation in terms of 15-day mortality but not in terms of in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with community-acquired pneumonia of specific etiology, de-escalation was noninferior to continuation of empirical treatment, suggesting that de-escalation is a safe strategy and supporting current recommendations. Safety of de-escalation in culture-negative cases is questionable.

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.

Antibiotic de-escalation for bloodstream infections and pneumonia: systematic review and meta-analysis

Antibiotic de-escalation is an appealing strategy in antibiotic stewardship programmes. We aimed to assess its safety and effects using a systematic review and meta-analysis. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing adults with bacteraemia, microbiologically documented pneumonia or severe sepsis, comparing between antibiotic de-escalation and no de-escalation. De-escalation was defined as changing an initially covering antibiotic regimen to a narrower spectrum regimen based on antibiotic susceptibility testing results within 96 hours. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. A search of published articles and conference proceedings was last updated in September 2015. Crude and adjusted ORs with 95% CI were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. Sixteen observational studies and three RCTs were included. Risk of bias related to confounding was high in the observational studies. De-escalation was associated with fewer deaths in the unadjusted analysis (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.39-0.73), 19 studies, moderate heterogeneity. In the adjusted analysis there was no significant difference in mortality (adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59-1.16), 11 studies, moderate heterogeneity and the RCTs showed non-significant increased mortality with de-escalation (OR 1.73, 95% 0.97-3.06), three trials, no heterogeneity. There was a significant unadjusted association between de-escalation and survival in bacteraemia/severe sepsis (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30-0.67) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26-0.95), but not with other pneumonia (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.45-2.12). Only two studies reported on the emergence of resistance with inconsistent findings. Observational studies suggest lower mortality with antibiotic susceptibility testing-based de-escalation for bacteraemia, severe sepsis and ventilator-associated pneumonia that was not demonstrated in RCTs.

Advances in antibiotic therapy in the critically ill

Infections occur frequently in critically ill patients and their management can be challenging for various reasons, including delayed diagnosis, difficulties identifying causative microorganisms, and the high prevalence of antibiotic-resistant strains. In this review, we briefly discuss the importance of early infection diagnosis, before considering in more detail some of the key issues related to antibiotic management in these patients, including controversies surrounding use of combination or monotherapy, duration of therapy, and de-escalation. Antibiotic pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics, notably volumes of distribution and clearance, can be altered by critical illness and can influence dosing regimens. Dosing decisions in different subgroups of patients, e.g., the obese, are also covered. We also briefly consider ventilator-associated pneumonia and the role of inhaled antibiotics. Finally, we mention antibiotics that are currently being developed and show promise for the future.

Are treatment guides and rational drug use policies adequately exploited in combating respiratory system diseases?

The aim of the present study was to increase awareness regarding the rational use of medicines. The data were obtained via the Material Resources Management System Module of the Ministry of Health. For the appropriateness of treatments, the Global Initiative for Asthma, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease, and the guidelines for the rational use of medicines were used. We also investigated whether any de-escalation method or physical exercise was performed. Statistical analyses were performed using descriptive statistics to determine the mean, standard deviation, and frequency. The results showed that healthcare providers ignored potential drug reactions or adverse interactions, and reflecting the lack of adherence to the current treatment guides, 35.8% irrational use of medicines was recorded. Thus, de-escalation methods should be used to decrease costs or narrow the antibiotic spectrum, antibiotic selection should consider the resistance patterns, culturing methods should be analyzed, and monotherapy should be preferred over combination treatments.

A Simulation Study Reveals Lack of Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Target Attainment in De-escalated Antibiotic Therapy in Critically Ill Patients

De-escalation of empirical antibiotic therapy is often included in antimicrobial stewardship programs in critically ill patients, but differences in target attainment when antibiotics are switched are rarely considered. The primary objective of this study was to compare the fractional target attainments of contemporary dosing of empirical broad-spectrum β-lactam antibiotics and narrower-spectrum antibiotics for a number pathogens for which de-escalation may be considered. The secondary objective was to determine whether alternative dosing strategies improve target attainment. We performed a simulation study using published population pharmacokinetic (PK) studies in critically ill patients for a number of broad-spectrum β-lactam antibiotics and narrower-spectrum antibiotics. Simulations were undertaken using a data set obtained from critically ill patients with sepsis without absolute renal failure (n = 49). The probability of target attainment of antibiotic therapy for different microorganisms for which de-escalation was applied was analyzed. EUCAST MIC distribution data were used to calculate fractional target attainment. The probability that therapeutic exposure will be achieved was lower for the narrower-spectrum antibiotics with conventional dosing than for the broad-spectrum alternatives and could drastically be improved with higher dosages and different modes of administrations. For a selection of microorganisms, the probability that therapeutic exposure will be achieved was overall lower for the narrower-spectrum antibiotics using conventional dosing than for the broad-spectrum antibiotics.