IntroductionDiabetic foot infections (DFIs) are the leading cause of non-traumatic lower extremity amputations in the United States. Antimicrobials active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are recommended in patients with associated risk factors; however, limited data exist to support these recommendations. Due to the changing epidemiology of MRSA, and the consequences of unnecessary antibiotic therapy, guidance regarding the necessity of empirical MRSA coverage in DFIs is needed. We sought to 1) describe the prevalence of MRSA DFIs at our institution and compare to the proportion of patients who receive MRSA antibiotic coverage and 2) identify risk factors for MRSA DFI.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of all adult, culture-positive DFI patients managed at University Hospital, San Antonio, TX between January 1, 2010 and September 1, 2014. Patient eligibility included a principal ICD-9-CM discharge diagnosis code for foot infection and a secondary diagnosis of diabetes. The primary outcome was MRSA identified in the wound culture. Independent variables assessed included patient demographics, comorbidities, prior hospitalization, DFI therapies, prior antibiotics, prior MRSA infection, and laboratory values. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for MRSA DFI.ResultsOverall, 318 patients met inclusion criteria. Patients were predominantly Hispanic (79%) and male (69%). Common comorbidities included hypertension (76%), dyslipidemia (52%), and obesity (49%). S. aureus was present in 46% of culture-positive DFIs (MRSA, 15%). A total of 273 patients (86%) received MRSA antibiotic coverage, resulting in 71% unnecessary use. Male gender (OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.37–7.99) and bone involvement (OR 1.93, 1.00–3.78) were found to be independent risk factors for MRSA DFI.ConclusionsAlthough MRSA was the causative pathogen in a small number of DFI, antibiotic coverage targeted against MRSA was unnecessarily high.
Introduction Studies have suggested that in addition to antimicrobials, some non‐antibiotics may alter the gut microbiome. This systematic review sought to determine if there is an association between immunosuppressive agents used in recipients of solid organ transplants (SOT) and alterations in the gut microbiome. Methods English language PubMed and Scopus searches were conducted to identify relevant articles. Inclusion criteria were defined as pertaining to solid organ transplantation, immunosuppression, and the gut microbiome. Articles were excluded if they contained only genetic microbiota descriptions, narrative reviews of bacteria, or described bacteria as a pathogen for infections. PRISMA reporting was used to guide this literature review. Results A preliminary search identified 665 articles, of which 75 articles met the inclusion criteria, and 10 articles remained after application of exclusion criteria. Seventy‐one percent of articles discussed calcineurin inhibitors, such as tacrolimus, 38% included mycophenolate mofetil, and 52% included steroids, such as prednisone. Some studies utilized a combination of immunosuppressants or had multiple study arms. Seventy percent of the articles indicated changes in quantities of anaerobic bacteria including Ruminococcaceae, Lachnospiraceae, Firmicutes, Bacteroides, and Clostridiales. Combinations of immunosuppressant agents were associated with an increase in colonization of Escherichia coli and Enterococcus sp. Conclusion Some immunosuppressants are associated with changes in gut flora, but the impact on clinical outcomes is unknown. Robust clinical trials delineating the direct effect of immunosuppressants on the gut microbiome as well as the impact on clinical outcomes are warranted.
The purpose of this study was to determine the time required for antimicrobial stewardship (AS) activities at a small community hospital (SCH) as well as barriers to remote AS to satisfy The Joint Commission (TJC)'s AS standard. Methods: This was a prospective chart review and time study conducted in patients identified by a clinical decision support application as potential opportunities for antimicrobial therapy modification at a SCH between December 12, 2016, and March 31, 2017. Potential interventions were communicated electronically to the clinical pharmacy specialist, who would then communicate the recommendations to the patient's provider. The primary endpoint was a time study for stewardship activities. Secondary endpoints included describing barriers encountered to remote AS as well as a cost-benefit analysis of remote AS. Results: The time study revealed an average of 11 alerts per day, 9 chart reviews per day, 8 interventions per day, and 5 minutes per chart. Seven hundred twenty-four alerts were evaluated with the most common alerts constituting opportunities for deescalation (29%), targeted drugs (22%), positive blood cultures (18%), Intravenous (IV) to oral (PO) (17%), and antimicrobial renal monitoring (8%).Interventions were accepted (11%), accepted modified (6%), rejected (35%), or undetermined (48%). Barriers to implementation included workflow and indirect communication. For patients with accepted interventions, there was an average savings of $279.82 per patient in pharmacy charges. Conclusion: Through remote AS, a SCH can have an antimicrobial stewardship program that is in compliance with the basic elements of the TJC standard MM.09.01.01, performs daily chart review by an infectious diseases trained pharmacist to increase the quality of patient care, and achieves a mean savings of $279.82 in pharmacy charges and $1,126.26 in hospital charges per patient with accepted interventions.
We did not identify an association between antibiotic appropriateness and 30-day mortality, hospital LOS, or ICU LOS in post-LT recipients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.