Background There is a paucity of data on the effect of early de-escalation of antimicrobial therapy on rates of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). This retrospective cohort study evaluated impact of de-escalation from antipseudomonal β-lactam (APBL) therapy within 48 hours of Enterobacteriaceae bloodstream infections (BSIs) on 90-day risk of CDI. Methods Adult patients hospitalized for >48 hours for treatment of Enterobacteriaceae BSI at Palmetto Health hospitals in Columbia, South Carolina, from 1 January 2011 through 30 June 2015 were identified. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to examine time to CDI in patients who received >48 hours or ≤48 hours of APBL for empirical therapy of Enterobacteriaceae BSI after adjustment for the propensity to receive >48 hours of APBL. Results Among 808 patients with Enterobacteriaceae BSI, 414 and 394 received >48 and ≤48 hours of APBL, respectively. Incidence of CDI was higher in patients who received >48 hours than those who received ≤48 hours of APBL (7.0% vs 1.8%; log-rank P = .002). After adjustment for propensity to receive >48 hours of APBL and other variables in the multivariable model, receipt of >48 hours of APBL (hazard ratio [HR], 3.56 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.48–9.92]; P = .004) and end-stage renal disease (HR, 4.27 [95% CI, 1.89–9.11]; P = .001) were independently associated with higher risk of CDI. Conclusions The empirical use of APBL for >48 hours was an independent risk factor for CDI. Early de-escalation of APBL using clinical risk assessment tools or rapid diagnostic testing may reduce the incidence of CDI in hospitalized adults with Enterobacteriaceae BSIs.
Background: In 2017, Mbeya Zonal Referral Hospital (MZRH) and the University of South Carolina (UofSC) agreed to collaboratively strengthen antimicrobial prescribing in the southern highlands of Tanzania and train a new generation of clinicians in responsible antimicrobial use. Methods: Key stakeholders and participants were identified and the Mbeya Antimicrobial Stewardship Team (MAST) was created. The team identified assets brought by the collaborators, and four investigations of baseline needs were developed. These investigations included (a) a baseline clinician survey regarding antimicrobial resistance and stewardship, (b) a serial chart review of inpatient antimicrobial prescribing practices, (c) an investigation of antimicrobial resistance rates using existing isolates at the MZRH laboratory, and (d) a survey of antimicrobial availability at community pharmacies in the city. Results: 91% of physicians believe antimicrobial resistance is problem in Tanzania, although only 29% of physicians were familiar with the term “antimicrobial stewardship”. Escherichia coli isolates had resistance rates of over 60% to the commonly used agents ciprofloxacin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and ceftriaxone. Thirteen out of 14 community pharmacies offered over-the-counter antibiotics for upper respiratory symptoms. Conclusions: International antimicrobial stewardship collaborations can successfully identify opportunities and needs. Evaluating the team’s efforts to improve patient outcomes will be essential.
Antimicrobial resistance is a growing concern in sub-Saharan Africa, and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs have not been widely implemented in this region. We evaluated antibiotic prescribing patterns and concordance with national guidelines at Mbeya Zonal Referral Hospital (MZRH) in Tanzania. Adult inpatient medical records were chronologically reviewed from January 1, 2018 until 100 records documenting antibiotic therapy were evaluated. The primary endpoint was concordance with national guidelines for indication-based antibiotic selection and duration. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Overall, 155 records with sufficient data were reviewed. The 100 records which involved antibiotic therapy represented 171 unique antibiotic courses. The most common indication for antibiotics was bacterial pneumonia. Ceftriaxone and metronidazole, the most commonly used antibiotics, were administered in 40% and 24% of courses, respectively. Indication-based antibiotic selection was concordant with national guidelines in 63% of courses, but this fell to 15% when course duration was taken into account. Antibiotic courses were completed as prescribed 28% of the time among evaluable courses. A microbiologic culture of any kind was obtained in 17% of patients. In conclusion, antibiotic therapy was often incomplete, was generally guideline discordant, exhibited limited diversity of selection, and frequently lacked diagnostic confirmation. These data, combined with local susceptibility patterns, may be used to foster AMS efforts for improved compliance with guidelines at MZRH in the future.
Objective: To determine the usefulness of adjusting antibiotic use (AU) by prevalence of bacterial isolates as an alternative method for risk adjustment beyond hospital characteristics. Design: Retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study. Setting: Hospitals in the southeastern United States. Methods: AU in days of therapy per 1,000 patient days and microbiologic data from 2015 and 2016 were collected from 26 hospitals. The prevalences of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)–producing bacteria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) were calculated and compared to the average prevalence of all hospitals in the network. This proportion was used to calculate the adjusted AU (a-AU) for various categories of antimicrobials. For example, a-AU of antipseudomonal β-lactams (APBL) was the AU of APBL divided by (prevalence of P. aeruginosa at that hospital divided by the average prevalence of P. aeruginosa). Hospitals were categorized by bed size and ranked by AU and a-AU, and the rankings were compared. Results: Most hospitals in 2015 and 2016, respectively, moved ≥2 positions in the ranking using a-AU of APBL (15 of 24, 63%; 22 of 26, 85%), carbapenems (14 of 23, 61%; 22 of 25; 88%), anti-MRSA agents (13 of 23, 57%; 18 of 26, 69%), and anti-VRE agents (18 of 24, 75%; 15 of 26, 58%). Use of a-AU resulted in a shift in quartile of hospital ranking for 50% of APBL agents, 57% of carbapenems, 35% of anti-MRSA agents, and 75% of anti-VRE agents in 2015 and 50% of APBL agents, 28% of carbapenems, 50% of anti-MRSA agents, and 58% of anti-VRE agents in 2016. Conclusions: The a-AU considerably changes how hospitals compare among each other within a network. Adjusting AU by microbiological burden allows for a more balanced comparison among hospitals with variable baseline rates of resistant bacteria.
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.