At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an increase in the use of antibiotics for the treatment of community-acquired respiratory tract infection (CA-ARI) in patients admitted for suspected or confirmed COVID-19, raising concerns for misuse. These antibiotics are not under the usual purview of the antimicrobial stewardship unit (ASU). Serum procalcitonin, a biomarker to distinguish viral from bacterial infections, can be used to guide antibiotic recommendations in suspected lower respiratory tract infection. We modified our stewardship approach, and used a procalcitonin-guided strategy to identify “high yield” interventions for audits in patients admitted with CA-ARI. With this approach, there was an increase in the proportion of patients with antibiotics discontinued within 4 days (16.5% vs. 34.9%, p < 0.001), and the overall duration of antibiotic therapy was significantly shorter [7 (6–8) vs. 6 (3–8) days, p < 0.001]. There was a significant decrease in patients with intravenous-to-oral switch of antibiotics to “complete the course” (45.3% vs. 34.4%, p < 0.05). Of the patients who had antibiotics discontinued, none were restarted on antibiotics within 48 h, and there was no-30-day readmission or 30-day mortality attributed to respiratory infection. This study illustrates the importance of the antimicrobial stewardship during the pandemic and the need for ASU to remain attuned to prescriber’s practices, and adapt accordingly to address antibiotic misuse to curb antimicrobial resistance.
Background In early months of COVID-19 pandemic, SGH recorded a year-on-year increase in antibiotic (ABx) use for community acquired acute respiratory infection (CA ARI) from Feb-Apr 2019 (48.7 defined daily doses (DDD)/100 bed-days) to 2020 (50.8 DDD/100 bed-days). To address concerns of misuse, the antibiotic stewardship unit (ASU) expanded prospective audit feedback (PAF) to CA ARI patients admitted to ARI wards, with low procalcitonin (PCT). PAF was conducted on day 2-3 of ABx, on weekdays. Doctors received feedback to stop/modify when ABx was deemed inappropriate. Here, we describe the impact of ASU’s adaptive approach to curb rising ABx use in patients admitted for ARI during COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A Pre- & Post-intervention study was conducted. All patients started on ABx (ceftriaxone/co-amoxiclav/piptazo/carbapenems/levofloxacin) for CA ARI & PCT < 0.5µg/L were analysed. Those who died ≤48h of admission; admitted to intensive care; required ABx escalation; >1 infective sites; complex lung infection were excluded. Primary objective was to compare the proportion of ABx stopped ≤4 days (time to final infection diagnosis) Pre (22/3-18/4/20) & Post (21/4-13/7/20). Results 184 (Pre) & 528 (Post) ABx courses were analysed. ASU audited 51 (Pre) & 380 (Post) courses with the rest discontinued/discharged before review. Patients were largely similar in both periods; a third had low likelihood of bacterial infection (C reactive protein < 30mg/L). In Post, 73 feedback was given to stop ABx (often because symptoms suggested viral/fluid overload) & 18 to switch to oral ABx. 82 (90%) feedback was accepted. No ABx was restarted ≤48h or deaths ≤30 days due to ARI. 1 patient had C. difficile diarrhoea a day after ABx cessation as per ASU feedback. Proportion of all ABx stopped ≤4 days was higher in Post than Pre [27/184 (15%) vs 152/528 (29%), p< 0.01]. Median duration of therapy of IV ABx was reduced (6.5 vs 3 days, p< 0.01), with corresponding shorter median length of stay (10.5 vs 6 days, p< 0.01). Conclusion PAF directly and indirectly reduced ABx duration in patients treated for CA ARI as prescribers become more conscious about stopping ABx when investigations show low likelihood of bacterial infection. ASU must remain agile during pandemics to detect emerging problems and adapt processes to counter early. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures
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.