Search

Objective: Although prior authorization and prospective audit with feedback are both effective antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) strategies, the relative impact of these approaches remains unclear. We compared these core ASP strategies at an academic medical center., Design: Quasi-experimental study., Methods: We compared antimicrobial use during the 24 months before and after implementation of an ASP strategy change. The ASP used prior authorization alone during the preintervention period, June 2007 through May 2009. In June 2009, many antimicrobials were unrestricted and prospective audit was implemented for cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, and vancomycin, marking the start of the postintervention period, July 2009 through June 2011. All adult inpatients who received more than or equal to 1 dose of an antimicrobial were included. The primary end point was antimicrobial consumption in days of therapy per 1,000 patient-days (DOT/1,000-PD). Secondary end points included length of stay (LOS)., Results: In total, 55,336 patients were included (29,660 preintervention and 25,676 postintervention). During the preintervention period, both total systemic antimicrobial use (-9.75 DOT/1,000-PD per month) and broad-spectrum anti-gram-negative antimicrobial use (-4.00 DOT/1,000-PD) declined. After the introduction of prospective audit with feedback, however, both total antimicrobial use (+9.65 DOT/1,000-PD per month; P < .001) and broad-spectrum anti-gram-negative antimicrobial use (+4.80 DOT/1,000-PD per month; P < .001) increased significantly. Use of cefepime and piperacillin/tazobactam both significantly increased after the intervention (P = .03). Hospital LOS and LOS after first antimicrobial dose also significantly increased after the intervention (P = .016 and .004, respectively)., Conclusions: Significant increases in antimicrobial consumption and LOS were observed after the change in ASP strategy.

Colonization by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) may be persistent in people and is horizontally transmissible. The scientific literature suggests that domestic pets may also participate in cross-transmission of MRSA within households. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the prevalence of and risk factors for MRSA carriage by pets residing in households with an MRSA-infected person. From 66 households in which an MRSA-infected patient resided, we screened 47 dogs and 52 cats using a swab protocol. Isolates from pets and humans were genotyped using two techniques and compared for concordance. Human participants completed a 22-question survey of demographic and epidemiologic data relevant to staphylococcal transmission. Eleven of 99 pets (11.5%) representing 9 (13.6%) of households were MRSA-positive, but in only six of these households were the human and animal-source strains genetically concordant. Human infection by strain USA 100 was significantly associated with pet carriage [OR = 11.4 (95% CI 1.7, 76.9); P = 0.013]. Yet, for each day of delay in sampling the pet after the person's MRSA diagnosis, the odds of isolating any type of MRSA from the pet decreased by 13.9% [(95% CI 2.6, 23.8); P = 0.017)]. It may be concluded that pets can harbour pandemic strains of MRSA while residing in a household with an infected person. However, the source of MRSA to the pet cannot always be attributed to the human patient. Moreover, the rapid attrition of the odds of obtaining a positive culture from pets over time suggests that MRSA carriage may be fleeting., (© 2012 Blackwell Verlag GmbH.)