Search

Objectives: Traditional antibiograms use local resistance patterns and susceptibility data to guide empiric antimicrobial therapy selection. However, antibiograms are rarely unit-specific and do not account for patient-specific risk factors., Methods: This retrospective, single-center descriptive study used culture and susceptibility data from January 1 to December 31, 2016 to develop an Emergency Department (ED)-specific antibiogram and compare the antimicrobial susceptibilities of the most commonly identified organisms to the hospital antibiogram. All ED isolates were further stratified by the following risk factors that may influence antimicrobial susceptibility: age, disposition from ED, previous antimicrobial use and/or hospitalization within 30 days, and presenting location (i.e. healthcare facility residence versus community)., Results: A total of 2158 isolates from the ED were included: Escherichia coli (n = 1244), Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 232), Proteus mirabilis (n = 131), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 103), Staphylococcus aureus (n = 303), and Enterococcus faecalis (n = 145). There were no statistically significant differences between the ED and hospital antibiogram (n = 5739) with the exception of Escherichia coli. The hospital antibiogram overestimated Escherichia coli resistance rates for cefazolin (20% vs 15.6%, p = 0.049), ceftriaxone (9.6% vs 6.4%, p < 0.033), and ciprofloxacin (23.7% vs 15.4%, p < 0.006). There were significantly more risk factors present in patients admitted versus discharged from the ED (p < 0.001). Healthcare facility residence had the greatest influence on susceptibility, especially Escherichia coli (81.8% vs 34.9%, p < 0.001) and Proteus mirabilis (75.3% vs 33%, p < 0.001) ciprofloxacin susceptibility., Conclusions: There were no statistically significant differences between the ED and hospital antibiogram with the exception of Escherichia coli. However, development of an ED-specific antibiogram can aid physicians in prescribing appropriate empiric therapy when risk factors are included., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of infectious diseases consultation (IDC) and a real-time antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) review on the management of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB)., Methods: This retrospective study included adult inpatients with SAB from January 2016 to December 2018 at 7 hospitals. Outcomes were compared between 3 time periods: before mandatory IDC and AMS review (period 1), after mandatory IDC and before AMS review (period 2), and after mandatory IDC and AMS review (period 3). The primary outcome was bundle adherence, defined as appropriate intravenous antimicrobial therapy, appropriate duration of therapy, appropriate surveillance cultures, echocardiography, and removal of indwelling intravenous catheters, if applicable. Secondary end points included individual bundle components, source control, length of stay (LOS), 30-day bacteremia-related readmission, and in-hospital all-cause mortality., Results: A total of 579 patients met inclusion criteria for analysis. Complete bundle adherence was 65% in period 1 (n = 241/371), 54% in period 2 (n = 47/87), and 76% in period 3 (n = 92/121). Relative to period 3, bundle adherence was significantly lower in period 1 (odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.93; P  = .02) and period 2 (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.20-0.67; P  = .0009). No difference in bundle adherence was noted between periods 1 and 2. Significant differences were seen in obtaining echocardiography (91% vs 83% vs 100%; P  < .001), source control (34% vs 45% vs 45%; P  = .04), and hospital LOS (10.5 vs 8.9 vs 12.0 days; P  = .01). No differences were noted for readmission or mortality., Conclusions: The addition of AMS pharmacist review to mandatory IDC was associated with significantly improved quality care bundle adherence., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs integrated with rapid diagnostic tests optimize patient outcomes and reduce time to effective therapy (TTET) and time to optimal therapy (TTOT). This study identifies predictors of TTET and TTOT among patients with positive blood cultures and identifies limitations to current TTOT definitions and outcomes.

Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) decreases the time to organism identification and improves clinical and financial outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of MALDI-TOF MS alone versus MALDI-TOF MS combined with real-time, pharmacist-driven, antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) intervention on patient outcomes. This single-center, pre-post, quasiexperimental study evaluated hospitalized patients with positive blood cultures identified via MALDI-TOF MS combined with prospective AMS intervention compared to a control cohort with MALDI-TOF MS identification without AMS intervention. AMS intervention included: real-time MALDI-TOF MS pharmacist notification and prospective AMS provider feedback. The primary outcome was the time to optimal therapy (TTOT). A total of 252 blood cultures, 126 in each group, were included in the final analysis. MALDI-TOF MS plus AMS intervention significantly reduced the overall TTOT (75.17 versus 43.06 h; P < 0.001), the Gram-positive contaminant TTOT (48.21 versus 11.75 h; P < 0.001), the Gram-negative infection (GNI) TTOT (71.83 versus 35.98 h; P < 0.001), and the overall hospital length of stay (LOS; 15.03 versus 9.02 days; P = 0.021). The TTOT for Gram-positive infection (GPI) was improved (64.04 versus 41.61 h; P = 0.082). For GPI, the hospital LOS (14.64 versus 10.31 days; P = 0.002) and length of antimicrobial therapy 24.30 versus 18.97 days; P = 0.018) were reduced. For GNI, the time to microbiologic clearance (51.13 versus 34.51 h; P < 0.001), the hospital LOS (15.40 versus 7.90 days; P = 0.027), and the intensive care unit LOS (5.55 versus 1.19 days; P = 0.035) were reduced. To achieve optimal outcomes, rapid identification with MALDI-TOF MS combined with real-time AMS intervention is more impactful than MALDI-TOF MS alone., (Copyright © 2017 American Society for Microbiology.)

Background: Traditional antibiograms guide clinicians in selecting appropriate empiric antimicrobials, but they lack data on syndrome/disease-specific susceptibility, isolate location, polymicrobial infections, and patient risk factors. The aim of this study was to develop a urinary-specific antibiogram and to evaluate the impact of risk factors on antimicrobial susceptibility., Methods: This retrospective descriptive study used culture and susceptibility data from January 1 to December 31, 2012. A urinary antibiogram specific for Escherichia coli (EC), Proteus mirabilis (PM), Klebsiella pneumoniae (KP), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) was developed. Urinary and standard antibiogram susceptibilities were compared. Urinary isolates were then stratified by risk factors-residence before admission, age, systemic antimicrobial use for ≤30 days, hospitalization for ≤30 days, and hospital unit-to determine the impact on antimicrobial susceptibility., Results: There were 2,284 urinary isolate encounters. Overall antimicrobial susceptibility was increased, and the prevalence of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing isolates was significantly greater (KP, 14% vs 7% [P = .001]; EC, 13% vs 9% [P < .001]; PM, 18% vs 10% [P = .004]) in the urinary antibiogram vs the standard antibiogram. Health care facility residence had the greatest impact on susceptibility for all urinary isolates, especially on fluoroquinolone susceptibility for EC and PM., Conclusions: Using a syndromic antibiogram and incorporating patient risk factors into susceptibility data may be more useful in guiding clinicians in selecting more appropriate empiric therapy., (Copyright © 2014 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: More than half of all medications are inappropriately prescribed, dispensed, or sold and only 50% of patients take their medications correctly. Oftentimes, unwanted or expired medications are saved for later use, stored indefinitely, or disposed via the sink, toilet, or garbage., Objective: To determine how residents in Cook County, Illinois, use, store, and dispose of their medications to assess the possible impact of these medications on health care and the environment., Methods: Researchers at the University of Illinois conducted a survey of Cook County residents over a 13-week period. Residents were surveyed regarding their use, storage, and disposal of prescription and nonprescription medications., Results: From 3954 telephone numbers generated through random-digit dialing, 445 telephone interviews were completed. Eighty-one and a half percent of respondents had prescription medications and 92.4% had nonprescription medications in their homes. On average, respondents possessed 4.4 distinct prescription and 5.5 distinct nonprescription medications. Despite possessing a number of medications, approximately 30% of respondents stated that they took no medication on a regular basis; 59% of respondents reported disposing medications in the household gar bage and 31% flushed them down the toilet or sink. Over 80% of respondents stated that they had never received information about proper medication disposal. Thirty-seven percent reported having leftover unexpired medications from a previous illness. Of these, 63% stopped taking their medications because they believed that they no longer needed them or because they felt better. Thirty-two percent of respondents expected to have leftover prescription medications within the next 6 months., Conclusions: Almost all respondents had excess and leftover medications in their homes. This may be a result of both overprescribing and poor medication adherence. In addition to the potential human health risk of nonadherence, disposal of excess medication raises concerns about their environmental impact and safety.