Improving Antimicrobial Use to Protect the Environment: What Is the Role of Infection Specialists?

Anthropogenic environmental changes are causing severe damage to the natural and social systems on which human health depends. The environmental impacts of the manufacture, use, and disposal of antimicrobials cannot be underestimated. This article explores the meaning of environmental sustainability and four sustainability principles (prevention, patient engagement, lean service delivery, and low carbon alternatives) that infection specialists can apply to support environmental sustainability in health systems. To prevent inappropriate use of antimicrobials and consequent antimicrobial resistance (AMR) requires international, national, and local surveillance plans and action supporting antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). Engaging patients in addressing environmental sustainability, for example through public awareness campaigns about the appropriate disposal of unused and expired antimicrobials, could drive environmentally sustainable changes. Streamlining service delivery may include using innovative methods such as C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), or genotype-guided point of care testing (POCT) to reduce unnecessary antimicrobial prescribing and risk of adverse effects. Infection specialists can assess and advise on lower carbon alternatives such as choosing oral (PO) over intravenous (IV) antimicrobials where clinically appropriate. By applying sustainability principles, infection specialists can promote the effective use of healthcare resources, improve care quality, protect the environment, and prevent harm to current and future generations.

Information provision for antibacterial dosing in the obese patient: a sizeable absence?

BACKGROUND: Obesity is on course to overtake being underweight as a global disease burden. Obesity alters antibacterial pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD). Historically, drug PK/PD parameters have not been studied in obese populations. This means dose recommendations risk being sub-therapeutic in a population at increased risk of infection. Suboptimal antibacterial prescribing is widely associated with treatment failure, worse clinical outcomes, unnecessary escalation to broad-spectrum therapy and the emergence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). OBJECTIVES: To analyse current information provided by pharmaceutical companies, for the most commonly prescribed antibacterial agents in the UK, for evidence of dosing guidance for obese adults. METHODS: We analysed the manufacturers' Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) for 42 of the most clinically important and frequently prescribed antibacterial agents dispensed across both primary and secondary care. The manufacturer's SPC was reviewed, and cross-referenced with the online British National Formulary, to assess dosing guidance for obese adults. RESULTS: No advice was provided to guide dosing for obese adults in 35 (83%) of 42 of the most clinically important and frequently prescribed antibacterial agents in the UK. Seven (17%) antibacterial agents (tigecycline, vancomycin, daptomycin, amikacin, gentamicin, tobramycin and teicoplanin) provided variable levels of advice. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of advice and evidence in the UK to guide dosing common antibacterial agents in the obese. The literature on antibacterial PK/PD studies in obese populations remains scarce. In the face of the increasing risks of AMR combined with the global rise of obesity there is an urgent need to address this significant research gap.

Body mass index and diabetes status do not affect postoperative infection rates after bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Obesity predisposes general surgical patients to infections such as surgical site infection and respiratory tract infection. The infection rates vary by surgical approach and the type of surgery undertaken. Bariatric surgery is increasingly used to treat obesity and obesity related co-morbidities. However, little is known about the relationship between postoperative infections and patient characteristics, such as body mass index (BMI) or diabetes status, in bariatric cohorts. The objective of this study was to examine the rates of all postoperative infection in patients after bariatric surgery in relation to known risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 815 patients were included in the final analysis. During the first month after surgery, 5.2% of patients experienced an infection-related event, and surgery-related infections were most prevalent. Between the second and twelfth month postoperatively, a further 4.7% of patients experienced an infection-related event, and nonsurgical related infections were most prevalent. Infection was associated with increased length of stay in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (P<.001) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (P = .011) but not in laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) (P = .41). Diabetes status and BMI were not associated with increased infection rates during the first month after surgery. CONCLUSION: Infection rates after bariatric surgery are relatively low and are associated with a prolonged length of hospital stay. Reassuringly, neither diabetic status nor BMI appear to increase the risk of postoperative infection after bariatric surgery.