The cost-effectiveness of empirical antibiotic treatments for high-risk febrile neutropenic patients: A decision analytic model.

PURPOSE: Febrile neutropenia has a significant clinical and economic impact on cancer patients. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of different current empiric antibiotic treatments. METHODS: A decision analytic model was constructed to compare the use of cefepime, meropenem, imipenem/cilastatin, and piperacillin/tazobactam for treatment of high-risk patients. The analysis was performed from the perspective of U.S.-based hospitals. The time horizon was defined to be a single febrile neutropenia episode. Cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating costs and deaths averted. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for various willingness-to-pay thresholds (WTP), were used to address the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The base-case analysis results showed that treatments were equally effective but differed mainly in their cost. In increasing order: treatment with imipenem/cilastatin cost $52,647, cefepime $57,270, piperacillin/tazobactam $57,277, and meropenem $63,778. In the probabilistic analysis, mean costs were $52,554 (CI: $52,242-$52,866) for imipenem/cilastatin, $57,272 (CI: $56,951-$57,593) for cefepime, $57,294 (CI: $56,978-$57,611) for piperacillin/tazobactam, and $63,690 (CI: $63,370-$64,009) for meropenem. Furthermore, with a WTP set at $0 to $50,000, imipenem/cilastatin was cost-effective in 66.2% to 66.3% of simulations compared to all other high-risk options. DISCUSSION: Imipenem/cilastatin is a cost-effective strategy and results in considerable health care cost-savings at various WTP thresholds. Cost-effectiveness analyses can be used to differentiate the treatments of febrile neutropenia in high-risk patients.

Opportunities Revealed for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Clinical Practice with Implementation of a Rapid Respiratory Multiplex Assay.

Few studies assess the utility of rapid multiplex molecular respiratory panels in adult patients. Previous multiplex PCR assays took hours to days from order time to result. We analyze the clinical impact of switching to a molecular assay with a 3-h test-turnaround-time (TAT). We performed a retrospective review of adult patients who presented to our emergency departments with respiratory symptoms and had a respiratory viral panel (xTAG RVP; RVP) or respiratory pathogen panel (ePlex RP; RPP) within 48 h of presentation. The average TATs for the RVP and RPP were 27.9 and 3.0 h, respectively (P < 0.0001). In RVP-positive and RPP-positive patients, 68.9 and 44.5% of those with normal chest imaging received antibiotics (P = 0.013), while 95.4 and 89.6% of those with abnormal imaging received antibiotics, respectively (P = 0.187). There was no difference in antibiotic duration in RVP-positive and RPP-positive patients with abnormal chest imaging (6.2 and 6.0 days, respectively; P = 0.923) and normal chest imaging (4.5 and 4.3 days, respectively; P = 0.922). Fewer patients were admitted in the RPP-positive compared to the RVP-positive group (76.9 and 88.6%, respectively; P = 0.013), while the proportion of admissions were similar among RPP-negative and RVP-negative patients (85.3 and 87.1%, P = 0.726). Switching to a multiplex respiratory panel with a clinically actionable TAT is associated with reduced hospital admissions and, in admitted adults without focal radiographic findings, reduced antibiotic initiation. Opportunities to further mitigate inappropriate antibiotic use may be realized by combining rapid multiplex PCR with provider education, clinical decision-care algorithms, and active antibiotic stewardship.

Role of the Pharmacist in Antimicrobial Stewardship.

The goals of antimicrobial stewardship are to optimize antimicrobial use to improve patient outcomes and minimize adverse consequences. A successful antimicrobial stewardship program is one that is multidisciplinary. Pharmacists are core members of antimicrobial stewardship and undertake multiple roles to accomplish the goals of the program. As antimicrobial stewardship continues to expand across the patient care continuum, pharmacists will serve a vital role in preserving the armamentarium of antimicrobials and improving quality of patient care.

Antimicrobial Stewardship Metrics: Prospective Audit with Intervention and Feedback.

[Full article available at http://rimed.org/rimedicaljournal-2018-06.asp].

Clinical and Genetic Risk Factors for Biofilm-Forming Staphylococcus aureus.

The molecular and clinical factors associated with biofilm-forming methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are incompletely understood. Biofilm production for 182 MRSA isolates obtained from clinical culture sites (2004 to 2013) was quantified. Microbiological toxins, pigmentation, and genotypes were evaluated, and patient demographics were collected. Logistic regression was used to quantify the effect of strong biofilm production (versus weak biofilm production) on clinical outcomes and independent predictors of a strong biofilm. Of the isolates evaluated, 25.8% (47/182) produced strong biofilms and 40.7% (74/182) produced weak biofilms. Strong biofilm-producing isolates were more likely to be from multilocus sequence typing (MLST) clonal complex 8 (CC8) (34.0% versus 14.9%; P = 0.01) but less likely to be from MLST CC5 (48.9% versus 73.0%; P = 0.007). Predictors for strong biofilms were spa type t008 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21 to 17.1) and receipt of chemotherapy or immunosuppressants in the previous 90 days (aOR, 33.6; 95% CI, 1.68 to 673). Conversely, patients with high serum creatinine concentrations (aOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.72) or who previously received vancomycin (aOR, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.002 to 0.39) were less likely to harbor strong biofilm-producing MRSA. Beta-toxin-producing isolates (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.89) and isolates with spa type t895 (aOR, 0.02 95% CI, <0.001 to 0.47) were less likely to produce strong biofilms. Patient outcomes also varied between the two groups. Specifically, patients with strong biofilm-forming MRSA were significantly more likely to be readmitted within 90 days (aOR, 5.43; 95% CI, 1.69 to 17.4) but tended to have decreased 90-day mortality (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.12 to 1.06). Patients that harbored t008 and received immunosuppressants were more likely to have strong biofilm-producing MRSA isolates. Clinically, patients with strong biofilm-forming MRSA were less likely to die at 90 days but five times more likely to be readmitted.

The Clinical Utility of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Nasal Screening to Rule Out MRSA Pneumonia: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis With Antimicrobial Stewardship Implications.

Background: Recent literature has highlighted methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal screening as a possible antimicrobial stewardship program tool for avoiding unnecessary empiric MRSA therapy for pneumonia, yet current guidelines recommend MRSA therapy based on risk factors. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the diagnostic value of MRSA nasal screening in MRSA pneumonia. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception to November 2016 for English studies evaluating MRSA nasal screening and development of MRSA pneumonia. Data analysis was performed using a bivariate random-effects model to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Results: Twenty-two studies, comprising 5163 patients, met our inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of MRSA nares screen for all MRSA pneumonia types were 70.9% and 90.3%, respectively. With a 10% prevalence of potential MRSA pneumonia, the calculated PPV was 44.8%, and the NPV was 96.5%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRSA community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) were 85% and 92.1%, respectively. For CAP and HCAP both the PPV and NPV increased, to 56.8% and 98.1%, respectively. In comparison, for MRSA ventilated-associated pneumonia, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 40.3%, 93.7%, 35.7%, and 94.8%, respectively. Conclusion: Nares screening for MRSA had a high specificity and NPV for ruling out MRSA pneumonia, particularly in cases of CAP/HCAP. Based on the NPV, MRSA nares screening is a valuable tool for AMS to streamline empiric antibiotic therapy, especially among patients with pneumonia who are not colonized with MRSA.

Inappropriate prescribing in outpatient healthcare: an evaluation of respiratory infection visits among veterans in teaching versus non-teaching primary care clinics.

A recent study led by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revealed at least 30% of antibiotic prescriptions in the outpatient setting were inappropriate. In this study of all ages, among adult patients, results were similar to the overall population, with the majority of inappropriate prescribing relating to respiratory infections. We applied the same methodology to investigate rates of antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections in outpatient primary care clinics at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The results of our evaluation reflected comparable rates of inappropriate prescribing, but when stratified by teaching versus non-teaching primary care clinics, inappropriate prescribing was significantly higher in non-teaching clinics (17.6% vs 44.0%, p < .0001). Respiratory infection visits in non-teaching outpatient clinics may be a pragmatic target for antimicrobial stewardship programs.