Intravenous push antibiotics in the emergency department: Education and implementation.

PURPOSE: Intravenous push antibiotics can serve as an alternative to intravenous piggyback antibiotics while providing the same pharmacodynamics and adverse effect profile, easing shortage pressures and decreasing order to administration time, as well as representing a potential cost savings. The purpose of this study was to determine whether intravenous push antibiotics could decrease the time from an order to the start of administration compared to piggyback antibiotics in emergency departments. This study also measured the cost savings of antibiotic preparation and administration and assessed nursing satisfaction when using intravenous push antibiotics. METHODS: Sample instances of use of intravenous push and piggyback antibiotics were identified. Patients were included if they were 18 years of age or older and received at least a single dose of intravenous push or piggyback ceftriaxone, cefepime, cefazolin, or meropenem in one of the institution's emergency departments. The primary outcome of the study was to compare the time from the order to the start of administration of intravenous push vs piggyback antibiotics. The secondary outcome was to compare the cost of antibiotic preparation for the 2 methods. RESULTS: The intravenous push and piggyback groups each had 43 patients. The time from the order to the start of administration decreased from 74 (interquartile range, 29-114) minutes in the piggyback group to 31 (interquartile range, 21-52) minutes in the push group (P = 0.003). When the estimated monthly cost savings for ceftriaxone, cefepime, and meropenem were added together, across the emergency departments, an estimated $227,930.88 is saved per year when using intravenous push antibiotics. CONCLUSION: Intravenous push antibiotics decrease the time from ordering to the start of administration and result in significant cost savings.

Response of extensively drug resistant Salmonella Typhi to treatment with meropenem and azithromycin, in Pakistan.

INTRODUCTION: Salmonella Typhi is one of the leading health problems in Pakistan. With the emergence of extensively drug resistant (XDR) Salmonella Typhi, treatment options are limited. Here we report the clinical manifestations and the response to treatment of patients with XDR Typhoid fever. The patients were treated with either Meropenem or Azithromycin or a combination of both. METHODS: We reviewed the records of culture confirmed XDR typhoid who visited Aga Khan University Hospital (AKUH), Karachi and Aga Khan Secondary Care Hospital, Hyderabad from April 2017 to June 2018. Symptoms developed during disease, unplanned treatment extension and complications developed while on antimicrobials was recorded. Means with standard deviation were calculated for duration of treatment, time to defervescence, and cost of treatment. RESULTS: Records of 81 culture confirmed XDR typhoid patients admitted at the AKU hospitals were reviewed. Most, (n = 45; 56%) were male. Mean age of the cases was 8.03 years with range (1-40). About three quarter (n = 66) of the patients were treated as inpatient. Fever and vomiting were the most common symptoms at the time of presentation. Oral azithromycin alone (n = 22; 27%), intravenous meropenem alone (n = 20; 25%), or a combination of azithromycin and meropenem (n = 39; 48%) were the options used for treatment. Average (95% confidence interval) time to defervescence was 7.1(5.5-8.6), 6.7(4.7-8.7), and 6.7(5.5-7.9) days for each treatment option respectively whereas there were 1,0 and 3 treatment failures in each treatment option respectively. Average cost of treatment per day for azithromycin was US$5.87 whereas it was US$88.46 for meropenem. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with either Azithromycin, Meropenem alone or in combination showed similar time to defervescence. Because of the lower cost of azithromycin, it is preferable in lower socio-economic areas. Background estimates for power calculation can be made for more robust clinical trials using this observational data.

Effect of a "handshake" stewardship program versus a formulary restriction policy on High-End antibiotic use, expenditure, antibiotic resistance, and patient outcome.

This study reports the effect of implementing an antibiotic stewardship program (ASP) based on the "handshake" strategy for 2 years on multiple endpoints compared with that in a preceding period when an antimicrobial restriction policy was only applied in the absence of a complete program in a tertiary-care Lebanese hospital. The studied endpoints were broad-spectrum antibiotic consumption, antibiotic expenditure, nosocomial bacteremia incidence rate, and patient outcome.An interrupted time series analysis was undertaken to assess the changes in the trend (ΔT) and level (ΔL) of the aforementioned endpoints among adult inpatients before (October 2013 to September 2015) and after the introduction of the ASP (October 2016 to September 2018).After the implementation of the "handshake" ASP, marked changes were observed in the consumption of broad-spectrum antibiotics. The mean use density levels for imipenem and meropenem decreased by 13.72% (P = 0.017), coupled with a decreasing rate of prescription (ΔT = -24.83 defined daily dose [DDD]/1,000 patient days [PD]/month; P = 0.02). Tigecycline use significantly decreased in level by 69.19% (P < 0.0001) and in trend (ΔT = -25.63 DDD/1,000 PD/month; P < 0.0001). A reduction in the use of colistin was also documented but did not reach statistical significance (ΔL = -8.71%, P = 0.56; ΔT = -5.51 DDD/1,000 PD/month = -5.5; P = 0.67). Antibiotic costs decreased by 24.6% after ASP implementation (P < 0.0001), and there was a distinct change from an increasing rate to a decreasing rate of expenditure (ΔT = -12.19 US dollars/PD/month; P = 0.002). The incidence rate of nosocomial bacteremia caused by carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria (CRGNB) decreased by 34.84% (P = 0.13) coupled with a decreasing trend (ΔT = -0.23 cases/1,000 PD/month, P = 0.08). Specifically, a noticeable reduction in the incidence rate of bacteremia due to carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii was documented (ΔL = -54.34%, P = 0.01; ΔT = -0.24 cases/1000 PD/month, P = 0.01). Regarding patient outcome, all-cause mortality rates did not increase in level or in rate (ΔL = -3.55%, P = 0.59; ΔT = -0.29 deaths/1000 PD/month, P = 0.6). The length of stay and 7-day readmission rate remained stable between the two periods.In conclusion, the "handshake" ASP succeeded in controlling the prescription rates of antibiotics and in decreasing the nosocomial bacteremia rates caused by CRGNB without compromising patient outcome in our facility. It also had an economic effect in reducing antibiotic costs compared with the previous restriction policy on antimicrobial dispensing.

Cost-effectiveness Comparison of Ceftazidime/Avibactam Versus Meropenem in the Empirical Treatment of Hospital-acquired Pneumonia, Including Ventilator-associated Pneumonia, in Italy.

PURPOSE: Ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) is a fixed-dose combination antibiotic approved in Europe and the United States for patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP). The economic benefits of a new drug such as CAZ-AVI are required to be assessed against those of available comparators, from the perspective of health care providers and payers, through cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses. The objective of this analysis was to compare the cost-effectiveness of CAZ-AVI versus meropenem in the empirical treatment of appropriate hospitalized patients with HAP/VAP caused by gram-negative pathogens, from the perspective of publicly funded health care in Italy (third-party perspective, based on the data from the REPROVE (Ceftazidime-Avibactam Versus Meropenem In Nosocomial Pneumonia, Including Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia) clinical study; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01808092). METHODS: A patient-level, sequential simulation model of the HAP/VAP clinical course was developed using spreadsheet software. The analysis focused on direct medical costs. The time horizon of the model selected was 5 years, with an annual discount rate of 3% on costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Clinical inputs for treatment comparisons were mainly obtained from the REPROVE clinical study data. In addition to clinical outcomes observed in the trial, the model incorporated impact of resistance pathogens, based on data from published studies and expert opinion. Certain assumptions were made for some model parameters due to a lack of data. FINDINGS: The analysis demonstrated that the intervention sequence (CAZ-AVI followed by colistin + high-dose meropenem) versus the comparator sequence (meropenem followed by colistin + high-dose meropenem) provided a better clinical cure rate (+13.52%), which led to a shorter hospital stay (-0.40 days per patient), and gains in the number of life-years (+0.195) and QALYs (+0.350) per patient. The intervention sequence had an estimated net incremental total cost of €1254 ($1401) per patient, and the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €3581 ($4000) per QALY gained, well below the willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 ($33,507) per QALY in Italy. IMPLICATIONS: The model results showed that CAZ-AVI is expected to provide clinical benefits in hospitalized patients with HAP/VAP in Italy at an acceptable cost compared to meropenem.

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.

Clinical and economic impact of generic versus brand name meropenem use in an intensive care unit in Colombia

Abstract Background: Recent studies suggest that sustained use of generic antibiotics may be associated with clinical failure and emergence of antibacterial resistance. The present study was designed to determine the clinical outcome between the use of generic meropenem (GM) and brand-name meropenem (BNM). Additionally, this study evaluated the economic impact of GM and BNM to determine if the former represents a cost-effective alternative to the latter. Methods: Patients treated between January 2011 and May 2014 received GM while patients treated between June 2014 and March 2017 received BNM. Mortality was compared between groups. Total infection cost was defined by the cost of antimicrobial consumption, length of stay, and laboratory and imaging exams until infection resolution. Findings: A total of 168 patients were included; survival rate for the 68 patients treated with GM was 38% compared to 59% in the patients treated with BNM. Multivariate analysis showed that the variables most strongly-associated with mortality were cardiovascular disease (OR 18.18, 95% CI 1.25-262.3, p = 0.033) and treatment with generic meropenem (OR 18.45, 95% CI 1.45-232.32, p = 0.024). On the other hand, total infection cost did not show a significant difference between groups (BNM $10,771 vs. GM $11,343; p = 0.91). Interpretation: The present study suggests that patients treated with GM have a risk of death 18 times higher compared to those treated with BNM. Furthermore, economic analysis shows that GM is not more cost effective than BNM. Summary: More studies measuring clinical outcomes are needed to confirm the clinical equivalence of brand-name versus generic antibiotics, not only for meropenem but also for other molecules.

Clinical cure rate and cost-effectiveness of carbapenem-sparing beta-lactams vs. meropenem for Gram-negative infections: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis.

The increasing incidence of infections caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)/AmpC-producing bacteria leads to increasing use of carbapenems and risk of carbapenem resistance. Treatment success of carbapenem-sparing beta-lactams (CSBs) for ESBL infections is unclear. The aim of this study was to appraise the clinical cure rate and estimate the cost-effectiveness of meropenem vs. CSBs (piperacillin-tazobactam, temocillin, ceftazidime-avibactam, and ceftolozane-tazobactam) for urinary tract infections (UTIs) or intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) due to ESBL/AmpC-producing bacteria. A systematic literature search of the Cochrane library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science was conducted to identify studies assessing the clinical cure rate of the antibiotics. To assess the cost-effectiveness of CSBs vs. meropenem, a combined decision analytic and Markov model was probabilistically analysed over a 5-year period. The main outcome was presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and evaluated with a threshold of €20 000 per life year gained (LYG). From 656 identified articles, 17 and 14 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and quantitative synthesis, respectively. A clinical cure of ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane-tazobactam was comparable to meropenem in patients with complicated IAIs (cIAIs) due to ESBL (Risk ratio [RR]=1·04, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0·95-1·13). Both temocillin and ceftolozane-tazobactam were deemed cost-effective compared to meropenem with €157·58 and €13 398·34 per LYG, respectively, in patients with UTIs due to ESBL. However, only ceftazidime-avibactam (plus metronidazole) was cost-effective for the treatment of IAIs, with €16 916·77 per LYG. These results show that several CSBs can be considered as viable candidates for the treatment of UTIs and IAIs caused by ESBL.

Clinical and economic impact of generic versus brand name meropenem use in an intensive care unit in Colombia.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that sustained use of generic antibiotics may be associated with clinical failure and emergence of antibacterial resistance. The present study was designed to determine the clinical outcome between the use of generic meropenem (GM) and brand-name meropenem (BNM). Additionally, this study evaluated the economic impact of GM and BNM to determine if the former represents a cost-effective alternative to the latter. METHODS: Patients treated between January 2011 and May 2014 received GM while patients treated between June 2014 and March 2017 received BNM. Mortality was compared between groups. Total infection cost was defined by the cost of antimicrobial consumption, length of stay, and laboratory and imaging exams until infection resolution. FINDINGS: A total of 168 patients were included; survival rate for the 68 patients treated with GM was 38% compared to 59% in the patients treated with BNM. Multivariate analysis showed that the variables most strongly-associated with mortality were cardiovascular disease (OR 18.18, 95% CI 1.25-262.3, p = 0.033) and treatment with generic meropenem (OR 18.45, 95% CI 1.45-232.32, p = 0.024). On the other hand, total infection cost did not show a significant difference between groups (BNM $10,771 vs. GM $11,343; p = 0.91). INTERPRETATION: The present study suggests that patients treated with GM have a risk of death 18 times higher compared to those treated with BNM. Furthermore, economic analysis shows that GM is not more cost effective than BNM. SUMMARY: More studies measuring clinical outcomes are needed to confirm the clinical equivalence of brand-name versus generic antibiotics, not only for meropenem but also for other molecules.

Does an Antimicrobial Time-Out Impact the Duration of Therapy of Antimicrobials in the PICU?

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to perform an antimicrobial time-out 48-72 hours after commencing therapy in order to achieve a decrease in days of therapy per 1,000 patient days for vancomycin, meropenem, and piperacillin/tazobactam in all PICU patients during an 8-month period. DESIGN: This is a pre- and postimplementation quality improvement study. SETTINGS: A 30-bed PICU at a tertiary children's hospital. PATIENTS: Patients less than 21 years old admitted to the PICU from July 1, 2015, until March 31, 2016, or from July 1, 2016, until March 31, 2017, who received antibiotics for greater than 48 hours were eligible for inclusion. INTERVENTION: An antimicrobial time-out was performed after 48-72 hours of antimicrobials for all patients in the PICU during postimplementation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome measure was days of therapy per 1,000 patient-days for three target antibiotics: vancomycin, meropenem, and piperacillin/tazobactam. Ninety-five patients meeting inclusion criteria were admitted to the PICU during the pre-time-out period and 95 patients during the post-time-out period. The cohort that underwent time-outs had lower days of therapy for vancomycin (81.3 vs 138.1; p = 0.037) and meropenem (34.7 vs 67.1; p = 0.045). Total acquisition cost was 31 % lower for piperacillin/tazobactam and vancomycin and 46% for meropenem post implementation. Time-outs led to antimicrobial duration being defined 63% of the time and deescalation or discontinuation of antimicrobials 29% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: A 48-72-hour time-out process in rounds is associated with a reduction in days of therapy for antibiotics commonly used in the PICU and may lead to more appropriate usage. The time-outs are associated with discontinuation, deescalation, or duration being defined, which are key elements of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-recommended antimicrobial stewardship programs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) as empirical treatment comparing to ceftolozane/tazobactam and to meropenem for complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI).

Background: The rising incidence of resistance to currently available antibiotics among pathogens, particularly Gram-negative pathogens, in complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) has become a challenge for clinicians. Ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) is a fixed-dose antibiotic approved in Europe and the United States for treating (in combination with metronidazole) cIAI in adult hospitalised patients who have limited or no alternative treatment options. The approval was based on the results of RECLAIM, a Phase III, parallel-group, comparative study (RECLAIM 1 [NCT01499290] and RECLAIM 2 [NCT01500239]). The objective of our study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole compared with 1) ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole and 2) meropenem, as an empiric treatment for the management of cIAI in Italy. Methods: A sequential, patient-level simulation model, with a 5-year time horizon and 3% annual discount rate (applied to both costs and health benefits), was developed using Microsoft Excel® to demonstrate the clinical course of the disease. The impact of resistant pathogens was included as an additional factor. Results: In the base-case analysis, the CAZ-AVI sequence (CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole followed by a colistin + tigecycline + high-dose meropenem combination after treatment failure), when compared to sequences for ceftolozane/tazobactam (ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole followed by colistin + tigecycline + high-dose meropenem after treatment failure) and meropenem (meropenem followed by colistin + tigecycline + high-dose meropenem after treatment failure), had better clinical outcomes with higher cure rates (93.04% vs. 91.52%; 92.98% vs. 90.24%, respectively), shorter hospital stays (∆ = - 0.38 and ∆ = - 1.24 days per patient, respectively), and higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per patient (4.021 vs. 3.982; 4.019 vs. 3.960, respectively). The incremental cost effectiveness ratio in the CAZ-AVI sequence was €4099 and €15,574 per QALY gained versus each comparator sequence, respectively, well below the willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY accepted in Italy. Conclusions: The model results demonstrated that CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole could be a cost-effective alternative when compared with other antibiotic treatment options, as it is expected to provide better clinical benefits in hospitalised patients with cIAI in Italy.

Antimicrobial consumption in five adult intensive care units: a 33-month surveillance study.

Background: Estimating the baseline antimicrobial consumption is extremely important to monitor the impact of antimicrobial stewardship activities that aim to reduce the burden and cost of antimicrobial consumption. Objectives: To quantify service-specific antimicrobial consumption using different metrics. Methods: A surveillance study was conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between October 2012 and June 2015 in five adult intensive care units (ICUs). Consumption data were collected manually on a daily basis by infection control practitioners. Data were presented as defined daily dose (DDD), days of therapy (DOT) per 1000 patient days, and frequency of daily consumption. Results: A total of 43,970 DDDs and 46,940 DOTs were monitored during 54,116 patient-days. For the most frequently consumed antimicrobials, the consumption of carbapenems, piperacillin/tazobactam, vancomycin, and colistin (respectively) in all ICUs combined were 255.9, 134.3, 98.2, and 13.6 DDDs per 1000 patient-days and 235.7, 145.9, 129.5, and 117.5 DOTs per 1000 patient-days. For the frequency of daily consumption, carbapenems were the most frequently consumed antimicrobial group in medical/surgical, burn, and step-down ICUs while piperacillin/tazobactam was the most frequently consumed antimicrobial in neuro-surgical and cardio-thoracic ICUs. Conclusion: High consumption of broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents such as meropenem and piperacillin/tazobactam is observed in multiple ICUs in a tertiary care hospital. Meropenem consumption is considerably higher than similar ICUs internationally. Future studies focusing on concurrent monitoring of antimicrobial resistance and identifying patient and physician characteristics associated with specific prescription patterns may help in improving judicious antimicrobial consumption.