The efficacy and safety of daptomycin vs. vancomycin for the treatment of cellulitis and erysipelas.

BACKGROUND: Results from previous trials suggest that daptomycin may result in faster clinical improvement than penicillinase-resistant penicillins or vancomycin for patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate whether daptomycin treatment of cellulitis or erysipelas would result in faster resolution compared with vancomycin. DESIGN: The study was a prospective, evaluator-blinded, multi-centre trial. Patients were randomised to receive daptomycin 4 mg/kg once daily or vancomycin according to standard of care for 7-14 days. PATIENTS: Adults diagnosed with cellulitis or erysipelas requiring hospitalisation and intravenous antibiotic therapy were eligible for enrolment. RESULTS: The clinical success rates were 94.0% for daptomycin and 90.2% for vancomycin (95% confidence interval for the difference, -6.7%, 14.3%). There were no statistically significant differences between treatment arms in the time to resolution or improvement in any of the predefined clinical end-points. Both daptomycin and vancomycin were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the rate of resolution of cellulitis or erysipelas among patients treated with daptomycin or vancomycin. Daptomycin 4 mg/kg once daily appeared to be effective and safe for treating cellulitis or erysipelas.

Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy with daptomycin: insights from a patient registry.

AIM: To compare and contrast the characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients who have received daptomycin as outpatients and inpatients. METHODS: The Cubicin Outcomes Registry and Experience (CORE) is a retrospective chart review of patients who have received daptomycin in participating institutions. Patients treated in 2005 were included in this analysis. Demographic characteristics and clinical outcomes (success = cured + improved) were compared among patients who received outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) and patients who had received inpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (IPAT). RESULTS: Of 1172 patients reported by 52 CORE 2005 participating institutions/investigators, 949 (81.0%) patients were evaluable: 539 (56.8%) received OPAT (OPAT patients), and 410 (43.2%) received only IPAT (IPAT patients). Of the 539 OPAT patients, 273 (50.6%) also received some IPAT, usually preceding OPAT therapy. Successful outcomes [no. of successes/(no. of successes + no. of failures)] for OPAT patients vs. IPAT patients were 94.6% and 86.3% respectively (chi-square test, p < 0.001). OPAT patients were younger, had fewer underlying diseases, were clinically stable, and had fewer adverse events than IPAT patients. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy use was common (539/949 or 56.8%) among patients in CORE 2005. Clinical outcomes among OPAT patients appeared at least as good as or better than IPAT patients. Better outcomes among OPAT patients were most likely because of patient selection for OPAT. Additional studies should focus on clinical characteristics of patients who would be ideal candidates for daptomycin OPAT.

A pilot study of high-dose short duration daptomycin for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by gram-positive bacteria.

BACKGROUND: Methicillin-susceptible and -resistant (MRSA) Staphylococcus aureus are significant causes of complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI). The bactericidal antibiotic daptomycin is approved for gram-positive cSSSI at 4 mg/kg/day for 7-14 days, but the optimal dose level and duration of therapy have not been firmly established. This pilot study evaluated the efficacy and safety of daptomycin at 10 mg/kg every 24 h for 4 days [high-dose short duration (HDSD) regimen] vs. standard of care therapy with vancomycin or semi-synthetic penicillin for the treatment of cSSSI. METHODS: This was a semi-single blind, randomised, multicentre, comparative trial. The primary efficacy end-point was the clinical response 7-14 days posttherapy. RESULTS: One hundred patients were randomised; 48 in each arm were treated. The treatment groups were well balanced with respect to demographics, comorbidities and the type of infection (75% because of MRSA). Overall, clinical success rates were 75.0% (36/48) for daptomycin and 87.5% (42/48) for comparator (95% confidence interval for the difference: -27.9, 2.9). The median duration of comparator therapy was 8 days. Two comparator patients and no daptomycin patients experienced treatment-related serious adverse events requiring hospitalisation. CONCLUSION: We found that the HDSD regimen had a safety profile similar to that seen in previous studies. Although the differences were not statistically significant, clinical success rates for comparator were higher than for daptomycin. In post hoc analyses HDSD daptomycin performed better in some subgroups (e.g. outpatients) than in others (e.g. certain MRSA infections). These observations require confirmation in larger trials.

Year 2000 objectives for preventing nosocomial infections: how do we get there?

In the late 1970s, the United States Public Health Service (PHS), in collaboration with public and private sector individuals and organizations, for the first time formulated national objectives for the prevention and control of disease. The PHS Year 1990 Objectives and Year 2000 Objectives both contain plans for preventing and controlling nosocomial infections. The Year 2000 Objectives contain goals for reducing infections that have been judged achievable, using existing prevention and control strategies. The specific Year 2000 Objectives targeting nosocomial infections can be divided into two categories: a) protecting the health care worker and b) protecting the patient. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration will play a major role in the upcoming decade in attaining the health care worker objectives. Reductions in patient nosocomial infections focus on surgical wound infections and infections in intensive care patients. Considerable work needs to be done in developing suitable nosocomial infection rate measures that adjust for patient case mix in order to assess progress toward achieving the objectives. Educational efforts targeted at entry-level health care providers and hospital epidemiologists must be strengthened. Government agencies, academic centers, industry, and professional organizations each have unique strengths and talents that can be collectively brought to bear on the problem.

Prevalence and incidence of human immunodeficiency virus among patients undergoing long-term hemodialysis. The Cooperative Dialysis Study Group.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this voluntary multicenter study was to estimate the prevalence and incidence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and the risk of nosocomial transmission of HIV in hemodialysis patients in the United States. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In June 1986, we began collecting epidemiologic data, risk factor information, and serum for HIV antibody testing from long-term hemodialysis patients on entry into the study and 1 year later. RESULTS: Initial data and specimens were collected from 1,324 patients in 28 dialysis centers in 12 states. On entry, 26 were positive or equivocal by enzyme immunoassay; 13 of these were positive by Western blot assay (overall seroprevalence 0.98%). Seroprevalence was higher for patients tested in eight centers located in areas from which a high cumulative incidence of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome has been reported (500 or more cases per 1 million persons) than for patients in other areas (10 of 387 [2.6%] versus three of 937 [0.3%]; p = 0.00048). According to their dialysis records, all 13 of the Western blot-positive patients had received transfusions. Seropositive patients were not more likely to have received a transfusion than seronegative patients (13 of 13 versus 1,038 of 1,311; p = 0.08). The confidential risk factor questionnaire was completed by 1,206 (91%) patients including nine of 13 (69%) of the seropositive patients. A question on sharing needles for injection of drugs was answered by 1,158 patients; seropositive patients were more likely to report they had shared needles than seronegative patients (five of nine versus 17 of 1,149; p = 0.0000002). After 1 year of follow-up, data were collected from 667 patients, including 254 negative patients who underwent dialysis at centers with seropositive patients. None of the previously seronegative patients seroconverted, yielding an incidence rate of 0% (upper limit of 95% confidence interval = 0.45%). No case of possible nosocomial transmission was identified. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that use of long-standing infection control precautions is effective minimizing the risk of transmission of HIV in hemodialysis settings.

Surgical wound infection rates by wound class, operative procedure, and patient risk index. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System.

To perform a valid comparison of rates among surgeons, among hospitals, or across time, surgical wound infection (SWI) rates must account for the variation in patients' underlying severity of illness and other important risk factors. From January 1987 through December 1990, 44 National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System hospitals reported data collected under the detailed option of the surgical patient surveillance component protocol, which includes definitions of eligible patients, operations, and nosocomial infections. Pooled mean SWI rates (number of infections per 100 operations) within each of the categories of the traditional wound classification system were 2.1, 3.3, 6.4, and 7.1, respectively. A risk index was developed to predict a surgical patient's risk of acquiring an SWI. The risk index score, ranging from 0 to 3, is the number of risk factors present among the following: (1) a patient with an American Society of Anesthesiologists preoperative assessment score of 3, 4, or 5, (2) an operation classified as contaminated or dirty-infected, and (3) an operation lasting over T hours, where T depends upon the operative procedure being performed. The SWI rates for patients with scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3 were 1.5, 2.9, 6.8, and 13.0, respectively. The risk index is a significantly better predictor of SWI risk than the traditional wound classification system and performs well across a broad range of operative procedures.

Comparison of rates of nosocomial infections in neonatal intensive care units in the United States. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System.

To determine nosocomial infection (NI) rates among neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) that are useful for interhospital comparison, we analyzed data reported in 1986-1990 from 35 hospitals that have level III NICUs and used standard National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance protocols and NI site definitions. Overall rates of NI were calculated as the number of NI per 100 patients (overall NI patient rates) or the number of NI per 1,000 NICU patient-days (overall NI patient-day rates). A strong positive association was found between overall NI patient rates and the neonates' average length of stay, a marker for duration of exposure to important risk factors. No correlation was found between overall NI patient-day rates and average length of stay. However, a strong positive correlation between overall NI patient-day rates and a measure of device utilization (total device-days/total patient-days x 100) was found. Additionally, a positive correlation between overall NI patient rates and device utilization was found. Stratification among the three birthweight groups (less than 1,500 g, 1,500-2,500 g, greater than 2,500 g) did not eliminate the need to control for variations in these factors among NICUs. Device-associated, device-day infection rates, calculated as the number of umbilical or central line-associated blood-stream infections per 1,000 umbilical or central line-days and the number of ventilator-associated pneumonias per 1,000 ventilator days, were not correlated with a unit's site-specific device utilization. These data suggest that calculation of device-associated NI rates in NICUs using device-days as the denominator helps to control for the duration of exposure to the primary risk factor and will be more meaningful for purposes of interhospital comparison.

Nosocomial infections in elderly patients in the United States, 1986-1990. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System.

We analyzed 101,479 nosocomial infections in 75,398 adult patients (greater than 15 years) that were reported to the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) system between 1986 and 1990 by 89 hospitals using the NNIS hospital-wide surveillance component. Overall, 54% of the infections occurred in elderly patients (greater than or equal to 65 years). In the elderly, 44% of the infections were urinary tract infections (UTIs), 18% were pneumonias, 11% were surgical wound infections (SWIs), 8% were bloodstream infections (BSIs), and the remainder were infections at other sites. When we compared the infections in elderly patients with those in younger adult patients, ages 15 to 64 years, a far greater percentage of the infections in elderly patients were UTIs, and there were more pneumonias than SWIs. Elderly and younger patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia were about 1.5 times more likely to develop a secondary BSI than those with pneumonia not associated with ventilator use. When the pathogens isolated from the infections were compared to those reported to the NNIS system in 1984, the percentage that were coagulase-negative staphylococci had increased in both elderly and younger patients. The patient died in 12% of all of the infections. Surveillance personnel reported that 54% of the infections in elderly infected patients who died were related to death compared with 59% in younger infected patients who died. When the infection was related to the patient's death, it was most often pneumonia or a BSI. The risk of an infection-related death was significantly higher when the infected patient developed a secondary BSI. Infection prevention efforts should target infections that occur frequently, are amenable to intervention, and have an adverse outcome.

Secular trends in nosocomial primary bloodstream infections in the United States, 1980-1989. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System.

More than 25,000 primary bloodstream infections (BSIs) were identified by 124 National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System hospitals performing hospital-wide surveillance during the 10-year period 1980-1989. These hospitals reported 6,729 hospital-months of data, during which time approximately 9 million patients were discharged. BSI rates by hospital stratum (based on bed size and teaching affiliation) and pathogen groups were calculated. In 1989, the overall BSI rates for small (less than 200 beds) nonteaching, large nonteaching, small (less than 500 beds) teaching, and large teaching hospitals were 1.3, 2.5, 3.8, and 6.5 BSIs per 1,000 discharges, respectively. Over the period 1980-1989, significant increases (p less than 0.0001) were observed within each hospital stratum, in the overall BSI rate and the BSI rate due to each of the following pathogen groups: coagulase-negative staphylococci, Staphylococcus aureus, enterococci, and Candida species. In contrast, the BSI rate due to gram-negative bacilli remained stable over the decade, in all strata. Except for small nonteaching hospitals, the greatest increase in BSI rates was observed in coagulase-negative staphylococci (the percentage increase ranged between 424% and 754%), followed by Candida species (219-487%). In small nonteaching hospitals, the greatest increase was for S. aureus (283%), followed by enterococci (169%) and coagulase-negative staphylococci (161%). Our analysis documents the emergence over the last decade of coagulase-negative staphylococci as one of the most frequently occurring pathogens in BSI.

Nosocomial infections among neonates in high-risk nurseries in the United States. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System.

BACKGROUND: Nosocomial infections result in considerable morbidity and mortality among neonates in high-risk nurseries (HRNs). PURPOSE: To examine the epidemiology of nosocomial infections among neonates in level III HRNs. METHODS: Data were collected from 99 hospitals with HRNs participating in the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance system, which uses standard surveillance protocols and nosocomial infection site definitions. The data included information on maternal acquisition of and risk factors for infection, such as device exposure, birth weight category (< or = 1000, 1001 through 1500, 1501 through 2500, and > 2500 g), mortality, and the relationship of the nosocomial infection to death. RESULTS: From October 1986 through September 1994, these hospitals submitted data on 13 179 nosocomial infections. The bloodstream was the most frequent site of nosocomial infection in all birth weight groups. Nosocomial pneumonia was the second most common infection site, followed by the gastrointestinal and eye, ear, nose, and throat sites. The most common nosocomial pathogens among all neonates were coagulase-negative staphylococci, Staphylococcus aureus, enterococci, Enterobacter sp, and Escherichia coli. Group B streptococci were associated with 46% of bloodstream infections that were maternally acquired; coagulase-negative staphylococci were associated with 58% of bloodstream infections that were not maternally acquired, most of which (88%) were associated with umbilical or central intravenous catheters. CONCLUSIONS: Bloodstream infections, the most frequent nosocomial infections in all birth weight groups, should be a major focus of surveillance and prevention efforts in HRNs. For bloodstream infections, stratification of surveillance data by maternal acquisition will help focus prevention efforts for group B streptococci outside the HRN. Within the nursery, bloodstream infection surveillance should focus on umbilical or central intravenous catheter use, a major risk factor for infection.

Illness with fatalities in premature infants: association with an intravenous vitamin E preparation, E-Ferol.

Three clusters of an unusual syndrome in premature infants were investigated in three intensive care nurseries in 1984. A retrospective cohort study of 68 infants weighing less than or equal to 1,250 g at birth and surviving at least 72 hours revealed that in 13 infants ascites developed and in four at least two of the following abnormal laboratory values were found within a seven-day period: serum direct bilirubin greater than or equal to 2 mg/dL, blood urea nitrogen greater than or equal to 40 mg/dL or serum creatinine greater than or equal to 2 mg/dL, and platelet count less than or equal to 60,000/microL. All cases occurred after the introduction and use of intravenous E-Ferol, a vitamin E preparation that was new on the market when the clusters were reported. All 17 case infants but only 23 of 51 (45%) noncase infants received E-Ferol (P less than .0001). Case and noncase infants were similar with respect to other complications and to receipt of medications and parenteral nutrition. A dose-response relationship was found; cases occurred in infants receiving E-Ferol dosages of greater than 20 U/kg/d. Case infants who had higher daily doses of E-Ferol had a shorter latency. No new cases were reported after use of E-Ferol was stopped. Results of these investigations led to a nationwide recall of intravenous E-Ferol.

Colonization of the respiratory tract with Pseudomonas cepacia in cystic fibrosis. Risk factors and outcomes.

Between 1981 and 1983, some 85 patients with cystic fibrosis at Rainbow Babies and Childrens Hospital, Cleveland, developed colonization or infection of the respiratory tract with Pseudomonas cepacia. Twenty-nine (34 percent) of the colonized patients died; four were female patients with fulminant bacteremia with P cepacia prior to death. Case-control studies showed that increasing severity of underlying cystic fibrosis, increasing age, having a sibling with cystic fibrosis who was colonized with P cepacia, and previous hospitalizations were associated with increased risk of colonization. In patients with mild cystic fibrosis, no differences in clinical outcome were seen during the period of study; however, patients colonized with P cepacia who had moderate or advanced cystic fibrosis were hospitalized longer and died sooner after colonization, compared with control subjects with similar severity of cystic fibrosis. The excess mortality associated with such colonization varied in magnitude and trend according to the patient's sex and severity of underlying cystic fibrosis, reflecting the combined influence of colonization with P cepacia, sex, and severity of cystic fibrosis on the mortality of the patients. The source and mode of transmission of P cepacia were not determined, but the data suggest a possible nosocomial source. The results of this investigation showed that colonization with P cepacia most often affected patients with moderate or advanced cystic fibrosis and was associated with an adverse clinical outcome in these patients.

Outbreak of echovirus 11 infection in hospitalized neonates.

Between July 18 and August 5, 1986, a cluster of echovirus 11 infections occurred in hospitalized neonates. Ten infants were affected and one died. All cases occurring after the index case were infants who were in the nursery for at least 1 day when the index patient was also present. Risk factors for secondary infection included low birth weight or gestational age and receipt of antibiotics, red blood cell transfusions, nasogastric intubation or gavage feedings. Because viral infection had not been suspected in the index patient, isolation measures were not instituted until after onset of secondary cases. We conclude that more severely ill infants receiving intensive levels of care are at increased risk for nosocomial enteroviral infection. These infants may have a greater likelihood of exposure to the virus and/or increased host susceptibility. Outbreaks caused by cross-infection may be preventable by early recognition of patients colonized or infected with potentially pathogenic agents and prompt institution of appropriate isolation measures.

Spread of vancomycin-resistant enterococci: why did it happen in the United States?

The question of why vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) became epidemic in the United States can be answered on at least three basic levels: (1) molecular and genetic, (2) factors affecting host-microbe interactions, and (3) epidemiological. This article will address the epidemiological issues and seek to defend the assertion that, once VRE had evolved, its spread throughout hospitals in the United States was all but assured. Nosocomial VRE outbreaks were reported first in the mid- and late-1980s. Since that time, scientific reports of VRE have increased over 20-fold. Among hospitals participating in the National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance System from 1989 to 1997, the percentage of enterococci reported as resistant to vancomycin increased from 0.4% to 23.2% in intensive-care settings and from 0.3% to 15.4% in non-intensive-care settings. Factors leading to the spread of VRE in US hospitals include (1) antimicrobial pressure, (2) sub-optimal clinical laboratory recognition and reporting, (3) unrecognized "silent" carriage and prolonged fecal carriage, (4) environmental contamination and survival, (5) intrahospital and interhospital transfer of colonized patients, (6) introduction of unrecognized carriers from community settings such as nursing homes, and (7) inadequate compliance with hand washing and barrier precautions. Guidelines developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee address each of these factors. The impact of these guidelines on the spread of VRE within individual institutions has been variable, and the overall impact of the guidelines nationally is unknown.

SHEA conference on antimicrobial resistance. Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

Antimicrobial resistance is an increasing problem in healthcare institutions and in the community. Public concern about resistance is also increasing. The issue is broad and complex and not readily addressed by government, industry, or professional societies alone. On October 29-30, 1998, 19 representatives of various professional societies and governmental agencies met under the auspices of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) at Brook Lodge Conference Center in Augusta, Michigan. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the current status of antimicrobial resistance in the United States and Canada, including present society and governmental efforts to address the problem. Representatives exchanged experiences through presentations and discussions on the first day, then on the second day held a brainstorming session to address future needs and priorities in addressing the resistance problem. It was agreed that a national coordinated effort was needed. As part of this national effort, representatives called for the creation of a National Coalition on Antibiotic Resistance (NCAR) to combat antibiotic resistance through education, research, prevention, and advocacy. Priorities for NCAR were focused in four areas: (1) education of the public and professionals; (2) support of basic and applied research; (3) provision of an information resource and clearinghouse; and (4) advocacy initiatives. At the recommendation of the SHEA Board, discussions with the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases for the joint development of NCAR have begun.

Outbreak investigations.

Epidemic nosocomial infections are defined as hospital-acquired infections that represent an increase in incidence over expected rates. Epidemic-associated infections usually are clustered temporally or geographically, suggesting that the infections are from a common source or are secondary to increased person-to-person transmission. Epidemics are important, because they account for a substantial percentage of nosocomial infections. Furthermore, if infection control personnel thoroughly investigate outbreaks of nosocomial infections, they may identify new agents, reservoirs, or modes of transmission.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in U.S. hospitals, 1975-1991.

OBJECTIVES: Analyze changes that have occurred among U.S. hospitals over a 17-year period, 1975 through 1991, in the percentage of Staphylococcus aureus resistant to beta-lactam antibiotics and associated with nosocomial infections. DESIGN: Retrospective review. The percentage of methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA) was defined as the number of S aureus isolates resistant to either methicillin, oxacillin, or nafcillin divided by the total number of S aureus isolates for which methicillin, oxacillin, or nafcillin susceptibility test results were reported to the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System. SETTING: NNIS System hospitals. RESULTS: Of the 66,132 S aureus isolates that were tested for susceptibility to methicillin, oxacillin, or nafcillin during 1975 through 1991, 6,986 (11%) were resistant to methicillin, oxacillin, or nafcillin. The percentage MRSA among all hospitals rose from 2.4% in 1975 to 29% in 1991, but the rate of increase differed significantly among 3 bed-size categories: < 200 beds, 200 to 499 beds, and > or = 500 beds. In 1991, for hospitals with < 200 beds, 14.9% of S aureus isolates were MRSA; for hospitals with 200 to 499 beds, 20.3% were MRSA; and for hospitals with > or = 500 beds, 38.3% were MRSA. The percentage MRSA in each of the bed-size categories rose above 5% at different times: in 1983, for hospitals with > or = 500 beds; in 1985, for hospitals with 200 to 499 beds; and in 1987, for hospitals with < 200 beds. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that hospitals of all sizes are facing the problem of MRSA, the problem appears to be increasing regardless of hospital size, and control measures advocated for MRSA appear to require re-evaluation. Further study of MRSA in hospitals would benefit our understanding of this costly pathogen.

Quality standard for the treatment of bacteremia. The Infectious Diseases Society of America.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this quality standard is to optimize the treatment of bacteremia in hospitalized patients by ensuring that the antibiotic given is appropriate in terms of the blood culture susceptibility of the pathogen. Although this standard may appear to be minimal in scope, it is needed because appropriate antimicrobial treatment is not given in 5% to 17% of cases. To implement the standard, physicians, pharmacists, and microbiologists will need to devise a coordinated strategy. OPTIONS: We considered criteria for appropriate dosing, most cost-effective selection, proper antibiotic levels in serum, least toxicity, narrowest spectrum, specific clinical indications, and optimal duration of treatment. All these criteria were rejected as the basis for the standard because they were too controversial and too difficult to be applied by a nonphysician chart reviewer. In contrast, the selection of an antibiotic to which the pathogen is sensitive is a noncontroversial criterion and easy for a chart reviewer to apply. OUTCOMES: The standard is designed to reduce the incidence of adverse outcomes of septicemia such as renal failure, prolonged hospitalization, and death. EVIDENCE: Several well-designed clinical trials without randomization as well as case-controlled studies have confirmed the benefit of using an antibiotic that is appropriate in light of the susceptibility of the isolate in blood culture. Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trials are not available. VALUES: Our premise is that the presence of bacteremia is a risk factor for serious adverse outcomes. We also believe that the administration of antibiotics must always be guided by the susceptibility report for the pathogen(s) obtained from blood cultures. This concern is more critical for pathogens from the blood than for those from most other body sites. We had evidence that susceptibility reports for pathogens from positive blood cultures were not always used properly. We used group discussion to reach a consensus among the members of the Quality Standards Subcommittee. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: Through the implementation of this standard, at least 5% of bacteremias could be treated more appropriately. An unknown number of deaths would likely be prevented, and mortality from bacteremia treated inappropriately would probably be reduced. The primary undesirable feature of the standard is an increased workload of pharmacists and microbiologists. RECOMMENDATIONS: Treatment of bacteremia with an antibiotic that is appropriate in terms of the pathogen's blood-culture susceptibility is a minimal standard of care for all patients. VALIDATION: We consulted more than 50 experts in infectious diseases from the fields of medicine, surgery, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, nursing, epidemiology, pharmacology, and government. In addition, the methods for its implementation were reviewed by the American Society of Hospital Pharmacists and were tested by one of the members of the Quality Standards Subcommittee. SPONSORS: The Quality Standards Subcommittee of the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed the standard. The subcommittee was composed of representatives of the IDSA (Drs. Gross and McGowan), the Society for Hospital Epidemiology of America (Dr. Wenzel), the Surgical Infection Society (Dr. Dellinger), the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (Dr. Krause), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Dr. Martone), the Obstetrics and Gynecology Infectious Diseases Society (Dr. Sweet), and the Association of Practitioners of Infection Control (Ms. Barrett). Funding was provided by the IDSA and the other cooperating organizations. This standard is endorsed by the IDSA.

Quality standard for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical procedures. The Infectious Diseases Society of America.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this quality standard are 1) to provide an implementation mechanism that will facilitate the reliable administration of prophylactic antimicrobial agents to patients undergoing operative procedures in which such a practice is judged to be beneficial and 2) to provide a guideline that will help local hospital committees formulate policies and set up mechanisms for their implementation. Although standards in the medical literature spell out recommendations for specific procedures, agents, schedules, and doses, other reports document that these standards frequently are not followed in practice. OPTIONS: We have specified the procedures in which the administration of prophylactic antimicrobial agents has been shown to be beneficial, those in which this practice is widely thought to be beneficial but in which compelling evidence is lacking, and those in which this practice is controversial. We have examined the evidence regarding the optimal timing of drug administration, the optimal dose, and the optimal duration of prophylaxis. OUTCOMES: The intended outcome is more uniform and reliable administration of prophylactic antibiotics in those circumstances where their value has been demonstrated or their use has been judged by the local practicing medical community to be desirable. The result should be a reduction in rates of postoperative wound infection with a limitation on the quantities of antimicrobial agents used in circumstances where they are not likely to help. EVIDENCE: Many prospective, randomized, controlled trials comparing placebo with antibiotic and comparing one antibiotic with another have been conducted. In addition, some trials have compared the efficacy of different doses or methods of administration. Other papers have reported on the apparent efficacy of administration at different times and on actual practice in specific communities. Only a small group of relevant articles found through 1993 are cited herein. When authoritative reviews are available, these--rather than an exhaustive list of original references--are cited. VALUES: We assumed that reducing rates of postoperative infection was valuable but that reducing the total amount of antimicrobial agents employed was also worthwhile. The cost of and morbidity attributable to postoperative wound infections should be weighed against the cost and potential morbidity associated with excessive use of antimicrobial agents. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: More reliable administration of antimicrobial agents according to recognized guidelines should prevent some postoperative wound infections while lowering the total quantity of these drugs used. No harms are anticipated. The costs involved are those of the efforts needed on a local basis to design and implement the mechanism that supports uniform and reliable administration of prophylactic antibiotics. RECOMMENDATIONS: All patients for whom prophylactic antimicrobial agents are recommended should receive them. The agents given should be appropriate in light of published guidelines. A short duration of prophylaxis (usually < 24 hours) is recommended. VALIDATION: More than 50 experts in infectious disease and 10 experts in surgical infectious disease and surgical subspecialties reviewed the standard. In addition, the methods for its implementation were reviewed by the American Society of Hospital Pharmacists. SPONSORS: The Quality Standards Subcommittee of the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) developed the standard. The subcommittee was composed of representatives of the IDSA (Drs. Gross and McGowan), the Society for Hospital Epidemiology of America (Dr. Wenzel), the Surgical Infection Society (Dr. Dellinger), the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society (Dr. Krause), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Dr. Martone), the Obstetrics and Gynecology Infectious Diseases Society (Dr. Sweet), and the Association of Practitioners of Infection Contr

Quality standard for assurance of measles immunity among health care workers. The Infectious Diseases Society of America.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this quality standard is to prevent nosocomial transmission of measles by assuring universal measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination of all health care workers who lack immunity to measles. Although the primary emphasis is on health care workers in hospitals, those at other sites, such as clinics, nursing homes, and schools, are also included. It will be the responsibility of designated individuals at these institutions to implement the standard. OPTIONS: We considered advocating the use of measles vaccine rather than MMR but chose the latter because it also protects against mumps and rubella and because it is more readily available. OUTCOMES: The desired outcome is a reduction in the nosocomial transmission of measles. EVIDENCE: Although direct comparative studies are lacking, nosocomial outbreaks of measles have been reported (as recently as 1992) in institutions where measles immunization of nonimmune health care workers is not universal, whereas such outbreaks have not been reported in institutions with universal immunization. VALUES AND VALIDATION: We consulted more than 50 infectious-disease experts in epidemiology, government, medicine, nursing, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, and surgery. In light of disagreement regarding the implementation of the standard, we used group discussions to reach a consensus. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: The consequences of the transmission of measles (and of mumps and rubella) in a health care institution include not only the morbidity and mortality attributable to the disease, but also the significant cost of evaluating and containing an outbreak and the serious disruption of regular hospital routines when control measures are instituted. The potential harm to health care workers after the implementation of the standard consists of untoward effects of MMR vaccine, although the reactions of vaccines should be minimal with adherence to recommended vaccination procedures. Implementation of the standard should entail no expense to health care workers; the precise cost to institutions is unknown, but the expense would be mitigated by prevention of measles outbreaks. RECOMMENDATIONS: We recommend MMR vaccination of all health care workers who lack immunity to measles. SPONSORS: The Quality Standards Subcommittee of the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed the standard. The subcommittee was composed of representatives of the IDSA (Drs. Gross and McGowan), the Society for Hospital Epidemiology of America (Dr. Wenzel), the Surgical Infection Society (Dr. Dellinger), the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (Dr. Krause), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Dr. Martone), the Obstetrics and Gynecology Infectious Diseases Society (Dr. Sweet), and the Association of Practitioners of Infection Control (Ms. Barrett). Funding was provided by the IDSA and the other cooperating organizations. The standard is endorsed by the IDSA.