Assessment of De-Escalation of Empirical Antimicrobial Therapy in Medical Wards with Recognized Prevalence of Multi-Drug-Resistant Pathogens: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study in Non-ICU Patients with Microbiologically Documented Infection.

Antimicrobial resistance poses a major threat to human health worldwide and the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs), including antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE), is a multifaceted tool for minimizing unnecessary or inappropriate antibiotic exposure. This was a prospective observational study of 142 non-Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients with microbiologically documented infection who were initially administered empirical antimicrobial therapy and admitted to the medical wards of 6 tertiary-care hospitals in Greece from January 2017 to December 2018. Patients were divided into two groups, the ADE and non-ADE group, based on whether ADE was applied or not, respectively. Exploratory end-points were ADE feasibility, safety and efficacy. ADE was applied in 76 patients at a median time of 4 days (IQR: 3, 5). An increased likelihood of ADE was observed in patients with urinary tract (OR: 10.04, 95% CI: 2.91, 34.57; p < 0.001), skin and soft tissue (OR: 16.28, 95% CI: 1.68, 158.08; p = 0.016) and bloodstream infections (OR: 2.52, 95% CI: 1, 6.36; p = 0.05). Factors significantly associated with higher rates of ADE were clarithromycin administration, diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI), isolation of E. coli, age and symptoms type on admission. Mortality was lower in the ADE group (18.4% vs. 30.3% p < 0.1) and ADE was not significantly associated with the probability of death (p = 0.432). ADE was associated with favorable clinical outcomes and can be performed even in settings with high prevalence of multi-drug resistant (MDR) pathogens without compromising safety.

Antimicrobial De-Escalation in Critically Ill Patients.

Antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) is defined as the discontinuation of one or more antimicrobials in empirical therapy, or the replacement of a broad-spectrum antimicrobial with a narrower-spectrum antimicrobial. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the available literature on the effectiveness and safety of ADE in critically ill patients, with a focus on special conditions such as anti-fungal therapy and high-risk categories. Although it is widely considered a safe strategy for antimicrobial stewardship (AMS), to date, there has been no assessment of the effect of de-escalation on the development of resistance. Conversely, some authors suggest that prolonged antibiotic treatment may be a side effect of de-escalation, especially in high-risk categories such as neutropenic critically ill patients and intra-abdominal infections (IAIs). Moreover, microbiological documentation is crucial for increasing ADE rates in critically ill patients with infections, and efforts should be focused on exploring new diagnostic tools to accelerate pathogen identification. For these reasons, ADE can be safely used in patients with infections, as confirmed by high-quality and reliable microbiological samplings, although further studies are warranted to clarify its applicability in selected populations.

Effect of antimicrobial de-escalation strategy on 14-day mortality among intensive care unit patients: a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study with inverse probability-of-treatment weighting.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) strategy and assess its effect on 14-day mortality among intensive care unit patients. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with infectious diseases between January 2018 and December 2020. Patients were stratified into three groups based on the initial treatment regimen within 5 days of antimicrobial administration: ADE, No Change, and Other Change. Confounders between groups were screened using one-way ANOVA and Chi-square analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for 14-day mortality. Potential confounders were balanced using propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), followed by multivariate logistic regression analysis to evaluate the effect of ADE strategy on 14-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 473 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 53 (11.2%) in the ADE group, 173 (36.6%) in the No Change group, and 247 (52.2%) in the Other Change group. The 14-day mortality rates in the three groups were 9.4%, 11.6%, and 21.9%, respectively. After IPTW, the adjusted odds ratio for 14-day mortality comparing No Change with ADE was 1.557 (95% CI 1.078-2.247, P = 0.0181) while comparing Other Change with ADE was 1.282(95% CI 0.884-1.873, P = 0.1874). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of ADE strategy was low among intensive care unit patients. The ADE strategy demonstrated a protective effect or no adverse effect on 14-day mortality compared to the No Change or Other Change strategies, respectively. These findings provide evidence supporting the implementation of the ADE strategy in ICU patients.

Effect of positive microbiological testing on antibiotic de-escalation and outcomes in community-acquired pneumonia: a propensity score analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The usefulness of routine microbiological testing for rationalising antibiotic use in hospitalised patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) continues to be a subject of debate. We aim to determine the effect of positive microbiological testing on antimicrobial de-escalation and clinical outcomes in CAP. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected cohort of non-immunosuppressed adults hospitalised with CAP was performed. The primary study outcome was antimicrobial de-escalation. Secondary outcomes included 30-day case-fatality rate, adverse events, and CAP recurrence. Adjustment for confounders was performed by inverse probability weighting propensity score, logistic regression, and cause-specific Cox model. RESULTS: Of 3677 patients with CAP, 1924 (52.3%) had any positive microbiological test. Antimicrobial de-escalation was performed in 648/1924 (33.7%) of patients with positive microbiological testing and in 179/1753 (10.2%) of those with non-positive results. When propensity score was entered into the multivariate analysis, positive microbiological testing (adjusted OR (AOR)], 2.59; 1.96-3.41) and clinical stability at day 3 (AOR 1.87; 1.45-2.10) were two of the main factors independently associated with antimicrobial de-escalation. After applying an adjusted cause-specific Cox model, antimicrobial de-escalation was not associated with a higher 30-day case-fatality rate (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR), 0.44 (95% CI, 0.14-1.43)), higher frequency of adverse events (AHR, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.53-1.12)), or CAP recurrence (AHR, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.35-1.14)). DISCUSSION: Antimicrobial de-escalation was more often performed in hospitalised patients with CAP who had positive microbiological tests than in those with non-positive results, and it did not adversely affect relevant clinical outcomes.

Antimicrobial de-escalation in the critically ill patient and assessment of clinical cure: the DIANA study.

PURPOSE: The DIANA study aimed to evaluate how often antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) of empirical treatment is performed in the intensive care unit (ICU) and to estimate the effect of ADE on clinical cure on day 7 following treatment initiation. METHODS: Adult ICU patients receiving empirical antimicrobial therapy for bacterial infection were studied in a prospective observational study from October 2016 until May 2018. ADE was defined as (1) discontinuation of an antimicrobial in case of empirical combination therapy or (2) replacement of an antimicrobial with the intention to narrow the antimicrobial spectrum, within the first 3 days of therapy. Inverse probability (IP) weighting was used to account for time-varying confounding when estimating the effect of ADE on clinical cure. RESULTS: Overall, 1495 patients from 152 ICUs in 28 countries were studied. Combination therapy was prescribed in 50%, and carbapenems were prescribed in 26% of patients. Empirical therapy underwent ADE, no change and change other than ADE within the first 3 days in 16%, 63% and 22%, respectively. Unadjusted mortality at day 28 was 15.8% in the ADE cohort and 19.4% in patients with no change [p = 0.27; RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.60-1.14)]. The IP-weighted relative risk estimate for clinical cure comparing ADE with no-ADE patients (no change or change other than ADE) was 1.37 (95% CI 1.14-1.64). CONCLUSION: ADE was infrequently applied in critically ill-infected patients. The observational effect estimate on clinical cure suggested no deleterious impact of ADE compared to no-ADE. However, residual confounding is likely.

Antimicrobial de-escalation in adult hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients with febrile neutropenia of unknown origin.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of empiric antimicrobial therapy in febrile neutropenia of unknown origin is unclear. This study evaluated outcomes in autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients with febrile neutropenia of unknown origin who received early de-escalation of broad-spectrum antimicrobials prior to hematopoietic recovery versus those who continued broad-spectrum antimicrobials until hematopoietic recovery. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective study assessed hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients with febrile neutropenia of unknown origin. Patients were categorized into either cohort 1, representing early de-escalation prior to hematopoietic recovery, or cohort 2, representing continuation of broad-spectrum antimicrobials until hematopoietic recovery. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were included (22.4% in cohort 1 and 77.6% in cohort 2). Most patients (87.5%) in cohort 1 underwent haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation, whereas 84.3% of patients in cohort 2 received autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation. There were no significant differences in rates of recurrent fever (4.2% versus 7.2%, in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively, adjusted odds ratio = 0.84, P = 0.85), re-escalation (4.2% versus 4.8%, adjusted odds ratio = 1.57, P = 0.64), and Clostridioides difficile-associated infections (4.2% versus 2.4%, adjusted odds ratio = 2.27, P = 0.43). No patient experienced in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit admission, or bacteremia. CONCLUSION: Hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients with febrile neutropenia of unknown origin in which broad-spectrum antimicrobials were de-escalated prior to hematopoietic recovery did not experience adverse outcomes. These results concur with recently published studies and the Fourth European Conference on Infections in Leukemia guidelines. An early de-escalation approach in haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients specifically appears safe and may result in a reduction in antimicrobial utilization.

Antimicrobial de-escalation in critically ill patients: a position statement from a task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) and European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Critically Ill Patients Study Group (ESGCIP).

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) is a strategy of antimicrobial stewardship, aiming at preventing the emergence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) by decreasing the exposure to broad-spectrum antimicrobials. There is no high-quality research on ADE and its effects on AMR. Its definition varies and there is little evidence-based guidance for clinicians to use ADE in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: A task force of 16 international experts was formed in November 2016 to provide with guidelines for clinical practice to develop questions targeted at defining ADE, its effects on the ICU population and to provide clinical guidance. Groups of 2 experts were assigned 1-2 questions each within their field of expertise to provide draft statements and rationale. A Delphi method, with 3 rounds and an agreement threshold of 70% was required to reach consensus. RESULTS: We present a comprehensive document with 13 statements, reviewing the evidence on the definition of ADE, its effects in the ICU population and providing guidance for clinicians in subsets of clinical scenarios where ADE may be considered. CONCLUSION: ADE remains a topic of controversy due to the complexity of clinical scenarios where it may be applied and the absence of evidence to the effects it may have on antimicrobial resistance.

Antimicrobial Stewardship in Hematological Patients at the intensive care unit: a global cross-sectional survey from the Nine-i Investigators Network.

A global cross-sectional survey was performed to gather data on the current treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria among hematological patients admitted to ICUs worldwide. The survey was performed in April 2019 using an electronic platform (SurveyMonkey®) being distributed among 83 physicians and completed by 48 (57.8%) responders. ESBL Enterobacteriaceae, carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae and carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa were the main concerns. Previous MDR infection (34% of responders), MDR colonization (20%) and previous antibiotic exposure within the last 3 months (20.5%) were considered the most relevant risk factors of bloodstream infection (BSI) due to MDR bacteria. In 48.8% of the ICUs, there was no antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) team focused on hematological patients. Updates on local epidemiology of MDR pathogens were provided in 98% of the centers, using phone or verbal communications (56.1% and 53.7%, respectively). In presence of febrile neutropenia, initial therapy consisted of anti-Gram-negative plus anti-Gram-positive antibiotics for 41% of participants. Antibiotic de-escalation and/or discontinuation of therapy were considered as a promising strategy for the prevention of MDR development (32.4%). Factors associated with antibiotic de-escalation were clinical improvement (43.6%) and neutrophil count recovery (12.8%). Infectious Disease consultation and AMS interventions were not determining factors for de-escalation decisions (more than 50% of responders). Infection control and educational programs were valued as necessary measures for implementation by ICU practitioners. These findings should guide future efforts on collaborative team working, improving compliance with adequate treatment protocols, implementing antimicrobial stewardship programs in critically ill hematological patients, and educational activities.

Modeling Antibiotic Use Strategies in Intensive Care Units: Comparing De-escalation and Continuation.

Antimicrobial de-escalation refers to the treatment mechanism of switching from empiric antibiotics with good coverage to alternatives based on laboratory susceptibility test results, with the aim of avoiding unnecessary use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. In a previous study, we have developed multi-strain and multi-drug models in an intensive care unit setting, to evaluate the benefits and trade-offs of de-escalation in comparison with the conventional strategy called antimicrobial continuation. Our simulation results indicated that for a large portion of credible parameter combinations, de-escalation reduces the use of the empiric antibiotic but increases the probabilities of colonization and infections. In this paper, we first simplify the previous models to compare the long-term dynamical behaviors between de-escalation and continuation systems under a two-strain scenario. The analytical results coincide with our previous findings in the complex models, indicating the benefits and unintended consequences of de-escalation strategy result from the nature of this treatment mechanism, not from the complexity of the high-dimensional systems. By extending the models to three-strain scenarios, we find that de-escalation is superior than continuation in preventing outbreaks of invading strains that are resistant to empiric antibiotics. Thus decisions on antibiotic use strategies should be made specifically according to ICU conditions and intervention objectives.

Empiric Antibiotics for Sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Early recognition and treatment are the cornerstones of management. METHODS: Review of the English-language literature. RESULTS: For both sepsis and septic shock "antimicrobials [should be] be initiated as soon as possible and within one hour" (Surviving Sepsis Campaign). The risk of progression from severe sepsis to septic shock increases 8% for each hour before antibiotics are started. Selection of antimicrobial agents is based on a combination of patient factors, predicted infecting organism(s), and local microbial resistance patterns. The initial drugs should have activity against typical gram-positive and gram-negative causative micro-organisms. Anaerobic coverage should be provided for intra-abdominal infections or others where anaerobes are significant pathogens. Empiric antifungal or antiviral therapy may be warranted. For patients with healthcare-associated infections, resistant micro-organisms will further complicate the choice of empiric antimicrobials. Recommendations are given for specific infections. CONCLUSION: Early administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobial drugs is one of the most important, if not the most important, treatment for patients with sepsis or septic shock. Drugs should be initiated as soon as possible, and the choice of should take into account patient factors, common local pathogens, hospital antibiograms and resistance patterns, and the suspected source of infection. Antimicrobial agent therapy should be de-escalated as soon as possible.

Early Antimicrobial De-escalation and Stewardship in Adult Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Recipients: Retrospective Review.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial stewardship in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) recipients remains underutilized in North America. European guidelines advise de-escalation of broad-spectrum therapy after 72 hours in select patients with neutropenic fever of unknown origin. This is not commonplace in the United States, as current guidelines recommend broad-spectrum therapy until neutrophil engraftment. If de-escalating after at least 5 days of broad-spectrum therapy and defervescence in neutropenic allo-HSCT recipients does not predispose them to recurrent fever or infection, the practice could afford several benefits. METHODS: The primary end point was rate of recurrent fever. Secondary outcomes included Clostridium difficile-associated infections, length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admission incidence, in-hospital mortality rate, need for re-escalation of therapy, rate of positive blood cultures for patients who had recurrent fevers, overall antimicrobial utilization from neutropenic fever onset, and pharmacoeconomic impact. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were assessed in 2 groups as cohort 1 (n = 46), which received early de-escalation, and cohort 2 (n = 74), which did not. The primary end point met criteria for noninferiority, as 7 patients (15%) in cohort 1 had recurrent fever within the specified time frame compared with 14 (19%) in cohort 2 (90% CI, -0.0878 to 0.1629, P = .026). Patients in cohort 1 received significantly less gram-positive broad-spectrum antimicrobials, with trends toward lower use of broad-spectrum gram-negative agents and lower associated costs and no differences in length of stay, ICU admission incidence, need for re-escalation of therapy, rate of culture-positive bacteremia after de-escalation or discontinuation of broad-spectrum therapy, or in-hospital mortality rate. CONCLUSIONS: De-escalating after at least 5 days of broad-spectrum therapy and defervescence did not appear to affect the rate of recurrent fever. This allowed for significant reductions in gram-positive broad-spectrum antimicrobial utilization, with trends toward lower use of broad-spectrum gram-negative agents and associated costs and no difference in clinical outcomes compared with those continuing such therapy until neutrophil engraftment.