Cost-effectiveness of methenamine hippurate compared with antibiotic prophylaxis for the management of recurrent urinary tract infections in secondary care: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of methenamine hippurate compared with antibiotic prophylaxis in the management of recurrent urinary tract infections. DESIGN: Multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. SETTING: Eight centres in the UK, recruiting from June 2016 to June 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged ≥18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections, requiring prophylactic treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Women were randomised to receive once-daily antibiotic prophylaxis or twice-daily methenamine hippurate for 12 months. Treatment allocation was not masked and crossover between arms was allowed. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained at 18 months. All costs were collected from a UK National Health Service perspective. QALYs were estimated based on responses to the EQ-5D-5L administered at baseline, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 18 months. Incremental costs and QALYs were estimated using an adjusted analysis which controlled for observed and unobserved characteristics. Stochastic sensitivity analysis was used to illustrate uncertainty on a cost-effectiveness plane and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. A sensitivity analysis, not specified in the protocol, considered the costs associated with antibiotic resistance. RESULTS: Data on 205 participants were included in the economic analysis. On average, methenamine hippurate was less costly (-£40; 95% CI: -684 to 603) and more effective (0.014 QALYs; 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.07) than antibiotic prophylaxis. Over the range of values considered for an additional QALY, the probability of methenamine hippurate being considered cost-effective ranged from 51% to 67%. CONCLUSIONS: On average, methenamine hippurate was less costly and more effective than antibiotic prophylaxis but these results are subject to uncertainty. Methenamine hippurate is more likely to be considered cost-effective when the benefits of reduced antibiotic use were included in the analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN70219762.

Economic evaluation: immunoglobulin vs prophylactic antibiotics in hypogammaglobulinemia and hematological malignancies.

ABSTRACT: Patients with hematological malignancies are at high risk of developing hypogammaglobulinemia (HGG) and infections. Immunoglobulin (Ig) is one recommended option to prevent these infections, but it is expensive, and its cost-effectiveness compared with other prevention strategies remains unknown. We conducted a trial-based economic evaluation from the Australian health care system perspective to estimate the 12-month cost-effectiveness of prophylactic Ig vs prophylactic antibiotics in 63 adults with HGG and hematological malignancies participating in the RATIONAL feasibility trial. Two analyses were conducted: (1) cost-utility analysis to assess the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained; and (2) cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the incremental cost per serious infection prevented (grade ≥3) and per any infection (any grade) prevented. Over 12 months, the total cost per patient was significantly higher in the Ig group than in the antibiotic group (mean difference, AU$29 140; P < .001). Most patients received IVIg, which was the main cost driver; only 2 patients in the intervention arm received subcutaneous Ig. There were nonsignificant differences in health outcomes. Results showed Ig was more costly than antibiotics and associated with fewer QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Ig vs antibiotics was AU$111 262 per serious infection prevented, but Ig was more costly and associated with more infections when all infections were included. On average and for this patient population, Ig prophylaxis may not be cost-effective compared with prophylactic antibiotics. Further research is needed to confirm these findings in a larger population and considering longer-term outcomes. The trial was registered at the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry as #ACTRN12616001723471.

Clinical pharmacist-initiated assessment and amelioration of appropriate antibiotic use in surgical units at a South Indian tertiary care hospital - A handshake approach.

INTRODUCTION: Studies on the appropriateness of antibiotic use among surgical patients are limited in developing countries, notably in India. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the inappropriateness of antibiotic use, demonstrate the impact of clinical pharmacist interventions and determine the predictors of inappropriate use of antibiotics in the surgical units of a South Indian tertiary care hospital. METHODS: This was a 1-year prospective interventional study on in-patients of the surgical wards to determine the appropriateness of the prescribed antibiotics by reviewing medical records using available antimicrobial susceptibility test reports and medical evidence. When inappropriateness in antibiotic prescriptions was identified, the clinical pharmacist discussed and conveyed apt suggestions to the Surgeon. Bivariate logistic regression analysis was applied to evaluate its predictors. RESULTS: Among the 660 antibiotic prescriptions of 614 patients that were followed and reviewed, about 64% were inappropriate. Most inappropriate prescriptions were witnessed in the cases that involved the gastrointestinal system (28.03%). Among the inappropriate cases, 35.29% were attributed to an excessive regimen of antibiotic use which marked the highest. Based on the category of use, most of the antibiotics were used inappropriately as prophylaxis (76.7%) followed by empirical (71.31%). The increase in the percentage of the appropriate use of antibiotics resulting from pharmacist intervention was 95.06%. There was a significant link between inappropriate antibiotic use and the presence of two or three comorbid conditions, the use of two antibiotics, and length of hospital stay of 6-10 days and 16-20 days (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: An antibiotic stewardship program in which the Clinical pharmacist is an integral part along with well-framed institutional antibiotic guidelines must be implemented to assure appropriate antibiotic use.

The Sustainability of the Impact of Pharmacists' Educational Programs on the Adherence to the Recommendations of Preoperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis Guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to evaluate the sustainability of the impact of educational programs provided by pharmacists on the appropriateness of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis and cost-savings in a short time and a long time after the intervention. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This prospective educational interventional study was conducted in a tertiary referral hospital for surgery in the West of Iran from September 2018 to October 2019. The study was designed in three phases: pre-intervention phase, short term after the intervention, and six months after the intervention. Within a one month course, several educational sessions regarding the appropriate preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis based on the recommendations of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists guideline (ASHPs) were provided by a clinical pharmacist in an interactive manner for the surgeons. The appropriateness of antibiotic prophylaxis regarding the necessity for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis use (indication), the choice of antibiotic, the timing of antibiotic administration, the route of administration, the dose of antibiotics, and the total duration of antibiotic prophylaxis were evaluated and compared before and after the educational intervention. Additionally, medication-related costs, non-medication-related costs, antibiotic prophylaxis-related costs, and total costs of care were also assessed before and after the educational intervention. RESULTS: Our survey showed that total adherence to the guideline recommendations among surgeons in our center was relatively low, and in 71.8% of procedures, at least in one of the quality indicators, non-adherence to the guideline recommendations was observed. After the educational intervention, a significant improvement in the rationality of antibiotic prophylaxis, in terms of not administrating antibiotic prophylaxis in procedures without indication, appropriate timing of administration, appropriate antibiotic dose, and appropriate duration of antibiotic prophylaxis, especially in the short time after the intervention was observed that ultimately reduced the medication, non-medication, antibiotic prophylaxis related, and total therapeutic costs. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey showed that educational interventions provided by pharmacists in an interactive manner could improve guideline recommendations' adherence among surgeons, particularly in a short time. Thus, continuous education still should be considered an essential element of a multifaceted intervention for improving guideline adherence.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis Against Infective Endocarditis Before Invasive Dental Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before invasive dental procedures (IDPs) is recommended to prevent infective endocarditis (IE) in those at high IE risk, but there are sparse data supporting a link between IDPs and IE or AP efficacy in IE prevention. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate any association between IDPs and IE, and the effectiveness of AP in reducing this. METHODS: We performed a case-crossover analysis and cohort study of the association between IDPs and IE, and AP efficacy, in 7,951,972 U.S. subjects with employer-provided Commercial/Medicare-Supplemental coverage. RESULTS: Time course studies showed that IE was most likely to occur within 4 weeks of an IDP. For those at high IE risk, case-crossover analysis demonstrated a significant temporal association between IE and IDPs in the preceding 4 weeks (OR: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.59-2.52; P = 0.002). This relationship was strongest for dental extractions (OR: 11.08; 95% CI: 7.34-16.74; P < 0.0001) and oral-surgical procedures (OR: 50.77; 95% CI: 20.79-123.98; P < 0.0001). AP was associated with a significant reduction in IE incidence following IDP (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.29-0.85; P = 0.01). The cohort study confirmed the associations between IE and extractions or oral surgical procedures in those at high IE risk and the effect of AP in reducing these associations (extractions: OR: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.03-0.34; P < 0.0001; oral surgical procedures: OR: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.01-0.35; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated a significant temporal association between IDPs (particularly extractions and oral-surgical procedures) and subsequent IE in high-IE-risk individuals, and a significant association between AP use and reduced IE incidence following these procedures. These data support the American Heart Association, and other, recommendations that those at high IE risk should receive AP before IDP.

Long term assessment of antibiotic prophylaxis and biliary microbiome in pancreaticoduodenectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical site infections (SSI) can represent a major complication of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). We summarize the outcomes of process improvement efforts to reduce the SSI rates in PD that includes replacing Cefazolin with Ceftriaxone-Metronidazole as antibiotic prophylaxis. Additional efforts included current assessment of biliary microbiome and potential prophylactic failures based on bile cultures and suspected antibiotic allergies. METHOD: A single-center review of PD patients from January-2012 to March-2021. Study groups were divided into Pre and Post May-2015 (Group 1 and 2, respectively) when Ceftriaxone-Metronidazole prophylaxis and routine intraoperative cultures were standardized. Univariate and multivariable analyses were conducted to assess groups' differences and association with SSI. RESULTS: Six hundred ninety patients identified [267(38.7%) and 423(61.3%) in Group 1 and Group2, respectively]. After antibiotic change, SSI rates decreased from 28.1% to 16.5% (incisional: 17.6%-7.5%, organ-space or abscess: 17.2%-13.0%), Group 1 and Group 2, respectively, P<0.001. Ceftriaxone-Metronidazole was used in 75.9% of patients Group 2. When adjusting for other covariates, an SSI-decrease was associated only with Ceftriaxone-Metronidazole (OR 0.34, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing process improvement has resulted in decreased SSIs with Ceftriaxone-Metronidazole prophylaxis. The benefit of Ceftriaxone-Metronidazole is independent of the biliary microbiome. Improving prophylaxis for those with suspected penicillin allergy is warranted.

Reduction of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis by combining risk factor assessment with a rapid bedside intrapartum polymerase chain reaction testing for group B streptococci.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of administering Intrapartum Antibiotic Prophylaxis (IAP) to laboring women with one or more risk factors for Early Onset Group B Streptococcal neonatal infection (EOGBS) based on the result of a rapid bedside test for Group B Streptococci (GBS). STUDY DESIGN: Quality assessment study. METHODS: Three-hundred-sixty-six laboring women admitted to our maternity ward, with one or more risk factors for EOGBS, were prospectively included. Rectovaginal swab-samples were examined bedside by the GenomEra® GBS Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) assay upon admission. Time from administration of IAP to delivery was registered. According to national guidelines, one-hundred-two women mandatorily received IAP independent of the PCR test result fulfilling one of the following three risk factors: prior infant with EOGBS, preterm labor before 35 gestational week, temperature ≥ 38 °C during labor. Women with GBS bacteriuria during current pregnancy, rupture of membranes ≥ 18 h IAP, and preterm labor between 35 and 37 gestational week, received IAP solely if the PCR test was positive. Predictive values were calculated for each risk factor. RESULTS: Previous GBS bacteriuria was strongly associated (PPV = 71%) with a positive GBS PCR test, whilst the corresponding positive percent of ROM > 18 h and of GA 35-37 was only PPV = 16% and 22%, respectively. Seventy-four women, 74/251 (31%), received IAP because they were GBS PCR positive. IAP was thus reduced by about two-thirds compared to the risk-based strategy of offering IAP to all women with one or more risk factors for EOGBS. Two women, 2/254 (0.8%), received inferior care, as they did not receive IAP within the recommended 4 h prior to delivery due to the extra time spend on the test procedure. CONCLUSION: Bedside intrapartum PCR testing of women with risk factors for EOGBS effectively diminishes use of IAP during labor compared to the present risk factor-based strategy alone. In this project, the extra time spend on the PCR test procedure did not lead to noticeable delay in IAP.

Antimicrobial stewardship for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis and surgical site infections: a systematic review.

Background Surgical site infections account for 14-17% of all healthcare-associated infections. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) are complementary strategies developed to optimize the use of antimicrobials. Aim to evaluate the effectiveness of AMS in promoting adherence to surgical antibiotic prophylaxis protocols in hospitalized patients, reducing surgical site infection rate and cost-benefit ratio. Method This systematic review of randomized clinical trials, non-randomized clinical trials and before and after studies was performed using Pubmed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov, in addition to reference lists of included studies. The risk of bias of studies was measured by the ROBINS-I checklist and the quality of the evidence synthesis by GRADE. Results Fourteen before and after design studies were included. In 85.7% of the studies, AMS was effective in increasing adherence to surgical antibiotic prophylaxis protocols and in 28.5%, there was reduction in surgical site infection rate. Three studies evaluated cost-benefit ratio and found a favorable impact. Eight (57%) studies were at risk of moderate bias and six had severe bias. The evaluation of the synthesis of evidence showed quality ranging from low to very low. Conclusion AMS, such as audit, feedback, education, implementation of a protocol, and a computer-assisted decision support methodology, appear to be effective in promoting adherence to surgical antibiotic prophylaxis protocols, reducing surgical site infection rate with a positive economic impact. However, more studies, particularly randomized clinical trials, are needed to improve the level of evidence of available information on AMS in order to favor decision-making.

Wound infection following implant removal of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella; a protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial investigating the (cost-)effectiveness of 2 g of prophylactic cefazolin compared to placebo (WIFI-2 trial).

BACKGROUND: Elective implant removal (IR) after fracture fixation is one of the most common procedures within (orthopedic) trauma surgery. The rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in this procedure is quite high, especially below the level of the knee. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not routinely prescribed, even though it has proved to lower SSI rates in other (orthopedic) trauma surgical procedures. The primary objective is to study the effectiveness of a single intravenous dose of 2 g of cefazolin on SSIs after IR following fixation of foot, ankle and/or lower leg fractures. METHODS: This is a multicenter, double-blind placebo controlled trial with a superiority design, including adult patients undergoing elective implant removal after fixation of a fracture of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella. Exclusion criteria are: an active infection, current antibiotic treatment, or a medical condition contraindicating prophylaxis with cefazolin including allergy. Patients are randomized to receive a single preoperative intravenous dose of either 2 g of cefazolin or a placebo (NaCl). The primary analysis will be an intention-to-treat comparison of the proportion of patients with a SSI at 90 days after IR in both groups. DISCUSSION: If 2 g of prophylactic cefazolin proves to be both effective and cost-effective in preventing SSI, this would have implications for current guidelines. Combined with the high infection rate of IR which previous studies have shown, it would be sufficiently substantiated for guidelines to suggest protocolled use of prophylactic antibiotics in IR of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella. Trial registration Nederlands Trial Register (NTR): NL8284, registered on 9th of January 2020, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8284.

Assessment of implementation of antibiotic stewardship program in surgical prophylaxis at a secondary care hospital in Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates.

Antibiotic overuse is a major factor for causing antibiotic resistance globally. However, only few studies reported the implementation and evaluation of antimicrobial stewardship programs in Gulf Cooperation Council. This study was conducted within 8-months periods to evaluate the effect of the newly implemented antibiotic stewardship program on improving the prescribing practice of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in a secondary care hospital in the United Arab Emirates by releasing local hospital guidelines. The data of 493 in patients were documented in the predesigned patient profile form and the prescribing practice of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis for clean and clean-contaminant surgical procedures was compared and analyzed two months' prior (period A) and post (period B) the implementation of antibiotic stewardship program. The 347 patient's data (PD) were analyzed during period A and 146 PD during period B. The prescription of piperacillin/tazobactam was decreased from 2.4% from all surgical prophylaxis antibiotic orders in period A to 0% in period B. The appropriateness of the antibiotic therapy was found to differ non significantly for the selection of prophylactic antibiotic (p = 0.552) and for the timing of first dose administration (p = 0.061) between A and B periods. The total compliance was decreased non significantly (P = 0.08) from 45.3 to 40.2%. Overall, the guidelines have improved the prescribing practice of antibiotics prior to surgery. However, further improvement can be achieved by initiating educational intervention via cyclic auditing strategy.

Pharmacokinetics and Optimal Dose Selection of Cefazolin for Surgical Prophylaxis of Pediatric Patients.

Cefazolin is an antibiotic frequently used for perioperative prophylaxis. Data from healthy adults and pediatric surgery patients were pooled to refine a previously developed population pharmacokinetic (PK) model and to determine the optimal body weight cutoff for selecting fixed doses of either 1 or 2 g cefazolin to produce exposures in pediatric surgery patients similar to a single 2-g dose in adults. Regardless of dose used, cefazolin was well tolerated in pediatric patients. A total of 1102 plasma samples from 62 patients from 3 studies were available to assess the previous model. The pooled data set allowed for simplification of the model such that allometrically scaled clearance and volume parameters were found to provide a robust fit while removing unnecessary covariate relationships. Monte Carlo simulations using the final cefazolin population PK model suggested an optimal weight cutoff of 50 kg, in contrast to the previously suggested 60 kg for a single 2-g dose. Patients at or above this 50-kg cutoff would receive a 2-g dose of cefazolin, and those below 50 kg but ≥25 kg would receive a 1-g dose of cefazolin.

Healthcare resources attributable to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus orthopedic surgical site infections.

The number of orthopedic surgeries is increasing as populations steadily age, but surgical site infection (SSI) rates remain relatively consistent. This study aimed to quantify the healthcare resources attributable to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) SSIs in orthopedic surgical patients. The analysis was conducted using a national claims database comprising data from almost all Japanese residents. We examined patients who underwent any of the following surgeries between April 2012 and March 2018: amputation (AMP), spinal fusion (FUSN), open reduction of fracture (FX), hip prosthesis (HPRO), knee prosthesis (KPRO), and laminectomy (LAM). Propensity score matching was performed to identify non-SSI control patients, and generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the differences in outcomes between the case and control groups. The numbers of MRSA SSI cases (infection rates) ranged from 64 (0.03%) to 1,152 (2.33%). MRSA SSI-attributable increases in healthcare expenditure ranged from $11,630 ($21,151 vs. $9,521) for LAM to $35,693 ($50,122 vs. $14,429) for FX, and increases in hospital stay ranged from 40.6 days (59.2 vs. 18.6) for LAM to 89.5 days (122.0 vs. 32.5) for FX. In conclusion, MRSA SSIs contribute to substantial increases in healthcare resource utilization, emphasizing the need to implement effective infection prevention measures for orthopedic surgeries.

Antibioticoterapia empírica en pacientes COVID-19 / Empirical antibiotic therapy in COVID-19 patients

CONTEXTO CLÍNICO: La Enfermedad por el Coronavirus 2019 (COVID­19, por su sigla en inglés Coronavirus Disease 2019) es una enfermedad respiratoria de humanos producida por un nuevo coronavirus identificado con la sigla SARS-CoV-2. El 11 de marzo de 2020 la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) declaro la COVID-19 como uma pandemia. Desde ese momento hasta este 01 de abril su circulación se ha reportado en 205 países reportándose más de 800.000 casos y la muerte 40.000 personas. El período de incubación de la infección por 2019­nCoV es de 2 a 14 días. La mayor parte de los contagios se producen persona a persona, siendo altamente transmisible. La clínica varía desde casos asintomáticos a cuadros febriles con tos y dificultad respiratoria, neumonía y distrés respiratorio. También puede acompañarse de alteraciones gastrointestinales. En los casos con mal pronóstico, el paciente presenta un importante deterioro respiratorio en 4-8 días. Las imágenes radiológicas muestran generalmente neumonía focal o generalizada semejante al síndrome de distrés respiratorio agudo. Los casos graves requieren ingreso hospitalario, siendo mayoritariamente casos primarios en pacientes de edad avanzada y con comorbilidades (diabetes, enfermedad crónica renal, hipertensión, enfermedad cardiaca y enfermedad pulmonar crónica). La tasa de letalidad media de los pacientes ingresados a UTI es cercana al 49%, siendo los valores más elevados en pacientes masculinos de más de 50 años con comorbilidades múltiples. Actualmente el tratamiento de la COVID­19 es sintomático y de sostén no existiendo hasta el momento tratamento farmacológico específico curativo. Los tratamientos que se han propuestos son: inhibidores de la ARN polimerasa dependiente de ARN (remdesivir, favipiramir), inhibidores de la neuraminidasa (oseltamivir), inhibidores de la protease (lopinavir/ritonavir, desulfura, inhibidores de la enzima convertidora de angiotensina 2, inhibidores de quinasa (imatinib, baricitinib, ribavirin), inmunomoduladores (plasma de convaleciente, anticuerpos ante receptos IL-6 como tocilizumab y otros (interferón , glucocorticoides , umifenovir, cloroquina, etc.). El efecto de la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) sobre la susceptibilidad a las infecciones bacterianas aún no está claro. La coinfección con otros microorganismos como bacterias y hongos es un factor que podría aumentar los síntomas de la enfermedad y la mortalidade. Las características clínicas del compromiso pulmonar por COVID-19 pueden ser difíciles de distinguir de la neumonía bacteriana, por lo que el tratamiento empírico para la neumonía extrahospitalaria podría ser razonable cuando el diagnóstico es incierto. Se postula el uso de antibióticos en pacientes con COVID-19 para la prevención o tratamento temprano de coinfección bacteriana y para el tratamiento de coinfección de neumopatía por COVID-19. TECNOLOGÍA: Los tratamientos antibióticos en pacientes hospitalizados con enfermedades graves suelen iniciarse de forma empírica basándose en datos clínicos, gravedad, uso previo de antibióticos, tiempo ranscurrido entre el ingreso hospitalario y el diagnóstico, la prevalencia de patógenos y patrones de resistência natural y propios de la Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos (UCI) o del hospital. Una vez que se ha decidido iniciar el tratamiento, deben considerarse dos principios fundamentales: a) el tratamiento inicial debe buscar ser adecuado y temprano, y b) los antibióticos deben usarse prudentemente para tratar de impedir el desarrollo de resistencia bacteriana.7 En pacientes con cuadro sospechoso de neumonía por COVID-19 se recomienda su uso priorizando la vía oral (cuando sea posible) hasta la confirmación diagnóstica (hisopado nasofaríngeo para prueba PCR de SARS CoV2). Si es confirmado el diagnostico de COVID-19, se debe suspender el antibiótico. Idealmente, en pacientes con neumopatía severa, la antibioticoterapia empírica debe ajustarse según recomendaciones de comité de infecciones de cada institucion. OBJETIVO: El objetivo del presente informe es evaluar la evidencia disponible acerca de la eficacia y seguridad de la antibioticoterapia empírica en pacientes con COVID-19. MÉTODOS: Se realizó una búsqueda en las principales bases de datos bibliográficas, en buscadores genéricos de internet, y financiadores de salud. Se priorizó la inclusión de revisiones sistemáticas (RS), ensayos clínicos controlados aleatorizados (ECAs), evaluaciones de tecnologías sanitarias (ETS), evaluaciones económicas, guías de práctica clínica (GPC) y recomendaciones de diferentes organizaciones de salud. CONCLUSIONES: No se encontró evidencia acerca de la eficacia ni la seguridad de la implementación del uso de terapia antibiótica empírica en pacientes con sospecha de COVID-19 o pacientes con síntomas leves y moderados de COVID-19. Las tasas de sobreinfección bacteriana en pacientes con neumopatía severa por COVID-19 proveniente de estudios observacionales son dispares, siendo relativamente bajas en los pacientes más leves y más altas en los graves. Evidencia de muy baja calidad no permite determinar si el uso de antibióticos podría prevenir la mala evolución y/o reducir la mortalidad de los pacientes más graves. Las guías de práctica clínica sobre manejo de infecciones hospitalarias, así como los protocolos gubernamentales, y las recomendaciones de las sociedades científicas sobre el manejo de COVID-19 indican que, en pacientes leves y asintomáticos con sospecha de neumopatía por COVID-19 se debe comenzar con tratamiento antibiótico empírico y luego ajustarse o suspenderlo de acuerdo al resultado de PCR en tiempo real y los resultados de los estudios por imágenes torácicos. En todo paciente con diagnóstico de neumopatía severa, se debe solicitar PCR en tiempo real para diagnóstico de COVID-19 y eventualmente para otras virosis respiratorias, así como realizar cultivos bacterianos e indicar tratamiento antibiótico empírico hasta tener resultados de los test realizados y que luego éste se ajuste o se suspenda, de acuerdo a los gérmenes rescatados en estos cultivos. La elección del esquema antibiótico empíricos debe ajustarse de acuerdo a las sugerencias del comité de infecciones de cada institución y a la caracterización de los gérmenes prevalentes en las unidades de cuidados intensivos.

Levofloxacin prophylaxis in hospitalized children with leukemia: A cost-utility analysis.

BACKGROUND: Infections are common and are a major cause of morbidity and mortality during treatment of childhood leukemia. We evaluated the cost effectiveness of levofloxacin antibiotic prophylaxis, compared to no prophylaxis, in children receiving chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). PROCEDURES: A cost-utility analysis was conducted from the perspective of the single-payer health care system using a lifetime horizon. A comprehensive literature review identified available evidence for effectiveness, safety, costs of antibiotic prophylaxis in children with leukemia, and health utilities associated with the relevant health states. The effects of levofloxacin prophylaxis on health outcomes, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), and direct health costs were derived from a combined decision tree and state-transition model. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the sensitivity of results to parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: The literature review revealed one randomized controlled trial on levofloxacin prophylaxis in childhood AML and relapsed ALL, by Alexander et al, that showed a significant reduction in rates of fever and neutropenia (71.2% vs 82.1%) and bacteremia (21.9% vs 43.4%) with levofloxacin compared to no prophylaxis. In our cost-utility analysis, levofloxacin prophylaxis was dominant over no prophylaxis, resulting in cost savings of $542.44 and increased survival of 0.13 QALY. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, levofloxacin prophylaxis was dominant in 98.8% of iterations. CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis suggests that levofloxacin prophylaxis, compared to no prophylaxis, is cost saving in children receiving intensive chemotherapy for AML or relapsed ALL.

Cefuroxime (Aprokam®) in the Prophylaxis of Postoperative Endophthalmitis After Cataract Surgery Versus Absence of Antibiotic Prophylaxis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Poland.

OBJECTIVE: The analysis aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of cefuroxime (Aprokam®) in the prophylaxis of postoperative endophthalmitis (POE) after cataract surgery compared with the absence of antibiotic prophylaxis from the National Health Fund perspective in Poland. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis using the decision tree and Markov model, respectively, for patients after cataract surgery. The efficacy of Aprokam was 0.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.55) and is based on the results of the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery study. According to the epidemiological data from Poland, the risk of POE is 0.377%. The costs associated with the Aprokam administration and POE treatment costs were included. We determined the utilities of the health states in the model depending on visual loss due to POE. To determine the uncertainty of estimates parameters, a one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed. RESULTS: Using Aprokam allows avoiding 0.003 POEs per patient. The benefit from the intervention is 0.0007 quality-adjusted life years per patient in the lifetime horizon. The total costs of prophylaxis are higher at about €1.70. The cost of avoiding one POE (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) is about €569.85. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness utility ratio is equal to €2427.72/quality-adjusted life-years, and it is significantly lower than the cost-effectiveness threshold in Poland in 2019 (about 7.5% of the threshold). In all scenarios of performed one-way sensitivity analyses, Aprokam is cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: In Poland, the use of Aprokam is cost-effective, with the estimated incremental cost-utility ratio significantly lower than the cost-effectiveness threshold.

Assessment of prophylactic antibiotic usage habits of the general surgeons in Turkey.

INTRODUCTION: One of the most important aspects of inappropriate antibiotic use among general surgeons in Turkey is the use of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SP). In order to shed light on the current situation, we conducted a survey of general surgeons in our country. Our aim was to evaluate the approach taken by our general surgeons in prescribing SP, while providing data pertinent to the effectiveness of the 'Rational Drug Use' (AIK) national action plan. METHODOLOGY: A questionnaire on the subject of personal SP usage and compliance with guidelines was distributed amongst general surgeons between 2018-2019. The questions related to individual approaches taken by surgeons when treating patients with either clean or clean-contaminated wounds. Results of the questionnaires were collated and compliance with ASHP guidelines was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 317 completed questionnaires were evaluated. According to the questionnaire results, the rate of total compliance with ASHP guidelines was 26.8%. The compliance rate for preoperative SP was 69.7% in the clean wound group and 54.6% in the clean-contaminated wound group. Although 96.5% of the participants reported correct timing for the first dose of SP, this number dropped to 79.5% apropos the adminstration of further doses of prophylaxis. The percentage of surgeons prescribing continued antibiotics at discharge for clean and clean-contaminated cases was 22.7% and 38.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that inappropriate use of SP is widespread in our country, and that antibiotics continue to be prescribed at discharge.

Cost-effectiveness of levofloxacin prophylaxis against bacterial infection in pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Infections are the leading cause of therapy-related mortality in pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Although effectiveness of levofloxacin antibacterial prophylaxis in oncology patients is recognized, its cost-effectiveness is unknown. This study evaluated epidemiologic data regarding levofloxacin use and the cost-effectiveness of this strategy as the cost per bacteremia episode, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death avoided in children with AML. PROCEDURE: A retrospective cohort study using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database compared demographic and clinical characteristics and receipt of levofloxacin prophylaxis in children with AML admitted for chemotherapy from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2018. We then developed a decision analysis model in this population that compared costs associated with bacteremia, ICU admission, or death secondary to bacteremia to levofloxacin prophylaxis cost from a healthcare perspective. Time horizon is one chemotherapy cycle. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses evaluated model uncertainty. RESULTS: Prophylaxis cost $8491 per bacteremia episode prevented compared with an average added hospital cost of $119 478. Prophylaxis cost $81 609 per ICU admission avoided, compared with an average added hospital cost of $94 181. Prophylaxis cost $220 457 per death avoided. In sensitivity analysis, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per bacteremia episode avoided, prophylaxis remained cost-effective in 94.6% of simulations. Prophylaxis use was more common in recent years in patients with relapsed disease and with chemotherapy regimens considered more intensive. CONCLUSION: Prophylaxis is cost-effective in preventing bacterial infections in patients with AML. Findings support increased use in patients considered at high risk of bacterial infection secondary to myelosuppression.

Antibiotic use among hospitalized patients in northern Nigeria: a multicenter point-prevalence survey.

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of antibiotic use among hospitalized patients is a primary step required to design antibiotic stewardship intervention. There is paucity of data describing antibiotic use in hospitals across Northern Nigeria. This study evaluates the prevalence and indications for antibiotic use among inpatients in three acute care hospitals. METHODS: A point-prevalence survey was conducted among patients in the wards before or at 8.00 a.m. on the day of the survey, using the point-prevalence survey of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use in European acute care hospitals protocol. The survey was conducted between April and May 2019. The medical records of the patients were reviewed by a clinical pharmacist with the support of physicians and nurses. RESULTS: Overall, 80.1% (257/321) of the patients used at least one antibiotic on the day of the survey. The prevalence of antibiotic use ranged from 72.9% in obstetrics and gynecology to 94.6% in pediatric medical specialty. Community acquired infections (38.7%) and surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (22.5%) were the most common indications. Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis was used or scheduled to be used for more than a day in all the cases. Metronidazole (30.5%), ciprofloxacin (17.1%), ceftriaxone (16.8%), amoxicillin-clavulanate (12.5%) and gentamicin (11.8%) were the most commonly prescribed antibiotics. Overall, broad spectrum antibiotics represented one-third of all the prescriptions. The change of initial antibiotic prescription was reported in one-third of the patients and the reasons include a switch to oral antibiotic (28.5%), escalation (4.5%) and de-escalation (3.6%). Of the 257 patients with an antibiotic prescription, 6.2% had redundant antibiotic combinations. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of antibiotic use was high with one in three prescriptions having a broad spectrum antibiotic. Prolonged use of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis and redundant antibiotic combination were observed. Antimicrobial stewardship interventions are recommended in order to reduce the use of antibiotics and promote appropriate antibiotics prescribing.

Collaboration with an infection control team promoted appropriate antibiotic use for third molar extraction at a Japanese hospital.

Oral antibiotic therapy is routinely administered when a third molar (M3) is extracted to prevent infectious complications after surgery. Oral third-generation cephalosporins are frequently used after M3 extraction in Japan but at the expense of an increased risk of antimicrobial resistance. Therefore, the infection control team (ICT) at our institution recommended a reduction in use of these agents after M3 extraction. In this study, we compared the types of antibiotic agents prescribed for patients undergoing M3 extraction before and after this recommendation. We investigated the relationship between type of antibiotic used and the likelihood of infectious complications as well as cost savings in patients who underwent M3 extraction in the 6 months before and after the ICT recommendation in July 2018. There was a marked reduction in use of oral third-generation cephalosporins after M3 extraction (P < 0.0001) and increased use of oral penicillins and first-generation cephalosporins after the ICT recommendation. Moreover, surgical site infection (SSIs) were significantly less common after the ICT recommendation (P = 0.0099); however, the SSI rate was higher in patients who received a third-generation cephalosporin than in those who received penicillin (8.8% vs 0.5%). There was also a significant saving in per-patient antibiotic costs after the ICT recommendation (269.5 ± 282.0 JPY vs 454.7 ± 376.6 JPY; P < 0.0001). These findings suggest that collaboration with an ICT promotes appropriate antibiotic use, decreases the risk of an SSI, and improves the cost-benefit ratio in patients undergoing M3 extraction.