Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis in an Uninsured and Underinsured Cohort.

Background: Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is usually treated with prolonged outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT). Evaluation and treatment of non-antibiotic aspects of DFO (e.g., peripheral artery disease [PAD]) are also recommended. There is limited data regarding OPAT practice patterns and outcomes for DFO. Methods: Single-center observational study of patients receiving OPAT for DFO in a large United States public hospital between January 2017 and July 2019. We abstracted data regarding microbiology test, antibiotics, clinical outcomes, and non-antibiotic DFO management. Results: Ninety-six patients were included and some had >1 DFO-OPAT course during the study period (106 DFO-OPAT courses included). No culture was obtained in 40 (38%) of courses. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) was cultured in 15 (14%) and P. aeruginosa in 1 (1%) of DFO-OPAT courses. An antibiotic with MRSA activity (vancomycin or daptomycin) was used in 79 (75%) of courses and a parenteral antibiotic with anti-pseudomonal activity was used in 7 (6%) of courses. Acute kidney injury occurred in 19 (18%) DFO-OPAT courses. An ankle-brachial index measurement was obtained during or 6 months prior to the first DFO-OPAT course for 44 (49%) of patients. Forty-two (44%) patients died or had an amputation within 12 months of their initial hospital discharge. Conclusions: We found high rates of empiric antibiotic therapy for DFO and low uptake of the non-antibiotic aspects of DFO care. Better implementation of microbiological tests for DFO in addition to stronger integration of infectious disease and non-infectious diseases care could improve DFO outcomes.

Impact of Clinical Decision Support on Azithromycin Prescribing in Primary Care Clinics.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate use of antibiotics in the outpatient setting is a common problem, yet literature evaluating best practices for stewardship interventions in this setting is sparse. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of clinical decision support (CDS) order panels for azithromycin prescribing on the percentage of inappropriate azithromycin prescriptions in primary care clinics. DESIGN: Single-center, retrospective analysis of azithromycin prescribing within nine primary care clinics. Pre-intervention and post-intervention data included azithromycin prescriptions from November 2016 to April 2017 and February 2019 to July 2019, respectively. Key exclusion criteria included prescriptions for the treatment of a sexually transmitted infection or for prophylaxis against Mycobacterium avium complex. INTERVENTION: The azithromycin CDS panel was created to provide point-of-care information on appropriate use of azithromycin along with recommended alternatives based on indications. CDS panels were implemented on January 10, 2019. MAIN MEASURES: The primary composite outcome was the change in the percentage of inappropriate azithromycin prescribing before and after implementation of CDS panels. The composite outcome included prescriptions with inappropriate indications for azithromycin, unnecessary prescriptions, inappropriate treatment durations, and/or inappropriate dose. KEY RESULTS: There were 306 and 263 prescriptions for azithromycin prescriptions included for analysis in the pre- and post-intervention periods, respectively. Inappropriate prescriptions decreased by 12.6% from the pre- to post-intervention period (81.4% vs. 68.8%; P < 0.001). In both the pre- and post-intervention period, bronchitis and unspecified upper respiratory tract infections (URI) were the two most common indications where azithromycin was prescribed inappropriately. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of CDS order panels resulted in a reduction in inappropriate azithromycin prescribing. However, additional improvement in azithromycin prescribing is needed especially for the indications of bronchitis and unspecified URI.

The impact of an automated antibiotic stewardship intervention for the management of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia utilizing the electronic health record.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB) management bundles have been shown to improve performance measures and clinical outcomes. SAB bundles often require direct intervention by infectious diseases (ID) physicians or antibiotic stewardship programme (ASP) members or pharmacists. The purpose of this study was to evaluate an automated, real-time ASP intervention utilizing clinical decision support (CDS) in the electronic health record (EHR) for the management of SAB. METHODS: A retrospective, single-centre quasi-experimental study of hospitalized patients with known SAB was conducted. The intervention was the implementation of a hard-stop best practice advisory (BPA) alert that would prompt physicians to use an electronic order set, on identification of SAB, with management recommendations, including ID consultation. The primary outcome was overall adherence to six institutional ASP SAB bundle elements. Secondary outcomes included both clinical and process outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 227 patients were included, 111 in the pre-intervention and 116 in the post-intervention period. Completion of all six bundle elements improved by 27.2% in the post-intervention group (29.7% versus 56.9%, P < 0.001). BPA activation and order-set utilization occurred in 95.7% and 57.8% in the post-intervention group, respectively. Composite outcome of 30 day mortality or 90 day readmission with SAB complication decreased in the post-intervention group by 9.6% (24.3% versus 14.7%, P = 0.092). CONCLUSIONS: Optimization of CDS within the EHR, using real-time BPA alert and order set, demonstrated an immediate, sustainable intervention that improved adherence to institutional performance measures for SAB management without direct prospective audit with intervention and feedback.

Antimicrobial stewardship pharmacist interventions for coagulase-negative staphylococci positive blood cultures using rapid polymerase chain reaction.

BACKGROUND: No studies exist regarding the value of pharmacist interventions using rapid identification of coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) by rapid polymerase chain reaction (rPCR) from blood cultures. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of interventions by infectious diseases pharmacists (ID PharmDs) on blood cultures positive for CoNS using rPCR and assess the duration of antistaphylococcal antibiotic therapy, hospital length of stay (LOS), and related costs. METHODS: A quasi-experimental, pre- and postintervention study of patients with positive blood cultures for CoNS, identified using rPCR, was conducted. Patients were included if there was a blood culture for CoNS from January 1, 2011, to March 31, 2011 (preintervention), or October 1, 2011, to January 18, 2012 (postintervention). Exclusion criteria included age younger than 18 years or 89 years or older, neutropenia, incomplete records, and duplicate or mixed blood cultures. The setting was a 1200-bed academic medical center. The ID PharmD intervened on blood cultures identified in the postintervention group as CoNS after notification from the microbiology laboratory. The pre- and postintervention groups were compared to analyze the effect of the intervention. The primary outcome was time to discontinuation of antistaphylococcal antibiotics by the pharmacist intervention in patients with a positive blood culture for CoNS that was determined to be a contaminant. RESULTS: We analyzed 53 patients (31 preintervention, 22 postintervention) with CoNS blood culture contaminants. In the postintervention group, antistaphylococcal antibiotics were discontinued 32.0 hours sooner from time of rPCR result (median 57.7 vs 25.7 hours; p = 0.005), total antibiotic exposure decreased 43.5 hours (97.6 vs 54.1 hours; p = 0.011), infection-related LOS decreased 4.5 days (10 vs 5.5 days; p = 0.018), and infection-related costs decreased $8338 ($28,973 vs $20,635; p = 0.144). The pharmacist initiated vancomycin in 7 (21.9%) patients with CoNS bloodstream infections. CONCLUSIONS: Timely interventions by ID PharmDs using rPCR are required to impact the outcomes of patients with positive blood cultures for CoNS.

Novel method of calculating adjusted antibiotic use by microbiological burden.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the usefulness of adjusting antibiotic use (AU) by prevalence of bacterial isolates as an alternative method for risk adjustment beyond hospital characteristics. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Hospitals in the southeastern United States. METHODS: AU in days of therapy per 1,000 patient days and microbiologic data from 2015 and 2016 were collected from 26 hospitals. The prevalences of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, extended-spectrum ß-lactamase (ESBL)-producing bacteria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) were calculated and compared to the average prevalence of all hospitals in the network. This proportion was used to calculate the adjusted AU (a-AU) for various categories of antimicrobials. For example, a-AU of antipseudomonal ß-lactams (APBL) was the AU of APBL divided by (prevalence of P. aeruginosa at that hospital divided by the average prevalence of P. aeruginosa). Hospitals were categorized by bed size and ranked by AU and a-AU, and the rankings were compared. RESULTS: Most hospitals in 2015 and 2016, respectively, moved ≥2 positions in the ranking using a-AU of APBL (15 of 24, 63%; 22 of 26, 85%), carbapenems (14 of 23, 61%; 22 of 25; 88%), anti-MRSA agents (13 of 23, 57%; 18 of 26, 69%), and anti-VRE agents (18 of 24, 75%; 15 of 26, 58%). Use of a-AU resulted in a shift in quartile of hospital ranking for 50% of APBL agents, 57% of carbapenems, 35% of anti-MRSA agents, and 75% of anti-VRE agents in 2015 and 50% of APBL agents, 28% of carbapenems, 50% of anti-MRSA agents, and 58% of anti-VRE agents in 2016. CONCLUSIONS: The a-AU considerably changes how hospitals compare among each other within a network. Adjusting AU by microbiological burden allows for a more balanced comparison among hospitals with variable baseline rates of resistant bacteria.

Implementation and optimization of molecular rapid diagnostic tests for bloodstream infections.

PURPOSE: The implementation and optimization of molecular rapid diagnostic tests (mRDTs) as an antimicrobial stewardship intervention for patients with bloodstream infections (BSIs) are reviewed. SUMMARY: All U.S. acute care hospitals accredited by the Joint Commission are required to implement an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP). Of the many interventions available to ASPs, mRDTs have demonstrated consistent, meaningful results on antimicrobial optimization and patient outcomes. Even among infectious diseases and antimicrobial stewardship-trained pharmacists, significant knowledge and familiarity gaps exist regarding available mRDTs and how best to implement and optimize them. Given the paucity of infectious diseases and/or antimicrobial stewardship-trained pharmacists, the mandates for establishing ASPs will require non-infectious diseases/antimicrobial stewardship-trained pharmacists to implement stewardship interventions, which may include mRDTs, within their institution. Optimization of mRDTs requires adequate diagnostic stewardship, specifically evaluating how mRDT implementation may decrease costs and assist in meeting antimicrobial stewardship regulatory requirements. Knowledge of how these technologies will augment existing microbiology and antimicrobial stewardship workflow is essential. Finally, selecting the right mRDT necessitates familiarity with the instrument's capabilities and with the institutional antibiogram. CONCLUSION: mRDTs have demonstrated the ability to be one of the most powerful antimicrobial stewardship interventions. Pharmacists required to implement an ASP in their institution should consider mRDTs as standard of care for patients with BSIs.

Controversies in Antimicrobial Stewardship: Focus on New Rapid Diagnostic Technologies and Antimicrobials.

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are challenged with ensuring appropriate antimicrobial use while minimizing expenditures. ASPs have consistently demonstrated improved patient outcomes and significant cost reductions but are continually required to justify the costs of their existence and interventions due to the silo mentality often adopted by hospital administrators. As new technologies and antimicrobials emerge, ASPs are in a constant tug-of-war between providing optimal clinical outcomes and ensuring cost containment. Additionally, robust data on cost-effectiveness of new rapid diagnostic technologies and antimicrobials with subsequent ASP interventions to provide justification are lacking. As the implementation of an ASP will soon be mandatory for acute care hospitals in the United States, ASPs must find ways to justify novel interventions to align themselves with healthcare administrators. This review provides a framework for the justification of implementing a rapid diagnostic test or adding a new antimicrobial to formulary with ASP intervention, reviews approaches to demonstrating cost-effectiveness, and proposes methods for which ASPs may reduce healthcare expenditures via alternative tactics.