A Prediction Tool for the Presence of Ceftriaxone-Resistant Uropathogens upon Hospital Admission.

Antimicrobial resistance among uropathogens is a particularly pressing problem in the Asia-Pacific region. The objectives of this study were to determine the incidence and susceptibility of uropathogens upon hospital admission and to develop a risk-scoring model to predict the presence of ceftriaxone-resistance uropathogens (CrP). This was a retrospective observational cohort study of patients with a positive urine culture within 48 h of presentation at National University Hospital, Singapore between June 2015 and August 2015. Escherichia coli was the most common uropathogen isolated (51.7%), followed by Klebsiella pneumonia (15.1%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (8.2%). Overall, 372 out of 869 isolates (42.8%) were resistant to ceftriaxone. Hospitalization for ≥2 days within past 30 days, antibiotic use within the past 3 months and male gender were associated with the presence of CrP. A risk score based on these parameters successfully predicted CrP with an area under the curve of 0.68. The risk score will help clinicians to accurately predict antibiotic resistance at the individual patient level and allow physicians to safely prescribe empiric ceftriaxone in patients at low risk of CrP, thus reducing the antibiotic selection pressure that is driving carbapenem resistance in hospitals throughout Asia.

Ceftaroline--An Anti-MRSA Cephalosporin and Its Implications for Singapore.

INTRODUCTION: Ceftaroline is a fifth-generation cephalosporin with activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) that was recently launched in Singapore. It received approval from the United States (US) Food Drug Administration (FDA) and European Commission for the treatment of adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI). This study aimed to review current published data and determine its clinical role, particularly in the local setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review on published articles in English on ceftaroline, focusing in particular on clinical trials and other clinical reports. Susceptibility testing was also performed on a limited sample of local MRSA and Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates. RESULTS: Ceftaroline has an extensive spectrum of activity, including coverage of MRSA and multidrug-resistant S. pneumoniae. However, it has limited activity against non-fermenting Gram-negative bacteria and is susceptible to hydrolysis by extended spectrum beta-lactamases. It is only available for intravenous delivery, with a reconstituted stability of just 6 hours, rendering it unavailable for use for outpatient antibiotic therapy. Clinical trials demonstrate non-inferiority compared to first-line comparators in the treatment of CAP and cSSTI. Published case reports/series suggest a potential greater role in the treatment of MRSA bacteremia and endocarditis. No resistance was found among local archived MRSA and S. pneumoniae isolates. CONCLUSION: We believe ceftaroline will occupy primarily niche roles for culture-directed treatment of various infections--in particular those caused by MRSA--until further clinical trial data become available. A variety of factors render it less useful or appealing for empirical treatment of CAP or healthcare-associated infections.

Antimicrobial stewardship auditing of patients reviewed by infectious diseases physicians in a tertiary university hospital.

BACKGROUND: The optimal way for antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) to interact with existing infectious disease physician (IDP) services within the same institution is unknown. In our institution, IDPs and our prospective audit and feedback ASP operate independently, with occasionally differing recommendations offered for the same inpatient. We performed a retrospective audit on inpatients that had been reviewed by both IDPs and ASP within a 7-day period, focusing on cases where different therapy-modifying recommendations had been offered. We analyzed the outcomes in inpatients where the ASP recommendations were accepted and compared these with the inpatients where the IDP recommendations were accepted instead. Outcomes assessed were 30-day mortality post-ASP review, unplanned re-admission within 30 days post-discharge from hospital, and clinical deterioration at 7 days post-ASP review. FINDINGS: There were 143 (18.9%) patients where differing recommendations had been offered, with primary physicians accepting 69.9% of ASP recommendations. No significant differences in terms of demographics, clinical characteristics, 30-day mortality, and re-admission rates were observed, although clinical deterioration rates were lower in patients where the ASP recommendation was accepted (8.0% vs. 27.9%; p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, hematology-oncology inpatients were associated with unplanned readmission. Increasing age and hematology-oncology inpatients were associated with clinical deterioration 7 days post-recommendation, whereas acceptance of ASP recommendations was protective. No characteristic was independently associated with 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, independent reviews by both IDPs and ASPs can be compatible within large tertiary hospitals, providing primary physicians even in situations of conflicting recommendations viable alternative antimicrobial prescribing advice.