How is ceftobiprole used in Canada: the CLEAR study final results.

BACKGROUND: We report the final results of the clinical usage of ceftobiprole in patients in Canada from data in the national CLEAR (Canadian Le adership on Antimicrobial Real-Life Usage) registry. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The authors review the final data using the national ethics approved CLEAR study. Thereafter, the literature is surveyed regarding the usage of ceftobiprole to treat patients with infectious diseases via PubMed (up to March 2024). RESULTS: In Canada, ceftobiprole is primarily used as directed therapy to treat a variety of severe infections caused by MRSA. It is primarily used in patients failing previous antimicrobials, is frequently added to daptomycin and/or vancomycin with high microbiological and clinical cure rates, along with an excellent safety profile. Several reports attest to the microbiological/clinical efficacy and safety of ceftobiprole. Ceftobiprole is also reported to be used empirically in select patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP), as well as hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP). CONCLUSIONS: In Canada, ceftobiprole is used mostly as directed therapy to treat a variety of severe infections caused by MRSA, in patients failing previous antimicrobials. It is frequently added to, and thus used in combination with daptomycin and/or vancomycin with high microbiological/clinical cure rates, and an excellent safety profile.

Real-life experience with IV fosfomycin in Canada: Results from the Canadian LEadership on Antimicrobial Real-life usage (CLEAR) registry.

OBJECTIVES: Data on the use of intravenous (IV) fosfomycin in Canada are limited. Using data captured by the Canadian LEadership on Antimicrobial Real-life usage (CLEAR) registry, we report the use of IV fosfomycin in Canadian patients. METHODS: The CLEAR registry uses the web-based data management program, REDCapTM (https://rcsurvey.radyfhs.umanitoba.ca/surveys/?s=F7JXNDFXEF) to facilitate clinicians' entering of details associated with their clinical experiences using IV fosfomycin. RESULTS: Data were available for 59 patients treated with IV fosfomycin. The most common infections treated were: bacteraemia or sepsis (25.4% of patients), complicated urinary tract infection (20.3%), ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (18.6%), and hospital-acquired pneumonia (13.6%). IV fosfomycin was used to treat Gram-negative (88.1%) and Gram-positive (10.2%) infections. The most common pathogens treated were carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (44.1%), multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (18.6%), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (5.1%), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (3.4%). IV fosfomycin was primarily used due to resistance to initially prescribed therapies (69.5%), frequently in combination with other agents (86.4%). Microbiological success (eradication/presumed eradication) occurred in 77.4% of patients, and clinical success (clinical cure/improvement) occurred in 62.5%. Overall, 15.3% of patients died because of their infection. Adverse effects were not documented in 73.1% of patients, and no patient discontinued therapy because of an adverse effect. CONCLUSIONS: In Canada, IV fosfomycin is used primarily as directed therapy to treat a variety of severe infections caused by Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. It is primarily used in patients infected with bacteria resistant to other agents and as part of combination therapy. Its use is associated with relatively high microbiological and clinical cure rates, and it has an excellent safety profile.

The 2018 Global Point Prevalence Survey of antimicrobial consumption and resistance in 47 Canadian hospitals: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Patient-level surveillance of antimicrobial use (AMU) in Canadian hospitals empowers the reduction of inappropriate AMU and was piloted in 2017 among 14 hospitals in Canada. We aimed to describe AMU on the basis of patient-level data in Canadian hospitals in 2018 in terms of antimicrobial prescribing prevalence and proportions, antimicrobial indications, and agent selection in medical, surgical and intensive care wards. METHODS: Canadian adult, pediatric and neonatal hospitals were invited to participate in the standardized web-based cross-sectional Global Point Prevalence Survey of Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance (Global-PPS) conducted in 2018. An identified site administrator assigned all wards admitting inpatients to specific surveyors. A physician, pharmacist or nurse with infectious disease training performed the survey. The primary outcomes were point prevalence rates for AMU over the study period regarding prescriptions, indications and agent selection in medical, surgical and intensive care wards. The secondary outcomes were AMU for resistant organisms and practice appropriateness evaluated on the basis of quality indicators. Antimicrobial consumption is presented in terms of prevalence and proportions. RESULTS: Forty-seven of 118 (39.8%) hospitals participated in the survey; 9 hospitals were primary care centres, 15 were secondary care centres and 23 were tertiary or specialized care centres. Of 13 272 patients included, 33.5% (n = 4447) received a total of 6525 antimicrobials. Overall, 74.1% (4832/6525) of antimicrobials were for therapeutic use, 12.6% (n = 825) were for medical prophylaxis, 8.9% (n = 578) were for surgical prophylaxis, 2.2% (n = 143) were for other use and 2.3% (n = 147) were for unidentified reasons. A diagnosis or indication was documented in the patient's file at the initiation for 87.3% (n = 5699) of antimicrobials; 62.9% (n = 4106) of antimicrobials had a stop or review date; and 72.0% (n = 4697) of prescriptions were guided by local guidelines. INTERPRETATION: Overall, three-quarters of AMU was for therapeutic use across participating hospitals. Canadian hospitals should be further incentivized to create and adapt local guidelines on the basis of recent antimicrobial resistance data.

Real-life experience with ceftolozane/tazobactam in Canada: results from the CLEAR (Canadian LEadership on Antimicrobial Real-life usage) registry.

OBJECTIVES: Ceftolozane/tazobactam is a cephalosporin/ß-lactamase inhibitor combination with activity against Gram-negative bacilli. Here we report the use of ceftolozane/tazobactam in Canada using a national registry. METHODS: The CLEAR registry uses a REDCapTM online survey to capture details associated with clinical use of ceftolozane/tazobactam. RESULTS: Data from 51 patients treated in 2020 with ceftolozane/tazobactam are available. Infections treated included hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (37.3% of patients), ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (15.7%), bone and joint infection (11.8%), complicated intra-abdominal infection (7.8%) and complicated skin and skin-structure infection (7.8%). Moreover, 17.6% of patients had bacteraemia and 47.1% were in intensive care. Ceftolozane/tazobactam was primarily used as directed therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections (92.2% of patients). Ceftolozane/tazobactam was used because of resistance to (86.3%), failure of (11.8%) or adverse effects from (2.0%) previously prescribed antimicrobials. Ceftolozane/tazobactam susceptibility testing was performed on isolates from 88.2% of patients. Ceftolozane/tazobactam was used in combination with another antimicrobial active against Gram-negative bacilli in 39.2% of patients [aminoglycosides (15.7%), fluoroquinolones (9.8%) and colistin/polymyxin B (7.8%)]. The dosage regimen was customised in all patients based on creatinine clearance. The treatment duration was primarily >10 days (60.8% of patients), with microbiological success in 60.5% and clinical success in 64.4% of patients. Moreover, 7.8% of patients had adverse effects not requiring drug discontinuation. CONCLUSION: In Canada, ceftolozane/tazobactam is used as directed therapy to treat a variety of severe infections caused by multidrug-resistant P. aeruginosa. It is commonly used in combination with other antimicrobials with relatively high microbiological/clinical cure rates and an excellent safety profile.

Real-life experience with ceftobiprole in Canada: Results from the CLEAR (CanadianLEadership onAntimicrobialReal-life usage) registry.

OBJECTIVES: Ceftobiprole is an advanced-generation cephalosporin with a favourable safety profile. Published data on the clinical use of ceftobiprole are limited. We report use of ceftobiprole in Canadian patients using data captured by the CLEAR registry. METHODS: The CLEAR registry uses the web-based research data management program REDCap™ (online survey) to facilitate clinicians entering details associated with their clinical experiences using ceftobiprole. RESULTS: Data were available for 38 patients treated with ceftobiprole. The most common infections treated were endocarditis (42.1% of patients), bone and joint infection (23.7%) and hospital-associated bacterial pneumonia (15.8%). 92.1% of patients had bacteraemia and 21.1% were in intensive care. Ceftobiprole was used because of failure of (71.1%), resistance to (18.4%) or adverse effects from (10.5%) previously prescribed antimicrobial agents. Ceftobiprole was primarily used as directed therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections (94.7% of patients). Ceftobiprole susceptibility testing was performed on isolates from 47.4% of patients. It was used concomitantly with daptomycin in 55.3% of patients and with vancomycin in 18.4% of patients. Treatment duration was primarily >10 days (65.8% of patients) with microbiological success in 97.0% and clinical success in 84.8% of patients. 2.6% of patients had gastrointestinal adverse effects. CONCLUSION: In Canada to date, ceftobiprole is used as directed therapy to treat a variety of severe infections caused by MRSA. It is primarily used in patients failing previous antimicrobials, is frequently added to, and thus used in combination with daptomycin or vancomycin with high microbiological and clinical cure rates and an excellent safety profile.

Antimicrobial use among adult inpatients at hospital sites within the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program: 2009 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance is a growing threat to the world's ability to prevent and treat infections. Links between quantitative antibiotic use and the emergence of bacterial resistance are well documented. This study presents benchmark antimicrobial use (AMU) rates for inpatient adult populations in acute-care hospitals across Canada. METHODS: In this retrospective surveillance study, acute-care adult hospitals participating in the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program (CNISP) submitted annual AMU data on all systemic antimicrobials from 2009 to 2016. Information specific to intensive care units (ICUs) and non-ICU wards were available for 2014-2016. Data were analyzed using defined daily doses (DDD) per 1000 patient days (DDD/1000pd). RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2016, 16-18 CNISP adult hospitals participated each year and provided their AMU data (22 hospitals participated in ≥1 year of surveillance; 11 in all years). From 2009 to 2016, there was a significant reduction in use (12%) (from 654 to 573 DDD/1000pd, p = 0.03). Fluoroquinolones accounted for the majority of this decrease (47% reduction in combined oral and intravenous use, from 129 to 68 DDD/1000pd, p < 0.002). The top five antimicrobials used in 2016 were cefazolin (78 DDD/1000pd), piperacillin-tazobactam (53 DDD/1000pd), ceftriaxone (49 DDD/1000pd), vancomycin (combined oral and intravenous use was 44 DDD/1000pd; 7% of vancomycin use was oral), and ciprofloxacin (combined oral and intravenous use: 42 DDD/1000pd). Among the top 10 antimicrobials used in 2016, ciprofloxacin and metronidazole use decreased significantly between 2009 and 2016 by 46% (p = 0.002) and 26% (p = 0.002) respectively. Ceftriaxone (85% increase, p = 0.0008) and oral amoxicillin-clavulanate (140% increase, p < 0.0001) use increased significantly but contributed only a small component (8.6 and 5.0%, respectively) of overall use. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the largest collection of dispensed antimicrobial use data among inpatients in Canada to date. Between 2009 and 2016, there was a significant 12% decrease in AMU, driven primarily by a 47% decrease in fluoroquinolone use. Modest absolute increases in parenteral ceftriaxone and oral amoxicillin-clavulanate use were noted but contributed a small amount of total AMU. Ongoing national surveillance is crucial for establishing benchmarks and antimicrobial stewardship guidelines.

Successful Treatment of Legionnaires' Disease with Tigecycline in an Immunocompromised Man with a Legion of Antibiotic Allergies.

Legionella species are Gram-negative bacilli that are relatively rare causes of community-acquired pneumonia but can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality if unrecognized or improperly treated. Limited data exist regarding the use of tigecycline, a third generation glycylcycline, in the treatment of Legionnaires' disease. We present an immunocompromised patient with Legionnaires' disease and allergies to both fluoroquinolones and macrolides, which are first-line treatment options for Legionnaires' disease. He was successfully treated using tigecycline, a third generation glycylcycline, indicating that tigecycline may serve as a safe and effective alternative therapeuticl option for treatment of Legionnaires' disease.

Attitudes and Perceptions amongst Critical Care Physicians towards Handshake Antimicrobial Stewardship Rounds.

Rationale In an era of antimicrobial resistance, antimicrobial stewardship programs are tasked with reducing inappropriate use of antimicrobials in community and hospital settings. Intensive care units are unique, high-stakes environments where high usage of broad-spectrum antimicrobials is often seen. Handshake stewardship has emerged as an effective mode of prospective audit and feedback to help optimize antimicrobial usage, emphasizing an in-person approach to providing feedback. Objectives Six months following the implementation of handshake stewardship rounds in our intensive care unit, we performed a cross-sectional survey of critical care physicians to assess their attitudes and perceptions towards handshake stewardship rounds and preferred mode of delivery of antimicrobial stewardship prospective audit and feedback strategies. Methods A web-based survey was distributed to 22 critical care physicians working in our hospital and responses were collected over a two-week period. Measurements and Main Results Most critical care physicians believe that handshake stewardship rounds improve the quality of patient care (85.7%) and few believe that handshake stewardship rounds are an ineffective use of their time (14.3%). The majority of critical care physicians believe formal, scheduled rounds with face-to-face verbal interaction are very useful compared to providing written suggestions in the absence of face-to-face interaction (71.4% vs 0%). Conclusions Based upon our survey results, handshake stewardship is valued amongst the majority of critical care physicians. Antimicrobial stewardship prospective audit and feedback strategies emphasizing face-to-face interaction are favored amongst critical care physicians.