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.

Multicenter, Observational Cohort Study Evaluating Third-Generation Cephalosporin Therapy for Bloodstream Infections Secondary to Enterobacter, Serratia, and Citrobacter Species.

OBJECTIVES: There is debate on whether the use of third-generation cephalosporins (3GC) increases the risk of clinical failure in bloodstream infections (BSIs) caused by chromosomally-mediated AmpC-producing Enterobacterales (CAE). This study evaluates the impact of definitive 3GC therapy versus other antibiotics on clinical outcomes in BSIs due to Enterobacter, Serratia, or Citrobacter species. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study evaluated adult hospitalized patients with BSIs secondary to Enterobacter, Serratia, or Citrobacter species from 1 January 2006 to 1 September 2014. Definitive 3GC therapy was compared to definitive therapy with other non-3GC antibiotics. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression evaluated the impact of definitive 3GC on overall treatment failure (OTF) as a composite of in-hospital mortality, 30-day hospital readmission, or 90-day reinfection. RESULTS: A total of 381 patients from 18 institutions in the southeastern United States were enrolled. Common sources of BSIs were the urinary tract and central venous catheters (78 (20.5%) patients each). Definitive 3GC therapy was utilized in 65 (17.1%) patients. OTF occurred in 22/65 patients (33.9%) in the definitive 3GC group vs. 94/316 (29.8%) in the non-3GC group (p = 0.51). Individual components of OTF were comparable between groups. Risk of OTF was comparable with definitive 3GC therapy vs. definitive non-3GC therapy (aHR 0.93, 95% CI 0.51-1.72) in multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These outcomes suggest definitive 3GC therapy does not significantly alter the risk of poor clinical outcomes in the treatment of BSIs secondary to Enterobacter, Serratia, or Citrobacter species compared to other antimicrobial agents.