Sustaining Antimicrobial Stewardship in a High-Antibiotic Resistance Setting.

Importance: There is a lack of studies comparing the intended and unintended consequences of prospective review and feedback (PRF) with computerized decision support systems (CDSS), especially in the longer term in antimicrobial stewardship. Objective: To examine the outcomes associated with the sequential implementation of PRF and CDSS and changes to these interventions with long-term use of antibiotics for and incidence of multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) and other unintended outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used an interrupted time series with segmented regression analysis of data from January 2007 to December 2018. Data were extracted from the electronic medical records of patients admitted at a large university teaching hospital with high rates of antibiotic resistance in Singapore. Data were analyzed from June 2019 to June 2020. Exposures: PRF of piperacillin-tazobactam and carbapenems (intervention 1, April 2009), with the addition of hospital-wide CDSS (intervention 2, April 2011), and lifting of CDSS for half of the hospital wards for 6 months (intervention 3, March 2017). Main Outcomes and Measures: Monthly antimicrobial use was measured in defined daily doses (DDDs) per 1000 patient-days. The monthly incidence of MDROs was calculated as number of clinical isolates detected per 1000 inpatient-days over a 6-month period. Unintended outcomes examined included in-hospital mortality and age-adjusted length of stay (LOS). Results: The number of inpatients increased from 56 263 in 2007 to 63 572 in 2018. During the same period, the mean monthly patient days increased from 33 929 in 2007 to 45 603 in 2018, and the proportion of patients older than 65 years increased from 45.5% in 2007 to 56.6% in 2018. After intervention 1, there were 0.33 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.48) more DDDs per 1000 patient-days per month of piperacillin-tazobactam and carbapenems and -11.05 (95% CI, -15.55 to -6.55) fewer DDDs per 1000 patient-days per month for other broad-spectrum antibiotics. After intervention 2, there were -0.22 (95% CI, -0.33 to -0.10) fewer DDDs per 1000 patient-days per month of piperacillin-tazobactam and carbapenems and -2.10 (95% CI, -3.13 to -1.07) fewer DDDs per 1000 patient-days per month for other broad-spectrum antibiotics. After intervention 3, use of piperacillin-tazobactam and carbapenem increased by 0.28 (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.55) DDDs per 1000 patient-days per month. After intervention 2, incidence of Clostridioides difficile decreased (estimate, -0.02 [95% CI, -0.03 to -0.01] cases per 1000 patient-days per month). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, concurrent PRF and CDSS were associated with limiting the use of piperacillin-tazobactam and carbapenems while reducing use of other antibiotics.

Antibiotic Therapy in the Treatment of COVID-19 Pneumonia: Who and When?

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 imposes challenges in antibiotic decision-making due to similarities between bacterial pneumonia and moderate to severe COVID-19. We evaluated the effects of antibiotic therapy on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 pneumonia patients and diagnostic accuracy of key inflammatory markers to inform antibiotic decision-making. METHODS: An observational cohort study was conducted in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 at the National Centre for Infectious Diseases and Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, from January to April 2020. Patients were defined as receiving empiric antibiotic treatment for COVID-19 if started within 3 days of diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 717 patients included, 86 (12.0%) were treated with antibiotics and 26 (3.6%) had documented bacterial infections. Among 278 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, those treated with antibiotics had more diarrhoea (26, 34.7% vs. 24, 11.8%, p < 0.01), while subsequent admissions to the intensive care unit were not lower (6, 8.0% vs. 10, 4.9% p = 0.384). Antibiotic treatment was not independently associated with lower 30-day (adjusted odds ratio, aOR 19.528, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.039-367.021) or in-hospital mortality (aOR 3.870, 95% CI 0.433-34.625) rates after adjusting for age, co-morbidities and severity of COVID-19 illness. Compared to white cell count and procalcitonin level, the C-reactive protein level had the best diagnostic accuracy for documented bacterial infections (area under the curve, AUC of 0.822). However, the sensitivity and specificity were less than 90%. CONCLUSION: Empiric antibiotic use in those presenting with COVID-19 pneumonia did not prevent deterioration or mortality. More studies are needed to evaluate strategies to diagnose bacterial co-infections in these patients.

Effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on antimicrobial prevalence and prescribing in a tertiary hospital in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: The deployment of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) teams to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic can lead to a loss of developed frameworks, best practices and leadership resulting in adverse impact on antimicrobial prescribing and resistance. We aim to investigate effects of reduction in AMS resources during the COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial prescribing. METHODS: One of 5 full-time equivalent AMS pharmacists was deployed to support pandemic work and AMS rounds with infectious disease physicians were reduced from 5 to 2 times a week. A survey in acute inpatients was conducted using the Global Point Prevalence Survey methodology in July 2020 and compared with those in 2015 and 2017-2019. RESULTS: The prevalence of antimicrobial prescribing (55% in 2015 to 49% in 2019 and 47% in 2020, p = 0.02) and antibacterials (54% in 2015 to 45% in 2019 and 42% in 2020, p < 0.01) have been reducing despite the pandemic. Antimicrobial prescribing in infectious disease wards with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases was 29% in 2020. Overall, antimicrobial prescribing quality indicators continued to improve (e.g. reasons in notes, 91% in 2015 to 94% in 2019 and 97% in 2020, p < 0.01) or remained stable (compliance to guideline, 71% in 2015 to 62% in 2019 and 73% in 2020, p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no increase in antimicrobial prescribing and no significant differences in antimicrobial prescribing quality indicators.

A point prevalence survey to assess antibiotic prescribing in patients hospitalized with confirmed and suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: Earlier studies have reported high antibiotic use in patients hospitalised for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), resulting in concerns of increasing antimicrobial resistance with increase antibiotic use in this pandemic. Point prevalence survey (PPS) can be a quick tool to provide antibiotic prescribing information to aid antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) activities. OBJECTIVES: To describe antibiotic utilization and evaluate antibiotic appropriateness in COVID-19 patients using PPS. METHODS: Adapting Global-PPS on antimicrobial use, the survey was conducted in COVID-19 wards at 2 centres in Singapore on 22 April 2020 at 0800h. Patients on systemic antibiotics were included and evaluated for antibiotic appropriateness. RESULTS: Five hundred and seventy-seven patients were screened. Thirty-six (6.2%) patients were on antibiotics and which were started at median of 7 days (inter-quartile rate (IQR), 4, 11) from symptom onset. Fifty-one antibiotics were prescribed in these patients. Overall, co-amoxiclav (26/51, 51.0%) was the most often prescribed antibiotic. Thirty-one out of 51 (60.8%) antibiotic prescriptions were appropriate. Among 20 inappropriate prescriptions, 18 (90.0%) were initiated in patients with low likelihood of bacterial infections. Antibiotic prescriptions were more appropriate when reviewed by infectious diseases physicians (13/31 [41.9%] versus 2/20 [10.0%], p=0.015), and if reasons for use were stated in notes (31/31 [100.0%] versus 16/20 [80.0%], p=0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Despite low prevalence of antibiotic use among confirmed and suspected COVID-19 patients at 2 centres in Singapore, there was significant proportion of inappropriate antibiotics use where bacterial infections were unlikely. AMS teams can tailor stewardship strategies using PPS results.

Gut Microbiota Modulation: Implications for Infection Control and Antimicrobial Stewardship.

The human microbiome comprises a complex ecosystem of microbial communities that exist within the human body, the largest and most diverse of which are found within the human intestine. It has been increasingly implicated in human health and diseases, demonstrably playing a critical role in influencing host immune response, protection against pathogen overgrowth, biosynthesis, and metabolism. As our understanding of the links between the gut microbiota with host immunity and infectious diseases deepens, there is a greater need to incorporate methods of modulating it as a means of therapy or infection prevention in daily clinical practice. Traditional antimicrobial stewardship principles have been evaluated to assess their impact on the gut microbiota diversity and the consequent repercussions, taking into consideration antibiotic pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. Novel strategies of selective digestive decontamination and fecal microbiota transplantation to regulate the gut microbiota have also been tested in different conditions with variable results. This review seeks to provide an overview of the available literature on the modulation of the gut microbiota and its implications for infection control and antimicrobial stewardship. With increased understanding, gut microbiota profiling through metataxonomic analysis may provide further insight into modulating microbial communities in the context of infection prevention and control.

Effective Antimicrobial StewaRdship StrategIES (ARIES): Cluster Randomized Trial of Computerized Decision Support System and Prospective Review and Feedback.

BACKGROUND: Prospective review and feedback (PRF) of antibiotic prescriptions and compulsory computerized decision support system (CDSS) are 2 strategies of antimicrobial stewardship. There are limited studies investigating their combined effects. We hypothesized that the use of on-demand (voluntary) CDSS would achieve similar patient outcomes compared with automatically triggered (compulsory) CDSS whenever broad-spectrum antibiotics are ordered. METHODS: A parallel-group, 1:1 block cluster randomized crossover study was conducted in 32 medical and surgical wards from March to August 2017. CDSS use for piperacillin-tazobactam or carbapenem in the intervention clusters was at the demand of the doctor, while in the control clusters CDSS use was compulsory. PRF was continued for both arms. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Six hundred forty-one and 616 patients were randomized to voluntary and compulsory CDSS, respectively. There were no differences in 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.67-1.12), re-infection and re-admission rates, antibiotic duration, length of stay, or hospitalization cost. The proportion of patients receiving PRF recommendations was not significantly lower in the voluntary CDSS arm (62 [10%] vs 81 [13%]; P = .05). Appropriate indication of antibiotics was high in both arms (351/448 [78%] vs 330/433 [74%]; P = .18). However, in geriatric medicine patients where antibiotic appropriateness was <50%, prescription via compulsory CDSS resulted in a shorter length of stay and lower hospitalization cost. CONCLUSIONS: Voluntary broad-spectrum antibiotics with PRF via CDSS did not result in differing clinical outcomes, antibiotic duration, or length of stay. However, in the setting of low antibiotic appropriateness, compulsory CDSS may be beneficial.

Clinical impact of non-antibiotic recommendations by a multi-disciplinary antimicrobial stewardship team.

INTRODUCTION: The multi-disciplinary antimicrobial stewardship team at the study hospital conducts prospective review and feedback on all inpatient orders of piperacillin-tazobactam and carbapenems. In addition, the team provides non-antibiotic recommendations (i.e. additional investigations and infectious disease reviews). This study aimed to describe the impact of these recommendations on patient outcomes. METHODS: Patients on carbapenem and piperacillin-tazobactam who received at least one non-antibiotic recommendation between January 2012 and August 2014 were included in this study. Acceptance and rejection of non-antibiotic recommendations by the managing physician were compared. The primary outcome was 30-d mortality. RESULTS: Non-antibiotic recommendations were made in 166 patients. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between patients for whom recommendations were accepted and patients for whom recommendations were rejected. Thirty-day mortality (18.0% vs. 34.5%, P = 0.02) was significantly lower in patients who had at least one non-antibiotic recommendation accepted. Multi-variate analysis found that Charlson's comorbidity score [odds ratio (OR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.42, P = 0.03], APACHE II score (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.19, P < 0.01), hepatobiliary source of infection (OR 10.19, 95% CI 1.44-72.13, P = 0.02) and acceptance of at least one non-antibiotic recommendation (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.88, P = 0.02) were independently associated with 30-d mortality. CONCLUSIONS: During prospective review and feedback of piperacillin-tazobactam and carbapenems, acceptance of non-antibiotic recommendations was found to be associated with a reduction in 30-d mortality.