Antimicrobial resistance patterns and empiric antibiotic selections for patients admitted from post-acute care facilities.

PURPOSE: To characterize the susceptibilities of positive bacterial cultures and the appropriateness of empiric antimicrobial regimens for patients admitted from post-acute care facilities (PACFs). METHODS: This was a retrospective quality improvement study. The study included patients admitted from a PACF to one of 2 tertiary care teaching hospitals within the University of Pennsylvania Health System, located in Philadelphia, PA, from August 2020 to December 2021. Patients were included if they had at least one positive culture within 72 hours of admission. RESULTS: A total of 167 patients and 230 isolates from the study period were evaluated. The majority of positive cultures were from a urinary source (114 of 230, 49.6%). Nineteen patients (11.4%) had a history of multidrug-resistant organisms. The most common empiric antibiotics used were vancomycin (61.7%) and cefepime (59.3%). Sixty-one patients (36.5%) received inappropriate empiric therapy based on the culture results. When comparing our hospitals' general antibiogram to that of only PACF patients, Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae had at least a 20% difference in susceptibility to levofloxacin, ceftriaxone, and cefepime. Extended-spectrum ß-lactamase resistance was also higher in the PACF cohort (odds ratio, 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.1). CONCLUSION: Clinically significant differences in antimicrobial susceptibility were found among patients admitted from PACFs compared to our health system's general antibiogram. The increased resistance rates identified in this study support the need for hospitals to evaluate this at-risk patient population, which may drive changes to empiric antibiotic prescribing practices.

The Penn Medicine COVID-19 Therapeutics Committee-Reflections on a Model for Rapid Evidence Review and Dynamic Practice Recommendations During a Public Health Emergency.

The Penn Medicine COVID-19 Therapeutics Committee-an interspecialty, clinician-pharmacist, and specialist-front line primary care collaboration-has served as a forum for rapid evidence review and the production of dynamic practice recommendations during the 3-year coronavirus disease 2019 public health emergency. We describe the process by which the committee went about its work and how it navigated specific challenging scenarios. Our target audiences are clinicians, hospital leaders, public health officials, and researchers invested in preparedness for inevitable future threats. Our objectives are to discuss the logistics and challenges of forming an effective committee, undertaking a rapid evidence review process, aligning evidence-based guidelines with operational realities, and iteratively revising recommendations in response to changing pandemic data. We specifically discuss the arc of evidence for corticosteroids; the noble beginnings and dangerous misinformation end of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin; monoclonal antibodies and emerging viral variants; and patient screening and safety processes for tocilizumab, baricitinib, and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

Assessing an intervention to improve the safety of automatic stop orders for inpatient antimicrobials.

BACKGROUND: Automatic stop orders (ASOs) for antimicrobials have been recommended as a component of antimicrobial stewardship programs, but may result in unintentional treatment interruption due to failure of providers to re-order an antimicrobial medication. We examined the impact of a multifaceted intervention designed to reduce the potential harms of interrupting antimicrobial treatment due to ASOs. METHODS: An intervention was implemented that included pharmacist review of expiring antimicrobials as well as provider education to encourage use of a long-term antimicrobial order set for commonly used prophylactic antimicrobials. Pharmacist interventions and antimicrobial re-ordering was recorded. Percent of missed doses of a commonly used prophylactic antimicrobial, single strength co-trimoxazole, was compared pre- and post-intervention using a chi-squared test. RESULTS: From November 1, 2015 to November 30, 2016, there were 401 individual pharmacist interventions for antimicrobial ASOs, resulting in 295 instances of antimicrobial re-ordering. The total percent of presumed missed single strength co-trimoxazole doses was reduced from 8.4% to 6.2% post-intervention (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that a targeted intervention was associated with a reduction in unintended antimicrobial treatment interruption related to ASOs.

Comparison of prior authorization and prospective audit with feedback for antimicrobial stewardship.

OBJECTIVE: Although prior authorization and prospective audit with feedback are both effective antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) strategies, the relative impact of these approaches remains unclear. We compared these core ASP strategies at an academic medical center. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study. METHODS: We compared antimicrobial use during the 24 months before and after implementation of an ASP strategy change. The ASP used prior authorization alone during the preintervention period, June 2007 through May 2009. In June 2009, many antimicrobials were unrestricted and prospective audit was implemented for cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, and vancomycin, marking the start of the postintervention period, July 2009 through June 2011. All adult inpatients who received more than or equal to 1 dose of an antimicrobial were included. The primary end point was antimicrobial consumption in days of therapy per 1,000 patient-days (DOT/1,000-PD). Secondary end points included length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: In total, 55,336 patients were included (29,660 preintervention and 25,676 postintervention). During the preintervention period, both total systemic antimicrobial use (-9.75 DOT/1,000-PD per month) and broad-spectrum anti-gram-negative antimicrobial use (-4.00 DOT/1,000-PD) declined. After the introduction of prospective audit with feedback, however, both total antimicrobial use (+9.65 DOT/1,000-PD per month; P < .001) and broad-spectrum anti-gram-negative antimicrobial use (+4.80 DOT/1,000-PD per month; P < .001) increased significantly. Use of cefepime and piperacillin/tazobactam both significantly increased after the intervention (P = .03). Hospital LOS and LOS after first antimicrobial dose also significantly increased after the intervention (P = .016 and .004, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Significant increases in antimicrobial consumption and LOS were observed after the change in ASP strategy.

Effect of an antibiotic algorithm on the adequacy of empiric antibiotic therapy given by a medical emergency team.

INTRODUCTION: Delayed administration of effective antimicrobial therapy increases mortality in patients with septic shock. Empiric antibiotic selection in this setting can be inaccurate. The objective of this study was to determine whether an antibiotic algorithm (AA) tailored to institutional resistance patterns improves the adequacy of antimicrobial therapy. METHODS: A retrospective review of our rapid response system database was performed. Patients with possible sepsis with positive microbiological culture results were enrolled. Pathogens identified by culture were used to determine adequacy of antibiotic selection before and after implementation of an AA. RESULTS: A total of 234 patients with septic shock were reviewed (before AA, n = 36; after AA, n = 198). Seventy-two patients had positive cultures and were enrolled (before AA, n = 13; after AA, n = 59). Significantly more patients received adequate coverage after AA implementation (54% vs 86%, P = .02). Before AA, inadequate Gram-negative coverage was the most common reason for failure. Reasons for failure in the after-AA group were nonadherence to the algorithm (n = 5) and multidrug-resistant pathogens (n = 3). The algorithm failed in patients with vancomycin-resistant enterococci (n = 3), multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 1), and Candida albicans (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: The use of an AA significantly improves the adequacy of empiric antimicrobial therapy.

Impact of antimicrobial stewardship programme changes on unnecessary double anaerobic coverage therapy.

BACKGROUND: Concern has been raised over the practice of unnecessary double anaerobic coverage therapy (DACT) in the hospital setting. However, the incidence of and risk factors for unnecessary DACT are not well studied. On 8 September 2008, the antimicrobial stewardship programme (ASP) at our institution was modified such that several antibiotics, including ampicillin/sulbactam and metronidazole, no longer required pre-approval. We anticipated that this change would increase both unnecessary DACT and target antibiotic consumption. METHODS: A nested case-control study was conducted to determine the cumulative incidence of and risk factors for unnecessary DACT. Cases were subjects who received unnecessary DACT while controls were subjects who did not receive DACT or who received necessary DACT. Segmented regression analysis was subsequently performed to evaluate the impact of ASP changes on unnecessary DACT and consumption of target antibiotics. RESULTS: From October 2007 to September 2009, the cumulative incidence of unnecessary DACT was 2.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-3.1]. Independent risk factors for unnecessary DACT [adjusted odds ratio (95% CI); P value] included hospitalization on a surgical ward [3.51 (1.03-12.02); P = 0.002], hospitalization on an obstetrics and gynaecology ward [9.07 (2.54-32.40); P = 0.002] and underlying metastatic malignancy [3.18 (1.38-7.09); P = 0.006]. The ASP change was associated with an increase in ampicillin/sulbactam and metronidazole consumption. However, there was no significant impact on unnecessary DACT prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: Although uncommon, unnecessary DACT is more prevalent in specific services. Future qualitative studies focusing on these specific subgroups would be useful in elucidating this problem more clearly. The ASP changes were not associated with increases in unnecessary DACT.

Impact of automatic orders to discontinue vancomycin therapy on vancomycin use in an antimicrobial stewardship program.

We examined the possible unintended consequences of a 72-hour automatic order to discontinue vancomycin therapy in an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP). Of 120 patients, 11 had vancomycin therapy discontinued at 72 hours without a call to the ASP, and 7 experienced a treatment interruption of 6-36 hours. All discontinuation of therapy was considered appropriate, and the 7 treatment interruptions did not have clear clinical consequences. Only one-third of patients had ASP stickers that warned of impending discontinuation of vancomycin therapy placed appropriately in the medical record.

Comparison of unit-specific and hospital-wide antibiograms: potential implications for selection of empirical antimicrobial therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To identify differences between unit-specific and hospital-wide antibiograms and to determine the potential impact of these differences on selection of empirical antimicrobial therapy. SETTING: A 625-bed tertiary care medical center. METHODS: Antimicrobial susceptibility results were collected for all inpatient clinical bacterial isolates recovered over a 3-year period; isolates were categorized by the hospital location of the patient at the time of sampling and by the anatomic site from which the isolate was recovered. Antibiograms from each unit were compiled for the most commonly isolated organisms and were compared to the hospital-wide antibiogram. RESULTS: A total of 9,970 bacterial isolates were evaluated in this study, including 2,646 enterococcal isolates, 2,806 S. aureus isolates, 2,795 E. coli isolates, and 1,723 Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates. The percentages of bacterial isolates resistant to antimicrobials were significantly higher in the medical ICU and surgical ICU than the hospital-wide antibiogram would have predicted, whereas the percentages of isolates susceptible to antimicrobials were significantly higher in the non-ICU units, compared with the hospital overall. However, on general medicine units, the prevalence of susceptibility to levofloxacin was significantly lower than that for the hospital overall. CONCLUSIONS: Unit-specific antibiograms are important for making informed decisions about empirical antimicrobial therapy, because the hospital-wide antibiogram may mask important differences in susceptibility rates across different units. These differences may have important implications for selecting the optimal empirical antimicrobial therapy.