Clinical impact of monitoring frequency per day as a prospective audit and feedback strategy for patients receiving antimicrobial agents by injection.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programmes improve antimicrobial therapies and thus result in better patient outcomes and safety. The impact of prospective audit and feedback (PAF) is likely dependent on how frequently it is conducted, and how quickly after antibiotic prescription it is initiated. To our knowledge, however, no report has yet investigated the impact of an increase in monitoring frequency per day on PAF strategy. Here, we evaluated the clinical impact of an increase in monitoring frequency per day as a PAF strategy in patients receiving antimicrobial injections. METHODS: We conducted a single-centre, retrospective observational pre-post study to evaluate the impact of increasing the frequency of monitoring from once daily (once daily review group) to twice daily (twice daily review group). Time to intervention and clinical outcomes were compared before and after implementation of twice daily review. RESULTS: Time to intervention for inappropriate antimicrobial therapy was significantly shorter in the twice daily review group than the once daily review group (5.1 ± 6.1 hours vs 29.9 ± 21.5 hours, HR: 4.53, 95% CI: 2.90-7.07, P < .001). The twice daily review group had a significantly lower rate of clinical failure (16.2% vs 38.3%, P = .004) and hepatotoxicity (4.1% vs 15.0%, P = .035) than the once daily review group. CONCLUSIONS: An increase in monitoring frequency from once daily to twice daily significantly shortened the time to intervention for inappropriate antimicrobial therapy, with a concomitant reduction in clinical failure and hepatotoxicity.

Clinical impact of matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry combined with antimicrobial stewardship interventions in patients with bloodstream infections in a Japanese tertiary hospital.

BACKGROUND: Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) has the potential to permit early organism identification and optimization of antibiotic therapy. However, MALDI-TOF MS combined with antimicrobial stewardship is available at only a limited number of institutions. Here, we evaluated the clinical impact of implementing MALDI-TOF MS combined with antimicrobial stewardship intervention in patients with bloodstream infections. METHODS: We conducted a single-centre, prospective cohort study to evaluate the clinical impact of implementing MALDI-TOF MS combined with antimicrobial stewardship intervention in patients with bloodstream infections. Processes and clinical outcomes in patients with bloodstream infections were compared before and after implementation of MALDI-TOF MS. RESULTS: Compared with the conventional identification method, MALDI-TOF MS combined with antimicrobial stewardship intervention significantly decreased the time to organism identification (48.6 ± 46.0 hours vs 78.1 ± 38.9 hours, P < 0.001), effective antimicrobial therapy (12.9 ± 19.0 hours vs 26.2 ± 44.8 hours, P < 0.001) and optimal antimicrobial therapy (53.3 ± 55.0 hours vs 91.7 ± 88.7 hours, P < 0.001. Moreover, the rate of clinical failure (14.0% vs 33.3%, P < 0.001) and incidence of adverse events (7.5% vs 23.9%, P < 0.001) was lower in the MALDI-TOF MS group than in the conventional identification group. A multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis indicated that implementation of MALDI-TOF MS was a protective factor against clinical failure in patients with bloodstream infections (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.99; P = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the MALDI-TOF MS combined with antimicrobial stewardship intervention facilitated early optimization of antimicrobial therapy with a remarkable concomitant reduction in clinical failure and adverse events in patients with bloodstream infections.

The impact of implementing an antifungal stewardship with monitoring of 1-3, ß-D-glucan values on antifungal consumption and clinical outcomes.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Implementation of an antifungal stewardship programme is a recognized need. However, there is insufficient information to confirm the impact of antifungal stewardship interventions. Further, few studies have evaluated the clinical effects of an antifungal stewardship intervention using 1-3, ß-D-glucan (ßDG) testing. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of implementing an antifungal stewardship with monitoring of ßDG values on antifungal use and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A single institutional prospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the impact of implementing daily reviews of antifungal agents and monitoring patients who measured ßDG values since August 2013. Antifungal consumption and clinical outcomes in patients with Candida bloodstream infection were compared before and after the intervention. RESULTS: After implementation of the programme, parental antifungal use was significantly reduced compared to that before intervention (P = 0.006). In the after-intervention group, the rate of 60-day clinical failure in patients with Candida bloodstream infection was significantly reduced, from 80.0% (28/35) to 36.4% (8/22) (P < 0.001), and the rate of 60-day mortality associated with Candida bloodstream infection tended to be reduced, from 42.9% (15/35) to 18.2% (4/22) (P = 0.081) compared to the before-intervention group. The incidence of adverse events associated with antifungal agents was significantly lower in the after-intervention group than in the before-intervention group (51.4% [18/35] vs 13.6% [3/22], P = 0.004). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that daily review of the use of antifungal agents and monitoring of measured ßDG values was highly effective in reducing antifungal consumption and improving the clinical outcomes of patients with Candida bloodstream infection.

Clinical impact of a prospective audit with intervention and feedback without carbapenem restriction in patients receiving carbapenem injection.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial stewardship is required to ensure the appropriate use of antimicrobials. However, few reports have shown the impact of antimicrobial stewardship on clinical outcomes. METHODS: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of implementing a prospective audit with intervention and feedback without carbapenem pre-authorisation, we conducted a single-centre, prospective cohort study in patients who received carbapenem injection. Subjects were allocated to groups receiving antimicrobial agents before (non-intervention group) or after (intervention group) the implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship programme in the clinical setting. RESULTS: The intervention facilitated the rate of choice of effective antimicrobials on day 2 from the onset of infection (from 63.2% to 90.2%; P < 0.001). Moreover, the rates of clinical failure-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.89; P = 0.008) and re-infection-free survival (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.18-0.68; P = 0.002) were significantly higher in the intervention group than in the non-intervention group. A multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis indicated that non-implementation of antimicrobial stewardship was a significant risk factor for clinical failure in patients receiving carbapenem injection (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.11-2.19; P = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Our prospective audit with intervention and feedback strategy without carbapenem restriction facilitated the choice of optimal antimicrobials at an early stage of infection and improved clinical outcomes in patients who received carbapenem.

Antimicrobial stewardship intervention for the clinical pathways improves antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical or non-surgical invasive therapies.

BACKGROUND: The standard duration of administration of antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery and non-surgical invasive therapy was shortened according to the promotion of appropriate use. Here, we conducted an intervention to optimise antimicrobial prophylaxis by revising all relevant clinical pathways based on the most recent guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a single-centre, prospective cohort study in patients who received antimicrobial prophylaxis to evaluate outcomes following revision of the clinical pathways for antimicrobial prophylaxis. Antibiotic consumption and the duration of antibiotic administration were compared before and after revising the clinical pathways. RESULTS: Thirty-five of 171 clinical pathways were considered inappropriate for antimicrobial use and were optimised. After this revision, the duration of antibiotic administration was significantly shortened (before revision: 3 [1-5] days vs after revision: 2 [1-3] days, median [interquartile range], P < 0.001). The rate of discontinuation of antibiotics within 48 h after surgery or non-surgical invasive therapy was significantly higher after the revision (62.4% vs 81.8%, P < 0.001). In contrast, the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) was not significantly different before and after the revision (5.7% vs 4.3%, P = 0.177). A multivariate Cox proportional analysis indicated that revision of the clinical pathways was one of the prognostic factors associated with the discontinuation of antibiotics within 48 h after surgery or non-surgical invasive therapy (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.76, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that revising all relevant clinical pathways was highly effective in reducing antibiotic consumption and shortening the antibiotic administration period without increasing the incidence of SSIs.