[Antimicrobial stewardship program during the COVID-19 pandemic]. / Programa de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos durante la pandemia de COVID-19.

In spite of the low frequency of COVID-19 associated bacterial coinfections, the rate of empiric antibiotic use varies between 70% and 90%. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) on COVID-19 patients. The study design was an interrupted time series, assessing prevalence of antibiotic use, adequacy of treatment and antimicrobial consumption in adult patients hospitalized with COVID before the COVID-ASP implementation in June 2020, and on three subsequent periods (P2 in August 2020, P3 in October 2020 and P4 in June 2021). One hundred and one patients were included. Moderate and severe disease was more frequent in P2, P3, and P4 periods (p < 0.001). After the implementation we observed a significant reduction on ATM use (61% vs. 41% vs. 31.1% vs. 8.1%, p < 0.001), and macrolid combination therapy (17.3% vs. 19.2% vs. 10.8% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.03), and an increase of adequate use (37.5% vs. 46.9% vs. 69.9% vs. 66.6%, p = 0.039). Antimicrobial consumption by period in days of therapy (DOT)/1000 patient-day was 347.9 vs. 272.8 vs. 134.29 vs. 43.6 (p <0.001). We did not find any difference in intensive care unit transfer or mortality. COVID-ASP implementation was an effective strategy to reduce antimicrobial consumption and optimize antibiotic indications without affecting morbidity or mortality.

A pesar de la baja frecuencia de coinfecciones bacterianas asociadas al COVID-19, la tasa de uso de antibióticos (ATB) empíricos varía entre 70 y 90%. El objetivo primario del estudio fue evaluar el impacto de la implementación de un programa de optimización de antimicrobianos en pacientes con COVID-19 (PROA-COVID). Se realizó un estudio prospectivo de serie de tiempo interrumpida. Se evaluó la prevalencia, adecuación y consumo de ATB en adultos internados con COVID previo a la implementación del PROA-COVID (P1, junio 2020) y en tres períodos posteriores (P2 en agosto 2020, P3 en octubre 2020 y P4 en junio 2021). Se incluyeron 301 pacientes. Las formas clínicas moderadas-graves fueron más frecuentes en los P2, 3 y 4 (p < 0.001). La implementación del programa mostró una disminución significativa del uso de ATB (61% vs. 41% vs. 31.1% vs. 8.1%, p < 0.001), de la indicación de tratamiento combinado con macrólidos (17.3% vs. 19.2% vs. 10.8% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.03) y aumento del uso adecuado (37.5% vs. 46.9% vs. 69.9% vs. 66.6%, p = 0.039). El consumo de ATB en DDT (días de tratamiento) totales/1000 días paciente fue: 347.9 vs. 272.8 vs. 134.3 vs. 43.6 (p < 0.001). No hubo diferencias significativas en el pase a unidades de cuidados críticos ni en la mortalidad. La implementación del PROA-COVID fue una estrategia efectiva para reducir el uso de antibióticos y optimizar sus indicaciones sin impacto en la morbimortalidad.

Programa de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos durante la pandemia de COVID-19 / Antimicrobial stewardship program during the COVID-19 pandemic

Resumen A pesar de la baja frecuencia de coinfecciones bacterianas asociadas al COVID-19, la tasa de uso de antibióticos (ATB) empíricos varía entre 70 y 90%. El objetivo primario del estudio fue evaluar el impacto de la implementación de un programa de optimización de antimicrobianos en pacientes con COVID-19 (PROA-COVID). Se realizó un estudio prospectivo de serie de tiempo interrumpida. Se evaluó la prevalencia, adecuación y consumo de ATB en adultos internados con COVID previo a la implementación del PROA-COVID (P1, junio 2020) y en tres períodos posteriores (P2 en agosto 2020, P3 en octubre 2020 y P4 en junio 2021). Se incluyeron 301 pacientes. Las formas clínicas moderadas-graves fueron más frecuentes en los P2, 3 y 4 (p < 0.001). La implementación del programa mostró una disminución significativa del uso de ATB (61% vs. 41% vs. 31.1% vs. 8.1%, p < 0.001), de la indicación de tratamiento combinado con macrólidos (17.3% vs. 19.2% vs. 10.8% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.03) y aumento del uso adecuado (37.5% vs. 46.9% vs. 69.9% vs. 66.6%, p = 0.039). El consumo de ATB en DDT (días de tratamiento) totales/1000 días paciente fue: 347.9 vs. 272.8 vs. 134.3 vs. 43.6 (p < 0.001). No hubo diferencias significativas en el pase a unidades de cuidados críticos ni en la mortalidad. La implementación del PROA-COVID fue una estrategia efectiva para reducir el uso de antibióticos y optimizar sus indicaciones sin impacto en la morbimortalidad.

Abstract In spite of the low frequency of COVID-19 associated bacterial coinfections, the rate of empiric an tibiotic use varies between 70% and 90%. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) on COVID-19 patients. The study design was an interrupted time series, assessing prevalence of antibiotic use, adequacy of treatment and antimicrobial consumption in adult patients hospitalized with COVID before the COVID-ASP implementation in June 2020, and on three subsequent periods (P2 in August 2020, P3 in October 2020 and P4 in June 2021). One hundred and one patients were included. Moderate and severe disease was more frequent in P2, P3, and P4 periods (p < 0.001). After the implementation we observed a significant reduction on ATM use (61% vs. 41% vs. 31.1% vs. 8.1%, p < 0.001), and macrolid combination therapy (17.3% vs. 19.2% vs. 10.8% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.03), and an increase of adequate use (37.5% vs. 46.9% vs. 69.9% vs. 66.6%, p = 0.039). Antimicrobial consumption by period in days of therapy (DOT)/1000 patient-day was 347.9 vs. 272.8 vs. 134.29 vs. 43.6 (p<0.001). We did not find any difference in intensive care unit transfer or mortality. COVID-ASP implementation was an effective strategy to reduce antimicrobial consump tion and optimize antibiotic indications without affecting morbidity or mortality.

Impact of antimicrobial stewardship programs on antibiotic consumption and antimicrobial resistance in four Colombian healthcare institutions.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) have become a fundamental pillar in optimizing antimicrobial usage, improving patient care, and reducing antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Herein we evaluated the impact of an ASP on antimicrobial consumption and AMR in Colombia. METHODS: We designed a retrospective observational study and measured trends in antibiotic consumption and AMR before and after the implementation of an ASP using interrupted time series analysis over a 4-year period (24 months before and 24 months after ASP implementation). RESULTS: ASPs were implemented according to the available resources in each of the institutions. Before ASP implementation, there was a trend toward an increase in the antibiotic consumption of all measured antimicrobials selected. Afterward, an overall decrease in antibiotic consumption was observed. The use of ertapenem and meropenem decreased in hospital wards, while a decrease in the use of ceftriaxone, cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, meropenem, and vancomycin was observed in intensive care units. After ASP implementation, the trend toward an increase of oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, ceftriaxone-resistant Escherichia coli, and meropenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa was reversed. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, we showed that ASPs are a key strategy in tackling the emerging threat of AMR and have a positive impact on antibiotic consumption and resistance.

Contribución del químico farmacéutico en los programas de gerenciamiento de antimicrobianos: estudio de cohortes ambispectivo / Pharmacist´s contribution on antimicrobial stewardship program: ambispective cohort study

INTRODUCCIÓN: El programa de gerenciamiento de antimicrobianos (PGAn) promueve el uso racional de los antimicrobianos, garantizando que cada paciente reciba el fármaco correcto, por el tiempo correcto, por la vía y a la dosis correcta. OBJETIVO: Establecer la asociación de los resultados de un PGAn liderado por un químico farmacéutico, en términos de consumo de antimicrobianos, duración del tratamiento y costos, en una institución prestadora de salud de alta complejidad. MATERIALES Y MÉTODO: Estudio de cohortes ambispectivo. En la cohorte expuesta, (entorno de un PGAn), un químico farmacéutico con entrenamiento en enfermedades infecciosas evaluó e intervino la indicación, dosis, duración del tratamiento y espectro bacteriano del antimicrobiano. La cohorte no expuesta fue una población retrospectiva similar (pareada) a la cohorte expuesta, pero sin la evaluación de su terapia antimicrobiana. RESULTADOS: Se identificaron 258 pacientes en la cohorte expuesta y 247 en la cohorte no expuesta al PGAn. Se observó una disminución en el consumo de antimicrobianos (119.831 vs 137.678 DDD/100 pacientes-día, p < 0,001) y una disminución de 34,1% en los costos asociados a la antibioticoterapia de la cohorte expuesta, en comparación con la cohorte no expuesta al PGAn. CONCLUSIÓN: El PGAn liderado por un químico farmacéutico se asocia a mejores resultados en términos de consumo y menores costos de la terapia antimicrobiana.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial stewardship program (AMSP) promotes the rational use of the antimicrobial, ensuring that each patient receives the correct antibiotic, by the correct time and at the correct dose. AIM: To establish the association of the results of an AMSP led by a pharmaceutical chemist, in terms of antibiotic consumption, duration of treatment and costs in a tertiary healthcare setting. METHOD: Ambispective cohort study. In the exposed cohort, in the environment of a AMSP, a pharmacist with training in infectious diseases evaluated and intervened the indication, dosage, duration of treatment and bacterial spectrum of the antimicrobial. The no-exposed cohort corresponded to a retrospective population that was similar (paired) to the exposed cohort, but that did not receive an evaluation of its antimicrobial therapy. RESULT: 258 patients were identified in the exposed cohort and 247 in the cohort not exposed to the AMSP. Decrease in the consumption of antibiotics was observed (119,831 vs 137,678 DDD/100 patients-day, p < 0.001) and a decrease in 34.1% of the costs associated with antibiotic therapy of the exposed cohort, in comparison with the cohort not exposed to the AMSP. CONCLUSION: AMSP led by a pharmacist have better outcomes in terms of consumption and lower costs associated with antibiotic therapy.

Risk Factors for Unnecessary Antibiotic Prescribing for Acute Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine independent risk factors for inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections (ARIs) in internal medicine (IM) residency-based primary care offices. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted to measure antibiotic prescribing rates, and multivariable analysis was utilized to identify predictors of inappropriate prescribing among patients presenting to IM residency-based primary care office practices. Patients with an office visit at either of 2 IM residency-based primary care office practices from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, with a primary encounter diagnosis of ARI were included. RESULTS: During the study period, 911 unique patient encounters were included with 518 for conditions for which antibiotics were considered always inappropriate. Antibiotics were not indicated in 85.8% (782 of 911) of encounters. However, antibiotics were prescribed in 28.4% (222 of 782) of these encounters. Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing occurred in 111 of 518 (21.4%) encounters for conditions for which antibiotics are always inappropriate. Using multivariable logistic regression analysis to assess for independent risk factors when adjusted for other potential risk factors for office visits at which antibiotics were not indicated, IM resident-associated visits (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.18-0.36) was the only variable independently associated with lower risk of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. CONCLUSION: For ARI visits at which antibiotics were not indicated, IM resident comanagement was associated with lower rates of inappropriate prescribing.

Antimicrobial Stewardship: Fighting Antimicrobial Resistance and Protecting Global Public Health.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a serious threat to global public health. It increases morbidity and mortality, and is associated with high economic costs due to its health care burden. Infections with multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria also have substantial implications on clinical and economic outcomes. Moreover, increased indiscriminate use of antibiotics during the COVID-19 pandemic will heighten bacterial resistance and ultimately lead to more deaths. This review highlights AMR's scale and consequences, the importance, and implications of an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) to fight resistance and protect global health. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS), an organizational or system-wide health-care strategy, is designed to promote, improve, monitor, and evaluate the rational use of antimicrobials to preserve their future effectiveness, along with the promotion and protection of public health. ASP has been very successful in promoting antimicrobials' appropriate use by implementing evidence-based interventions. The "One Health" approach, a holistic and multisectoral approach, is also needed to address AMR's rising threat. AMS practices, principles, and interventions are critical steps towards containing and mitigating AMR. Evidence-based policies must guide the "One Health" approach, vaccination protocols, health professionals' education, and the public's awareness about AMR.

Effect of Antimicrobial Stewardship Program Guidance on the Management of Uncomplicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections in Hospitalized Adults.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP)-bundled initiative on the appropriate use of antibiotics for uncomplicated skin and soft tissue infections (uSSTIs) at 2 academic medical centers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective preintervention and postintervention study was conducted to compare management of patients admitted with uSSTIs before and after the implementation of the bundled initiative. The preintervention period was from August 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015, and the postintervention period was from August 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016. RESULTS: A total of 160 patients were included in the preintervention cohort, and 163 were included in the postintervention cohort. Compared with the preintervention group, the mean duration of therapy decreased (12.5 days vs 8.8 days; P<.001) and an appropriate duration of less than 10 days increased in more patients (20.6% [33 of 160] vs 68.7% [112 of 163]; P<.001) in the postintervention period. Fewer patients were exposed to antimicrobials with extended gram-negative (44.4% [71 of 160] vs 9.2% [15 of 163]; P<.001), anaerobic (39.4% [63 of 160] vs 9.8% [16 of 163]; P<.001), and antipseudomonal (16.3% [26 of 160] vs 1.8% [3 of 163]; P<.001) coverage. The mean length of stay decreased from 3.6 to 2.2 days (P<.001) without an increase in 30-day readmissions (6.3% [10 of 160] vs 4.9% [8 of 163]; P=.64). The ASP made recommendations for 125 patients, and 96% were accepted. CONCLUSION: Implementation of an ASP-bundled approach aimed at optimizing antibiotic therapy in the management of uSSTIs led to shorter durations of narrow-spectrum therapy as well as shorter hospital length of stay without adversely affecting hospital readmissions.

Impact of piperacillin-tazobactam shortage on meropenem use: implications for antimicrobial stewardship programs.

Drug shortages pose a clear detriment to antimicrobial stewardship (AS) efforts. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of a piperacillin-tazobactam shortage on meropenem use, related costs, and associated changes in AS activity. A quasi-experimental quality improvement review compared adult patients receiving meropenem ≥72h three months pre-shortage and three months during the shortage. 320 patients were included (pre-shortage: 103; shortage: 217). Baseline characteristics were similar, but the length of stay was slightly longer in pre-shortage [19 (11-32) days] versus shortage [16 (11-32) days] (p=0.094). In pre-shortage and shortage, median days of therapy and estimated meropenem cost were 7 (5-11) and 7 (5-10) and $309.93 ($173.60-$507.03) and $255.30 ($204.24-$424.31), respectively (p=0.411 and p=0.050). Frequency of ID consultation was similar (16.8% in pre- and 25.3% in shortage, p=0.091). AS interventions increased during the shortage period (99 in pre-shortage and 205 in shortage). De-escalation occurred in 19.4% versus 32.7% of the patients in pre-shortage and shortage (p=0.014). The piperacillin-tazobactam shortage was associated with a 111% increase in meropenem prescriptions despite active AS, but was not associated with changes in mortality, length of therapy, or meropenem costs. AS should be aware that shortages may require proactive countermeasures to avoid inappropriate antimicrobial use during shortage periods.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of two different antimicrobial stewardship programs

Abstract There is a lack of formal economic analysis to assess the efficiency of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Herein, we conducted a cost-effectiveness study to assess two different strategies of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs. A 30-day Markov model was developed to analyze how cost-effective was a Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship implemented in a university hospital in Brazil. Clinical data derived from a historical cohort that compared two different strategies of antimicrobial stewardship programs and had 30-day mortality as main outcome. Selected costs included: workload, cost of defined daily doses, length of stay, laboratory and imaging resources used to diagnose infections. Data were analyzed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess model's robustness, tornado diagram and Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curve. Bundled Strategy was more expensive (Cost difference US$ 2119.70), however, it was more efficient (US$ 27,549.15 vs 29,011.46). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that critical variables did not alter final Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio. Bundled Strategy had higher probabilities of being cost-effective, which was endorsed by cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. As health systems claim for efficient technologies, this study conclude that Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship Program was more cost-effective, which means that stewardship strategies with such characteristics would be of special interest in a societal and clinical perspective.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of two different antimicrobial stewardship programs.

There is a lack of formal economic analysis to assess the efficiency of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Herein, we conducted a cost-effectiveness study to assess two different strategies of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs. A 30-day Markov model was developed to analyze how cost-effective was a Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship implemented in a university hospital in Brazil. Clinical data derived from a historical cohort that compared two different strategies of antimicrobial stewardship programs and had 30-day mortality as main outcome. Selected costs included: workload, cost of defined daily doses, length of stay, laboratory and imaging resources used to diagnose infections. Data were analyzed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess model's robustness, tornado diagram and Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curve. Bundled Strategy was more expensive (Cost difference US$ 2119.70), however, it was more efficient (US$ 27,549.15 vs 29,011.46). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that critical variables did not alter final Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio. Bundled Strategy had higher probabilities of being cost-effective, which was endorsed by cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. As health systems claim for efficient technologies, this study conclude that Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship Program was more cost-effective, which means that stewardship strategies with such characteristics would be of special interest in a societal and clinical perspective.