Dataset Information

Tractable targets for meropenem-sparing antimicrobial stewardship interventions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

As meropenem is a restricted antimicrobial, lessons learned from its real-life usage will be applicable to antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) more generally.

Objectives

To retrospectively evaluate meropenem usage at our institution to identify targets for AMS interventions.

Methods

Patients receiving meropenem documented with an 'alert antimicrobial' form at two tertiary care UK hospitals were identified retrospectively. Clinical records and microbiology results were reviewed.

Results

A total of 107 adult inpatients receiving meropenem were identified. This was first-line in 47% and escalation therapy in 53%. Source control was required in 28% of cases after escalation, for predictable reasons. Those ultimately requiring source control had received more prior antimicrobial agents than those who did not (P = 0.03). Meropenem was rationalized in 24% of cases (after median 4 days). Positive microbiology enabled rationalization (OR 12.3, 95% CI 2.7-55.5, P = 0.001) but rates of appropriate sampling varied. In cases with positive microbiology where meropenem was not rationalized, continuation was retrospectively considered clinically and microbiologically necessary in 8/40 cases (0/17 empirical first-line usage). Rationalization was more likely when meropenem susceptibility was not released on the microbiology report (OR 5.2, 95% CI 1.3-20.2, P = 0.02). Input from an infection specialist was associated with a reduced duration of meropenem therapy (P < 0.0001). Early review by an infection specialist has the potential to further facilitate rationalization.

Conclusions

In real-life clinical practice, core aspects of infection management remain tractable targets for AMS interventions: microbiological sampling, source control and infection specialist input. Further targets include supporting rationalization to less familiar carbapenem-sparing antimicrobials, restricting first-line meropenem usage and selectively reporting meropenem susceptibility.

SUBMITTER: Russell CD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8210134 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe feasibility of core Infectious Diseases Society of America-recommended antimicrobial stewardship interventions in community hospitals is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the feasibility and results of implementing 2 core stewardship intervention strategies in community hospitals.Design, setting, and participantsThree-stage, multicenter, prospective nonrandomized clinical trial with crossover design. The setting was 4 community hospitals in North Carolina (median bed size, 305; range, 102-425). Participants were all patients receiving targeted study antibacterial agents or alternative, nonstudy antibacterial agents. The study dates were October 2014 through October 2015. All statistical analyses were completed as of October 2016.InterventionsTwo antimicrobial stewardship strategies targeted vancomycin hydrochloride, piperacillin-tazobactam, and the antipseudomonal carbapenems on formulary at the study hospitals: (1) modified preauthorization (PA), in which the prescriber had to receive pharmacist approval for continued use of the antibiotic after the first dose, and (2) postprescription audit and review (PPR), in which the pharmacist would engage the prescriber about antibiotic appropriateness after 72 hours of therapy. Two hospitals performed modified PA for 6 months, then PPR for 6 months after a 1-month washout. The other 2 hospitals performed the reverse.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the feasibility of implementing the interventions, determined by (1) approval by hospital administration and committees at each study hospital; (2) completion of pharmacist training; (3) initiation and implementation as determined by number, type, and outcomes of interventions performed; and (4) time required for interventions. Secondary outcomes included antimicrobial use (days of therapy) compared with matched historical periods and length of hospitalization.ResultsA total of 2692 patients (median age, 65 years; interquartile range, 53-76 years) underwent a study intervention; 1413 (52.5%) were female, 1323 (49.1%) were white, and 1047 (38.9%) were African American. Intervention approvals took a median of 95 days (range, 56-119 days); during these discussions, strict PA was deemed not feasible. Instead, the modified PA intervention was used throughout the study. Pharmacists performed 1456 modified PA interventions (median per hospital, 350 [range, 129-628]) and 1236 PPR interventions (median per hospital, 298 [range, 273-366]). Study antimicrobials were determined to be inappropriate 2 times as often during the PPR period (41.0% [435 of 1060] vs 20.4% [253 of 1243]; P < .001). Pharmacists recommended dose change more often during the modified PA intervention (15.9% [232 of 1456] vs 9.6% [119 of 1236]; P < .001) and de-escalation during PPR (29.1% [360 of 1236] vs 13.0% [190 of 1456]; P < .001). The median time dedicated to the stewardship interventions varied by hospital (range of median hours per week, 5-19). Overall antibiotic use decreased during PPR compared with historical controls (mean [SD] days of therapy per 1000 patient-days, 925.2 [109.8] vs 965.3 [109.4]; mean difference, -40.1; 95% CI, -71.7 to -8.6), but not during modified PA (mean [SD] days of therapy per 1000 patient-days, 931.0 [102.0] vs 926.6 [89.7]; mean difference, 4.4; 95% CI, -55.8 to 64.7).Conclusions and relevanceStrict PA was not feasible in the study hospitals. In contrast, PPR was a feasible and effective strategy for antimicrobial stewardship in settings with limited resources and expertise.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02212808.

Project description:Behaviour change is key to combating antimicrobial resistance. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes promote and monitor judicious antibiotic use, but there is little consideration of behavioural and social influences when designing interventions. We outline a programme of research which aims to co-design AMS interventions across healthcare settings, by integrating data-science, evidence- synthesis, behavioural-science and user-centred design. The project includes three work-packages (WP): WP1 (Identifying patterns of prescribing): analysis of electronic health-records to identify prescribing patterns in care-homes, primary-care, and secondary-care. An online survey will investigate consulting/antibiotic-seeking behaviours in members of the public. WP2 (Barriers and enablers to prescribing in practice): Semi-structured interviews and observations of practice to identify barriers/enablers to prescribing, influences on antibiotic-seeking behaviour and the social/contextual factors underpinning prescribing. Systematic reviews of AMS interventions to identify the components of existing interventions associated with effectiveness. Design workshops to identify constraints influencing the form of the intervention. Interviews conducted with healthcare-professionals in community pharmacies, care-homes, primary-, and secondary-care and with members of the public. Topic guides and analysis based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. Observations conducted in care-homes, primary and secondary-care with analysis drawing on grounded theory. Systematic reviews of interventions in each setting will be conducted, and interventions described using the Behaviour Change Technique taxonomy v1. Design workshops in care-homes, primary-, and secondary care. WP3 (Co-production of interventions and dissemination). Findings will be integrated to identify opportunities for interventions, and assess whether existing interventions target influences on antibiotic use. Stakeholder panels will be assembled to co-design and refine interventions in each setting, applying the Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects and Equity (APEASE) criteria to prioritise candidate interventions. Outputs will inform development of new AMS interventions and/or optimisation of existing interventions. We will also develop web-resources for stakeholders providing analyses of antibiotic prescribing patterns, prescribing behaviours, and evidence reviews.