Dataset Information

Implementation of a Rapid Phenotypic Susceptibility Platform for Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections with Paired Antimicrobial Stewardship Intervention: Is the Juice Worth the Squeeze?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Implementation of the Accelerate Pheno TM Gram-negative platform (RDT) paired with antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) intervention projects to improve time to institutional-preferred antimicrobial therapy (IPT) for Gram-negative bacilli (GNB) bloodstream infections (BSI). However, few data describe the impact of discrepant RDT results from standard of care (SOC) methods on antimicrobial prescribing.

Methods

A single-center, pre-/post-intervention study of consecutive, non-duplicate blood cultures for adult inpatients with GNB BSI following combined RDT + ASP intervention was performed. The primary outcome was time to IPT. An a priori definition of IPT was utilized to limit bias and allow for an assessment of the impact of discrepant RDT results with the SOC reference standard.

Results

Five hundred fourteen patients (PRE 264; POST 250) were included. Median time to antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) results decreased 29.4 hours (p < 0.001) post-intervention, and median time to IPT was reduced by 21.2 hours (p <0.001). Utilization (days of therapy [DOTs]/1000 days present) of broad-spectrum agents decreased (PRE 655.2 vs. POST 585.8; p = 0.043) and narrow-spectrum beta-lactams increased (69.1 vs 141.7; p <0.001). Discrepant results occurred in 69/250 (28%) post-intervention episodes, resulting in incorrect ASP recommendations in 10/69 (14%). No differences in clinical outcomes were observed.

Conclusions

While implementation of a phenotypic RDT + ASP can improve time to IPT, close coordination with Clinical Microbiology and continued ASP follow up are needed to optimize therapy. Although uncommon, the potential for erroneous ASP recommendations to de-escalate to inactive therapy following RDT results warrants further investigation.

SUBMITTER: Robinson ED

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8423462 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The collection of data and biospecimens which characterize patients and probands in-depth is a core element of modern biomedical research. Relevant data must be considered highly sensitive and it needs to be protected from unauthorized use and re-identification. In this context, laws, regulations, guidelines and best-practices often recommend or mandate pseudonymization, which means that directly identifying data of subjects (e.g. names and addresses) is stored separately from data which is primarily needed for scientific analyses. DISCUSSION:When (authorized) re-identification of subjects is not an exceptional but a common procedure, e.g. due to longitudinal data collection, implementing pseudonymization can significantly increase the complexity of software solutions. For example, data stored in distributed databases, need to be dynamically combined with each other, which requires additional interfaces for communicating between the various subsystems. This increased complexity may lead to new attack vectors for intruders. Obviously, this is in contrast to the objective of improving data protection. What is lacking is a standardized process of evaluating and reporting risks, threats and countermeasures, which can be used to test whether integrating pseudonymization methods into data collection systems actually improves upon the degree of protection provided by system designs that simply follow common IT security best practices and implement fine-grained role-based access control models. To demonstrate that the methods used to describe systems employing pseudonymized data management are currently heterogeneous and ad-hoc, we examined the extent to which twelve recent studies address each of the six basic security properties defined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard 27,000. We show inconsistencies across the studies, with most of them failing to mention one or more security properties. CONCLUSION:We discuss the degree of privacy protection provided by implementing pseudonymization into research data collection processes. We conclude that (1) more research is needed on the interplay of pseudonymity, information security and data protection, (2) problem-specific guidelines for evaluating and reporting risks, threats and countermeasures should be developed and that (3) future work on pseudonymized research data collection should include the results of such structured and integrated analyses.

Project description:AimHealthcare administrative databases represent a valuable source for real-life data analysis. The primary aim of this study is to compare effectiveness and cost profile in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients harboring synchronous brain metastases (BMs) who received non-chemo first-line systemic therapy with or without advanced radiotherapy (aRT).MethodsDiagnostic ICD-9-CM codes were used for identifying all patients with a new diagnosis of lung cancer between 2012 and 2019. Among these, patients who had started a first-line systemic treatment with either TKIs or pembrolizumab, alone or in combination with intensity-modulated or stereotactic RT, were selected. Clinical outcomes investigated included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and time-to-treatment failure (TTF). The cost outcome was defined as the average per capita cumulative healthcare direct costs of the treatment, including all inpatient and outpatient costs.ResultsThe final cohort included 177 patients, of whom 58 were treated with systemic treatment plus aRT (STRT) and 119 with systemic treatment alone. The addition of aRT to systemic treatment was associated with a significantly better OS (p = 0.020) and PFS (p = 0.041) than systemic therapy alone. The ICER (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) value indicated an average cost of €3792 for each month of survival after STRT treatment and confirmed clinical effectiveness but higher healthcare costs.ConclusionsThis real-world study suggests that upfront aRT for NCLSC patients with synchronous BMs represents a valid treatment strategy, boosting the efficacy of novel and emerging drug classes with sustainable costs for the health service.Translational relevanceThe present real-world study reports that the use of upfront advanced radiotherapyaRT and new-generation systemic agents, such as TKIs and pembrolizumab, may have higher oncological control and an improved cost-effectiveness profile than the use of new-generation systemic agents alone in NCLSC patients with synchronous brain metastases. Acquired evidence can also be used to inform policymakers that adding advanced radiotherapy results is a sustainable cost for the health service. Since approximately 50% of patients do not meet RCT inclusion criteria, a significant proportion of them is receiving treatment that is not evidence-informed; therefore, these results warrant further studies to identify the best radiotherapy timing and possible dose escalation approaches to improving treatment efficacy in patient subgroups not typically represented in randomized controlled trials.

Project description:BackgroundClusters of bloodstream infections caused by Burkholderia cepacia and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia are uncommon, but have been previously identified in hemodialysis centers that reprocessed dialyzers for reuse on patients. We investigated an outbreak of bloodstream infections caused by B cepacia and S maltophilia among hemodialysis patients in clinics of a dialysis organization.Study designOutbreak investigation, including matched case-control study.Setting & participantsHemodialysis patients treated in multiple outpatient clinics owned by a dialysis organization.PredictorsMain predictors were dialyzer reuse, dialyzer model, and dialyzer reprocessing practice.OutcomesCase patients had a bloodstream infection caused by B cepacia or S maltophilia; controls were patients without infection dialyzed at the same clinic on the same day as a case; results of environmental cultures and organism typing.Results17 cases (9 B cepacia and 8 S maltophilia bloodstream infections) occurred in 5 clinics owned by the same dialysis organization. Case patients were more likely to have received hemodialysis with a dialyzer that had been used more than 6 times (matched OR, 7.03; 95% CI, 1.38-69.76) and to have been dialyzed with a specific reusable dialyzer (Model R) with sealed ends (OR, 22.87; 95% CI, 4.49-∞). No major lapses during dialyzer reprocessing were identified that could explain the outbreak. B cepacia was isolated from samples collected from a dialyzer header-cleaning machine from a clinic with cases and was indistinguishable from a patient isolate collected from the same clinic, by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Gram-negative bacteria were isolated from 2 reused Model R dialyzers that had undergone the facility's reprocessing procedure.LimitationsLimited statistical power and overmatching; few patient isolates and dialyzers available for testing.ConclusionsThis outbreak was likely caused by contamination during reprocessing of reused dialyzers. Results of this and previous investigations demonstrate that exposing patients to reused dialyzers increases the risk for bloodstream infections. To reduce infection risk, providers should consider implementing single dialyzer use whenever possible.

Project description:BackgroundOritavancin, a long-acting lipoglycopeptide approved for use in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, has limited data evaluating use in serious infections due to Gram-positive organisms. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of oritavancin for consolidative treatment of Gram-positive bloodstream infections (BSI), including infective endocarditis (IE).MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study evaluating adult patients admitted to University of Colorado Hospital from March 2016 to January 2022 who received ≥ 1 oritavancin dose for treatment of Gram-positive BSI. Patients were excluded if the index culture was drawn at an outside facility or were > 89 years of age. The primary outcome was a 90-day composite failure (clinical or microbiological failure) in those with 90-day follow-up. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome, acute kidney injury (AKI), infusion-related reactions (IRR), and institutional cost avoidance.ResultsOverall, 72 patients were included. Mean ± SD age was 54 ± 16 years, 61% were male, and 10% had IE. Organisms most commonly causing BSI were Staphylococcus aureus (68%, 17% methicillin-resistant), followed by Streptococcus spp. (26%), and Enterococcus spp. (10%). Patients received standard-of-care antibiotics before oritavancin for a median (IQR) of 11 (5-17) days. Composite failure in the clinically evaluable population (n = 64) at 90-days occurred in 14% and was composed of clinical and microbiological failure, which occurred in 14% and 5% of patients, respectively. Three patients (4%) experienced AKI after oritavancin, and two (3%) experienced an IRR. Oritavancin utilization resulted in earlier discharge for 94% of patients corresponding to an institutional cost-avoidance of $3,055,804 (mean $44,938/patient) from 1,102 hospital days saved (mean 16 days/patient).ConclusionsThe use of oritavancin may be an effective sequential therapy for Gram-positive BSI to facilitate early discharge resulting in institutional cost avoidance.