Dataset Information

14. Effects of an Opt-Out Protocol for Antibiotic De-escalation among Selected Patients with Suspected Sepsis: The DETOURS Trial

ABSTRACT: Abstract

Background

Sepsis guidelines recommend daily review to de-escalate or stop antibiotics in appropriate patients. We conducted a randomized controlled trial (NCT03517007) of an opt-out protocol to decrease unnecessary antibiotics in selected patients with suspected sepsis.

Methods

We evaluated non-ICU adults remaining on broad-spectrum antibiotics with negative blood cultures at 48-96 hours at ten U.S. hospitals during September 2018-May 2020. A 23-item safety check excluded patients with ongoing signs of infection, concerning or inadequate microbiologic data, or high-risk conditions (Figure 1). Eligible patients were randomized to the opt-out protocol vs. usual care. The primary outcome was 30-day post-enrollment antibacterial days of therapy (DOT). Clinicians caring for intervention patients were contacted by a pharmacist or physician to encourage antibiotic discontinuation or de-escalation using opt-out language, discuss rationale for continuing antibiotics, working diagnosis, and de-escalation and duration plans. Hurdle models separately compared the odds of antibiotic continuation and DOT distributions among those who continued antibiotics. Components of the De-Escalating Empiric Therapy: Opting-OUt of Rx in Selected patients with Suspected Sepsis (DETOURS) Trial Protocol

Results

Among 9606 screened, 767 (8%) were enrolled (Figure 2). Common reasons for exclusion were antibiotics given prior to blood culture (35%), positive culture from non-blood sites (26%), and increased oxygen requirement (21%). Intervention patients had 32% lower odds of antibiotic continuation (79% vs. 84%, OR 0.68, 95% confidence interval [0.47, 0.98]). DOT distributions among those who continued antibiotics were similar (ratio of means 1.06 [0.88-1.26], Figure 3). Fewer intervention patients were exposed to extended-spectrum agents (38% vs. 44%). Common reasons for continuing antibiotics were treatment of localized infection (76%) and belief that stopping antibiotics was not safe (31%). Safety outcomes such as mortality, readmission, sepsis relapse, C. difficile, and length of stay did not differ. DETOURS Trial Flow Diagram Flow of participants through the DETOURS Trial. Observed Days of Antibiotic Therapy Among Intervention and Control Subjects in the DETOURS Trial Post-enrollment days of antibiotic therapy among 767 DETOURS Trial participants in 10 US acute care hospitals within 30 days after enrollment. Dark pink color indicates percent overlap between intervention (purple) and control (light pink) groups.

Conclusion

In this patient-level randomized trial of a stewardship intervention, the opt-out de-escalation protocol targeting selected patients with suspected sepsis resulted in more antibiotic discontinuations but did not affect safety events.

Disclosures

Rebekah W. Moehring, MD, MPH, UpToDate, Inc. (Other Financial or Material Support, Author Royalties) Michael Z. David, MD PhD, GSK (Board Member) Michael Klompas, MD, MPH, UpToDate (Other Financial or Material Support, Chapter Author)

SUBMITTER: Moehring R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8643792 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questionWhat is the effect of default test offers--opt-in, opt-out, and active choice--on the likelihood of acceptance of an HIV test among patients receiving care in an emergency department?MethodsThis was a randomized clinical trial conducted in the emergency department of an urban teaching hospital and regional trauma center. Patients aged 13-64 years were randomized to opt-in, opt-out, and active choice HIV test offers. The primary outcome was HIV test acceptance percentage. The Denver Risk Score was used to categorize patients as being at low, intermediate, or high risk of HIV infection.Study answer and limitations38.0% (611/1607) of patients in the opt-in testing group accepted an HIV test, compared with 51.3% (815/1628) in the active choice arm (difference 13.3%, 95% confidence interval 9.8% to 16.7%) and 65.9% (1031/1565) in the opt-out arm (difference 27.9%, 24.4% to 31.3%). Compared with active choice testing, opt-out testing led to a 14.6 (11.1 to 18.1) percentage point increase in test acceptance. Patients identified as being at intermediate and high risk were more likely to accept testing than were those at low risk in all arms (difference 6.4% (3.4% to 9.3%) for intermediate and 8.3% (3.3% to 13.4%) for high risk). The opt-out effect was significantly smaller among those reporting high risk behaviors, but the active choice effect did not significantly vary by level of reported risk behavior. Patients consented to inclusion in the study after being offered an HIV test, and inclusion varied slightly by treatment assignment. The study took place at a single county hospital in a city that is somewhat unique with respect to HIV testing; although the test acceptance percentages themselves might vary, a different pattern for opt-in versus active choice versus opt-out test schemes would not be expected.What this paper addsActive choice is a distinct test regimen, with test acceptance patterns that may best approximate patients' true preferences. Opt-out regimens can substantially increase HIV testing, and opt-in schemes may reduce testing, compared with active choice testing.Funding, competing interests, data sharingThis study was supported by grant NIA 1RC4AG039078 from the National Institute on Aging. The full dataset is available from the corresponding author. Consent for data sharing was not obtained, but the data are anonymized and risk of identification is low.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT01377857.

Project description:Due to recently proposed changes in the Common Rule regarding the collection of research preferences, there is an increased need for efficient methods to document opt-in research preferences at a population level. Previously, our institution developed an opt-out paper-based workflow that could not be utilized for research in a scalable fashion. This project was designed to demonstrate the feasibility of implementing an electronic health record (EHR)-based active opt-in research preferences program. The first phase of implementation required creating and disseminating a patient questionnaire through the EHR portal to populate discreet fields within the EHR indicating patients' preferences for future research study contact (contact) and their willingness to allow anonymised use of excess tissue and fluid specimens (biobank). In the second phase, the questionnaire was presented within a clinic nurse intake workflow in an obstetrical clinic. These permissions were tabulated in registries for use by investigators for feasibility studies and recruitment. The registry was also used for research patient contact management using a new EHR encounter type to differentiate research from clinical encounters. The research permissions questionnaire was sent to 59,670 patients via the EHR portal. Within four months, 21,814 responses (75% willing to participate in biobanking, and 72% willing to be contacted for future research) were received. Each response was recorded within a patient portal encounter to enable longitudinal analysis of responses. We obtained a significantly lower positive response from the 264 females who completed the questionnaire in the obstetrical clinic (55% volunteers for biobank and 52% for contact). We demonstrate that it is possible to establish a research permissions registry using the EHR portal and clinic-based workflows. This patient-centric, population-based, opt-in approach documents preferences in the EHR, allowing linkage of these preferences to health record information.

Project description:The present study investigated the clinical effect of antibiotic de-escalation therapy in elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) complicated with severe pneumonia. According to the parity method of hospitalization number, 86 cases were selected and divided into the observation and control group with 43 cases each. Based on empirical antibiotic application, levofloxacin and cephalosporin antibiotics were used in the control group. After treatment for 3 days, the regimen was adjusted to antibiotics active against Gram-positive (G+) and Gram-negative (G-) bacteria such as the third or fourth generation cephalosporin antibiotics, combined with aminoglycoside, or macrolide antibiotics according to their effects. The treatment effects were re-evaluated after 3-7 days. Finally, broad-spectrum antibiotics such as imipenem were chosen or adjusted by bacterial cultures and drug sensitivity results in the control group. Patients in the observation group were treated according to the principle of antibiotic de-escalation therapy. Antibiotics active against G+ and G- bacteria were chosen as the first round of medication. After 3 days, broad-spectrum antibiotics such as imipenem were added to the treatment regimen. After 7 days, the treatment was changed to narrow spectrum antibiotic administration if the disease was in remission, and the antibiotic regimen was adjusted based on bacterial culture and drug sensitivity results. The treatment results were compared. The mechanical ventilation rate, antibiotic courses, number of antibiotics used, and mortality of the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). After treatment, lung function improved, partial pressure of oxygen and blood oxygen saturation increased, and partial pressure of carbon dioxide decreased in both groups. The improvement of all of the above parameters were more significant in the observation group (P<0.05). After treatment, the ratio of neutrophils over white blood cells and C-reactive protein levels of the two groups decreased, respiratory failure index (RFI) increased, and the changes were significantly more pronounced in the observation group (P<0.05). In conclusion, following the antibiotic de-escalation principle to treat older patients with COPD complicated with severe pneumonia can reduce the number of antibiotics required, improve lung function and clinical effects, and is safe and effective.