There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
Opinion statement Antimicrobial stewardship is a new field that struggles to find the right balance between meaningful and useful metrics to study the impact of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). ASP metrics primarily measure antimicrobial use, although microbiological resistance and clinical outcomes are also important measures of the impact an ASP has on a hospital and its patient population. Antimicrobial measures looking at consumption are the most commonly used measures, and are focused on defined daily doses, days of therapy, and costs, usually standardized per 1,000 patient-days. Each measure provides slightly different information, with their own upsides and downfalls. Point prevalence measurement of antimicrobial use is an increasingly used approach to understanding consumption that does not entirely rely on sophisticated electronic information systems, and is also replicable. Appropriateness measures hold appeal and promise, but have not been developed to the degree that makes them useful and widely applicable. The primary reason why antimicrobial stewardship is necessary is the growth of antimicrobial resistance. Accordingly, antimicrobial resistance is an important metric of the impact of an ASP. The most common approach to measuring resistance for ASP purposes is to report rates of common or important community- or nosocomial-acquired antimicrobial-resistant organisms, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Clostridium difficile. Such an approach is dependent on detection methods, community rates of resistance, and co-interventions, and therefore may not be the most accurate or reflective measure of antimicrobial stewardship interventions. Development of an index to reflect the net burden of resistance holds theoretical promise, but has yet to be realized. Finally, programs must consider patient outcome measures. Mortality is the most objective and reliable method, but has several drawbacks. Disease- or organism-specific mortality, or cure, are increasingly used metrics.
Resistance to antibiotics is a major public-health problem, and studies that link antibiotic use and resistance have shown an association but not a causal effect. We used the macrolides azithromycin and clarithromycin to investigate the direct effect of antibiotic exposure on resistance in the oral streptococcal flora of healthy volunteers. Volunteers were treated with azithromycin (n=74), clarithromycin (74), or placebo (76) in a randomised, double-blind trial. Pharyngeal swabs were obtained before and after administration of study treatment through 180 days. The proportion of streptococci that were macrolide resistant was assessed and the molecular basis of any change in resistance investigated. Analyses were done on an intent-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00354952. The number of dropouts (n=20) was much the same in all groups until day 42; dropouts increased substantially at day 180 (105). Both macrolides significantly increased the proportion of macrolide-resistant streptococci compared with the placebo at all points studied, peaking at day 8 in the clarithromycin group (mean increase 50.0%, 95% CI 41.7-58.2; p<0.0001) and at day 4 in the azithromycin group (53.4%, 43.4-63.5; p<0.0001). The proportion of macrolide-resistant streptococci was higher after azithromycin treatment than after clarithromycin use, with the largest difference between the two groups at day 28 (17.4% difference, 9.2-25.6; p<0.0001). Use of clarithromycin, but not of azithromycin, selected for the erm(B) gene, which confers high-level macrolide resistance. This study shows that, notwithstanding the different outcomes of resistance selection, macrolide use is the single most important driver of the emergence of macrolide resistance in vivo. Physicians prescribing antibiotics should take into account the striking ecological side-effects of such antibiotics.
Early diagnosis of gram-negative bloodstream infections, prompt identification of the infecting organism, and appropriate antibiotic therapy improve patient care outcomes and decrease health care expenditures. In an era of increasing antimicrobial resistance, methods to acquire and rapidly translate critical results into timely therapies for gram-negative bloodstream infections are needed. To determine whether mass spectrometry technology coupled with antimicrobial stewardship provides a substantially improved alternative to conventional laboratory methods. An evidence-based intervention that integrated matrix-assisted laser desorption and ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry, rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing, and near-real-time antimicrobial stewardship practices was implemented. Outcomes in patients hospitalized prior to initiation of the study intervention were compared to those in patients treated after implementation. Differences in length of hospitalization and hospital costs were assessed in survivors. The mean hospital length of stay in the preintervention group survivors (n = 100) was 11.9 versus 9.3 days in the intervention group (n = 101; P = .01). After multivariate analysis, factors independently associated with decreased length of hospitalization included the intervention (hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.88) and active therapy at 48 hours (hazard ratio, 2.9; confidence interval, 1.15-7.33). Mean hospital costs per patient were $45 709 in the preintervention group and $26 162 in the intervention group (P = .009). Integration of rapid identification and susceptibility techniques with antimicrobial stewardship significantly improved time to optimal therapy, and it decreased hospital length of stay and total costs. This innovative strategy has ramifications for other areas of patient care.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.