Clinical benefits of antimicrobial de-escalation in adults with community-onset monomicrobial Escherichia coli, Klebsiella species and Proteus mirabilis bacteremia

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Impact of antimicrobial de-escalation on mortality: a literature review of study methodology and recommendations for observational studies

Introduction: The safety of de-escalation of empirical antimicrobial therapy is largely based on observational data, with many reporting protective effects on mortality. As there is no plausible biological explanation for this phenomenon, it is most probably caused by confounding by indication.Areas covered: We evaluate the methodology used in observational studies on the effects of de-escalation of antimicrobial therapy on mortality. We extended the search for a recent systematic review and identified 52 observational studies. The heterogeneity in study populations was large. Only 19 (36.5%) studies adjusted for confounders and four (8%) adjusted for clinical stability during admission, all as a fixed variable. All studies had methodological limitations, most importantly the lack of adjustment for clinical stability, causing bias toward a protective effect.Expert opinion: The methodology used in studies evaluating the effects of de-escalation on mortality requires improvement. We depicted all potential confounders in a directed acyclic graph to illustrate all associations between exposure (de-escalation) and outcome (mortality). Clinical stability is an important confounder in this association and should be modeled as a time-varying variable. We recommend to include de-escalation as time-varying exposure and use inverse-probability-of-treatment weighted marginal structural models to properly adjust for time-varying confounders.

Differential effects of inappropriate empirical antibiotic therapy in adults with community-onset gram-positive and gram-negative aerobe bacteremia

Bacteremia is associated with high morbidity and mortality, which contribute substantially to health care costs. A beneficial influence of appropriate empirical antimicrobial therapy (EAT) on patient outcome is evidenced; However, the evidence highlighting a comparison of clinical manifestations and of the effects of inappropriate EAT between Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteremia is insufficient. In a retrospective 6-year cohort study, the total 2053 adults (Gram-positive, 566; Gram-negative 1487) presenting with community-onset monomicrobial aerobes bacteremia were recruited. Inappropriate EAT was defined as the first dose of an appropriate antimicrobial agent not being administered within the first 24 h after blood cultures were drawn. Although the bacteremia severity (a Pitt bacteremia score) at onset, comorbidity severity (the McCabe-Johnson classification), and 28-day mortality rate were similar in the two groups. Furthermore, after adjustment of independent predictors of 28-day mortality respectively recognized by the multivariate regression model in Gram-negative and Gram-positive groups, the Kaplan-Meier curve and Cox regression analysis revealed a significant difference (adjust odds ratio [AOR], 2.68; P < 0.001) between appropriate and inappropriate EAT in the Gram-negative group, but not in the Gram-positive group (AOR, 1.54; P = 0.06). Conclusively, patients with Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteremia exhibited the similar presentation in bacteremia severity, but a greater impact of inappropriate EAT on survival of patients with Gram-negative aerobe bacteremia was evidenced.

Confounding by indication of the safety of de-escalation in community-acquired pneumonia: A simulation study embedded in a prospective cohort

Observational studies have demonstrated that de-escalation of antimicrobial therapy is independently associated with lower mortality. This most probably results from confounding by indication. Reaching clinical stability is associated with the decision to de-escalate and with survival. However, studies rarely adjust for this confounder. We quantified the potential confounding effect of clinical stability on the estimated impact of de-escalation on mortality in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Data were used from the Community-Acquired Pneumonia immunization Trial in Adults (CAPiTA). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. We performed Cox proportional-hazards regression with de-escalation as time-dependent variable and adjusted for baseline characteristics using propensity scores. The potential impact of unmeasured confounding was quantified through simulating a variable representing clinical stability on day three, using data on prevalence and associations with mortality from the literature. Of 1,536 included patients, 257 (16.7%) were de-escalated, 123 (8.0%) were escalated and in 1156 (75.3%) the antibiotic spectrum remained unchanged. Crude 30-day mortality was 3.5% (9/257) and 10.9% (107/986) in the de-escalation and continuation groups, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio of de-escalation for 30-day mortality (compared to patients with unchanged coverage), without adjustment for clinical stability, was 0.39 (95%CI: 0.19–0.79). If 90% to 100% of de-escalated patients were clinically stable on day three, the fully adjusted hazard ratio would be 0.56 (95%CI: 0.27–1.12) to 1.04 (95%CI: 0.49–2.23), respectively. The simulated confounder was substantially stronger than any of the baseline confounders in our dataset. Quantification of effects of de-escalation on patient outcomes without proper adjustment for clinical stability results in strong negative bias. This study suggests the effect of de-escalation on mortality needs further well-designed prospective research to determine effect size more accurately.

Impact of an automated antibiotic time-out alert on the de-escalation of broad-spectrum antibiotics at a large community teaching hospital

Broad-spectrum antibiotic de-escalation before and after implementation of a 72-hour antibiotic time-out alert within the electronic medical record was analyzed. De-escalation occurred significantly more often after the implementation of the alert (55.0% vs 35.1%; 95% confidence interval, -0.3491 to -0.0488; P < .01).

Clinical outcomes of carbapenem de-escalation regardless of microbiological results: A propensity score analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of de-escalation in patients under treatment with carbapenems and its impact on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted for 1year. Patients administered active carbapenems for at least 24h were included. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, mortality at 30 days after carbapenem prescription, and infection-related readmission within 30 days. De-escalation was defined as the substitution of carbapenem with narrower spectrum antimicrobial agents or its discontinuation during the first 96h of treatment.

RESULTS

The study included 1161 patients, and de-escalation was performed in 667 (57.5%) of these. In the de-escalation group, 54.9% of cultures were positive. After propensity score matching, 30-day mortality was lower (17.4% vs. 25.7%, p=0.036), carbapenem treatment was 4 days shorter (4 vs. 8 days, p<0.001), total antibiotic therapy duration was 2 days longer (12 vs. 10 days, p=0.003), and length of hospital stay was 5 days shorter (8 vs. 13 days, p=0.008) in the de-escalated versus non-de-escalated patients. In-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission rates did not differ significantly between these groups.

CONCLUSION

Carbapenem de-escalation is a safe strategy that does not compromise the clinical status of patients.

An evaluation of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria in patients with urinary stone disease: data from a high-volume stone management center

PURPOSE

To investigate the prevalence of MDR bacteria in patients with urinary stones and the risk factors for its formation.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed among patients with urinary stones in Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital from December 2014 to May 2018. Patients with positive urinary cultures and drug sensitivity results were included. MDR were defined as any bacteria that have resistance to at least one agent in at least three classes of antibiotics. Bacteria distribution and resistance patterns were calculated.

RESULTS

1655 patients with urinary stones were eligible for analysis, among which 367 patients had positive urinary culture, yielding 457 isolates of 45 species. Escherichia coli remained the most common organism with a prevalence of 29.3%, followed by Enterococcus faecalis (12.0%), Proteus mirabilis (10.5%), and Klebsiella pneumonia (6.8%). 44.4% isolates were identified as MDR. The three most common Gram-negative bacteria were Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, and Klebsiella pneumoniae, with a MDR rate of 84.33%, 62.5%, and 48.39%, respectively. Drug-resistant rates were different between MDR and non-MDR in ampicillin, cefazolin, ceftriaxone, cefepime, gentamicin, amikacin, and levofloxacin (all with p value < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, indwelling catheters (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.07-8.98) and antibiotics use in the last 3 months (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.04-4.38) were significantly associated with MDR formation.

CONCLUSIONS

MDR bacteria were common among patients with urinary stones in our center and achieved high drug-resistant rates in ampicillin, first-generation and part of third-generation cephalosporins, and fluoroquinolones. Indwelling catheters and antibiotics used in the last 3 months were independent risk factors for MDR formation. Tailored antibacterial strategies still should be established according to the local bacterial spectrum and patient condition.

Efficacy and safety of antimicrobial de-escalation as a clinical strategy

INTRODUCTION

De-escalation is a widely recommended strategy in regard to guidelines, with an associated adherence to guidelines being around 50%. This review discusses data supporting de-escalation and possible obstacles for its implementation. Areas covered: Although it does not have a consensual definition, de-escalation consists of reducing the spectrum of empirical antimicrobial treatment based on the microbiological findings. Many observational studies have suggested that this strategy is likely safe and efficient for treating various types of infection. However, randomized controlled trials published as of now have not shown any improvement on the outcomes. Regarding the adverse effects of de-escalation on ecological pressure and multidrug resistance emergence, the data are contradictory. The implementation of new techniques, such as rapid diagnosis, can help guide clinicians. Expert opinion: De-escalation should be included as part of a large antibiotic stewardship program to balance the risk and benefit of each administration, and each physician prescribing antibiotics should be challenged for the quality of her/his prescription on a daily basis. In the future, one of our duties will involve determining whether a delay of antimicrobial treatment - making it possible to improve diagnostic performance and obtain the first laboratory results - is either safe or unsafe for our patients.