Inapropriate use of antibiotics effective against gram positive microorganisms despite restrictive antibiotic policies in ICUs: a prospective observational study

Point prevalence probing of antimicrobial prescription patterns from a developing country

BACKGROUND

Irrational use of antibiotics intensifies resistance and jeopardizes advances made in modern medicine. We aimed to conduct a baseline gap analysis survey on antibiotic prescription practices across Pakistan.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This multi-centered cross-sectional survey was conducted at six public sector tertiary care hospitals from February 2021 to March 2021. Data related to various variables including hospital infrastructure, policies and practices, monitoring and feedback, and epidemiological, clinical, and antibiotic prescription for surveyed patients was collected using World Health Organization (WHO) Point Prevalence Survey (PPS) methodology.

RESULTS

In a survey of 837 inpatients, 78.5% were prescribed antibiotics. Most commonly prescribed antimicrobial was ceftriaxone (21.7%), followed by metronidazole (17.3%), cefoperazone-sulbactam (8.4%), amoxicillin-clavulanate (6.3%), and piperacillin/tazobactam (5.9%). Surgical prophylaxis (36.7%) and community-acquired infections (24.7%) were the main reasons for antibiotic prescriptions. Single antibiotics were given to 46.7% of patients, 39.9% received a combination of two antibiotics, and 12.5% were prescribed three or more antibiotics. Among six hospitals surveyed, two had drug and therapeutic committees, three had infection prevention and control committees, and one had an antibiotic formulary.

CONCLUSION

Findings demonstrate high consumption of broad-spectrum antimicrobials and emphasize the importance of expanding antimicrobial stewardship programs among hospitals. Mentoring clinical teams could help rationalize antimicrobial use.

Antimicrobial stewardship for sepsis in the intensive care unit: Survey of critical care and infectious diseases physicians

Objective:

To evaluate the attitudes of infectious diseases (ID) and critical care physicians toward antimicrobial stewardship in the intensive care unit (ICU).

Design:

Anonymous, cross-sectional, web-based surveys.

Setting:

Surveys were completed in March–November 2017, and data were analyzed from December 2017 to December 2019.

Participants:

ID and critical care fellows and attending physicians.

Methods:

We included 10 demographic and 17 newly developed, 5-point, Likert-scaled items measuring attitudes toward ICU antimicrobial stewardship and transdisciplinary collaboration. Exploratory principal components analysis (PCA) was used for data reduction. Multivariable linear regression models explored demographic and attitudinal variables.

Results:

Of 372 respondents, 315 physicians had complete data (72% attendings, 28% fellows; 63% ID specialists, and 37% critical care specialists). Our PCA yielded a 3-item factor measuring which specialty should assume ICU antimicrobial stewardship (Cronbach standardized α = 0.71; higher scores indicate that ID physicians should be stewards), and a 4-item factor measuring value of ICU transdisciplinary collaborations (α = 0.62; higher scores indicate higher value). In regression models, ID physicians (vs critical care physicians), placed higher value on ICU collaborations and expressed discomfort with uncertain diagnoses. These factors were independently associated with stronger agreement that ID physicians should be ICU antimicrobial stewards. The following factors were independently associated with higher value of transdisciplinary collaboration: female sex, less discomfort with uncertain diagnoses, and stronger agreement with ID physicians as ICU antimicrobial stewards.

Conclusions:

ID and critical care physicians endorsed their own group for antimicrobial stewardship, but both groups placed high value on ICU transdisciplinary collaborations. Physicians who were more uncomfortable with uncertain diagnoses reported preference for ID physicians to coordinate ICU antimicrobial stewardship; however, physicians who were less uncomfortable with uncertain diagnoses placed greater value on ICU collaborations.

Evaluation of the Negative Predictive Value of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Nasal Swab Screening in the Medical Intensive Care Units and Its Effect on Antibiotic Duration

Background

In addition to active surveillance of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carrier, MRSA nasal screening can be valuable for antibiotic de-escalation. This study aimed to assess the correlations between the MRSA nasal swab and subsequent culture results in patients admitted to medical intensive care units (MICU). The impact of MRSA nasal swab on the antibiotic duration was also evaluated.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective study enrolled patients who received glycopeptides in the MICU of a medical center in 2019. Patients treated with glycopeptides for over 2 days before MICU admission were excluded. The associated data were collected through the electronic medical record system. The negative predictive value (NPV) of MRSA nasal swabs for MRSA infection was calculated, and their influence on empirical glycopeptide treatment duration was analyzed.

Results

Of the 338 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 277 underwent MRSA nasal screening. The NPV of MRSA-negative nasal swab for subsequent MRSA infection was 98.4%. The glycopeptide treatment duration of the patients with and without nasal screening was not significantly different (4.2 ± 2.8 vs 4.4 ± 3.0 days, p = 0.577). Of the 120 patients with MRSA-negative nasal swab and no subsequent MRSA infection, 75 continued empirical glycopeptides therapy. The additional treatment time was 3 days (interquartile range: 2–6 days).

Conclusion

The MRSA nasal swabs have high NPV for MRSA infection in critically ill patients. However, it has no impact on the empirical glycopeptide treatment duration. The value of MRSA nasal swabs should be advocated to optimize antibiotic therapy.