Cargando…

Evaluating Patient-Specific Antibiograms

BACKGROUND: Generating antibiograms has been standard practice in many hospitals for decades, and many guidelines recommend updating the data on a yearly basis. While effective at summarizing a hospital’s susceptibility data across all patients, likelihoods of susceptibility are not the same for all...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Overly, Shannon, Hayes, Seth, Mehta, Jimish, Hamilton, Keith, Peterson, Dan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5632241/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.562
_version_ 1783269660174581760
author Overly, Shannon
Hayes, Seth
Mehta, Jimish
Hamilton, Keith
Peterson, Dan
author_facet Overly, Shannon
Hayes, Seth
Mehta, Jimish
Hamilton, Keith
Peterson, Dan
author_sort Overly, Shannon
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Generating antibiograms has been standard practice in many hospitals for decades, and many guidelines recommend updating the data on a yearly basis. While effective at summarizing a hospital’s susceptibility data across all patients, likelihoods of susceptibility are not the same for all patients. Traditional antibiograms do not account for the numerous patient-specific factors (age, length of stay, diagnoses, previous antibiotic exposure and susceptibility results, etc.) that are known to influence a patient’s risk of having a resistant organism. We have built models that use patient-specific information to generate patient-specific antibiograms. Three methods for evaluating a model’s performance are presented. METHODS: Calculating Brier scores is the commonly used method to evaluate the performance of predictions that give the percentage likelihood of a binary event. We used Brier scores and two new methods we created (dispersion scores and susceptibility histograms) to evaluate patient-specific antibiograms we built. As an example of the methods, we present data from Mar-Jul 2016 on 3012 E. coli isolates and their susceptibility to levofloxacin. RESULTS: In the standard institutional antibiogram for the time period 75% of E. coli isolates were susceptible to levofloxacin. Our patient-specific antibiogram had a dispersion score of 73 (100 representing perfect dispersion, the standard antibiogram has a dispersion score of 0). In the susceptibility histogram the patient-specific antibiogram showed a predicted susceptibility of 90% or greater for 1716 (57%) of the 3012 isolates, and the actual susceptibility for that group was 96%. It also showed a predicted susceptibility less than 10% for 438 (15%) of the 3012 isolates, and the actual susceptibility for that group was 1%. Brier scores were 61% better for the patient-specific antibiogram (Brier = 0.24) than for the standard antibiogram (Brier = 0.62). CONCLUSION: By these methods patient-specific antibiograms are better than standard antibiograms at providing numerical predictions of the likely susceptibility of E. coli to levofloxacin. The methods can be used to guide and evaluate improvement to the models that generate patient-specific antibiograms. DISCLOSURES: S. Overly, Teqqa, LLC: Employee, Salary. S. Hayes, Teqqa, LLC: Employee, Salary. J. Mehta, Teqqa, LLC: Employee, Salary. D. Peterson, Teqqa, LLC: Employee, Salary
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5632241
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56322412017-10-12 Evaluating Patient-Specific Antibiograms Overly, Shannon Hayes, Seth Mehta, Jimish Hamilton, Keith Peterson, Dan Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: Generating antibiograms has been standard practice in many hospitals for decades, and many guidelines recommend updating the data on a yearly basis. While effective at summarizing a hospital’s susceptibility data across all patients, likelihoods of susceptibility are not the same for all patients. Traditional antibiograms do not account for the numerous patient-specific factors (age, length of stay, diagnoses, previous antibiotic exposure and susceptibility results, etc.) that are known to influence a patient’s risk of having a resistant organism. We have built models that use patient-specific information to generate patient-specific antibiograms. Three methods for evaluating a model’s performance are presented. METHODS: Calculating Brier scores is the commonly used method to evaluate the performance of predictions that give the percentage likelihood of a binary event. We used Brier scores and two new methods we created (dispersion scores and susceptibility histograms) to evaluate patient-specific antibiograms we built. As an example of the methods, we present data from Mar-Jul 2016 on 3012 E. coli isolates and their susceptibility to levofloxacin. RESULTS: In the standard institutional antibiogram for the time period 75% of E. coli isolates were susceptible to levofloxacin. Our patient-specific antibiogram had a dispersion score of 73 (100 representing perfect dispersion, the standard antibiogram has a dispersion score of 0). In the susceptibility histogram the patient-specific antibiogram showed a predicted susceptibility of 90% or greater for 1716 (57%) of the 3012 isolates, and the actual susceptibility for that group was 96%. It also showed a predicted susceptibility less than 10% for 438 (15%) of the 3012 isolates, and the actual susceptibility for that group was 1%. Brier scores were 61% better for the patient-specific antibiogram (Brier = 0.24) than for the standard antibiogram (Brier = 0.62). CONCLUSION: By these methods patient-specific antibiograms are better than standard antibiograms at providing numerical predictions of the likely susceptibility of E. coli to levofloxacin. The methods can be used to guide and evaluate improvement to the models that generate patient-specific antibiograms. DISCLOSURES: S. Overly, Teqqa, LLC: Employee, Salary. S. Hayes, Teqqa, LLC: Employee, Salary. J. Mehta, Teqqa, LLC: Employee, Salary. D. Peterson, Teqqa, LLC: Employee, Salary Oxford University Press 2017-10-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5632241/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.562 Text en © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Abstracts
Overly, Shannon
Hayes, Seth
Mehta, Jimish
Hamilton, Keith
Peterson, Dan
Evaluating Patient-Specific Antibiograms
title Evaluating Patient-Specific Antibiograms
title_full Evaluating Patient-Specific Antibiograms
title_fullStr Evaluating Patient-Specific Antibiograms
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating Patient-Specific Antibiograms
title_short Evaluating Patient-Specific Antibiograms
title_sort evaluating patient-specific antibiograms
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5632241/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.562
work_keys_str_mv AT overlyshannon evaluatingpatientspecificantibiograms
AT hayesseth evaluatingpatientspecificantibiograms
AT mehtajimish evaluatingpatientspecificantibiograms
AT hamiltonkeith evaluatingpatientspecificantibiograms
AT petersondan evaluatingpatientspecificantibiograms