Cargando…

223. Impact of Different Stewardship Strategies Applied to a Single Antibiotic Over Time

BACKGROUND: Recommended strategies for antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) include prospective audit with feedback (PAF) and preauthorization (PA). Depending on hospital culture, initiation of PA can be difficult. The impact of various single AMS strategies on antibiotic consumption has been described,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lusardi, Katherine, Dare, Ryan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6253706/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.234
_version_ 1783373558846586880
author Lusardi, Katherine
Dare, Ryan
author_facet Lusardi, Katherine
Dare, Ryan
author_sort Lusardi, Katherine
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Recommended strategies for antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) include prospective audit with feedback (PAF) and preauthorization (PA). Depending on hospital culture, initiation of PA can be difficult. The impact of various single AMS strategies on antibiotic consumption has been described, although the impact of several strategies over time has not been reported. METHODS: At an academic institution, the impact of various AMS strategies on daptomycin utilization was evaluated over time. A progression of four different approaches was used for restriction: Period 1 (P1): September 2012–June 2013—PAF. Period 2 (P2): July 2013–January 2016—8-day automatic stop. Period 3 (P3): February 2016–December 2017—3-day automatic stop, PA for >3-day use required. Period 4 (P4): January 2018–May 2018—PA. Transition to each strategy was supported by a policy change, approved through the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee and Hospital Medical Board. During P1–3, reserved medication orders were reviewed daily by AMS with recommended interventions when appropriate and providers were notified of pre-set stop dates (P2–3). During P4, ordering providers were required to call AMS prior to initiation. Daptomycin utilization rates (DOT/1,000 PD) and mean unique patients receiving daptomycin were collected for each period. RESULTS: As restriction strategies enhanced, mean rate of daptomycin use (DOT/1,000 PD) progressively declined with a significant decrease during each period transition (Figure 1); P1–>P2 (11.6 vs. 8.3; P < 0.01), P2->P3 (8.3 vs. 6.6; P = 0.017), and P3–>P4 (6.6 vs. 3.2; P < 0.01). The mean number of unique patients on daptomycin decreased with implementation of new AMS strategies; P1–>P2 (30.1 vs. 27.6; P = 0.18), P2–>P3 (27.6 vs. 23.8; P < 0.01) and P3–>P4 (23.8 vs. 13.3; P < 0.01). Of note, linezolid “balloon effect” only occurred following transition from P3 to >P4 (6.1 vs. 10.5 DOT/1,000 PD; P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This single-center descriptive analysis of AMS restriction strategies reveals a progressive decrease in daptomycin use with stepwise implementation. This significant decrease was most profound with ultimate transition to PA. AMS programs unable to initially implement highly restrictive policies can consider using a stepwise approach to ease practitioners into the new model and still have a meaningful impact on antimicrobial utilization. [Image: see text] DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6253706
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62537062018-11-28 223. Impact of Different Stewardship Strategies Applied to a Single Antibiotic Over Time Lusardi, Katherine Dare, Ryan Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: Recommended strategies for antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) include prospective audit with feedback (PAF) and preauthorization (PA). Depending on hospital culture, initiation of PA can be difficult. The impact of various single AMS strategies on antibiotic consumption has been described, although the impact of several strategies over time has not been reported. METHODS: At an academic institution, the impact of various AMS strategies on daptomycin utilization was evaluated over time. A progression of four different approaches was used for restriction: Period 1 (P1): September 2012–June 2013—PAF. Period 2 (P2): July 2013–January 2016—8-day automatic stop. Period 3 (P3): February 2016–December 2017—3-day automatic stop, PA for >3-day use required. Period 4 (P4): January 2018–May 2018—PA. Transition to each strategy was supported by a policy change, approved through the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee and Hospital Medical Board. During P1–3, reserved medication orders were reviewed daily by AMS with recommended interventions when appropriate and providers were notified of pre-set stop dates (P2–3). During P4, ordering providers were required to call AMS prior to initiation. Daptomycin utilization rates (DOT/1,000 PD) and mean unique patients receiving daptomycin were collected for each period. RESULTS: As restriction strategies enhanced, mean rate of daptomycin use (DOT/1,000 PD) progressively declined with a significant decrease during each period transition (Figure 1); P1–>P2 (11.6 vs. 8.3; P < 0.01), P2->P3 (8.3 vs. 6.6; P = 0.017), and P3–>P4 (6.6 vs. 3.2; P < 0.01). The mean number of unique patients on daptomycin decreased with implementation of new AMS strategies; P1–>P2 (30.1 vs. 27.6; P = 0.18), P2–>P3 (27.6 vs. 23.8; P < 0.01) and P3–>P4 (23.8 vs. 13.3; P < 0.01). Of note, linezolid “balloon effect” only occurred following transition from P3 to >P4 (6.1 vs. 10.5 DOT/1,000 PD; P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This single-center descriptive analysis of AMS restriction strategies reveals a progressive decrease in daptomycin use with stepwise implementation. This significant decrease was most profound with ultimate transition to PA. AMS programs unable to initially implement highly restrictive policies can consider using a stepwise approach to ease practitioners into the new model and still have a meaningful impact on antimicrobial utilization. [Image: see text] DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2018-11-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6253706/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.234 Text en © The Author(s) 2018. 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
Lusardi, Katherine
Dare, Ryan
223. Impact of Different Stewardship Strategies Applied to a Single Antibiotic Over Time
title 223. Impact of Different Stewardship Strategies Applied to a Single Antibiotic Over Time
title_full 223. Impact of Different Stewardship Strategies Applied to a Single Antibiotic Over Time
title_fullStr 223. Impact of Different Stewardship Strategies Applied to a Single Antibiotic Over Time
title_full_unstemmed 223. Impact of Different Stewardship Strategies Applied to a Single Antibiotic Over Time
title_short 223. Impact of Different Stewardship Strategies Applied to a Single Antibiotic Over Time
title_sort 223. impact of different stewardship strategies applied to a single antibiotic over time
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6253706/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.234
work_keys_str_mv AT lusardikatherine 223impactofdifferentstewardshipstrategiesappliedtoasingleantibioticovertime
AT dareryan 223impactofdifferentstewardshipstrategiesappliedtoasingleantibioticovertime