Cargando…
Tractable targets for meropenem-sparing antimicrobial stewardship interventions
BACKGROUND: As meropenem is a restricted antimicrobial, lessons learned from its real-life usage will be applicable to antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) more generally. OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively evaluate meropenem usage at our institution to identify targets for AMS interventions. METHODS: Patien...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8210134/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34222916 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlz042 |
_version_ | 1783709250909896704 |
---|---|
author | Russell, Clark D Laurenson, Ian F Evans, Morgan H Mackintosh, Claire L |
author_facet | Russell, Clark D Laurenson, Ian F Evans, Morgan H Mackintosh, Claire L |
author_sort | Russell, Clark D |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: As meropenem is a restricted antimicrobial, lessons learned from its real-life usage will be applicable to antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) more generally. OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively evaluate meropenem usage at our institution to identify targets for AMS interventions. METHODS: Patients receiving meropenem documented with an ‘alert antimicrobial’ form at two tertiary care UK hospitals were identified retrospectively. Clinical records and microbiology results were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 107 adult inpatients receiving meropenem were identified. This was first-line in 47% and escalation therapy in 53%. Source control was required in 28% of cases after escalation, for predictable reasons. Those ultimately requiring source control had received more prior antimicrobial agents than those who did not (P = 0.03). Meropenem was rationalized in 24% of cases (after median 4 days). Positive microbiology enabled rationalization (OR 12.3, 95% CI 2.7–55.5, P = 0.001) but rates of appropriate sampling varied. In cases with positive microbiology where meropenem was not rationalized, continuation was retrospectively considered clinically and microbiologically necessary in 8/40 cases (0/17 empirical first-line usage). Rationalization was more likely when meropenem susceptibility was not released on the microbiology report (OR 5.2, 95% CI 1.3–20.2, P = 0.02). Input from an infection specialist was associated with a reduced duration of meropenem therapy (P < 0.0001). Early review by an infection specialist has the potential to further facilitate rationalization. CONCLUSIONS: In real-life clinical practice, core aspects of infection management remain tractable targets for AMS interventions: microbiological sampling, source control and infection specialist input. Further targets include supporting rationalization to less familiar carbapenem-sparing antimicrobials, restricting first-line meropenem usage and selectively reporting meropenem susceptibility. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8210134 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82101342021-07-02 Tractable targets for meropenem-sparing antimicrobial stewardship interventions Russell, Clark D Laurenson, Ian F Evans, Morgan H Mackintosh, Claire L JAC Antimicrob Resist Original Article BACKGROUND: As meropenem is a restricted antimicrobial, lessons learned from its real-life usage will be applicable to antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) more generally. OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively evaluate meropenem usage at our institution to identify targets for AMS interventions. METHODS: Patients receiving meropenem documented with an ‘alert antimicrobial’ form at two tertiary care UK hospitals were identified retrospectively. Clinical records and microbiology results were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 107 adult inpatients receiving meropenem were identified. This was first-line in 47% and escalation therapy in 53%. Source control was required in 28% of cases after escalation, for predictable reasons. Those ultimately requiring source control had received more prior antimicrobial agents than those who did not (P = 0.03). Meropenem was rationalized in 24% of cases (after median 4 days). Positive microbiology enabled rationalization (OR 12.3, 95% CI 2.7–55.5, P = 0.001) but rates of appropriate sampling varied. In cases with positive microbiology where meropenem was not rationalized, continuation was retrospectively considered clinically and microbiologically necessary in 8/40 cases (0/17 empirical first-line usage). Rationalization was more likely when meropenem susceptibility was not released on the microbiology report (OR 5.2, 95% CI 1.3–20.2, P = 0.02). Input from an infection specialist was associated with a reduced duration of meropenem therapy (P < 0.0001). Early review by an infection specialist has the potential to further facilitate rationalization. CONCLUSIONS: In real-life clinical practice, core aspects of infection management remain tractable targets for AMS interventions: microbiological sampling, source control and infection specialist input. Further targets include supporting rationalization to less familiar carbapenem-sparing antimicrobials, restricting first-line meropenem usage and selectively reporting meropenem susceptibility. Oxford University Press 2019-09-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8210134/ /pubmed/34222916 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlz042 Text en © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Russell, Clark D Laurenson, Ian F Evans, Morgan H Mackintosh, Claire L Tractable targets for meropenem-sparing antimicrobial stewardship interventions |
title | Tractable targets for meropenem-sparing antimicrobial stewardship interventions |
title_full | Tractable targets for meropenem-sparing antimicrobial stewardship interventions |
title_fullStr | Tractable targets for meropenem-sparing antimicrobial stewardship interventions |
title_full_unstemmed | Tractable targets for meropenem-sparing antimicrobial stewardship interventions |
title_short | Tractable targets for meropenem-sparing antimicrobial stewardship interventions |
title_sort | tractable targets for meropenem-sparing antimicrobial stewardship interventions |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8210134/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34222916 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlz042 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT russellclarkd tractabletargetsformeropenemsparingantimicrobialstewardshipinterventions AT laurensonianf tractabletargetsformeropenemsparingantimicrobialstewardshipinterventions AT evansmorganh tractabletargetsformeropenemsparingantimicrobialstewardshipinterventions AT mackintoshclairel tractabletargetsformeropenemsparingantimicrobialstewardshipinterventions |