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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Russell, Clark D, Laurenson, Ian F, Evans, Morgan H, Mackintosh, Claire L
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