scholarly journals Almost two years with COVID-19: some aspects of antibiotic use

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 248-253
Author(s):  
Eduard A. Ortenberg

The objective of this review was to summarize impact of the widespread administration of antibiotics in treatment algorithms for patients with COVID-19 on treatment outcomes. The experience of antimicrobial use agents during COVID-19 pandemic did not show any life-saving effect. It justifies a need to limit their administration to COVID-19 patients.

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S199-S200
Author(s):  
Olivia Kates ◽  
Elizabeth M Krantz ◽  
Juhye Lee ◽  
John Klaassen ◽  
Jessica Morris ◽  
...  

Abstract Background IDSA/SHEA guidelines recommend that antimicrobial stewardship programs support providers in antibiotic decisions for end of life care. Washington State Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) forms allow patients to indicate antimicrobial use preferences. We sought to characterize antimicrobial use in the last 30 days of life for cancer patients by presence of a POLST and antimicrobial use preferences. Methods We performed a single-center, retrospective cohort study of cancer patient deaths from January 1, 2016 - June 30, 3018. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, POLST, and antimicrobial use within 30 days before death were extracted from electronic records. To test for an association between POLST completed at least 30 days before death and inpatient antimicrobial days of therapy (DOT) in the 30 days before death, we used negative binomial models adjusted for age, sex, race, and service line (hematologic versus solid malignancy); model estimates are presented as incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) Results Of 1796 patients, 406 (23%) had a POLST. 177/406 (44%) were completed less than 30 days before death, and 58/177 (32.8%) specified limited antibiotic use; 40/177 (23%) did not specify any antimicrobial use preference (Fig 1). Of 1295 patients with at least 1 inpatient day in the 30 days before death, 1070 (83%) received at least 1 inpatient antimicrobial with median DOT of 1077 per 1000 inpatient days (Tab 1). There was no difference in DOT among patients with and without a POLST > /= 30 days before death (IRR 0.92, CI 0.77, 1.10). Patients with a POLST specifying limited antibiotic use had significantly lower inpatient IV antimicrobial DOT compared to those without a POLST (IRR 0.64, CI 0.42–0.97) (Fig 2). Figure 1. Classification of Patients by Presence of POLST, Timing, and Antimicrobial Preference Content of POLST. Numbers shown represent the number of patients (percentage). Full antibiotic use refers to the selection “Use antibiotics for prolongation of life.” Limited antibiotic use refers to the selection “Do not use antibiotics except when needed for symptom management.” Table 1: Antimicrobial use for all patients and by advance directive group Figure 2. Forest plot of model estimates, represented as incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), for associations between POLST antimicrobial specifications completed at least 30 days before death and inpatient antibiotic days of therapy (DOT) in the 30 days before death. Estimates represent comparisons between each POLST category and no POLST completed at least 30 days before death. Dots represent the IRR and brackets extend to the lower and upper limit of the 95% CI. Blue estimates are for the inpatient antibiotic DOT outcome and red estimates are for the inpatient IV antibiotic DOT outcome. Conclusion POLST completion is rare > /= 30 days before death, with few POLSTs specifying antimicrobial use. Compared to those with no POLST in this time frame, patients who indicated that antibiotics should be used only for symptom management received significantly fewer inpatient IV antimicrobials. Early discussion of advance directives including POLST with specification of antimicrobial use preferences may promote more thoughtful use of antimicrobials near the end of life in a compassionate, patient-centered way. Disclosures Steven A. Pergam, MD, MPH, Chimerix, Inc (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Global Life Technologies, Inc. (Research Grant or Support)Merck & Co. (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Sanofi-Aventis (Other Financial or Material Support, Participate in clinical trial sponsored by NIAID (U01-AI132004); vaccines for this trial are provided by Sanofi-Aventis)


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S86-S86
Author(s):  
Ann F Chou ◽  
Yue Zhang ◽  
Makoto M Jones ◽  
Christopher J Graber ◽  
Matthew B Goetz ◽  
...  

Abstract Background About 30–50% of inpatient antimicrobial therapy is sub-optimal. Health care facilities have utilized various antimicrobial stewardship (AS) strategies to optimize appropriate antimicrobial use, improve health outcomes, and promote patient safety. However, little evidence exists to assess relationships between AS strategies and antimicrobial use. This study examined the impact of changes in AS strategies on antimicrobial use over time. Methods This study used data from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare Analysis & Informatics Group (HAIG) AS survey, administered at 130 VA facilities in 2012 and 2015, and antimicrobial utilization from VA Corporate Data Warehouse. Four AS strategies were examined: having an AS team, feedback mechanism on antimicrobial use, infectious diseases (ID) attending physicians, and clinical pharmacist on wards. Change in AS strategies were computed by taking the difference in the presence of a given strategy in a facility between 2012–2015. The outcome was the difference between antimicrobial use per 1000 patient days in 2012–2013 and 2015–2016. Employing multiple regression analysis, changes in antimicrobial use was estimated as a function of changes in AS strategies, controlling for ID human resources in and organizational complexity. Results Of the 4 strategies, only change in availability of AS teams had an impact on antimicrobial use. Compared to facilities with no AS teams at both time points, antibiotic use decreased by 63.9 uses per 1000 patient days in facilities that did not have a AS team in 2012 but implemented one in 2015 (p=0.0183). Facilities that had an AS team at both time points decreased use by 62.2 per 1000 patient days (p=0.0324). Conclusion The findings showed that AS teams reduced inpatient antibiotic use over time. While changes in having feedback on antimicrobial use and clinical pharmacist on wards showed reduced antimicrobial use between 2012–2015, the differences were not statistically significant. These strategies may already be a part of a comprehensive AS program and employed by AS teams. In further development of stewardship programs within healthcare organizations, the association between AS teams and antibiotic use should inform program design and implementation. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (S1) ◽  
pp. s40-s40
Author(s):  
Parul Singh ◽  
Purva Mathur ◽  
Kamini Walia ◽  
Anjan Trikha

Background: Antimicrobial decision making in the ICU is challenging. Injudicious use of antimicrobials contributes to the development of resistant pathogens and drug-related adverse events. However, inadequate antimicrobial therapy is associated with mortality in critically ill patients. Antimicrobial stewardship programs are increasingly being implemented to improve prescribing. Methods: This prospective study was conducted over 11 months, during which the pharmacist used a standardized survey form to collect data on antibiotic use. Evaluation of antimicrobial use and stewardship practices in a 12-bed polytrauma ICU and a 20-bed neurosurgery ICU of the 248-bed AIIMS Trauma Center in Delhi, India. Antimicrobial consumption was measured using WHO-recommended defined daily dose (DDD) of given antimicrobials and days of therapy (DOT). Results: Antibiotics were ranked by frequency of use over the 11-month period based on empirical therapy and culture-based therapy. The 11-month DDD and DOT averages when empiric antibiotics were used were 532 of 1,000 patient days and 484 per 1,000 patient days, respectively (Figure 1). When cultures were available, DDD was 486 per 1,000 patient days and DOT was 442 per 1,000 patient days (Figure). Conclusions: The quantity and frequency of antibiotics used in the ICUs allowed the AMSP to identify areas to optimize antibiotic use such as educational initiatives, early specimen collection, and audit and feedback opportunities.Funding: NoDisclosures: None


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenjuan Cong ◽  
Ak Narayan Poudel ◽  
Nour Alhusein ◽  
Hexing Wang ◽  
Guiqing Yao ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundAs the numbers of people with COVID-19 continue to increase globally, concerns have been raised regarding the widespread use of antibiotics for the treatment of COVID-19 patients and its consequences for antimicrobial resistance during the pandemic and beyond. The scale and determinants of antibiotic use in the early phase of the pandemic, and whether antibiotic prescribing is beneficial to treatment effectiveness in COVID-19 patients, are still unknown. Unwarranted treatment of this viral infection with antibiotics may exacerbate the problem of antibiotic resistance, while antibiotic resistance may render presumptive treatment of secondary infections in COVID-19 patients ineffective.MethodsThis rapid review was undertaken to identify studies reporting antimicrobial use in the treatment of hospitalised COVID-19 patients. The review was conducted to comply with PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews (http://www.prisma-statement.org/Extensions/ScopingReviews) and the protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF): http://osf.io/vp6t5. The following databases: Web of Science, EMBASE, PubMed, CNKI & VIP were searched to identify the relevant studies from 1 Dec 2019 up to 15 June 2020; no limits were set on the language or the country where studies were conducted. The search terms used were: ((“Covid-19” or “SARS-CoV-2” or “Coronavirus disease 2019” or “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2”) and ((“antibiotic prescribing” or “antibiotic use” or “antibiotic*”) or “antimicrobial *” or “antimicrobial therapy” or “antimicrobial resistance” or “antimicrobial stewardship”)). A total of 1216 records were identified through database searching and 118 clinical studies met the inclusion criteria and were taken into data extraction. A bespoke data extraction form was developed and validated through two independent, duplicate extraction of data from five Records. As all the included studies were descriptive in nature, we conducted descriptive synthesis of data and reported pooled estimates such as mean, percentage and frequency. We created a series of scenarios to capture the range of rationales for antibiotic prescribing presented in the included studies.ResultsOur results show that during the early phase of the pandemic, 8501 out of 10 329 COVID-19 patients (82·3%) were prescribed antibiotics; antibiotics were prescribed for COVID-19 patients regardless of reported severity, with a similar mean antibiotic prescribing rate between patients with severe or critical illness (75·4%) and patients with mild or moderate illness (75·1%). The top five frequently prescribed antibiotics for hospitalised COVID-19 patients were azithromycin (28·0 % of studies), ceftriaxone (17·8%), moxifloxacin (14·4%), meropenem (14·4%) and piperacillin/tazobactam (12·7%). The proportion of patients prescribed antibiotics without clinical justification was 51·5% vs 41·9 % for patients with mild or moderate illness and those with severe or critical illness respectively. Comparison of patients who were provided antibiotics with a clinical justification with those who were given antibiotics without clinical justification showed lower mortality rates (9·5% vs 13·1%), higher discharge rates (80·9% vs 69·3%) and shorter length of hospital of stay (9·3 days vs 12·2 days). Only 9·7% of patients in our included studies were reported to have secondary infections.ConclusionsAntibiotics were prescribed indiscriminately for hospitalised COVID-19 patients regardless of severity of illness during the early phase of the pandemic. COVID-19 related concerns and lack of knowledge drove a large proportion of antibiotic use without specific clinical justification. Although we are still in the midst of the pandemic, the goals of antimicrobial stewardship should remain unchanged for the treatment of COVID-19 patients.


Livestock ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 299-304
Author(s):  
Liz Nabb

Prompt treatment of individually lame sheep with parenteral and topical antibiotics without foot trimming remains the recommended best practice for footrot control, and is considered appropriate and justified antimicrobial use. Several antibiotic groups are licensed for footrot in sheep; all are effective but it would be prudent to use certain classes as a first-line treatment. Culling sheep with repeated lameness, separating at time of treatment and preserving the flock lameness status through quarantine procedures can also have a significant impact on lameness prevalence. Farm assurance visits and antibiotic use reviews facilitate farmer–veterinary surgeon interactions and provide an opportunity to improve flock productivity and welfare. A flock health assessment should include observation of groups of ewes to estimate lameness prevalence, examination of lame sheep to determine aetiology and a review of records to determine treatment practices.


1988 ◽  
pp. 205-213
Author(s):  
Hiroyuki Noda ◽  
Hisateru Takano ◽  
Yoshiyuki Taenaka ◽  
Masayuki Kinoshita ◽  
Eisuke Tatsumi ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S374-S374
Author(s):  
Christopher J Graber ◽  
Makoto M Jones ◽  
Matthew B Goetz ◽  
Karl Madaras-Kelly ◽  
Yue Zhang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background To identify areas for improved antibiotic use, we developed and pilot-tested visualization tools to quantify antibiotic use at 8 VA facilities. These tools allow a facility to review its patterns of total use, and use by antibiotic class, compared with patterns of use at VA facilities with similar (or user-selected) complexity levels. Methods Antibiotic stewards from 8 VA facilities participated in iterative report development and implementation, with the final product consisting of two components: an interactive web-based antibiotic dashboard and a standardized antibiotic usage report updated at user-selected intervals. Stewards also participated in monthly learning collaboratives. The percent change in average monthly antimicrobial use (all antibiotics; anti-methicillin-resistant S. aureus agents (anti-MRSA); and broad-spectrum agents predominantly used for hospital-onset/multi-drug-resistant organisms (anti-MDRO)) was analyzed using a pre-post (January 2014–January 2016 vs. July 2016–January 2018) with un-involved controls (all other inpatient VA facilities, n = 132) design modeled using Generalized Estimation Equations segmented regression. Results Intervention sites had a 2.1% decrease (95% CI = [−5.7%,1.6%]) in all antibiotic use pre-post-intervention, vs. a 2.5% increase (95% CI = [0.8%, 4.1%]) in nonintervention sites (P = 0.025 for difference). Anti-MRSA antibiotic use decreased 11.3% (95% CI = [−16.0%,−6.3%]) at intervention sites vs. a 6.6% decrease (95% CI=[−9.1%, −3.9%]) at nonintervention sites (P = 0.092 for difference). Anti-MDRO antibiotic use decreased 3.4% (95% CI = [−8.2%,1.7%]) at intervention sites vs. a 3.6% increase (95% CI = [0.8%,6.5%]) at nonintervention sites (P = 0.018 for difference) (Figure 1). Examples of graphs include overall antibacterial use (Figure 2), and usage of broad-spectrum Gram-negative therapy (Figure 3) in intensive care units. Conclusion The use of data visualization tools use and participation in monthly learning collaboratives by antimicrobial stewards in a pilot implementation project at eight VA facilities was associated with decreases in antimicrobial use relative to uninvolved sites. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.


2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. 358-359
Author(s):  
Aysha Mendes ◽  
Sarah Jane Palmer

Author(s):  
John W. Schmidt ◽  
Amit Vikram ◽  
Enrique Doster ◽  
Kevin Thomas ◽  
Margaret D Weinroth ◽  
...  

Antibiotics used during food-animal production account for approximately 77% of U.S. antimicrobial consumption by mass. Ground beef products labeled as raised without antibiotics (RWA) are perceived to harbor lower antimicrobial resistance (AMR) levels than conventional (CONV) products with no label claims regarding antimicrobial use. Retail ground beef samples were obtained from 6 U. S. cities. Samples with a RWA or USDA Organic claim ( N = 299) were assigned to the RWA production system. Samples lacking these claims ( N = 300) were assigned to the CONV production system. Each sample was cultured for the detection of five antimicrobial resistant bacteria. Genomic DNA was isolated from each sample and qPCR was used to determine the abundance of ten antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs). Tetracycline-resistant Escherichia coli (CONV = 46.3%; RWA = 34.4%, P < 0.01) and erythromycin-resistant Enterococcus (CONV = 48.0%; RWA = 37.5%, P = 0.01) were more frequently detected in CONV. Salmonella were detected in 1.2% of samples. The ARG bla CTX-M (CONV = 4.1 log 10 normalized abundance, RWA = 3.8 log 10 normalized abundance, P < 0.01) was more abundant in CONV ground beef. The ARGs mecA (CONV = 4.4 log 10 normalized abundance, RWA = 4.9 log 10 normalized abundance, P = 0.05), tet (A) (CONV = 3.9 log 10 normalized abundance, RWA = 4.5 log 10 normalized abundance, P < 0.01), tet (B) (CONV = 3.9 log 10 normalized abundance, RWA = 4.5 log 10 normalized abundance, P < 0.01), and tet (M) (CONV = 5.4 log 10 normalized abundance, RWA = 5.8 log 10 normalized abundance, P < 0.01) were more abundant in RWA ground beef. Although these results suggest that antimicrobial use during U. S. cattle production does not increase human exposure to AMR via ground beef quantitative microbiological risk assessments are required for authoritative assessments regarding the human health impacts of antimicrobial uses during beef production.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document