: Antibiotic resistance continues to receive national attention as a leading public health threat. In 2015, President Barack Obama proposed a National Action Plan to Combat Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria to curb the rise of "superbugs," bacteria resistant to antibiotics of last resort. Whereas many antibiotics are prescribed appropriately to treat infections, there continue to be a large number of inappropriately prescribed antibiotics. Although much of the national attention with regards to stewardship has focused on primary care providers, there is a significant opportunity for surgeons to embrace this national imperative and improve our practices. Local quality improvement efforts suggest that antibiotic misuse for surgical disease is common. Opportunities exist as part of day-to-day surgical care as well as through surgeons' interactions with nonsurgeon colleagues and policy experts. This article discusses the scope of the antibiotic misuse in surgery for surgical patients, and provides immediate practice improvements and also advocacy efforts surgeons can take to address the threat. We believe that surgical antibiotic prescribing patterns frequently do not adhere to evidence-based practices; surgeons are in a position to mitigate their ill effects; and antibiotic stewardship should be a part of every surgeons' practice.

Background

The Emergency Department (ED) is a frequent site of antibiotic use; poor adherence with evidence-based guidelines and broad-spectrum antibiotic overuse is common. Our objective was to determine rates and predictors of inappropriate antimicrobial use in patients with uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTI) compared to the 2010 International Clinical Practice Guidelines (ICPG).

Methods

A single center, prospective, observational study of patients with uncomplicated UTI presenting to an urban ED between September 2012 and February 2014 that examined ED physician adherence to ICPG when treating uncomplicated UTIs. Clinician-directed antibiotic treatment was compared to the ICPG using a standardized case definition for non-adherence. Binomial confidence intervals and student's t-tests were performed to evaluate differences in demographic characteristics and management between patients with pyelonephritis versus cystitis. Regression models were used to analyze the significance of various predictors to non-adherent treatment.

Results

103 cases met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, with 63.1 % receiving non-adherent treatment, most commonly use of a fluoroquinolone (FQ) in cases with cystitis (97.6 %). In cases with pyelonephritis, inappropriate antibiotic choice (39.1 %) and no initial IV antibiotic for pyelonephritis (39.1 %) where recommended were the most common characterizations of non-adherence. Overall, cases of cystitis were no more/less likely to receive non-adherent treatment than cases of pyelonephritis (OR 0.9, 95 % confidence interval 0.4-2.2, P = 0.90). In multivariable analysis, patients more likely to receive non-adherent treatment included those without a recent history of a UTI (OR 3.8, 95 % CI 1.3-11.4, P = 0.02) and cystitis cases with back or abdominal pain only (OR 11.4, 95 % CI 2.1-63.0, P = 0.01).

Conclusions

Patients with cystitis with back or abdominal pain only were most likely to receive non-adherent treatment, potentially suggesting diagnostic inaccuracy. Physician education on evidence-based guidelines regarding the treatment of uncomplicated UTI will decrease broad-spectrum use and drug resistance in uropathogens.

Objectives

To explore current practices and decision making regarding antimicrobial prescribing among emergency department (ED) clinical providers.

Methods

We conducted a survey of ED providers recruited from 8 sites in 3 cities. Using purposeful sampling, we then recruited 21 providers for in-depth interviews. Additionally, we observed 10 patient-provider interactions at one of the ED sites. SAS 9.3 was used for descriptive and predictive statistics. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a thematic, constructivist approach with consensus coding using NVivo 10.0. Field and interview notes collected during the observational study were aligned with themes identified through individual interviews.

Results

Of 150 survey respondents, 76% agreed or strongly agreed that antibiotics are overused in the ED, while half believed they personally did not overprescribe. Eighty-nine percent used a smartphone or tablet in the ED for antibiotic prescribing decisions. Several significant differences were found between attending and resident physicians. Interview analysis identified 42 codes aggregated into the following themes: (1) resource and environmental factors that affect care; (2) access to and quality of care received outside of the ED consult; (3) patient-provider relationships; (4) clinical inertia; and (5) local knowledge generation. The observational study revealed limited patient understanding of antibiotic use. Providers relied heavily upon diagnostics and provided limited education to patients. Most patients denied a priori expectations of being prescribed antibiotics.

Conclusions

Patient, provider, and healthcare system factors should be considered when designing interventions to improve antimicrobial stewardship in the ED setting.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1) measure has appropriately established sepsis as a national priority. However, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA and five additional endorsing societies) is concerned about SEP-1's potential to drive antibiotic overuse because it does not account for the high rate of sepsis overdiagnosis and encourages aggressive antibiotics for all patients with possible sepsis, regardless of the certainty of diagnosis or severity of illness. IDSA is also concerned that SEP-1's complex "time zero" definition is not evidence-based and is prone to inter-observer variation. In this position paper, IDSA outlines several recommendations aimed at reducing the risk of unintended consequences of SEP-1 while maintaining focus on its evidence-based elements. IDSA's core recommendation is to limit SEP-1 to septic shock, for which the evidence supporting the benefit of immediate antibiotics is greatest. Prompt empiric antibiotics are often appropriate for suspected sepsis without shock, but IDSA believes there is too much heterogeneity and difficulty defining this population, uncertainty about the presence of infection, and insufficient data on the necessity of immediate antibiotics to support a mandatory treatment standard for all patients in this category. IDSA believes guidance on managing possible sepsis without shock is more appropriate for guidelines that can delineate the strengths and limitations of supporting evidence and allow clinicians discretion in applying specific recommendations to individual patients. Removing sepsis without shock from SEP-1 will mitigate the risk of unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for noninfectious syndromes, simplify data abstraction, increase measure reliability, and focus attention on the population most likely to benefit from immediate empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Clinical trials that compare strategies to optimize antibiotic use are of critical importance but are limited by competing risks that distort outcome interpretation, complexities of noninferiority trials, large sample sizes, and inadequate evaluation of benefits and harms at the patient level. The Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group strives to overcome these challenges through innovative trial design. Response adjusted for duration of antibiotic risk (RADAR) is a novel methodology utilizing a superiority design and a 2-step process: (1) categorizing patients into an overall clinical outcome (based on benefits and harms), and (2) ranking patients with respect to a desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR). DOORs are constructed by assigning higher ranks to patients with (1) better overall clinical outcomes and (2) shorter durations of antibiotic use for similar overall clinical outcomes. DOOR distributions are compared between antibiotic use strategies. The probability that a randomly selected patient will have a better DOOR if assigned to the new strategy is estimated. DOOR/RADAR represents a new paradigm in assessing the risks and benefits of new strategies to optimize antibiotic use.

Background

Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is an innovative approach in clinical trials to evaluate the global benefits and risks of an intervention. We developed and validated a DOOR endpoint for Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection (BSI) through a survey to infectious diseases clinicians and secondary analysis of trial data.

Methods

We administered a survey of 20 cases of S. aureus BSI, asking respondents to rank outcomes by global desirability. Correlations and percentage of pairwise agreement among rankings were estimated to inform development of a DOOR endpoint, which was applied to 2 prior S. aureus BSI trials. The probability that a patient randomly assigned to experimental treatment would have a better DOOR ranking than if assigned to control was estimated. Results were also analyzed using partial credit, which is analogous to scoring an academic test, assigning 100% to the most desirable outcome, 0% to the least, and "partial credit" to intermediate ranks.

Results

Forty-two recipients (97%) completed the survey. The DOOR endpoint fitting these rankings (r = 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.67 to 0.94) incorporated survival plus cumulative occurrence of adverse events, cure, infectious complications, and ongoing symptoms. Tailored versions of this endpoint were applied to 2 S. aureus BSI trials, and both demonstrated no benefit of the experimental treatment using DOOR and partial credit analysis.

Conclusions

Using S. aureus BSI as an exemplar, we developed a DOOR endpoint that can be used as a template for development of DOOR endpoints for other diseases. Future trials can incorporate DOOR to allow for global assessment of patient experience.

Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) is tasked with developing a clinical research agenda and conducting clinical studies to address the growing public health threat of antibacterial resistance. The ARLG has identified 4 high-priority areas of research: infections caused by gram-negative bacteria, infections caused by gram-positive bacteria, antimicrobial stewardship and infection prevention, and diagnostics. The ARLG will be accepting proposals from the scientific community for clinical research that addresses 1 or more of these high-priority areas. These studies should have the potential to transform medical practice and be unlikely to occur without ARLG support. The purpose of this article is to make interested parties aware of clinical research opportunities made available by ARLG and to encourage submission of clinical research proposals that address the problem of antibacterial resistance.

Background

Routine culturing of patients in intensive care units (ICUs) for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) identifies unrecognized carriers and facilitates timely isolation. However, the benefit of surveillance in detecting prevalent and incident carriers likely varies among ICUs. In addition, many assessments underestimate the incidence of acquisition by including prevalent carriers in the at-risk population.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study using accurate at-risk populations to evaluate the range of benefit of admission and weekly surveillance cultures in detecting otherwise unrecognized MRSA in 12 ICUs in 5 states.

Results

We assessed 142 ICU-months. Among the 12 ICUs, the admission prevalence of imported MRSA was 5%-21%, with admission surveillance providing 30%-135% increases in rates of detection. The monthly hospital-associated incidence was 2%-6%, with weekly surveillance providing 7%-157% increases in detection. The common practice of reporting incidence using the total number of patients or total patient-days underestimated incidence by one-third. Surgical ICUs had lower MRSA importation but higher MRSA incidence. Overall, routine surveillance prevented the misclassification of 17% (unit range, 11%-29%) of "incident" carriers, compared with clinical cultures, and increased precaution days by 18% (unit range, 11%-91%).

Conclusions

Routine surveillance significantly increases the detection of MRSA, but this benefit is not uniform across ICUs, even with high compliance and the use of correct denominators.

Evidence-based guidelines for implementation and measurement of antibiotic stewardship interventions in inpatient populations including long-term care were prepared by a multidisciplinary expert panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. The panel included clinicians and investigators representing internal medicine, emergency medicine, microbiology, critical care, surgery, epidemiology, pharmacy, and adult and pediatric infectious diseases specialties. These recommendations address the best approaches for antibiotic stewardship programs to influence the optimal use of antibiotics.

We evaluated antimicrobial exposure, discharge diagnoses, or both to identify surgical site infections (SSI). This retrospective cohort study in 13 hospitals involved weighted, random samples of records from 8,739 coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures, 7,399 cesarean deliveries, and 6,175 breast procedures. We compared routine surveillance to detection through inpatient antimicrobial exposure (> 9 days for CABG, > 2 days for cesareans, and > 6 days for breast procedures), discharge diagnoses, or both. Together, all methods identified SSI after 7.4% of CABG, 5.0% of cesareans, and 2.0% of breast procedures. Antimicrobial exposure had the highest sensitivity, 88%-91%, compared with routine surveillance, 38%-64%. Diagnosis codes improved sensitivity of detection of antimicrobial exposure after cesareans. Record review confirmed SSI after 31% to 38% of procedures that met antimicrobial surveillance criteria. Sufficient antimicrobial exposure days, together with diagnosis codes for cesareans, identified more postoperative SSI than routine surveillance methods. This screening method was efficient, readily standardized, and suitable for most hospitals.