Evaluation of early implementations of antibiotic stewardship program initiatives in nine Dutch hospitals

Background Antibiotic resistance is a global threat to patient safety and care. In response, hospitals start antibiotic stewardship programs to optimise antibiotic use. Expert-based guidelines recommend strategies to implement such programs, but local implementations may differ per hospital. Earlier published assessments determine maturity of antibiotic stewardship programs based on expert-based structure indicators, but they disregard that there may be valid deviations from these expert-based programs. Aim To analyse the progress and barriers of local implementations of antibiotic stewardship programs with stakeholders in nine Dutch hospitals and to develop a toolkit that guides implementing local antibiotic stewardship programs. Methods An online questionnaire based on published guidelines and recommendations, conducted with seven clinical microbiologists, seven infectious disease physicians and five clinical pharmacists at nine Dutch hospitals. Results Results show local differences in antibiotic stewardship programs and the uptake of interventions in hospitals. Antibiotic guidelines and antibiotic teams are the most extensively implemented interventions. Education, decision support and audit-feedback are deemed important interventions and they are either piloted in implementations at academic hospitals or in preparation for application in non-academic hospitals. Other interventions that are recommended in guidelines - benchmarking, restriction and antibiotic formulary - appear to have a lower priority. Automatic stop-order, pre-authorization, automatic substitution, antibiotic cycling are not deemed to be worthwhile according to respondents. Conclusion There are extensive local differences in the implementation of antibiotic stewardship interventions. These differences suggest a need to further explore the rationale behind the choice of interventions in antibiotic stewardship programs. Rather than reporting this rationale, this study reports where rationale can play a key role in the implementation of antibiotic stewardship programs. A one-size-fits-all solution is unfeasible as there may be barriers or valid reasons for local experts to deviate from expert-based guidelines. Local experts can be supported with a toolkit containing advice based on possible barriers and considerations. These parameters can be used to customise an implementation of antibiotic stewardship programs to local needs (while retaining its expert-based foundation)

Characterization of a CTX-M-15 Producing Klebsiella Pneumoniae Outbreak Strain Assigned to a Novel Sequence Type (1427)

Extended-spectrum ß-lactamase producing Klebsiella pneumoniae have emerged as one of the major nosocomial pathogens. Between July and September 2012, a CTX-M-15 producing K. pneumoniae caused an outbreak in a university hospital in the Netherlands. The outbreak isolates were characterized and assigned to a novel sequence type (ST1427). An epidemiological link between affected patients was supported by patient contact tracing and whole-genome phylogenetic analysis. Genetic diversity was detected among multiple isolates obtained from different body sites of the index patient, which may relate to antibiotic treatment and/or host adaptation. Environmental contamination caused by the outbreak clone was found in the patient rooms even on medical equipment. The novel clone was not closely related to any known endemic/epidemic clone, but carried a set of a plasmid-borne resistance genes (blaCTX-M-15, blaTEM-1, blaOXA-1, aac(6')-Ib-cr, qnrB1, tetA(A), aac(3)-II). Analysis of its virulence factors revealed a previously uncharacterized capsular biosynthesis region and two uncharacterized fimbriae gene clusters, and suggested that the new clone was not hypervirulent. To our knowledge, this is the first outbreak report of K. pneumoniae ST1427, and our study could be of help to understand the features of this newly emerging clone

Financial evaluations of antibiotic stewardship programs:a systematic review

Introduction: There is an increasing awareness to counteract problems due to incorrect antimicrobial use. Interventions that are implemented are often part of an Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (ASPs). Studies publishing results from these interventions are increasing, including reports on the economical effects of ASPs. This review will look at the economical sections of these studies and the methods that were used. Methods: A systematic review was performed of articles found in the PubMed and EMBASE databases published from 2000 until November 2014. Included studies found were scored for various aspects and the quality of the papers was assessed following an appropriate check list (CH EC criteria list). Results: 1233 studies were found, of which 149 were read completely. Ninety-nine were included in the final review. Of these studies, 57 only mentioned the costs associated with the antimicrobial medication. Others also included operational costs (n = 23), costs for hospital stay (n = 18), and/or other costs (n = 19). Nine studies were further assessed for their quality. These studies scored between 2 and 14 out of a potential total score of 19. Conclusions: This review gives an extensive overview of the current financial evaluation of ASPs and the quality of these economical studies. We show that there is still major potential to improve financial evaluations of ASPs. Studies do not use similar nor consistent methods or outcome measures, making it impossible draw sound conclusions and compare different studies. Finally, we make some recommendations for the future

Infective endocarditis caused by Enterobacteriaceae:phenotypic and molecular characterization of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

The etiological agent for infective endocarditis (IE), a life-threatening disease, is usually gram-positive bacteria. However, gram-negative bacteria can rarely cause IE and 4% of cases are associated with morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to characterize Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates from the blood of patients with IE. The characteristics of blood isolates were compared with those of urinary isolates from patients with urinary tract infections (UTIs). The results of this study revealed that K. pneumoniae isolates from patients with IE were phylogenetically related to those from patients with UTI. Additionally, the resistance phenotype, resistance gene, virulence gene, and plasmid profiles were similar between the blood and urinary isolates. The isolates belonging to the sequence types (STs) 76, 36, 101 (K. pneumoniae), and 69 (E. coli) are reported to be associated with drug resistance. The Enterobacteriaceae isolates from patients with IE did not produce extended-spectrum β-lactamase or carbapenemase. Additionally, this study investigated the virulence phenotype, biofilm formation ability, and the ability to adhere to the epithelial cells in vitro of the isolates. The isolates from patients with IE exhibited weaker biofilm formation ability than the urinary isolates. All isolates from patients with IE could adhere to the renal epithelial cells. However, three isolates from patients with UTIs could not adhere to the epithelial cells. The closely related K. pneumoniae isolates (648, KP1, KP2, KP3, and KP4) could not form biofilms or adhere to the epithelial cells. In summary, the molecular analysis revealed that the genetic characteristics of IE-causing K. pneumoniae and E. coli were similar to those of UTI-causing isolates. These isolates belonged to the STs that are considered treatable. Genetically similar isolates did not exhibit the same virulence phenotype. Thus, these non-hypervirulent clones must be monitored as they can cause complex infections in susceptible hosts

Cost-minimization model of a multidisciplinary Antibiotic Stewardship Team based on a successful implementation on a urology ward of an academic hospital

BackgroundIn order to stimulate appropriate antimicrobial use and thereby lower the chances of resistance development, an Antibiotic Stewardship Team (A-Team) has been implemented at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. Focus of the A-Team was a pro-active day 2 case-audit, which was financially evaluated here to calculate the return on investment from a hospital perspective.MethodsEffects were evaluated by comparing audited patients with a historic cohort with the same diagnosis-related groups. Based upon this evaluation a cost-minimization model was created that can be used to predict the financial effects of a day 2 case-audit. Sensitivity analyses were performed to deal with uncertainties. Finally, the model was used to financially evaluate the A-Team.ResultsOne whole year including 114 patients was evaluated. Implementation costs were calculated to be (sic)17,732, which represent total costs spent to implement this A-Team. For this specific patient group admitted to a urology ward and consulted on day 2 by the A-Team, the model estimated total savings of (sic)60,306 after one year for this single department, leading to a return on investment of 5.9.ConclusionsThe implemented multi-disciplinary A-Team performing a day 2 case-audit in the hospital had a positive return on investment caused by a reduced length of stay due to a more appropriate antibiotic therapy. Based on the extensive data analysis, a model of this intervention could be constructed. This model could be used by other institutions, using their own data to estimate the effects of a day 2 case-audit in their hospital.</p

An integrated stewardship model: antimicrobial, infection prevention and diagnostic (AID)

Considering the threat of antimicrobial resistance and the difficulties it entails in treating infections, it is necessary to cross borders and approach infection management in an integrated, multidisciplinary manner. We propose the antimicrobial, infection prevention and diagnostic stewardship model comprising three intertwined programs: antimicrobial, infection prevention and diagnostic stewardship, involving all stakeholders. The focus is a so-called ‘theragnostics’ approach. This leads to a personalized infection management plan, improving patient care and minimizing resistance development. Furthermore, it is important that healthcare regions nationally and internationally work together, ensuring that the patient (and microorganism) transfers will not cause problems in a neighboring institution. This antimicrobial, infection prevention and diagnostic stewardship model can serve as a blue print to implement innovative, integrative infection management

Cost-analysis of seven nosocomial outbreaks in an academic hospital

OBJECTIVES:Nosocomial outbreaks, especially with (multi-)resistant microorganisms, are a major problem for health care institutions. They can cause morbidity and mortality for patients and controlling these costs substantial amounts of funds and resources. However, how much is unclear. This study sets out to provide a comparable overview of the costs of multiple outbreaks in a single academic hospital in the Netherlands. METHODS:Based on interviews with the involved staff, multiple databases and stored records from the Infection Prevention Division all actions undertaken, extra staff employment, use of resources, bed-occupancy rates, and other miscellaneous cost drivers during different outbreaks were scored and quantified into Euros. This led to total costs per outbreak and an estimated average cost per positive patient per outbreak day. RESULTS:Seven outbreaks that occurred between 2012 and 2014 in the hospital were evaluated. Total costs for the hospital ranged between €10,778 and €356,754. Costs per positive patient per outbreak day, ranged between €10 and €1,369 (95% CI: €49-€1,042), with a mean of €546 and a median of €519. Majority of the costs (50%) were made because of closed beds. CONCLUSIONS:This analysis is the first to give a comparable overview of various outbreaks, caused by different microorganisms, in the same hospital and all analyzed with the same method. It shows a large variation within the average costs due to different factors (e.g. closure of wards, type of ward). All outbreaks however cost considerable amounts of efforts and money (up to €356,754), including missed revenue and control measures