A multifaceted quality improvement project improves intraoperative redosing of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis during pediatric surgery

BackgroundAccurate intraoperative antibiotic redosing contributes to prevention of surgical site infections in pediatric patients. Ensuring compliance with evolving national guidelines of weight‐based, intraoperative redosing of antibiotics is challenging to pediatric anesthesiologists.AimsOur primary aim was to increase compliance of antibiotic redoses at the appropriate time and appropriate weight‐based dose to 70%. Secondary aims included a subset analysis of time compliance and dose compliance individually, and compliance based on order entry method of the first dose (verbal or electronic).MethodsAt a freestanding, academic pediatric hospital, we reviewed surgical cases between May 1, 2014, and October 31, 2017 requiring antibiotic redoses. After an institutional change in cefazolin dosing in May 2015, phased interventions to improve compliance included electronic countermeasures to display previous and next dose timing, an alert 5 minutes prior to next dose, and weight‐based dose recommendation (September 2015). Physical countermeasures include badge cards, posting of guidelines, and updates to housestaff manual (September 2015). Statistical process control charts were used to assess overall antibiotic redose compliance, time compliance, and dose compliance. The chi‐square test was used to analyze group differences.ResultsA total of 3015 antibiotic redoses were administered during 2341 operative cases between May 1, 2014, and October 31, 2017. Mean monthly compliance with redosing was 4.3% (May 2014‐April 2015) and 73% (November 2015‐October 2017) (P < 0.001). Dose‐only compliance increased from 76% to 89% (P < 0.001), and time‐only compliance increased from 4.9% to 82% (P < 0.001). After implementation of countermeasures, electronic order entry compared with verbal order was associated with higher dose compliance, 90% vs 86% (P = 0.015).ConclusionThis quality improvement project, utilizing electronic and physical interventions, was effective in improving overall prophylactic antibiotic redosing compliance in accordance with institutional redosing guidelines.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/150557/1/pan13651_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/150557/2/pan13651.pd

The current state of antifungal stewardship among pediatric antimicrobial stewardship programs

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the current state of antifungal stewardship practices and perceptions of antifungal use among pediatric antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). DESIGN: We developed and distributed an electronic survey, which included 17 closed-ended questions about institutional antifungal stewardship practices and perceptions, among pediatric ASPs. PARTICIPANTS: ASP physicians and pharmacists of 74 hospitals participating in the multicenter Sharing Antimicrobial Reports for Pediatric Stewardship (SHARPS) Collaborative. RESULTS: We sent surveys to 74 hospitals and received 68 unique responses, for a response rate of 92%. Overall, 63 of 68 the respondent ASPs (93%) reported that they conduct 1 or more antifungal stewardship activities. Of these 68 hospital ASPs, 43 (63%) perform prospective audit and feedback (PAF) of antifungals. The most common reasons reported for not performing PAF of antifungals were not enough time or resources (19 of 25, 76%) and minimal institutional antifungal use (6 of 25, 24%). Also, 52 hospitals (76%) require preauthorization for 1 or more antifungal agents. The most commonly restricted antifungals were isavuconazole (42 of 52 hospitals, 80%) and posaconazole (39 of 52 hospitals, 75%). Furthermore, 33 ASPs (48%) agreed or strongly agreed that antifungals are inappropriately used at their institution, and only 25 of 68 (37%) of ASPs felt very confident making recommendations about antifungals. CONCLUSIONS: Most pediatric ASPs steward antifungals, but the strategies employed are highly variable across surveyed institutions. Although nearly half of respondents identified inappropriate antifungal use as a problem at their institution, most ASPs do not feel confident making recommendations about antifungals. Future studies are needed to determine the rate of inappropriate antifungal use and the best antifungal stewardship strategies

Characteristics of antifungal utilization for hospitalized children in the United States

OBJECTIVE: To characterize antifungal prescribing patterns, including the indication for antifungal use, in hospitalized children across the United States. DESIGN: We analyzed antifungal prescribing data from 32 hospitals that participated in the SHARPS Antibiotic Resistance, Prescribing, and Efficacy among Children (SHARPEC) study, a cross-sectional point-prevalence survey conducted between June 2016 and December 2017. METHODS: Inpatients aged \u3c18 years with an active systemic antifungal order were included in the analysis. We classified antifungal prescribing by indication (ie, prophylaxis, empiric, targeted), and we compared the proportion of patients in each category based on patient and antifungal characteristics. RESULTS: Among 34,927 surveyed patients, 2,095 (6%) received at least 1 systemic antifungal and there were 2,207 antifungal prescriptions. Most patients had an underlying oncology or bone marrow transplant diagnosis (57%) or were premature (13%). The most prescribed antifungal was fluconazole (48%) and the most common indication for antifungal use was prophylaxis (64%). Of 2,095 patients receiving antifungals, 79 (4%) were prescribed \u3e1 antifungal, most often as targeted therapy (48%). The antifungal prescribing rate ranged from 13.6 to 131.2 antifungals per 1,000 patients across hospitals ( CONCLUSIONS: Most antifungal use in hospitalized children was for prophylaxis, and the rate of antifungal prescribing varied significantly across hospitals. Potential targets for antifungal stewardship efforts include high-risk, high-utilization populations, such as oncology and bone marrow transplant patients, and specific patterns of utilization, including prophylactic and combination antifungal therapy

Suboptimal antimicrobial discharge prescriptions at a tertiary referral children’s hospital

Abstract Objective: To determine the rate of and factors associated with suboptimal discharge antimicrobial prescribing at a tertiary referral children’s hospital. Design: Retrospective cohort. Setting: Tertiary referral children’s hospital. Population: All enteral antimicrobial discharge prescriptions at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford from January 1st, 2021 through December 31st, 2021. Method: All enteral discharge antimicrobials are routinely evaluated by our antimicrobial stewardship program within 48 hours of hospital discharge. Antimicrobials are determined to be optimal or suboptimal by an antimicrobial stewardship pharmacist after evaluating the prescribed choice of antimicrobial, dose, duration, dosing frequency, and formulation. The rate and factors associated with suboptimal antimicrobial discharge prescribing were evaluated. Results: Of 2,593 antimicrobial prescriptions ordered at discharge, 19.7% were suboptimal. Suboptimal prescriptions were due to incorrect duration (72.2%), dose (31.0%), dose frequency (23.3%), drug choice (6.5%), or formulation (5.7%). In total, 87.2% of antimicrobials for perioperative prophylaxis and 13.5% of treatment antimicrobials were suboptimal. Antimicrobials with the highest rate of suboptimal prescriptions were amoxicillin-clavulanate (40.7%), clindamycin (36.6%), and cephalexin (36.6%). Conclusion: Suboptimal antimicrobial discharge prescriptions are common and present an opportunity for antimicrobial stewardship programs during hospital transition of care. Factors associated with suboptimal prescriptions differ by antimicrobial and prescribed indication, indicating that multiple stewardship interventions may be needed to improve prescribing

Pediatric antimicrobial stewardship practices at discharge: A national survey

We surveyed pediatric antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) site leaders within the Sharing Antimicrobial Reports for Pediatric Stewardship collaborative regarding discharge stewardship practices. Among 67 sites, 13 (19%) reported ASP review of discharge antimicrobial prescriptions. These findings highlight discharge stewardship as a potential opportunity for improvement during the hospital-to-home transition

Updated Guidance on Use and Prioritization of Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for Treatment of COVID-19 in Adolescents

BackgroundStarting in November 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for multiple novel virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibody therapies, including bamlanivimab monotherapy (now revoked), bamlanivimab and etesivimab, casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV), and sotrovimab, for treatment or postexposure prophylaxis of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adolescents (≥12 years of age) and adults with certain high-risk conditions. Previous guidance is now updated based on new evidence and clinical experience.MethodsA panel of experts in pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric infectious diseases pharmacotherapy, and pediatric critical care medicine from 18 geographically diverse US institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a guidance statement was developed and refined based on a review of the best available evidence and expert opinion.ResultsThe course of COVID-19 in children and adolescents is typically mild, though more severe disease is occasionally observed. Evidence supporting risk stratification is incomplete. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the benefit of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific monoclonal antibody therapies in adults, but data on safety and efficacy in children or adolescents are limited. Potential harms associated with infusion reactions or anaphylaxis are reportedly low in adults.ConclusionsBased on evidence available as of August 31, 2021, the panel suggests a risk-based approach to administration of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody therapy. Therapy is suggested for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adolescents (≥12 years of age) at the highest risk of progression to hospitalization or severe disease. Therapeutic decision-making about those at moderate risk of severe disease should be individualized. Use as postexposure prophylaxis could be considered for those at the highest risk who have a high-risk exposure but are not yet diagnosed with COVID-19. Clinicians and health systems should ensure safe and timely implementation of these therapeutics that does not exacerbate existing healthcare disparities

Multicenter initial guidance on use of antivirals for children with COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2

BackgroundAlthough coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is mild in nearly all children, a small proportion of pediatric patients develop severe or critical illness. Guidance is therefore needed regarding use of agents with potential activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in pediatrics.MethodsA panel of pediatric infectious diseases physicians and pharmacists from 18 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a set of guidance statements was developed and refined based on review of best available evidence and expert opinion.ResultsGiven the typically mild course of pediatric COVID-19, supportive care alone is suggested for the overwhelming majority of cases. The panel suggests a decision-making framework for antiviral therapy that weighs risks and benefits based on disease severity as indicated by respiratory support needs, with consideration on a case-by-case basis of potential pediatric risk factors for disease progression. If an antiviral is used, the panel suggests remdesivir as the preferred agent. Hydroxychloroquine could be considered for patients who are not candidates for remdesivir or when remdesivir is not available. Antivirals should preferably be used as part of a clinical trial if available.ConclusionsAntiviral therapy for COVID-19 is not necessary for the great majority of pediatric patients. For those rare cases of severe or critical disease, this guidance offers an approach for decision-making regarding antivirals, informed by available data. As evidence continues to evolve rapidly, the need for updates to the guidance is anticipated

Multicenter interim guidance on use of antivirals for children with COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2

BackgroundAlthough coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a mild infection in most children, a small proportion develop severe or critical illness. Data describing agents with potential antiviral activity continue to expand such that updated guidance is needed regarding use of these agents in children.MethodsA panel of pediatric infectious diseases physicians and pharmacists from 20 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a set of guidance statements was developed and refined based on review of the best available evidence and expert opinion.ResultsGiven the typically mild course of COVID-19 in children, supportive care alone is suggested for most cases. For children with severe illness, defined as a supplemental oxygen requirement without need for noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), remdesivir is suggested, preferably as part of a clinical trial if available. Remdesivir should also be considered for critically ill children requiring invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO. A duration of 5 days is appropriate for most patients. The panel recommends against the use of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir (or other protease inhibitors) for COVID-19 in children.ConclusionsAntiviral therapy for COVID-19 is not necessary for the great majority of pediatric patients. For children with severe or critical disease, this guidance offers an approach for decision-making regarding use of remdesivir

Initial Guidance on Use of Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for Treatment of COVID-19 in Children and Adolescents

BackgroundIn November 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provided Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for 2 novel virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibody therapies, bamlanivimab and REGN-COV2 (casirivimab plus imdevimab), for the treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adolescents and adults in specified high-risk groups. This has challenged clinicians to determine the best approach to use of these products.MethodsA panel of experts in pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric infectious diseases pharmacy, pediatric intensive care medicine, and pediatric hematology from 29 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a guidance statement was developed and refined based on review of the best available evidence and expert opinion.ResultsThe course of COVID-19 in children and adolescents is typically mild and there is no high-quality evidence supporting any high-risk groups. There is no evidence for safety and efficacy of monoclonal antibody therapy for treatment of COVID-19 in children or adolescents, limited evidence of modest benefit in adults, and evidence for potential harm associated with infusion reactions or anaphylaxis.ConclusionsBased on evidence available as of December 20, 2020, the panel suggests against routine administration of monoclonal antibody therapy (bamlanivimab, or casirivimab and imdevimab), for treatment of COVID-19 in children or adolescents, including those designated by the FDA as at high risk of progression to hospitalization or severe disease. Clinicians and health systems choosing to use these agents on an individualized basis should consider risk factors supported by pediatric-specific evidence and ensure the implementation of a system for safe and timely administration that does not exacerbate existing healthcare disparities