The Impact of Antimicrobial Therapy Duration in the Treatment of Prosthetic Joint Infections Depending on Surgical Strategies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The aim of this systematic review was to address the question if short antibiotic treatment (SAT; at least 4 but <12 weeks) versus long antibiotic treatment (LAT) affects outcomes in prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Database research (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane) retrieved 3740 articles, of which 10 studies were included in the analysis. Compared to LAT, 11% lower odds of treatment failure in the SAT group were found, although the difference was not statistically significant (pooled odds ratio, 0.89 [95% confidence interval, .53-1.50]). No difference in treatment failure was found between SAT and LAT once stratified by type of surgery, studies conducted in the United States versus Europe, study design, and follow-up. There is still no conclusive evidence that antibiotic treatment of PJIs for 12 weeks or longer is associated with better outcomes, irrespective of the type of surgical procedure. Most recent, high-quality studies tend to favor longer antibiotic courses, making them preferable in most situations

Variation in antibiotic use among and within different settings: a systematic review

Objectives: Variation in antibiotic use may reflect inappropriate use. We aimed to systematically describe the variation in measures for antibiotic use among settings or providers. This study was conducted as part of the innovative medicines initiative (IMI)-funded international project DRIVE-AB. Methods: We searched for studies published in MEDLINE from January 2004 to January 2015 reporting variation in measures for systemic antibiotic use (e.g. DDDs) in inpatient and outpatient settings. The ratio between a study's reported maximumand minimumvalues of a given measure [maximum: minimumratio (MMR)] was calculated as a measure of variation. Similar measures were grouped into categories and when possible the overall median ratio and IQR were calculated. Results: One hundred and forty-three studies were included, of which 85 (59.4%) were conducted in Europe and 12 (8.4%) in low-to middle-income countries. Most studies described the variation in the quantity of antibiotic use in the inpatient setting (81/143, 56.6%), especially among hospitals (41/81, 50.6%). Themost frequentmeasure was DDDs with different denominators, reported in 23/81 (28.4%) inpatient studies and in 28/62 (45.2%) outpatient studies. For this measure, we found a median MMR of 3.7 (IQR 2.6-5.0) in 4 studies reporting antibiotic use in ICUs in DDDs/1000 patient-days and a median MMR of 2.3 (IQR 1.5-3.2) in 18 studies reporting outpatient antibiotic use in DDDs/1000 inhabitant-days. Substantial variationwas also identified in othermeasures. Conclusions: Our review confirms the large variation in antibiotic use even across similar settings and providers. Data from low-and middle-income countries are under-represented. Further studies should try to better elucidate reasons for the observed variation to facilitate interventions that reduce unwarranted practice variation. In addition, the heterogeneity of reported measures clearly shows that there is need for standardization

Antibiotic research and development: business as usual?

This article contends that poor economic incentives are an important reason for the lack of new drugs and explains how the DRIVE-AB intends to change the landscape by harnessing the expertise, motivation and diversity of its partner

Metrics to assess the quantity of antibiotic use in the outpatient setting: a systematic review followed by an international multidisciplinary consensus procedure

Background The international Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) project DRIVE-AB (Driving Reinvestment in Research and Development and Responsible Antibiotic Use) aims to develop a global definition of ‘responsible’ antibiotic use. Objectives To identify consensually validated quantity metrics for antibiotic use in the outpatient setting. Methods First, outpatient quantity metrics (OQMs) were identified by a systematic search of literature and web sites published until 12 December 2014. Identified OQMs were evaluated by a multidisciplinary, international stakeholder panel using a RAND-modified Delphi procedure. Two online questionnaires and a face-to-face meeting between them were conducted to assess OQM relevance for measuring the quantity of antibiotic use on a nine-point Likert scale, to add comments or to propose new metrics. Results A total of 597 articles were screened, 177 studies met criteria for full-text screening and 138 were finally included. Twenty different OQMs were identified and appraised by 23 stakeholders. During the first survey, 14 OQMs were excluded and 6 qualified for discussion. During the face-to-face meeting, 10 stakeholders retained five OQMs and suggestions were made considering context and combination of metrics. The final set of metrics included defined daily doses, treatments/courses and prescriptions per defined population, treatments/courses and prescriptions per defined number of physician contacts and seasonal variation of total antibiotic use. Conclusions A small set of consensually validated metrics to assess the quantity of antibiotic use in the outpatient setting was obtained, enabling (inter)national comparisons. The OQMs will help build a global conceptual framework for responsible antibiotic use

Quality indicators for responsible antibiotic use in the inpatient setting: a systematic review followed by an international multidisciplinary consensus procedure

Background This study was conducted as part of the Driving Reinvestment in Research and Development and Responsible Antibiotic Use (DRIVE-AB) project and aimed to develop generic quality indicators (QIs) for responsible antibiotic use in the inpatient setting. Methods A RAND-modified Delphi method was applied. First, QIs were identified by a systematic review. A complementary search was performed on web sites of relevant organizations. Duplicates were removed and disease and patient-specific QIs were combined into generic indicators. The relevance of these QIs was appraised by a multidisciplinary international stakeholder panel through two questionnaires and an in-between consensus meeting. Results The systematic review retrieved 70 potential generic QIs. The QIs were appraised by 25 international stakeholders with diverse backgrounds (medical community, public health, patients, antibiotic research and development, regulators, governments). Ultimately, 51 QIs were selected in consensus. QIs with the highest relevance score included: (i) an antibiotic plan should be documented in the medical record at the start of the antibiotic treatment; (ii) the results of bacteriological susceptibility testing should be documented in the medical record; (iii) the local guidelines should correspond to the national guidelines but should be adapted based on local resistance patterns; (iv) an antibiotic stewardship programme should be in place at the healthcare facility; and (v) allergy status should be taken into account when antibiotics are prescribed. Conclusions This systematic and stepwise method combining evidence from literature and stakeholder opinion led to multidisciplinary international consensus on generic inpatient QIs that can be used globally to assess the quality of antibiotic use

Dolutegravir maintains a durable effect against HIV replication in tissue culture even after drug washout

Photograph of the exterior of the Choctaw Nation Capitol building

Selective reporting of antibiotic susceptibility testing results: a promising antibiotic stewardship tool

International audienc

Control of Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Healthcare Facilities: A Systematic Review and Reanalysis of Quasi-experimental Studies

Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPsA) are a serious cause of healthcare-associated infections, although the evidence for their control remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and reanalysis to assess infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions on CRE-CRAB-CRPsA in inpatient healthcare facilities to inform World Health Organization guidelines. Six major databases and conference abstracts were searched. Before-and-after studies were reanalyzed as interrupted time series if possible. Effective practice and organization of care (EPOC) quality criteria were used. Seventy-six studies were identified, of which 17 (22%) were EPOC-compatible and interrupted time series analyses, assessing CRE (n = 11; 65%), CRAB (n = 5; 29%) and CRPsA (n = 3; 18%). IPC measures were often implemented using a multimodal approach (CRE: 10/11; CRAB: 4/5; CRPsA: 3/3). Among all CRE-CRAB-CRPsA EPOC studies, the most frequent intervention components included contact precautions (90%), active surveillance cultures (80%), monitoring, audit and feedback of measures (80%), patient isolation or cohorting (70%), hand hygiene (50%), and environmental cleaning (40%); nearly all studies with these interventions reported a significant reduction in slope and/or level. The quality of EPOC studies was very low to low