Antimicrobial Use in Pediatric Oncology and Hematology: Protocol for a Multicenter Point-Prevalence Study With Qualitative Expert Panel Assessment

Background: Because infections are a major driver of morbidity and mortality in children with hematologic or oncologic diseases, antimicrobials are frequently prescribed in pediatric oncology practice. However, excess or inappropriate use of antimicrobials is directly linked to the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. Although point-prevalence studies have examined the extent of antimicrobial use, a comprehensive qualitative evaluation of individual antimicrobial prescriptions remains lacking. Objective: The aim of this study is to identify appropriate versus inappropriate antimicrobial use among pediatric cancer patients in a point-prevalence study, followed by an expert panel adjudication process and a subsequent report of these findings to participating centers. This study also aims to improve the quality of patient care by informing centers about discrepancies between internal standards of care and national guidelines. Methods: Our point-prevalence study is performed at pediatric cancer centers in Germany and Austria. All patients under 18 years old who are hospitalized at the time of the study are included. As a supplement to the point-prevalence study, an expert panel is qualitatively assessing each of the antimicrobial prescriptions at the participating centers to review local guidelines and compare them with national guidelines. Results: As of December 2021, the point-prevalence survey has been conducted at 30 sites and expert panel adjudication for qualitative assessment of each antimicrobial use is ongoing. Results of the study are expected in 2022. Conclusions: This is the first point-prevalence study conducted among pediatric cancer centers with an integrated, multistep, qualitative approach that assesses each antimicrobial prescription. The results of this study will inform possible interventions for internal guidelines and antimicrobial stewardship programs implemented at pediatric cancer centers. In addition, local guidelines will be compared with national guidelines. Furthermore, this study will contribute to the overall integration of antimicrobial stewardship principles and initiatives in pediatric oncology and hematology, thereby improving safety and quality of care for children and adolescents with cancer and blood disorders

TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand, interferon gamma-induced protein 10, and C-reactive protein in predicting the progression of SARS-CoV-2 infection : a prospective cohort study

Background: Early prognostication of COVID-19 severity will potentially improve patient care. Biomarkers, such as TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL), interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (IP-10), and C-reactive protein (CRP), might represent possible tools for point-of-care testing and severity prediction. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, we analyzed serum levels of TRAIL, IP-10, and CRP in patients with COVID-19, compared them with control subjects, and investigated the association with disease sever ity. Results: A total of 899 measurements were performed in 132 patients (mean age 64 years, 40.2% females). Among patients with COVID-19, TRAIL levels were lower (49.5 vs 87 pg/ml, P = 0.0142), whereas IP-10 and CRP showed higher levels (667.5 vs 127 pg/ml, P <0.001; 75.3 vs 1.6 mg/l, P <0.001) than healthy controls. TRAIL yielded an inverse correlation with length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, and National Early Warning Score, and IP-10 showed a positive cor relation with disease severity. Multivariable regression revealed that obesity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.434, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.005-29.38), CRP (aOR 1.014, 95% CI 1.002-1.027), and peak IP-10 (aOR 1.001, 95% CI 1.00-1.002) were independent predictors of in-ICU mortality

Antimicrobial use in pediatric oncology and hematology in Germany and Austria, 2020/2021: a cross-sectional, multi-center point-prevalence study with a multi-step qualitative adjudication process

Background Due to the high risk of severe infection among pediatric hematology and oncology patients, antimicrobial use is particularly high. With our study, we quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated, based on institutional standards and national guidelines, antimicrobial usage by employing a point-prevalence survey with a multi-step, expert panel approach. We analyzed reasons for inappropriate antimicrobial usage. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted at 30 pediatric hematology and oncology centers in 2020 and 2021. Centers affiliated to the German Society for Pediatric Oncology and Hematology were invited to join, and an existing institutional standard was a prerequisite to participate. We included hematologic/oncologic inpatients under 19 years old, who had a systemic antimicrobial treatment on the day of the point prevalence survey. In addition to a one-day, point-prevalence survey, external experts individually assessed the appropriateness of each therapy. This step was followed by an expert panel adjudication based upon the participating centers’ institutional standards, as well as upon national guidelines. We analyzed antimicrobial prevalence rate, along with the rate of appropriate, inappropriate, and indeterminate antimicrobial therapies with regard to institutional and national guidelines. We compared the results of academic and non-academic centers, and performed a multinomial logistic regression using center- and patient-related data to identify variables that predict inappropriate therapy. Findings At the time of the study, a total of 342 patients were hospitalized at 30 hospitals, of whom 320 were included for the calculation of the antimicrobial prevalence rate. The overall antimicrobial prevalence rate was 44.4% (142/320; range 11.1–78.6%) with a median antimicrobial prevalence rate per center of 44.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 35.9–49.9). Antimicrobial prevalence rate was significantly higher (p < 0.001) at academic centers (median 50.0%; 95% CI 41.2–55.2) compared to non-academic centers (median 20.0%; 95% CI 11.0–32.4). After expert panel adjudication, 33.8% (48/142) of all therapies were labelled inappropriate based upon institutional standards, with a higher rate (47.9% [68/142]) when national guidelines were taken into consideration. The most frequent reasons for inappropriate therapy were incorrect dosage (26.2% [37/141]) and (de-)escalation/spectrum-related errors (20.6% [29/141]). Multinomial, logistic regression yielded the number of antimicrobial drugs (odds ratio, OR, 3.13, 95% CI 1.76–5.54, p < 0.001), the diagnosis febrile neutropenia (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.06–0.51, p = 0.0015), and an existing pediatric antimicrobial stewardship program (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15–0.84, p = 0.019) as predictors of inappropriate therapy. Our analysis revealed no evidence of a difference between academic and non-academic centers regarding appropriate usage. Interpretation Our study revealed there to be high levels of antimicrobial usage at German and Austrian pediatric oncology and hematology centers with a significant higher number at academic centers. Incorrect dosing was shown to be the most frequent reason for inappropriate usage. Diagnosis of febrile neutropenia and antimicrobial stewardship programs were associated with a lower likelihood of inappropriate therapy. These findings suggest the importance of febrile neutropenia guidelines and guidelines compliance, as well as the need for regular antibiotic stewardship counselling at pediatric oncology and hematology centers. Funding European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Pädiatrische Infektiologie, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Krankenhaushygiene, Stiftung Kreissparkasse Saarbrücken

Discrepancies between national and local guidelines for the management of paediatric oncology patients with fever and neutropenia (FN): A need for alignment?

Background: We previously demonstrated in a large multicentre point prevalence study (PPS) a marked variability across German and Austrian centres regarding the management of fever and neutropenia (FN) in children, and a high rate of inappropriate treatments compared to recommendations in the German national FN guidelines. Methods: We analysed local FN standard operating procedures (SOPs) of participating centres and rated their concordance with the German national FN guidelines. To this end, we defined items derived from the German national FN guidelines that we considered essential for any local FN SOP, and assigned points per items. The items comprised “basic requirements of a SOP”; “risk analysis”; “diagnostic approach”; and “use of antibiotics including dosing recommendations”, including sub-categories. Results: Of the 30 participating centres’ SOPs, 29 were of sufficient granularity for detailed analysis. Only 19/29 (66%) and 20/29 (69%) of the SOPs provided a definition of fever and of neutropenia, respectively. The top scoring sub-categories were “empiric treatment” (mean percentage 69%), “laboratory investigations” (62.4%), and “SOP basics” (59.7%). The worst scoring sub-categories were “definitions” (37.7%), “risk analysis” (32.3%), and “outpatient treatment” (15.7%). Conclusions: The majority of the local FN SOPs demonstrated a lack of concordance with the German national guidelines on the management of paediatric FN. These discrepancies may explain the high rate of inappropriate antimicrobial treatments in our previous PPS. Our data indicate that local SOPs should be better adapted to national guidelines, and national guidelines should be conceived with the feedback of end-users, thereby anticipating barriers and facilitating acceptance