U Ni Riain1, M Tierney2, C Doyle3, A Vellinga4, C Fleming3, M Cormican4. 1. Department of Medical Microbiology, University Hospital Galway, Newcastle Rd, Galway, Ireland. Una.NiRiain@hse.ie. 2. Pharmacy Department, University Hospital Galway, Galway, Ireland. 3. Department of Infectious Diseases, University Hospital Galway, Galway, Ireland. 4. Discipline of Bacteriology, School of Medicine, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Use of meropenem in our hospital has doubled in recent years. An audit in 2013 showed that although initiation of therapy with meropenem was generally appropriate, therapy was rarely subsequently reviewed and de-escalated where appropriate. Therefore, a structured stewardship initiative focussed on meropenem de-escalation was developed. METHODS: A local guideline for review and de-escalation of meropenem was developed and approved by the Antimicrobial Stewardship Team. The guideline outlined clinical and microbiological criteria which when met should lead to recommendation for meropenem de-escalation. Implementation of the guideline was piloted for a period of 4 weeks by a consultant microbiologist and an antimicrobial pharmacist. Days of meropenem use and crude mortality in those in whom de-escalation was implemented were compared with those where de-escalation was not recommended or was recommended but not implemented. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were reviewed. Overall, a recommendation to de-escalate from meropenem to a specified alternative antibiotic was made for 18 (55 %) patients. This advice was followed for 12 (36 %) patients. The median days of meropenem use in patients where meropenem was de-escalated was 4.5 days (range 2-19) compared with 14 days (range 6-84) where de-escalation was not recommended or the recommendation was not implemented. There was no statistically significant difference in crude mortality between patients de-escalated from meropenem and those where meropenem was continued. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that targeted carbapenem de-escalation stewardship activity based on pre-determined criteria, while labour intensive, can effectively and safely reduce meropenem use in the acute hospital setting.
OBJECTIVE: Use of meropenem in our hospital has doubled in recent years. An audit in 2013 showed that although initiation of therapy with meropenem was generally appropriate, therapy was rarely subsequently reviewed and de-escalated where appropriate. Therefore, a structured stewardship initiative focussed on meropenem de-escalation was developed. METHODS: A local guideline for review and de-escalation of meropenem was developed and approved by the Antimicrobial Stewardship Team. The guideline outlined clinical and microbiological criteria which when met should lead to recommendation for meropenem de-escalation. Implementation of the guideline was piloted for a period of 4 weeks by a consultant microbiologist and an antimicrobial pharmacist. Days of meropenem use and crude mortality in those in whom de-escalation was implemented were compared with those where de-escalation was not recommended or was recommended but not implemented. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were reviewed. Overall, a recommendation to de-escalate from meropenem to a specified alternative antibiotic was made for 18 (55 %) patients. This advice was followed for 12 (36 %) patients. The median days of meropenem use in patients where meropenem was de-escalated was 4.5 days (range 2-19) compared with 14 days (range 6-84) where de-escalation was not recommended or the recommendation was not implemented. There was no statistically significant difference in crude mortality between patients de-escalated from meropenem and those where meropenem was continued. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that targeted carbapenem de-escalation stewardship activity based on pre-determined criteria, while labour intensive, can effectively and safely reduce meropenem use in the acute hospital setting.
Authors: D Morris; M O'Connor; R Izdebski; M Corcoran; C E Ludden; E McGrath; V Buckley; B Cryan; M Gniadkowski; M Cormican Journal: Epidemiol Infect Date: 2015-06-26 Impact factor: 2.451
Authors: Dirk Vogelaers; David De Bels; Frédéric Forêt; Sophie Cran; Eric Gilbert; Karen Schoonheydt; Stijn Blot Journal: Int J Antimicrob Agents Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 5.283
Authors: L Silvia Munoz-Price; Laurent Poirel; Robert A Bonomo; Mitchell J Schwaber; George L Daikos; Martin Cormican; Giuseppe Cornaglia; Javier Garau; Marek Gniadkowski; Mary K Hayden; Karthikeyan Kumarasamy; David M Livermore; Juan J Maya; Patrice Nordmann; Jean B Patel; David L Paterson; Johann Pitout; Maria Virginia Villegas; Hui Wang; Neil Woodford; John P Quinn Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Yiying Cai; Pui Ying Shek; Isabelle Teo; Sarah S L Tang; Winnie Lee; Yi Xin Liew; Piotr Chlebicki; Andrea L Kwa Journal: Int J Antimicrob Agents Date: 2015-11-26 Impact factor: 5.283
Authors: Nicola K Petty; Nouri L Ben Zakour; Mitchell Stanton-Cook; Elizabeth Skippington; Makrina Totsika; Brian M Forde; Minh-Duy Phan; Danilo Gomes Moriel; Kate M Peters; Mark Davies; Benjamin A Rogers; Gordon Dougan; Jesús Rodriguez-Baño; Alvaro Pascual; Johann D D Pitout; Mathew Upton; David L Paterson; Timothy R Walsh; Mark A Schembri; Scott A Beatson Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-03-31 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jorge Alba Fernandez; Jose Luis Del Pozo; Jose Leiva; Mirian Fernandez-Alonso; Irene Aquerreta; Azucena Aldaz; Andres Blanco; Jose Ramón Yuste Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) Date: 2022-03-02