Literature DB >> 32973905

Impact of a pharmacist-driven antimicrobial stewardship program in a private hospital in Costa Rica.

José Pablo Díaz-Madriz1, Eugenia Cordero-García2, José Miguel Chaverri-Fernández2, Esteban Zavaleta-Monestel1, Josué Murillo-Cubero3, Hellen Piedra-Navarro2, Marian Hernández-Guillén2, Tiffany Jiménez-Méndez2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To measure the impact generated by the implementation of the pharmacy-driven antimicrobial stewardship program of the Clínica Bíblica Hospital.
METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study that evaluates the consumption of antibiotics for the periods before and during implementation of the Clínica Bíblica Hospital antimicrobial stewardship program, calculated by means of defined daily dose per 1 000 patient-days and days of therapy per 1 000 patient-days. In addition, bacterial resistance patterns for the periods 2014-2015 and 2016-2017 were compared.
RESULTS: Consumption of most-used antibiotics was calculated, looking for trends that might be associated with the activities implemented by the Clínica Bíblica Hospital antimicrobial stewardship program. Comparing some of the antibiotics with the highest consumption in periods I and II, use of levofloxacin and ceftriaxone showed a decrease of 54.0% (p < 0.001) and 14.6% (p = 0.003), respectively, whereas there was an increase in the use of cefazolin of 4 539.3% (p < 0.001). Regarding percentage of bacterial resistance, in most bacterial isolates no statistically significant changes were observed between the two periods.
CONCLUSIONS: A reduction in the overall consumption of antibiotics has been achieved over time, most likely attributable to the antimicrobial stewardship program. However, this trend was not observed for all the antibiotics studied. The pattern of resistance among the commonly isolated microorganisms did not vary greatly between the periods studied, which suggests that either the antimicrobial stewardship program may have prevented an increase in bacterial resistance since its implementation, or that it is too soon to see impact on bacterial resistance.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Antimicrobial stewardship; anti-infective agents; drug resistance, microbial; drug utilization

Year:  2020        PMID: 32973905      PMCID: PMC7498282          DOI: 10.26633/RPSP.2020.57

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rev Panam Salud Publica        ISSN: 1020-4989


Antimicrobials are a group of successful drugs that have allowed a radical change in the health landscape, reducing historical morbidity and mortality by preventing infectious diseases from being the main cause of death (1–3). However, in recent decades the indiscriminate use and abuse of these drugs in animals and humans has generated problems, including adverse reactions in patients, leading to an increase of unnecessary expenses for the health system and the appearance of bacterial resistance (4–9). Health centers are an ideal setting for the appearance of multidrug-resistant bacteria (7). Antimicrobial stewardship programs (AMS) have been established to address this problem, and to set standards and guidelines for health care professionals (10). The aim of this study was to measure the impact generated by the AMS of the Clínica Bíblica Hospital (AMS-HCB), one of the first hospitals in Central America to implement this initiative. The AMS-HCB is pharmacy driven and works without restrictions on the use of antimicrobials. The main practices implemented by this program are prospective audit and feedback, clinical guidelines development, and educational sessions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study conducted at the Clínica Bíblica Hospital, a 68-bed private health center located in San José, Costa Rica. The records of patients who received antibiotic therapy with any of the following medications were analyzed: meropenem, ertapenem, moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, cefazolin, cefalotin, vancomycin, ampicillin/sulbactam, and linezolid. The consumption levels for the period before implementation of the AMS, or period I (April 2013–March 2015), and during the implementation of the AMS, or period II (April 2015–March 2017), were determined by calculating the defined daily dose (DDD[1]) per 1 000 patient-days and days of therapy (DOT[2]) per 1 000 patient-days (1, 11–13). The results for both periods were compared using IBM SPSS software. When calculating the values of DDD per 1 000 patient-days and DOT per 1 000 patient-days, the monthly average of each of the antibiotics was calculated and subjected to a descriptive statistical analysis. The Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test was performed (14–16). In addition, bacterial resistance patterns were compared for the periods 2014–2015 and 2016–2017. These patterns were based on the resistance reports on bacteria cultivated in the hospital during these periods, as reported by the Clínica Bíblica Hospital’s Clinical Laboratory and Infection Prevention Committee. The resistance reports were obtained from the VITEK-2® automated identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing system. These data were analyzed using the chi-squared test, to identify statistically significant changes in resistance that might be associated with the implementation of the AMS. Regarding the data analysis, the first isolate of each infectious episode was considered, as well as the verification of the data by a microbiologist, and recommendations issued by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC) (17, 18). For Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis, elimination of some reports of resistance was required, due to the fact that they might have intrinsic resistance for some of the antibiotics studied. In addition, the report of colistin resistance was eliminated for all bacteria, as it is a more restricted antibiotic and requires a comprehensive analysis of each case before its use (19). Information for the study was obtained from the electronic clinical records from the Clínica Bíblica Hospital’s Hospitalized Patients Management system, Integrated Hospital Management System, and pharmacy records. The bacterial identification and resistance test results were also extracted through the computer system, along with other patient data of interest to the study. There was also access to the physical clinical records of these patients, as necessary. It is important to mention that the ethical use of the data and patient confidentiality were guaranteed at all times. This work was approved by the Clínica Bíblica Hospital and the Scientific Ethics Committee of the University of Costa Rica (VI-3253-2018). DDD is a clinical parameter established by the World Health Organization that represents the average daily dose of an antibiotic for a standard patient. DOT is defined as the number of days a patient has received antibiotics regardless of the prescribed dose.

RESULTS

DDD

With the data obtained from the study, a DDD calculation was made for every 1 000 patient-days for the 13 most-used antibiotics in the hospital. Table 1 compares the average use of antibiotics in the Clínica Bíblica Hospital in the two periods. Broad-spectrum antibiotics such as quinolones, third-generation cephalosporins, and carbapenems were found to be the most widely used.
TABLE 1.

Comparison of the changes in average of consumption as measured by DDD per 1 000 patient-days for the hospitalized population between periods I and II in Clínica Bíblica Hospital

 

DDD/1 000 patient-days

 

Period I

Period II

Magnitude of change

%

p

Amp/sulb

119.5

123.3

▴ 3.8

▴ 3.2

0.741

Cefalotin

26.4

18.9

▾ 7.5

▾ 28.4

0.006

Cefazolin

1.1

49.4

▴ 48.3

▴ 4 539.3

<0.001

Ceftazidime

27.0

25.2

▾ 1.8

▾ 6.6

0.523

Ceftriaxone

223.3

190.6

▾ 32.7

▾ 14.6

0.003

Cefuroxime

26.0

131.6

▴ 105.6

▴ 406.4

<0.001

Ciprofloxacin

218.8

215.6

▾ 3.2

▾ 1.5

0.470

Ertapenem

151.3

174.9

▴23.6

▴ 15.6

0.041

Levofloxacin

325.6

149.9

▾ 175.7

▾ 54.0

<0.001

Linezolid

69.0

79.8

▴ 10.8

▴15.5

0.174

Meropenem

108.4

86.8

▾ 21.6

▾ 19.9

0.076

Moxifloxacin

84.1

80.8

▾ 3.3

▾ 3.9

0.496

Vancomycin

74.7

56.1

▾ 18.6

▾ 25.0

0.029

Comparing the four antibiotics with the highest consumption in periods I and II, the DDD per 1 000 patient-days for levofloxacin showed a decrease of 54.0% (p < 0.001). Similarly, although with a smaller magnitude of change, ceftriaxone use decreased by 14.6% (p = 0.003), while the decrease in ciprofloxacin use was not statistically significant (1.5%, p = 0.47). In contrast, there was a statistically significant increase in the use of ertapenem by 15.6% (p = 0.041). Although their consumption was lower, there was an upward trend in use of some of the reduced-spectrum antibiotics following the implementation of the AMS-HCB. Such was the case for cefazolin and cefuroxime, which showed a significant increase in the DDD per 1 000 patient-days of 4 539.3% (p < 0.001) and 406.4% (p < 0.001), respectively. In addition, there were statistically significant decreases in the consumption of cefalotin and vancomycin by 28.4% (p = 0.006) and 25.0% (p = 0.029), respectively. DDD/1 000 patient-days Period I Period II Magnitude of change % p Amp/sulb 119.5 123.3 ▴ 3.8 ▴ 3.2 0.741 Cefalotin 26.4 18.9 ▾ 7.5 ▾ 28.4 0.006 Cefazolin 1.1 49.4 ▴ 48.3 ▴ 4 539.3 <0.001 Ceftazidime 27.0 25.2 ▾ 1.8 ▾ 6.6 0.523 Ceftriaxone 223.3 190.6 ▾ 32.7 ▾ 14.6 0.003 Cefuroxime 26.0 131.6 ▴ 105.6 ▴ 406.4 <0.001 Ciprofloxacin 218.8 215.6 ▾ 3.2 ▾ 1.5 0.470 Ertapenem 151.3 174.9 ▴23.6 ▴ 15.6 0.041 Levofloxacin 325.6 149.9 ▾ 175.7 ▾ 54.0 <0.001 Linezolid 69.0 79.8 ▴ 10.8 ▴15.5 0.174 Meropenem 108.4 86.8 ▾ 21.6 ▾ 19.9 0.076 Moxifloxacin 84.1 80.8 ▾ 3.3 ▾ 3.9 0.496 Vancomycin 74.7 56.1 ▾ 18.6 ▾ 25.0 0.029

DOT

For the 13 most-used antibiotics, calculated as DOT per 1 000 patient days, between period I and period II there was an apparent reduction of 3.2% (p = 0.108). This is equivalent to that calculated by DDD per 1 000 patient-days, 3.2% (p = 0.174), both not statistically significant. According to DOT per 1 000 patient-days, there was a highly significant decrease in consumption of ceftriaxone and levofloxacin, by 19.1% (p < 0.001) and 49.9% (p < 0.001), respectively (Table 2). There was also a statistically significant decrease in the consumption of meropenem and vancomycin, by 19.1% (p = 0.02) and 30.7% (p = 0.005), respectively. On the other hand, there was a significant increase of 17.4% (p = 0.037) in the consumption of ertapenem, the antibiotic with the second highest DOT per 1 000 patient-days in both periods I and II. This is similar to the results obtained according to DDD per 1 000 patient days.
TABLE 2.

Comparison of the changes in average consumption as measured by DOT per 1 000 patient-days for the hospitalized population between periods I and II in Clínica Bíblica Hospital

 

DOT/1 000 patient-days

 

Period I

Period II

Magnitude of change

%

p

Amp/sulb

51.0

43.3

▾ 7.8

▾ 15.2

0.364

Cefalotin

32.8

26.0

▾ 6.8

▾ 20.7

0.055

Cefazolin

2.2

50.1

▴ 48.0

▴ 2 215.1

<0.001

Ceftazidime

23.8

25.7

▴ 1.9

▴ 7.8

0.711

Ceftriaxone

265.1

214.5

▾ 50.6

▾19.1

<0.001

Cefuroxime

2.0

8.0

▴ 6.1

▴ 309.8

<0.001

Ciprofloxacin

48.3

57.6

▴ 9-3

▴ 19.3

0.274

Ertapenem

125.1

146.9

▴ 21.8

▴ 17.4

0.037

Levofloxacin

74.3

37.2

▾ 37.1

▾ 49.9

<0.001

Linezolid

44.1

61.0

▴ 16.9

▴ 38.4

0.039

Meropenem

80.7

65.3

▾ 15.4

▾ 19.1

0.020

Moxifloxacin

42.4

47.1

▴ 4.7

▴ 11.1

0.496

Vancomycin

71.3

49.4

▾ 21.9

▾ 30.7

0.005

In addition, there were other important changes for cefazolin consumption, with an increase of 2 215.1% (p < 0.001), and for cefuroxime, with an increase of 309.8% (p < 0.001). These results are consistent with the data for DDD per 1 000 patient-days.

Antibiotic resistance

The bacteria with greater clinical relevance or a greater number of isolates were analyzed for each period (Table 3) and the number of final strains isolated obtained, which was then used to perform comparisons of antibiotic resistance profiles for each bacteria.
TABLE 3.

Frequency of isolation of the bacteria analyzed in Clínica Bíblica Hospital, 2014–2015 and 2016–2017

 

Total strains isolated 2014–2015[*]

Total strains isolated 2016–2017[*]

Gram-negative bacilli

 

 

Escherichia coli

137

178

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

87

94

Klebsiella pneumoniae

48

62

Stenotrophomonas maltophilia[**]

20

13

Gram-positive cocci

 

 

Staphylococcus aureus

81

78

Staphylococcus epidermidis

45

51

Enterococcus faecalis

35

37

Staphylococcus haemolyticus[**]

16

15

The number of final strains corresponds to the number of strains that were included in the final analysis of the data, following the recommendations of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC).

Those isolates with fewer than 30 reported strains should be interpreted with caution since they may not represent faithfully the resistance profile of the group of bacteria analyzed.

An example of the analysis done for each of the bacteria is shown in Table 4, which presents the resistance profile of Staphylococcus epidermidis against a range of antibiotics for the periods 2014–2015 and 2016–2017. A highly significant decrease in the resistance of S. epidermidis to rifampicin was observed with a magnitude of change of 36% (p < 0.001). In addition, significant differences were found in the resistance of E. faecalis to gentamicin, a decrease of 18% (p = 0.032); as well as a decrease in resistance of Staphylococcus haemolyticus to rifampicin (44%, p = 0.004), and an increase in resistance to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (36%, p = 0.038). For the rest of the bacteria, no statistically significant changes were found in the percentages of resistance comparing the two periods.
TABLE 4.

Comparison of the reports of antibiotic resistance for Staphylococcus epidermidis in Clínica Bíblica Hospital, 2014–2015 and 2016–2017

 

Period 2014–2015

Period 2016–2017

 

 

Staphylococcus epidermidis

n resistant[*]

n total

%R[*]

n resistant[*]

n total

%R[*]

Magnitude of change

p

Benzylpenicillin

45

45

100

40

42

95

▾5

0.139

Beta-lactamases

39

45

87

37

43

86

▾1

0.932

Ciprofloxacin

33

45

73

38

51

75

▴2

0.896

Clindamycin

23

45

51

24

51

47

▾4

0.692

Erythromycin

37

45

82

41

51

80

▾2

0.819

Gentamicin

15

45

33

23

51

45

▴12

0.239

Levofloxacin

33

45

73

38

51

75

▴2

0.896

Linezolid

0

45

0

0

51

0

0

-

Moxifloxacin

18

45

40

20

51

39

▾1

0.937

Oxacillin MIC

36

45

80

43

50

86

▴6

0.435

Inducible resistance to clindamycin

3

45

7

3

51

6

▾1

0.874

Rifampicin

27

45

60

12

51

24

▾36

<0.001

Tetracycline

30

45

67

38

51

75

▴8

0.399

Tigecycline

0

45

0

0

43

0

0

-

Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole

18

45

40

26

51

51

▴11

0.281

Vancomycin

0

45

0

0

51

0

0

-

Includes resistant strains with intermediate sensitivity.

DISCUSSION

In 2015, the Clínica Bíblica Hospital implemented a pharmacist-driven antimicrobial stewardship program (20, 21), the AMS-HCB. Since its implementation, it has been constantly and actively monitored by a multidisciplinary team consisting of a clinical pharmacist (director), an infectious disease physician, a microbiologist, and the hospital’s assistant chief medical officer. DOT/1 000 patient-days Period I Period II Magnitude of change % p Amp/sulb 51.0 43.3 ▾ 7.8 ▾ 15.2 0.364 Cefalotin 32.8 26.0 ▾ 6.8 ▾ 20.7 0.055 Cefazolin 2.2 50.1 ▴ 48.0 ▴ 2 215.1 <0.001 Ceftazidime 23.8 25.7 ▴ 1.9 ▴ 7.8 0.711 Ceftriaxone 265.1 214.5 ▾ 50.6 ▾19.1 <0.001 Cefuroxime 2.0 8.0 ▴ 6.1 ▴ 309.8 <0.001 Ciprofloxacin 48.3 57.6 ▴ 9-3 ▴ 19.3 0.274 Ertapenem 125.1 146.9 ▴ 21.8 ▴ 17.4 0.037 Levofloxacin 74.3 37.2 ▾ 37.1 ▾ 49.9 <0.001 Linezolid 44.1 61.0 ▴ 16.9 ▴ 38.4 0.039 Meropenem 80.7 65.3 ▾ 15.4 ▾ 19.1 0.020 Moxifloxacin 42.4 47.1 ▴ 4.7 ▴ 11.1 0.496 Vancomycin 71.3 49.4 ▾ 21.9 ▾ 30.7 0.005 Total strains isolated 2014–2015[*] Total strains isolated 2016–2017[*] Gram-negative bacilli Escherichia coli 137 178 Pseudomonas aeruginosa 87 94 Klebsiella pneumoniae 48 62 Stenotrophomonas maltophilia[**] 20 13 Gram-positive cocci Staphylococcus aureus 81 78 Staphylococcus epidermidis 45 51 Enterococcus faecalis 35 37 Staphylococcus haemolyticus[**] 16 15 The number of final strains corresponds to the number of strains that were included in the final analysis of the data, following the recommendations of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC). Those isolates with fewer than 30 reported strains should be interpreted with caution since they may not represent faithfully the resistance profile of the group of bacteria analyzed. In 2015, when high levels of consumption of broad-spectrum antibiotics were detected in the hospital, one of the main problems was the incorrect use of ceftriaxone and levofloxacin in surgical prophylaxis. The AMS team executed educational activities to promote greater use of first-generation cephalosporins such as cefazolin, since these were the drugs of choice for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis, as indicated by the clinical guideline implemented at that time. These strategies explain the significant increase in the use of cefazolin (2 215.1%, p < 0.001) and the decrease in the consumption of ceftriaxone (19.1%, p < 0.001), and partially explain the decrease of levofloxacin (49.9%, p < 0.001), according to the consumption calculated in DOT (Figure 1). Ertapenem is another antibiotic that was recommended to be avoided in surgical prophylaxis, as well as in a wide number of other indications. However, this is the only antibiotic that did not show a reduction in consumption. On the contrary, it increased over time (17.4%, p = 0.037). This suggests that different strategies are needed in order to control the overprescription of ertapenem.
FIGURE 1.

Trend in the trimester averages of days of therapy (DOT) per 1 000 patient days for cefazolin and ceftriaxone in Clínica Bíblica Hospital for the period 2013–2017, before and during implementation of the antimicrobial stewardship program

Period 2014–2015 Period 2016–2017 Staphylococcus epidermidis n resistant[*] n total %R[*] n resistant[*] n total %R[*] Magnitude of change p Benzylpenicillin 45 45 100 40 42 95 ▾5 0.139 Beta-lactamases 39 45 87 37 43 86 ▾1 0.932 Ciprofloxacin 33 45 73 38 51 75 ▴2 0.896 Clindamycin 23 45 51 24 51 47 ▾4 0.692 Erythromycin 37 45 82 41 51 80 ▾2 0.819 Gentamicin 15 45 33 23 51 45 ▴12 0.239 Levofloxacin 33 45 73 38 51 75 ▴2 0.896 Linezolid 0 45 0 0 51 0 0 - Moxifloxacin 18 45 40 20 51 39 ▾1 0.937 Oxacillin MIC 36 45 80 43 50 86 ▴6 0.435 Inducible resistance to clindamycin 3 45 7 3 51 6 ▾1 0.874 Rifampicin 27 45 60 12 51 24 ▾36 <0.001 Tetracycline 30 45 67 38 51 75 ▴8 0.399 Tigecycline 0 45 0 0 43 0 0 - Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole 18 45 40 26 51 51 ▴11 0.281 Vancomycin 0 45 0 0 51 0 0 - Includes resistant strains with intermediate sensitivity. The decrease in the consumption of meropenem (19.1%, p = 0.02) represents valuable progress in the initiative to improve the use of antimicrobials, since meropenem is considered an antibiotic of last resort. Regarding P. aeruginosa, its resistance to meropenem has increased in the country; thus, strategies to optimize the use of this antibiotic and of all carbapenems should be reinforced (22). Multiple studies have compared the relationship between the consumption of antibiotics and the reported rates of resistance. In the case of P. aeruginosa, it has a high capacity to acquire new resistance mechanisms under selective antibiotic pressure, including loss of outer membrane proteins, efflux pumps, and production of certain beta-lactamases, among others. In vitro and in vivo studies have documented that exposure to carbapenems increases the risk of carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa, which is also associated with cross-resistance to other antibiotics (23). On the other hand, the consumption of linezolid increased (38.4%, p = 0.039), while vancomycin consumption decreased (30.7%, p = 0.005). This change can be related to the preferences of the prescriber, since these are two antibiotics that are used for Gram-positive infections. Linezolid may be preferred over vancomycin based on some reports that show similar activity for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus specific infections with less nephrotoxicity. It is also dosed easier than vancomycin, which must be adjusted according to the pharmacokinetic profile of each patient. In addition, conversion to oral administration is easily performed in the case of linezolid, and no dosage adjustment is necessary in case of renal failure. Its resistance profile has not changed and it remains 100% sensitive (24–26). One of the main reasons why AMSs are necessary in hospitals is the constant growth of resistance (27). A non-increase in resistance, as shown in the results, is considered a positive result, suggesting that the actions of the AMS are having an impact on physicians’ prescriptions. However, it is necessary to continue monitoring the effects over time, since positive and conclusive results usually are seen in a 4.8-year period after the intervention (28, 29). Despite the few significant changes regarding the patterns of resistance in this study, a longer follow-up period is generally required to appreciate changes in the microbiota of a hospital center (28, 29). Some limitations include the design of the study, since it cannot assure that the AMS is the direct cause or the only cause of the changes described in the results. Variations in the level of antimicrobial resistance can also be influenced by the actions of the hospital’s Infection Prevention Committee, as well as other factors external to this hospital, such as the use of antibiotics in other health facilities. Nonetheless, when determining the consumption by means of DDD per 1 000 patient-days and DOT per 1 000 patient-days, it is evident that reductions in the overall consumption of antibiotics have been achieved over time, possibly attributable to AMS implementation. However, this is not a common trend for all antibiotics, and the continuation of the program should be evaluated in the near future. The development and implementation of more clinical guidelines is the next step to cover more antibiotics used in the hospital setting.

Disclaimer.

Authors hold sole responsibility for the views expressed in the manuscript, which may not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of the RPSP/PAJPH and/or the Pan American Health Organization.
  14 in total

Review 1.  Antimicrobial stewardship programs.

Authors:  Kimberly D Leuthner; Gary V Doern
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-08-07       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Vancomycin therapeutic guidelines: a summary of consensus recommendations from the infectious diseases Society of America, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists.

Authors:  Michael J Rybak; Ben M Lomaestro; John C Rotschafer; Robert C Moellering; Willam A Craig; Marianne Billeter; Joseph R Dalovisio; Donald P Levine
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2009-08-01       Impact factor: 9.079

3.  Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance.

Authors:  A-P Magiorakos; A Srinivasan; R B Carey; Y Carmeli; M E Falagas; C G Giske; S Harbarth; J F Hindler; G Kahlmeter; B Olsson-Liljequist; D L Paterson; L B Rice; J Stelling; M J Struelens; A Vatopoulos; J T Weber; D L Monnet
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 8.067

4.  Implementing an Antibiotic Stewardship Program: Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

Authors:  Tamar F Barlam; Sara E Cosgrove; Lilian M Abbo; Conan MacDougall; Audrey N Schuetz; Edward J Septimus; Arjun Srinivasan; Timothy H Dellit; Yngve T Falck-Ytter; Neil O Fishman; Cindy W Hamilton; Timothy C Jenkins; Pamela A Lipsett; Preeti N Malani; Larissa S May; Gregory J Moran; Melinda M Neuhauser; Jason G Newland; Christopher A Ohl; Matthew H Samore; Susan K Seo; Kavita K Trivedi
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2016-04-13       Impact factor: 9.079

5.  [A program for optimizing the use of antimicrobials (PROA): experience in a regional hospital].

Authors:  J Ugalde-Espiñeira; J Bilbao-Aguirregomezcorta; A Z Sanjuan-López; C Floristán-Imízcoz; L Elorduy-Otazua; M Viciola-García
Journal:  Rev Esp Quimioter       Date:  2016-06-17       Impact factor: 1.553

Review 6.  Inadequate antimicrobial treatment: an important determinant of outcome for hospitalized patients.

Authors:  M H Kollef
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 9.079

7.  Trends and correlation of antibacterial usage and bacterial resistance: time series analysis for antibacterial stewardship in a Chinese teaching hospital (2009-2013).

Authors:  Y M Zou; Y Ma; J H Liu; J Shi; T Fan; Y Y Shan; H P Yao; Y L Dong
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 3.267

8.  Linezolid versus vancomycin for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Mao Mao An; Hui Shen; Jun Dong Zhang; Guo Tong Xu; Yuan Ying Jiang
Journal:  Int J Antimicrob Agents       Date:  2013-03-26       Impact factor: 5.283

9.  Are antimicrobial stewardship programs effective strategies for preventing antibiotic resistance? A systematic review.

Authors:  Leandro G Bertollo; Diego S Lutkemeyer; Anna S Levin
Journal:  Am J Infect Control       Date:  2018-02-19       Impact factor: 2.918

Review 10.  Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs: Appropriate Measures and Metrics to Study their Impact.

Authors:  Andrew M Morris
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Infect Dis       Date:  2014
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.