Shelley S Magill1, Erin O'Leary1,2, Susan M Ray3,4, Marion A Kainer5,6,7, Christopher Evans5, Wendy M Bamberg8,9, Helen Johnston8, Sarah J Janelle8, Tolulope Oyewumi8,10, Ruth Lynfield11, Jean Rainbow11, Linn Warnke11,12, Joelle Nadle13, Deborah L Thompson14,15, Shamima Sharmin14,16, Rebecca Pierce17, Alexia Y Zhang17, Valerie Ocampo17, Meghan Maloney18, Samantha Greissman18,19, Lucy E Wilson20,21, Ghinwa Dumyati22,23, Jonathan R Edwards1, Nora Chea1, Melinda M Neuhauser1. 1. Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Lantana Consulting Group, Thetford, Vermont. 3. Department of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Georgia Emerging Infections Program, Decatur. 5. Tennessee Department of Health, Nashville. 6. Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. 7. Department of Infectious Diseases, Western Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 8. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver. 9. Medical Epidemiology Consulting, Denver, Colorado. 10. Department of Healthcare Management, University of Denver, Colorado. 11. Minnesota Department of Health, St Paul. 12. Hennepin County Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 13. California Emerging Infections Program, Oakland. 14. New Mexico Department of Health, Santa Fe. 15. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland. 16. Infection Prevention and Control Department, University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque. 17. Oregon Health Authority, Portland. 18. Connecticut Emerging Infections Program, Hartford and New Haven. 19. Department of Medicine, Columbia-New York Presbyterian Hospital. 20. Maryland Department of Health, Baltimore. 21. University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore. 22. New York Emerging Infections Program, Rochester. 23. University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York.
Abstract
Importance: Hospital antimicrobial consumption data are widely available; however, large-scale assessments of the quality of antimicrobial use in US hospitals are limited. Objective: To evaluate the appropriateness of antimicrobial use for hospitalized patients treated for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) or urinary tract infection (UTI) present at admission or for patients who had received fluoroquinolone or intravenous vancomycin treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included data from a prevalence survey of hospitalized patients in 10 Emerging Infections Program sites. Random samples of inpatients on hospital survey dates from May 1 to September 30, 2015, were identified. Medical record data were collected for eligible patients with 1 or more of 4 treatment events (CAP, UTI, fluoroquinolone treatment, or vancomycin treatment), which were selected on the basis of common infection types reported and antimicrobials given to patients in the prevalence survey. Data were analyzed from August 1, 2017, to May 31, 2020. Exposure: Antimicrobial treatment for CAP or UTI or with fluoroquinolones or vancomycin. Main Outcomes and Measures: The percentage of antimicrobial use that was supported by medical record data (including infection signs and symptoms, microbiology test results, and antimicrobial treatment duration) or for which some aspect of use was unsupported. Unsupported antimicrobial use was defined as (1) use of antimicrobials to which the pathogen was not susceptible, use in the absence of documented infection signs or symptoms, or use without supporting microbiologic data; (2) use of antimicrobials that deviated from recommended guidelines; or (3) use that exceeded the recommended duration. Results: Of 12 299 patients, 1566 patients (12.7%) in 192 hospitals were included; the median age was 67 years (interquartile range, 53-79 years), and 864 (55.2%) were female. A total of 219 patients (14.0%) were included in the CAP analysis, 452 (28.9%) in the UTI analysis, 550 (35.1%) in the fluoroquinolone analysis, and 403 (25.7%) in the vancomycin analysis; 58 patients (3.7%) were included in both fluoroquinolone and vancomycin analyses. Overall, treatment was unsupported for 876 of 1566 patients (55.9%; 95% CI, 53.5%-58.4%): 110 of 403 (27.3%) who received vancomycin, 256 of 550 (46.6%) who received fluoroquinolones, 347 of 452 (76.8%) with a diagnosis of UTI, and 174 of 219 (79.5%) with a diagnosis of CAP. Among patients with unsupported treatment, common reasons included excessive duration (103 of 174 patients with CAP [59.2%]) and lack of documented infection signs or symptoms (174 of 347 patients with UTI [50.1%]). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that standardized assessments of hospital antimicrobial prescribing quality can be used to estimate the appropriateness of antimicrobial use in large groups of hospitals. These assessments, performed over time, may inform evaluations of the effects of antimicrobial stewardship initiatives nationally.
Importance: Hospital antimicrobial consumption data are widely available; however, large-scale assessments of the quality of antimicrobial use in US hospitals are limited. Objective: To evaluate the appropriateness of antimicrobial use for hospitalized patients treated for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) or urinary tract infection (UTI) present at admission or for patients who had received fluoroquinolone or intravenous vancomycin treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included data from a prevalence survey of hospitalized patients in 10 Emerging Infections Program sites. Random samples of inpatients on hospital survey dates from May 1 to September 30, 2015, were identified. Medical record data were collected for eligible patients with 1 or more of 4 treatment events (CAP, UTI, fluoroquinolone treatment, or vancomycin treatment), which were selected on the basis of common infection types reported and antimicrobials given to patients in the prevalence survey. Data were analyzed from August 1, 2017, to May 31, 2020. Exposure: Antimicrobial treatment for CAP or UTI or with fluoroquinolones or vancomycin. Main Outcomes and Measures: The percentage of antimicrobial use that was supported by medical record data (including infection signs and symptoms, microbiology test results, and antimicrobial treatment duration) or for which some aspect of use was unsupported. Unsupported antimicrobial use was defined as (1) use of antimicrobials to which the pathogen was not susceptible, use in the absence of documented infection signs or symptoms, or use without supporting microbiologic data; (2) use of antimicrobials that deviated from recommended guidelines; or (3) use that exceeded the recommended duration. Results: Of 12 299 patients, 1566 patients (12.7%) in 192 hospitals were included; the median age was 67 years (interquartile range, 53-79 years), and 864 (55.2%) were female. A total of 219 patients (14.0%) were included in the CAP analysis, 452 (28.9%) in the UTI analysis, 550 (35.1%) in the fluoroquinolone analysis, and 403 (25.7%) in the vancomycin analysis; 58 patients (3.7%) were included in both fluoroquinolone and vancomycin analyses. Overall, treatment was unsupported for 876 of 1566 patients (55.9%; 95% CI, 53.5%-58.4%): 110 of 403 (27.3%) who received vancomycin, 256 of 550 (46.6%) who received fluoroquinolones, 347 of 452 (76.8%) with a diagnosis of UTI, and 174 of 219 (79.5%) with a diagnosis of CAP. Among patients with unsupported treatment, common reasons included excessive duration (103 of 174 patients with CAP [59.2%]) and lack of documented infection signs or symptoms (174 of 347 patients with UTI [50.1%]). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that standardized assessments of hospital antimicrobial prescribing quality can be used to estimate the appropriateness of antimicrobial use in large groups of hospitals. These assessments, performed over time, may inform evaluations of the effects of antimicrobial stewardship initiatives nationally.
Authors: Kalpana Gupta; Thomas M Hooton; Kurt G Naber; Björn Wullt; Richard Colgan; Loren G Miller; Gregory J Moran; Lindsay E Nicolle; Raul Raz; Anthony J Schaeffer; David E Soper Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Brendan J McMullan; Lisa Hall; Rodney James; Mona Mostaghim; Cheryl A Jones; Pamela Konecny; Christopher C Blyth; Karin A Thursky Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Sarah H Yi; Kelly M Hatfield; James Baggs; Lauri A Hicks; Arjun Srinivasan; Sujan Reddy; John A Jernigan Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Michael Daniel; Sara Keller; Mohammad Mozafarihashjin; Amit Pahwa; Christine Soong Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Shelley S Magill; Jonathan R Edwards; Zintars G Beldavs; Ghinwa Dumyati; Sarah J Janelle; Marion A Kainer; Ruth Lynfield; Joelle Nadle; Melinda M Neuhauser; Susan M Ray; Katherine Richards; Richard Rodriguez; Deborah L Thompson; Scott K Fridkin Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-10-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sarah E Hartley; Latoya Kuhn; Staci Valley; Laraine L Washer; Tejal Gandhi; Jennifer Meddings; Michelle Robida; Salas Sabnis; Carol Chenoweth; Anurag N Malani; Sanjay Saint; Scott A Flanders Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2016-06-06 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Joseph S Solomkin; John E Mazuski; John S Bradley; Keith A Rodvold; Ellie J C Goldstein; Ellen J Baron; Patrick J O'Neill; Anthony W Chow; E Patchen Dellinger; Soumitra R Eachempati; Sherwood Gorbach; Mary Hilfiker; Addison K May; Avery B Nathens; Robert G Sawyer; John G Bartlett Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Joshua P Metlay; Grant W Waterer; Ann C Long; Antonio Anzueto; Jan Brozek; Kristina Crothers; Laura A Cooley; Nathan C Dean; Michael J Fine; Scott A Flanders; Marie R Griffin; Mark L Metersky; Daniel M Musher; Marcos I Restrepo; Cynthia G Whitney Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Scott Fridkin; James Baggs; Ryan Fagan; Shelley Magill; Lori A Pollack; Paul Malpiedi; Rachel Slayton; Karim Khader; Michael A Rubin; Makoto Jones; Matthew H Samore; Ghinwa Dumyati; Elizabeth Dodds-Ashley; James Meek; Kimberly Yousey-Hindes; John Jernigan; Nadine Shehab; Rosa Herrera; Clifford L McDonald; Amy Schneider; Arjun Srinivasan Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Gustavo H Marin; Lucia Giangreco; Cristian Dorati; Perla Mordujovich; Silvia Boni; Hilda Mantilla-Ponte; Ma José Alfonso Arvez; Mónica López Peña; Ma Francisca Aldunate González; Shing Mi Ching Fung; Laura Barcelona; Laura Campaña; Alejandra Vaquero Orellana; Tatiana Orjuela Rodríguez; Larissa Ginés Cantero; Rosa A Villar; Nicole Sandoval Fuentes; Emiliano Melero; Hugo Marin-Piva; Gisela Soler; Fernanda Gabriel; Laura Pineda Velandia; Cinthia Ojeda Florentín; Soledad Risso Patron; Mariela Ortiz Rivas; Carolina Mendoza Benítez; Rosemarie Mellado; Verica Ivanovska; Arno Muller; Robin Rojas; José Luis Castro Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2022 Jan-Dec
Authors: Michael A Pfaller; Li Li; Qingmei Liu; Jay Zhang; Michael D Huband; Jill M Lindley; Rodrigo E Mendes Journal: JAC Antimicrob Resist Date: 2021-12-14
Authors: Nicholas J Mercuro; Corey J Medler; Rachel M Kenney; Nancy C MacDonald; Melinda M Neuhauser; Lauri A Hicks; Arjun Srinivasan; George Divine; Amy Beaulac; Erin Eriksson; Ronald Kendall; Marilen Martinez; Allison Weinmann; Marcus Zervos; Susan L Davis Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-05-02
Authors: Valerie M Vaughn; Tejal N Gandhi; Timothy P Hofer; Lindsay A Petty; Anurag N Malani; Danielle Osterholzer; Lisa E Dumkow; David Ratz; Jennifer K Horowitz; Elizabeth S McLaughlin; Tawny Czilok; Scott A Flanders Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2022-08-31 Impact factor: 20.999
Authors: Laura Puzniak; Karri A Bauer; Kalvin C Yu; Pamela Moise; Lyn Finelli; Gang Ye; Carisa De Anda; Latha Vankeepuram; Vikas Gupta Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 3.835