Nicola D Thompson1, Nimalie D Stone1, Cedric J Brown1, Austin R Penna1, Taniece R Eure1, Wendy M Bamberg2,3, Grant R Barney4,5, Devra Barter2, Paula Clogher6,7, Malini B DeSilva8,9, Ghinwa Dumyati4,10, Linda Frank11, Christina B Felsen4,10, Deborah Godine11, Lourdes Irizarry12, Marion A Kainer13,14, Linda Li15, Ruth Lynfield8, J P Mahoehney8, Meghan Maloney16, Joelle Nadle11, Valerie L S Ocampo17, Rebecca Pierce17, Susan M Ray18,19, Sarah Shrum Davis12, Marla Sievers12, Krithika Srinivasan6, Lucy E Wilson15,20, Alexia Y Zhang17, Shelley S Magill1. 1. Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver. 3. Now with Medical Epidemiology Consulting, Denver, Colorado. 4. New York Emerging Infections Program, Rochester. 5. Now with New York State Department of Health, Albany. 6. Connecticut Emerging Infections Program, New Haven. 7. Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. 8. Minnesota Department of Health, St Paul. 9. Now with HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 10. University of Rochester, Rochester, New York. 11. California Emerging Infections Program, Oakland. 12. New Mexico Department of Health, Santa Fe. 13. Tennessee Department of Health, Nashville. 14. Now with Western Health, Melbourne, Australia. 15. Maryland Emerging Infections Program, Maryland Department of Health, Baltimore. 16. Connecticut Department of Health, Hartford. 17. Oregon Health Authority, Portland. 18. Georgia Emerging Infections Program, Atlanta. 19. Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 20. Now with Maryland Emerging Infections Program, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore.
Abstract
Importance: Controlling antimicrobial resistance in health care is a public health priority, although data describing antimicrobial use in US nursing homes are limited. Objective: To measure the prevalence of antimicrobial use and describe antimicrobial classes and common indications among nursing home residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional, 1-day point-prevalence surveys of antimicrobial use performed between April 2017 and October 2017, last survey date October 31, 2017, and including 15 276 residents present on the survey date in 161 randomly selected nursing homes from selected counties of 10 Emerging Infections Program (EIP) states. EIP staff reviewed nursing home records to collect data on characteristics of residents and antimicrobials administered at the time of the survey. Nursing home characteristics were obtained from nursing home staff and the Nursing Home Compare website. Exposures: Residence in one of the participating nursing homes at the time of the survey. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of antimicrobial use per 100 residents, defined as the number of residents receiving antimicrobial drugs at the time of the survey divided by the total number of surveyed residents. Multivariable logistic regression modeling of antimicrobial use and percentages of drugs within various classifications. Results: Among 15 276 nursing home residents included in the study (mean [SD] age, 77.6 [13.7] years; 9475 [62%] women), complete prevalence data were available for 96.8%. The overall antimicrobial use prevalence was 8.2 per 100 residents (95% CI, 7.8-8.8). Antimicrobial use was more prevalent in residents admitted to the nursing home within 30 days before the survey date (18.8 per 100 residents; 95% CI, 17.4-20.3), with central venous catheters (62.8 per 100 residents; 95% CI, 56.9-68.3) or with indwelling urinary catheters (19.1 per 100 residents; 95% CI, 16.4-22.0). Antimicrobials were most often used to treat active infections (77% [95% CI, 74.8%-79.2%]) and primarily for urinary tract infections (28.1% [95% CI, 15.5%-30.7%]). While 18.2% (95% CI, 16.1%-20.1%) were for medical prophylaxis, most often use was for the urinary tract (40.8% [95% CI, 34.8%-47.1%]). Fluoroquinolones were the most common antimicrobial class (12.9% [95% CI, 11.3%-14.8%]), and 33.1% (95% CI, 30.7%-35.6%) of antimicrobials used were broad-spectrum antibiotics. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional survey of a cohort of US nursing homes in 2017, prevalence of antimicrobial use was 8.2 per 100 residents. This study provides information on the patterns of antimicrobial use among these nursing home residents.
Importance: Controlling antimicrobial resistance in health care is a public health priority, although data describing antimicrobial use in US nursing homes are limited. Objective: To measure the prevalence of antimicrobial use and describe antimicrobial classes and common indications among nursing home residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional, 1-day point-prevalence surveys of antimicrobial use performed between April 2017 and October 2017, last survey date October 31, 2017, and including 15 276 residents present on the survey date in 161 randomly selected nursing homes from selected counties of 10 Emerging Infections Program (EIP) states. EIP staff reviewed nursing home records to collect data on characteristics of residents and antimicrobials administered at the time of the survey. Nursing home characteristics were obtained from nursing home staff and the Nursing Home Compare website. Exposures: Residence in one of the participating nursing homes at the time of the survey. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of antimicrobial use per 100 residents, defined as the number of residents receiving antimicrobial drugs at the time of the survey divided by the total number of surveyed residents. Multivariable logistic regression modeling of antimicrobial use and percentages of drugs within various classifications. Results: Among 15 276 nursing home residents included in the study (mean [SD] age, 77.6 [13.7] years; 9475 [62%] women), complete prevalence data were available for 96.8%. The overall antimicrobial use prevalence was 8.2 per 100 residents (95% CI, 7.8-8.8). Antimicrobial use was more prevalent in residents admitted to the nursing home within 30 days before the survey date (18.8 per 100 residents; 95% CI, 17.4-20.3), with central venous catheters (62.8 per 100 residents; 95% CI, 56.9-68.3) or with indwelling urinary catheters (19.1 per 100 residents; 95% CI, 16.4-22.0). Antimicrobials were most often used to treat active infections (77% [95% CI, 74.8%-79.2%]) and primarily for urinary tract infections (28.1% [95% CI, 15.5%-30.7%]). While 18.2% (95% CI, 16.1%-20.1%) were for medical prophylaxis, most often use was for the urinary tract (40.8% [95% CI, 34.8%-47.1%]). Fluoroquinolones were the most common antimicrobial class (12.9% [95% CI, 11.3%-14.8%]), and 33.1% (95% CI, 30.7%-35.6%) of antimicrobials used were broad-spectrum antibiotics. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional survey of a cohort of US nursing homes in 2017, prevalence of antimicrobial use was 8.2 per 100 residents. This study provides information on the patterns of antimicrobial use among these nursing home residents.
Authors: Katrien Latour; Boudewijn Catry; Elisabeth Broex; Vanessa Vankerckhoven; Arno Muller; Rudi Stroobants; Herman Goossens; Béatrice Jans Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2012-01-24 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Stephen R Benoit; Wato Nsa; Chesley L Richards; Dale W Bratzler; Abigail M Shefer; Lynn M Steele; John A Jernigan Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Nicola D Thompson; Austin Penna; Taniece R Eure; Wendy M Bamberg; Grant Barney; Devra Barter; Paula Clogher; Malini B DeSilva; Ghinwa Dumyati; Erin Epson; Linda Frank; Deborah Godine; Lourdes Irizarry; Marion A Kainer; Linda Li; Ruth Lynfield; J P Mahoehney; Joelle Nadle; Valerie Ocampo; Lewis Perry; Susan M Ray; Sarah Shrum Davis; Marla Sievers; Lucy E Wilson; Alexia Y Zhang; Nimalie D Stone; Shelley S Magill Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2019-12-09 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Tracey Thornley; Diane Ashiru-Oredope; Elizabeth Beech; Philip Howard; Charlotte L Kirkdale; Heather Elliott; Claire Harris; Alex Roberts Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 5.790
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: Kate E Dingle; Xavier Didelot; T Phuong Quan; David W Eyre; Nicole Stoesser; Tanya Golubchik; Rosalind M Harding; Daniel J Wilson; David Griffiths; Alison Vaughan; John M Finney; David H Wyllie; Sarah J Oakley; Warren N Fawley; Jane Freeman; Kirsti Morris; Jessica Martin; Philip Howard; Sherwood Gorbach; Ellie J C Goldstein; Diane M Citron; Susan Hopkins; Russell Hope; Alan P Johnson; Mark H Wilcox; Timothy E A Peto; A Sarah Walker; Derrick W Crook Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 71.421
Authors: Enrico Ricchizzi; Katrien Latour; Tommi Kärki; Rossella Buttazzi; Béatrice Jans; Maria Luisa Moro; Olivia Aya Nakitanda; Diamantis Plachouras; Dominique L Monnet; Carl Suetens; Pete Kinross Journal: Euro Surveill Date: 2018-11
Authors: Hakjun Hyun; Joon Young Song; Jin Gu Yoon; Hye Seong; Ji Yun Noh; Hee Jin Cheong; Woo Joo Kim Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Kyle J Gontjes; Kristen E Gibson; Bonnie J Lansing; Julia Mantey; Karen M Jones; Marco Cassone; Joyce Wang; John P Mills; Lona Mody; Payal K Patel Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-02-01