Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Executive Summary Introduction Methodology Used to Prepare the Guideline Epidemiology Incidence Etiology Major Epidemiologic Points Pathogenesis Major Points for Pathogenesis Modifiable Risk Factors Intubation and Mechanical Ventilation Aspiration, Body Position, and Enteral Feeding Modulation of Colonization: Oral Antiseptics and Antibiotics Stress Bleeding Prophylaxis, Transfusion, and Glucose Control Major Points and Recommendations for Modifiable Risk Factors Diagnostic Testing Major Points and Recommendations for Diagnosis Diagnostic Strategies and Approaches Clinical Strategy Bacteriologic Strategy Recommended Diagnostic Strategy Major Points and Recommendations for Comparing Diagnostic Strategies Antibiotic Treatment of Hospital-acquired Pneumonia General Approach Initial Empiric Antibiotic Therapy Appropriate Antibiotic Selection and Adequate Dosing Local Instillation and Aerosolized Antibiotics Combination versus Monotherapy Duration of Therapy Major Points and Recommendations for Optimal Antibiotic Therapy Specific Antibiotic Regimens Antibiotic Heterogeneity and Antibiotic Cycling Response to Therapy Modification of Empiric Antibiotic Regimens Defining the Normal Pattern of Resolution Reasons for Deterioration or Nonresolution Evaluation of the Nonresponding Patient Major Points and Recommendations for Assessing Response to Therapy Suggested Performance Indicators

Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia the official statement of the American Thoracic Society and the Infectious Disease Society of America (特集 救急診療ガイドライン) -- (海外のガイドライン)

Evidence-based guidelines for implementation and measurement of antibiotic stewardship interventions in inpatient populations including long-term care were prepared by a multidisciplinary expert panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. The panel included clinicians and investigators representing internal medicine, emergency medicine, microbiology, critical care, surgery, epidemiology, pharmacy, and adult and pediatric infectious diseases specialties. These recommendations address the best approaches for antibiotic stewardship programs to influence the optimal use of antibiotics.

/pdf/implementing-an-antibiotic-stewardship-program-guidelines-by-1lgim6mnn7.pdf

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

Background
Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications.
Methods
We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements.
Results
The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care.
Conclusion
The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families.

/pdf/surviving-sepsis-campaign-international-guidelines-for-1trp1tl9am.pdf

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021.

The incidence of invasive mycoses is increasing, especially among patients who are immunocompromised or hospitalized with serious underlying diseases. Such infections may be broken into two broad categories: opportunistic and endemic. The most important agents of the opportunistic mycoses are Candida spp., Cryptococcus neoformans, Pneumocystis jirovecii, and Aspergillus spp. (although the list of potential pathogens is ever expanding); while the most commonly encountered endemic mycoses are due to Histoplasma capsulatum, Coccidioides immitis/posadasii, and Blastomyces dermatitidis. This review discusses the epidemiologic profiles of these invasive mycoses in North America, as well as risk factors for infection, and the pathogens' antifungal susceptibility.

Epidemiology of Invasive Mycoses in North America

BACKGROUND Integration of rapid diagnostic testing via matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight (MALDI-TOF) with antimicrobial stewardship team (AST) intervention has the potential for early organism identification, customization of antibiotic therapy, and improvement in patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of this combined approach on clinical and antimicrobial therapy-related outcomes in patients with bloodstream infections. METHODS A pre-post quasi-experimental study was conducted to analyze the impact of MALDI-TOF with AST intervention in patients with bloodstream infections. The AST provided evidence-based antibiotic recommendations after receiving real-time notification following blood culture Gram stain, organism identification, and antimicrobial susceptibilities. Outcomes were compared to a historic control group. RESULTS A total of 501 patients with bacteremia or candidemia were included in the final analysis: 245 patients in the intervention group and 256 patients in the preintervention group. MALDI-TOF with AST intervention decreased time to organism identification (84.0 vs 55.9 hours, P < .001), and improved time to effective antibiotic therapy (30.1 vs 20.4 hours, P = .021) and optimal antibiotic therapy (90.3 vs 47.3 hours, P < .001). Mortality (20.3% vs 14.5%), length of intensive care unit stay (14.9 vs 8.3 days) and recurrent bacteremia (5.9% vs 2.0%) were lower in the intervention group on univariate analysis, and acceptance of an AST intervention was associated with a trend toward reduced mortality on multivariable analysis (odds ratio, 0.55, P = .075). CONCLUSION MALDI-TOF with AST intervention decreased time to organism identification and time to effective and optimal antibiotic therapy.

/pdf/impact-of-rapid-organism-identification-via-matrix-assisted-4u3tza1jpq.pdf

Impact of Rapid Organism Identification via Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-of-Flight Combined With Antimicrobial Stewardship Team Intervention in Adult Patients With Bacteremia and Candidemia

Study Objective

To analyze the impact of a comprehensive care bundle directed by an antimicrobial stewardship team (AST) on the management of candidemia.



Design

Single-center, quasi-experimental study.



Setting

A 930-bed academic hospital.



Patients

Seventy-eight patients with candidemia were evaluated; 41 patients received the candidemia care bundle (AST group), and 37 did not (historical control group).



Measurements and Main Results

A candidemia care bundle was developed by an interdisciplinary AST, incorporating key elements from the Infectious Diseases Society of America's Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Candidemia. The AST made prospective recommendations in accordance with the care bundle. Bundle elements were utilization of appropriate antifungal agents with appropriate duration of use, removal of intravenous catheters, repeat blood cultures, monitoring of time until clearance of candidemia, and performance of ophthalmologic examinations. Compliance with all candidemia care bundle elements was significantly higher in the AST group versus the control group (78.0% vs 40.5%, p=0.0016). Implementation of the care bundle significantly improved rates of ophthalmologic examination (97.6% vs 75.7%, p=0.0108), selection of appropriate antifungal therapy (100% vs 86.5%, p=0.0488), and compliance with an appropriate duration of therapy (97.6% vs 67.7%, p=0.0012). In addition, the AST group had fewer excess total days of therapy beyond the recommended duration than the control group (5 vs 83 total antifungal days). Length of hospitalization (20 vs 21 days, p=0.9184), time until clearance of candidemia (3 vs 3 days p=0.610), rate of persistent candidemia (22% vs 40.5%, p=0.126), and rate of recurrent candidemia (4.9% vs 5.4%, p=0.916) were similar in the AST group versus the control group.



Conclusion

A comprehensive candidemia care bundle directed by our institution's AST improved the management of patients with candidemia. We encourage further exploration into the use of care bundles by ASTs as part of their multifaceted approach to promoting appropriate antimicrobial utilization and optimizing the management of patients with infectious diseases.

/pdf/impact-of-an-antimicrobial-stewardship-program-comprehensive-52qbmppvgl.pdf

Impact of an Antimicrobial Stewardship Program Comprehensive Care Bundle on Management of Candidemia

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Evaluating Fidaxomicin versus Oral Vancomycin for the Treatment of Clostridium difficile Infection in the United States

The challenges in managing patients with infection in the intensive care unit are increased in an era where there are dwindling antimicrobial choices for multidrug-resistant pathogens. Clinicians in the intensive care unit must balance between choosing appropriate antimicrobial treatment for patients with suspected infection and utilizing antimicrobials in a judicious fashion. Improving antimicrobial utilization is a critical component to reducing antimicrobial resistance. Although providing effective antimicrobial therapy and improving antimicrobial utilization may seem to be competing goals, there are effective strategies to accomplish both. Antimicrobial stewardship programs provide an organized way to implement these strategies and can enhance the intensive care unit physician's success in improving patient outcomes and combating antimicrobial resistance in the intensive care unit.

Managing antimicrobial resistance in intensive care units.

Purpose. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to investigate the financial impact of using posaconazole versus fluconazole or itraconazole prophylaxis in patients with prolonged neutropenia.

Methods. A decision-analytic model was developed from a hospital perspective based on the use of posaconazole versus fluconazole or itraconazole prophylaxis in patients with prolonged neutropenia (i.e., longer than 7–10 days). Data reported in a multicenter study, medication-cost information, and reports of costs to treat invasive fungal infections were used to accurately populate the model. Sensitivity analyses enhanced the robustness of the model through variation of all probabilities and costs.

Results. In the base case, patients initiated on posaconazole displayed a 45% reduction in overall cost as compared with patients initiated on fluconazole or itraconazole ($3051 versus $5529, respectively). Sensitivity analyses determined that univariate changes in all model variables, including medication cost, duration of therapy, and cost of treating invasive fungal infections, did not impact overall results. A Monte Carlo simulation analysis found that use of posaconazole remains the best overall prophylactic strategy when taking into consideration the potential variance in all model assumptions. Posaconazole dominated the use of fluconazole or itraconazole because of previously demonstrated lower incidence of breakthrough fungal infections and lower overall treatment cost.

Conclusion. The decision model indicated that use of posaconazole as prophylaxis in patients with prolonged neutropenia should result in lower overall treatment costs relative to the cost of fluconazole or itraconazole.

Curtis D. Collins

Papers

Impact of Rapid Organism Identification via Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-of-Flight Combined With Antimicrobial Stewardship Team Intervention in Adult Patients With Bacteremia and Candidemia

Impact of an Antimicrobial Stewardship Program Comprehensive Care Bundle on Management of Candidemia

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Evaluating Fidaxomicin versus Oral Vancomycin for the Treatment of Clostridium difficile Infection in the United States

Managing antimicrobial resistance in intensive care units.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole or itraconazole prophylaxis in patients with prolonged neutropenia.