infection control & hospital epidemiology october 2017, vol. 38, no. 10 letters to the editor


Evaluating the Need for Antibiotic Stewardship Prospective Audit and Feedback on Weekends


To the Editor—Initial empiric broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing is appropriate for many hospitalized patients. However, antibiotic therapy should be tailored once additional information is obtained. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends a 72-hour antibiotic timeout after starting antibiotic therapy to determine whether modifi- cations are required, to document indication, and to define a duration of therapy.1,2 The primary objective of this study was to compare time from initial order placement to antibiotic modification (de-escalation or discontinuation) for initially appropriate empiric antibiotic orders when the 72-hour timeout period fell on weekends versus weekdays. This single-center retrospective cohort analysis was performed


at Michigan Medicine and included patients receiving restricted antimicrobials over a 2.5-week period in May 2016. Patients were included for evaluation if an order was placed for a restricted antimicrobial: meropenem, ertapenem, ceftaroline, ceftolozane/ tazobactam, ceftazidime/avibactam, daptomycin, linezolid, quinu- pristin/dalfopristin, voriconazole, posaconazole, isavuconazole, CMV-IVIG, amphotericin B, inhaled ribavirin, tigecycline, or colistin. Pediatric patients and those that received an antifungal agent for prophylaxis per a transplant or oncology protocol were excluded. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the days of unnecessary restricted antimicrobial therapy in 2 cohorts: (1) patients for whom orders underwent stewardship review at 72 hours following the start of restricted antibiotics during week- days and (2) patients forwhomthe 72-hour timeout period fell on Saturday, Sunday, or Memorial Day. Determinations regarding unnecessary antibiotic use after the 72-hour timeout period included only initially appropriate empiric antibiotic orders. The antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) at Michigan


Medicine includes 4 full-time equivalents (FTE) for infectious disease (ID) pharmacists (2.75 FTE dedicated to adult patients and 1.25 FTE for pediatric patients), and 1.5 FTE of stewardship support for ID physicians. The ASP implemented a pre- authorization process for 16 restricted antimicrobials in 2006, which requires prescribers to page a member of the ASP (or to obtain an official ID consult) for approval 7 days per week between 7:00 AM and 11:00 PM.Noapproval is required overnight, but a stewardship pharmacist reviews the order during the next business day. A pharmacist member of the antimicrobial stewardship team conducts daily prospective audit and feedback of all restricted agents Monday through Friday to ensure com- pliance with institutional guidelines and antimicrobial criteria, to facilitate de-escalation when appropriate, and to define the optimal duration of therapy. A daily report of adult patients receiving restricted antimicrobials is entered into a database that


is used to track utilization of restricted antimicrobials, to facilitate day-to-day patient follow-up, and to track stewardship inter- vention. Data obtained during weekends or holidays are not reviewed immediately due to the absence of stewardship services. Instead, these assessments and subsequent changes are delayed until Monday or the next routine week day when stewardship team members are present. A total of 118 restricted antimicrobial orders were reviewed; 91


were included in the analysis and 27 were excluded. The rate of initial appropriate prescribing was 76 of 91 (83.5%), and all 15 initially inappropriate orderswere de-escalated or discontinued.Of the initially appropriate antimicrobial orders, modifications were made to the ordersof23of 76patients(30.3%);10orderswere discontinued and 13 were de-escalated. Themean time tomodifi- cation was 57.2 hours. The time to appropriate modification was significantly shorter when the 72-hour timeout period occurred during the weekday versus the weekend (41.4 vs 132 hours; P=.001). When the 72-hour stewardship review fell on Saturday or Sunday, patients received an average of 3.775 days of unneces- sary restricted antimicrobials, compared to when the 72-hour timeout fell onweekdays. Thisfinding extrapolates to 2,257 days of unnecessary restricted antimicrobial therapy annually when stewardship review does not occur on the weekends. The results of this analysis suggest that stewardship review of


initially appropriate empiric antibiotic therapy results in signi- ficantly less unnecessary antibiotic days of therapy when the 72-


hour timeout falls on weekdays versus weekends (ie, when ASP review does not occur). Extrapolation of our brief 2.5-week analysis suggests that the lack of stewardship review on weekends results in 2,257 days of unnecessary restricted antibiotic therapy. To ourknowledge,thisisthe first analysis to quantify the impact of 72-hour stewardship follow-up being limited to weekdays. Previously, Sigfried et al3 evaluated the impact of implementing a pharmacy-resident driven stewardship review on weekends and compared their results to a historic control period without stewardship review. They demonstrated a numeric reduction in total antibiotic days of therapy with implementation of steward- ship services on weekends: 799.3 versus 740.7 days of therapy per 1,000 patient days (P=.08).3 This study is limited by a brief 2.5-week study period, which


on weekdays results in significantly fewer unnecessary anti- microbial days of therapy compared to weekends (when the


is subject to intraprescriber variability; therefore, the extra- polation to annual results may be not be accurate. Part of the study window occurred over a 3-day holiday weekend, which added delays to review and adjustment of therapy. Addition- ally, our stewardship team followed all restricted antibiotic orders daily Monday through Friday, and we arbitrarily utilized the 72-hour timeout mark to compare weekends versus weekdays. Finally, the impacts on clinical outcomes, resistance, adverse effects, and costs were not assessed. A 72-hour stewardship review of restricted antimicrobials


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144