Introduction
The use of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) as a treatment strategy with the aim of dehospitalizing patients has been growing since its advent during the 1970s. 1 OPAT has become a safe and standardized practice for patients presenting with various infections who require long-term parenteral antimicrobial therapy. International consensus guidelines have determined that OPAT can be performed in ambulatory care clinics, specialized infusion centers, or at home.1–3 In Brazil, initiatives to implement OPAT regimens began in the 2010s, with the publication of national guidelines by the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases in 2017. 4
Healthcare structure in Brazil and OPAT
Brazil has a robust public health system, Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), that provides universal health coverage for every person living in the country, with the Brazilian population estimated at 217 million people in 2023. 5 It is funded by the federal administration but has administrative responsibilities at all levels of government: federal, state, and municipal. The delivery of care is handled at the state and municipal level. Brazilian Constitution defines the universal right to comprehensive care at all levels such as primary, secondary, and tertiary. SUS offers many services free of charge such as prevention services, primary care, outpatient care, inpatient care, maternity care, mental health services, pharmaceuticals, dental care, vision care, and physical therapy for residents and visitors, including undocumented individuals. 6 Home care is also contemplated by SUS through a specific policy called ‘Melhor em Casa’ (Better at Home) that, although it is quite comprehensive, has not yet been implemented in all 5560 municipalities in the country. 7 Despite the scope of the SUS’s activities allowing the performance of OPAT, a specific health policy for its practice has not yet been established.
Private sector is also present at the financing and provision levels of healthcare. Private health insurance (PHI) is voluntary and can be classified as duplicate coverage as it covers medically necessary curative services that are also covered under SUS. In 2019, 24.2% of Brazilians had PHI, while in 2008, this proportion was around 22%, about 50 million people by the current projection of country’s population. 8
In Brazil, OPAT is a treatment option available in both public and private health systems. For services linked to SUS, there is a predominance of use of ambulatory care units and day hospitals for the infusion of antimicrobials. Usually, the patient or their caregivers are responsible for organizing transport to the healthcare unit for the infusion. In the private system, however, there is a predominance of home care as model of choice for OPAT.9–12
Organization of OPAT in Brazil and guidelines
In 2017, the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases published the recommendations for performing OPAT in Brazil. This document was prepared by a group of specialists and covers the guidelines for carrying out this treatment modality in the country, including the categories of health professionals necessary for its operation. Multidisciplinary team trained to make evaluations regarding patients’ eligibility for OPAT and to conduct follow-up on this type of therapy. These team should be led by a physician, preferably an infectious diseases specialist with experience in using long-term parenteral antimicrobials. In addition, each team needs to include a nurse with experience in manipulating central venous access and a social worker. A clinical pharmacist may also be included in the team, although this is still an uncommon professional in most Brazilian healthcare services (Table 1).
Table 1.
Professional | Main attributes |
---|---|
Physician (preferably an infectious diseases specialist) | Team leadership |
Clinical evaluation of patient’s infectious conditions and their comorbidities | |
Determination of whether clinical stability allowing OPAT exists | |
Prescription of the antimicrobial to be used | |
Participation in the decision of what type of catheter should be used by patients | |
Participation in assessments on patient’s and caregiver’s capacity for comprehension | |
Initial evaluation on patients who are recommended for OPAT | |
Clinical and laboratory monitoring of patients undergoing OPAT | |
Clinical evaluation of possible events presented during treatment | |
Nurse (with experience in manipulation of central lines) | Prescription of drug infusion procedures for OPAT (reconstitution and dilution of antimicrobials and duration of infusion) in accordance with the protocol |
Participation in the decision regarding what type of catheter should be used by patients | |
Participation in assessments of patient’s and caregiver’s capacity for comprehension | |
Supervision of antimicrobial infusion | |
Daily inspection of the catheter insertion site and communication with the doctor in the event of abnormalities | |
Minimum of once-weekly changing of dressings at catheter insertion site | |
Patient guidance regarding catheter care | |
Patient guidance regarding drug storage precautions | |
Obtaining samples for carrying out laboratory tests | |
Social worker | Evaluation of patient’s home sanitary conditions, in the event of referral for home care OPAT |
Participation in assessments of patient’s and caregiver’s capacity for OPAT understanding | |
Documentation of patient’s and their caregiver’s consent to OPAT | |
Evaluation of patient’s social conditions for OPAT (especially transportation) | |
Establishment of contact between hospital service and the reference center for OPAT | |
Clinical pharmacist | Participation in assessments of patient’s and caregiver’s capacity for OPAT understanding |
Participation in prescription of drug infusion procedures for OPAT (antimicrobial reconstitution and dilution, and duration of infusion), in accordance with the protocol | |
Patient guidance about drug storage precautions | |
Participation in clinical and laboratory monitoring of patients undergoing OPAT |
OPAT, outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy.
These recommendations also provide information on venous access (with preference for using peripherally inserted central catheter) and care orientations (Table 2), as well as recommendations for appropriate dosages, dilution, reconstitution, and infusion of antimicrobials (Table 3), in addition to laboratory monitoring routines (Table 4). The elaboration of these guidelines considered the particularities of both healthcare services and patients in the country; therefore, only antimicrobials that can be administered once or twice a day were considered. Patients’ social conditions and vulnerability factors were also taken into account among the factors determining eligibility for OPAT. 4 Considering aspects of patient safety for the Brazilian reality, self/carer administered OPAT is not allowed in Brazil and only healthcare professionals trained in handling venous accesses can infuse antimicrobials.
Table 2.
Type of central line | Indication | Duration | Considerations |
---|---|---|---|
Valved peripherally inserted central catheter (valved PICC) | Antimicrobial treatment with estimated duration longer than 14 days | Up to 6 months | • Cost-effective • Easy insertion • Lower incidence of infection • Lower risk of air embolism and reflux • Higher safety for home care therapy |
Tunneled semi-implanted central catheter | Antimicrobial treatment with estimated duration longer than 14 days | Up to 6 months | • Surgical implantation • Open extremity • Blockage using heparin solution is needed • Low risk of infection • Second choice for treatment, when insertion of PICC is not possible |
Totally implanted central catheter | Antimicrobial treatment with estimated duration longer than 14 days | Up to 5 years | • High cost • Surgical implantation • Blockage using heparin solution is needed • Access through Huber needle, replaced every 7 days • High risk of infection with daily manipulation (generally indicated for chemotherapy against cancer, which requires less manipulation) • Indication only for OPAT should be avoided |
OPAT, outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy; PICC, peripherally inserted central catheter.
Table 3.
Antimicrobial | Dosage and posology for normal renal and hepatic functions | Reconstitution | Dilution | Duration of infusion |
---|---|---|---|---|
Amikacin | 15 mg/kg once a day | Not required | 100–200 ml of 0.9% SS, 5% GS, or Ringer’s lactate solution | 30–60 min |
Gentamicin | 5 mg/kg once a day | Not required | 50–200 ml of 5% GS | 30–120 min |
Cefepime | 2 g twice a day | 10 ml of sterile distilled water | 50–100 ml of 0.9% SS, 5% GS, or Ringer’s lactate solution | 30 min |
Ceftaroline | 600 mg twice a day | 20 ml of sterile distilled water | 50–250 ml of 0.9% SS, 5% GS, or Ringer’s lactate solution | 30 min |
Ceftazidime | 2 g twice a day | 5–10 ml of sterile distilled water | 50–100 ml of 0.9% SS, 5% GS or Ringer’s lactate solution | 30–60 min |
Ceftriaxone | 2 g once a day | 10 ml of sterile distilled water | 50–100 ml of 0.9% SS, 5% GS, or Ringer’s lactate solution | 15–30 min |
Ertapenem | 1 g once a day | 10 ml of sterile distilled water | 50 ml of 0.9% SS | 30 min |
Meropenem | 2 g twice a day | 20 ml of sterile distilled water | 250 ml of 0.9% SS or 5% GS | 60 min |
Vancomycin | 15 mg/kg twice a day | 10 ml of sterile distilled water | 200 ml of 0.9% SS or 5% GS | 60 min |
Teicoplanin | 6 mg/kg once a day | 10 ml of sterile distilled water | 50–100 ml of 0.9% SS, 5% GS, or Ringer’s lactate solution | 60 min |
Daptomycin | 4–6 mg/kg once a day | 10 ml of 0.9% SS | 50 ml of 0.9% SS | 30 min |
Linezolid | 600 mg twice a day | Not required | 50–100 ml of 0.9% SS, 5% GS, or Ringer’s lactate solution | 30–120 min |
Tigecycline | 50 mg twice a day | Not required | 50 ml of 5% GS | 30–60 min |
Anidulafungin | 100 mg once a day | 30 ml of its own diluent | 100 ml of 0.9% SS or 5% GS | 90 min |
Caspofungin | 50 mg once a day | 10 ml of sterile distilled water | 100 ml of 0.9% SS | 60 min |
Micafungin | 100 mg once a day | 5 ml of 0.9% SS | 50 ml of 0.9% SS or 5% GS | 60 min |
Voriconazole | 3–4 mg/kg twice a day | 19 ml of sterile distilled water | 200–250 ml of 0.9% SS, 5% GS, or Ringer’s lactate solution | 60–120 min |
Amphotericin B (lipid complex) | 5 mg/kg once a day | 20 ml of sterile distilled water | 200–500 ml of 5% GS | 120 min |
Amphotericin B (liposomal) | 3–5 mg/kg once a day | 10 ml of sterile distilled water | 200–500 ml of 5% GS | 120 min |
GS, glucose solution; OPAT, outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy SS, saline solution.
Table 4.
Antimicrobial | Laboratory tests to be performed and periodicity | Considerations | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Complete blood cell analysis | Renal evaluation (urea and creatinine) | Hepatic evaluation (AST, ALT, alkaline phosphatase, and gamma GT) | Potassium | CPK | ||
Amikacin | 14 days | 7 days | 14 days | 7 days | – | Ototoxicity may occur: monitor hearing and vestibular functions |
Gentamicin | 14 days | 7 days | 14 days | 7 days | – | Ototoxicity may occur: monitor hearing and vestibular functions |
Cefepime | 14 days | 14 days | 14 days | – | – | |
Ceftaroline | 14 days | 14 days | 14 days | – | – | |
Ceftazidime | 14 days | 14 days | 14 days | – | – | |
Ceftriaxone | 14 days | 14 days | 7 days | – | – | |
Ertapenem | 14 days | 14 days | 14 days | – | – | A decrease in the convulsive threshold may occur |
Meropenem | 14 days | 14 days | 14 days | – | – | A decrease in the convulsive threshold may occur |
Vancomycin | 7 days | 7 days | 7 days | 7 days | – | Serum level control (vancomycin) can be performed every 7 days |
Teicoplanin | 14 days | 14 days | 14 days | – | – | |
Daptomycin | 14 days | 14 days | 14 days | – | 7 days | |
Linezolid | 7 days | 14 days | 14 days | – | – | Optical neuropathy may occur: monitor visual acuity |
Tigecycline | 14 days | 14 days | 7 days | – | – | Nausea may occur even in the absence of hepatic enzyme alterations: consider concomitant administration of antiemetics |
Anidulafungin | 14 days | 14 days | 14 days | – | – | |
Caspofungin | 14 days | 14 days | 14 days | – | – | |
Micafungin | 14 days | 14 days | 14 days | – | – | |
Voriconazole | 14 days | 14 days | 14 days | – | – | |
Amphotericin B (lipid complex) | 7 days | 3 days | 7 days | 3 days | – | Weekly test of magnesium may be necessary |
Amphotericin B (liposomal) | 7 days | 3 days | 7 days | 3 days | – | Weekly test of magnesium may be necessary |
ALT, alanine transaminase; AST, aspartate transaminase; CPK, creatine phosphokinase; GT, glutamyl transferase; OPAT, outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy.
Experiences with OPAT with Brazil
The first experience of a structured OPAT program in Brazil was published in 2016 and reports the results of a 1-year partnership between a reference orthopedic hospital and the public (linked to SUS) municipal healthcare network in the city of São Paulo which started in 2013. This initiative made it possible to dehospitalize 116 patients, making 11,698 bed-days available for patients requiring hospitalization and few adverse events related to OPAT. This study motivated the development of national guidelines later published in 2017. 9 After the publication of the national guidelines, other studies were published reporting experiences with OPAT.
Two other studies that report the treatment of patients in SUS showed favorable results regarding clinical outcomes but were conflicting regarding the cost-effectiveness analysis. While a study carried out with 291 trauma patients in the south of Brazil showed that OPAT was effective in reducing costs, another study carried out with 23 kidney and liver transplant patients using carbapenems in the northeast region showed higher costs related to OPAT. In this case, the result was related to the higher cost of ertapenem, a carbapenem used on an outpatient basis as compared with meropenem, used for hospitalized patients.10,13 Another study with 39 patients designed specifically to evaluate the cost-utility of OPAT for SUS, however, showed that this treatment modality was effective in this regard by allowing overall savings of 31.86% from the hospital perspective and 26.53% from the SUS perspective, with favorable clinical outcomes and perception of quality of life. 14
Regarding OPAT in PHI, two other studies were published. Both studies analyzed a considerable number of patients (441 in one study and 278 in another) also reported favorable clinical outcomes, although they did not assess cost-effectiveness aspects. These two publications also report on the positive impact of antimicrobial stewardship programs in the context of OPAT.11,12Table 5 provides a summary of studies on OPAT in Brazil.
Table 5.
Author | City | Healthcare system | Number of patients | OPAT venue | Main infections diagnoses | Main drugs used in OPAT | Conclusions of the study |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Oliveira et al. 9 | São Paulo | SUS | 116 | Primary care facilities, day hospital | Chronic osteomyelitis, acute osteomyelitis, soft tissue infection | Teicoplanin, ertapenem, tigecycline | 450 primary care health professionals were trained to manipulate catheters and monitor patients. Positive clinical outcomes, with only 3 OPAT-related adverse events. In 1 year, it was possible to redirect 11,698 bed-days to patients in need of orthopedic hospitalization |
Psaltikidis et al. 14 | Campinas | SUS | 39 | Day hospital | Central nervous system syphilis, urinary tract infection, osteomyelitis | Ceftriaxone, amikacin, meropenem | Favorable clinical outcomes, with improved perception of quality of life by patients. OPAT allowed 1112 days less hospitalization and proved to be cost-effective compared with inpatient treatment |
Cassettari et al. 11 | São Paulo | PHI | 441 | Home care | Urinary tract infection, pulmonary infection, surgical site infection | Teicoplanin, ceftriaxone, meropenem | Low rate of treatment failure (0.4%). Outpatient stewardship program was effective and safe |
Salles et al. 12 | Santo André | PHI | 276 | Home care, outpatient clinics | Pneumonia, urinary tract infection | Ceftriaxone | Palliative care and not having had a postdischarge physician office visit within the first 30 days after inclusion in the OPAT program were risk factors for hospital readmission and mortality |
Loesch et al. 10 | Curitiba | SUS | 291 | Day hospital, home care | Urinary tract infection, pneumonia, osteomyelitis | Not mentioned | OPAT allowed for significant cost savings and reduction in length of stay. OPAT also reduced risk. OPAT also reduced the risk of contamination of patients with multidrug-resistant bacteria |
Freitas et al. 13 | Fortaleza | SUS | 23 | Day hospital | Urinary tract infection, bloodstream infection | Ertapenem (only) | 95.65% clinical cure among patients with liver and kidney transplants and infections with Gram-negative bacilli susceptible only to carbapenems. Cost of treatment in OPAT was higher than that of hospitalization due to the high price of ertapenem (reference drug) compared with meropenem (generic drug) |
OPAT, outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy; PHI, private health insurance; SUS, Sistema Único de Saúde (Brazilian public health system).
General considerations and future prospects
Although OPAT was adopted late in Brazil, with the first large-scale experience initiated in 2013 and reported in 2016, published reports show that the country’s experiences with this type of treatment are favorable.9–14 Publication of national guidelines, which considered the particularities of the country, allowed the dissemination of OPAT services and the advancement of dehospitalization in Brazil. 4 It is still necessary, however, to make progress with these strategies, especially regarding financing of antimicrobials. While there is no specific public policy for OPAT in SUS, this treatment modality may be unfavorable from a financial point of view in some situations, such as shown in one of the reported studies. 12 Creation of this policy and strengthening of existing programs such as ‘Melhor em Casa’ would certainly contribute to an even greater expansion of OPAT in Brazil and the consequent optimization of beds and hospital resources.
Within the scope of PHI, OPAT also shows strong expansion in Brazil and proves to be effective from a clinical point of view, lacking specific studies that corroborate the cost-effectiveness of this treatment modality in this model of healthcare system.
Acknowledgments
None.
Footnotes
ORCID iD: Priscila R Oliveira https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1377-6556
Contributor Information
Priscila R Oliveira, Universidade de São Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Vladimir Cordeiro Carvalho, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
David Everson Uip, Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil.
Ana Lucia Lei Munhoz Lima, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable.
Consent for publication: Not applicable.
Author contributions: Priscila R Oliveira: Data curation; Methodology; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.
Vladimir Cordeiro Carval ho: Conceptualization; Writing – review & editing.
David Everson Uip: Writing – review & editing.
Ana Lucia Lei Munhoz Lima: Project administration; Supervision; Writing – review & editing.
Funding: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Availability of data and materials: None.
References
- 1.Norris AH, Shrestha NK, Allison GM, et al. 2018 Infectious Diseases Society of America Clinical Practice guideline for the management of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy. Clin Infect Dis 2019; 68(1): e1–e35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Chapman ALN, Patel S, Horner C, et al. Updated good practice recommendations for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) in adults and children in the UK. JAC Antimicrob Resist 2019; 1: dlz026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Mahoney MV, Childs-Kean LM, Khan P, et al. Recent updates in antimicrobial stewardship in outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy. Curr Infect Dis Rep 2021; 23: 24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Oliveira PR, Carvalho VC, Cimerman S, et al. Recommendations for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy in Brazil. Braz J Infect Dis 2017; 21: 648–655. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Brasil Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Projeção da população do Brasil e das Unidades da Federação, https://www.ibge.gov.br/apps/populacao/projecao/ (accessed 6 March 2023).
- 6.Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. Comparative health policy library, Brazil, https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/comparative-health-policy-library/brazil-summary#HEALTH%20&%20HEALTH%20SYSTEM (accessed 14 February 2023).
- 7.Brasil Ministério da Saúde. Serviço de atenção domiciliar – melhor em casa, https://www.gov.br/saude/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/acoes-e-programas/atencao-domiciliar/servico-de-atencao-domiciliar-melhor-em-casa (accessed 14 February 2023).
- 8.OECD. OECD reviews of health systems: Brazil 2021. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Oliveira PR, Felix Cda S, Carvalho VC, et al. Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy for orthopedic infections – a successful public healthcare experience in Brazil. Braz J Infect Dis 2016; 20: 272–275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Loesch GH, Cruz JAW, Gasparetto J, et al. Cost minimization analysis of outpatient parenteral/oral antibiotic therapy at a trauma hospital: public health system. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2021; 42: 1445–1450. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Cassettari V, Novato N, Onuchic MHF. Antimicrobial stewardship in the outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) setting: the impact of prescription assessment by an infectious diseases specialist. Braz J Infect Dis 2021; 25: 101560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Salles TCG, Cerrato SG, Santana TF, et al. Factors associated with successful completion of outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy in an area with a high prevalence of multidrug-resistant bacteria: 30-day hospital admission and mortality rates. PLoS ONE 2020; 15: e0241595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Freitas TC, Lima ACC, Andrade AGA, et al. Utilização da estratégia de step down para desospitalização e realização de terapia antimicrobiana parenteral ambulatorial (OPAT) em pacientes transplantados. Braz J Hea Rev 2022; 5: 3134–3137. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Psaltikidis EM, Silva END, Moretti ML, et al. Cost-utility analysis of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) in the Brazilian national health system. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2019; 19: 341–352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]