ABSTRACT
Objective
To analyze the clinical and economic impact of an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) targeting urinary tract infections (UTI) caused by extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli.
Methods
An observational retrospective study that included adults with a diagnosis of UTI caused by ESBL-producing E. coli admitted to a tertiary care hospital in Barcelona, Spain, between January 2014 and December 2015. The impact of the ASP was analyzed in terms of clinical and economic outcomes.
Results
A total of 222 patients met the inclusion criteria and an intervention was made by the ASP team in 104 cases (47%). ASP intervention was an independent variable related to clinical cure (p = 0.008). Other variables influencing clinical outcomes were the McCabe Jackson score (p = 0.005) and outpatient status (p < 0.001). The ASP interventions in this study had no economic impact.
Conclusion
Antimicrobial stewardship has a positive clinical impact on UTIs caused by ESBL-producing E. coli. Further prospective studies are needed to assess the economic impact of ASPs on UTI caused by ESBL-producing E. coli.
Keywords: E. coli, ESBL, Urinary Tract Infections, Antimicrobial Stewardship
RESUMEN
Objetivo
Analizar el impacto clínico y económico de un Programa de Optimización de Antimicrobianos (PROA) en las infecciones del tracto urinario (ITU) causadas por Escherichia coli productor de β-lactamasas de espectro extendido (BLEE).
Métodos
Estudio observacional retrospectivo que incluye adultos con ITU por E. coli BLEE diagnosticados en un hospital terciario en Barcelona, España, entre enero de 2014 y diciembre de 2015. El impacto del PROA se analizó en términos de evolución clínica y consumo de recursos sanitarios.
Resultados
Se incluyeron un total de 222 pacientes, de los cuales se realizó algún tipo de intervención por parte del equipo de PROA en 104 casos (47%). La intervención del PROA resultó ser una variable independiente relacionada con la curación clínica (p = 0,008). Otras variables relacionadas con la evolución clínica fueron la clasificación de McCabe Jackson (p = 0,005) y el manejo ambulatorio (p < 0,001). Las intervenciones del PROA no demostraron tener un impacto económico en este estudio.
Conclusión
Las intervenciones de los PROA tienen un impacto positivo en la evolución clínica de los pacientes con ITU por E. coli productor de BLEE. Se necesitan más estudios prospectivos para determinar el impacto económico de los PROA en las ITU por E. coli productor de BLEE.
Keywords: E. coli, BLEE, Infección del tracto urinario, Programa de optimización de antimicrobianos
INTRODUCTION
Extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) isolates have been increasing in Europe since the first reported case in 1983. The Spanish Hospital Infection Study Group (GEIRAS/GEIH) has conducted several studies on the epidemiology and evolution of this problem in Spain, showing a growing proportion of urinary tract infections (UTI) caused by ESBL-producing Escherichia coli, with a high percentage considered to be community-acquired [1]. In our center, in outpatients and inpatients, ESBL-producing E. coli increased from 8% and 11.4%, respectively, in 2010, to 10.9% and 15.1% in 2014. Antimicrobial resistance is known to limit treatment options and to increase the cost of healthcare resources [1-6]. Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) have been developing in Spain in recent years to respond to this problem. The Spanish Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (SEIMC) drafted a consensus document defining the objectives of antimicrobial stewardship and establishing recommendations for their implementation in Spanish hospitals [7]. Based on a previous study conducted by our group, which showed the significant clinical and economic impact of urinary tract infections caused by ESBL E. coli [2], it was decided to intensify ASP activities, paying particular attention to multidrug-resistant pathogens, including ESBL producers.
Multiple studies have clearly demonstrated that implementation of an ASP has a positive impact on the clinical outcomes of patients and on the consumption of healthcare resources and associated costs [8–18], although specific literature on urinary infections caused by ESBL-producing bacteria is scarce.
The study hypothesis was that ASP activities have a positive impact on the clinical outcome of patients with ESBL-producing E.coli UTI and on the use of healthcare resources. The Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, recently started to implement these programs. The aim of this study was to study the clinical and economic impact of an ASP on patients with ESBL-producing E.coli UTI admitted to our hospital during 2014 and 2015.
METHODS
An observational retrospective study, conducted from January 2014 to December 2015 in a 420-bed, university-affiliated tertiary care hospital in Barcelona (Spain) serving a population of 300,000 people. The study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethical Committee of the Parc de Salut Mar (CEIC - Parc de Salut Mar) (number 2015/6492/I).
A multidisciplinary ASP team started to be built in 2010, comprising a microbiologist, a pharmacist specializing in infectious diseases and two physicians specializing in antimicrobial therapy. Their core strategies include daily review of cultures of clinical samples, informing infection control practitioners and physicians responsible for antimicrobial stewardship by email of multiresistant pathogens and antibiogram once it is available (On Saturdays, the microbiologist, in addition to the email, makes a phone call to the doctor on call in charge of the patient. This activity was performed from Monday to Friday until early 2016, when it was expanded to include the weekends also). In addition, the ASP pharmacist monitors antibiotic use on a daily basis via a computerized system that collects all data related to antibiotic prescriptions. After the daily review of these data, the pharmacist and/or ASP physician review the adequacy of the prescriptions and assess the need for an intervention, which may involve informing the doctor in charge of a culture positive for a multidrug-resistant microorganism and/or making a recommendation to the prescriber to improve the quality of the prescription, as and when necessary. The system of recommendations is based on non-restrictive or imposed strategies and can be made in writing using the electronic medical records, by telephone, and/or directly with the prescriber. Recommendations may include the appropriateness and adequacy of antibiotic treatment, including adjustment of dose, duration of treatment, discontinuation, de-escalation, switching therapy from intravenous to the oral route, change due to adverse events and use of OPAT. These strategies were intensified significantly during the last 4 months included in the study.
Study population and selection criteria
-Inclusion: Symptomatic episodes of UTI in adult patients (over 18 years old) with a positive urine culture for ESBL-producing E. coli, graded at the Hospital del Mar, requiring both hospitalization and outpatient treatment.
-Exclusion: patients with a diagnosis of asymptomatic bacteriuria, another concomitant infection that would make it difficult to interpret the UTI, infection caused by a microorganism other than E. coli and/or polymicrobial infections.
Data collection and variables analyzed. Data were retrospectively collected from electronic charts. The following variables were recorded: demographic and epidemiological data (age, gender, underlying diseases, use of immunosuppressive therapy, prior antibiotic treatment), clinical and microbiological data (fever, bacteremia, severe sepsis or shock, hospitalization, ICU admission, antibiotic susceptibility patterns, incidence of ESBL-producing E. coli isolated from the UTI, empirical treatment, clinical response after 7 days, need for readmission or re-consultation within 30 days of diagnosis, 30-day mortality rate) and risk factors for ESBL-producing E. coli (presence of bladder catheters, previous urologic manipulation, acquisition of infection: community vs. healthcare-related vs nosocomial).
The Charlson index was used to classify comorbidities and the McCabe-Jackson index to classify their severity. The following variables concerning use of healthcare resources were analyzed: length of hospital stay, cost of hospitalization, cost of antibiotics, use of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT), number of successive consultations and readmissions within 30 days of discharge.
With respect to the ASP, the following variables were collected: appropriateness of empirical treatment, days to appropriate treatment when required, directed antibiotic treatment, ASP team recommendations, time to performance of the recommendation, prescriber acceptance rates of recommendations, adequacy of treatment by dosage and other patient characteristics (allergies, obesity, kidney failure, liver failure, use of extrarrenal purification techniques, etc.) when required, time to correction of inappropriate treatment, appropriate treatment duration, total duration of antibiotic treatment, de-escalation, sequential therapy, incidence of adverse effects, including Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea, incidence of hypersensitivity and toxicity attributable to antibiotic treatment. To be placed in the care of an infectious diseases specialist was considered an intervention, as these patients are discussed with the ASP team and cultures are reviewed daily, although they are not usually reported in the electronic chart.
Definitions. Symptomatic UTI was established when the patient presented at least one of the following symptoms: increased urinary frequency, urgency, dysuria or suprapubic tenderness associated with a positive urine culture (more than 105 colony-forming unit (CFU) of uropathogen per mL urine).
Syndromes:
-Cystitis: the presence of dysuria and increased urinary frequency or urgency, with or without hematuria, in patients without fever (axillary temperature < 38ºC).
-Pyelonephritis: presence of fever (axillary temperature ≥38ºC) and back pain or costovertebral angle tenderness.
-Acute prostatitis: a sudden febrile episode characterized by low back or perineal tenderness with increased urination frequency, dysuria and urine retention.
-Orchiepididymitis: a febrile episode accompanied by testicular pain and inflammation.
-Urosepsis: A urine and/or blood culture positive for the study uropathogen (E. coli) implying clinical evidence of severe infection of the urinary tract (or male genital tract) and presenting with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (definition adapted for this study) [19].
-Septic shock: urosepsis with hypotension that persists despite intravenous fluid treatment.
-Other: evidence of active infection with fever or leukocytosis not attributable to a focus other than urinary (catheter-related UTI, UTI in elderly patients)
Acquisition:
Community-acquired UTI (CA-UTI) was defined as an episode whose symptoms started either before or within 48 hours of being admitted to hospital, but without criteria for HCA.
Health care-acquired UTI (HCA-UTI) was defined as an episode whose symptoms appeared in the 48 hours prior to hospital admission and the patient met at least one of the following criteria (adapted from Friedman et al’s criteria for bloodstream infections):
-The patient had received specialized treatment (including change of an indwelling urinary catheter) at home by a qualified healthcare worker in the 30 days prior to hospital admission.
-The patient had attended a day hospital, hemodialysis clinic or had received intravenous chemotherapy in the 30 days prior to hospital admission.
-Hospitalization for more than 48 hours in the 90 days preceding the current admission.
-Resident in a long-term care facility or nursing home.
Hospital-acquired UTI (HA-UTI). More than 48h after admission, within 3 days of discharge or 30 days of an operation [20].
Empirical therapy was defined as the antibiotic given before the in vitro susceptibility of the uropathogen causing the episode was known, and was deemed inappropriate if the microorganism was not susceptible according to EUCAST criteria.
-Appropriate antibiotic treatment: defined as use of agents with in vitro activity against the causative pathogens.
-Adequate antibiotic treatment: this required both administration of the correct (appropriate) antibiotic and also the optimal dose and correct route of administration to ensure that the antibiotic penetrated into the site of infection [7].
De-escalation was considered as streamlining or narrowing the spectrum of antibiotics from empiric treatment to a single culture-directed agent with the following ranking: carbapenem > piperacillin / tazobactam or ertapenem > amoxicillin / clavulanate or co-trimoxazole or ciprofloxacin or fosfomycin [21].
Treatment outcome was defined as clinical failure when the patient showed no improvement, or at least one of the initial symptoms worsened, or needed a switch of antimicrobial therapy, or died. Clinical cure was defined as either the absence of symptoms or a consistent improvement in the signs and symptoms of infection.
Statistical analysis. Quantitative variables were analyzed using the Student’s t-test or Mann Whitney test and qualitative variables using the Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. Multivariate logistic and median regression analysis were used to determine the independent variables related to, respectively the clinical and economic impact of the ASP. For the statistical analysis, a P value of <0.05 was considered significant. All data were analyzed using STATA statistical package.
RESULTS
A total of 667 positive urine cultures for ESBL-producing E.coli were analyzed. The following were excluded from analysis: asymptomatic bacteriuria (253), polymicrobial infections (66), cases with concomitant infection that would make the UTI difficult to interpret (50) and cases with missing data in the medical records (76). A total of 222 patients were finally included.
The baseline characteristics and bivariate analysis of intervention vs non-intervention are shown in table 1.
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics
| No ASPN = 118 (%) | ASPN = 104 (%) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Median age | 67 | 7 | 0.25 |
| Sex, female | 71 (60) | 63 (61) | 0.95 |
| Charlson | 4.9 | 5.6 | 0.1 |
| McCabe Jackson | 2.4 | 2.3 | 0.3 |
| Previous ESBL E. coli | 35 (30) | 35 (34) | 0.52 |
| Outpatient | 53 (45) | 22 (21) | <0.001 |
| Inpatient | 65 (55) | 82 (79) | <0.001 |
| ICU | 2 (2) | 4 (4) | 0.3 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 43 (36) | 48 (46) | 0.14 |
| Cirrhosis | 1 (1) | 12 (12) | 0.001 |
| Chronic renal failure | 28 (24) | 26 (25) | 0.82 |
| Previous antibiotic | 75 (64) | 80 (77) | 0.04 |
| Immunosupression | 14 (12) | 18 (17) | 0.25 |
| Kidney transplant | 5 (4) | 4 (4) | 0.88 |
| Urinary catheter | 15 (13) | 22 (21) | 0.09 |
| Previous urologic manipulation (3 months) | 39 (33) | 54 (52) | 0.004 |
| Obstructive UTI | 6 (5) | 2 (2) | 0.21 |
| Urological condition | 68 (58) | 55 (53) | 0.48 |
| Recurrent UTI | 54 (46) | 38 (37) | 0.16 |
| Syndrome | |||
| Cystitis | 33 (28) | 20 (19) | 0.13 |
| Pyelonephritis | 20 (17) | 7 (7) | 0.02 |
| Urosepsis | 48 (41) | 53 (51) | 0.13 |
| Septic shock | 6 (5) | 6 (6) | 0.8 |
| Prostatitis | 1 (1) | 9 (9) | 0.01 |
| Orchitis | 5 (4) | 1 (1) | 0.33 |
| Other | 7 (6) | 8 (8) | 0.6 |
| Bacteremia | 8 (7) | 31 (30) | < 0.001 |
| Acquisition | |||
| Community | 54 (46) | 23 (22) | <0.001 |
| Health care-related | 49 (42) | 52 (50) | 0.2 |
| Nosocomial | 15 (13) | 28(27) | 0.008 |
| Time to appropriate therapy | 1.93 | 1.14 | 0.032 |
| OPAT | 5 (4) | 18 (17) | 0.001 |
| De-escalation | 12 (34 % of potentials) | 30 (71% of potentials) | 0,003 |
| Switch to oral route | 15 (35% of potentials) | 28 (56 % of potentials) | 0,052 |
| C. difficile diarrhea | 0 | 2 (2) | 0.2 |
| Clinical outcome | |||
| Failure | 22 (19) | 5 (5) | |
| Cure | 74 (63) | 95 (91) | <0.001 |
| Indeterminate | 22 (19) | 4 (4) | |
| Microbiological outcome | |||
| Persistence | 23 (19) | 14 (13) | |
| Negative | 24 (20) | 25 (24) | 0.4 |
| No control | 68 (58) | 64 (62) | |
| Re-consultation | 30 (25) | 18 (17) | 0,08 |
| Re-admission | 15 (13) | 13 (13) | 0.62 |
| Mortality | 7 (6) | 4 (4) | 0.4 |
Of the total of 222 cases, an ASP intervention was performed in 104 (47%). Of these, 27 patients were in the care of an infectious diseases (ID) physician and 28 involved an infectious diseases consultation service from another department. 72 (32%) cases were notifications of a urine culture positive for ESBL E. coli received within 72h (communicated by telephone and/or a note in the patient’s records when the patient was in the charge of a service other than ID; of note, 87 (39%) cultures were received at weekends, correlating with fewer notifications (72% vs 39%; P = 0.003). In 51 (23%) patients from a service other than ID, a therapeutic recommendation was made.
Of all recommendations, 44 (86%) were based on susceptibility testing and 22 (43%) involved a recommendation of a change from inappropriate to appropriate treatment. De-escalation was proposed in 12 (24%) of recommendations and switching from the intravenous to oral route in 9 (18%). In 13 cases (25%), dose adjustment was recommended. In one case, a change due to hypersensitivity was proposed, and withdrawal of treatment in another.
With regard to de-escalation, 77 (34%) cases were identified where de-escalation was possible and it was carried out in 58% of them. De-escalation was mostly carried out when a specific recommendation was made (89% vs 36%, P= 0.004). Clinical cure rates were similar in both groups.
With respect to switching therapy from the intravenous to the oral route, 92 (41%) potential cases were identified for a switch to oral therapy, and the conversion was performed in 47%. There were more conversions to oral therapy when a specific recommendation was made (88% vs 39%; p= 0.019). There were no differences in clinical cure between switch to oral therapy vs non-switch patients.
Table 2 shows factors related to clinical failure and table 3 the univariate and multivariate analyses of variables involved in the clinical outcome of patients. Twenty-six patients were excluded from the analysis because the outcome was not evaluable (table 4). In multivariate analysis, ASP intervention and inpatient status were independent variables related to clinical cure, while patients with septic shock were related to clinical failure.
Table 2.
Factors related to clinical outcome
| FailureN = 27 (%) | CureN = 169 (%) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex, female | 14 (51.9) | 101 (59.8) | 0.44 |
| Age > 60 | 19 (70.4) | 127 (75.1) | 0.60 |
| MCJ < 2 | 4 (14.8) | 9 (5.3) | 0.085 |
| Previous ESBL E. coli | 7 (25.9) | 55 (32.5) | 0.50 |
| Outpatient | 17 (63) | 40 (23.7) | < 0.001 |
| Surgical service | 6 (22.2) | 35 (20.7) | 0.86 |
| DM | 9 (33.3) | 74 (43.8) | 0.31 |
| Chronic renal failure | 4 (14.8) | 44 (26) | 0.24 |
| Immunosuppression | 3 (11.1) | 24 (14.2) | 1.00 |
| Urinary catheter | 3 (11.1) | 31 (18.3) | 0.58 |
| Previous urologic manipulation | 8 (29.6) | 81 (48.5) | 0.095 |
| Septic shock | 3 (11.1) | 9 (5.3) | 0.22 |
| Bacteremia | 4 (14.8) | 35 (20.7) | 0.48 |
| Community | 10 (37) | 53 (31.4) | 0.66 |
| Health care-related | 14 (51.9) | 77 (45.6) | 0.54 |
| Nosocomial | 3 (11.1) | 38 (22.5) | 0.21 |
| Inappropriate empirical treatment | 14 (53.8) | 74 (44.3) | 0.36 |
| No ASP intervention | 5 (18.5) | 95 (56.2) | < 0.001 |
MCJ: McCabe Jackson score; DM: Difference in Medians
Table 3.
Univariate and multivariate analysis of factors related to clinical failure
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95%CI) | p-value | OR (95% CI) | p-value | |
| Sex, female | 0.73 (0.32 – 1.64) | 0.44 | 0.82 (0.30 – 2.25) | 0.70 |
| Age > 60 | 0.79 (0.32 – 1.93) | 0.6 | 0.77 (0.24 – 2.46) | 0.66 |
| ICC | 0.97 (0.85 – 1.11) | 0.67 | ||
| MCJ < 2 | 3.09 (0.88 – 10.86) | 0.078 | 9.83 (1.96 – 49.20) | 0.005 |
| Previous ESBL | 0.73 (0.29 – 1.82) | 0.49 | ||
| Outpatient | 5.48 (2.33 – 12.93) | < 0.001 | 13.55 (3.5 – 52.43) | < 0.001 |
| Surgical service | 1.09 (0.41 – 2.92) | 0.86 | ||
| Diabetes mellitus | 0.64 (0.27 – 1.5) | 0.31 | ||
| Chronic renal failure | 0.49 (0.16 – 1.51) | 0.22 | ||
| Immunosuppression | 0.76 (0.21 – 2.7) | 0.67 | ||
| Urinary catheter | 0.56 (0.16 – 1.97) | 0.36 | ||
| Previous urologic manipulation | 0.45 (0.19 – 1.08) | 0.07 | ||
| Septic shock | 2.22 (0.56 – 8.79) | 0.26 | 2.88 (0.43 – 19.14) | 0.28 |
| Bacteremia | 0.67 (0.22 – 2.05) | 0.48 | 2.22 (0.45 – 10.89) | 0.33 |
| Community | 1.29 (0.55 – 3.00) | 0.56 | ||
| Health care-related | 1.29 (0.57 – 2.90) | 0.54 | 2.62 (0.75 – 9.11) | 0.13 |
| Nosocomial | 0.43 (0.12 – 1.51) | 0.19 | 2.50 (0.39 – 15.84) | 0.33 |
| Inappropriate empirical treatment | 1.47 (0.64 – 3.36) | 0.37 | 1.30 (0.49 – 3.4) | 0.60 |
| No ASP intervention | 5.65 (2.04 – 15.63) | 0.001 | 5.04 (1.52 – 16.76) | 0.008 |
Table 4.
Patients with non-evaluable outcome.
| Missing UTI data in medical record | Lost to Follow-up | Death not related to UTIa | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cystitis | 5 | 5 | 0 | 10 |
| Pyelonephritis | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Prostatitis | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Urosepsis | 4 | 3 | 4 | 11 |
| Other | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 10 | 9 | 5 | 26 |
All were patients with a severe chronic disease and 4 (80%) were aged ≥ 80
It should be noted that during the intensive period when a person was in charge of revising cultures and making recommendations systematically (September to December 2015), the number of interventions was significantly higher than the rest of the study period (74% vs 42%, P < 0.001). In spite of this, the sample is too small to show conclusive results (data not shown).
The ASP interventions did not have a significant impact on length of hospital stay, treatment duration, microbiological eradication, re-admissions or mortality. There was no economic impact as a result of ASP interventions for these infections (tables 5 and 6).
Table 5.
Univariate analysis of patient costs: intervention versus no intervention
| No ASP med [P25-P75] | ASP med [P25-P75] | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hospital stay cost | 3,807.93 (2,403.96 – 6,973.3) | 5,423.16 (3,684.11 – 9,674.61) | 0.056 |
| Cost of antibiotics | 22.6 (9.62 – 112.55) | 98.28 (14.6 – 288.53) | 0.002 |
Table 6.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of costs of hospital stay and antibiotics
| DM (95% CI) | p-value | Adjusted | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hospital stay costs | ||||
| Intervention | 1,615.23 (33.14 - 3,197.32) | 0.045 | 1,351.17 (-234.26 - 2,936.60) | 0.094 |
| Age | 3.26 (-53.83 - 60.36) | 0.91 | -1.89 (-69.40 - 65.62) | 0.956 |
| Sex | -1,047.19 (-2,699.65 - 605.27) | 0.21 | -691.61 (-2,165.26 - 782.05) | 0.355 |
| MCJ | -208.94 (-1,542.48 - 1,124.60) | 0.757 | 608.16 (-952.14 - 2,168.46) | 0.442 |
| Shock | 2,446.63 (-705.35 - 5,598.61) | 0.127 | 706.32 (-2,087.67 - 3,500.29) | 0.618 |
| Bacteremia | 53.55 (-2,061.50 - 2,168.50) | 0.96 | -339.58 (-2,148.91 - 1,469.76) | 0.711 |
| HCA or HA | 2,081.02 (43.82 - 4,118.22) | 0.045 | 2,089.32 (88.50 - 4,090.13) | 0.041 |
| Alternative to carbapenem | -1,043.48 (-3,373.5 - 1,286.54) | 0.38 | -109.85 (-2,055.35 - 1,835.65) | 0.911 |
| OPAT | -805.56 (-3,153.23 - 1,542.11) | 0.50 | -1,173.23 (-3,179.80 - 833.34) | 0.249 |
| Cost of antibiotics | ||||
| Intervention | 75.68 (29.98 - 121.37) | 0.001 | -5.2325 (-62.62 - 52.16) | 0.857 |
| Age | 0.82 (-0.64 - 2.28) | 0.27 | -0.065 (-2.03 - 1.90) | 0.948 |
| Sex | -74.49 (-119.97 - -29.00) | 0.001 | -14.665 (-70.44 - 41.11) | 0.605 |
| MCJ | -45.08 (-78.52 - 11.64) | 0.008 | -6.5175 (-62.30 - 49.27) | 0.818 |
| Shock | 146.44 (57.01 - 235.87) | 0.001 | 38.69 (-77.21 - 154.59) | 0.51 |
| Bacteremia | 168.09 (113.94 - 222.24) | < 0.001 | 127.31 (51.08 - 203.54) | 0.001 |
| HCA or HA | 79.23 (28.49 - 129.97) | 0.002 | 3.42 (-66.72 - 73.55) | 0.92 |
| Alternative to carbapenem | -254.06 (-327.56 - -180.56) | < 0.001 | -96.29 (-176.74 - -15.84) | 0.019 |
| OPAT | 147.49 (83.53 - 211.45) | < 0.001 | 119.57 (32.94 - 206.20) | 0.007 |
| Inpatient | 104 (50.62 - 157.38) | < 0.001 | 40.81 (-32.14 - 113.76) | 0.27 |
DM: Difference in Medians; MCJ: McCabe Jackson score
DISCUSSION
This study reviewed cases of UTI caused by ESBL-producing E. coli in 2014 and 2015 and the effect of an antimicrobial stewardship program on clinical outcomes and costs. In terms of the clinical outcomes of patients, the results showed a clearly positive impact in cases where there was some kind of intervention compared to those where none was made. Overall, we observed little differences between both groups regarding basal characteristics. However, the prevalence of conditions potentially involving an increased risk of treatment failure (cirrhosis, bacteremia, previous urologic manipulation, previous antibiotic therapy, nosocomial infection) was significantly higher in the ASP group (table 1). In this context, the results we observed in this group suggests that therapeutic intervention in the framework of an ASP might improve the prognosis of high-risk patients.
A previous quasi-experimental study evaluating the impact of an Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (ASP) on the management of UTI showed improvements in the number of discontinuations of treatment, duration of treatment and adherence to local guidelines. There were no differences with respect to de-escalation, switching therapy from the intravenous to oral route, re-admissions, length of stay and hospitalization costs [22]. In our study, there was only one discontinuation for unnecessary treatment and treatment duration was similar in both groups. This may have been due to the small sample size and its heterogeneity, or to the fact that, after a recommendation was made, the prescription was not exhaustively followed in most cases.
In our study, a higher rate of de-escalation therapy was observed when there was a specific ASP recommendation for de-escalation than when there was none. Similar rates of clinical cure were observed for de-escalated and not de-escalated groups, and the duration of carbapenem therapy was shorter when de-escalated. This is consistent with other studies [13]. Early switching from intravenous to oral routes has been shown to reduce the economic costs of antimicrobial treatment, the side effects and complications of parenteral therapy and length of hospital stay without compromising the effectiveness of treating infections when it is used [23]. Other studies have shown that early sequential therapy is just as effective for the treatment of acute pyelonephritis and has fewer side effects [24,25]. In our study, a significant reduction in intravenous therapy and length of stay was observed when patients switched from the intravenous to oral route, with a similar rate of clinical cure. Switch therapy was mostly carried out when the ASP team made the recommendation. Despite a higher rate of de-escalation and sequencing in cases of intervention, our study failed to show an overall reduction in carbapenem use or hospital stay when an ASP intervention was performed.
The costs attributable to antimicrobial resistance are considerable, hence the potential economic benefit of prevention programs [26]. Despite the fact that multiple studies have shown that antimicrobial stewardship programs make a positive impact on the consumption of health resources and economic outcomes [8–10,17,27–30], it was not possible to demonstrate this impact in our study.
Our study has several limitations, mainly related to its retrospective nature. The main limitation of the study lies in the potential bias between the groups studied, since during a long period of the study the team worked on ASP only part-time and therefore there is no clear division between candidates and non-candidates for ASP recommendations. Further, since data collection in based on reviewing patients’ medical records, all the data may not be available in all cases. Another limitation is the small sample size. It is difficult to assess the long-term benefits of an ASP in a single study. In cases where any intervention is made, the prevention of possible future infections caused by multiresistant pathogens should be considered [31]. In addition, the lack of dedicated full-time staff makes it difficult to optimize the number and quality of interventions. A prospective intervention study with more dedicated staff will be required to overcome these limitations. The costs of implementation should be offset by reductions in the consumption of health care resources and antimicrobial costs.
In our study, there was less clinical failure when some kind of ASP intervention was applied to patients with ESBL-producing E. coli UTI. We conclude therefore that antimicrobial stewardship has a positive clinical impact on these urinary tract infections. Further prospective studies are needed to assess the impact on the consumption of health care resources, as well as the long-term ecological impact.
FUNDING
None to declare.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
REFERENCES
- 1.Diaz MA, Hernandez-Bello JR, Rodriguez-Bano J, Martinez-Martinez L, Calvo J, Blanco J, et al. Diversity of Escherichia coli Strains Producing Extended-Spectrum -Lactamases in Spain: Second Nationwide Study. J Clin Microbiol. 2010; 48(8):2840–5. PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Esteve-Palau E, Solande G, Francisca S, Sorlí L. Clinical and economic impact of urinary tract infections caused by ESBL-producing Escherichia coli requiring hospitalization: A matched cohort study. J Infect. 2015; 71(6):667-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2015.08.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Tumbarello M, Sanguinetti M, Montuori E, Trecarichi EM, Posteraro B, Fiori B, et al. Predictors of mortality in patients with bloodstream infections caused by extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae: importance of inadequate initial antimicrobial treatment. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007; 51(6):1987–94. PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Tumbarello M, Spanu T, Di Bidino R, Marchetti M, Ruggeri M, Trecarichi EM, et al. Costs of bloodstream infections caused by Escherichia coli and influence of extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase production and inadequate initial antibiotic therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54(10):4085–91. PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Melzer M, Petersen I. Mortality following bacteraemic infection caused by extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing E. coli compared to non-ESBL producing E. coli. J Infect. 2007;55(3):254–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.MacVane SH, Tuttle LO, Nicolau DP. Impact of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing organisms on clinical and economic outcomes in patients with urinary tract infection. J Hosp Med 2014;9(4):232–8. PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Rodríguez Baño J, Paño-Pardo J, Alvarez-Rocha L, Asensio A, Calbo E, Cercenado E, et al. [Programs for optimizing the use of antibiotics (PROA) in Spanish hospitals: GEIH-SEIMC, SEFH and SEMPSPH consensus document]. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 2012; 30(1):22.e1-22.e23. DOI: 10.1016/j.eimc.2011.09.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Cisneros JM, Neth O, Gil-Navarro MV, Lepe JA, Jiménez-Parrilla F, Cordero E, et al. Global impact of an educational antimicrobial stewardship programme on prescribing practice in a tertiary hospital centre. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014;20(1):82–8. PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Dryden M, Saeed K, Townsend R, Winnard C, Bourne S, Parker N, et al. Antibiotic stewardship and early discharge from hospital: impact of a structured approach to antimicrobial management. J Antimicrob Chemother 2012;67(9):2289–96. PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Gray A, Dryden M, Charos A. Antibiotic management and early discharge from hospital: an economic analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2012;67(9):2297–302. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dks194 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Davey P, Marwick CA, Scott CL, Charani E, McNeil K, Brown E, et al. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients. In: Davey P, editor. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2017. [cited 2017 May 12]. p. CD003543. PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ruiz-Ramos J, Frasquet J, Romá E, Poveda-Andres JL, Salavert-Leti M, Castellanos A, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing an antimicrobial stewardship program in critical care units. J Med Econ 2017;1–8. PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Lew KY, Ng TM, Tan M, Tan SH, Lew EL, Ling LM, et al. Safety and clinical outcomes of carbapenem de-escalation as part of an antimicrobial stewardship programme in an ESBL-endemic setting. J Antimicrob Chemother 2015;70(4):1219–25. PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Doernberg SB, Dudas V, Trivedi KK. Implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship program targeting residents with urinary tract infections in three community long-term care facilities: a quasi-experimental study using time-series analysis. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2015;4:54. PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Nowak MA, Nelson RE, Breidenbach JL, Thompson PA, Carson PJ. Clinical and economic outcomes of a prospective antimicrobial stewardship program. Am J Heal Pharm 2012; 69(17):1500–8. PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Howard P, Pulcini C, Levy Hara G, West RM, Gould IM, Harbarth S, et al. An international cross-sectional survey of antimicrobial stewardship programmes in hospitals. J Antimicrob Chemother 2015;70(4):1245–55. PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Carbo JF, Ruh CA, Kurtzhalts KE, Ott MC, Sellick JA, Mergenhagen KA. Male veterans with complicated urinary tract infections: Influence of a patient-centered antimicrobial stewardship program. Am J Infect Control 2016; 44(12):1549-1553. PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Güerri-Fernández R, Villar-García J, Herrera-Fernández S, Trenchs-Rodríguez M, Fernández-Morato J, Moro L, et al. An antimicrobial stewardship program reduces antimicrobial therapy duration and hospital stay in surgical wards. Rev Esp Quimioter 2016;29(3):119–21. PMID: [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Kalra OP, Raizada A. Approach to a patient with urosepsis. J Glob Infect Dis 2009;1(1):57–63. PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Cardoso T, Almeida M, Friedman ND, Aragão I, Costa-Pereira A, Sarmento AE, et al. Classification of healthcare-associated infection: a systematic review 10 years after the first proposal. BMC Me d 2014;12:40. PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Tabah A, Cotta MO, Garnacho-Montero J, Schouten J, Roberts JA, Lipman J, et al. A Systematic Review of the Definitions, Determinants, and Clinical Outcomes of Antimicrobial De-escalation in the Intensive Care Unit. Clin Infect Dis 2016;62(8):1009–17. PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Collins CD, Kabara JJ, Michienzi SM, Malani AN. Impact of an Antimicrobial Stewardship Care Bundle to Improve the Management of Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Urinary Tract Infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;1–3. PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Vogtländer NPJ, Van Kasteren MEE, Natsch S, Kullberg B-J, Hekster YA, Van Der Meer JWM. Improving the process of antibiotic therapy in daily practice: interventions to optimize timing, dosage adjustment to renal function, and switch therapy. Arch Intern Med 2004. June 14;164(11):1206–12. PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Bailey RR, Begg EJ, Smith AH, Robson RA, Lynn KL, Chambers ST, et al. Prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing two dosing regimens of gentamicin/oral ciprofloxacin switch therapy for acute pyelonephritis. Clin Nephrol 1996;46(3):183–6. PMID: [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Veve MP, Wagner JL, Kenney RM, Grunwald JL. Comparison of fosfomycin to ertapenem for outpatient or step-down therapy of extended-spectrum β-lactamase urinary tract infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2016; 48(1):56-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2016.04.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Roberts RR, Hota B, Ahmad I, Scott RD, Foster SD, Abbasi F, et al. Hospital and societal costs of antimicrobial-resistant infections in a Chicago teaching hospital: implications for antibiotic stewardship. Clin Infect Dis 2009;49(8):1175–84. DOI: 10.1086/605630 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Lin Y-S, Lin I-F, Yen Y-F, Lin P-C, Shiu Y, Hu H-Y, et al. Impact of an antimicrobial stewardship program with multidisciplinary cooperation in a community public teaching hospital in Taiwan. Am J Infect Control 2013;41(11):1069–72. PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Schmitt S, McQuillen DP, Nahass R, Martinelli L, Rubin M, Schwebke K, et al. Infectious diseases specialty intervention is associated with decreased mortality and lower healthcare costs. Clin Infect Dis 2014;58(1):22–8. DOI: 10.1093/cid/cit610 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Sallach-Ruma R, Phan C, Sankaranarayanan J. Evaluation of outcomes of intravenous to oral antimicrobial conversion initiatives: a literature review. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 2013;6(6):703–29. PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Ng CK, Wu TC, Chan WMJ, Leung YSW, Li CKP, Tsang DNC, et al. Clinical and economic impact of an antibiotics stewardship programme in a regional hospital in Hong Kong. Qual Saf Heal Care 2008;17(5):387–92. PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.You J. Antimicrobial stewardship programs – cost-minimizing or cost-effective? Expert Opin Pharmacother 2015;16(2):155–7. PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]