DOCSLIB.ORG

Antimicrobial Resistance to Cefotaxime and Ertapenem in Enterobacteriaceae: the Effects of Altering Clinical Breakpoints

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Antimicrobial Resistance to Cefotaxime and Ertapenem in Enterobacteriaceae: the Effects of Altering Clinical Breakpoints Original Article Antimicrobial resistance to cefotaxime and ertapenem in Enterobacteriaceae: the effects of altering clinical breakpoints Po-Yu Liu1,2,3*, Zhi-Yuan Shi1,4*, Kwong-Chung Tung5*, Ching-Lin Shyu5, Kun-Wei Chan6, Jai-Wen Liu7, Zong-Yen Wu5, Chih-Chuan Kao8, Yi-Ching Huang9, Chin-Fu Lin10,11 1 Department of Internal Medicine, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan 2 Center for General Education, Tunghai University, Taichung, Taiwan 3 Department of Pharmacy, Tajen University, Yanpu, Taiwan 4 National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan 5 Department of Veterinary Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, National Chung-Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan 6 Department of Veterinary Medicine, National Chiayi University, Chiayi, Taiwan 7 Department of Emergency Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan 8 Department of Internal Medicine, Dajia Lee's Hospital, Lee's Medical Corporation, Taichung, Taiwan 9 Department of Internal Medicine, Chiayi Branch, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan 10 Microbiology Section of the Medical Laboratory Department, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan 11Department of Laboratory Science and Biotechnology, Central Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taichung, Taiwan. * authors contributed equally to this work Abstract Introduction: The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) updated its antimicrobial susceptibility testing interpretation criteria for Enterobacteriaceae. This study assessed the effects of clinical breakpoint changes in the CLSI 2009 to 2012 guidelines on antibiotic susceptibility testing reports. Methodology: In total, 2,076 non-duplicate clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae were analyzed. The disk diffusion method was used for susceptibility testing. The CLSI 2009-12 clinical breakpoints were applied to determine susceptibility of cefotaxime and ertapenem. Combined-disk testing was used for phenotypic confirmation of extended-spectrum beta–lactamase (ESBL) production. Results: In total, Enterobacteriaceae resistance rates to cefotaxime increased from 13.1% using the CLSI 2009 guidelines to 23.6% with the CLSI 2010-12 guidelines, and the resistance rates to ertapenem were 0.4%, 1.0% and 0.8% with CLSI 2009, 2011 and 2012, respectively. Based on the 2010-12 CLSI criteria, all ESBL-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae were resistant to cefotaxime. Marked differences in susceptibility to ertapenem between the 2009 CLSI criteria and 2012-12 CLSI criteria were noted in ESBL-producing K. pneumoniae. Conclusions: Breakpoints changes in the updated CLSI guidelines resulted in higher resistance rates to cefotaxime and ertapenem. In addition, the effects were different in individual Enterobacteriaceae species. As a result, clinicians may opt to use alternative antimicrobial agents. Upon implementation of the newer CLSI guidelines, laboratories should be aware of the possible consequences and closely monitor the effects. Key words: Drug Resistance; Enterobacteriaceae; microbial sensitivity tests; cefotaxime; ertapenem J Infect Dev Ctries 2014; 8(3):289-296. doi:10.3855/jidc.3335 (Received 24 January 2013 – Accepted 22 April 2013) Copyright © 2014 Liu et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Introduction Hence, antimicrobial susceptibility testing should be Antimicrobial susceptibility testing is one of the performed according to generally accepted and most important tasks in clinical microbiology clinically relevant guidelines. laboratories. It is not only a valuable guide for Several laboratories, particularly in countries antibiotic therapy but also an important without a national antibiotic susceptibility testing epidemiological tool to monitor resistant organisms. system, have been using the Clinical and Laboratory Liu et al. – Susceptibility with New CLSI Breakpoints J Infect Dev Ctries 2014; 8(3):289-296. Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines to interpret 1500-bed veterans hospital in central Taiwan. antibiotic-sensitivity testing. Recently, the CLSI Identification to the species level was performed by updated and included its recommendations into the routine laboratory methods including the Vitek 2 CLSI 2010, 2011 and 2012 guidelines, which include system (bioMérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France). major changes in the antibiotic susceptibility testing for Enterobacteriaceae. Inhibition zone diameter Susceptibility testing breakpoints for Enterobacteriaceae defining The Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion test was used for susceptibility to third-generation cephalosporins and susceptibility testing. Cefotaxime and ertapenem were carbapenems are significantly higher in the CLSI tested during the study period. Antibiotics discs were 2010/11 version compared to the CLSI 2009 obtained from Becton Dickinson (BD Diagnostic breakpoints [1-3]. Recently, the CLSI recommended Systems, Cockeysville, USA). Susceptibility testing slightly lower zone diameter susceptibility breakpoints was done on Mueller-Hinton agar (BD Diagnostic for ertapenem in its 2012 updates, while breakpoints Systems, Cockeysville, USA) using McFarland 0.5 for third-generation cephalosporins remained from overnight cultures followed by incubation at unchanged [4]. In addition, with the increase of 35℃ for 16-18 hours. Inhibition zone diameters were cephalosporin breakpoints in the CLSI 2010-12 determined and recorded by two experienced guidelines, it is no longer necessary to detect microbiologists. extended-spectrum beta–lactamase (ESBL) producers and to adjust all cephalosporin sensitivity results to ESBL testing resistance, as previously recommended by CLSI 2009 In keeping with CLSI guideline, phenotypic guideline. identification of ESBL production in Escherichia coli, Nevertheless, a controversy arose with regard to Klebsiella pneumoniae, Klebsiella oxytoca and the appropriateness of current recommendations. Some Proteus mirabilis isolates was determined using investigators continue to support the importance of double disk diffusion method [4, 11]. Briefly, ESBL knowing the ESBL status in an isolate to ensure proper combined-disk testing was performed with therapy [5, 6]. Especially in ESBL-endemic areas, commercial disks (BD Diagnostic Systems, where therapeutic options are very limited due to Cockeysville, USA), according to the manufacturer’s associated co-resistance in other classes of instructions, using Mueller-Hinton II (BD Diagnostic antimicrobial agents [7, 8]. Moreover, in a survey on Systems, Cockeysville, USA) agar and an inoculation 144 infectious disease specialists, most respondents turbidity of 0.5 McFarland. The disks used were reported that they would not treat Enterobacteriaceae cefotaxime 30 μg, cefotaxime-clavulanic acid 30/10 infections based on the current breakpoints alone μg, ceftazidime 30 μg and ceftazidime-clavulanic acid without testing for ESBL [9]. Some experts even 30/10 μg. suggested that clinical laboratories should not use the most recent CLSI breakpoints [9, 10]. Comparison of CLSI 2009-2012 breakpoints Adoption of new guidelines and breakpoints can Inhibition zone diameters were interpreted have significant effects on antibiotic susceptibility according to the CLSI 2009-12 recommended zone testing reports, with concomitant changes in antibiotic diameter breakpoints for Enterobacteriaceae (Table prescriptions by clinicians. Prior to the implementation 1). The CLSI 2009 susceptibility breakpoint for of new guidelines in diagnostic microbiology cefotaxime was ≥ 23 mm which increased to ≥ 26 mm laboratories, the impact of changes in antibiotic based on the CLSI 2010-12 guidelines. The CLSI susceptibility testing reports needs to be evaluated. 2009 susceptibility breakpoint for ertapenem was ≥ 19 This study compared the new standards with mm using CLSI 2009, which increased to ≥ 23 mm respect to changes in cefotaxime and ertapenem using CLSI 2011 and reduced to ≥ 22 mm with CLSI among Enterobacteriaceae isolates. 2012. Rates of susceptibility to cefotaxime and ertapenem measured using 2009 CLSI breakpoints Methodology were compared with those obtained using 2010-12 Clinical isolates CLSI breakpoints [1, 3, 4]. Between March 2011 and June 2011, the study collected consecutive non-duplicate clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae in our clinical microbiological laboratory. Our clinical laboratory primarily serves a 290 Liu et al. – Susceptibility with New CLSI Breakpoints J Infect Dev Ctries 2014; 8(3):289-296. Table 1. CLSI 2009-12 susceptibility testing breakpoints of Enterobacteriaceae Clinical breakpoints (mm) CLSI 2009 CLSI 2010 CLSI 2011 CLSI 2012 Drug S I R S I R S I R S I R cefotaxime ≥23 15-22 ≤14 ≥26 23-25 ≤22 ertapenem ≥19 16-18 ≤15 ≥23 20-22 ≤19 ≥22 19-21 ≤18 Categories without value: interpretation guidelines were not changed compared to the previous version. S, susceptible; I, intermediate; R, resistant. Table 2. Susceptibility of Enterobacteriaceae clinical isolates according to CLSI 2009-12 Assignment of Enterobacteriaceae clinical isolates (%) to interpretative category CLSI 2009 CLSI 2010 CLSI 2011 CLSI 2012 Species/drug S I R S I R S I R S I R E.coli cefotaxime 663 120 125 646 17 245 % 73.0 13.2 13.8 71.1 1.9 27.0 ertapenem 907 1 0 898 10 0 904 4 0 % 99.9 0.1 0.0 98.9 1.1 0.0 99.6 0.4 0.0 Klebsiella pneumoniae cefotaxime 403 32 55 388 15 87 % 82.2 6.5 11.2 79.2 3.1 17.8 ertapenem 479 4
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Medical Review(S) Clinical Review
    CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH APPLICATION NUMBER: 200327 MEDICAL REVIEW(S) CLINICAL REVIEW Application Type NDA Application Number(s) 200327 Priority or Standard Standard Submit Date(s) December 29, 2009 Received Date(s) December 30, 2009 PDUFA Goal Date October 30, 2010 Division / Office Division of Anti-Infective and Ophthalmology Products Office of Antimicrobial Products Reviewer Name(s) Ariel Ramirez Porcalla, MD, MPH Neil Rellosa, MD Review Completion October 29, 2010 Date Established Name Ceftaroline fosamil for injection (Proposed) Trade Name Teflaro Therapeutic Class Cephalosporin; ß-lactams Applicant Cerexa, Inc. Forest Laboratories, Inc. Formulation(s) 400 mg/vial and 600 mg/vial Intravenous Dosing Regimen 600 mg every 12 hours by IV infusion Indication(s) Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection (ABSSSI); Community-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (CABP) Intended Population(s) Adults ≥ 18 years of age Template Version: March 6, 2009 Reference ID: 2857265 Clinical Review Ariel Ramirez Porcalla, MD, MPH Neil Rellosa, MD NDA 200327: Teflaro (ceftaroline fosamil) Table of Contents 1 RECOMMENDATIONS/RISK BENEFIT ASSESSMENT ......................................... 9 1.1 Recommendation on Regulatory Action ........................................................... 10 1.2 Risk Benefit Assessment.................................................................................. 10 1.3 Recommendations for Postmarketing Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Below Are the CLSI Breakpoints for Selected Bacteria. Please Use Your Clinical Judgement When Assessing Breakpoints
    Below are the CLSI breakpoints for selected bacteria. Please use your clinical judgement when assessing breakpoints. The lowest number does NOT equal most potent antimicrobial. Contact Antimicrobial Stewardship for drug selection and dosing questions. Table 1: 2014 MIC Interpretive Standards for Enterobacteriaceae (includes E.coli, Klebsiella, Enterobacter, Citrobacter, Serratia and Proteus spp) Antimicrobial Agent MIC Interpretive Criteria (g/mL) Enterobacteriaceae S I R Ampicillin ≤ 8 16 ≥ 32 Ampicillin-sulbactam ≤ 8/4 16/8 ≥ 32/16 Aztreonam ≤ 4 8 ≥ 16 Cefazolin (blood) ≤ 2 4 ≥ 8 Cefazolin** (uncomplicated UTI only) ≤ 16 ≥ 32 Cefepime* ≤ 2 4-8* ≥ 16 Cefotetan ≤ 16 32 ≥ 64 Ceftaroline ≤ 0.5 1 ≥ 2 Ceftazidime ≤ 4 8 ≥ 16 Ceftriaxone ≤ 1 2 ≥ 4 Cefpodoxime ≤ 2 4 ≥ 8 Ciprofloxacin ≤ 1 2 ≥ 4 Ertapenem ≤ 0.5 1 ≥ 2 Fosfomycin ≤ 64 128 ≥256 Gentamicin ≤ 4 8 ≥ 16 Imipenem ≤ 1 2 ≥ 4 Levofloxacin ≤ 2 4 ≥ 8 Meropenem ≤ 1 2 ≥ 4 Piperacillin-tazobactam ≤ 16/4 32/4 – 64/4 ≥ 128/4 Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole ≤ 2/38 --- ≥ 4/76 *Susceptibile dose-dependent – see chart below **Cefazolin can predict results for cefaclor, cefdinir, cefpodoxime, cefprozil, cefuroxime axetil, cephalexin and loracarbef for uncomplicated UTIs due to E.coli, K.pneumoniae, and P.mirabilis. Cefpodoxime, cefinidir, and cefuroxime axetil may be tested individually because some isolated may be susceptible to these agents while testing resistant to cefazolin. Cefepime dosing for Enterobacteriaceae ( E.coli, Klebsiella, Enterobacter, Citrobacter, Serratia & Proteus spp) Susceptible Susceptible –dose-dependent (SDD) Resistant MIC </= 2 4 8 >/= 16 Based on dose of: 1g q12h 1g every 8h or 2g every 8 h Do not give 2g q12 Total dose 2g 3-4g 6g NA Table 2: 2014 MIC Interpretive Standards for Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp.
    [Show full text]
  • Penicillin Allergy Guidance Document
    Penicillin Allergy Guidance Document Key Points Background Careful evaluation of antibiotic allergy and prior tolerance history is essential to providing optimal treatment The true incidence of penicillin hypersensitivity amongst patients in the United States is less than 1% Alterations in antibiotic prescribing due to reported penicillin allergy has been shown to result in higher costs, increased risk of antibiotic resistance, and worse patient outcomes Cross-reactivity between truly penicillin allergic patients and later generation cephalosporins and/or carbapenems is rare Evaluation of Penicillin Allergy Obtain a detailed history of allergic reaction Classify the type and severity of the reaction paying particular attention to any IgE-mediated reactions (e.g., anaphylaxis, hives, angioedema, etc.) (Table 1) Evaluate prior tolerance of beta-lactam antibiotics utilizing patient interview or the electronic medical record Recommendations for Challenging Penicillin Allergic Patients See Figure 1 Follow-Up Document tolerance or intolerance in the patient’s allergy history Consider referring to allergy clinic for skin testing Created July 2017 by Macey Wolfe, PharmD; John Schoen, PharmD, BCPS; Scott Bergman, PharmD, BCPS; Sara May, MD; and Trevor Van Schooneveld, MD, FACP Disclaimer: This resource is intended for non-commercial educational and quality improvement purposes. Outside entities may utilize for these purposes, but must acknowledge the source. The guidance is intended to assist practitioners in managing a clinical situation but is not mandatory. The interprofessional group of authors have made considerable efforts to ensure the information upon which they are based is accurate and up to date. Any treatments have some inherent risk. Recommendations are meant to improve quality of patient care yet should not replace clinical judgment.
    [Show full text]
  • Staphylococcus Aureus Bloodstream Infection Treatment Guideline
    Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infection Treatment Guideline Purpose: To provide a framework for the evaluation and management patients with Methicillin- Susceptible (MSSA) and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bloodstream infections (BSI). The recommendations below are guidelines for care and are not meant to replace clinical judgment. The initial page includes a brief version of the guidance followed by a more detailed discussion of the recommendations with supporting evidence. Also included is an algorithm describing management of patients with blood cultures positive for gram-positive cocci. Brief Key Points: 1. Don’t ignore it – Staphylococcus aureus isolated from a blood culture is never a contaminant. All patients with S. aureus in their blood should be treated with appropriate antibiotics and evaluated for a source of infection. 2. Control the source a. Removing infected catheters and prosthetic devices – Retention of infected central venous catheters and prosthetic devices in the setting of S. aureus bacteremia (SAB) has been associated with prolonged bacteremia, treatment failure and death. These should be removed if medically possible. i. Retention of prosthetic material is associated with an increased likelihood of SAB relapse and removal should be considered even if not clearly infected b. Evaluate for metastatic infections (endocarditis, osteomyelitis, abscesses, etc.) – Metastatic infections and endocarditis are quite common in SAB (11-31% patients with SAB have endocarditis). i. All patients should have a thorough history taken and exam performed with any new complaint evaluated for possible metastatic infection. ii. Echocardiograms should be strongly considered for all patients with SAB iii. All patients with a prosthetic valve, pacemaker/ICD present, or persistent bacteremia (follow up blood cultures positive) should undergo a transesophageal echocardiogram 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Management of Penicillin and Beta-Lactam Allergy
    Management of Penicillin and Beta-Lactam Allergy (NB Provincial Health Authorities Anti-Infective Stewardship Committee, September 2017) Key Points • Beta-lactams are generally safe; allergic and adverse drug reactions are over diagnosed and over reported • Nonpruritic, nonurticarial rashes occur in up to 10% of patients receiving penicillins. These rashes are usually not allergic and are not a contraindication to the use of a different beta-lactam • The frequently cited risk of 8 to 10% cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins is an overestimate based on studies from the 1970’s that are now considered flawed • Expect new intolerances (i.e. any allergy or adverse reaction reported in a drug allergy field) to be reported after 0.5 to 4% of all antimicrobial courses depending on the gender and specific antimicrobial. Expect a higher incidence of new intolerances in patients with three or more prior medication intolerances1 • For type-1 immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IgE-mediated), cross-reactivity among penicillins (table 1) is expected due to similar core structure and/or major/minor antigenic determinants, use not recommended without desensitization • For type-1 immediate hypersensitivity reactions, cross-reactivity between penicillins (table 1) and cephalosporins is due to similarities in the side chains; risk of cross-reactivity will only be significant between penicillins and cephalosporins with similar side chains • Only type-1 immediate hypersensitivity to a penicillin manifesting as anaphylaxis, bronchospasm,
    [Show full text]
  • Ceftaroline in Complicated Skin and Skin-Structure Infections
    Infection and Drug Resistance Dovepress open access to scientific and medical research Open Access Full Text Article REVIEW Ceftaroline in complicated skin and skin-structure infections Paul O Hernandez1 Abstract: Ceftaroline is an advanced-generation cephalosporin antibiotic recently approved by Sergio Lema2 the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure Stephen K Tyring3 infections (cSSSIs). This intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotic exerts potent bactericidal activity Natalia Mendoza2,4 by inhibiting bacterial cell wall synthesis. A high affinity for the penicillin-binding protein 2a (PBP2a) of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) makes the drug especially 1University of Texas School of Medicine at San Antonio, beneficial to patients with MRSA cSSSIs. Ceftaroline has proved in multiple well-conducted San Antonio, TX, 2Woodhull clinical trials to have an excellent safety and efficacy profile. In adjusted doses it is also recom- Medical and Mental Health Center, mended for patients with renal or hepatic impairment. Furthermore, the clinical effectiveness Brooklyn, NY, 3Department of Dermatology, University of Texas and high cure rate demonstrated by ceftaroline in cSSSIs, including those caused by MRSA Health Science Center at Houston, and other multidrug-resistant strains, warrants its consideration as a first-line treatment option 4 Houston, TX, USA; Department of for cSSSIs. This article reviews ceftaroline and its pharmacology, efficacy, and safety data to Dermatology, El
    [Show full text]
  • Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Treatment of Gram-Positive Endocarditis: CAPTURE Study Experience
    International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 53 (2019) 644–649 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijantimicag Ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of Gram-positive endocarditis: CAPTURE study experience ∗ Christopher J. Destache a, David J. Guervil b, Keith S. Kaye c, a School of Pharmacy and Health Professions, Creighton University, Omaha, NE, USA b Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA c Wayne State University and Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, MI, USA a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Background: The clinical experience of ceftaroline fosamil (CPT-F) therapy for Gram-positive infective Received 3 October 2018 endocarditis is reported from CAPTURE, a retrospective study conducted in the USA. Accepted 27 January 2019 Methods: Data, including patient demographics, medical history, risk factors, microbiological aetiology and clinical outcomes, were collected by review of patient charts between September 2013 and February Editor: Professor Matthew Falagas 2015. Results: Patients ( n = 55) with Gram-positive endocarditis were treated with CPT-F. The most common Keywords: risk factors were intravascular devices (43.6%), diabetes mellitus (40.0%) and injection drug use (38.2%). Ceftaroline fosamil Gram-positive endocarditis The most commonly isolated pathogens were meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA; 80%), Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus meticillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA; 7.3%) and coagulase-negative staphylococci (7.3%). CPT-F was given Meticillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus as first-line therapy in 7.3% of patients and as second-line or later therapy in 92.7% of patients, and as CAPTURE study monotherapy in 41.8% of patients and as concurrent therapy in 58.2% of patients.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Benefit of Ertapenem Compared to Flomoxef for the Treatment of Cefotaxime- Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Bacteremia
    Journal name: Infection and Drug Resistance Article Designation: Original Research Year: 2018 Volume: 11 Infection and Drug Resistance Dovepress Running head verso: Lee et al Running head recto: Therapy of cefotaxime-resistant Enterobacteriaceae BSI open access to scientific and medical research DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S146923 Open Access Full Text Article ORIGINAL RESEARCH Clinical benefit of ertapenem compared to flomoxef for the treatment of cefotaxime- resistant Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia Chen-Hsiang Lee1,2 Objectives: Cefotaxime-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CE) infections are intractable, with I-Ling Chen3 limited treatment options. Though carbapenems are frequently prescribed for CE infections, Chia-Chin Li4 the emergence of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae is of huge concern. Flomoxef is Chun-Chih Chien4 effective against CE in vitro, and some clinical data on its demonstrated effectiveness against CE bloodstream infections (BSIs) exists. 1Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Patients and methods: We conducted a retrospective study on adults with BSI caused by Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial, flomoxef-susceptible CE to investigate the efficacy of flomoxef compared with that of ertape- 2 Hospital, Chang Gung University, nem. The outcome was evaluated with propensity score-based matching and logistic regression College of Medicine, 3Department of Pharmacy, 4Department of Laboratory analysis. For personal use only. Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Results: Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients treated with flomoxef (n = 58) or Memorial Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan ertapenem (n = 188) were compared. In the multivariate analysis, severe sepsis (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16–12.78; p = 0.03), high BSI mortality score (AOR = 5.59; 95% CI, 2.37–13.21; p < 0.01), ultimately or rapidly fatal comorbidity (AOR = 10.60; 95% CI, 3.43–32.75; p < 0.01), and pneumonia (AOR = 10.11; 95% CI, 3.43–29.81; p < 0.01) were independently associated with 28-day mortality.
    [Show full text]
  • National Treatment Guidelines for Antimicrobial Use in Infectious Diseases
    National Treatment Guidelines for Antimicrobial Use in Infectious Diseases Version 1.0 (2016) NATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISEASE CONTROL Directorate General of Health Services Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Government of India CONTENTS Chapter 1 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Chapter 2. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Syndromic Approach For Empirical Therapy Of Common Infections.......................................................................................................... 9 A. Gastrointestinal & Intra-Abdominal Infections ......................................................................................................................................... 10 B. Central Nervous System Infections ........................................................................................................................................................... 13 C. Cardiovascular Infections .........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • AR Phenotype Definitions
    Antibiotic Resistance & Patient Safety Portal Antibiotic Resistance HAI Data The following are definitions for the phenotypes listed in the Antibiotic Resistance & Patient Safety Portal. For all pathogens included in the AR HAI dataset, there is a select group of antimicrobials for which susceptibility test results must be reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN); these pathogen-antimicrobial combinations are then used to define the selected phenotypes. Susceptibility results for each pathogen were reported to NHSN using the final category interpretations (see key below). For more information about the AR Patient Safety Portal Antibiotic Resistance HAI dataset, visit: http://www.cdc.gov/hai/surveillance. Phenotype Analytical Definitions Key (S) Susceptible (I) Intermediate (R) Resistant (NS) Non-Susceptible Escherichia coli Carbapenem-resistant (CRE) Any isolate that tested (R) to at least 1 of these: imipenem, meropenem, doripenem, ertapenem Cephalosporin-resistant Any isolate that tested (I) or (R) to at least 1 of these: ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, cefepime, cefotaxime Fluoroquinolone-resistant Any isolate that tested (I) or (R) to at least 1 of these: ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin Multidrug-resistant (MDR) Any isolate that tested either (I)* or (R) to at least 1 drug in at least 3 of these categories: 1. Extended-spectrum cephalosporins (ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, cefepime, cefotaxime) 2. Fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin) 3. Aminoglycosides (amikacin, gentamicin, tobramycin) 4. *Carbapenems (isolate must have tested (R) to imipenem, meropenem, doripenem, or ertapenem) 5. Piperacillin/tazobactam 1 August 2021 Enterobacter Carbapenem-resistant (CRE) Any isolate that tested (R) to at least 1 of these: imipenem, meropenem, doripenem, ertapenem Cefepime-resistant Any isolate that tested (I) or (R) to cefepime Multidrug-resistant (MDR) Any isolate that tested either (I)* or (R) to at least 1 drug in at least 3 of these categories: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis
    Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis - Adult Page 1 of 6 Disclaimer: This algorithm has been developed for MD Anderson using a multidisciplinary approach considering circumstances particular to MD Anderson’s specific patient population, services and structure, and clinical information. This is not intended to replace the independent medical or professional judgment of physicians or other health care providers in the context of individual clinical circumstances to determine a patient's care. This algorithm should not be used to treat pregnant women. Local microbiology and susceptibility/resistance patterns should be taken into consideration when selecting antibiotics. Patients scheduled for surgery should have the following antibiotics administered prior to their procedure: ● Vancomycin, ciprofloxacin/levofloxacin, and gentamicin are to be initiated 60 to 120 minutes prior to incision, and all other antibiotics are to be initiated within 60 minutes of incision ● Carefully evaluate allergy histories before using alternative agents - the majority of patients with listed penicillin allergies can safely be given cephalosporins or carbapenems ● If the patient has multiple known antibiotic drug allergies, is colonized with or has a history of a recent multi-drug infection, administer antibiotics as indicated or consider an outpatient Infectious Diseases consultation ● Discontinue all antibiotics within 24 hours of first dose except for: 1) Treatment of established infection, 2) Prophylaxis of prosthesis in the setting of postoperative co-located
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practices in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Diverticulitis And
    AHRQ Safety Program for Improving Antibiotic Use 1 Best Practices in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Diverticulitis and Biliary Tract Infections Acute Care Slide Title and Commentary Slide Number and Slide Best Practices in the Diagnosis and Acute CareSlide 1 Treatment of Diverticulitis and Biliary Tract Infections Acute Care SAY: This presentation will address two common intra- abdominal infections: diverticulitis and biliary tract infections. Objectives Slide 2 SAY: The objectives for this presentation are to: Describe the approach to the diagnosis of diverticulitis and biliary tract infections Identify options for empiric antibiotic therapy for diverticulitis and biliary tract infections Discuss the importance of source control in the management of intra-abdominal infections Identify options for antibiotic therapy for diverticulitis and biliary tract infections after additional clinical data are known Describe the optimal duration of therapy for diverticulitis and biliary tract infections AHRQ Pub. No. 17(20)-0028-EF November 2019 Slide Title and Commentary Slide Number and Slide Diverticulitis Slide 3 SAY: We will start by discussing diverticulitis. The Four Moments of Antibiotic Decision Slide 4 Making SAY: We will review diverticulitis using the Four Moments of Antibiotic Decision Making. 1. Does my patient have an infection that requires antibiotics? 2. Have I ordered appropriate cultures before starting antibiotics? What empiric therapy should I initiate? 3. A day or more has passed. Can I stop antibiotics? Can I narrow therapy
    [Show full text]