Antimicrobial Resistance or Delayed Appropriate Therapy-Does One Influence Outcomes More Than the Other Among Patients With Serious Infections Due to Carbapenem-Resistant Versus Carbapenem-Susceptible Enterobacteriaceae?
Enterobacteriaceae
antibacterial drug resistance
antibiotic resistance
carbapenems
cost of illness
Journal
Open forum infectious diseases
ISSN: 2328-8957
Titre abrégé: Open Forum Infect Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101637045
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2019
Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
10
07
2018
accepted:
18
04
2019
entrez:
15
6
2019
pubmed:
15
6
2019
medline:
15
6
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The relative contribution of antimicrobial resistance versus delayed appropriate treatment to the clinical and economic burden of Enterobacteriaceae infections is not well understood. Using a large US hospital database, we identified all admissions between July 2011 and September 2014 with evidence of serious Enterobacteriaceae infection. The "index date" was the earliest date on which a culture positive for Enterobacteriaceae was drawn. Infections were classified as carbapenem-resistant (CRE) or carbapenem-susceptible (CSE). Receipt of antimicrobials with activity against all index pathogens on the index date or ≤2 days thereafter was deemed as "timely"; all other instances were "delayed." Associations between CRE status and delayed appropriate therapy on outcomes were estimated using inverse probability weighting and multivariate regression models (ie, logistic model for discharge destination and composite mortality [in-hospital death or discharge to hospice] or generalized linear model for duration of antibiotic therapy, hospital length of stay [LOS], and costs). A total of 50 069 patients met selection criteria; 514 patients (1.0%) had CRE. Overall, 67.5% of CSE patients (vs 44.6%, CRE) received timely appropriate therapy ( Delayed appropriate therapy is a more important driver of outcomes than CRE, although the 2 factors are somewhat synergistic. Better methods of early CRE identification may improve outcomes in this patient population.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The relative contribution of antimicrobial resistance versus delayed appropriate treatment to the clinical and economic burden of Enterobacteriaceae infections is not well understood.
METHODS
METHODS
Using a large US hospital database, we identified all admissions between July 2011 and September 2014 with evidence of serious Enterobacteriaceae infection. The "index date" was the earliest date on which a culture positive for Enterobacteriaceae was drawn. Infections were classified as carbapenem-resistant (CRE) or carbapenem-susceptible (CSE). Receipt of antimicrobials with activity against all index pathogens on the index date or ≤2 days thereafter was deemed as "timely"; all other instances were "delayed." Associations between CRE status and delayed appropriate therapy on outcomes were estimated using inverse probability weighting and multivariate regression models (ie, logistic model for discharge destination and composite mortality [in-hospital death or discharge to hospice] or generalized linear model for duration of antibiotic therapy, hospital length of stay [LOS], and costs).
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 50 069 patients met selection criteria; 514 patients (1.0%) had CRE. Overall, 67.5% of CSE patients (vs 44.6%, CRE) received timely appropriate therapy (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Delayed appropriate therapy is a more important driver of outcomes than CRE, although the 2 factors are somewhat synergistic. Better methods of early CRE identification may improve outcomes in this patient population.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31198817
doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofz194
pii: ofz194
pmc: PMC6546203
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
ofz194Références
Clin Infect Dis. 2001 Sep 15;33 Suppl 3:S245-50
pubmed: 11524727
Ann Intern Med. 2002 Nov 19;137(10):791-7
pubmed: 12435215
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005 Feb 15;171(4):388-416
pubmed: 15699079
Clin Infect Dis. 2005 Mar 1;40(5):643-54
pubmed: 15714408
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2005 Oct;60(4):438-43
pubmed: 16187977
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007 Oct;51(10):3510-5
pubmed: 17646415
Scand J Infect Dis. 2007;39(11-12):947-55
pubmed: 17852889
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2008 Apr;14 Suppl 3:15-21
pubmed: 18318875
Am J Infect Control. 2008 Jun;36(5):309-32
pubmed: 18538699
Shock. 2009 Feb;31(2):146-50
pubmed: 18636041
Clin Infect Dis. 2010 Jan 15;50(2):133-64
pubmed: 20034345
Mayo Clin Proc. 2011 Feb;86(2):156-67
pubmed: 21282489
Arch Emerg Med. 1990 Mar;7(1):16-20
pubmed: 2135172
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2011 Apr;69(4):357-62
pubmed: 21396529
Multivariate Behav Res. 2011 May;46(3):399-424
pubmed: 21818162
J Hosp Med. 2012 Oct;7(8):622-7
pubmed: 22833498
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013 Oct;19(10):948-54
pubmed: 23190091
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013 Feb;75(2):115-20
pubmed: 23290507
J Hosp Med. 2012;7 Suppl 1:S2-12
pubmed: 23677631
Am J Infect Control. 2014 Jun;42(6):612-20
pubmed: 24837111
Emerg Infect Dis. 2014 Jul;20(7):1170-5
pubmed: 24959688
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Apr 17;17(1):279
pubmed: 28415969
Swiss Med Wkly. 2017 Aug 14;147:w14482
pubmed: 28804865