Borer A, Gilad J, Meydan N, Schlaeffer P, Riesenberg K, Schlaeffer F
Infectious Disease Institute, Soroka University Medical Center and the Faculty for Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2004 Oct;10(10):911-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2004.00964.x.
The impact of attendance by infectious disease specialists (IDS) on hospitalised adults with community-acquired infection was assessed by studying 402 consecutive febrile adults who were admitted randomly to either of two internal medicine wards over a 4-month period and given intravenous antibiotics. In ward 1, patients were attended by IDS, whereas those in ward 2 were attended by physicians from other specialties. In total, 160 patients were treated in ward 1 and 242 in ward 2 (median age 66 years; 49% male). The case-mix was comparable. Only 39% of ward 2 patients underwent minimal fever diagnostic tests compared to 82% in ward 1 (p < 0.001). Ward 1 and 2 patients received 188 and 315 antibiotic courses, respectively, of which 32% and 20% required approval from IDS (p 0.003). Patients in ward 1 were more likely to receive ceftriaxone (7.5% vs. 2%; p 0.002), erythromycin (7% vs. 1.5%; p 0.002) and cefuroxime (48% vs. 26%; p < 0.0001), but were less likely to receive amoxycillin-clavulanate (8% vs. 28%; p < 0.0001). The mean durations of therapy were 3.6 and 3.2 days (not significant), and therapy was deemed to be completely appropriate in 55.5% and 43% of cases, respectively (p 0.012). The crude mortality rates were 6.3% and 7.9%, respectively (not significant), while the medication costs were US dollars 27.4 and US dollars 26.4/patient/antibiotic day, respectively. Regular attendance by IDS resulted in significantly higher rates of accurate diagnosis and appropriate therapy. IDS prescribed more restricted (and expensive) agents, but preferred less expensive agents among unrestricted drugs, thereby offsetting the overall medication costs.
通过研究402名连续发热的成年患者来评估传染病专科医生(IDS)的参与对社区获得性感染住院成人患者的影响。这些患者在4个月期间被随机收治到两个内科病房中的一个,并接受静脉注射抗生素治疗。在病房1,患者由IDS诊治,而病房2的患者由其他专科的医生诊治。总共,病房1治疗了160名患者,病房2治疗了242名患者(中位年龄66岁;49%为男性)。病例组合具有可比性。病房2中只有39%的患者接受了最低限度的发热诊断检查,而病房1中这一比例为82%(p<0.001)。病房1和2的患者分别接受了188和315个抗生素疗程,其中32%和20%需要IDS批准(p=0.003)。病房1的患者更有可能接受头孢曲松(7.5%对2%;p=0.002)、红霉素(7%对1.5%;p=0.002)和头孢呋辛(48%对26%;p<0.0001),但接受阿莫西林-克拉维酸的可能性较小(8%对28%;p<0.0001)。平均治疗时长分别为3.6天和3.2天(无显著差异),治疗被认为完全合适的病例分别占55.5%和43%(p=0.012)。粗死亡率分别为6.3%和7.9%(无显著差异),而药物成本分别为每位患者/抗生素日27.4美元和26.4美元。IDS的定期参与导致准确诊断率和适当治疗率显著提高。IDS开了更多受限(且昂贵)的药物,但在不受限药物中更喜欢使用较便宜的药物,从而抵消了总体药物成本。