University of South Carolina College of Pharmacy, Columbia, South Carolina.
University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, South Carolina.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2021 Jun;42(6):688-693. doi: 10.1017/ice.2020.1285. Epub 2021 Jan 28.
To determine the usefulness of adjusting antibiotic use (AU) by prevalence of bacterial isolates as an alternative method for risk adjustment beyond hospital characteristics.
Retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study.
Hospitals in the southeastern United States.
AU in days of therapy per 1,000 patient days and microbiologic data from 2015 and 2016 were collected from 26 hospitals. The prevalences of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing bacteria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) were calculated and compared to the average prevalence of all hospitals in the network. This proportion was used to calculate the adjusted AU (a-AU) for various categories of antimicrobials. For example, a-AU of antipseudomonal β-lactams (APBL) was the AU of APBL divided by (prevalence of P. aeruginosa at that hospital divided by the average prevalence of P. aeruginosa). Hospitals were categorized by bed size and ranked by AU and a-AU, and the rankings were compared.
Most hospitals in 2015 and 2016, respectively, moved ≥2 positions in the ranking using a-AU of APBL (15 of 24, 63%; 22 of 26, 85%), carbapenems (14 of 23, 61%; 22 of 25; 88%), anti-MRSA agents (13 of 23, 57%; 18 of 26, 69%), and anti-VRE agents (18 of 24, 75%; 15 of 26, 58%). Use of a-AU resulted in a shift in quartile of hospital ranking for 50% of APBL agents, 57% of carbapenems, 35% of anti-MRSA agents, and 75% of anti-VRE agents in 2015 and 50% of APBL agents, 28% of carbapenems, 50% of anti-MRSA agents, and 58% of anti-VRE agents in 2016.
The a-AU considerably changes how hospitals compare among each other within a network. Adjusting AU by microbiological burden allows for a more balanced comparison among hospitals with variable baseline rates of resistant bacteria.
确定通过调整细菌分离株的流行率来调整抗生素使用(AU)是否可作为医院特征以外的风险调整替代方法。
回顾性、观察性、横断面研究。
美国东南部的医院。
从 26 家医院收集了 2015 年和 2016 年的 AU 治疗天数/1000 患者天数和微生物数据。计算铜绿假单胞菌、产超广谱β-内酰胺酶(ESBL)细菌、耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)和万古霉素耐药肠球菌(VRE)的流行率,并与网络中所有医院的平均流行率进行比较。该比例用于计算各种类别抗菌药物的调整 AU(a-AU)。例如,抗假单胞菌β-内酰胺类药物(APBL)的 a-AU 为 APBL 的 AU 除以(该医院铜绿假单胞菌的流行率除以铜绿假单胞菌的平均流行率)。根据床位数对医院进行分类,并按 AU 和 a-AU 进行排名,比较排名。
在使用 a-AU 的情况下,2015 年和 2016 年分别有 15/24(63%)和 22/26(85%)的医院在 APBL、碳青霉烯类、抗-MRSA 药物和抗 VRE 药物的排名中至少上升了 2 位。2015 年和 2016 年,50%的 APBL 药物、57%的碳青霉烯类药物、35%的抗-MRSA 药物和 75%的抗 VRE 药物的医院排名四分之一发生了变化。
a-AU 极大地改变了网络内医院之间的相互比较方式。通过微生物负荷调整 AU 可以使具有不同基线耐药菌率的医院之间进行更平衡的比较。