Nasal swab-guided deescalation of empirical linezolid in respiratory infections at a secondary-level hospital: quantification of quality gaps and antimicrobial stewardship opportunities.

IF 2.2
Javier Martínez de Victoria-Carazo, Carlos Guerrero-Herrera, Lucía Guillén-Zafra, Waldo Sánchez-Yebra-Fernández, Andrés Ruíz-Sancho, María Núñez-Núñez
{"title":"Nasal swab-guided deescalation of empirical linezolid in respiratory infections at a secondary-level hospital: quantification of quality gaps and antimicrobial stewardship opportunities.","authors":"Javier Martínez de Victoria-Carazo, Carlos Guerrero-Herrera, Lucía Guillén-Zafra, Waldo Sánchez-Yebra-Fernández, Andrés Ruíz-Sancho, María Núñez-Núñez","doi":"10.37201/req/183.2026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Empirical linezolid for respiratory infections risks overtreatment and therapeutic inertia. Methicillin-resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> (MRSA) nasal swabs have high negative predictive value for ruling out MRSA pneumonia, yet their systematic integration into clinical practice remains poorly documented in Spain. The aim of the study was to quantify three sequential quality gaps in the empirical linezolid prescribing process and estimate the potential for improvement through an antimicrobial stewardship programme (ASP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective observational study of 83 patients receiving empirical linezolid for respiratory infections at a secondary-level hospital during five non-consecutive months of 2025. Three quality gaps were defined: Gap 0 (initiation without MRSA risk criteria); Gap 1 (failure to request a nasal swab in eligible patients); and Gap 2 (therapeutic inertia following a negative result).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Gap 0 affected 30.1% of patients, predominantly CAP (72%), discontinuation was more frequent in Gap 0 patients than in eligible candidates. Gap 1 affected 32.5%, with marked inter-unit variability: swabs were requested in 78% of Internal Medicine patients versus 41.7% in Respiratory Medicine. Among 56 patients with results, 85.7% were negative; Gap 2 affected 20.8%, generating 56 days of linezolid administered after a negative result was available. Patients with positive swabs had significantly higher cumulative risk scores than negative patients. Overall, 62.7% of patients presented ≥1 gap, accounting for 69.5% of 377 total linezolid-days.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Quality gaps in empirical linezolid use affect two-thirds of patients and are associated with nearly 70% of treatment days. Targeted two-level ASP interventions, explicit indication criteria, and systematic de-escalation prompts after negative swabs are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":94198,"journal":{"name":"Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia","volume":" ","pages":"347-356"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13382525/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37201/req/183.2026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Empirical linezolid for respiratory infections risks overtreatment and therapeutic inertia. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal swabs have high negative predictive value for ruling out MRSA pneumonia, yet their systematic integration into clinical practice remains poorly documented in Spain. The aim of the study was to quantify three sequential quality gaps in the empirical linezolid prescribing process and estimate the potential for improvement through an antimicrobial stewardship programme (ASP).

Methods: A retrospective observational study of 83 patients receiving empirical linezolid for respiratory infections at a secondary-level hospital during five non-consecutive months of 2025. Three quality gaps were defined: Gap 0 (initiation without MRSA risk criteria); Gap 1 (failure to request a nasal swab in eligible patients); and Gap 2 (therapeutic inertia following a negative result).

Results: Gap 0 affected 30.1% of patients, predominantly CAP (72%), discontinuation was more frequent in Gap 0 patients than in eligible candidates. Gap 1 affected 32.5%, with marked inter-unit variability: swabs were requested in 78% of Internal Medicine patients versus 41.7% in Respiratory Medicine. Among 56 patients with results, 85.7% were negative; Gap 2 affected 20.8%, generating 56 days of linezolid administered after a negative result was available. Patients with positive swabs had significantly higher cumulative risk scores than negative patients. Overall, 62.7% of patients presented ≥1 gap, accounting for 69.5% of 377 total linezolid-days.

Conclusions: Quality gaps in empirical linezolid use affect two-thirds of patients and are associated with nearly 70% of treatment days. Targeted two-level ASP interventions, explicit indication criteria, and systematic de-escalation prompts after negative swabs are warranted.

在二级医院,鼻拭子引导下利奈唑胺在呼吸道感染中的经验性降低:质量差距的量化和抗菌药物管理机会
背景:利奈唑胺治疗呼吸道感染存在过度治疗和治疗惰性的风险。耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)鼻拭子在排除MRSA肺炎方面具有很高的阴性预测价值,但在西班牙,将其系统地纳入临床实践的文献仍然很少。该研究的目的是量化经验性利奈唑胺处方过程中的三个连续质量差距,并估计通过抗菌药物管理规划(ASP)进行改进的潜力。方法:回顾性观察分析某二级医院于2025年非连续5个月期间接受利奈唑胺治疗呼吸道感染的83例患者。定义了三个质量缺口:缺口0(无MRSA风险标准的起始);缺口1(未能要求符合条件的患者使用鼻拭子);间隙2(阴性结果后的治疗惰性)。结果:Gap 0影响了30.1%的患者,主要是CAP (72%), Gap 0患者的停药频率高于符合条件的患者。缺口1影响32.5%,具有明显的单位间差异:78%的内科患者要求拭子,而呼吸内科患者要求41.7%。56例结果中,85.7%为阴性;Gap 2影响20.8%,在阴性结果可用后产生56天的利奈唑胺。拭子阳性患者的累积风险评分明显高于阴性患者。总体而言,62.7%的患者存在≥1的缺口,占总377利奈唑胺日的69.5%。结论:经验利奈唑胺使用的质量差距影响了三分之二的患者,并与近70%的治疗天数相关。有针对性的两级ASP干预措施,明确的适应症标准,以及在拭子阴性后系统的降级提示是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书