基于机器学习的经验性和生物靶向抗生素疗法选择软件的回顾性验证研究。

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q2 MICROBIOLOGY
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Pub Date : 2024-10-08 Epub Date: 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1128/aac.00777-24
Maria Isabel Tejeda, Javier Fernández, Pablo Valledor, Cristina Almirall, José Barberán, Santiago Romero-Brufau
{"title":"基于机器学习的经验性和生物靶向抗生素疗法选择软件的回顾性验证研究。","authors":"Maria Isabel Tejeda, Javier Fernández, Pablo Valledor, Cristina Almirall, José Barberán, Santiago Romero-Brufau","doi":"10.1128/aac.00777-24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Errors in antibiotic prescriptions are frequent, often resulting from the inadequate coverage of the infection-causative microorganism. The efficacy of iAST, a machine-learning-based software offering empirical and organism-targeted antibiotic recommendations, was assessed. The study was conducted in a 12-hospital Spanish institution. After model fine-tuning with 27,531 historical antibiograms, 325 consecutive patients with acute infections were selected for retrospective validation. The primary endpoint was comparing each of the top three of iAST's antibiotic recommendations' success rates (confirmed by antibiogram results) with the antibiotic prescribed by the physicians. Secondary endpoints included examining the same hypothesis within specific study population subgroups and assessing antibiotic stewardship by comparing the percentage of antibiotics recommended that belonged to different World Health Organization AWaRe groups within each arm of the study. All of iAST first three recommendations were non-inferior to doctor prescription in the primary endpoint analysis population as well as the secondary endpoint. The overall success rate of doctors' empirical treatment was 68.93%, while that of the first three iAST options was 91.06% (<i>P</i> < 0.001), 90.63% (<i>P</i> < 0.001), and 91.06% (<i>P</i> < 001), respectively. For organism-targeted therapy, the doctor's overall success rate was 84.16%, and that of the first three ranked iAST options was 97.83% (<i>P</i> < 0.001), 94.09% (<i>P</i> < 0.001), and 91.30% (<i>P</i> < 0.001), respectively. In empirical therapy, compared to physician prescriptions, iAST demonstrated a greater propensity to recommend access antibiotics, fewer watch antibiotics, and higher reserve antibiotics. In organism-targeted therapy, iAST advised a higher utilization of access antibiotics. The present study demonstrates iAST accuracy in predicting antibiotic susceptibility, showcasing its potential to promote effective antibiotic stewardship.</p><p><strong>Clinical trials: </strong>This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT06174519.</p>","PeriodicalId":8152,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy","volume":" ","pages":"e0077724"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11460031/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Retrospective validation study of a machine learning-based software for empirical and organism-targeted antibiotic therapy selection.\",\"authors\":\"Maria Isabel Tejeda, Javier Fernández, Pablo Valledor, Cristina Almirall, José Barberán, Santiago Romero-Brufau\",\"doi\":\"10.1128/aac.00777-24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Errors in antibiotic prescriptions are frequent, often resulting from the inadequate coverage of the infection-causative microorganism. The efficacy of iAST, a machine-learning-based software offering empirical and organism-targeted antibiotic recommendations, was assessed. The study was conducted in a 12-hospital Spanish institution. After model fine-tuning with 27,531 historical antibiograms, 325 consecutive patients with acute infections were selected for retrospective validation. The primary endpoint was comparing each of the top three of iAST's antibiotic recommendations' success rates (confirmed by antibiogram results) with the antibiotic prescribed by the physicians. Secondary endpoints included examining the same hypothesis within specific study population subgroups and assessing antibiotic stewardship by comparing the percentage of antibiotics recommended that belonged to different World Health Organization AWaRe groups within each arm of the study. All of iAST first three recommendations were non-inferior to doctor prescription in the primary endpoint analysis population as well as the secondary endpoint. The overall success rate of doctors' empirical treatment was 68.93%, while that of the first three iAST options was 91.06% (<i>P</i> < 0.001), 90.63% (<i>P</i> < 0.001), and 91.06% (<i>P</i> < 001), respectively. For organism-targeted therapy, the doctor's overall success rate was 84.16%, and that of the first three ranked iAST options was 97.83% (<i>P</i> < 0.001), 94.09% (<i>P</i> < 0.001), and 91.30% (<i>P</i> < 0.001), respectively. In empirical therapy, compared to physician prescriptions, iAST demonstrated a greater propensity to recommend access antibiotics, fewer watch antibiotics, and higher reserve antibiotics. In organism-targeted therapy, iAST advised a higher utilization of access antibiotics. The present study demonstrates iAST accuracy in predicting antibiotic susceptibility, showcasing its potential to promote effective antibiotic stewardship.</p><p><strong>Clinical trials: </strong>This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT06174519.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8152,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e0077724\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11460031/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.00777-24\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.00777-24","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

抗生素处方经常出现错误,这往往是由于对引起感染的微生物覆盖不足造成的。iAST 是一款基于机器学习的软件,可提供经验性和针对病原体的抗生素建议。这项研究在西班牙一家拥有 12 家医院的机构中进行。在利用 27,531 份历史抗生素图谱对模型进行微调后,选取了 325 名连续的急性感染患者进行回顾性验证。主要终点是比较 iAST 抗生素推荐的前三名抗生素的成功率(由抗生素图谱结果确认)与医生处方的抗生素。次要终点包括在特定的研究人群亚群中检验相同的假设,并通过比较每个研究组中属于世界卫生组织不同AWaRe组别的抗生素推荐比例来评估抗生素管理水平。在主要终点分析人群和次要终点分析人群中,iAST的前三项建议均不劣于医生处方。医生经验性治疗的总体成功率为68.93%,而iAST前三种方案的成功率分别为91.06%(P < 0.001)、90.63%(P < 0.001)和91.06%(P < 001)。在机体靶向治疗中,医生的总体成功率为 84.16%,排名前三的 iAST 方案的成功率分别为 97.83% (P < 0.001)、94.09% (P < 0.001) 和 91.30% (P < 0.001)。在经验性治疗中,与医生处方相比,iAST 更倾向于推荐使用抗生素、减少观察抗生素和增加储备抗生素。在针对病原体的治疗中,iAST 建议使用更多的可及抗生素。本研究证明了iAST在预测抗生素敏感性方面的准确性,展示了其促进有效抗生素管理的潜力:本研究已在 ClinicalTrials.gov 登记为 NCT06174519。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Retrospective validation study of a machine learning-based software for empirical and organism-targeted antibiotic therapy selection.

Errors in antibiotic prescriptions are frequent, often resulting from the inadequate coverage of the infection-causative microorganism. The efficacy of iAST, a machine-learning-based software offering empirical and organism-targeted antibiotic recommendations, was assessed. The study was conducted in a 12-hospital Spanish institution. After model fine-tuning with 27,531 historical antibiograms, 325 consecutive patients with acute infections were selected for retrospective validation. The primary endpoint was comparing each of the top three of iAST's antibiotic recommendations' success rates (confirmed by antibiogram results) with the antibiotic prescribed by the physicians. Secondary endpoints included examining the same hypothesis within specific study population subgroups and assessing antibiotic stewardship by comparing the percentage of antibiotics recommended that belonged to different World Health Organization AWaRe groups within each arm of the study. All of iAST first three recommendations were non-inferior to doctor prescription in the primary endpoint analysis population as well as the secondary endpoint. The overall success rate of doctors' empirical treatment was 68.93%, while that of the first three iAST options was 91.06% (P < 0.001), 90.63% (P < 0.001), and 91.06% (P < 001), respectively. For organism-targeted therapy, the doctor's overall success rate was 84.16%, and that of the first three ranked iAST options was 97.83% (P < 0.001), 94.09% (P < 0.001), and 91.30% (P < 0.001), respectively. In empirical therapy, compared to physician prescriptions, iAST demonstrated a greater propensity to recommend access antibiotics, fewer watch antibiotics, and higher reserve antibiotics. In organism-targeted therapy, iAST advised a higher utilization of access antibiotics. The present study demonstrates iAST accuracy in predicting antibiotic susceptibility, showcasing its potential to promote effective antibiotic stewardship.

Clinical trials: This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT06174519.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
8.20%
发文量
762
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (AAC) features interdisciplinary studies that build our understanding of the underlying mechanisms and therapeutic applications of antimicrobial and antiparasitic agents and chemotherapy.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信