在美国医院社区获得性肺炎患者中使用经当地验证的耐药病原体风险因素的潜在影响:一项横断面研究。

IF 8.2 1区 医学 Q1 IMMUNOLOGY
Hamlet Gasoyan, Abhishek Deshpande, Peter B Imrey, Ning Guo, Benjamin G Mittman, Michael B Rothberg
{"title":"在美国医院社区获得性肺炎患者中使用经当地验证的耐药病原体风险因素的潜在影响:一项横断面研究。","authors":"Hamlet Gasoyan, Abhishek Deshpande, Peter B Imrey, Ning Guo, Benjamin G Mittman, Michael B Rothberg","doi":"10.1093/cid/ciae448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The 2019 ATS/IDSA community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines recommend that clinicians prescribe empiric antibiotics for MRSA or P. aeruginosa only if locally validated risk factors (or 2 generic risk factors if local validation is not feasible) are present. It remains unknown how implementation of this recommendation would influence care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study included adults hospitalized for CAP across 50 hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database from 2010-2015 and sought to describe how the use of extended-spectrum antibiotics (ESA) and the coverage for patients with CAP due to restraint organisms would change under the two approaches described in 2019 ATS/IDSA guidelines. To do this, the proportion of ESA use in patients with CAP and the proportion of ESA coverage among patients with infections resistant to recommended CAP therapy were measured.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the 50 hospitals, 19%-75% of patients received ESA, and 42%-100% of patients with resistant organisms received ESA. The median number of risk factors identified per hospital was 9 (interquartile range [IQR], 6-12). Overall, treatment according to local risk factors reduced the number of patients receiving ESA by 38.8 percentage points and using generic risk factors by 47.5 percentage points. However, the effect varied by hospital. The use of generic risk factors always resulted in less ESA use and less coverage for resistant organisms. Using locally validated risk factors resulted in a similar outcome in all but one hospital.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Future guidelines should explicitly define the optimal trade-off between adequate coverage for resistant organisms and ESA use.</p>","PeriodicalId":10463,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Potential implications of using locally validated risk factors for drug-resistant pathogens in patients with community-acquired pneumonia in US hospitals: A cross-sectional study.\",\"authors\":\"Hamlet Gasoyan, Abhishek Deshpande, Peter B Imrey, Ning Guo, Benjamin G Mittman, Michael B Rothberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/cid/ciae448\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The 2019 ATS/IDSA community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines recommend that clinicians prescribe empiric antibiotics for MRSA or P. aeruginosa only if locally validated risk factors (or 2 generic risk factors if local validation is not feasible) are present. It remains unknown how implementation of this recommendation would influence care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study included adults hospitalized for CAP across 50 hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database from 2010-2015 and sought to describe how the use of extended-spectrum antibiotics (ESA) and the coverage for patients with CAP due to restraint organisms would change under the two approaches described in 2019 ATS/IDSA guidelines. To do this, the proportion of ESA use in patients with CAP and the proportion of ESA coverage among patients with infections resistant to recommended CAP therapy were measured.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the 50 hospitals, 19%-75% of patients received ESA, and 42%-100% of patients with resistant organisms received ESA. The median number of risk factors identified per hospital was 9 (interquartile range [IQR], 6-12). Overall, treatment according to local risk factors reduced the number of patients receiving ESA by 38.8 percentage points and using generic risk factors by 47.5 percentage points. However, the effect varied by hospital. The use of generic risk factors always resulted in less ESA use and less coverage for resistant organisms. Using locally validated risk factors resulted in a similar outcome in all but one hospital.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Future guidelines should explicitly define the optimal trade-off between adequate coverage for resistant organisms and ESA use.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10463,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Infectious Diseases\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Infectious Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciae448\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciae448","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:2019年ATS/IDSA社区获得性肺炎(CAP)指南建议,临床医生只有在存在当地验证的风险因素(或在当地验证不可行的情况下存在2个通用风险因素)时,才能为MRSA或铜绿假单胞菌开具经验性抗生素处方。该建议的实施会对护理产生怎样的影响仍是未知数:这项横断面研究纳入了 2010-2015 年间 Premier 医疗保健数据库中 50 家医院因 CAP 住院的成人患者,旨在描述在 2019 年 ATS/IDSA 指南中描述的两种方法下,扩展谱抗生素(ESA)的使用和限制性有机体导致的 CAP 患者的覆盖率会发生怎样的变化。为此,我们测量了CAP患者使用ESA的比例,以及对推荐的CAP治疗产生耐药性的感染患者中ESA的覆盖比例:在这 50 家医院中,19%-75% 的患者接受了 ESA 治疗,42%-100% 的耐药菌患者接受了 ESA 治疗。每家医院确定的风险因素中位数为 9 个(四分位数间距 [IQR],6-12)。总体而言,根据当地风险因素进行治疗可使接受 ESA 的患者人数减少 38.8 个百分点,而使用通用风险因素则可减少 47.5 个百分点。然而,不同医院的效果各不相同。使用通用风险因素总是会减少ESA的使用量和耐药菌的覆盖率。除一家医院外,其他所有医院使用当地验证的风险因素的结果相似:结论:未来的指南应明确定义在充分覆盖耐药菌和使用ESA之间的最佳权衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Potential implications of using locally validated risk factors for drug-resistant pathogens in patients with community-acquired pneumonia in US hospitals: A cross-sectional study.

Background: The 2019 ATS/IDSA community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines recommend that clinicians prescribe empiric antibiotics for MRSA or P. aeruginosa only if locally validated risk factors (or 2 generic risk factors if local validation is not feasible) are present. It remains unknown how implementation of this recommendation would influence care.

Methods: This cross-sectional study included adults hospitalized for CAP across 50 hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database from 2010-2015 and sought to describe how the use of extended-spectrum antibiotics (ESA) and the coverage for patients with CAP due to restraint organisms would change under the two approaches described in 2019 ATS/IDSA guidelines. To do this, the proportion of ESA use in patients with CAP and the proportion of ESA coverage among patients with infections resistant to recommended CAP therapy were measured.

Results: In the 50 hospitals, 19%-75% of patients received ESA, and 42%-100% of patients with resistant organisms received ESA. The median number of risk factors identified per hospital was 9 (interquartile range [IQR], 6-12). Overall, treatment according to local risk factors reduced the number of patients receiving ESA by 38.8 percentage points and using generic risk factors by 47.5 percentage points. However, the effect varied by hospital. The use of generic risk factors always resulted in less ESA use and less coverage for resistant organisms. Using locally validated risk factors resulted in a similar outcome in all but one hospital.

Conclusion: Future guidelines should explicitly define the optimal trade-off between adequate coverage for resistant organisms and ESA use.

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
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Clinical Infectious Diseases 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
25.00
自引率
2.50%
发文量
900
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Infectious Diseases (CID) is dedicated to publishing original research, reviews, guidelines, and perspectives with the potential to reshape clinical practice, providing clinicians with valuable insights for patient care. CID comprehensively addresses the clinical presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of a wide spectrum of infectious diseases. The journal places a high priority on the assessment of current and innovative treatments, microbiology, immunology, and policies, ensuring relevance to patient care in its commitment to advancing the field of infectious diseases.
×
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