Lohmannlutz7325

ng patient safety and care in the NHS.

Many carbapenem-resistant (CR) Gram-negative (GN) pathogens exhibit MDR, meaning few therapeutic options are available for CR-GN infections. Cefiderocol, a siderophore cephalosporin, has demonstrated

efficacy against CR-GN bacteria. In the SIDERO-CR-2014-2016 surveillance study, European clinical isolates comprising carbapenem-non-susceptible (CarbNS) Enterobacterales and MDR non-fermenters were tested against cefiderocol and comparators.

Cefiderocol MICs were determined using iron-depleted CAMHB, and comparators using CAMHB, per recommended CLSI methodology. Carbapenemase gene profiles were determined using PCR.

Isolates (

870) from 23 European countries comprised CarbNS Enterobacterales (

457), MDR

(

177) and MDR

(

236). The most common carbapenemases were KPC (52%), OXA-48-like (19%), VIM (14%) and NDM (8%) in Enterobacterales, VIM (41%) in

and OXA-23-like (57%) and OXA-24/40-like (37%) in

. Most carbapenemase-producing isolates (65%) co-carried ESBLs. Approximately half of

isolates were negative for carbapenemases, compared with 10% of Enterobacterales and 3% of

. A similar proportion of Enterobacterales were susceptible to cefiderocol (81.6%; 79.0% of VIM producers; 51.4% of NDM producers; based on EUCAST breakpoint values) compared with comparator antimicrobial agents, including colistin (76.4%; 93.5% of VIM producers; 78.4% of NDM producers) and ceftazidime/avibactam (76.6%; 1.6% of VIM producers; 2.7% of NDM producers). Of

isolates, 98.3% were susceptible to cefiderocol (100% of VIM producers), similar to colistin (100%). Against

, 94.9% had cefiderocol MIC ≤2 mg/L and 93.6% of isolates were susceptible to colistin.

Cefiderocol demonstrated potent activity against CarbNS and MDR GN bacteria, including non-fermenters and a wide variety of MBL- and serine-β-lactamase-producing strains.

Cefiderocol demonstrated potent activity against CarbNS and MDR GN bacteria, including non-fermenters and a wide variety of MBL- and serine-β-lactamase-producing strains.

Antibiotic use (ABU) surveillance in healthcare facilities (HCFs) is essential to guide stewardship. Two methods are recommended antibiotic consumption (ABC), expressed as the number of DDD/1000 patient-days; and prevalence of antibiotic prescription (ABP) measured through point prevalence surveys. However, no evidence is provided about whether they lead to similar conclusions.

To compare ABC and ABP regarding HCF ranking and their ability to identify outliers.

The comparison was made using 2012 national databases from the antibiotic surveillance network and prevalence study. HCF rankings according to each method were compared with Spearman's correlation coefficient. Analyses included the ABU from entire HCFs as well as according to type, clinical ward and by antibiotic class and specific molecule.

A total of 1076 HCFs were included. HCF rankings were strongly correlated in the whole cohort. The correlation was stronger for HCFs with a higher number of beds or with a low or moderate proportion of acute care beds. ABU correlation between ABC or ABP was globally moderate or weak in specific wards. check details Furthermore, the two methods did not identify the same outliers, whichever HCF characteristics were analysed. Correlation between HCF ranking varied according to the antibiotic class.

Both methods ranked HCFs similarly overall according to ABC or ABP; however, major differences were observed in ranking of clinical wards, antibiotic classes and detection of outliers. ABC and ABP are two markers of ABU that could be used as two complementary approaches to identify targets for improvement.

Both methods ranked HCFs similarly overall according to ABC or ABP; however, major differences were observed in ranking of clinical wards, antibiotic classes and detection of outliers. ABC and ABP are two markers of ABU that could be used as two complementary approaches to identify targets for improvement.

Antimicrobial stewardship programmes are important in driving safety and quality of antimicrobial prescribing. The National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey (NAPS) is a point-prevalence audit of inpatient antimicrobial prescribing in Australian hospitals.

To design and adapt the NAPS tool for use in the outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) and hospital-in-the-home (HITH) setting.

An inter-disciplinary working group with expertise in OPAT and HITH services was established to adapt the NAPS template for use in the OPAT setting-called HITH-NAPS. This was initially trialled in 5 HITH services, subsequently adapted following participant feedback, then offered nationally to 50 services in 2017.

There were 1154 prescriptions for 715 patients audited via the HITH-NAPS. The most common antimicrobials prescribed were cefazolin (22%), flucloxacillin (12%), piperacillin/tazobactam (10%) and ceftriaxone (10%). The most common infections treated were cellulitis (30%) and respiratory tract infections (14%). Eighty-seven percent of prescriptions were assessed as appropriate, 11% inappropriate and 2% not assessable. Prolonged durations of antimicrobials and unnecessarily broad-spectrum antibiotics were used in 9% of prescriptions.

The HITH-NAPS pilot project revealed that auditing of this type is feasible in HITH. It showed that antibiotic use in these HITH services was generally appropriate, but there are some areas for improvement. A national OPAT/HITH-NAPS can facilitate benchmarking between services, identify potentially inappropriate prescribing and help guide quality improvement.

The HITH-NAPS pilot project revealed that auditing of this type is feasible in HITH. It showed that antibiotic use in these HITH services was generally appropriate, but there are some areas for improvement. A national OPAT/HITH-NAPS can facilitate benchmarking between services, identify potentially inappropriate prescribing and help guide quality improvement.Graphical Abstract.Graphical Abstract.Graphical Abstract.

A review of patients requiring lifelong antibiotics to control, rather than cure, infection was performed ['palliative outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT)']. This was to evaluate emerging themes and complications. The aim was to aid in the management of such patients.

A retrospective review of the OPAT database over 5 years (2013-17) was performed. Of the 1438 patients, 9 were deemed to have received palliative OPAT.

The palliative cohort represented 0.6% of the total number of patients on OPAT and 8.6% of the bed days saved. Patients fell into two main groups those with multiple comorbidities that precluded surgical management and those with a terminal condition. Both groups received IV antibiotics with no clear endpoint. The themes to emerge were patients often had multiple comorbidities with a high operative risk to control the source of infection; a trial of no or oral antibiotics led to resurgence of the infection; vascular patients appeared to tolerate long-term antibiotics well; and conversely, antibiotic side effects were a significant issue in others.