Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) renders many bacterial infections untreatable and results in substantial morbidity and mortality worldwide. Understanding antibiotic use in clinical settings including hospitals is critical to optimize antibiotic use and prevent resistance.

Hospital antibiotic point prevalence survey (PPS).

The study was conducted in two large, teaching hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. We performed two survey rounds in December 2021 and January 2022 through real-time chart review using the World Health Organization PPS methodology. Data were collected using a web-based database, and descriptive statistics were performed to analyze antibiotic use by various characteristics.

Among 1020 hospitalized patients, 318 (32%) were ≤14 years and 370 (36%) had surgery during the current hospitalization. A total of 662 (65%) were receiving an antibiotic on the day of survey and 346 (39%) were receiving ≥2 antibiotics. A community-acquired infection (43%) was the most common indication for an antibiotic followed by surgical prophylaxis (27%) and hospital-acquired infection (23%). Antibiotic use was highest among those ≤24 months in age and among patients in trauma, surgical, and pediatric wards. Cephalosporin (42%) and penicillin (16%) antibiotics were the most frequently prescribed classes. Only 11% of patients on antibiotics had samples collected for microbiological testing; hence, almost all antibiotic therapy was empiric.

Despite global and national efforts to improve antimicrobial stewardship, antibiotic use remains high in urban teaching hospitals in Ethiopia. Implementation of antimicrobial stewardship activities and microbiology utilization are needed to guide antimicrobial selection and curtail antibiotic overuse.

Using a large, geographically diverse, hospital-based database in the United States (Premier PINC AI Healthcare Database), we aimed to describe the proportion and characteristics of patients receiving phenotype-desirable antimicrobial therapy (PDAT) among those hospitalized with Enterobacterales bloodstream infections.

Adult patients with an admission between January 1, 2017 and June 30, 2022 with ≥1 blood culture positive for Escherichia coli, Klebsiella oxytoca, Klebsiella pneumoniae, or Proteus mirabilis and receiving an empiric antibiotic therapy on blood culture collection (BCC) Days 0 or 1 were included. Receiving PDAT (defined as receipt of any antimicrobial categorized as “desirable” for the respective phenotype) on BCC Days 0−2 was defined as receiving early PDAT.

Among 35,880 eligible patients, the proportion of patients receiving PDAT increased (from 6.8% to 22.8%) from BCC Day 0−4. Patients who received PDAT (8,193, 22.8%) were more likely to visit large (500 + beds, 36% vs 31%), teaching (45% vs 39%), and urban (85% vs 82%) hospitals in the Northeast (22% vs 13%) compared to patients not receiving PDAT (all P <. 01). Among patients receiving PDAT, 61.4% (n = 5,033) received it early; they had a lower mean comorbidity score (3.2 vs 3.6), were less likely to have severe or extreme severity of illness (71% vs 79%), and were less likely to have a pathogen susceptible to narrow-spectrum β-lactams (31% vs 71%) compared to patients in the delayed PDAT group (all P < .01).

The proportion of patients receiving desirable therapy increased between BCC Day 0 and 4. Receipts of PDAT and early PDAT were associated with hospital, clinical, and pathogen characteristics.

To measure SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) antibody seropositivity among healthcare personnel (HCP) without a history of COVID-19 and to identify HCP characteristics associated with seropositivity.

Prospective cohort study from September 22, 2020, to March 3, 2022.

A tertiary care academic medical center.

727 HCP without prior positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing were enrolled; 559 HCP successfully completed follow-up.

At enrollment and follow-up 1–6 months later, HCP underwent SARS-CoV-2 anti-N testing and were surveyed on demographics, employment information, vaccination status, and COVID-19 symptoms and exposures.

Of 727 HCP enrolled, 27 (3.7%) had a positive SARS-CoV-2 anti-N test at enrollment. Seropositive HCPs were more likely to have a household exposure to COVID-19 in the past 30 days (OR 7.92, 95% CI 2.44–25.73), to have had an illness thought to be COVID-19 (4.31, 1.94–9.57), or to work with COVID-19 patients more than half the time (2.09, 0.94–4.77). Among 559 HCP who followed-up, 52 (9.3%) had a positive SARS-CoV-2 anti-N antibody test result. Seropositivity at follow-up was associated with community/household exposures to COVID-19 within the past 30 days (9.50, 5.02–17.96; 2.90, 1.31–6.44), having an illness thought to be COVID-19 (8.24, 4.44–15.29), and working with COVID-19 patients more than half the time (1.50, 0.80–2.78).

Among HCP without prior positive SARS-CoV-2 testing, SARS-CoV-2 anti-N seropositivity was comparable to that of the general population and was associated with COVID-19 symptomatology and both occupational and non-occupational exposures to COVID-19.

To evaluate the appropriateness of empiric initiation of meropenem in the intensive care unit (ICU) and to determine the agreement between internal medicine (IM) residents and infectious diseases (ID) physicians/pharmacists on appropriateness.

Retrospective observational study.

ICU in a tertiary care community teaching hospital.

Adult patients admitted to the ICU and started empirically on meropenem between April 1 and October 31, 2021.

Meropenem usage was categorized as appropriate or inappropriate according to criteria developed from previously published indications and modified by ID physicians/pharmacists to reflect local practices. Two investigators (an IM resident and either an ID physician or pharmacist) assessed the appropriateness, with a second ID physician resolving any disagreements. Inter-rater reliability was measured using the kappa statistic.

Ninety-seven participants were enrolled, with a mean age of 68 (SD, 17.0) years. Pneumonia was the most common infection (30.9%). Among the participants, 92.8% received an ID consultation, with 55.6% of these occurring before meropenem initiation. IM residents deemed 56.7% of meropenem administrations appropriate, whereas an ID physician/pharmacist deemed only 48.5% appropriate, agreeing on 79.4% of cases (kappa statistic 0.59, P <.001). After a third reviewer’s assessment was included, agreement between the resident and at least one of the two reviewers reached 90.7% (kappa 0.81, P <.001).

Approximately half of empiric meropenem started in the ICU was deemed inappropriate using institution-specific criteria. There was good agreement between IM residents and ID physicians/pharmacists on meropenem appropriateness. IM residents could contribute to antimicrobial stewardship efforts, like prospective audit and feedback, using standardized criteria for appropriateness.

Improving the hospital environment and developing novel disinfection strategies are critical for infection control in healthcare settings. In this study, we explored the effects of electrochromic (EC) windows on indoor and patient microbiome in an inpatient hospital.

Hematology-Oncology patients at the University of Vermont Medical Center

We conducted a prospective study in ten occupied patient rooms. Five of the patient rooms had active EC windows that tint dynamically to control for heat and glare, and the other five rooms had deactivated EC windows that simulated traditional windows and blinds. Samples were collected one day before patient admission as baseline and on the 1st, 3rd, and 5th day of the patient stay. Total bacterial abundance and bacterial community structure were determined through quantitative PCR and 16s rRNA Illumina MiSeq sequencing, respectively.

Patient rooms with active EC windows had significantly lower light intensity and temperature than traditional patient rooms with blinds. The absolute bacterial abundance and diversities on windows were significantly lower in rooms with EC windows and the bacterial composition changed after one day EC window activation. Compared to baseline, relative abundance of the Staphylococcus genus was significantly lower on EC window surface during the five-day experiment. In contrast, the air microbiome was more diverse in rooms with EC windows.

Active electrochromic (EC) windows in patient rooms result in lower light intensity and temperature, reduced bacterial abundance and diversities on window surfaces, and a more diverse air microbiome, informing future healthcare design.

We sought to compare patient outcomes between carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) and carbapenem-susceptible Enterobacterales (CSE) infections at our academic medical center.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with a positive culture of E. coli, E. cloacae, K. aerogenes, K. oxytoca, and/or K. pneumoniae admitted at UK HealthCare (January 1, 2010–December 31, 2019). Based on the type of pathogen on the date of the first culture (index date), patients were included in the CRE (i.e., exposed) group, or the CSE (comparator) group. Exclusion criteria were age < 18 years old, pregnancy, endocarditis, osteomyelitis, necrotizing fasciitis, or cystic fibrosis. We evaluated the impact of CRE vs CSE on a composite outcome of 30-day of all-cause mortality or discharge to hospice using Kaplan–Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazard regression with inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW).

Of 17,839 hospitalized patients, 128 and 6,953 patients were included in the CRE and CSE groups, respectively. Baseline differences existed in sex-assigned-at-birth, admission source, time-to-index culture, and infection type/severity. Most CRE index cultures observed (76%) only exhibited resistance to ertapenem. IPTW-adjusted HR [95% CI] of composite outcome was 0.99 [0.65, 1.51] after 30 days. Follow-up analysis in patients with carbapenem-non-susceptible Enterobacteralesbloodstream infections on index yielded an HR of 1.38 [0.85, 2.24].

Risk of composite outcome was not estimated to differ between patients with CRE and CSE in the overall analysis. Although follow-up analysis identified an increased risk, we cannot statistically distinguish this from a null effect.

We evaluated SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) seroconversion and seroreversion rates, risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion, and COVID-19 risk perceptions among academic healthcare center employees in a rural state.

Among employees aged ≥18 years who completed a screening survey (n = 1,377), we invited all respondents reporting previous COVID-19 (n = 85; 82 accepted) and a random selection of respondents not reporting previous COVID-19 (n = 370; 220 accepted) to participate. Participants completed surveys and provided blood samples at 3-month intervals (T0, T3, T6, T9). We used logistic regression to identify risk factors for seropositivity at T0.

The cohort was primarily direct patient caregivers (205/302; 67.9%), white (278/302; 92.1%), and female (212/302; 70.2%). At T0, 86/302 (28.4%) participants were seropositive. Of the seronegative participants, 6/198 (3.0%), 6/183 (3.3%), and 14/180 (7.8%) had seroconverted at T3, T6, and T9, respectively. The overall seroreversion rate was 6.98% at T9. At T0, nursing staff (odds ratio [OR], 2.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08, 5.19) and being within six feet of a non-household member outside of work (OR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.02, 8.33) had significantly higher odds of seropositivity. Vaccination (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02, 0.12) and face mask use (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17, 0.78) were protective.

The seroconversion and seroreversion rates were low among participants. Public health and infection prevention measures implemented early in the COVID-19 pandemic – vaccination, face mask use, and social distancing – were associated with significantly lower odds of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among participants.

We aim to highlight the risks of acquiring carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) resistance genes in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in intensive care.

Outbreak analysis to assess for a transmission risk area (TRA) conducted after identification of potential CPE outbreak within shared room spaces in intensive care.

Analysis conducted within a 24-bed single-room model intensive-care department within a level-3 tertiary center public hospital in regional Victoria, Australia.

3 patients, with severe COVID-19 admitted to intensive care over a 3-month period with shared room spaces requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation and broad-spectrum antimicrobials, identified and were managed for CPE isolated from sputum. Overlap carbapenemase genes were identified among different organisms raising suspicion of transmitted resistance genes. A subsequent case managed for severe community-acquired pneumonia isolated CPE 3 months beyond these cases.

Outbreak analysis via weekly cross-sectional point prevalence screening of fecal samples or rectal swabs for CPE from patients admitted to the intensive-care department over a 4-week period.

34 patients were included in the analysis with 51 tests for CPE screening conducted. No further cases of CPE were identified. Statewide Infection Surveillance team and the Department of Health and Human Services did not find the cases to derive from a TRA. No further action including environmental screening was indicated.

These cases highlight the independent acquisition of CPE genes in patients with severe COVID-19 and antimicrobial selective pressures resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Increasing awareness, robust antimicrobial stewardship, and infection prevention measures could reduce pressures driving CPE resistance mutations and the risk of CPE transmission.

To describe antimicrobial usage (AMU) trends before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 wards, and if there was any association with a COVID-19 order set.

Quasi-experimental retrospective interrupted time series analysis of AMU rates with a contemporaneous comparison of COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 control wards. Analysis using incidence rate ratios (IRR) was conducted using a Poisson regression generalized linear model.

Five COVID-19 and 4 comparable non-COVID-19 wards and 6 intensive care units (ICUs) at 4 hospitals during pandemic waves 1–4.

All inpatients receiving systemic antimicrobials.

The COVID-19 checkbox antimicrobial order set was implemented in March 2020, to be used only if considered clinically indicated with modification in August 2021.

The primary outcome was a change in AMU rates (defined daily dose per 100 patient days per month) comparing pre- versus peri-pandemic periods and COVID-19 versus control non-COVID-19 wards. Secondary outcomes included antifungal usage rate in ICUs and assessing AMUs following implementation and modification of a COVID-19 order set.

Significantly greater rates of AMU (IRR[95%CI]) were observed on COVID-19 wards versus non-COVID-19 wards during waves 1–4 for all systemic antimicrobials (1.76[1.71–1.81], 1.10[1.07–1.13], 1.48[1.43–1.53], and 1.06[1.03–1.09]); for azithromycin (11.76[9.80–14.23], 10.96[9.49–12.74], 12.41[10.73–14.45], and 4.88[4.31–5.55]); and for ceftriaxone (2.39[2.16–2.65], 3.64[3.29–4.03], 2.94[2.67–3.23], and 1.62[1.49–1.76]).

We observed significantly increased AMU rates of all systemic agents during the first 4 waves of the pandemic and on COVID-19 wards compared with control wards for azithromycin and ceftriaxone. These agents saw a twofold reduction following order-set removal, suggesting that the clinical decision-support tool order set, as utilized, had influenced prescribing behavior.

To examine practices of providers and nursing staff in evaluating febrile patients and identify drivers of excessive diagnostic testing.

Prospective multiple-choice surveys.

Inpatient areas and the Emergency Department at Rhode Island Hospital (RIH) in Providence, RI.

We conducted two surveys focused on the evaluation of febrile inpatients at RIH. One survey was of providers trained in internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, emergency medicine, and neurology; the other survey was of nursing staff (registered nurses and certified nursing assistants), in inpatient areas and the emergency department.

70 providers (9%) and 178 nursing staff (12%) completed the surveys. 64% of providers (n = 43) reported “always” or “often” ordering full fever workups and 67% of providers (n = 47) reported “always” or “often” physically evaluating febrile patients. Nurses were less likely than providers to report that providers “always” or “often” physically evaluate febrile patients (n = 80, 45%; P < 0.01) and more likely to report providers “always” or “often” order full fever workups (n = 135, 76%; P = 0.04). 71% of providers (n = 50) reported “always” or “often” receiving written handoffs. 86% of providers (n = 60) reported handoffs are “always” or “often” accurate; however, only 17% of providers responded these were “always” accurate. 77% of providers (n = 54) reported “always” or “often” following handoff instructions to obtain a full fever workup for febrile patients, regardless of clinical status. Responses differed significantly by unit type and provider specialty and position.

This study elucidates drivers of inefficient and excessive utilization of diagnostic studies and identifies targets for diagnostic stewardship interventions.

We performed a systematic literature review to identify and describe pharmacist-led antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Systematic literature review.

We searched PubMed for studies evaluating pharmacist-led ASP interventions in LMICs from January 1, 2012, to November 4, 2023. We evaluated the article’s country of origin, described ASP interventions, and analyzed their reported outcomes.

Twenty-four studies were included; ten were conducted in China, two in India, two in Thailand, five in Africa, three in Latin America, and two in the Middle East. The predominant interventions in the studies were education and training followed by audit and feedback. The outcomes reported included reduction in antimicrobial consumption, cost reduction, shortening of the duration of antimicrobial therapy, and de-escalation.

Our findings reinforce the importance of clinical pharmacists leading interventions related to antimicrobial stewardship in LMCIs and the global importance of investing in Infectious Disease training.