An antimicrobial stewardship intervention was implemented for pediatric medicine units using an in-person rounds-based approach to provide stewardship recommendations and education from an antimicrobial stewardship physician and antimicrobial stewardship pharmacist.

In this exploratory qualitative study, purposeful sampling was used to recruit participants for individual interviews at a tertiary- and quaternary-care referral center. Pediatricians and residents who attended ≥1 stewardship round were included. A semistructured interview guide was created focusing on perceptions of antimicrobial stewardship, personal experiences at stewardship rounds, and perceived impacts on patient care. Using a constant comparative analysis approach, codes were developed and collapsed into themes.

Overall, 8 pediatricians and 10 residents completed interviews. Qualitative analysis yielded 3 themes: insights into clinical reasoning, opportunity for growth and learning, and establishing and exploring professional relationships. The handshake-rounds approach encouraged participants to critically evaluate antimicrobial choices and to engage in discussion with the antimicrobial stewardship team. Participants felt validated at stewardship rounds and gained confidence prescribing antimicrobials. Face-to-face interaction reduced reluctance for some participants to consult infectious disease (ID) service; however, others worried that physicians may avoid ID consultation because of stewardship rounds.

Participants found stewardship rounds to be an effective strategy for education and development of clinical reasoning skills for optimal antimicrobial prescribing—choosing wisely or choosing rightly. The effects of stewardship rounds on timing and frequency of ID consultation are interesting. Further research into important patient outcomes and consultation practices are needed locally, but our experiences may help others to reflect on the power of conversation and relationships in antimicrobial stewardship.

Infection prevention and control (IPC) measures are critical in preventing the risk of acquiring and transmitting nosocomial infections. In Zambia, there is little information concerning IPC practices among pharmacy students who are exposed to potentially infectious areas both in public and private healthcare settings. Therefore, this study assessed the knowledge, attitude, and practices of undergraduate pharmacy students toward infection prevention and control at the University of Zambia.

This cross-sectional study was conducted among 290 undergraduate pharmacy students at the University of Zambia using a structured questionnaire from August 2022 to October 2022. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 25.0, and statistical significance was set at a 95% confidence level.

Of the 290 participants, 166(57.2%) were female and the majority were aged between 18 and 23 years. Overall, 252(86.9%) had good knowledge, 167(57.6%) had positive attitudes, and 248(85.5%) had good practices toward IPC measures. These results indicate lower attitude scores compared to knowledge and practices. Having good knowledge of IPC was associated with being a Christian by religion compared to other religions (OR = 5.314, 95% CI: 1.141–24.745). There was no association between sociodemographics and attitude and practice concerning IPC.

This study found that pharmacy students had good knowledge, positive attitudes, and good practices toward IPC measures. Consequently, more emphasis is needed to improve the student’s knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward IPC, especially in areas where gaps were identified. Additionally, there is a need to improve curricula on IPC measures in the training of pharmacy programs.

Antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs) facilitate appropriate antimicrobial use and require contextualization for optimal functioning. We aimed to investigate perceptions of and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and ASPs among healthcare workers in academic and nonacademic hospitals.

Cross-sectional survey.

Three academic (Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic, Inkosi Albert Luthuli, Tygerberg) and three nonacademic hospitals (Leratong, Prince Mshiyeni Memorial, and Paarl) in South Africa from January to June 2022.

Doctors, nurses, and pharmacists.

Voluntary questionnaire using Google Forms, encompassing AMR, ASPs, and selected discipline-specific components.

Participants comprised 79 doctors (50 academic), 178 nurses (169 academic), and 21 pharmacists (18 academic) and were female predominant. AMR was a problem in academic hospitals (74.7% vs 51.2%, p 0.004); 73.5% overall reported inappropriate antimicrobial use as a major contributor. Adequate education on antimicrobials occurred in only 36.4% overall. Microbiological testing guided therapy more often in nonacademic settings (80.0% vs 50.2%, p <0.001). In both settings, antimicrobial availability drove selection in 48.2%. Overall, ASPs improved patient care (89.8%) and reduced antimicrobial use (86.9%), although felt to override prescriber autonomy in academic settings (29.4% vs 7.5%, p 0.007), mainly among nurses. Only 50.2% reported successful local ASPs. A minority of pharmacists (20.0%) reported sufficient hospital support for ASPs. Education, involvement of infection control staff, and inclusion of nurses in ASPs were most impactful on AMR.

Selected healthcare worker perspectives differ by category and setting and can be targeted to improve ASPs. Further studies should target a higher number of clinical staff in both settings.

Antimicrobial administration is necessary before specific dental procedures to prevent postprocedural infections and complications and antimicrobials are sometimes indicated for the treatment of odontogenic infections. However, antimicrobials are commonly misused by dentists.

This cross-sectional study was conducted at 4 public, tertiary-care hospitals in Tokyo, Japan, from June to July 2019. We included patients who received an antimicrobial prescription at the outpatient dentistry center or clinic at each participating hospital. The indications for antimicrobial prescription were (1) antimicrobial prescriptions for prophylaxis (APPs) or (2) antimicrobial prescriptions for treatment (APTs). Prescribing patterns were described in terms of antimicrobial choice, timing, and dosages for APPs and APTs.

During the study period, 1,772 patients received an antimicrobial prescription. Among them 1,439 (81.2%) were APPs and 333 (18.8%) were APTs. The most common aim of APP was to prevent local infections and complications following tooth extraction (n = 1,244, 86.4%). The proportion of appropriate APPs was only 0.8% (12 of 1,439). Among 1,439 total APPs, 171 (11.9%) were unnecessary, 32 (2.2%) were inappropriate, and 1,224 (85.1%) were suboptimal. Whereas 101 (30.3%) of 333 APTs were appropriate, the remaining 97 instances (29.1%) were unnecessary, 86 (26.7%) were inappropriate, and 46 (13.8%) were suboptimal.

Inappropriate antimicrobial prescriptions were common among dentists in Japan. Understanding the differences in the current antimicrobial prescribing patterns for prophylaxis and treatment is critically important for implementing an effective antimicrobial stewardship program in dentistry.

We surveyed antimicrobials used in Greek pediatric hematology–oncology (PHO) and bone marrow transplant (BMT) units before and after an intervention involving education regarding the 2017 clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for the management of febrile neutropenia in children with cancer and hematopoietic stem-cell transplant recipients.

Antibiotic prescribing practices were prospectively recorded between June 2016 and November 2017.

In December 2017, baseline data feedback was provided, and CPG education was provided. Prescribing practices were followed for one more year. For antibiotic stewardship, days of therapy, and length of therapy were calculated.

Five of the 6 PHO units in Greece and the single pediatric BMT unit participated.

Admitted children in each unit who received the first 15 new antibiotic courses each month.

Administration of ≥4 antibiotics simultaneously and administration of antibiotics with overlapping activity for ≥2 days were significantly more common in PHO units in general hospitals compared to children’s hospitals. Use of at least 1 antifungal was recorded in ∼47% of the patients before and after the intervention. De-escalation and/or discontinuation of antibiotics on day 6 of initial treatment increased significantly from 43% to 53.5% (P = .032). Although the number of patients requiring intensive care support for sepsis did not change, a significant drop was noted in all-cause mortality (P = .008).

We recorded the antibiotic prescribing practices in Greek PHO and BMT units, we achieved improved prescribing with a simple intervention, and we identified areas in need of improvement.

Ceftazidime/avibactam (C/A), ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T), imipenem/relebactam (I/R), and meropenem/vaborbactam (M/V) combine either a cephalosporin (C/T and C/A) or a carbapenem antibiotic (M/V and I/R) with a β-lactamase inhibitor. They are used to treat carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) and/or multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (MDRPA).

We compared the pooled clinical success of these medications to older therapies.

PubMed and EMBASE were searched from January 1, 2012, through September 2, 2020, for C/A, C/T, I/R, and M/V studies. The main outcome was clinical success, which was assessed using random-effects models. Stratified analyses were conducted for study drug, sample size, quality, infection source, study design, and multidrug-resistant gram-negative organism (MDRGNO) population. Microbiological success and 28- and 30-day mortality were assessed as secondary outcomes. Heterogeneity was determined using I2 values.

Overall, 25 articles met the inclusion criteria; 8 observational studies and 17 randomized control trials. We detected no difference in clinical success comparing new combination antibiotics with standard therapies for all included organisms (pooled OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.96–1.51). We detected a moderate level of heterogeneity among the included studies I2 = 56%. Studies that focused on patients with CRE or MDRPA infections demonstrated a strong association between treatment with new combination antibiotics and clinical success (pooled OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.60–3.57).

C/T, C/A, I/R, and M/V are not inferior to standard therapies for treating various complicated infections, but they may have greater clinical success for treating MDRPA and CRE infections. More studies that evaluate the use of these antibiotics for drug-resistant infections are needed to determine their effectiveness.

Early administration of antibiotics in sepsis is associated with improved patient outcomes, but safe and generalizable approaches to de-escalate or discontinue antibiotics after suspected sepsis events are unknown.

We used a modified Delphi approach to identify safety criteria for an opt-out protocol to guide de-escalation or discontinuation of antibiotic therapy after 72 hours in non-ICU patients with suspected sepsis. An expert panel with expertise in antimicrobial stewardship and hospital epidemiology rated 48 unique criteria across 3 electronic survey rating tools. Criteria were rated primarily based on their impact on patient safety and feasibility for extraction from electronic health record review. The 48 unique criteria were rated by anonymous electronic survey tools, and the results were fed back to the expert panel participants. Consensus was achieved to either retain or remove each criterion.

After 3 rounds, 22 unique criteria remained as part of the opt-out safety checklist. These criteria included high-risk comorbidities, signs of severe illness, lack of cultures during sepsis work-up or antibiotic use prior to blood cultures, or ongoing signs and symptoms of infection.

The modified Delphi approach is a useful method to achieve expert-level consensus in the absence of evidence suifficient to provide validated guidance. The Delphi approach allowed for flexibility in development of an opt-out trial protocol for sepsis antibiotic de-escalation. The utility of this protocol should be evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.

Sex-disaggregated data for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reported higher hospitalized fatality rates among men than women.

To determine whether the risk factors for in-hospital mortality from COVID-19, present at the time of hospital admission, differed by patient sex.

Single-center, retrospective cohort study at a tertiary-care urban academic center.

We reviewed the electronic medical records of patients positive for COVID-19 via qualitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay, admitted between March 8 and June 14, 2020. Patients were stratified by sex to assess the association of variables present on admission with in-hospital mortality.

The overall inpatient case fatality rate (CFR) was 30.4% (172 of 565). The CFR among male patients was higher than among female patients: 99 (33.7%) versus 73 (26.9%), respectively (P = .08). Among males, comorbid conditions associated with in-hospital mortality were chronic pulmonary disease (P = .02) and connective tissue disease (P = .03). Among females, these comorbid conditions were congestive heart failure (P = .03), diabetes with complication (P = .05), and hemiplegia (P = .02). Variables that remained independently associated with death in males included age >70 years, public insurance, incremental increase in quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA) and C-reactive protein (CRP), lymphocytopenia, and thrombocytopenia. Among females, variables that remained independently associated with mortality included public insurance, incremental increase in Charlson weighted index of comorbidity (CWIC) score, qSOFA, and CRP.

Risk factors for in-hospital mortality by sex included public insurance type, incremental increase in qSOFA and CRP in both sexes. For male patients, older age, lymphocytopenia and thrombocytopenia were also associated with mortality, whereas a higher Charlson score was associated with in-hospital mortality in female patients.