Effectiveness of empiric carbapenem versus non-carbapenem therapy for extended-spectrum ß-lactamase producing Enterobacterales infections in non-intensive care unit patients: a real-world investigation in a hospital with high-prevalence of extended-spectrum ß-lactamase producing Enterobacterales.

Objective: To investigate whether empiric carbapenem therapy, compared to empiric non-carbapenem therapy, was associated with improved clinical outcomes among hospitalized, non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients with extended-spectrum ß-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacterales infections. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult, non-ICU patients admitted with ESBL-producing Enterobacterales infections. Primary outcome was time to clinical stability from the first empiric antibiotic dose. Secondary outcomes were early clinical response and 30-day all-cause hospital readmission. We used multivariate regression methods to examine time to clinical stability. Results: Of the 142 patients, 59 (42%) received empiric carbapenems and 83 (58%) received empiric non-carbapenems, most commonly ceftriaxone (49/83, 59%). Median age was 59 years. The most common infection source was urinary (71%). The carbapenem group had a higher proportion of patients who received antibiotics within 6 months of admission (55% vs 28%, P < .01) and history of ESBL (57% vs 17%, P < .01). There were no significant differences in hours until clinical stability between the carbapenem and non-carbapenem groups (22 (IQR: 0, 85) vs 19 (IQR: 0, 69), P = .54). Early clinical response (88% vs 90%, P = .79) and 30-day all-cause hospital readmission (17% vs 8%, P = .13) were similar between groups. Conclusion: Among hospitalized non-ICU patients with ESBL-producing Enterobacterales infection, we found no difference in time to clinical stability after the first empiric antibiotic dose between those receiving carbapenems and those who did not. Our data suggest that empiric carbapenem use may not be an important driver of clinical response in patients with less severe ESBL-producing Enterobacterales infection.

Addressing common barriers in adult immunizations: a review of interventions.

Introduction: Low levels of adult vaccination have been documented in the United States and globally. Research has been conducted to identify reasons for low immunization rates; however, the most useful studies are those that implemented interventions for identified barriers to evaluate their impact on rates of immunization. Identifying successful interventions provides immunization providers with evidence-based methods that can be utilized to increase the uptake of recommended vaccines.Areas covered: This review focuses on known barriers to adult immunizations and the interventions available in the literature to overcome these barriers. It outlines interventions that may increase vaccine uptake in the adult population through addressing barriers related to lack of vaccine knowledge, cost, access, provider and practice-based challenges, and racial and ethnic disparities.Expert opinion: Improving adult immunization rates is critical to protecting a population against vaccine-preventable diseases. Those interventions that appeared to increase immunization rates in the adult population included education and reminders about vaccination using text and telephone calls, low-cost or subsidized vaccines, easy access to immunization services, and understanding the cultural and social needs of different racial and ethnic populations. It is likely that an evidence-based multimodal approach using different categories of interventions is necessary to significantly improve adult immunization rates.