Examining Antimicrobial Stewardship Program Implementation in Carceral Settings.

Antimicrobial resistance is a global threat that inequitably affects minoritized populations, including Black, Latinx, and Indigenous people-especially in carceral settings-and is largely driven by inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing practices. People whose identities are minoritized are more likely to be incarcerated, and people who are incarcerated experience higher disease risk than people who are not incarcerated. This article draws on a case of dental infection suffered by a woman who is incarcerated to consider key ethical and clinical complexities of antimicrobial prescribing in carceral settings.

Uptown Squirrel Does Not Eat That.

This essay plays out a few ethics reasons we have to reconsider what's really being marketed to us in some free offers that distract us from questions of ethical, cultural, and clinical importance, for example. Possible points of focus for bioethics as a field are related to antimicrobial resistance and stewardship.

Stewardship according to context: Justifications for coercive antimicrobial stewardship policies in agriculture and their limitations.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an urgent, global threat to public health. The development and implementation of effective measures to address AMR is vitally important but presents important ethical questions. This is a policy area requiring further sustained attention to ensure that policies proposed in National Action Plans on AMR are ethically acceptable and preferable to alternatives that might be fairer or more effective, for instance. By ethically analysing case studies of coercive actions to address AMR across countries, we can better inform policy in a context-specific manner. In this article, I consider an example of coercive antimicrobial stewardship policy in Canada, namely restrictions on livestock farmers' access to certain antibiotics for animal use without a vet's prescription. I introduce and analyse two ethical arguments that might plausibly justify coercive action in this case: the harm principle and a duty of collective easy rescue. In addition, I consider the factors that might generally limit the application of those ethical concepts, such as challenges in establishing causation or evidencing the scale of the harm to be averted. I also consider specifics of the Canadian context in contrast to the UK and Botswana as example settings, to demonstrate how context-specific factors might mean a coercive policy that is ethically justified in one country is not so in another.

The Ethics of Fecal Microbiota Transplant as a Tool for Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs.

Multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) are a public health threat that have reduced the effectiveness of many available antibiotics. Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) have been tasked with reducing antibiotic use and therefore the emergence of MDROs. While fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) has been proposed as therapy to reduce patient colonization of MDROs, this will require additional evidence to support an expansion of the current clinical indication for FMT. This article discusses the evidence and ethics of the expanded utilization of FMT by ASPs for reasons other than severe recurrent or refractory Clostridioides (formerly Clostridium) difficile infection.

Prevalence of Inappropriate Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care Clinics within a Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

Data are needed from outpatient settings to better inform antimicrobial stewardship. In this study, a random sample of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions by primary care providers (PCPs) at our health care system was reviewed and compared to consensus guidelines. Over 12 months, 3,880 acute antibiotic prescriptions were written by 76 PCPs caring for 40,734 patients (median panel, 600 patients; range, 33 to 1,547). PCPs ordered a median of 84 antibiotic prescriptions per 1,000 patients per year. Azithromycin (25.8%), amoxicillin-clavulanate (13.3%), doxycycline (12.4%), amoxicillin (11%), fluoroquinolones (11%), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (10.6%) were prescribed most commonly. Medical records corresponding to 300 prescriptions from 59 PCPs were analyzed in depth. The most common indications for these prescriptions were acute respiratory tract infection (28.3%), urinary tract infection (23%), skin and soft tissue infection (15.7%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation (6.3%). In 5.7% of cases, no reason for the prescription was listed. No antibiotic was indicated in 49.7% of cases. In 12.3% of cases, an antibiotic was indicated, but the prescribed agent was guideline discordant. In another 14% of cases, a guideline-concordant antibiotic was given for a guideline-discordant duration. Therefore, 76% of reviewed prescriptions were inappropriate. Ciprofloxacin and azithromycin were most likely to be prescribed inappropriately. A non-face-to-face encounter prompted 34% of prescriptions. The condition for which an antibiotic was prescribed was not listed in primary or secondary diagnosis codes in 54.5% of clinic visits. In conclusion, there is an enormous opportunity to reduce inappropriate outpatient antibiotic prescriptions.

[Rational use of antibiotics as an ethical challenge]. / Rationaler Antibiotikaeinsatz als ethische Herausforderung.

Antibiotics resistance presents one of the major challenges for health care in the twenty-first century. This paper examines the ethical problems that arise as a result of antibiotic resistance. Two main categories of ethical problems in infectious disease control are distinguished: those that are exacerbated by antibiotics resistance, and those that are a direct result of antibiotics resistance. The second category, which is considered in greater detail in this paper, includes, among others, issues of fair distribution of effective antibiotics, if they are considered a scarce resource. Of particular interest in this context is the concept of the rational use of antibiotics, which can have different ethical implications depending on its definition: either merely the elimination of antibiotics use that is not medically indicated, or a further limitation of antibiotics use to exclude treatment that only generates small benefits. The paper examines how a more far-reaching limitation can be justified with the aid of an analogy from the field of research ethics, and finally makes concrete suggestions of ways in which normative decisions can be taken into consideration in the prescription process for antibiotics.

Antimicrobial stewardship programmes: bedside rationing by another name?

Antimicrobial therapy is a cornerstone of therapy in critically ill patients; however, the wide use of antibiotics has resulted in increased antimicrobial resistance and outbreaks of resistant disease. To counter this, many hospitals have instituted antimicrobial stewardship programmes as a way to reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics. However, uptake of antimicrobial stewardship programmes has been variable, as many clinicians fear that they may put individual patients at risk of treatment failure. In this paper, I argue that antimicrobial stewardship programmes are indeed a form of bedside rationing, and explore the risks and benefits of such programmes for individual patients in the intensive care unit, and the critically ill population in general. Using Norman Daniels' Accountability for Reasonableness as a framework for evaluating resource allocation policies, I conclude that antimicrobial stewardship programmes are an ethically sound form of bedside rationing.