Clinical Impact of Discordant Prescribing of Fluoroquinolones and Alternative Treatments in Escherichia coli Pyelonephritis.

INTRODUCTION: The emergence of resistant Escherichia coli to fluoroquinolones (FQs) is of growing concern, yet the latest guidelines for the treatment of pyelonephritis still recommend FQs as first-line treatment. Our primary objective was to determine the impact of discordant prescribing of FQs in E coli pyelonephritis on hospital length of stay (LOS) and early clinical response (ECR). METHODS: We retrospectively compared discordant and concordant prescribing of FQs for LOS and ECR. We also compared FQs, ceftriaxone, piperacillin/tazobactam, and carbapenems for these clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients included in the comparison between discordant (n = 9) and concordant (n = 40) prescribing of FQs. There was significantly lower ECR in patients with discordant prescribing of FQs (38 of 40, 95% vs 5 of 9, 55.6%, P = .0074) and a trend toward longer LOS (4 [2.3] days vs 3 [2.0] days, P = .0571). Illness severity, estimated using Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) score, was similar between groups (P = .717). CONCLUSION: There was a significantly decreased ECR and a trend toward increased LOS when FQs were used in FQ-resistant E coli. Regarding alternative treatment for E coli pyelonephritis, ceftriaxone was as effective as concordant FQs and significantly better than discordant FQs.

Acid Suppressive Therapy for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Noncritically Ill Patients.

BACKGROUND: The current literature discourages the use of acid suppressive therapy (AST) for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in noncritically ill patients. However, several sources indicate that the majority of noncritically ill patients are given AST for SUP while there may only be a small proportion of high-risk patients who need SUP therapy. There is a new scoring system to aid practitioners in stratifying the risk of stress ulcer-related gastrointestinal bleeding in noncritically ill patients developed by Herzig et al and appropriately prescribe AST for SUP in this population. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to determine the current usage of AST in noncritically ill patients at a tertiary teaching hospital and use the new scoring system to identify non-intensive care unit patients who were inappropriately given AST. METHODS: We retrospectively determined the percentage of noncritically ill patients who were given AST on medical floors between January 2010 and December 2012. After identifying these patients, we randomly selected a sample and retrospectively collected data from their medical record to determine the gastrointestinal bleeding risk score to determine if the patient was appropriately given AST. RESULTS: Of the 42 600 admissions, 22 949 (53.7%) noncritically ill patients were given AST. A total of 442 patients were randomly selected for data collection and 156 patients were excluded. Gastrointestinal bleeding risk score was calculated in 286 patients. This new risk stratification tool identified 253 (88.5%) patients to have a low (≤7) and low-medium risk score (8-9). CONCLUSIONS: A large percentage of noncritically ill patients were given AST during their hospital stay; 88.5% of these medications were given inappropriately to patients who were at extremely low risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Using the above information and the AST prescribing patterns at our institution, we estimate a potential inpatient medication cost savings of $114 622 for the study period.