Antimicrobial Stewardship in COVID-19 Patients: Those Who Sow Will Reap Even through Hard Times.

BACKGROUND: Since the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic emerged, antimicrobial stewardship (AS) activities need to be diverted into COVID-19 management. METHODS: In order to assess the impact of COVID-19 on AS activities, we analyzed changes in antibiotic consumption in moderate-to-severe COVID-19 patients admitted to four units in a tertiary-care hospital across three COVID-19 waves. The AS program was introduced at the hospital in 2018. During the first wave, COVID-19 forced the complete withdrawal of hospital AS activities. In the second wave, antibiotic guidance calibration for COVID-19 patients was implemented in all units, with enhanced stewardship activities in Units 1, 2, and 3 (intervention units). In a controlled before and after study, antimicrobial usage during the three waves of the COVID-19 pandemic was compared to the 12-month prepandemic unit (Unit 4 acted as the control). Antibiotic consumption data were analyzed as the overall consumption, stratified by the World Health Organization AWaRe classification, and expressed as defined-daily-dose (DDD) and days-of-therapy (DOT) per 1000 patient-day (PD). RESULTS: In the first wave, the overall normalized DOT in units 2-4 significantly exceeded the 2019 level (2019: 587 DOT/1000 PD ± 42.6; Unit 2: 836 ± 77.1; Unit 3: 684 ± 122.3; Unit 4: 872, ± 162.6; p < 0.05). After the introduction of AS activities, consumption decreased in the intervention units to a significantly lower level when compared to 2019 (Unit 1: 498 DOT/1000 PD ± 49; Unit 2: 232 ± 95.7; Unit 3: 382 ± 96.9; p < 0.05). Antimicrobial stewardship activities resulted in a decreased amount of total antibiotic consumption over time and positively affected the watch class and piperacillin-tazobactam use in the involved units. CONCLUSIONS: During a pandemic, the implementation of calibrated AS activities represents a sound investment in avoiding inappropriate antibiotic therapy.

How to 'SAVE' antibiotics: effectiveness and sustainability of a new model of antibiotic stewardship intervention in the internal medicine area.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic stewardship (AS) is a cornerstone of the fight against antimicrobial resistance; however, evidence on the best practice to improve antibiotic prescription in various hospital settings is still scarce. This study aimed to measure the efficacy of a non-restrictive AS intervention in the internal medicine area of a tertiary-care hospital across a 3-year period. METHODS: The intervention comprised a 3-month 'intensive phase' based on education and guidelines provision, followed by 9 months of audits and feedback activities. The primary outcome was the overall antibiotic consumption measured as days of therapy (DOTs) and defined daily doses (DDDs). Secondary outcomes were carbapenem and fluoroquinolone consumption, all-cause in-hospital mortality, length of stay, incidence of Clostridioides difficile and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales bloodstream infections (CRE-BSIs). All outcomes were measured in the intervention wards comparing the pre-phase with the post-phase using an interrupted time-series model. RESULTS: A total of 145 337 patient days (PDs) and 14 159 admissions were included in the analysis. The intervention was associated with reduced DOTs*1000PDs (-162.2/P = 0.005) and DDDs*1000PDs (-183.6/P ≤ 0.001). A sustained decrease in ward-related antibiotic consumption was also detected during the post-intervention phase and in the carbapenem/fluoroquinolone classes. The intervention was associated with an immediate reduction in length of stay (-1.72 days/P < 0.001) and all-cause mortality (-3.71 deaths*100 admissions/P = 0.002), with a decreasing trend over time. Rates of Clostridioides difficile infections and CRE-BSIs were not significantly impacted by the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The AS intervention was effective and safe in decreasing antibiotic consumption and length of stay in the internal medicine area. Enabling prescribers to judicious use of antimicrobials through active participation in AS initiatives is key to reach sustained results over time.

European society of clinical microbiology and infectious diseases guidelines for coronavirus disease 2019: an update on treatment of patients with mild/moderate disease.

SCOPE: Despite the large availability of vaccines, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), induced by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, continues to be a major threat for health-care providers and fragile people. A number of options are now available for outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at the risk of disease progression for the prevention of deaths or hospitalization. METHODS: A European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair and the remaining selected based on an open call. Each panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A long list of clinical questions using the population, intervention, comparison, outcome format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each population, intervention, comparison, outcome, two panel members performed a literature search, with a third panelist involved in case of inconsistent results. Voting was based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RECOMMENDATIONS: In this update, we focus on anti-viral agents, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and other treatment options proposed for patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 who are at the risk of hospitalization or death. Although the use of anti-virals is recommended, especially nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and remdesivir or, alternatively, molnupirarvir, the administration of mAbs against the spike protein strictly depends on circulating variants or the ability to test timely for variants and sub-variants. At the time of writing (April-June 2022), the only active mAb was tixagevimab/cilgavimab given the predominance of the Omicron BA.2, BA.3, BA.4 and BA.5 sub-lineages in Europe. However, considering that the epidemiological scenario is extremely dynamic, constant monitoring of variants of concern is mandatory.

The antimicrobial resistance travel tool, an interactive evidence-based educational tool to limit antimicrobial resistance spread.

BACKGROUND: International travel has been recognized as a risk factor contributing to the spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). However, tools focused on AMR in the context of international travel and designed to guide decision-making are limited. We aimed at developing an evidence-based educational tool targeting both healthcare professionals (HCPs) and international travellers to help prevent the spread of AMR. METHODS: A literature review on 12 antimicrobial-resistant bacteria (ARB) listed as critical and high tiers in the WHO Pathogen Priority List covering four key areas was carried out: AMR surveillance data; epidemiological studies reporting ARB prevalence data on carriage in returning travellers; guidance documents reporting indications on screening for ARB in returning travellers and recommendations for ARB prevention for the public. The evidence, catalogued at country-level, provided the content for a series of visualizations that allow assessment of the risk of AMR acquisition through travel. RESULTS: Up to January 2021, the database includes data on: (i) AMR surveillance for 2.018.241 isolates from 86 countries; (ii) ARB prevalence of carriage from 11.679 international travellers and (iii) 15 guidance documents published by major public health agencies. The evidence allowed the development of a consultation scheme for the evaluation of risk factors, prevalence of carriage, proportion and recommendations for screening of AMR. For the public, pre-travel practical measures to minimize the risk of transmission were framed. CONCLUSIONS: This easy-to-use, annually updated, freely accessible AMR travel tool (https://epi-net.eu/travel-tool/overview/), is the first of its kind to be developed. For HCPs, it can provide a valuable resource for teaching and a repository that facilitates a stepwise assessment of the risk of AMR spread and strengthen implementation of optimized infection control measures. Similarly, for travellers, the tool has the potential to raise awareness of AMR and outlines preventive measures that reduce the risk of AMR acquisition and spread.

ESCMID COVID-19 living guidelines: drug treatment and clinical management.

SCOPE: In January 2021, the ESCMID Executive Committee decided to launch a new initiative to develop ESCMID guidelines on several COVID-19-related issues, including treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: An ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMID Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call. Each panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A long list of clinical questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each PICO, two panel members performed a literature search with a third panellist involved in case of inconsistent results. Voting was based on the GRADE approach. QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE GUIDELINE AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A synthesis of the available evidence and recommendations is provided for each of the 15 PICOs, which cover use of hydroxychloroquine, bamlanivimab alone or in combination with etesevimab, casirivimab combined with imdevimab, ivermectin, azithromycin and empirical antibiotics, colchicine, corticosteroids, convalescent plasma, favipiravir, remdesivir, tocilizumab and interferon ß-1a, as well as the utility of antifungal prophylaxis and enoxaparin. In general, the panel recommended against the use of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, azithromycin, colchicine and interferon ß-1a. Conditional recommendations were given for the use of monoclonal antibodies in high-risk outpatients with mild-moderate COVID-19, and remdesivir. There was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for use of favipiravir and antifungal prophylaxis, and it was recommended that antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in patients with COVID-19 unless bacterial coinfection or secondary infection is suspected or confirmed. Tocilizumab and corticosteroids were recommended for treatment of severe COVID-19 but not in outpatients with non-severe COVID-19. SCOPE: The aim of the present guidance is to provide evidence-based recommendations for management of adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). More specifically, the goal is to aid clinicians managing patients with COVID-19 at various levels of severity including outpatients, hospitalized patients, and those admitted to intensive care unit. Considering the composition of the panel, mostly clinical microbiologists or infectious disease specialists with no pulmonology or intensive care background, we focus only on pharmacological treatment and do not give recommendations on oxygen supplement/support. Similarly, as no paediatricians were included in the panel; the recommendations are only for adult patients with COVID-19. Considering the current literature, no guidance was given for special populations such as the immunocompromised.

White Paper: Bridging the gap between surveillance data and antimicrobial stewardship in the outpatient sector-practical guidance from the JPIAMR ARCH and COMBACTE-MAGNET EPI-Net networks.

BACKGROUND: The outpatient setting is a key scenario for the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) activities, considering that overconsumption of antibiotics occurs mainly outside hospitals. This publication is the result of a joint initiative by the JPIAMR ARCH and COMBACTE-MAGNET EPI-Net networks, which is aimed at formulating a set of target actions for linking surveillance data with AMS activities in the outpatient setting. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature was carried out in three research areas: AMS leadership and accountability; antimicrobial usage and AMS; antimicrobial resistance and AMS. Consensus on the actions was reached through a RAND-modified Delphi process involving over 40 experts in infectious diseases, clinical microbiology, AMS, veterinary medicine or public health, from 18 low-, middle- and high-income countries. RESULTS: Evidence was retrieved from 38 documents, and an initial 25 target actions were proposed, differentiating between essential or desirable targets according to clinical relevance, feasibility and applicability to settings and resources. In the first consultation round, preliminary agreement was reached for all targets. Further to a second review, 6 statements were re-considered and 3 were deleted, leading to a final list of 22 target actions in the form of a practical checklist. CONCLUSIONS: This White Paper is a pragmatic and flexible tool to guide the development of calibrated surveillance-based AMS interventions specific to the outpatient setting, which is characterized by substantial inter- and intra-country variability in the organization of healthcare structures, maintaining a global perspective and taking into account the feasibility of the target actions in low-resource settings.

White Paper: Bridging the gap between human and animal surveillance data, antibiotic policy and stewardship in the hospital sector-practical guidance from the JPIAMR ARCH and COMBACTE-MAGNET EPI-Net networks.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial surveillance and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) are essential pillars in the fight against antimicrobial resistance (AMR), but practical guidance on how surveillance data should be linked to AMS activities is lacking. This issue is particularly complex in the hospital setting due to structural heterogeneity of hospital facilities and services. The JPIAMR ARCH and COMBACTE-MAGNET EPI-Net networks have joined efforts to formulate a set of target actions for linking surveillance data with AMS activities. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature was carried out addressing research questions on three areas: (i) AMS leadership and accountability; (ii) antimicrobial usage and AMS; (iii) AMR and AMS. Consensus on the target actions was reached through a RAND-modified Delphi process involving over 40 experts in different fields from 18 countries. RESULTS: Evidence was retrieved from 51 documents. Initially 38 targets were proposed, differentiated as essential or desirable according to clinical relevance, feasibility and applicability to settings and resources. In the first consultation round, preliminary agreement was reached for 32 targets. Following a second consultation, 27 targets were approved, 11 were deleted and 4 were suggested for rephrasing, leading to a final approved list of 34 target actions in the form of a practical checklist. CONCLUSIONS: This White Paper provides a pragmatic and flexible tool to guide the development of calibrated hospital-surveillance-based AMS interventions. The strength of this tool is that it is a comprehensive perspective that takes into account the hospital patient case-mix and the related epidemiology, which ultimately drives antimicrobial usage, and the feasibility in low-resource settings.

White Paper: Bridging the gap between surveillance data and antimicrobial stewardship in long-term care facilities-practical guidance from the JPIAMR ARCH and COMBACTE-MAGNET EPI-Net networks.

BACKGROUND: In long-term care facilities (LTCFs) residents often receive inappropriate antibiotic treatment and infection prevention and control practices are frequently inadequate, thus favouring acquisition of MDR organisms. There is increasing evidence in the literature describing antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) activities in LTCFs, but practical guidance on how surveillance data should be linked with AMS activities in this setting is lacking. To bridge this gap, the JPIAMR ARCH and COMBACTE-MAGNET EPI-Net networks joined their efforts to provide practical guidance for linking surveillance data with AMS activities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Considering the three main topics [AMS leadership and accountability, antimicrobial usage (AMU) and AMS, and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and AMS], a literature review was performed and a list of target actions was developed. Consensus on target actions was reached through a RAND-modified Delphi process involving 40 experts from 18 countries and different professional backgrounds adopting a One Health approach. RESULTS: From the 25 documents identified, 25 target actions were retrieved and proposed for expert evaluation. The consensus process produced a practical checklist including 23 target actions, differentiating between essential and desirable targets according to clinical relevance and feasibility. Flexible proposals for AMS team composition and leadership were provided, with a strong emphasis on the need for well-defined and adequately supported roles and responsibilities. Specific antimicrobial classes, AMU metrics, pathogens and resistance patterns to be monitored are addressed. Effective reporting strategies are described. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed checklist represents a practical tool to support local AMS teams across a wide range of care delivery organization and availability of resources.