Evidence Hub

Prospective antimicrobial audit and feedback did not decrease case fatality: Experiences from a hospital in northern Taiwan

Cheng CY, Lee CY, Wu MW, Chang CH, Huang WY, Chuang YF, Tang PH, Cheng SH

Journal of infection in developing countries, 2016

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Although a prospective antimicrobial audit and feedback is an effective strategy in an antibiotic stewardship program, previous researchers have not adequately demonstrated a successful impact on patient outcomes. In this study, the causes of fatalities associated with a prospective antimicrobial audit and feedback were analyzed.

METHODOLOGY: Between June and September 2014, applications for 16 target parenteral formulas (including ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, vancomycin, teicoplanin, ertapenem, imipenem/cilastatin, meropenem, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, ciprofloxacin, tigecycline, linezolid, daptomycin, and amikacin), which were not approved by infectious diseases (ID) specialists, were followed up until patients were either discharged or passed away.

RESULTS: Of the 292 cases studied, 193 (66%) were male, with a mean age (standard deviation) of 65.5 (19.3) years. There were five reasons for rejection, including dosage adjustments (37%), no evidence of bacterial infection (28.8%), modifications according to antimicrobial susceptibility (18.8%), target pathogens not being covered (7.2%), and redundant therapy (4.1%). Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that an age greater than 75 years (odds ratio [OR]: 2.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.32-5.50; p = 0.005) was associated with significant mortality, while urinary tract (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.09-0.70; p = 0.013) and soft tissue/bone infections (OR: 0.18; 95% CI:…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free