Evidence Hub

Using a planetary health lens to quantify intravenous use of bioequivalent antimicrobials when oral administration is feasible

Meghan MacLaren, R. Thalakada, Hui Zhu, Tim T. Y. Lau, S. Shajari, Xiao-Tao Bi, S. Peermohamed

Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada, 2026

128 participants

Abstract

Background

Health care accounts for 4.6% of Canada's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 25% of which comes from medications. Antimicrobials with high bioavailability offer no additional benefit when given intravenously, except when oral (PO) administration is not feasible. Intravenous (IV) formulations have a higher carbon footprint than their PO counterparts. IV-to-PO switch strategies benefit patients and the health care system by reducing line-related adverse events, nursing time, length of hospital stay, and costs and can also reduce carbon emissions.Our primary objective was to quantify IV use of bioequivalent antimicrobials when PO administration is feasible. Secondary objectives were to determine GHG emissions and antimicrobial costs associated with unnecessary IV use of bioequivalent antimicrobials.

Methods

We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional study of hospitalized adults who received IV azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, clindamycin, cotrimoxazole, fluconazole, levofloxacin, linezolid, metronidazole, moxifloxacin, or voriconazole at Vancouver General Hospital on five dates. We determined the proportion of patients receiving these antimicrobials who met criteria for PO administration. We also applied a life cycle assessment (LCA) to assess the GHG emissions of the antimicrobial drug delivery systems using OpenLCA with the Ecoinvent database. Using these data, we calculated the GHG emissions and costs associated with unnecessary IV use.

Results

In total, 128 patients…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 128 participants or records.

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