4CPS-247 Variations in consumption of antimicrobials in internal medicine wards of hospitals

K. Perdikouri, F. Marini, D. Gennimata
{"title":"4CPS-247 Variations in consumption of antimicrobials in internal medicine wards of hospitals","authors":"K. Perdikouri, F. Marini, D. Gennimata","doi":"10.1136/EJHPHARM-2021-EAHPCONF.79","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and importance Although there is a direct relationship between rates of antibiotic use and emergence of antimicrobial resistance in the community and in hospital, measurement of antimicrobial consumption, without further analysis of any variations observed, is inadequate to support decision making. Aim and objectives The aim of the study was twofold: presenting variations in antimicrobial consumption in internal medicine wards and investigating potential variables in the choice of regimen. Material and methods Anonymous data on administration of parenteral antibiotics, during 2019, in two internal medicine wards of a general hospital and one semi-autonomous (independent) internal medicine clinic, located in the same healthcare region, were collected and compared. Antibiotic consumption was recorded as daily defined doses per 100 bed days (DDDs/100 bed days). All antibacterial antibiotics were included in the analyses. Furthermore, each substance’s contribution, as a percentage of the annual configuration of the total index, was calculated. Average length of stay (LOS) and regimen indications were also registered. Results In 2019, total antibiotic consumption in the general hospital internal medicine clinics ranged from 176.53 to 184.03 DDDs/100 bed days, exhibiting a 4.5-fold difference compared with the independent clinic. Administration of 33 and 35 different antibiotics, respectively, was recorded in the general hospital clinics versus 25 in the independent clinic. Ampicillin/sulbactam, meropenem and piperacillin/tazobactam (with minor differences observed) were more often used in the general hospital, while meropenem, piperacillin/tazobactam and clindamycin were used most in the independent one. Despite the differences, the relative contribution of different antibiotics to total consumption was comparable for piperacillin/tazobactam, meropenem and ceftriaxone in all cases. Variables in the choice of regimen were mainly patient age, LOS and antibiogram. Average LOS was 10 days versus 25 days between hospitals. More than 90% of admissions in the general hospital (vs 5%) were emergency admissions. Conclusion and relevance Only small differences in antimicrobial regimens were observed within each hospital, whereas between hospitals they varied significantly. Variables related to the general hospital environment, such as the increased probability of multiresistant pathogens (suggesting concomitant administration of two or more antibiotics) and the intensive care profile may adequately explain the observed variations. Such variables should always be considered in antibiotic stewardship programmes and/or other initiatives. References and/or acknowledgements Conflict of interest No conflict of interest","PeriodicalId":11998,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/EJHPHARM-2021-EAHPCONF.79","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and importance Although there is a direct relationship between rates of antibiotic use and emergence of antimicrobial resistance in the community and in hospital, measurement of antimicrobial consumption, without further analysis of any variations observed, is inadequate to support decision making. Aim and objectives The aim of the study was twofold: presenting variations in antimicrobial consumption in internal medicine wards and investigating potential variables in the choice of regimen. Material and methods Anonymous data on administration of parenteral antibiotics, during 2019, in two internal medicine wards of a general hospital and one semi-autonomous (independent) internal medicine clinic, located in the same healthcare region, were collected and compared. Antibiotic consumption was recorded as daily defined doses per 100 bed days (DDDs/100 bed days). All antibacterial antibiotics were included in the analyses. Furthermore, each substance’s contribution, as a percentage of the annual configuration of the total index, was calculated. Average length of stay (LOS) and regimen indications were also registered. Results In 2019, total antibiotic consumption in the general hospital internal medicine clinics ranged from 176.53 to 184.03 DDDs/100 bed days, exhibiting a 4.5-fold difference compared with the independent clinic. Administration of 33 and 35 different antibiotics, respectively, was recorded in the general hospital clinics versus 25 in the independent clinic. Ampicillin/sulbactam, meropenem and piperacillin/tazobactam (with minor differences observed) were more often used in the general hospital, while meropenem, piperacillin/tazobactam and clindamycin were used most in the independent one. Despite the differences, the relative contribution of different antibiotics to total consumption was comparable for piperacillin/tazobactam, meropenem and ceftriaxone in all cases. Variables in the choice of regimen were mainly patient age, LOS and antibiogram. Average LOS was 10 days versus 25 days between hospitals. More than 90% of admissions in the general hospital (vs 5%) were emergency admissions. Conclusion and relevance Only small differences in antimicrobial regimens were observed within each hospital, whereas between hospitals they varied significantly. Variables related to the general hospital environment, such as the increased probability of multiresistant pathogens (suggesting concomitant administration of two or more antibiotics) and the intensive care profile may adequately explain the observed variations. Such variables should always be considered in antibiotic stewardship programmes and/or other initiatives. References and/or acknowledgements Conflict of interest No conflict of interest
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医院内科病房抗微生物药物使用情况的变化
背景和重要性尽管抗生素使用率与社区和医院中抗菌素耐药性的出现之间存在直接关系,但在不进一步分析观察到的任何变化的情况下,对抗菌素消费量的测量不足以支持决策。目的和目的本研究的目的有两个:呈现内科病房抗菌药物使用的变化,并调查方案选择中的潜在变量。材料与方法收集2019年同一卫生保健区域某综合医院的两个内科病房和一家半自治(独立)内科诊所的肠外抗生素给药匿名数据并进行比较。抗生素用量记录为每100个床位日的每日限定剂量(DDDs/100个床位日)。所有抗菌抗生素均纳入分析。此外,还计算了每种物质在总指数年度结构中的百分比贡献。平均住院时间(LOS)和方案指征也被记录。结果2019年,综合医院内科门诊抗生素总消费量为176.53 ~ 184.03 DDDs/100床日,与独立门诊相比差异为4.5倍;综合医院诊所分别记录了33种和35种不同抗生素的使用,而独立诊所记录了25种抗生素的使用。综合医院以氨苄西林/舒巴坦、美罗培南、哌拉西林/他唑巴坦使用较多(差异不大),独立医院以美罗培南、哌拉西林/他唑巴坦、克林霉素使用最多。尽管存在差异,但在所有病例中,不同抗生素对总消费量的相对贡献与哌拉西林/他唑巴坦、美罗培南和头孢曲松相当。方案选择的变量主要为患者年龄、LOS和抗生素谱。医院间的平均生存期为10天,而医院间为25天。综合医院90%以上的住院病人(5%)是急诊病人。结论及相关性各医院内抗菌药物方案差异较小,而各医院间差异较大。与综合医院环境相关的变量,如多重耐药病原体的可能性增加(提示同时使用两种或更多种抗生素)和重症监护情况可以充分解释观察到的变化。在抗生素管理规划和/或其他举措中,应始终考虑这些变量。参考文献和/或致谢利益冲突无利益冲突
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pharmacoeconomic and clinical impact of pharmaceutical service in the intensive care unit: a systematic review Assessment of particle contamination in vancomycin syringe pumps following fluid withdrawal using three diverse aseptic reconstitution techniques Comparative analysis of the prevalence 3-HIT concept in people living with HIV and seronegative patients with chronic conditions. Cross-3HIT Project. Adverse drug effect in the context of drug shortage: the CIRUPT prospective study from the French pharmacovigilance network Investigation of the hospital pharmacy profession in Europe
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1