To compare the long-term vaccine effectiveness between those receiving viral vector [Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1)] or inactivated viral (CoronaVac) primary series (2 doses) and those who received an mRNA booster (Pfizer/BioNTech) (the third dose) among healthcare workers (HCWs).

We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) in Brazil from January 2021 to July 2022. To assess the variation in the effectiveness of booster dose over time, we estimated the effectiveness rate by taking the log risk ratio as a function of time.

Of 14,532 HCWs, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was confirmed in 56.3% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine versus 23.2% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001), and 37.1% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine versus 22.7% among HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001). The highest vaccine effectiveness with mRNA booster was observed 30 days after vaccination: 91% for the CoronaVac vaccine group and 97% for the ChAdOx1 vaccine group. Vacine effectiveness declined to 55% and 67%, respectively, at 180 days. Of 430 samples screened for mutations, 49.5% were SARS-CoV-2 delta variants and 34.2% were SARS-CoV-2 omicron variants.

Heterologous COVID-19 vaccines were effective for up to 180 days in preventing COVID-19 in the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variant eras, which suggests the need for a second booster.

To quantify the economic burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in Thailand and estimate potential savings from improving the rate of appropriate empiric treatment, where effective coverage is provided within the first days of infection.

Cost-of-illness study.

A cost-calculator, decision-tree model was developed using published data and records from 3 Thai hospitals for patients hospitalized with antimicrobial-resistant infections between 2015 and 2019. Direct and indirect costs of antimicrobial-resistant infections were assessed over a 5-year time horizon, with outcomes derived separately for cases having received appropriate empiric treatment versus inappropriate empiric treatment. In a real-world scenario, outcomes were estimated using actual rates of inappropriate empiric treatment, and in a hypothetical scenario, outcomes were estimated using decreased rates of inappropriate empiric treatment.

Over 5 years, in-hospital antimicrobial-resistant infections produced costs of approximately Thai baht (THB) 66.4 billion (USD 2.1 billion) in the real-world scenario and THB 65.8 billion (USD 2.1 billion) in the hypothetical scenario (0.9% cost savings relative to the real-world scenario). Most costs were attributable to income loss due to in-hospital mortality (real world: THB 53.7 billion [USD 1.7 billion]; 80.9% of costs; hypothetical: THB 53.2 billion [USD 1.7 billion]; 80.8% of costs) and hospitalization (real world: THB 10.3 billion [USD 330.8 million]; 15.5% of costs; hypothetical: THB 10.2 billion [USD 328.9 million]; 15.5% of costs).

In-hospital antimicrobial-resistant infections produced a substantial economic toll in Thailand. This public health burden could be reduced with a strategy aimed at decreasing the rate of patients receiving inappropriate empiric treatment.

To evaluate antibiotic prescribing behavior (APB) among physicians with various specialties in five Asian countries.

Survey of antibiotics prescribing behavior in three stages (initial, on-treatment, and de-escalation stages).

Participants included internists, infectious diseases (ID) specialists, hematologists, intensivists, and surgeons. Participants’ characteristics, patterns of APB, and perceptions of antimicrobial stewardship were collected. A multivariate analysis was conducted to evaluate factors associated with appropriate APB.

There were 367 participants. The survey response rate was 82.5% (367/445). For the initial stage, different specialties had different choices for empiric treatment. For the on-treatment stage, if the patient does not respond to empiric treatment, most respondents will step up to broader-spectrum antibiotics (273/367: 74.39%). For the de-escalation stage, the rate of de-escalation was 10%–60% depending on the specialty. Most respondents would de-escalate antibiotics based on guidelines (250/367: 68.12%). De-escalation was mostly reported by ID specialists (66/106: 62.26%). Respondents who reported that they performed laboratory investigations prior to empirical antibiotic prescriptions (aOR = 2.83) were associated with appropriate use, while respondents who reported ID consultation were associated with appropriate antibiotic management for infections not responding to empiric treatment (aOR = 40.87); adherence with national guidelines (aOR = 2.57) was associated with reported successful carbapenem de-escalation.

This study highlights the variation in practices and gaps in appropriate APB on three stages of antibiotic prescription among different specialties. Education on appropriate investigation, partnership with ID specialist, and availability and adherence with national guidelines are critical to help guide appropriate APB among different specialties.

The intensity of an antibiotic stewardship intervention to achieve clinical impact is not known. We conducted a multisite dissemination project of an intervention to reduce treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) and studied: (1) the association between implementation metrics and clinical outcomes and (2) the cost of implementation.

A central site facilitated a multimodality intervention to decrease unnecessary urine cultures and antibiotic treatment in patients with ASB at 4 Veterans Affairs medical centers.

The intervention consisted of a decision support aid algorithm and interactive teaching cases that provided in the moment audit and feedback on how to manage ASB. Implementation outcomes included minutes spent in intervention delivery, number of healthcare professionals reached, and number of sessions delivered. Clinical outcomes included days of antibiotic therapy (DOT), length of antibiotic therapy (LOT), and number of urine cultures ordered per 1000 bed days. Personnel reported weekly time logs.

Minutes spent in intervention delivery were inversely correlated with two clinical outcomes, DOT (R −0.3, P = .04) and LOT (R −0.3, P = .02). Number of healthcare professionals reached and number of sessions delivered were not correlated with clinical outcomes of DOT (R –0.003, P = .98, R = −0.059, P = .69) or LOT (R +0.073, P = .62, R −0.102, P = .49). Physician champions spent an average of 3.8% of effort on the intervention. The implementation cost was USD 22,299/year per site on average.

The amount of time local teams spent in delivery of an antibiotic stewardship intervention was correlated with the desired decrease in antibiotic use. Implementing this successful antibiotic stewardship intervention required minimal time.

To evaluate the impact of a multicenter, try automated dashboard on ASP activities and its acceptance among ASP leaders.

Frontline stewards were asked to participate in semi-structured interviews before and after implementation of a web-based ASP information dashboard providing risk-adjusted benchmarking, longitudinal trends, and analysis of antimicrobial usage patterns at each facility.

The study was performed at Iowa City VA Health Care System.

ASP team members from nine medical centers in the VA Midwest Health Care Network (VISN 23).

Semi-structured interviews were conducted pre- and post-implementation, with interview guides informed by clinical experiences and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Participants evaluated the dashboard’s ease of use, applicability to ongoing ASP activities, perceived validity and reliability, and relative advantage over other ASP monitoring systems.

Compared to established stewardship data collection and reporting methods, participants found the dashboard more intuitive and accessible, allowing them to reduce dependence on other systems and staff to obtain and share data. Standardized and risk-adjusted rankings were largely accepted as a valuable benchmarking method; however, participants felt their facility’s characteristics significantly influenced the rankings’ validity. Participants recognized staffing, training, and uncertainty with using the dashboard as an intervention tool as barriers to consistent and comprehensive dashboard implementation.

Participants generally accepted the dashboard’s risk-adjusted metrics and appreciated its usability. While creating automated tools to rigorously benchmark antimicrobial use across hospitals can be helpful, the displayed metrics require further validation, and the longitudinal utility of the dashboard warrants additional study.

Extended infusion cefepime (1 gram every 6 hours administered over 3 hours) achieves pharmacodynamic efficacy against bacteria with a MIC of ≤8 mg/L in Monte Carlo simulations. This regimen has not been evaluated in clinical practice.

Compare clinical and economic outcomes for cefepime by intermittent infusion and by extended infusion in the acute-care setting.

Single-center, retrospective cohort study.

Tertiary-care academic medical center.

Hospitalized adults who received cefepime between August 2016 and July 2018 with a diagnosis of sepsis or pneumonia.

Clinical and economic outcomes were compared for patients who received empiric cefepime via intermittent infusion (30-minute infusion of 2 g every 8 hours) or extended infusion (3-hour infusion of 1 g every 6 hours). Clinical outcomes analyses were carried out using appropriate statistical methods.

Overall, 111 patients received intermittent infusion and 93 patients received extended infusion. Approximately half of the included patients had a positive culture for a bacterial pathogen (intermittent infusion 45.9% vs extended infusion 47.3%). Median hospital length of stay (intermittent infusion 6 days vs extended infusion 6 days; P = .67) and 90-day readmission rates (intermittent infusion 61.3% vs extended infusion 67.7%; P = .34) did not differ between the groups. Mortality was infrequent in both groups (intermittent infusion 2.9% vs extended infusion 1.5%; P = .45). Cefepime cost per patient was lower with cefepime by extended infusion: average total daily cost $86.06 for intermittent infusion versus $43.39 for extended infusion.

Cefepime via extended infusion (4 grams/day) did not differ in clinical outcomes compared to intermittent infusion (6 grams/day) but reduced drug expenditure. Prospective, multicenter, high-quality studies should be conducted to evaluate a mortality difference between these regimens.

This study aimed to examine the clinical risk factors for cephalosporin resistance in patients with Gram-negative bacteremia caused by Escherichia coli (EC), Klebsiella pneumoniae (KP), Enterobacter cloacae (ENC), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PS).

This retrospective cohort study included 400 adults with Gram-negative bacteremia. The goal was to review 100 cases involving each species and approximately half resistant and half susceptible to first-line cephalosporins, ceftriaxone (EC or KP), or cefepime (ENC or PS). Logistic regression was used to identify factors predictive of resistance.

A total of 378 cases of Gram-negative bacteremia were included in the analysis. Multivariate analysis identified significant risk factors for resistance, including admission from a chronic care hospital, skilled nursing facility, or having a history of infection within the prior 6 months (OR 3.00, P < .0001), requirement for mechanical ventilation (OR 3.76, P < .0001), presence of hemiplegia (OR 3.54, P = .0304), and presence of a connective tissue disease (OR 3.77, P = .0291).

Patients without the identified risk factors should be strongly considered for receiving ceftriaxone or cefepime rather than carbapenems and newer broad-spectrum agents.

To review and study implementation of an automated hand hygiene reminder system (AHHRS).

Prospective, nonrandomized, before-after quality improvement pilot study conducted over 6 months.

Medical-surgical unit (MSU) and medical intensive care unit (MICU) at a public hospital in New York City.

There were 2,642 healthcare worker observations in the direct observation (DO) period versus 265,505 in the AHHRS period, excluding AHHRS observations collected during the 1-month crossover period when simultaneous DO occurred.

We compared hand hygiene adherence (HHA) measured by DO prior to the pilot and after AHHRS implementation. We compared changes in HHA and potential cross-contamination events (CCEs) (room exit and subsequent entry without HHA) from baseline for each biweekly period during the pilot.

Engagement, education/training, data transparency, and optimization period resulted in successful implementation and adoption of the AHHRS. Observations were greater utilizing AHHRS than DO (265,505 vs 2,642, P < .01). Due to the expected Hawthorne effect, HHA was significantly less for AHHRS than DO in MSU (90.99% vs 97.21%, P < .01) and MICU (91.21% vs 98.65%, P < .01). HHA significantly improved from 86.47% to 89.68% in MSU (P < .001) and 85.93% to 91.24% in the MICU (P < .001) from the first biweekly period of AHHRS utilization to the last. CCE decreased from 73.42% to 65.11% in the MSU and significantly decreased from 81.22% to 53.19% in the MICU (P < .05).

We describe how an AHHRS approach was successfully implemented at our facility. With ongoing feedback and system optimization, AHHRS improved HHA and reduced CCE over time.

With increases in antimicrobial resistance, it is crucial that patients receive appropriate antimicrobial therapy in a timely manner. Advancements in rapid diagnostics offer the ability to identify resistant organisms quickly. However, this technology is not always accessible and relies on correct specimen collection. While awaiting new microbiology methods, it may be beneficial to identify risk factors associated with common types of resistance. Specifically, extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBLE) are a rising threat globally.

The primary objective of this retrospective case–control analysis was to identify factors associated with non-urinary ESBLE versus non-ESBLE infections.

Patient cultures were randomly selected based on type of culture (blood, bacterial, or exudate) and organism (E. coli, K. pneumoniae, or K. oxytoca) to provide a 1:1 ratio of ESBLE to non-ESBLE infections. Baseline demographics and potential risk factors (malignancy, cirrhosis, acute kidney injury (AKI), and diabetes) were collected for each patient encounter.

In the univariate analysis, risk factors that achieved a significant difference included cirrhosis, AKI, presence of urinary catheter, presence of center venous catheter, history of an ESBLE infection, hospital-acquired infection, and recent fluoroquinolone, cephalosporin, or beta-lactam use. The multivariate analysis showed that four factors were independently associated with an ESBLE infection: cirrhosis, urinary catheter, central venous catheter, and history of ESBLE. Having a history of an ESBLE had the highest adjusted odds ratio (aOR 12.49; 95% CI 4.71–33.15, P < .001) of the four factors.

These results demonstrate that there may be benefit in incorporating select risk factors into clinical decision support tools to identify patients at highest risk of ESBLE infection.