To assess the likelihood of antimicrobial streamlining between 2 antimicrobial stewardship methods.

Retrospective cohort study.

Large academic medical center.

Frequency and time to antimicrobial streamlining were compared during a prior authorization and a prospective audit period. Streamlining was defined as an antimicrobial change to a narrower agent if available or to a broader agent if the isolate was resistant to empiric therapy. Patients included were ≥18 years old with monomicrobial bacteremia with S. aureus, Enterococcus spp., or any aerobic Gram-negative organism.

A total of 665 cases of bacteremia met inclusion criteria. Frequency of streamlining was similar between periods for all cases of bacteremia (audit vs restriction: 60.7% vs 53.2%; P=.12), S. aureus bacteremia (73.2% vs 76.9%; P=.671), and Enterococcus bacteremia (81.6% vs 71.9%; P=.335). Compared to restriction, the audit period was associated with an increased frequency of streamlining for cases of Gram-negative bacteremia (51.4% vs 35.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06–3.25), those on the medical service (67.9% vs 53.1%; OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.09–3.16), and those admitted through the emergency department (71.6% vs 51.4%; OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.24–4.34). Characteristics associated with increased streamlining included: absence of β-lactam allergy (P<.001), Gram-negative bacteremia (P<.001), admission through the emergency department (P=.001), and admission to a medical service (P=.011).

Compared with prior authorization, prospective audit increased antimicrobial streamlining for cases of Gram-negative bacteremia, those admitted through the emergency department, and those admitted to a medical but not surgical service.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016:1–7

Although prior authorization and prospective audit with feedback are both effective antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) strategies, the relative impact of these approaches remains unclear. We compared these core ASP strategies at an academic medical center.

Quasi-experimental study.

We compared antimicrobial use during the 24 months before and after implementation of an ASP strategy change. The ASP used prior authorization alone during the preintervention period, June 2007 through May 2009. In June 2009, many antimicrobials were unrestricted and prospective audit was implemented for cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, and vancomycin, marking the start of the postintervention period, July 2009 through June 2011. All adult inpatients who received more than or equal to 1 dose of an antimicrobial were included. The primary end point was antimicrobial consumption in days of therapy per 1,000 patient-days (DOT/1,000-PD). Secondary end points included length of stay (LOS).

In total, 55,336 patients were included (29,660 preintervention and 25,676 postintervention). During the preintervention period, both total systemic antimicrobial use (−9.75 DOT/1,000-PD per month) and broad-spectrum anti-gram-negative antimicrobial use (−4.00 DOT/1,000-PD) declined. After the introduction of prospective audit with feedback, however, both total antimicrobial use (+9.65 DOT/1,000-PD per month; P < .001) and broad-spectrum anti-gram-negative antimicrobial use (+4.80 DOT/1,000-PD per month; P < .001) increased significantly. Use of cefepime and piperacillin/tazobactam both significantly increased after the intervention (P = .03). Hospital LOS and LOS after first antimicrobial dose also significantly increased after the intervention (P = .016 and .004, respectively).

Significant increases in antimicrobial consumption and LOS were observed after the change in ASP strategy.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35(9):1092-1099