Antimicrobial-resistant infections

The CDC estimates that drug-resistant bacteria cause approximately 23,000 deaths and about two million illnesses each year in the U.S.1 Such unfavorable statistics encouraged the White House to convene a forum on antibiotic resistance in June 2015. The White House Forum on Antimicrobial Stewardship brought together more than 100 health leaders.2 Antimicrobial stewardship has been defined as the coordinated effort to optimize antimicrobial usage (the right agent, at the right time, at the correct dose, for an appropriate duration), with the goals of improving patient outcomes, reducing antimicrobial resistance, and decreasing healthcare costs.3 At the forum, many physicians, organizations, food vendors, hospital systems, and patients made a commitment to support appropriate use of antibiotics and use strategies to reduce antimicrobial resistance.

Many antimicrobial stewards, such as infection prevention specialists, hospital epidemiologists, pharmacists, nurses, and hospitalists, are at the center of quality improvement and seek to achieve optimal clinical outcomes related to antimicrobial use.4 These antimicrobial stewards often strive to minimize harms and other adverse events, reduce the costs of healthcare for infections, and decrease the threat of antimicrobial resistance.3

Hospitalists play a critical role in quality improvement and directly influence inpatient outcomes daily. It’s essential that hospitalists continue to make patient safety and quality care a priority while employing a multidisciplinary approach in implementing antimicrobial stewardship best practices. Although antimicrobial stewardship programs have typically been led by infectious disease physicians and pharmacists, SHM recognizes the significant value of hospitalist leadership and/or participation.5 Although most hospitalists are familiar with the adverse effects of overprescribing antibiotics, their insight and collaboration with other hospital clinicians is necessary in order to Fight the Resistance.

Fight the Resistance, a new behavior change campaign from SHM and our Center for Hospital Innovation and Improvement, is intended to encourage appropriate prescribing and use of antibiotics in the hospital. The campaign’s primary objective is to change prescribing behaviors among hospitalists and other hospital clinicians and facilitate behavior change related to antibiotic prescribing.

The campaign officially launched on Nov. 10, 2015, with a kickoff webinar presented by Scott Flanders, MD, FACP, MHM, and Melhim Bou Alwan, MD. Dr. Flanders discussed the importance of hospitalist involvement in antimicrobial stewardship and the significance of working in multidisciplinary teams in order to reduce overprescribing and the threat of antibiotic resistance.

Dr. Bou Alwan explained SHM’s efforts to fight antimicrobial resistance and informed the audience of SHM’s commitment to antibiotic stewardship. The webinar launch was a huge success, and SHM is excited to continue fighting the resistance with physicians across the country.

In order to Fight the Resistance, SHM is asking hospitalists to commit to the following actions:

• Work with your team. Physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, pharmacists, and infectious disease experts need to work together to ensure that antibiotics are used appropriately. Consider the patients part of your team, too, by discussing with them why antibiotics may not be the best choice of treatment.
• Pay attention to appropriate antibiotic choice and resistance patterns, and identify mechanisms that can be used to educate providers about overprescribing in your hospital.
• Rethink your antibiotic treatment time course. Be sure to adhere to your hospital’s antibiotic treatment guidelines, track use of antibiotics, and set a stop date from when you first prescribe them.

SHM believes changing antibiotic prescription behaviors is a team effort and encourages hospitalists to get involved by visiting www.fighttheresistance.org. There you can find Fight the Resistance themed posters, resources, and educational materials to encourage enhanced stewardship and teamwork in your hospital. TH

---

Mobola Owolabi is senior project manager for The Center for Hospital Innovation and Improvement

 

References

1. The White House. Office of the Press Secretary. FACT SHEET: Obama Administration releases national action plan to combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria. March 27, 2015. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/27/fact-sheet-obama-administration-releases-national-action-plan-combat-ant. Accessed December 3, 2015.
2. CDC. Federal engagement in antimicrobial resistance. June 2015. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/federal-engagement-in-ar/index.html. Accessed December 3, 2015.
3. Infectious Diseases Society of America. Promoting antimicrobial stewardship in human medicine. 2015. Available at: http://www.idsociety.org/Stewardship_Policy/. Accessed December 3, 2015.
4. CDC. Core elements of hospital antibiotic stewardship programs. 2015. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/getsmart/healthcare/implementation/core-elements.html. Accessed December 3, 2015.
5. Rohde JM, Jacobsen D, Rosenberg DJ. Role of the hospitalist in antimicrobial stewardship: a review of work completed and description of a multisite collaborative. Clin Ther. 2013; 35(6):751-757.

The CDC estimates that drug-resistant bacteria cause approximately 23,000 deaths and about two million illnesses each year in the U.S.1 Such unfavorable statistics encouraged the White House to convene a forum on antibiotic resistance in June 2015. The White House Forum on Antimicrobial Stewardship brought together more than 100 health leaders.2 Antimicrobial stewardship has been defined as the coordinated effort to optimize antimicrobial usage (the right agent, at the right time, at the correct dose, for an appropriate duration), with the goals of improving patient outcomes, reducing antimicrobial resistance, and decreasing healthcare costs.3 At the forum, many physicians, organizations, food vendors, hospital systems, and patients made a commitment to support appropriate use of antibiotics and use strategies to reduce antimicrobial resistance.

Many antimicrobial stewards, such as infection prevention specialists, hospital epidemiologists, pharmacists, nurses, and hospitalists, are at the center of quality improvement and seek to achieve optimal clinical outcomes related to antimicrobial use.4 These antimicrobial stewards often strive to minimize harms and other adverse events, reduce the costs of healthcare for infections, and decrease the threat of antimicrobial resistance.3

Hospitalists play a critical role in quality improvement and directly influence inpatient outcomes daily. It’s essential that hospitalists continue to make patient safety and quality care a priority while employing a multidisciplinary approach in implementing antimicrobial stewardship best practices. Although antimicrobial stewardship programs have typically been led by infectious disease physicians and pharmacists, SHM recognizes the significant value of hospitalist leadership and/or participation.5 Although most hospitalists are familiar with the adverse effects of overprescribing antibiotics, their insight and collaboration with other hospital clinicians is necessary in order to Fight the Resistance.

Fight the Resistance, a new behavior change campaign from SHM and our Center for Hospital Innovation and Improvement, is intended to encourage appropriate prescribing and use of antibiotics in the hospital. The campaign’s primary objective is to change prescribing behaviors among hospitalists and other hospital clinicians and facilitate behavior change related to antibiotic prescribing.

The campaign officially launched on Nov. 10, 2015, with a kickoff webinar presented by Scott Flanders, MD, FACP, MHM, and Melhim Bou Alwan, MD. Dr. Flanders discussed the importance of hospitalist involvement in antimicrobial stewardship and the significance of working in multidisciplinary teams in order to reduce overprescribing and the threat of antibiotic resistance.

Dr. Bou Alwan explained SHM’s efforts to fight antimicrobial resistance and informed the audience of SHM’s commitment to antibiotic stewardship. The webinar launch was a huge success, and SHM is excited to continue fighting the resistance with physicians across the country.

In order to Fight the Resistance, SHM is asking hospitalists to commit to the following actions:

• Work with your team. Physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, pharmacists, and infectious disease experts need to work together to ensure that antibiotics are used appropriately. Consider the patients part of your team, too, by discussing with them why antibiotics may not be the best choice of treatment.
• Pay attention to appropriate antibiotic choice and resistance patterns, and identify mechanisms that can be used to educate providers about overprescribing in your hospital.
• Rethink your antibiotic treatment time course. Be sure to adhere to your hospital’s antibiotic treatment guidelines, track use of antibiotics, and set a stop date from when you first prescribe them.

SHM believes changing antibiotic prescription behaviors is a team effort and encourages hospitalists to get involved by visiting www.fighttheresistance.org. There you can find Fight the Resistance themed posters, resources, and educational materials to encourage enhanced stewardship and teamwork in your hospital. TH

---

Mobola Owolabi is senior project manager for The Center for Hospital Innovation and Improvement

 

References

1. The White House. Office of the Press Secretary. FACT SHEET: Obama Administration releases national action plan to combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria. March 27, 2015. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/27/fact-sheet-obama-administration-releases-national-action-plan-combat-ant. Accessed December 3, 2015.
2. CDC. Federal engagement in antimicrobial resistance. June 2015. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/federal-engagement-in-ar/index.html. Accessed December 3, 2015.
3. Infectious Diseases Society of America. Promoting antimicrobial stewardship in human medicine. 2015. Available at: http://www.idsociety.org/Stewardship_Policy/. Accessed December 3, 2015.
4. CDC. Core elements of hospital antibiotic stewardship programs. 2015. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/getsmart/healthcare/implementation/core-elements.html. Accessed December 3, 2015.
5. Rohde JM, Jacobsen D, Rosenberg DJ. Role of the hospitalist in antimicrobial stewardship: a review of work completed and description of a multisite collaborative. Clin Ther. 2013; 35(6):751-757.

The CDC estimates that drug-resistant bacteria cause approximately 23,000 deaths and about two million illnesses each year in the U.S.1 Such unfavorable statistics encouraged the White House to convene a forum on antibiotic resistance in June 2015. The White House Forum on Antimicrobial Stewardship brought together more than 100 health leaders.2 Antimicrobial stewardship has been defined as the coordinated effort to optimize antimicrobial usage (the right agent, at the right time, at the correct dose, for an appropriate duration), with the goals of improving patient outcomes, reducing antimicrobial resistance, and decreasing healthcare costs.3 At the forum, many physicians, organizations, food vendors, hospital systems, and patients made a commitment to support appropriate use of antibiotics and use strategies to reduce antimicrobial resistance.

Many antimicrobial stewards, such as infection prevention specialists, hospital epidemiologists, pharmacists, nurses, and hospitalists, are at the center of quality improvement and seek to achieve optimal clinical outcomes related to antimicrobial use.4 These antimicrobial stewards often strive to minimize harms and other adverse events, reduce the costs of healthcare for infections, and decrease the threat of antimicrobial resistance.3

Hospitalists play a critical role in quality improvement and directly influence inpatient outcomes daily. It’s essential that hospitalists continue to make patient safety and quality care a priority while employing a multidisciplinary approach in implementing antimicrobial stewardship best practices. Although antimicrobial stewardship programs have typically been led by infectious disease physicians and pharmacists, SHM recognizes the significant value of hospitalist leadership and/or participation.5 Although most hospitalists are familiar with the adverse effects of overprescribing antibiotics, their insight and collaboration with other hospital clinicians is necessary in order to Fight the Resistance.

Fight the Resistance, a new behavior change campaign from SHM and our Center for Hospital Innovation and Improvement, is intended to encourage appropriate prescribing and use of antibiotics in the hospital. The campaign’s primary objective is to change prescribing behaviors among hospitalists and other hospital clinicians and facilitate behavior change related to antibiotic prescribing.

The campaign officially launched on Nov. 10, 2015, with a kickoff webinar presented by Scott Flanders, MD, FACP, MHM, and Melhim Bou Alwan, MD. Dr. Flanders discussed the importance of hospitalist involvement in antimicrobial stewardship and the significance of working in multidisciplinary teams in order to reduce overprescribing and the threat of antibiotic resistance.

Dr. Bou Alwan explained SHM’s efforts to fight antimicrobial resistance and informed the audience of SHM’s commitment to antibiotic stewardship. The webinar launch was a huge success, and SHM is excited to continue fighting the resistance with physicians across the country.

In order to Fight the Resistance, SHM is asking hospitalists to commit to the following actions:

• Work with your team. Physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, pharmacists, and infectious disease experts need to work together to ensure that antibiotics are used appropriately. Consider the patients part of your team, too, by discussing with them why antibiotics may not be the best choice of treatment.
• Pay attention to appropriate antibiotic choice and resistance patterns, and identify mechanisms that can be used to educate providers about overprescribing in your hospital.
• Rethink your antibiotic treatment time course. Be sure to adhere to your hospital’s antibiotic treatment guidelines, track use of antibiotics, and set a stop date from when you first prescribe them.

SHM believes changing antibiotic prescription behaviors is a team effort and encourages hospitalists to get involved by visiting www.fighttheresistance.org. There you can find Fight the Resistance themed posters, resources, and educational materials to encourage enhanced stewardship and teamwork in your hospital. TH

---

Mobola Owolabi is senior project manager for The Center for Hospital Innovation and Improvement

 

References

1. The White House. Office of the Press Secretary. FACT SHEET: Obama Administration releases national action plan to combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria. March 27, 2015. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/27/fact-sheet-obama-administration-releases-national-action-plan-combat-ant. Accessed December 3, 2015.
2. CDC. Federal engagement in antimicrobial resistance. June 2015. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/federal-engagement-in-ar/index.html. Accessed December 3, 2015.
3. Infectious Diseases Society of America. Promoting antimicrobial stewardship in human medicine. 2015. Available at: http://www.idsociety.org/Stewardship_Policy/. Accessed December 3, 2015.
4. CDC. Core elements of hospital antibiotic stewardship programs. 2015. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/getsmart/healthcare/implementation/core-elements.html. Accessed December 3, 2015.
5. Rohde JM, Jacobsen D, Rosenberg DJ. Role of the hospitalist in antimicrobial stewardship: a review of work completed and description of a multisite collaborative. Clin Ther. 2013; 35(6):751-757.

In the United States, we treat almost all infections for 10 days. Why? In France, most infections are treated for 8 days. In the U.K., most infections are treated for 5 days. In many other countries, infections are treated until symptomatic improvement occurs. Can everyone outside the United States be wrong? What is the evidence base for the various recommended durations? Moreover, what is the harm in treating for longer than necessary?

The U.S. tradition of 10 days’ treatment for infections arose from the 1940 trials of injectable penicillin for prevention of acute rheumatic fever in military recruits who had group A streptococcal pharyngitis. Injections of penicillin G mixed in peanut oil produced therapeutic levels of penicillin for about 3 days. Soldiers who received three sequential injections had the lowest occurrence of rheumatic fever; two injections were not as good and four injections did not add to the prevention rate. So three injections meant 9 days’ treatment; 9 days was rounded up to 10 days, and there you have it.

We have come a long way since the 1940s. For strep throat, we now have three approved antibiotics for 5 days’ treatment: cefdinir, cefpodoxime proxetil, and azithromycin, all evidence based and U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved. One large study was done in the 1980s with cefadroxil for 5 days, and that duration was as effective in strep eradication as was 10 days, but the company never pursued the 5-day indication.

The optimal duration of antibiotic treatment is generally considered to be 10 days in the United States, however, there is scant evidence base for that recommendation. The recent American Academy of Pediatrics/American Academy of Family Physicians guidelines endorse 10 days of treatment duration as the standard for most acute otitis media (AOM) (Pediatrics 2013;131[3]:e964-99), but acknowledge that shorter treatment regimens may be as effective. Specifically, the guideline states: “A 7-day course of oral antibiotic appears to be equally effective in children 2- to 5 years of age with mild to moderate AOM. For children 6 years and older with mild to moderate AOM symptoms, a 5- to 7-day course is adequate treatment.” A systematic analysis and a meta-analysis have concluded that 5 days’ duration of antibiotics is as effective as 10 days’ treatment for all children over age 2 years and only marginally inferior to 10 days for children under the age of 2 years old (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;[9]:CD001095).

Thirty years ago, our group and others began to do studies involving “double tympanocentesis,” where an ear tap was done at time of diagnosis and again 3-5 days later to prove bacterial cure for various antibiotics that were in trials. We learned that if the organism was sensitive to the antibiotic chosen, then it was dead by days 3-5. Most of the failures were due to resistant bacteria. So treating longer was not going to help. It was time to change the antibiotic if clinical improvement had not occurred. Our group published a study 15 years ago of 2,172 children comparing 5-, 7-, and 10-days’ treatment of AOM, and concluded that 5 days’ treatment was equivalent to 7- and 10-days of treatment for all ages unless the child had a perforated tympanic membrane or the child had been treated for AOM within the preceding month since recently treated AOM was associated with more frequent causation of AOM by resistant bacteria and with a continued inflamed middle ear mucosa (Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001 Apr;124[4]:381-7). Since then we have treated all children with ear infections for 5 days, including amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate as well as various cephalosporins unless the eardrum had perforated or the child had a recurrent AOM within the prior 30 days. That is a lot of patients in 15 years, and the results have been just as good as when we used 10 days as standard.

Acute sinusitis is another interesting story. The AAP guideline states: “The optimal duration of antimicrobial therapy for patients with acute bacterial sinusitis has not received systematic study. Recommendations based on  clinical observation varied widely, from 1- to 28 days (Pediatrics. 2013 Jul;132[1]:e262-80). The prior AAP guideline endorsed “antibiotic therapy be continued for 7 days after the patient becomes free of symptoms and signs (Pediatrics. 2001 Sep;108[3]:798-808). Our group reasoned that the etiology and pathogenesis of sinusitis and AOM are identical, involving ascension of a bacterial inoculum from the nasopharynx via the osteomeatal complex to the sinuses just like ascension of infection via the eustachian tube to the middle ear. Therefore, beginning 25 years ago, we began to treat all children with sinus infections for 5 days, including amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate, as well as various cephalosporins. Again, that is a lot of patients, and the results have been just as good as when we used 10 days as standard.

 

What about community-acquired pneumonia? The Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) guideline states: “Treatment courses of 10 days [of antibiotics] have been best studied, although shorter courses may be just as effective, particularly for mild disease managed on an outpatient basis” (Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Oct;53[7]:617-30). Our group reasoned that antibiotics reach higher levels in the lungs than they do in the closed space of the middle ear or sinuses. Therefore, beginning 25 years ago, we began to treat all children with bronchopneumonia and lobar pneumonia for 5 days, including amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate as well as various cephalosporins and azithromycin. That is a lot of patients, and the results have been just as good as when we used 10 days as standard.

What about skin and soft tissue infections? The IDSA guideline states that the duration of treatment for impetigo is 7 days, for cellulitis is 5 days, and for furuncles and carbuncles no duration is stated, but they allow no antibiotics be used at all if the patient is not febrile and white blood cell count is not elevated after incision and drainage (Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Jul 15;59[2]:e10-52).

So what is the harm to longer courses of antibiotics? As I have written in this column recently, we have learned a lot about the importance of our gut microbiome. The resident flora of our gut modulates our immune system favorably. Disturbing our gut flora with antibiotics is potentially harmful because the antibiotics often kill many species of healthy gut flora and cause disequilibrium of the flora, resulting in diminished innate immunity responses. Shorter treatment courses with antibiotics cause less disturbance of the healthy gut flora.

The rest of the world cannot all be wrong and the United States all right regarding the duration of antibiotic treatment for common infections. Moreover, in an era of evidence-based medicine, it is necessary to make changes from tradition. The evidence is there to recommend that 5 days’ treatment become the standard for treatment with selected cephalosporins as approved by the FDA – for AOM, for sinusitis, for community-acquired pneumonia, and for skin and soft tissue infections.

Dr. Pichichero, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, is director of the Research Institute, Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He is also a pediatrician at Legacy Pediatrics in Rochester. Dr. Pichichero said that he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

In the United States, we treat almost all infections for 10 days. Why? In France, most infections are treated for 8 days. In the U.K., most infections are treated for 5 days. In many other countries, infections are treated until symptomatic improvement occurs. Can everyone outside the United States be wrong? What is the evidence base for the various recommended durations? Moreover, what is the harm in treating for longer than necessary?

The U.S. tradition of 10 days’ treatment for infections arose from the 1940 trials of injectable penicillin for prevention of acute rheumatic fever in military recruits who had group A streptococcal pharyngitis. Injections of penicillin G mixed in peanut oil produced therapeutic levels of penicillin for about 3 days. Soldiers who received three sequential injections had the lowest occurrence of rheumatic fever; two injections were not as good and four injections did not add to the prevention rate. So three injections meant 9 days’ treatment; 9 days was rounded up to 10 days, and there you have it.

We have come a long way since the 1940s. For strep throat, we now have three approved antibiotics for 5 days’ treatment: cefdinir, cefpodoxime proxetil, and azithromycin, all evidence based and U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved. One large study was done in the 1980s with cefadroxil for 5 days, and that duration was as effective in strep eradication as was 10 days, but the company never pursued the 5-day indication.

The optimal duration of antibiotic treatment is generally considered to be 10 days in the United States, however, there is scant evidence base for that recommendation. The recent American Academy of Pediatrics/American Academy of Family Physicians guidelines endorse 10 days of treatment duration as the standard for most acute otitis media (AOM) (Pediatrics 2013;131[3]:e964-99), but acknowledge that shorter treatment regimens may be as effective. Specifically, the guideline states: “A 7-day course of oral antibiotic appears to be equally effective in children 2- to 5 years of age with mild to moderate AOM. For children 6 years and older with mild to moderate AOM symptoms, a 5- to 7-day course is adequate treatment.” A systematic analysis and a meta-analysis have concluded that 5 days’ duration of antibiotics is as effective as 10 days’ treatment for all children over age 2 years and only marginally inferior to 10 days for children under the age of 2 years old (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;[9]:CD001095).

Thirty years ago, our group and others began to do studies involving “double tympanocentesis,” where an ear tap was done at time of diagnosis and again 3-5 days later to prove bacterial cure for various antibiotics that were in trials. We learned that if the organism was sensitive to the antibiotic chosen, then it was dead by days 3-5. Most of the failures were due to resistant bacteria. So treating longer was not going to help. It was time to change the antibiotic if clinical improvement had not occurred. Our group published a study 15 years ago of 2,172 children comparing 5-, 7-, and 10-days’ treatment of AOM, and concluded that 5 days’ treatment was equivalent to 7- and 10-days of treatment for all ages unless the child had a perforated tympanic membrane or the child had been treated for AOM within the preceding month since recently treated AOM was associated with more frequent causation of AOM by resistant bacteria and with a continued inflamed middle ear mucosa (Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001 Apr;124[4]:381-7). Since then we have treated all children with ear infections for 5 days, including amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate as well as various cephalosporins unless the eardrum had perforated or the child had a recurrent AOM within the prior 30 days. That is a lot of patients in 15 years, and the results have been just as good as when we used 10 days as standard.

Acute sinusitis is another interesting story. The AAP guideline states: “The optimal duration of antimicrobial therapy for patients with acute bacterial sinusitis has not received systematic study. Recommendations based on  clinical observation varied widely, from 1- to 28 days (Pediatrics. 2013 Jul;132[1]:e262-80). The prior AAP guideline endorsed “antibiotic therapy be continued for 7 days after the patient becomes free of symptoms and signs (Pediatrics. 2001 Sep;108[3]:798-808). Our group reasoned that the etiology and pathogenesis of sinusitis and AOM are identical, involving ascension of a bacterial inoculum from the nasopharynx via the osteomeatal complex to the sinuses just like ascension of infection via the eustachian tube to the middle ear. Therefore, beginning 25 years ago, we began to treat all children with sinus infections for 5 days, including amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate, as well as various cephalosporins. Again, that is a lot of patients, and the results have been just as good as when we used 10 days as standard.

 

What about community-acquired pneumonia? The Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) guideline states: “Treatment courses of 10 days [of antibiotics] have been best studied, although shorter courses may be just as effective, particularly for mild disease managed on an outpatient basis” (Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Oct;53[7]:617-30). Our group reasoned that antibiotics reach higher levels in the lungs than they do in the closed space of the middle ear or sinuses. Therefore, beginning 25 years ago, we began to treat all children with bronchopneumonia and lobar pneumonia for 5 days, including amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate as well as various cephalosporins and azithromycin. That is a lot of patients, and the results have been just as good as when we used 10 days as standard.

What about skin and soft tissue infections? The IDSA guideline states that the duration of treatment for impetigo is 7 days, for cellulitis is 5 days, and for furuncles and carbuncles no duration is stated, but they allow no antibiotics be used at all if the patient is not febrile and white blood cell count is not elevated after incision and drainage (Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Jul 15;59[2]:e10-52).

So what is the harm to longer courses of antibiotics? As I have written in this column recently, we have learned a lot about the importance of our gut microbiome. The resident flora of our gut modulates our immune system favorably. Disturbing our gut flora with antibiotics is potentially harmful because the antibiotics often kill many species of healthy gut flora and cause disequilibrium of the flora, resulting in diminished innate immunity responses. Shorter treatment courses with antibiotics cause less disturbance of the healthy gut flora.

The rest of the world cannot all be wrong and the United States all right regarding the duration of antibiotic treatment for common infections. Moreover, in an era of evidence-based medicine, it is necessary to make changes from tradition. The evidence is there to recommend that 5 days’ treatment become the standard for treatment with selected cephalosporins as approved by the FDA – for AOM, for sinusitis, for community-acquired pneumonia, and for skin and soft tissue infections.

Dr. Pichichero, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, is director of the Research Institute, Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He is also a pediatrician at Legacy Pediatrics in Rochester. Dr. Pichichero said that he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

In the United States, we treat almost all infections for 10 days. Why? In France, most infections are treated for 8 days. In the U.K., most infections are treated for 5 days. In many other countries, infections are treated until symptomatic improvement occurs. Can everyone outside the United States be wrong? What is the evidence base for the various recommended durations? Moreover, what is the harm in treating for longer than necessary?

The U.S. tradition of 10 days’ treatment for infections arose from the 1940 trials of injectable penicillin for prevention of acute rheumatic fever in military recruits who had group A streptococcal pharyngitis. Injections of penicillin G mixed in peanut oil produced therapeutic levels of penicillin for about 3 days. Soldiers who received three sequential injections had the lowest occurrence of rheumatic fever; two injections were not as good and four injections did not add to the prevention rate. So three injections meant 9 days’ treatment; 9 days was rounded up to 10 days, and there you have it.

We have come a long way since the 1940s. For strep throat, we now have three approved antibiotics for 5 days’ treatment: cefdinir, cefpodoxime proxetil, and azithromycin, all evidence based and U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved. One large study was done in the 1980s with cefadroxil for 5 days, and that duration was as effective in strep eradication as was 10 days, but the company never pursued the 5-day indication.

The optimal duration of antibiotic treatment is generally considered to be 10 days in the United States, however, there is scant evidence base for that recommendation. The recent American Academy of Pediatrics/American Academy of Family Physicians guidelines endorse 10 days of treatment duration as the standard for most acute otitis media (AOM) (Pediatrics 2013;131[3]:e964-99), but acknowledge that shorter treatment regimens may be as effective. Specifically, the guideline states: “A 7-day course of oral antibiotic appears to be equally effective in children 2- to 5 years of age with mild to moderate AOM. For children 6 years and older with mild to moderate AOM symptoms, a 5- to 7-day course is adequate treatment.” A systematic analysis and a meta-analysis have concluded that 5 days’ duration of antibiotics is as effective as 10 days’ treatment for all children over age 2 years and only marginally inferior to 10 days for children under the age of 2 years old (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;[9]:CD001095).

Thirty years ago, our group and others began to do studies involving “double tympanocentesis,” where an ear tap was done at time of diagnosis and again 3-5 days later to prove bacterial cure for various antibiotics that were in trials. We learned that if the organism was sensitive to the antibiotic chosen, then it was dead by days 3-5. Most of the failures were due to resistant bacteria. So treating longer was not going to help. It was time to change the antibiotic if clinical improvement had not occurred. Our group published a study 15 years ago of 2,172 children comparing 5-, 7-, and 10-days’ treatment of AOM, and concluded that 5 days’ treatment was equivalent to 7- and 10-days of treatment for all ages unless the child had a perforated tympanic membrane or the child had been treated for AOM within the preceding month since recently treated AOM was associated with more frequent causation of AOM by resistant bacteria and with a continued inflamed middle ear mucosa (Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001 Apr;124[4]:381-7). Since then we have treated all children with ear infections for 5 days, including amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate as well as various cephalosporins unless the eardrum had perforated or the child had a recurrent AOM within the prior 30 days. That is a lot of patients in 15 years, and the results have been just as good as when we used 10 days as standard.

Acute sinusitis is another interesting story. The AAP guideline states: “The optimal duration of antimicrobial therapy for patients with acute bacterial sinusitis has not received systematic study. Recommendations based on  clinical observation varied widely, from 1- to 28 days (Pediatrics. 2013 Jul;132[1]:e262-80). The prior AAP guideline endorsed “antibiotic therapy be continued for 7 days after the patient becomes free of symptoms and signs (Pediatrics. 2001 Sep;108[3]:798-808). Our group reasoned that the etiology and pathogenesis of sinusitis and AOM are identical, involving ascension of a bacterial inoculum from the nasopharynx via the osteomeatal complex to the sinuses just like ascension of infection via the eustachian tube to the middle ear. Therefore, beginning 25 years ago, we began to treat all children with sinus infections for 5 days, including amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate, as well as various cephalosporins. Again, that is a lot of patients, and the results have been just as good as when we used 10 days as standard.

 

What about community-acquired pneumonia? The Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) guideline states: “Treatment courses of 10 days [of antibiotics] have been best studied, although shorter courses may be just as effective, particularly for mild disease managed on an outpatient basis” (Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Oct;53[7]:617-30). Our group reasoned that antibiotics reach higher levels in the lungs than they do in the closed space of the middle ear or sinuses. Therefore, beginning 25 years ago, we began to treat all children with bronchopneumonia and lobar pneumonia for 5 days, including amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate as well as various cephalosporins and azithromycin. That is a lot of patients, and the results have been just as good as when we used 10 days as standard.

What about skin and soft tissue infections? The IDSA guideline states that the duration of treatment for impetigo is 7 days, for cellulitis is 5 days, and for furuncles and carbuncles no duration is stated, but they allow no antibiotics be used at all if the patient is not febrile and white blood cell count is not elevated after incision and drainage (Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Jul 15;59[2]:e10-52).

So what is the harm to longer courses of antibiotics? As I have written in this column recently, we have learned a lot about the importance of our gut microbiome. The resident flora of our gut modulates our immune system favorably. Disturbing our gut flora with antibiotics is potentially harmful because the antibiotics often kill many species of healthy gut flora and cause disequilibrium of the flora, resulting in diminished innate immunity responses. Shorter treatment courses with antibiotics cause less disturbance of the healthy gut flora.

The rest of the world cannot all be wrong and the United States all right regarding the duration of antibiotic treatment for common infections. Moreover, in an era of evidence-based medicine, it is necessary to make changes from tradition. The evidence is there to recommend that 5 days’ treatment become the standard for treatment with selected cephalosporins as approved by the FDA – for AOM, for sinusitis, for community-acquired pneumonia, and for skin and soft tissue infections.

Dr. Pichichero, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, is director of the Research Institute, Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He is also a pediatrician at Legacy Pediatrics in Rochester. Dr. Pichichero said that he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

I was recently asked to evaluate a young child with a urinary tract infection caused by an extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Escherichia coli.

I’d just broken the bad news to the mother: There was no oral medication available to treat the baby, so she’d have to stay in the hospital for a full intravenous course.

“Has your child been treated with antibiotics recently?” I asked the mother, wondering how the baby had come to have such a resistant infection.

“She had a couple days of runny nose and a low-grade fever a couple of weeks ago,” she told me. “Her doctor treated her for a sinus infection.”

In 2011, doctors in outpatient settings across the United States wrote 262.5 million prescriptions for antibiotics – 73.7 million for children – and according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 50% of these were completely unnecessary because they were prescribed for viral respiratory tract infections (Clin Infect Dis. 2015 May 1;60[9]:1308-16).

Prescribing practices varied by region, with the highest rates in the South. Don’t think I’m judging. I live in Kentucky, the state with the highest rate of antibiotic prescribing at 1,281 prescriptions per 1,000 persons. Is it any wonder that we’re seeing kids with very resistant infections?

The CDC estimates that at least two million people in the United States are infected annually with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and at least 23,000 of them die as a result of these infections. It is estimated that prevention strategies that include better antibiotic prescribing could prevent as many as 619,000 infections and 37,000 deaths over 5 years. Fortunately, my little patient recovered fully, but it has made me think about antimicrobial stewardship, especially its role in the outpatient setting.

According the American Academy of Pediatrics, the goal of antimicrobial stewardship is “to optimize antimicrobial use, with the aim of decreasing inappropriate use that leads to unwarranted toxicity and to selection and spread of resistant organisms.”

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are increasingly common in inpatient settings and have been shown to reduce antibiotic use. These programs can take many forms. The hospital where I work relies primarily on clinical guidelines emphasizing appropriate empiric therapy for a variety of common conditions. Other hospitals employ prospective audit and feedback, as well as a restricted formulary. Medicare and Medicaid Conditions of Participation will soon require hospitals that receive funds from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have an ASP.

Comparatively little has been published about ASPs in the outpatient setting. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that effective strategies include patient education, provider education, provider audit and feedback, and clinical decision support. We have at least some data that these work, at least in a research setting.

From 2000 to 2003, a controlled, cluster-randomized trial in 16 Massachusetts communities demonstrated that a 3-year, multifaceted, community-level intervention was “modestly successful” in reducing antibiotic use (Pediatrics. 2008 Jan;121[1]:e15-23). As a part of this intervention, parents received education via direct mail and in primary care settings, pharmacies, and child care centers while physicians received small-group education, frequent updates and educational materials, and prescribing feedback. Antibiotic prescribing was measured via health insurance claims data from all children who were 6 years of age or younger and resided in study communities, and were insured by one of four participating health plans. Coincident with the intervention, there was 4.2% decrease in antibiotic prescribing among children aged 24 to <48 months and a 6.7% decrease among those aged 48-72 months. The effect was greatest among Medicaid-insured children.

More recently, 18 primary care practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey were randomized to an intervention that consisted of a 1-hour, on-site education session followed by 1 year of personalized, quarterly audit and feedback of prescribing for bacterial and viral acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs), or usual practice (JAMA. 2013 Jun 12;309[22]:2345-52). The prescribing practices of 162 clinicians were included in the analysis.

Broad spectrum–antibiotic prescribing decreased in intervention practices, compared with controls (26.8% to 14.3% among intervention practices vs. 28.4% to 22.6% in controls), as did “off-guideline” prescribing for pneumonia and acute sinusitis. Antibiotic prescribing for viral infections was relatively low at baseline and did not change. The authors concluded that “extending antimicrobial stewardship to the ambulatory setting, where such programs have generally not been implemented, may have important health benefits.” Unfortunately, the positive effect in these practices was not sustained after the audit and feedback stopped (JAMA. 2014 Dec 17;312[23]:2569-70).

Not all antimicrobial stewardship interventions need to be time- and resource-intensive. Investigators in California found that providers who publicly pledged to reducing inappropriate antibiotic use for ARTIs by signing and posting a commitment letter in exam rooms actually prescribed fewer inappropriate antibiotic courses for their adult patients (JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Mar;174[3]:425-31).

 

“When you have a cough, sore throat, or other illness, your doctor will help you select the best possible treatments. If an antibiotic would do more harm than good, your doctor will explain this to you, and may offer other treatments that are better for you,” the letter read in part. There was a 19.7 absolute percentage reduction in inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARTIs among clinicians randomized to the commitment letter invention relative to controls.

Can antimicrobial strategies work in the “real” world, in a busy pediatrician’s office? According to Dr. Patricia Purcell, a physician with East Louisville Pediatrics in Louisville, Ky., the answer is “yes.”

“We actually start with education in the newborn period,” Dr. Purcell said. “We let parents know that we are not going to call in antibiotics over the phone, and we’re not going to prescribe them for an upper respiratory tract infection.”

Dr. Purcell and her partners have committed to following evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic practices, such as the AAP’s guidelines for otitis media and sinusitis. She also noted that at least one major insurance company is starting to provide the group feedback about their antibiotic-prescribing practices. “They want to make sure we are not prescribing antibiotics for viruses,” she said.

Still, the message that antibiotics are not always the answer can be a bitter pill for some parents to swallow. A pediatrician friend in Alabama notes: “I have these conversations every day, and a lot of parents are mad at me for not prescribing antibiotics for their child’s ‘terrible cold.’” Another friend notes that watchful waiting can be a burden for parents who have high copays or difficulties with transportation.

Still, many parents would welcome a frank discussion about the risks and benefits of antibiotics. After I shared some of the CDC information for parents with a nursing colleague, she told me that her daughter recently had a febrile illness and was diagnosed with otitis media. “I don’t like giving my kids meds they don’t need,” she told me. “However, if the doc says they need antibiotics and they prescribe them, I give them. I never say, ‘Do we really need antibiotics for that?’”

Now she is rethinking that approach. “Was 10 days of amoxicillin necessary for a ‘red’ eardrum?! I’m just a mom. ... I don’t know the answer to that! Was her ear red because she had been crying or because of her fever? Did she get ‘treatment’ she did not need? Did the doctor give me antibiotics without education because she assumed that is why I brought her in?”

This year’s “Get Smart About Antibiotics Week” was Nov. 16-22. This annual 1-week observance is intended to raise awareness of the threat of antibiotic resistance and the importance of appropriate prescribing and use. Kudos if you celebrated this in your office. If you missed it, it’s not too late to check out some of the activities suggested by the CDC, and try one or two in your own practice. Email me with your ideas about stewardship in the outpatient setting, and I’ll try to feature at least some of them in a future column.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Kosair Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. Dr. Bryant disclosed that she has been an investigator for clinical trials funded by Pfizer for the past 2 years. Email her at [email protected].

I was recently asked to evaluate a young child with a urinary tract infection caused by an extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Escherichia coli.

I’d just broken the bad news to the mother: There was no oral medication available to treat the baby, so she’d have to stay in the hospital for a full intravenous course.

“Has your child been treated with antibiotics recently?” I asked the mother, wondering how the baby had come to have such a resistant infection.

“She had a couple days of runny nose and a low-grade fever a couple of weeks ago,” she told me. “Her doctor treated her for a sinus infection.”

In 2011, doctors in outpatient settings across the United States wrote 262.5 million prescriptions for antibiotics – 73.7 million for children – and according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 50% of these were completely unnecessary because they were prescribed for viral respiratory tract infections (Clin Infect Dis. 2015 May 1;60[9]:1308-16).

Prescribing practices varied by region, with the highest rates in the South. Don’t think I’m judging. I live in Kentucky, the state with the highest rate of antibiotic prescribing at 1,281 prescriptions per 1,000 persons. Is it any wonder that we’re seeing kids with very resistant infections?

The CDC estimates that at least two million people in the United States are infected annually with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and at least 23,000 of them die as a result of these infections. It is estimated that prevention strategies that include better antibiotic prescribing could prevent as many as 619,000 infections and 37,000 deaths over 5 years. Fortunately, my little patient recovered fully, but it has made me think about antimicrobial stewardship, especially its role in the outpatient setting.

According the American Academy of Pediatrics, the goal of antimicrobial stewardship is “to optimize antimicrobial use, with the aim of decreasing inappropriate use that leads to unwarranted toxicity and to selection and spread of resistant organisms.”

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are increasingly common in inpatient settings and have been shown to reduce antibiotic use. These programs can take many forms. The hospital where I work relies primarily on clinical guidelines emphasizing appropriate empiric therapy for a variety of common conditions. Other hospitals employ prospective audit and feedback, as well as a restricted formulary. Medicare and Medicaid Conditions of Participation will soon require hospitals that receive funds from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have an ASP.

Comparatively little has been published about ASPs in the outpatient setting. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that effective strategies include patient education, provider education, provider audit and feedback, and clinical decision support. We have at least some data that these work, at least in a research setting.

From 2000 to 2003, a controlled, cluster-randomized trial in 16 Massachusetts communities demonstrated that a 3-year, multifaceted, community-level intervention was “modestly successful” in reducing antibiotic use (Pediatrics. 2008 Jan;121[1]:e15-23). As a part of this intervention, parents received education via direct mail and in primary care settings, pharmacies, and child care centers while physicians received small-group education, frequent updates and educational materials, and prescribing feedback. Antibiotic prescribing was measured via health insurance claims data from all children who were 6 years of age or younger and resided in study communities, and were insured by one of four participating health plans. Coincident with the intervention, there was 4.2% decrease in antibiotic prescribing among children aged 24 to <48 months and a 6.7% decrease among those aged 48-72 months. The effect was greatest among Medicaid-insured children.

More recently, 18 primary care practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey were randomized to an intervention that consisted of a 1-hour, on-site education session followed by 1 year of personalized, quarterly audit and feedback of prescribing for bacterial and viral acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs), or usual practice (JAMA. 2013 Jun 12;309[22]:2345-52). The prescribing practices of 162 clinicians were included in the analysis.

Broad spectrum–antibiotic prescribing decreased in intervention practices, compared with controls (26.8% to 14.3% among intervention practices vs. 28.4% to 22.6% in controls), as did “off-guideline” prescribing for pneumonia and acute sinusitis. Antibiotic prescribing for viral infections was relatively low at baseline and did not change. The authors concluded that “extending antimicrobial stewardship to the ambulatory setting, where such programs have generally not been implemented, may have important health benefits.” Unfortunately, the positive effect in these practices was not sustained after the audit and feedback stopped (JAMA. 2014 Dec 17;312[23]:2569-70).

Not all antimicrobial stewardship interventions need to be time- and resource-intensive. Investigators in California found that providers who publicly pledged to reducing inappropriate antibiotic use for ARTIs by signing and posting a commitment letter in exam rooms actually prescribed fewer inappropriate antibiotic courses for their adult patients (JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Mar;174[3]:425-31).

 

“When you have a cough, sore throat, or other illness, your doctor will help you select the best possible treatments. If an antibiotic would do more harm than good, your doctor will explain this to you, and may offer other treatments that are better for you,” the letter read in part. There was a 19.7 absolute percentage reduction in inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARTIs among clinicians randomized to the commitment letter invention relative to controls.

Can antimicrobial strategies work in the “real” world, in a busy pediatrician’s office? According to Dr. Patricia Purcell, a physician with East Louisville Pediatrics in Louisville, Ky., the answer is “yes.”

“We actually start with education in the newborn period,” Dr. Purcell said. “We let parents know that we are not going to call in antibiotics over the phone, and we’re not going to prescribe them for an upper respiratory tract infection.”

Dr. Purcell and her partners have committed to following evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic practices, such as the AAP’s guidelines for otitis media and sinusitis. She also noted that at least one major insurance company is starting to provide the group feedback about their antibiotic-prescribing practices. “They want to make sure we are not prescribing antibiotics for viruses,” she said.

Still, the message that antibiotics are not always the answer can be a bitter pill for some parents to swallow. A pediatrician friend in Alabama notes: “I have these conversations every day, and a lot of parents are mad at me for not prescribing antibiotics for their child’s ‘terrible cold.’” Another friend notes that watchful waiting can be a burden for parents who have high copays or difficulties with transportation.

Still, many parents would welcome a frank discussion about the risks and benefits of antibiotics. After I shared some of the CDC information for parents with a nursing colleague, she told me that her daughter recently had a febrile illness and was diagnosed with otitis media. “I don’t like giving my kids meds they don’t need,” she told me. “However, if the doc says they need antibiotics and they prescribe them, I give them. I never say, ‘Do we really need antibiotics for that?’”

Now she is rethinking that approach. “Was 10 days of amoxicillin necessary for a ‘red’ eardrum?! I’m just a mom. ... I don’t know the answer to that! Was her ear red because she had been crying or because of her fever? Did she get ‘treatment’ she did not need? Did the doctor give me antibiotics without education because she assumed that is why I brought her in?”

This year’s “Get Smart About Antibiotics Week” was Nov. 16-22. This annual 1-week observance is intended to raise awareness of the threat of antibiotic resistance and the importance of appropriate prescribing and use. Kudos if you celebrated this in your office. If you missed it, it’s not too late to check out some of the activities suggested by the CDC, and try one or two in your own practice. Email me with your ideas about stewardship in the outpatient setting, and I’ll try to feature at least some of them in a future column.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Kosair Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. Dr. Bryant disclosed that she has been an investigator for clinical trials funded by Pfizer for the past 2 years. Email her at [email protected].

I was recently asked to evaluate a young child with a urinary tract infection caused by an extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Escherichia coli.

I’d just broken the bad news to the mother: There was no oral medication available to treat the baby, so she’d have to stay in the hospital for a full intravenous course.

“Has your child been treated with antibiotics recently?” I asked the mother, wondering how the baby had come to have such a resistant infection.

“She had a couple days of runny nose and a low-grade fever a couple of weeks ago,” she told me. “Her doctor treated her for a sinus infection.”

In 2011, doctors in outpatient settings across the United States wrote 262.5 million prescriptions for antibiotics – 73.7 million for children – and according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 50% of these were completely unnecessary because they were prescribed for viral respiratory tract infections (Clin Infect Dis. 2015 May 1;60[9]:1308-16).

Prescribing practices varied by region, with the highest rates in the South. Don’t think I’m judging. I live in Kentucky, the state with the highest rate of antibiotic prescribing at 1,281 prescriptions per 1,000 persons. Is it any wonder that we’re seeing kids with very resistant infections?

The CDC estimates that at least two million people in the United States are infected annually with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and at least 23,000 of them die as a result of these infections. It is estimated that prevention strategies that include better antibiotic prescribing could prevent as many as 619,000 infections and 37,000 deaths over 5 years. Fortunately, my little patient recovered fully, but it has made me think about antimicrobial stewardship, especially its role in the outpatient setting.

According the American Academy of Pediatrics, the goal of antimicrobial stewardship is “to optimize antimicrobial use, with the aim of decreasing inappropriate use that leads to unwarranted toxicity and to selection and spread of resistant organisms.”

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are increasingly common in inpatient settings and have been shown to reduce antibiotic use. These programs can take many forms. The hospital where I work relies primarily on clinical guidelines emphasizing appropriate empiric therapy for a variety of common conditions. Other hospitals employ prospective audit and feedback, as well as a restricted formulary. Medicare and Medicaid Conditions of Participation will soon require hospitals that receive funds from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have an ASP.

Comparatively little has been published about ASPs in the outpatient setting. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that effective strategies include patient education, provider education, provider audit and feedback, and clinical decision support. We have at least some data that these work, at least in a research setting.

From 2000 to 2003, a controlled, cluster-randomized trial in 16 Massachusetts communities demonstrated that a 3-year, multifaceted, community-level intervention was “modestly successful” in reducing antibiotic use (Pediatrics. 2008 Jan;121[1]:e15-23). As a part of this intervention, parents received education via direct mail and in primary care settings, pharmacies, and child care centers while physicians received small-group education, frequent updates and educational materials, and prescribing feedback. Antibiotic prescribing was measured via health insurance claims data from all children who were 6 years of age or younger and resided in study communities, and were insured by one of four participating health plans. Coincident with the intervention, there was 4.2% decrease in antibiotic prescribing among children aged 24 to <48 months and a 6.7% decrease among those aged 48-72 months. The effect was greatest among Medicaid-insured children.

More recently, 18 primary care practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey were randomized to an intervention that consisted of a 1-hour, on-site education session followed by 1 year of personalized, quarterly audit and feedback of prescribing for bacterial and viral acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs), or usual practice (JAMA. 2013 Jun 12;309[22]:2345-52). The prescribing practices of 162 clinicians were included in the analysis.

Broad spectrum–antibiotic prescribing decreased in intervention practices, compared with controls (26.8% to 14.3% among intervention practices vs. 28.4% to 22.6% in controls), as did “off-guideline” prescribing for pneumonia and acute sinusitis. Antibiotic prescribing for viral infections was relatively low at baseline and did not change. The authors concluded that “extending antimicrobial stewardship to the ambulatory setting, where such programs have generally not been implemented, may have important health benefits.” Unfortunately, the positive effect in these practices was not sustained after the audit and feedback stopped (JAMA. 2014 Dec 17;312[23]:2569-70).

Not all antimicrobial stewardship interventions need to be time- and resource-intensive. Investigators in California found that providers who publicly pledged to reducing inappropriate antibiotic use for ARTIs by signing and posting a commitment letter in exam rooms actually prescribed fewer inappropriate antibiotic courses for their adult patients (JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Mar;174[3]:425-31).

 

“When you have a cough, sore throat, or other illness, your doctor will help you select the best possible treatments. If an antibiotic would do more harm than good, your doctor will explain this to you, and may offer other treatments that are better for you,” the letter read in part. There was a 19.7 absolute percentage reduction in inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARTIs among clinicians randomized to the commitment letter invention relative to controls.

Can antimicrobial strategies work in the “real” world, in a busy pediatrician’s office? According to Dr. Patricia Purcell, a physician with East Louisville Pediatrics in Louisville, Ky., the answer is “yes.”

“We actually start with education in the newborn period,” Dr. Purcell said. “We let parents know that we are not going to call in antibiotics over the phone, and we’re not going to prescribe them for an upper respiratory tract infection.”

Dr. Purcell and her partners have committed to following evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic practices, such as the AAP’s guidelines for otitis media and sinusitis. She also noted that at least one major insurance company is starting to provide the group feedback about their antibiotic-prescribing practices. “They want to make sure we are not prescribing antibiotics for viruses,” she said.

Still, the message that antibiotics are not always the answer can be a bitter pill for some parents to swallow. A pediatrician friend in Alabama notes: “I have these conversations every day, and a lot of parents are mad at me for not prescribing antibiotics for their child’s ‘terrible cold.’” Another friend notes that watchful waiting can be a burden for parents who have high copays or difficulties with transportation.

Still, many parents would welcome a frank discussion about the risks and benefits of antibiotics. After I shared some of the CDC information for parents with a nursing colleague, she told me that her daughter recently had a febrile illness and was diagnosed with otitis media. “I don’t like giving my kids meds they don’t need,” she told me. “However, if the doc says they need antibiotics and they prescribe them, I give them. I never say, ‘Do we really need antibiotics for that?’”

Now she is rethinking that approach. “Was 10 days of amoxicillin necessary for a ‘red’ eardrum?! I’m just a mom. ... I don’t know the answer to that! Was her ear red because she had been crying or because of her fever? Did she get ‘treatment’ she did not need? Did the doctor give me antibiotics without education because she assumed that is why I brought her in?”

This year’s “Get Smart About Antibiotics Week” was Nov. 16-22. This annual 1-week observance is intended to raise awareness of the threat of antibiotic resistance and the importance of appropriate prescribing and use. Kudos if you celebrated this in your office. If you missed it, it’s not too late to check out some of the activities suggested by the CDC, and try one or two in your own practice. Email me with your ideas about stewardship in the outpatient setting, and I’ll try to feature at least some of them in a future column.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Kosair Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. Dr. Bryant disclosed that she has been an investigator for clinical trials funded by Pfizer for the past 2 years. Email her at [email protected].

LAS VEGAS – New acne treatment strategies that address the issue of antibiotic resistance include subantimicrobial dosing; new, narrower-spectrum antibiotics; and topical use of tetracycline-family antibiotics, according to Dr. Linda Stein Gold, a dermatologist at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

Oral antibiotics have long been a mainstay of acne treatment, but long-term use of low-dose antibiotics may be contributing to the global crisis of antibiotic resistance. At least 2 million people become infected with resistant bacteria yearly in the United States alone, and at least 23,000 people die yearly from these infections, she noted.

“In dermatology we use antibiotics quite a bit, and we want to make sure when we’re utilizing drugs, we’re utilizing them in the best possible way,” Dr. Stein Gold said at the Skin Disease Education Foundation’s annual Las Vegas dermatology seminar. Finding the right antibiotic dose for effective treatment of acne can be a challenge, she noted. “Is more better? Is too little bad?”

In a review of new treatment strategies that address these concerns without compromising efficacy, Dr. Stein Gold said that the rationale for using subantimicrobial antibiotic dosing comes from the anti-inflammatory effect seen with many antibiotics, even with doses lower than needed for antimicrobial action.

For example, a study of a subantimicrobial-dose of doxycycline found that when adults with moderate acne were treated with the antibiotic (20 mg, twice daily) for 6 months, their acne significantly improved. The number of comedones, inflammatory lesions, and noninflammatory lesions improved significantly compared with those on placebo (Arch Dermatol. 2003 Apr; 139:459-64).

In another head-to-head trial that compared low-dose modified-release doxycycline with placebo or 100 mg of doxycycline, the lower dose outperformed both placebo and full-strength antibiotics. No resistant organisms were found among skin flora in the subjects, and the microbiota of the patients’ skin did not change significantly during the study period, she said.

Dr. Stein Gold’s work also suggests that systemic antibiotics may not be necessary for all patients with acne: In a study, after 12 weeks of treatment, adapalene plus benzoyl peroxide, in combination with doxycycline, resulted in significantly more patients with clear or almost-clear skin than with vehicle alone plus doxycycline. “Antibiotics are not always the golden nugget in the treatment of acne,” she commented.

Another tactic is to treat with antibiotics for a period of 3-6 months along with potent topicals, to get skin clear or almost clear, then discontinue the antibiotic and continue topical treatment. Many patients will be able to maintain clear skin on this regime, she noted.

A new tetracycline-family antibiotic, sarecycline, is in phase III trials for acne vulgaris and in phase II trials for acne rosacea. Sarecycline, “compared with existing tetracycline antibiotics, showed improved anti-inflammatory properties and a narrower spectrum of activity,” Dr. Stein Gold said.

A topical minocycline in a foam formulation shows promising results for tolerability and efficacy in phase II trials for moderate and severe acne, she added. Dapsone as a 7.5% topical gel formulation is in phase III clinical trials as well.

Another antibiotic with a long history of systemic use for acne, clindamycin, is also showing promising results in combination with benzoyl peroxide (1.2%/3.75% gel). A 12-week double-blind study of the combination, compared with vehicle alone for individuals with moderate or severe acne, showed significant improvement in comedonal and inflammatory lesions, as well as overall global improvement in severity, for the treatment arm, she said (J Drugs Dermatol. 2014 Sep;13[9]:1083-9).

Dr. Stein Gold reports being a consultant and investigator for Galderma, Stiefel Laboratories, and Allergan; a consultant and speaker for Valeant; a speaker for Ranbaxy Laboratories, Promius Pharma, and Actavis; and a medical/legal consultant for Roche.

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

LAS VEGAS – New acne treatment strategies that address the issue of antibiotic resistance include subantimicrobial dosing; new, narrower-spectrum antibiotics; and topical use of tetracycline-family antibiotics, according to Dr. Linda Stein Gold, a dermatologist at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

Oral antibiotics have long been a mainstay of acne treatment, but long-term use of low-dose antibiotics may be contributing to the global crisis of antibiotic resistance. At least 2 million people become infected with resistant bacteria yearly in the United States alone, and at least 23,000 people die yearly from these infections, she noted.

“In dermatology we use antibiotics quite a bit, and we want to make sure when we’re utilizing drugs, we’re utilizing them in the best possible way,” Dr. Stein Gold said at the Skin Disease Education Foundation’s annual Las Vegas dermatology seminar. Finding the right antibiotic dose for effective treatment of acne can be a challenge, she noted. “Is more better? Is too little bad?”

In a review of new treatment strategies that address these concerns without compromising efficacy, Dr. Stein Gold said that the rationale for using subantimicrobial antibiotic dosing comes from the anti-inflammatory effect seen with many antibiotics, even with doses lower than needed for antimicrobial action.

For example, a study of a subantimicrobial-dose of doxycycline found that when adults with moderate acne were treated with the antibiotic (20 mg, twice daily) for 6 months, their acne significantly improved. The number of comedones, inflammatory lesions, and noninflammatory lesions improved significantly compared with those on placebo (Arch Dermatol. 2003 Apr; 139:459-64).

In another head-to-head trial that compared low-dose modified-release doxycycline with placebo or 100 mg of doxycycline, the lower dose outperformed both placebo and full-strength antibiotics. No resistant organisms were found among skin flora in the subjects, and the microbiota of the patients’ skin did not change significantly during the study period, she said.

Dr. Stein Gold’s work also suggests that systemic antibiotics may not be necessary for all patients with acne: In a study, after 12 weeks of treatment, adapalene plus benzoyl peroxide, in combination with doxycycline, resulted in significantly more patients with clear or almost-clear skin than with vehicle alone plus doxycycline. “Antibiotics are not always the golden nugget in the treatment of acne,” she commented.

Another tactic is to treat with antibiotics for a period of 3-6 months along with potent topicals, to get skin clear or almost clear, then discontinue the antibiotic and continue topical treatment. Many patients will be able to maintain clear skin on this regime, she noted.

A new tetracycline-family antibiotic, sarecycline, is in phase III trials for acne vulgaris and in phase II trials for acne rosacea. Sarecycline, “compared with existing tetracycline antibiotics, showed improved anti-inflammatory properties and a narrower spectrum of activity,” Dr. Stein Gold said.

A topical minocycline in a foam formulation shows promising results for tolerability and efficacy in phase II trials for moderate and severe acne, she added. Dapsone as a 7.5% topical gel formulation is in phase III clinical trials as well.

Another antibiotic with a long history of systemic use for acne, clindamycin, is also showing promising results in combination with benzoyl peroxide (1.2%/3.75% gel). A 12-week double-blind study of the combination, compared with vehicle alone for individuals with moderate or severe acne, showed significant improvement in comedonal and inflammatory lesions, as well as overall global improvement in severity, for the treatment arm, she said (J Drugs Dermatol. 2014 Sep;13[9]:1083-9).

Dr. Stein Gold reports being a consultant and investigator for Galderma, Stiefel Laboratories, and Allergan; a consultant and speaker for Valeant; a speaker for Ranbaxy Laboratories, Promius Pharma, and Actavis; and a medical/legal consultant for Roche.

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

LAS VEGAS – New acne treatment strategies that address the issue of antibiotic resistance include subantimicrobial dosing; new, narrower-spectrum antibiotics; and topical use of tetracycline-family antibiotics, according to Dr. Linda Stein Gold, a dermatologist at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

Oral antibiotics have long been a mainstay of acne treatment, but long-term use of low-dose antibiotics may be contributing to the global crisis of antibiotic resistance. At least 2 million people become infected with resistant bacteria yearly in the United States alone, and at least 23,000 people die yearly from these infections, she noted.

“In dermatology we use antibiotics quite a bit, and we want to make sure when we’re utilizing drugs, we’re utilizing them in the best possible way,” Dr. Stein Gold said at the Skin Disease Education Foundation’s annual Las Vegas dermatology seminar. Finding the right antibiotic dose for effective treatment of acne can be a challenge, she noted. “Is more better? Is too little bad?”

In a review of new treatment strategies that address these concerns without compromising efficacy, Dr. Stein Gold said that the rationale for using subantimicrobial antibiotic dosing comes from the anti-inflammatory effect seen with many antibiotics, even with doses lower than needed for antimicrobial action.

For example, a study of a subantimicrobial-dose of doxycycline found that when adults with moderate acne were treated with the antibiotic (20 mg, twice daily) for 6 months, their acne significantly improved. The number of comedones, inflammatory lesions, and noninflammatory lesions improved significantly compared with those on placebo (Arch Dermatol. 2003 Apr; 139:459-64).

In another head-to-head trial that compared low-dose modified-release doxycycline with placebo or 100 mg of doxycycline, the lower dose outperformed both placebo and full-strength antibiotics. No resistant organisms were found among skin flora in the subjects, and the microbiota of the patients’ skin did not change significantly during the study period, she said.

Dr. Stein Gold’s work also suggests that systemic antibiotics may not be necessary for all patients with acne: In a study, after 12 weeks of treatment, adapalene plus benzoyl peroxide, in combination with doxycycline, resulted in significantly more patients with clear or almost-clear skin than with vehicle alone plus doxycycline. “Antibiotics are not always the golden nugget in the treatment of acne,” she commented.

Another tactic is to treat with antibiotics for a period of 3-6 months along with potent topicals, to get skin clear or almost clear, then discontinue the antibiotic and continue topical treatment. Many patients will be able to maintain clear skin on this regime, she noted.

A new tetracycline-family antibiotic, sarecycline, is in phase III trials for acne vulgaris and in phase II trials for acne rosacea. Sarecycline, “compared with existing tetracycline antibiotics, showed improved anti-inflammatory properties and a narrower spectrum of activity,” Dr. Stein Gold said.

A topical minocycline in a foam formulation shows promising results for tolerability and efficacy in phase II trials for moderate and severe acne, she added. Dapsone as a 7.5% topical gel formulation is in phase III clinical trials as well.

Another antibiotic with a long history of systemic use for acne, clindamycin, is also showing promising results in combination with benzoyl peroxide (1.2%/3.75% gel). A 12-week double-blind study of the combination, compared with vehicle alone for individuals with moderate or severe acne, showed significant improvement in comedonal and inflammatory lesions, as well as overall global improvement in severity, for the treatment arm, she said (J Drugs Dermatol. 2014 Sep;13[9]:1083-9).

Dr. Stein Gold reports being a consultant and investigator for Galderma, Stiefel Laboratories, and Allergan; a consultant and speaker for Valeant; a speaker for Ranbaxy Laboratories, Promius Pharma, and Actavis; and a medical/legal consultant for Roche.

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

Clinical question: How would an evidence-based clinical pathway for cellulitis affect process metrics, patient outcomes, and clinical cost?

Background: Cellulitis is a common hospital problem, but its evaluation and treatment vary widely. Specifically, broad-spectrum antibiotics and imaging studies are overutilized when compared to recommended guidelines. A standardized clinical pathway is proposed as a possible solution.

Study design: Retrospective, observational, pre-/post-intervention study.

Setting: University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City.

Synopsis: A multidisciplinary team created a guideline-based care pathway for cellulitis and enrolled 677 adult patients for retrospective analysis during a two-year period. The study showed an overall 59% decrease in the odds of ordering broad-spectrum antibiotics, 23% decrease in pharmacy cost, 44% decrease in laboratory cost, and 13% decrease in overall facility cost, pre-/post-intervention. It also demonstrated no adverse effect on length of stay or 30-day readmission rates.

Given the retrospective, single-center nature of this study, as well as some baseline characteristic differences between enrolled patients, careful conclusions regarding external validity on diverse patient populations must be considered; however, the history of clinical care pathways supports many of the study’s findings. The results make a compelling case for hospitalist groups to implement similar cellulitis pathways and research their effectiveness.

Bottom line: Clinical care pathways for cellulitis provide an opportunity to improve antibiotic stewardship and lower hospital costs without compromising quality of care.

Citation: Yarbrough PM, Kukhareva PV, Spivak ES, Hopkins C, Kawamoto K. Evidence-based care pathway for cellulitis improves process, clinical, and cost outcomes [published online ahead of print July 28, 2015]. J Hosp Med. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2433.

Clinical question: How would an evidence-based clinical pathway for cellulitis affect process metrics, patient outcomes, and clinical cost?

Background: Cellulitis is a common hospital problem, but its evaluation and treatment vary widely. Specifically, broad-spectrum antibiotics and imaging studies are overutilized when compared to recommended guidelines. A standardized clinical pathway is proposed as a possible solution.

Study design: Retrospective, observational, pre-/post-intervention study.

Setting: University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City.

Synopsis: A multidisciplinary team created a guideline-based care pathway for cellulitis and enrolled 677 adult patients for retrospective analysis during a two-year period. The study showed an overall 59% decrease in the odds of ordering broad-spectrum antibiotics, 23% decrease in pharmacy cost, 44% decrease in laboratory cost, and 13% decrease in overall facility cost, pre-/post-intervention. It also demonstrated no adverse effect on length of stay or 30-day readmission rates.

Given the retrospective, single-center nature of this study, as well as some baseline characteristic differences between enrolled patients, careful conclusions regarding external validity on diverse patient populations must be considered; however, the history of clinical care pathways supports many of the study’s findings. The results make a compelling case for hospitalist groups to implement similar cellulitis pathways and research their effectiveness.

Bottom line: Clinical care pathways for cellulitis provide an opportunity to improve antibiotic stewardship and lower hospital costs without compromising quality of care.

Citation: Yarbrough PM, Kukhareva PV, Spivak ES, Hopkins C, Kawamoto K. Evidence-based care pathway for cellulitis improves process, clinical, and cost outcomes [published online ahead of print July 28, 2015]. J Hosp Med. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2433.

Clinical question: How would an evidence-based clinical pathway for cellulitis affect process metrics, patient outcomes, and clinical cost?

Background: Cellulitis is a common hospital problem, but its evaluation and treatment vary widely. Specifically, broad-spectrum antibiotics and imaging studies are overutilized when compared to recommended guidelines. A standardized clinical pathway is proposed as a possible solution.

Study design: Retrospective, observational, pre-/post-intervention study.

Setting: University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City.

Synopsis: A multidisciplinary team created a guideline-based care pathway for cellulitis and enrolled 677 adult patients for retrospective analysis during a two-year period. The study showed an overall 59% decrease in the odds of ordering broad-spectrum antibiotics, 23% decrease in pharmacy cost, 44% decrease in laboratory cost, and 13% decrease in overall facility cost, pre-/post-intervention. It also demonstrated no adverse effect on length of stay or 30-day readmission rates.

Given the retrospective, single-center nature of this study, as well as some baseline characteristic differences between enrolled patients, careful conclusions regarding external validity on diverse patient populations must be considered; however, the history of clinical care pathways supports many of the study’s findings. The results make a compelling case for hospitalist groups to implement similar cellulitis pathways and research their effectiveness.

Bottom line: Clinical care pathways for cellulitis provide an opportunity to improve antibiotic stewardship and lower hospital costs without compromising quality of care.

Citation: Yarbrough PM, Kukhareva PV, Spivak ES, Hopkins C, Kawamoto K. Evidence-based care pathway for cellulitis improves process, clinical, and cost outcomes [published online ahead of print July 28, 2015]. J Hosp Med. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2433.