Concomitant vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam may be associated with increased acute kidney injury (AKI) compared to vancomycin without piperacillin/tazobactam. A systematic search of Medline, Cochrane Library, and Scopus through October 2016 using ["vancomycin" and "piperacillin" and "tazobactam"] and ["AKI" or "acute renal failure" or "nephrotoxicity"] and registered meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42016041646) with relevant scenarios was performed. From 307 results, fourteen observational studies totaling 3549 patients were analyzed. Concomitant vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam was associated with AKI in unadjusted (odds ratio (OR) 3.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.04-4.78) and adjusted (aOR 3.11, 95% CI 1.77-5.47) analyses. Similar findings were seen assessing studies in adults (aOR 3.15, 95% CI 1.72-5.76), children (OR 4.55, 95% CI 2.71-10.21), and when <50% of patients received care in an intensive care unit (aOR 3.04, 95% CI 1.49-6.22) but not ≥50% (aOR 2.83, 95% CI 0.74-10.85). Increased AKI with concomitant vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam should be considered when determining beta-lactam therapy.

After adjusting for propensity to receive each of the treatment choices, no significant difference was found in the incidence of AKI development or other outcomes between the groups. The previously described finding that concomitant vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam increases AKI in non-critically ill patients may not be generalizable to the critically ill population. Prospective evaluation of this hypothesis is warranted.

To address the increase of drug-resistant bacteria and widespread inappropriate use of antimicrobials, many healthcare institutions have implemented antimicrobial stewardship programs to promote appropriate use of antimicrobials and optimize patient outcomes. However, a consensus definition of appropriate use is lacking. We conducted a multicenter observational study to compare 4 definitions of appropriateness--a study site-specific definition, use supported by susceptibility data, use supported by electronic drug information resources (Clinical Pharmacology/Micromedex), or study site principal investigator (PI) opinion-among patients receiving 1 or more of 13 identified antimicrobials. Data were collected for 262 patients. Overall, appropriateness with the 4 definitions ranged from 79% based on PI opinion to 94% based on susceptibility data. No single definition resulted in consistently high appropriate use for all target antimicrobials. For individual antimicrobials, the definitions with the highest rate of appropriate use were Clinical Pharmacology/Micromedex support (6 of 7 antimicrobials) and susceptibility data (5 of 7 antimicrobials). For specific indications, support from susceptibility data resulted in the highest rate of appropriate use (4 of 7 indications). Overall comparisons showed that appropriateness assessed by PI opinion differed significantly compared with other definitions when stratified by either target antimicrobial or indication. The significant variability in the rate of appropriate use highlights the difficulty in developing a standardized definition that can be used to benchmark judicious antimicrobial use.

Background Accelerate Pheno blood culture detection system (AXDX) provides identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) results within 8h of blood culture growth. Limited data exists regarding its clinical impact. Other rapid platforms coupled with antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) real-time notification (RTN) have shown improved length of stay (LOS) in bacteremia Methods A single-center, quasi-experimental study of adult bacteremic inpatients before/after AXDX implementation was conducted comparing clinical outcomes from 1 historical and 2 intervention cohorts (AXDX and AXDX+RTN). Primary outcome was LOS. Results Of 830 bacteremic episodes, 188 (77%) of 245 historical and 308 (155 AXDX, 153 AXDX+RTN; 65%) of 585 intervention episodes were included. Median LOS was shorter with AXDX (6.3d) and AXDX+RTN (6.7d) compared to historical (8.1d; P=0.001). Achievement of optimal therapy (AOT) was more frequent (93.6% and 95.4%) and median time to optimal therapy (TTOT) was faster (1.3d and 1.4d) in AXDX and AXDX+RTN compared to historical (84.6%, P≤0.001 and 2.4d; P≤0.001) respectively. Median antimicrobial days of therapy (DOT) was shorter in both intervention arms compared to historical (6d each vs 7d; P=0.011). Median LOS benefit was most pronounced in patients with coagulase negative Staphylococcus bacteremia (5.5d and 4.5d vs 7.2d; P=0.003) in AXDX, AXDX+RTN, and historical cohorts respectively. Conclusions LOS, AOT, TTOT, and total DOT significantly improved after AXDX implementation. Addition of RTN did not show further improvement over AXDX and an already active ASP. These results suggest AXDX can be integrated into healthcare systems with an active ASP even without the resources to include RTN.

Objective: To describe the diagnostic performance characteristics of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal screening for patients with pneumonia. Data Sources: PubMed and Scopus were searched from 1 January 1990 to 12 December 2018 using terms methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus AND (screening OR active surveillance OR surveillance culture OR targeted surveillance OR chromogenic OR PCR OR polymerase chain reaction OR rapid test) AND (nares OR nasal) AND (pneumonia OR respiratory). Study Selection and Data Extraction: Relevant studies in humans and English were considered. Data Synthesis: In all, 19 studies, including 21 790 patients, were included. Nasal screening for MRSA had a high negative predictive value (NPV; 76% to 99.4% for relevant studies) across all types of pneumonia. Time from nasal screening to culture varied across studies. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: MRSA nasal screening has a high NPV for MRSA involvement in pneumonia. Utilizing this test for antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) purposes can provide a valuable tool for reducing unwarranted anti-MRSA agents and may provide additional cost benefits. A cutoff of 7 days between nasal swab and culture or infection onset seems most appropriate for use of this test for anti-MRSA agent de-escalation for ASP purposes. Conclusions: Consideration for the inclusion of the utility of MRSA nasal screening in MRSA pneumonia should be made for future pneumonia and ASP guidelines. Additional studies are warranted to fully evaluate specific pneumonia classifications, culture types, culture timing, and clinical outcomes associated with the use of this test in patients with pneumonia.