Rech, Megan A.

AbstractBackgroundUropathogen resistance, fluoroquinolone‐resistance (FQR), and extended spectrum beta‐lactamase (ESBL), has been observed to be emerging worldwide with prevalences above recommended thresholds for routine empirical treatment. The primary aim of our study was to determine the prevalence of FQR from a geographically diverse sample of United States emergency departments (EDs).MethodsWe conducted a multi‐center, observational cohort study using a network of 15 geographically diverse US EDs. All patients ≥18 years of age with the primary or secondary diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) in the ED identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD‐10) diagnosis code of cystitis, pyelonephritis, or UTI from 2018 to 2020 were included. We calculated descriptive statistics for uropathogens and susceptibilities. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify antimicrobial resistance risk factors associated with FQR Escherichia coli.ResultsAmong 3779 patients who met inclusion criteria, median age was 62.9 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 41–77.6) and 76.3% were female. The most common diagnoses were complicated (41.2%) and uncomplicated cystitis (40.3%). E. coli was the most common pathogen (63.2%), followed by Klebsiella pneumoniae (13.2%) and Enterococcus species (5.8%). Across all sites, overall E. coli FQ‐resistance prevalence was 22.1%, ranging from 10.5 to 29.7% by site. The prevalence of ESBL‐producing uropathogen was 7.4%, ranging from 3.6% to 11.6% by site. Previous IV or oral antimicrobial use in the past 90‐days and history of a multi‐drug resistant pathogen were associated with FQ‐resistant E. coli (odds ratio [OR] 2.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.04–3.51, and OR 6.93, 95% CI: 4.95–9.70, respectively). Of the patients who had FQ‐resistant E. coli or an ESBL‐producing uropathogen isolated, 116 (37.1%) and 61 (36.7%) did not have any documented risk factors for resistance.ConclusionFQ‐resistant E. coli is widely prevalent across US sites highlighting the need for ongoing monitoring of antimicrobial resistance and, at some locations, modification of empirical treatments.

BackgroundClinician preferences and practices regarding appropriate vasopressin use in light of its increased acquisition cost secondary to rebranding has not been evaluated or described since the most recent iteration of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline was published.ObjectiveTo assess vasopressin cost containment initiatives and pharmacists' opinions regarding appropriate vasopressin use.MethodsA scenario‐based survey was distributed to critical care and emergency medicine pharmacists. Responses were characterized using frequency and descriptive statistics. Categorical variables between those who implemented changes (Vasopressin Cost Consideration) and those who did not (Usual Care) were compared using chi‐square or Fisher's exact tests. McNemar's test was used to compare responses in clinical scenarios between Vasopressin Cost Consideration and Usual Care groups.ResultsAmong 1757 pharmacists surveyed, 200 (11.3%) responded. When respondents considered vasopressin cost and evidence (vs evidence alone), fewer respondents would use vasopressin adjunctively with norepinephrine (21% vs 26.6%, P = 0.031), to raise mean arterial pressure compared with epinephrine (65.2% vs 72.3%, P = 0.012), or to reduce norepinephrine infusion rates (71.4% vs 81.4%, P < 0.001), but would use with steroids (62.4% vs 28.3%, P < 0.001). Most (72%) respondents had implemented vasopressin cost containment and/or education initiatives. The Vasopressin Cost Consideration group respondents were more likely to initiate vasopressin at 0.03 units/minute without titrating (47.9% vs 33.9%, P = 0.045).ConclusionSince vasopressin was generically rebranded, most institutions have implemented at least one initiative to reduce vasopressin use and/or educate clinicians about its appropriate use. When vasopressin acquisition costs were considered, pharmacists recommended its use less frequently, particularly in clinical scenarios where its use is controversial.