4.5 Article

Impact of antimicrobial stewardship programs on antibiotic consumption and antimicrobial resistance in four Colombian healthcare institutions

期刊

BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-022-07410-6

关键词

Antimicrobial stewardship; Antimicrobial stewardship program; Antimicrobial resistance; Antibiotic resistance; Hospital epidemiology; Colombia

资金

  1. Merck Sharp Dohme Colombia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrated that antimicrobial stewardship programs have a positive impact on antibiotic consumption and resistance.
Background Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) have become a fundamental pillar in optimizing antimicrobial usage, improving patient care, and reducing antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Herein we evaluated the impact of an ASP on antimicrobial consumption and AMR in Colombia. Methods We designed a retrospective observational study and measured trends in antibiotic consumption and AMR before and after the implementation of an ASP using interrupted time series analysis over a 4-year period (24 months before and 24 months after ASP implementation). Results ASPs were implemented according to the available resources in each of the institutions. Before ASP implementation, there was a trend toward an increase in the antibiotic consumption of all measured antimicrobials selected. Afterward, an overall decrease in antibiotic consumption was observed. The use of ertapenem and meropenem decreased in hospital wards, while a decrease in the use of ceftriaxone, cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, meropenem, and vancomycin was observed in intensive care units. After ASP implementation, the trend toward an increase of oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, ceftriaxone-resistant Escherichia coli, and meropenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa was reversed. Conclusions In our study, we showed that ASPs are a key strategy in tackling the emerging threat of AMR and have a positive impact on antibiotic consumption and resistance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据