ABSTRACT
Background Empiric antibiotic treatment selection should provide adequate coverage for potential pathogens while minimizing unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotic use. We sought to pilot a rule- and model-based early sepsis treatment algorithm (Early-IDEAS) to make optimal individualized antibiotic recommendations.
Methods The Early-IDEAS decision support algorithm was derived from previous Gram-negative and Gram-positive prediction rules and models. The Gram-negative prediction consists of multiple parametric regression models which predict the likelihood of susceptibility for each commonly used antibiotic for Gram-negative pathogens, based on epidemiologic predictors and prior culture results and recommends the narrowest spectrum agent that exceeds a predefined threshold of adequate coverage. The Gram-positive rules direct the addition or cessation of vancomycin based on prior culture results. We applied the algorithm to prospectively identified consecutive adults within 24-hours of suspected sepsis. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients for whom the algorithm recommended de-escalation of the primary antibiotic regimen. Secondary outcomes included: (1) the proportion of patients for whom escalation was recommended; (2) the number of recommended de-escalation steps along a pre-specified antibiotic cascade; and (3) the adequacy of therapy in the subset of patients with culture-confirmed infection.
Results We screened 578 patients, of whom 107 eligible patients with sepsis were included. The Early-IDEAS treatment recommendation was informed by Gram-negative models in 76 (71%) of patients, Gram-positive rules in 66 (61.7%), and local guidelines in 27 (25%). Antibiotic de-escalation was recommended by the algorithm in almost half of all patients (n=50, 47%), no treatment change was recommended in 48 patients (45%), and escalation was recommended in 9 patients (8%). Amongst the patients where de-escalation was recommended, the median number of steps down the a priori antibiotic treatment cascade was 2. Among the 17 patients with relevant culture-positive blood stream infection, the clinician prescribed regimen provided adequate coverage in 14 (82%) and the algorithm recommendation would have provided adequate coverage in 13 (76%), p=1. Among the 25 patients with positive relevant (non-blood) cultures, the clinician prescribed regimen provided adequate coverage in 22 (88%) and the algorithm recommendation would have provided adequate coverage in 21 (84%), p=1.
Conclusions An individualized decision support algorithm in early sepsis could lead to substantial antibiotic de-escalation without compromising adequate antibiotic coverage.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee of Sunnybrook Research Institute has waived ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* Co-Principal Investigators
The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
Data Availability
All data that can be made available for this present study is located within the manuscript.
