To measure the impact of an antimicrobial stewardship initiative on the rate of urine culture testing and antimicrobial prescribing for urinary tract infections (UTIs) between control and intervention sites. Secondary objectives included evaluation of potential harms of the intervention and identifying characteristics of the population prescribed antimicrobials for UTI.

Cluster randomized controlled trial.

Nursing homes in rural Alberta, Canada.

The study included 42 nursing homes ranging from 8 to 112 beds.

Intervention sites received on-site staff education, physician academic detailing, and integrated clinical decision-making tools. Control sites provided standard care. Data were collected for 6 months prior to and 12 months after the intervention.

Resident age (83.0 vs 83.8 years) and sex distribution (female, 62.5% vs 64.5%) were similar between the groups. Statistically significant decreases in the rate of urine culture testing (−2.1 tests per 1,000 resident days [RD]; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.5 to −1.7; P < .001) and antimicrobial prescribing for UTIs (−0.7 prescriptions per 1,000 RD; 95% CI, −1.0 to −0.4; P < .001) were observed in the intervention group. There was no difference in hospital admissions (0.00 admissions per 1,000 RD; 95% CI, −0.4 to 0.3; P = .76), and the mortality rate decreased by 0.2 per 1,000 RD in the intervention group (95% CI, −0.5 to −0.1; P = .002). Chart reviews indicated that UTI symptoms were charted in 16% of cases and that urine culture testing occurred in 64.5% of cases.

A multimodal antimicrobial stewardship intervention in rural nursing homes significantly decreased the rate of urine culture testing and antimicrobial prescriptions for UTI, with no increase in hospital admissions or mortality.

To conduct a full economic evaluation assessing the costs and consequences related to probiotic use for the primary prevention of Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea (CDAD).

Cost-effectiveness analysis using decision analytic modeling.

A cost-effectiveness analysis was used to evaluate the risk of CDAD and the costs of receiving oral probiotics versus not over a time horizon of 30 days. The target population modeled was all adult inpatients receiving any therapeutic course of antibiotics from a publicly funded healthcare system perspective. Effectiveness estimates were based on a recent systematic review of probiotics for the primary prevention of CDAD. Additional estimates came from local data and the literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess how plausible changes in variables impacted the results.

Treatment with oral probiotics led to direct costs of CDN $24 per course of treatment per patient. On average, patients treated with oral probiotics had a lower overall cost compared with usual care (CDN $327 vs $845). The risk of CDAD was reduced from 5.5% in those not receiving oral probiotics to 2% in those receiving oral probiotics. These results were robust to plausible variation in all estimates.

Oral probiotics as a preventive strategy for CDAD resulted in a lower risk of CDAD as well as cost-savings. The cost-savings may be greater in other healthcare systems that experience a higher incidence and cost associated with CDAD.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:1079–1086

To compare antimicrobial utilization data derived from pharmacy dispensing records and nursing administration record data by 2 commonly used units of measure.

Data from nursing administration records and pharmacy dispensing records were obtained for 32 medical wards. From nursing and pharmacy data, defined daily doses (DDD) were calculated, and from the nursing data, days of therapy were derived. Direct comparison of total antimicrobial use was performed by graphical analysis and linear regression. Slope of trend line was used to quantify the difference between pairs of measures. Bland-Altman plots were constructed to determine constant and proportional bias. At the level of individual agents, difference between pairs of measures was calculated and presented graphically and the average (95% CI) for the difference between measures was determined.

Nursing administration record–derived DDD were on average 23% lower than corresponding rates of pharmacy dispensing record–derived DDD. The difference between rates of utilization by days of therapy vs DDD from the same source (nursing) was relatively small. Results from analysis of different individual agents were highly variable with wide 95% CIs.

In our setting, we found clinically relevant differences in antimicrobial utilization associated with data from different sources. This outweighed the importance of the metric (DDD or days of therapy). However, measurement of use of individual agents was highly variable and sensitive to both metric unit and data sources.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;00(0): 1–7