PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Bucheeri, Mohamed
AU  - Elligsen, Marion
AU  - Lam, Philip W.
AU  - Daneman, Nick
AU  - MacFadden, Derek
TI  - A Sepsis Treatment Algorithm to Improve Early Antibiotic De-escalation While Maintaining Adequacy of Coverage (Early-IDEAS): A Prospective Observational Study
AID  - 10.1101/2022.04.13.22273851
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2022.04.13.22273851
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/14/2022.04.13.22273851.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/14/2022.04.13.22273851.full
AB  - 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 StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any funding.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe 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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll data that can be made available for this present study is located within the manuscript.