Steve Solomon, MD 
Director, Office of Antimicrobial 
Resistance 
Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention 
Metrics and Decision-Making for 
Antibiotic Stewardship in Human 
Medicine 
Antibiotic Use and 
Resistance: Moving Forward 
Through Shared Stewardship 
November 12-14, 2014 
Atlanta, GA
Key points 
 Why measure? 
 What to measure? 
 How to measure?
Why measure? 
 What gets measured gets done.
Antibiotic use is common in 
healthcare
Antibiotic prescriptions per 1000 persons of all 
ages according to state 
Hicks LA et al. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1461-1462.
Why Measure-- 
Goals and Objectives of Antibiotic Stewardship 
 Goals 
 Improved population health 
 Optimal prescribing of antibiotics 
 Sustainable changes in clinical practice 
 Objectives 
 Better clinical outcomes 
 Reduction in antibiotic resistant infections 
 Economic benefit
What to measure 
 Outcome measures 
 Process measures
Outcome measures 
• Better clinical outcomes 
• Decreased morbidity, mortality overall 
• Fewer adverse events (C. difficile infections, adverse drug 
reactions, drug-drug interactions) 
• Reduction in antibiotic resistance 
• Fewer resistant infections 
• Less spread of resistant bacteria 
• Economic benefit 
• Lower healthcare costs for infections and complications 
• Reduced pharmacy and consumer costs for antibiotics
Estimated burden of 
healthcare-associated CDI 
400,000 
350,000 
300,000 
250,000 
200,000 
150,000 
100,000 
50,000 
0 
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 
• Hospital-acquired, hospital-onset: 
165,000 cases, $1.3 
billion in excess costs, and 
9,000 deaths annually 
• Hospital-acquired, post-discharge 
(up to 4 weeks): 
50,000 cases, $0.3 billion in 
excess costs, and 3,000 deaths 
annually 
• Nursing home-onset: 263,000 
cases, $2.2 billion in excess 
costs, and 16,500 deaths 
annually Year 
Number of hospital discharges 
Any listed 
Primary
Poor Prescribing Harms Patients 
 Decreasing the use of antibiotics 
that most often lead to C.difficile 
infection by 30% could lead to 26% 
fewer of these infections 
 Patients getting broad-spectrum 
antibiotics are up to 3x more likely 
to get another infection from an 
even more resistant germ
Clinical outcomes better with 
antimicrobial management program 
100 
90 
80 
70 
60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
10 
0 
AMP 
UP 
Appropriate Cure Failure 
RR 2.8 (2.1-3.8) RR 1.7 (1.3-2.1) RR 0.2 (0.1-0.4) 
Percent 
AMP = Antibiotic Management Program 
Fishman N. Am J Med. 2006;119:S53. UP = Usual Practice
Increased resistance for individual 
patients 
Pathogen and Antibiotic 
Exposure 
Increased 
Risk 
Carbapenem-resistant 
Enterobacteriaceae 
 Carbapenems 
15 fold 
ESBL-producing organisms 
 Cephalosporins 
6 - 29 fold 
Costelloe C et al. BMJ. 2010;340:c2096. 
Patel G et al. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29:1099-1106 
Zaoutis TE et al. Pediatrics 2005;114:942-9 
Talon D et al. Clin Microbiol Infect 2000;6:376-84
Increased resistance in facilities-- 
resistance in P. aeruginosa vs. 
carbapenem use rate 
80 
70 
60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
10 
0 
r = 0.41, p = .004 
(Pearson correlation coefficient) 
0 20 40 60 80 100 
% Imipenem-resistant 
P. aeruginosa 
Carbapenem Use Rate 
45 LTACHs, 2002-03 (59 LTACH years) Gould et al. ICHE 2006;27:923-5
Rates of antibiotic resistant organism 
infections per 100 intensive care unit, with and 
without intervention 
Raymond et al. Impact of a rotating empiric antibiotic schedule on infectious mortality in an 
intensive care unit. Critical Care Medicine 2001;29:1101
Improving antibiotic use saves 
money 
• “Comprehensive programs have consistently 
demonstrated a decrease in antimicrobial 
use with annual savings of $200,000 - 
$900,000” 
IDSA/SHEA Guidelines for Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs, 
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/510393
Process measures 
• Facility stewardship programs 
• Optimal prescribing 
• Rates of use
http://www.cdc.gov/getsmart/healthcare/implementation/core-elements.html
Process Measures 
 Components of the program 
 Leadership commitment 
 Accountability 
 Drug expertise 
 Action 
 Tracking 
 Reporting 
 Education
Prescribing Practices Vary 
 More than half of all hospital 
patients receive an antibiotic 
 Doctors in some hospitals 
prescribed 3 times as many 
antibiotics as doctors in other 
hospitals
Optimal prescribing 
 Steps in the prescribing process 
 Indication for prescription 
 Appropriateness 
• Consistent with guidelines/best practice 
 De-escalation/antibiotic time out 
• Change of therapy as indicated to a different antibiotic or IV to PO 
 Laboratory confirmation/review
Antibiotic prescriptions per 1000 persons of all 
ages according to state 
Hicks LA et al. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1461-1462.
How to measure 
 Healthcare clinical and administrative data 
 Provider/prescriber-specific 
 Facility-specific 
 Aggregate—facilities, regions, national 
 Outcomes 
 Patient outcomes 
 Laboratory data 
 Cost data 
 Process 
 Antibiotic use data--benchmarking and tracking 
 Practice data, clinical decision support 
 Program components
Measuring Antibiotic Use 
 Assessments of aggregate use 
 Proprietary data 
 Facility-specific antibiotic administration data 
 Electronic records 
 Detailed assessments of appropriate antibiotic use 
 Antibiotic use assessment
Mock-up: Risk-adjusted Benchmarking of 
Antimicrobial Use To Guide Stewardship 
Antimicrobial Class-Specific Usage Rates 
and Standardized Utilization Ratios (SURs) 
ABX Days 
Observed Predicted SUR* Interpretation 
MICU 4000 1000 4.0 Excessive 
SICU 2000 2000 1.0 Consistent 
Medical Ward 3000 4000 0.75 Lower Use 
Surgical Ward 1000 3000 0.33 Much Lower 
Hospital 170,250 171,000 0.99 Consistent 
*SUR=ratio of the observed vs. predicted usage for the patient population defined 
by the location (e.g., MICU , SICU, etc)
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/hai/Pages/AntimicrobialStewardshipProgramInitiative.aspx
Complementary measures 
 Prescribing 
 Objective 
 Prospective 
 May be more acceptable 
 Appropriateness 
 Subjective 
 Retrospective 
 More difficult to interpret
Challenges 
 Complexity 
 Behavioral, institutional, ecological focus 
 Institutional variability 
 One size can’t fit all 
 Access to and management of data 
 Electronic, proprietary, unfiltered 
 Analysis of data, risk adjustment 
 Where to set the benchmarks
Summary and Conclusions 
• Reduction in use is not an end in itself but a natural 
outcome of better practices 
• Benchmarking is a useful tool, but continuous 
quality improvement within each setting is the 
process objective 
• Optimal prescribing is a key goal to complement 
appropriateness of use 
• Access to and management of electronic data is a 
significant challenge
For more information please contact Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention 
1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30333 
Telephone, 1-800-CDC-INFO (232-4636)/TTY: 1-888-232-6348 
E-mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov Web: www.cdc.gov 
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official 
position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 
National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases 
Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion

Dr. Steve Solomon - Metrics and Decision-Making for Antibiotic Stewardship in Human Medicine

  • 1.
    Steve Solomon, MD Director, Office of Antimicrobial Resistance Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Metrics and Decision-Making for Antibiotic Stewardship in Human Medicine Antibiotic Use and Resistance: Moving Forward Through Shared Stewardship November 12-14, 2014 Atlanta, GA
  • 2.
    Key points Why measure?  What to measure?  How to measure?
  • 3.
    Why measure? What gets measured gets done.
  • 4.
    Antibiotic use iscommon in healthcare
  • 5.
    Antibiotic prescriptions per1000 persons of all ages according to state Hicks LA et al. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1461-1462.
  • 6.
    Why Measure-- Goalsand Objectives of Antibiotic Stewardship  Goals  Improved population health  Optimal prescribing of antibiotics  Sustainable changes in clinical practice  Objectives  Better clinical outcomes  Reduction in antibiotic resistant infections  Economic benefit
  • 7.
    What to measure  Outcome measures  Process measures
  • 8.
    Outcome measures •Better clinical outcomes • Decreased morbidity, mortality overall • Fewer adverse events (C. difficile infections, adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions) • Reduction in antibiotic resistance • Fewer resistant infections • Less spread of resistant bacteria • Economic benefit • Lower healthcare costs for infections and complications • Reduced pharmacy and consumer costs for antibiotics
  • 9.
    Estimated burden of healthcare-associated CDI 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 • Hospital-acquired, hospital-onset: 165,000 cases, $1.3 billion in excess costs, and 9,000 deaths annually • Hospital-acquired, post-discharge (up to 4 weeks): 50,000 cases, $0.3 billion in excess costs, and 3,000 deaths annually • Nursing home-onset: 263,000 cases, $2.2 billion in excess costs, and 16,500 deaths annually Year Number of hospital discharges Any listed Primary
  • 10.
    Poor Prescribing HarmsPatients  Decreasing the use of antibiotics that most often lead to C.difficile infection by 30% could lead to 26% fewer of these infections  Patients getting broad-spectrum antibiotics are up to 3x more likely to get another infection from an even more resistant germ
  • 11.
    Clinical outcomes betterwith antimicrobial management program 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 AMP UP Appropriate Cure Failure RR 2.8 (2.1-3.8) RR 1.7 (1.3-2.1) RR 0.2 (0.1-0.4) Percent AMP = Antibiotic Management Program Fishman N. Am J Med. 2006;119:S53. UP = Usual Practice
  • 12.
    Increased resistance forindividual patients Pathogen and Antibiotic Exposure Increased Risk Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae  Carbapenems 15 fold ESBL-producing organisms  Cephalosporins 6 - 29 fold Costelloe C et al. BMJ. 2010;340:c2096. Patel G et al. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29:1099-1106 Zaoutis TE et al. Pediatrics 2005;114:942-9 Talon D et al. Clin Microbiol Infect 2000;6:376-84
  • 13.
    Increased resistance infacilities-- resistance in P. aeruginosa vs. carbapenem use rate 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 r = 0.41, p = .004 (Pearson correlation coefficient) 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Imipenem-resistant P. aeruginosa Carbapenem Use Rate 45 LTACHs, 2002-03 (59 LTACH years) Gould et al. ICHE 2006;27:923-5
  • 14.
    Rates of antibioticresistant organism infections per 100 intensive care unit, with and without intervention Raymond et al. Impact of a rotating empiric antibiotic schedule on infectious mortality in an intensive care unit. Critical Care Medicine 2001;29:1101
  • 15.
    Improving antibiotic usesaves money • “Comprehensive programs have consistently demonstrated a decrease in antimicrobial use with annual savings of $200,000 - $900,000” IDSA/SHEA Guidelines for Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs, http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/510393
  • 16.
    Process measures •Facility stewardship programs • Optimal prescribing • Rates of use
  • 17.
  • 18.
    Process Measures Components of the program  Leadership commitment  Accountability  Drug expertise  Action  Tracking  Reporting  Education
  • 19.
    Prescribing Practices Vary  More than half of all hospital patients receive an antibiotic  Doctors in some hospitals prescribed 3 times as many antibiotics as doctors in other hospitals
  • 20.
    Optimal prescribing Steps in the prescribing process  Indication for prescription  Appropriateness • Consistent with guidelines/best practice  De-escalation/antibiotic time out • Change of therapy as indicated to a different antibiotic or IV to PO  Laboratory confirmation/review
  • 21.
    Antibiotic prescriptions per1000 persons of all ages according to state Hicks LA et al. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1461-1462.
  • 22.
    How to measure  Healthcare clinical and administrative data  Provider/prescriber-specific  Facility-specific  Aggregate—facilities, regions, national  Outcomes  Patient outcomes  Laboratory data  Cost data  Process  Antibiotic use data--benchmarking and tracking  Practice data, clinical decision support  Program components
  • 23.
    Measuring Antibiotic Use  Assessments of aggregate use  Proprietary data  Facility-specific antibiotic administration data  Electronic records  Detailed assessments of appropriate antibiotic use  Antibiotic use assessment
  • 24.
    Mock-up: Risk-adjusted Benchmarkingof Antimicrobial Use To Guide Stewardship Antimicrobial Class-Specific Usage Rates and Standardized Utilization Ratios (SURs) ABX Days Observed Predicted SUR* Interpretation MICU 4000 1000 4.0 Excessive SICU 2000 2000 1.0 Consistent Medical Ward 3000 4000 0.75 Lower Use Surgical Ward 1000 3000 0.33 Much Lower Hospital 170,250 171,000 0.99 Consistent *SUR=ratio of the observed vs. predicted usage for the patient population defined by the location (e.g., MICU , SICU, etc)
  • 25.
  • 26.
    Complementary measures Prescribing  Objective  Prospective  May be more acceptable  Appropriateness  Subjective  Retrospective  More difficult to interpret
  • 27.
    Challenges  Complexity  Behavioral, institutional, ecological focus  Institutional variability  One size can’t fit all  Access to and management of data  Electronic, proprietary, unfiltered  Analysis of data, risk adjustment  Where to set the benchmarks
  • 28.
    Summary and Conclusions • Reduction in use is not an end in itself but a natural outcome of better practices • Benchmarking is a useful tool, but continuous quality improvement within each setting is the process objective • Optimal prescribing is a key goal to complement appropriateness of use • Access to and management of electronic data is a significant challenge
  • 29.
    For more informationplease contact Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30333 Telephone, 1-800-CDC-INFO (232-4636)/TTY: 1-888-232-6348 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.cdc.gov The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion