PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Bamber, Ranjeet AU - Sullivan, Brian AU - Gorman, Léo AU - Lee, Winnie WY AU - Avison, Matthew B AU - Dowsey, Andrew W AU - Williams, Philip TI - Rational Empiric Antibiotic Escalation Applied to Specific Patient Groups AID - 10.1101/2023.11.03.23298025 DP - 2024 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2023.11.03.23298025 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/26/2023.11.03.23298025.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/26/2023.11.03.23298025.full AB - Background Clinicians commonly escalate empiric antibiotic therapy due to poor clinical progress, without microbiology guidance. When escalating, they should take account of how resistance to an initial antibiotic affects the probability of resistance to subsequent options. The term Escalation Antibiogram (EA) has been coined to describe this concept. One difficulty when applying the EA concept to clinical practice is understanding the uncertainty in results and how this changes for specific patient subgroups.Methods A Bayesian model was developed to estimate antibiotic resistance rates in Gram-negative bloodstream infections based on phenotypic resistance data. It provides an expected value (posterior mean) with 95% credible interval to illustrate uncertainty, based on the size of the patient subgroup, and estimates probability of inferiority between two antibiotics. This model can be applied to specific patient groups where resistance rates and underlying microbiology may differ from the whole hospital population.Results Rates of resistance to empiric first choice and potential escalation antibiotics were calculated for the whole hospitalised population based on 10,486 individual bloodstream infections, and for a range of specific patient groups, including ICU, haematology-oncology, and paediatric patients. Differences in optimal escalation antibiotic options between specific patient groups were noted.Conclusions EA analysis informed by our Bayesian model is a useful tool to support empiric antibiotic switches, providing an estimate of local resistances rates, and a comparison of antibiotic options with a measure of the uncertainty in the data. We demonstrate that EAs calculated for the whole population cannot be assumed to apply to specific patient groups.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was funded by Medical Research Council grant MR/T005408/1 and by Health Data Research UK via the Better Care Partnership Southwest (HDR CF0129). W.W.Y.L. received a scholarship from the Medical Research Foundation National PhD Training Program in Antimicrobial Resistance Research (MRF-145-0004-TPG-AVISO).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:This was a retrospective study using anonymised data already collected as part of routine clinical care. This project was approved by Public Health England's Research Ethics and Governance Group.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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesThis was a retrospective study using anonymised data already collected as part of routine clinical care. This project was approved by Public Health England’s Research Ethics and Governance Group (REGG). Data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the BNSSG ICB. To express interest contact the authors and BNSSG via email: bnssg.research@nhs.net and visit https://bnssg.icb.nhs.uk/about-us/research-and-evidence/