TY - JOUR
T1 - Investigation to identify a resource-efficient case-control methodology for determining antibiotics associated with Clostridium difficile infection
AU - Chung, Philip
AU - Currie, Brian
AU - Guo, Yi
AU - Talansky, Moshe
AU - Brown, Shakara
AU - Ostrowsky, Belinda E.
N1 - Funding Information:
Financial support: This investigative case-control evaluation was partially supported by the Evaluation & Research on Antimicrobial Stewardship's Effect on Clostridium difficile project. The overall project was funded under contract HHSA290200600012i T0#10 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services via the AHRQ Accelerating Change and Transformation in Organizations and Networks (ACTION) initiative to Boston University. The opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not reflect the official position of the AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Funding Information:
Publication of this article was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2014 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc.
PY - 2014/10/1
Y1 - 2014/10/1
N2 - Background Antimicrobial exposure remains an important risk factor for developing Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Efficient method to identify antibiotics associated with CDI is important for formulating strategies to curtail their use. As a prelude to a more extensive Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded project (Evaluation & Research on Antimicrobial Stewardship's Effect on Clostridium difficile), we undertook an exploratory evaluation to determine a resource-efficient method for identifying antibiotic targets for antimicrobial stewardship interventions. Methods The study compared a series of 6 focused case-control studies. Cases consisted of patients with laboratory-confirmed CDI admitted from July-October 2009. Controls were selected from patients without CDI hospitalized during the same period. Five groups of controls were matched to cases (2:1 ratio) using group-specific matching criteria, including admission date, age, type of admission, length of stay (LOS) to discharge, and/or LOS to CDI diagnosis. The final control group was selected from patients who received antibiotics during hospitalization. Data, including demographics and antibiotic usage, were compared between case and control groups. Results A total of 126 cases were matched to 6 groups of 252 controls. For control groups 1-5, the use of piperacillin and tazobactam, ceftriaxone or cefepime, ciprofloxacin or moxifloxacin, intravenous vancomycin, azithromycin, and antibiotics of last resort were significantly more frequent in case than control patients. For the final control group, the associations between ceftriaxone or cefepime, and ciprofloxacin or moxifloxacin use and CDI no longer persisted. This could in part be explained by differences in comorbidities between case and control patients even with stringent matching criteria. Conclusion Use of a simple matching strategy to conduct case-control studies is an efficient and feasible compromise strategy, especially in resource-limited settings, to identify high-risk antibiotics associated with CDI.
AB - Background Antimicrobial exposure remains an important risk factor for developing Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Efficient method to identify antibiotics associated with CDI is important for formulating strategies to curtail their use. As a prelude to a more extensive Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded project (Evaluation & Research on Antimicrobial Stewardship's Effect on Clostridium difficile), we undertook an exploratory evaluation to determine a resource-efficient method for identifying antibiotic targets for antimicrobial stewardship interventions. Methods The study compared a series of 6 focused case-control studies. Cases consisted of patients with laboratory-confirmed CDI admitted from July-October 2009. Controls were selected from patients without CDI hospitalized during the same period. Five groups of controls were matched to cases (2:1 ratio) using group-specific matching criteria, including admission date, age, type of admission, length of stay (LOS) to discharge, and/or LOS to CDI diagnosis. The final control group was selected from patients who received antibiotics during hospitalization. Data, including demographics and antibiotic usage, were compared between case and control groups. Results A total of 126 cases were matched to 6 groups of 252 controls. For control groups 1-5, the use of piperacillin and tazobactam, ceftriaxone or cefepime, ciprofloxacin or moxifloxacin, intravenous vancomycin, azithromycin, and antibiotics of last resort were significantly more frequent in case than control patients. For the final control group, the associations between ceftriaxone or cefepime, and ciprofloxacin or moxifloxacin use and CDI no longer persisted. This could in part be explained by differences in comorbidities between case and control patients even with stringent matching criteria. Conclusion Use of a simple matching strategy to conduct case-control studies is an efficient and feasible compromise strategy, especially in resource-limited settings, to identify high-risk antibiotics associated with CDI.
KW - Antibiotic targets
KW - Antimicrobial stewardship
KW - Case control
KW - Clostridium difficile
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84922121151&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84922121151&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ajic.2014.05.001
DO - 10.1016/j.ajic.2014.05.001
M3 - Article
C2 - 25239720
AN - SCOPUS:84922121151
SN - 0196-6553
VL - 42
SP - S264-S268
JO - American Journal of Infection Control
JF - American Journal of Infection Control
IS - 10
ER -