Ashish Malhotra

Effect of antibiotic stewardship programmes on Clostridium difficile incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES Despite vigorous infection control measures, Clostridium difficile continues to cause significant disease burden. Antibiotic stewardship programmes (ASPs) may prevent C. difficile infections by limiting exposure to certain antibiotics. Our objective was to perform a meta-analysis of published studies to assess the effect of ASPs on the risk of C. difficile infection in hospitalized adult patients. METHODS Searches of PubMed, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and two Cochrane databases were conducted to find all published studies on interventions related to antibiotic stewardship and C. difficile. Two investigators independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black tool. Risk ratios were pooled using random effects models. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I(2) statistic. RESULTS The final search yielded 891 articles; 78 full articles were reviewed and 16 articles were identified for inclusion. Included articles used quasi-experimental (interrupted time series or before-after) or observational (case-control) study designs. When the results of all studies were pooled in a random effects model, a significant protective effect (pooled risk ratio 0.48; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.62) was observed between ASPs and C. difficile incidence. When stratified by intervention type, a significant effect was found for restrictive ASPs (complete removal of drug or prior approval requirement). Furthermore, ASPs were particularly effective in geriatric settings. CONCLUSIONS Restrictive ASPs can be used to reduce the risk of C. difficile infection.

Evaluation of a home-based colorectal cancer screening intervention in a rural state

PURPOSE Distance from health care facilities can be a barrier to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, especially for colonoscopy. Alternatively, an improved at-home stool-based screening tool, the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), requires only a single sample and has a better sensitivity-specificity balance compared to traditional guaiac fecal occult blood tests. Our objective was to determine if FITs mailed to asymptomatic, average-risk patients overdue for screening resulted in higher screening rates versus mailing educational materials alone or no intervention (ie, usual care). METHODS Veterans ages 51-64, asymptomatic, at average risk for CRC, overdue for screening and in a veterans administration (VA) catchment area covering a large rural population were randomly assigned to 3 groups: (1) education only (Ed) group: mailed CRC educational materials and a survey of screening history and preferences (N = 499); (2) FIT group: mailed the FIT, plus educational materials and survey (N = 500); and (3) usual care (UC) group: received no mailings (N = 500). FINDINGS At 6 months postintervention, 21% of the FIT group had received CRC screening by any method compared to 6% of the Ed group (and 6% of the UC group) (P < .0001). Of the 105 respondents from the FIT group, 71 (68%) were eligible to take the FIT. Of those, 64 (90%) completed the FIT and 8 (12%) tested positive. CONCLUSIONS This low-intensity intervention of mailing FITs to average risk patients overdue for screening resulted in a significantly higher screening rate than educational materials alone or usual care, and may be of particular interest in rural areas.

Meta-analysis of same versus different stent for drug-eluting stent restenosis.

Drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) can be treated by restenting using the same DES as previously placed (same stent strategy), versus switching to a stent that elutes a different drug (different stent strategy). To compare the efficacy of these strategies, a meta-analysis of controlled trials and observational studies evaluating patients with DES ISR was performed. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization or target vessel revascularization, and secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, death, and myocardial infarction. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with the generic inverse variance method using a random-effects model. The chi-square test was used to evaluate heterogeneity. Ten studies (1,680 patients) were included. There was no significant heterogeneity among the studies for any end point. The different stent strategy was found to reduce the odds of target lesion revascularization or target vessel revascularization (OR 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55 to 0.96) and major adverse cardiovascular events (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96). There was no difference between the 2 strategies in rates of death (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.16) or myocardial infarction (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.41). In conclusion, this study demonstrates that treatment of DES ISR by restenting with a different DES than previously placed may lead to improved outcomes compared with the use of the same DES. Further large-scale trials are needed to confirm this effect.

Veterans' Continued Participation in an Annual Fecal Immunochemical Test Mailing Program for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine what proportion of veterans previously screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) using fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) would be willing to undergo a second round of FIT screening. Methods: Patients in the Iowa City Veterans Affairs Health Care System (<65 years old, asymptomatic, average risk, overdue for CRC screening) who completed a mailed FIT (April 2011 to May 2012) were contacted 1 year later by telephone to collect demographic and recent CRC screening information, and were offered a second mailed FIT if eligible. Results: Of 204 veterans who completed initial FIT testing, 159 were eligible to participate in a second round of FIT screening; 132 (83%) participated in the telephone survey, and 126 (79%) completed a second annual FIT, with 10 (8%) individuals testing positive. The majority of participants (67%) reported being more likely to take a yearly FIT than a colonoscopy every 10 years. Participants overwhelmingly reported that the FIT was easy to use and convenient (89%), and they were likely to complete a mailed FIT each year (97%). Conclusions: Those willing to take a mailed FIT seem satisfied with this method and willing to do it annually. Population-based or provider-based FIT mailing programs have the potential to increase CRC screening in overdue populations.

Comparison of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Veterans Based on the Location of Primary Care Clinic

Objectives: To compare colorectal cancer screening rates in veterans receiving primary care (PC) in Veterans Administration (VA) community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) and VA medical centers (VAMCs). Methods: The VA Outpatient Care Files were used to identify 2 837 770 patients ≥50 years with ≥2 PC visits in 2010. Veterans undergoing screening/surveillance colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, fecal-occult-blood testing (FOBT), and double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) were identified from ICD-9-CM/CPT codes. Patients were categorized as VAMC (n = 1 403 273; 49.5%) or CBOC (1 434 497; 50.5%) based on where majority of PC encounters occurred and as high risk (n = 284 090) or average risk (n = 2 553 680) based on colorectal cancer risk factors and validated ICD-9-CM-based algorithms. Results: CBOC patients were older than VAMC (mean ages 69.3 vs 67.4 years; P < .001), more likely (P < .001) to be male (96.5% vs 95.1%), and white (67.8% vs 64.2%), but less likely to be high-risk (9.4% vs 10.5%; P < .001). Rates of colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and DCBE were all lower in CBOC (P < .001). Among high-risk veterans, rates in CBOC and VAMC, respectively, were 27.4% versus 36.8% for colonoscopy, 1.3% versus 0.8% for sigmoidoscopy, and 0.8% versus 0.5% for DCBE. Among average-risk veterans, these rates were 1.3% versus 1.9%, 0.2% versus 0.1%, and 0.2% versus 0.1%, respectively. The differences remained after adjusting for age/comorbidity. The adjusted odds of colonoscopy for CBOC were 0.73 (95% confidence interval = 0.64-0.82) for average risk and 0.76 (95% confidence interval = 0.67-0.87) for high risk. In contrast, the use of FOBT was relatively similar in CBOCs and VAMCs among both high risk (11.1% vs 11.2%) and average risk (14.3% vs 14.1%). Screening rates were similar between those younger than 65 years and older than 65 years. Conclusions: Veterans receiving PC in CBOCs are less likely to receive screening colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and DCBE than VAMC according to VA records. The lower use in CBOC was not offset by higher use of FOBT, including the degree to which CBOC patients may be more reliant to use non-VA services. The clinical appropriateness of these differences merits further examination.

1621US Costs and Outcomes Associated with Clostridium difficile Infections: a Systematic Literature Review, Meta-analysis, and Mathematical Model

Infections: a Systematic Literature Review, Meta-analysis, and Mathematical Model Marin Schweizer, PhD; Richard E. Nelson, PhD; Matthew Samore, MD; Scott D Nelson, PharmD; Karim Khader, PhD; Rachel Slayton, PhD, MPH; John Jernigan, MD, MS; Hsiu-Yin Chiang, PhD, MS; Margaret Chorazy, PhD, MPH; Loreen A. Herwaldt, MD, FIDSA, FSHEA; Daniel J. Diekema, MD, FIDSA, FSHEA; Michelle Formanek, MS; Ashish Malhotra, MBBS MSCI; Amy Blevins, MALS; Melissa Ward, MS; Eli Perencevich, MD, MS, FIDSA, FSHEA; Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA; Center for Comprehensive Access and Delivery Research and Evaluation, Iowa City VA Health Care System, Iowa City, IA; Ideas Center, VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, UT; University of Utah School of Medicine, Division of Epidemiology, Salt Lake City, UT; College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA; Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA; University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA; Epidemiology, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, IA; Minneapolis VA Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN; Hardin Library for the Health Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA