Antibiotic de-escalation pps

Antibiotic de-escalation


Everyone seems to agree that antibiotic de-escalation therapy seems to make
sense.
The big question is therefore why aren’t we doing it?
Antibiotic de-escalation therapy is the practice of using more powerful antibiotics,
earlier in treatment, for a short period of time – and then switching to a less
powerful antibiotic once the infection is accurately diagnosed and under control.
One could argue that the concept of “hit hard – hit fast” is not new.
So why is this the case?
I think that part of the conundrum is the disease process itself, which frequently is
one of escalation. A patient presenting on a ward in hospital may not initially have
a “serious” infection. They may be admitted for something quite different, like a
broken limb, and have no infection at all. But within a matter of days this situation
can change and, in particular for the more elderly complicated patients with
underlying diseases/co-morbidities, the situation can deteriorate very rapidly.
“…de-escalation makes good sense and should be practiced.”
For example: It would seem unnecessary, foolish even, to commence therapy for a
mild chest infection with a very powerful antibiotic when the clinical signs and
symptoms do not warrant this. But in some patients what appears to be a mild
infection can progress to a more serious clinical situation.
Diagnostic techniques in microbiology have still not advanced to the stage where
early detection of a causative pathogen can be easily made. It remains the case that
a 48 hour period will lapse before microbiological results can be obtained. So what
happens then?
The results may reveal not one, but several bacteria, are present. This then
becomes a sort of bacterial “whodunit”? Are we witnessing a genuine
polymicrobial infection or are some of those bacteria simply colonizing and not
infecting the patient? Which one is the real culprit and how should we target
therapy to deal with it? In some cases the microbiological results reveal…nothing!

So the situation is complex.
Consideration of the host (patient history, site of infection), the environment (the
level of bacterial resistance in that particular unit) and the suitability of available
therapy (efficacy and tolerability of the antibiotics at ones disposal) all play a
major part in selecting the most appropriate therapy. Even with microbiological
results we may still be dealing with an empiric situation.
In some cases the patient will have already received antibiotic therapy but may not
be responding clinically. Studies again suggest that in such a situation it is
imperative to select an antibiotic agent from a different class. But how well is this
understood or practiced?
Initial therapy with beta-lactam antibiotics, such as penicillin based compounds or
cephalosporin is still commonplace in many units. If initial therapy with these
agents is failing then the evidence demands a change of antibiotic class. But
frequently, in deteriorating clinical situations, clinicians, in pursuit of de-
escalation, may turn to carbapenem type agents.