Association Between Delayed Broad-Spectrum Gram-negative Antibiotics and Clinical Outcomes: How Much Does Getting It Right With Empiric Antibiotics Matter?
- PMID: 39874272
- PMCID: PMC12135916
- DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciaf039
Association Between Delayed Broad-Spectrum Gram-negative Antibiotics and Clinical Outcomes: How Much Does Getting It Right With Empiric Antibiotics Matter?
Abstract
Background: Clinicians often start unnecessarily broad-spectrum empiric gram-negative antibiotics out of the concern that delaying effective therapy could lead to a worse clinical outcome. This study examined the consequences of delayed initiation of broad-spectrum gram-negative antibiotics.
Methods: In a retrospective cohort of adult inpatients from 928 US hospitals, we compared clinical outcomes after (1) empiric narrow-spectrum antibiotics escalated to broad-spectrum antibiotics (delayed broad-spectrum therapy [DBT]) and (2) empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics continued as post-empiric therapy (early broad-spectrum therapy [EBT]) using Win Ratios. DBT and EBT patients were matched on hospital, admitting diagnosis, and propensity scores incorporating 28 clinical variables. The outcome of interest was a ranked composite of mortality, readmission, and adverse drug events.
Results: Out of 746 880 inpatients, 82 276 (11%) received DBT and 664 604 (89.0%) received EBT. Among the 67 046 with DBT who were matched to 67 046 with EBT, mortality was 8.7% after DBT and 9.5% after EBT (P = .022), readmission was 10.5% after DBT and 11.8% after EBT (P < .0001), and the rate of adverse drug events was 8.4% after DBT and 7.2% after EBT (P < .0001). Among matched patients, clinical outcomes were superior after DBT compared with EBT (win-ratio 1.06; P < .0001).
Conclusions: On average, among a large sample of adult inpatients who ultimately received broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy, delaying initiation of a broad-spectrum antibiotic was not associated with worse outcomes. Although broad-spectrum empiric therapy is undoubtedly sometimes warranted, this finding challenges the common belief that is it safer to err towards overly broad-spectrum empiric antibiotic therapy.
Keywords: antibiotic stewardship; clinical outcomes; empiric therapy; gram-negative antibiotics; inpatient antibiotic utilization.
© The Author(s) 2025. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.
Conflict of interest statement
Potential conflicts of interest . The authors: No reported conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest.
References
-
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Antibiotic use in the United States, 2017: progress and opportunities. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 2017.
-
- Tamma PD, Aitken SL, Bonomo RA, Mathers AJ, van Duin D, Clancy CJ. Infectious Diseases Society of America 2023 guidance on the treatment of antimicrobial resistant gram-negative infections [manuscript published online ahead of print 18 July 2023]. Clin Infect Dis 2023:ciad428. doi:10.1093/cid/ciad428 - DOI - PubMed
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous