Tractable targets for meropenem-sparing antimicrobial stewardship interventions

As meropenem is a restricted antimicrobial, lessons learned from its real-life usage will be applicable to antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) more generally. To retrospectively evaluate meropenem usage at our institution to identify targets for AMS interventions. Patients receiving meropenem documented with an 'alert antimicrobial' form at two tertiary care UK hospitals were identified retrospectively. Clinical records and microbiology results were reviewed. A total of 107 adult inpatients receiving meropenem were identified. This was first-line in 47% and escalation therapy in 53%. Source control was required in 28% of cases after escalation, for predictable reasons. Those ultimately requiring source control had received more prior antimicrobial agents than those who did not ( = 0.03). Meropenem was rationalized in 24% of cases (after median 4 days). Positive microbiology enabled rationalization (OR 12.3, 95% CI 2.7-55.5, = 0.001) but rates of appropriate sampling varied. In cases with positive microbiology where meropenem was not rationalized, continuation was retrospectively considered clinically and microbiologically necessary in 8/40 cases (0/17 empirical first-line usage). Rationalization was more likely when meropenem susceptibility was not released on the microbiology report (OR 5.2, 95% CI 1.3-20.2, = 0.02). Input from an infection specialist was associated with a reduced duration of meropenem therapy (