During recent decades, a tick-borne rickettsial syndrome, characterized by eschar and painful lymphadenopathy after Dermacentor marginatus-bite, has been described as an emerging rickettsiosis in Europe. Our group named it DEBONEL (Dermacentor-borne-necrosis-erythema-lymphadenopathy), regarding the vector and the main infection signs. Other groups called it TIBOLA (tick-borne-lymphadenophathy) and, later, SENLAT (scalp-eschar-and-neck-lymphadenopathy-after-tick-bite), expanding, in the latter, the etiological spectrum to other pathogens. Objective: To investigate the etiology of DEBONEL agents in our area, and to compare their epidemiological/clinical/microbiological characteristics. During 2001–2020, 216 patients clinically diagnosed of DEBONEL (the largest series from one center) in La Rioja (northern Spain) were examined. Rickettsia spp. were amplified in 14/104 (13.46%) blood samples, 69/142 (48.59%) eschar swabs, 7/7 (100%) biopsies, and 71/71 (100%) D. marginatus from patients. For samples in which Rickettsia was undetected, no other microorganisms were found. ‘Candidatus Rickettsia rioja’, Rickettsia slovaca, Rickettsia raoultii, and Rickettsia DmS1 genotype were detected in 91, 66, 4, and 3 patients, respectively. DEBONEL should be considered in patients with clinical manifestations herein described in areas associated to Dermacentor. The most frequently involved agent in our environment is ‘Ca. R. rioja’. The finding of Rickettsia sp. DmS1 in ticks attached to DEBONEL patients suggests the implication of other rickettsia genotypes.

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) promote appropriate antimicrobial use. We present a 4-year retrospective study that evaluated the clinical impact of the acceptance of the recommendations made by a meropenem-focused ASP. A total of 318 meropenem audits were performed. The ASP team (comprising infectious disease physicians, pharmacists and microbiologists) considered meropenem use in 96 audits (30.2%) to be inappropriate. The reasons to consider these uses inappropriate were the possibility of de-escalating to a narrower-spectrum antibiotic, in 66 (68.7%) audits, and unnecessary meropenem use, in 30 (31.3%) audits. The ASP team recommended de-escalation in 66 audits (68.7%) and discontinuation of meropenem in 30 audits (31.3%). ASP interventions were stratified according to whether or not recommendations were followed. The group in which recommendations were accepted and followed (i.e., accepted audit, AA) included 66 audits (68.7%) and the group in which recommendations were not followed (i.e., rejected audit, RA) included 30 (31.3%) audits. The comorbidity of the AA group (Charlson score) was higher than in the RA group (7.0 (5.0–9.0) vs. 6.0 (4.0–7.0), p = 0.02). Discontinuation of meropenem was recommended in 83.3% of audits in the AA group vs. 62.2% in the RA group (OR 3.05 (1.03–8.99), p = 0.04). Ertapenem de-escalation resulted in a 100% greater rate of follow-up compared with the non-carbapenem option (100% vs. 51.9%, OR 1.50 (1.21–1.860), p = 0.001). Significant differences were observed in the AA group when cultures were taken before antibiotic prescription—98.5% vs. 83.3% (p = 0.01, OR 13.0 (1.45–116.86))—or when screening cultures were taken—45.5% vs. 19.2% (p = 0.03, OR 3.5 (1.06–11.52)). There were no differences between the groups in terms of overall mortality and 30-day mortality, length of stay, Clostridiodes difficile infection, 30-day readmission or hospitalization costs. In conclusion, meropenem ASP recommendations contributed to a decrease in meropenem prescription without worsening clinical and economic outcomes.