To assess a bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship Program and its effect on mortality. Eight months of clinical electronic medical records and Antimicrobial Stewardship Program registries were used as source of data. This is a historical cohort study conducted in a Brazilian University Hospital. Eligible patients were admitted to general wards or intensive care units and had an antimicrobial therapy prescribed and assessed by different strategies: Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (bundled intervention consisted of clinical pharmacist chart review, discussion with microbiologist and infectious disease physicians, local education and continuous follow-up) or Conventional Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (clinical pharmacist chart review and discussion with infectious disease physician). Primary outcome from this study was 30-day mortality, which was compared between groups, by using Kaplan-Meier survival curve and log-rank test. Other outcomes included Defined Daily Doses per 1000 patient-days and occurrence of resistant bacteria. From 533 patients, 491 were eligible for the study, of which 191 patients were included to Antimicrobial Stewardship Program and 300 to Conventional strategy. In general, they were likely to be male and age was similar in groups (58.9 vs 55.5 years, p=0.38). Likewise, Charlson Comorbidity Index was not statistically different between groups (2.6 vs 2.7, p=0.2). Bloodstream site infections were frequently diagnosed in both groups (30.89% vs 26%, p=0.24). Other less common sites of infections were central nervous system and lungs. The ASP group had higher survival rates (p<0.01) and the risk difference was 10.8% (95% CI: 2.41-19.14). There were less Defined Daily Doses per 1000 patient-days (417 vs 557.2, p<0.05) and higher rates of resistant bacteria identified in the ASP group (83% vs 17%). Bundled ASP was the most effective strategy, with reduced mortality and Defined Daily Doses per 1000 patient-days.

There is a lack of formal economic analysis to assess the efficiency of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Herein, we conducted a cost-effectiveness study to assess two different strategies of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs. A 30-day Markov model was developed to analyze how cost-effective was a Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship implemented in a university hospital in Brazil. Clinical data derived from a historical cohort that compared two different strategies of antimicrobial stewardship programs and had 30-day mortality as main outcome. Selected costs included: workload, cost of defined daily doses, length of stay, laboratory and imaging resources used to diagnose infections. Data were analyzed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess model's robustness, tornado diagram and Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curve. Bundled Strategy was more expensive (Cost difference US$ 2119.70), however, it was more efficient (US$ 27,549.15 vs 29,011.46). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that critical variables did not alter final Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio. Bundled Strategy had higher probabilities of being cost-effective, which was endorsed by cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. As health systems claim for efficient technologies, this study conclude that Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship Program was more cost-effective, which means that stewardship strategies with such characteristics would be of special interest in a societal and clinical perspective.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the gold standard for the axillary evaluation of clinically node-negative early breast cancer. The ACOSOG Z0011 study demonstrated the safety of omitting axillary dissection for limited SLNB disease, with other trials confirming SLNB alone or with axillary radiotherapy (AR) as non-inferior. We followed PRISMA guidelines and registered at PROSPERO. Using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane, we reviewed randomized controlled trials (2010-2024). Outcomes, including 5-, 8-, and 10-year OS, DFS, recurrence rates, and lymphedema, were analyzed with R software and assessed for bias (Cochrane RoB) and evidence quality (GRADE). The focus was ALND vs. SLNB, alone or with AR, in cT1-T3 BC with 1-2 metastatic SLNs. Thirteen articles from seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, covering 7338 women with a follow-up period of 2.8-10 years. SLNB was associated with a 65 % lower risk of lymphedema than ALND, with no significant differences in the 5-, 8-, or 10-year OS, DFS, or recurrence rates. A meta-analysis comparing micrometastasis and macrometastasis showed no impact on outcomes, indicating that ALND may be unnecessary in either case. Recurrence rates also did not differ between SLNB and ALND, reinforcing SLNB's significantly lower lymphedema risk of SLNB. This systematic review and meta-analysis support SLNB as a safe and effective alternative to ALND in early-stage BC with 1-2 positive SLNs, providing comparable survival and recurrence outcomes, with fewer complications.

Effects of a computerized provider order entry and a clinical decision support system to improve cefazolin use in surgical prophylaxis: a cost saving analysis