You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Review
Challenges and opportunities for antibiotic stewardship among preterm infants
  1. Sagori Mukhopadhyay1,2,
  2. Shaon Sengupta1,2,
  3. Karen M Puopolo1,2
  1. 1 Division of Neonatology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  2. 2 Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Sagori Mukhopadhyay, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Newborn Care at Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA; sagori.mukhopadhyay{at}uphs.upenn.edu

Abstract

Antibiotic stewardship programmes aim to optimise antimicrobial use to prevent the emergence of resistance species and protect patients from the side effects of unnecessary medication. The high incidence of systemic infection and associated mortality from these infections leads neonatal providers to frequently initiate antibiotic therapy and make empiric antibiotic courses one of the main contributors of antibiotic use in the neonatal units. Yet, premature infants are also at risk for acute life-threatening complications associated with antibiotic use such as necrotising enterocolitis and for long-term morbidities such as asthma. In this review, we discuss specific aspects of antibiotic use in the very low birthweight preterm infants, with a focus on empiric use, that provide opportunities for stewardship practice. We discuss strategies to risk-stratify antibiotic initiation for the risk of early-onset sepsis, optimise empiric therapy duration and antibiotic choice in late-onset sepsis, and standardise decisions for stopping empiric therapy. Lastly, review the evolving role of biomarkers in antibiotic stewardship.

  • antibiotic stewardship
  • very low birth weight
  • premature

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2018-315412

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    What is already known on this topic?

    • Empiric antibiotic use for ‘rule-outs’ is a major contributor of overall antibiotic use in neonatal units.

    • In presence of high incidence of infection, labile clinical status and long turnaround time for cultures, finding strategies allowing safe antibiotic restriction can be challenging.

    What this study adds?

    • This review focuses on aspects of empiric therapy commonly prescribed in the very low birthweight infant.

    • We describe strategies that are likely to have the most immediate impact on optimising antibiotic use in this population.

    Risks and benefits of antibiotics for preterm infants

    Antibiotics are the most commonly used drugs in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).1 More than 75% of very low birthweight infants (birth weight <1500 g, VLBW) and over 80% of extremely low birthweight infants (birth weight <1000 g, ELBW) receive antibiotics for the risk of early-onset sepsis (EOS, infection occurring <72 hours of age).2 3 Two-thirds of VLBW infants cared for in the NICHD Neonatal Research Network (NRN) centres are evaluated at least once for late-onset sepsis (LOS, infection occurring ≥72 hours of age).4 Neonatal antibiotic use is as variable as it is prevalent. Among 22 centres participating in the NRN the proportion of preterm infants administered prolonged antibiotics in the first week after birth varied from 16% to 77% across sites, while the incidence of culture-confirmed EOS ranged from 0% to 7%.5 Similarly, overall antibiotic use varied 40-fold in a study of 127 NICUs; variation that was unexplained by differences in rates of proven infection, necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) surgical volume or mortality.6 Such variation strongly suggests a contribution of antibiotic prescriber preferences beyond biological drivers of antibiotic usage.

    Clinicians administer antibiotics to ensure the safety of preterm infants, but antibiotic administration is not without risk. The risk/benefit analysis that drives the common practice of administering antibiotics in the absence of culture-confirmed infection is based on two assumptions: (1) the risk associated with antibiotic use is predictable and manageable, and (2) antibiotic use, even in absence of known organism or antibiotic susceptibility data, has significant benefit. In recent years both these assumptions have been questioned.

    The predictable risks of antibiotic exposure include issues such as acute drug toxicities, the need for intravenous access and the costs and potential unintended consequences of escalated monitoring. An evolving understanding of the role of microbiome in human health has added new, potentially more pervasive and currently unpredictable risks to neonatal antibiotic exposure. Newborn antibiotic exposure via maternal antibiotic administration just prior to delivery7 8 and neonatal administration after birth9 both alter the neonate’s microbiome composition well into infancy. Observational studies find an association of early life antibiotics in premature infants with increased risks of NEC, fungal infection and death.2 10 11 Multiple preclinical studies provide insight into the mechanistic pathways by which altered microbiota can influence the host immune state and overall health.12–14 Finally, the emergence of multidrug-resistant organisms remains an underappreciated but increasingly reported threat in neonatal units across the world.15 16 The extent to which any individual infant will suffer from one or more of the adverse outcomes associated with antibiotic use is difficult to predict. However, it is clear that antibiotic use is associated with a cumulative risk that is neither entirely predictable nor immediately manageable.

    The benefits of antibiotic administration are clear for infected infants, and infection is prevalent among preterm infants. Culture-confirmed EOS occurs in ~1% of VLBW infants, an incidence that is 20-fold higher than that in infants born with birth weight >2500 g.17 Culture-confirmed LOS is reported in ~20% of ELBW infants.18 Additionally, 5% of overall mortality in the ELBW population is attributable to infection and NEC.19 Antibiotic therapy is potentially life-saving. However, extrapolating the efficacy of antibiotics to infants without culture-confirmed infection or NEC generally requires three assumptions: (1) microbiological cultures lack sufficient sensitivity for detecting existing infection; (2) clinical exam and non-microbiological tests serve as reasonable surrogates for identifying infection; and (3) clinical decompensation observed on examination or the inflammatory state captured in the laboratory test is bacterial in origin and from a susceptible bacterium that will respond to the chosen antibiotic type and duration. No clinical trials have tested these assumptions. Indeed, most observational studies challenge these assumptions, finding increased mortality and morbidity in infants treated with prolonged antibiotics in the absence of culture-confirmed infection compared with infants with similar clinical characteristics managed without antibiotics.2 10 11 20 21 One explanation could be residual confounding in these studies. However, additional concerns should be that the worse outcome is related to negative effects of antibiotics or due to inadequate treatment of the true cause of decompensation.

    Drivers of antibiotic use and opportunities for antibiotic stewardship among premature infants

    The increased understanding of risk and limited evidence for benefit of antibiotic therapy in the absence of culture-confirmed infection demands that neonatal providers examine current practice. Specific drivers of neonatal antibiotic use inform the opportunities for antibiotic stewardship. Cantey et al quantified indications for antibiotic use among all infants cared for at a single centre over 14 months.22 Most antibiotic initiation (79%) occurred within 72 hours after birth. Sixty-three per cent of antibiotic use was for ‘rule-out sepsis,’ targeting both EOS and LOS, which ended when cultures were reported as sterile. For the remaining 31%, ~7% was for the combined indication of culture-confirmed infection (5%), NEC (2%) or cellulitis (<1%), and the rest was for presumed and culture-negative infection (CNI) or pneumonia. Patel et al 14 reported on indications for antibiotic use for LOS in four neonatal centres. Empiric initiation again accounted for the majority of initiation (66%); and presumed CNI treatment accounted for ~1/3 of the continued use. Empiric initiation and antibiotic use for CNI is driven by the non-specific nature of VLBW instability. Indications for LOS antibiotic initiation at a perinatal centre and a referral centre with surgical cases included feeding intolerance (25%–35%), increased need for respiratory support (15%–25%), increased apnoea and bradycardia (10%–15%) and ill appearance (5%–10%), with few evaluation for specific indications such as cellulitis, seizures or recent surgery.23

    The general goals of hospital-based antibiotic stewardship are described by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.24 These guidelines focus on the elements of initiating and discontinuing antibiotics, optimising infection and biomarker testing, choosing empiric and definitive antibiotic therapy and limiting duration of empiric therapy. Decreases in overall neonatal antibiotic utilisation are reported in conjunction with multiple antimicrobial stewardship interventions25–27 and among term infants with use of multivariate risk models for EOS risk assessment.28 29 Schulman et al recently reported a significant decrease in antibiotic use rate of 21.9% in ~130 NICUs across California from 2013 to 2 016.30 They found a greater reduction in centres participating in study-defined antibiotic stewardship efforts compared with centres without such participation (28.7% vs 16.2%) underscoring the importance of stewardship efforts. However, NICUs using antimicrobial stewardship committees report less impact specifically among VLBW infants.31 32 A possible reason for this is that the major contributor of antibiotic use in the VLBW population is the empiric ‘rule out’. A labile clinical status, high incidence of infection and an extended turnaround time for culture results limit the scope for safely reducing empiric initiation. While factors such as the infection rate may be modifiable, clinical lability is unlikely to change. Thus, a focus on the choice and duration of empiric therapy and risk stratification to minimise empiric early initiation are likely to have the most immediate impact on VLBW antibiotic use. Here we will discuss the aspects of empiric antibiotic use that provide opportunities for stewardship practice among VLBW preterm infants.

    Empiric initiation for suspected EOS

    EOS pathogenesis predominantly involves colonisation and invasion of the fetus or newborn by maternal genitourinary flora. A breach in the gravid uterine environment with onset of spontaneous or induced labour and/or membrane rupture provides opportunity for ascending infection. However, a substantial proportion of preterm infants are delivered for maternal indication by caesarean section (CS), without labour and with membrane rupture at delivery. We have reported the significantly different risk of EOS based on delivery characteristics. In a study of 15 433 infants born 22–28 weeks’ gestation, 5759 (37%) were delivered by CS, with rupture at delivery and without a diagnosis of chorioamnionitis.5 The composite outcome of death at <12 hours or EOS was 64% lower in infants delivered with these criteria (2.6% vs 15.1%; adjusted relative risk (95% CI) 0.36 (0.30 to 0.43)). Yet, among infants with low-risk delivery criteria, 66 were treated for presumed CNI for each case of confirmed EOS, compared with 19 infants per case in the comparison group (p<0.001). In a 25-year single-centre study, where detailed chart review for the presence of labour was feasible, only 3/109 cases of culture-confirmed EOS were found among infants delivered by CS without labour or rupture.33 As empiric antibiotic initiation for EOS is a major driver of NICU antibiotic use, restricting initiation in infants based on delivery characteristics can have a substantial impact on overall antibiotic use in preterm infants. A written policy and auditing may be necessary to establish practice, ensure compliance and determine balance measures. An example of such a policy is shown in figure 1. Of note, the goal of the algorithm is to provide clarity for situations where antibiotic can be withheld, not to mandate management approach in all other situations which should continue to be informed by local practices.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Guidelines for evaluation of EOS in infants born <34 weeks. CBC, complete blood count; CPAP, continuous positive airway pressure; EOS, early-onset sepsis; ; ROM, rupture of membranes.

    Duration of empiric antibiotic therapy

    Optimal duration for empiric therapy balances the provision of antibiotic therapy to infants whose blood culture will grow a pathogen with minimised antibiotic exposure in those where the blood culture will remain sterile. Traditional 48 and 72 hours’ ‘rule out’ periods are based on data from Pichichero and Todd,34 in which positive cultures were identified by daily examination of broth culture for visual turbidity and 12 hourly reviews of plate subcultures. Current blood culture techniques rely on production of CO2 or change in gas pressure for continuous detection of bacterial growth and are optimised to detect very low levels of bacteraemia. Reports of modern blood culture performance rarely focus on the VLBW population (table 1). We reviewed 84 cases of VLBW EOS detected in aerobic culture at a single centre over 25 years and found a cut-off of 36 hours would have detected ~90% of the infections.33 Had we stopped antibiotics at 36 hours, 4/8 cases detected after 36 hours would have had an ampicillin dose delayed by ≤3 hours, 2/8 by ≤9 hours and the remaining ≥10 hours. During this time period 5313 VLBW infants were admitted to the NICU and ~85% underwent empiric EOS therapy. We estimate that using a cut-off of 36 hours of incubation to discontinue antibiotics would have reduced ~4400 doses of ampicillin in uninfected preterm infants. Given that EOS risk is the primary indication for empiric antibiotic use among VLBW infants, as well as the prolonged half-life of antibiotics such as ampicillin and gentamicin in premature infants in the first week after birth,35 36 limiting duration of empiric therapy could be a meaningful component of VLBW antimicrobial stewardship. Implementation of standard cut-off periods to rule out sepsis regardless of duration is best implemented by hard stops in order sets.26 37

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Blood culture time to positivity among neonates

    Empiric antibiotic choice

    Ampicillin, gentamicin and vancomycin are among the top medications used in NICUs across the USA.1 The most common empiric antibiotic choice for EOS is ampicillin and gentamicin.1 Recent national surveillance demonstrates ~70% VLBW EOS is due to group B streptococcus or Escherichia coli, and >90% of these isolates were sensitive to one of these antibiotics.38 There is less clarity in empiric antibiotic choice for LOS, which may provide an opportunity for VLBW stewardship. Stoll et al reported that 62% of 6215 VLBW infants were evaluated for risk of LOS at least once.4 Vancomycin was prescribed to ~40% of the infants including 30% of infants without proven infection. The choice for vancomycin in LOS empiric therapy is driven by the predominance of coagulase-negative staphylococcus (CONS) as a cause of LOS and concern for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. However, there are several arguments against use of vancomycin as first-line empiric therapy for LOS. The discrepancy between the frequency of ‘rule-out LOS’ and the actual incidence of LOS means a substantial proportion of uninfected infants are exposed to this medication which should be reserved for clinical situations in which its use is mandated by culture data.39 40 Ototoxicity, renal failure and development of resistant organisms have all been reported with vancomycin use.37 38 Among infants with CONS infection, the adjusted odds of mortality before hospital discharge when empiric vancomycin was administered immediately after blood culture was obtained (n=2848) was similar to infants (n=1516) where vancomycin was initiated ≥1 day after culture (1.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.39).41 Possible misclassification of CONS that are contaminants as pathogens and the non-fulminant nature of CONS sepsis provide further arguments for not basing empiric regimen on this organism. A concern for MRSA infection is a justified indication for vancomycin empiric therapy with reported mortality benefit.42 However, the reported incidence of MRSA LOS among VLBW infants is significantly lower (~1%) compared with incidence of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) sepsis (2.7%) with comparable mortality.43 Beta-lactam medications such as oxacillin are more quickly bactericidal compared with vancomycin and may provide benefit as the empiric choice in cases of MSSA infection. MRSA screening in NICUs may provide an opportunity to restrict vancomycin empiric therapy to patients known to be colonised. Multiple studies have demonstrated the success of reducing unnecessary vancomycin use in neonates without increasing adverse events.23 44 Thus, a review of local pathogen distribution and screening policies may provide an opportunity to reduce empiric vancomycin use in VLBW infants.

    Stopping empiric antibiotic therapy

    Continuation of antibiotics in the absence of evidence for infection such as bacteraemia or cellulitis contributes significantly to overall antibiotic use in the NICU.45 There are no standard clinical algorithms to inform such decisions, likely adding to the wide centre-specific variation in CNI treatment.4 The potential of biomarkers to inform antibiotic decisions is discussed below. In table 2, we summarise strategies to support decision-making when considering CNI treatment.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Strategies to optimise use of antibiotics for culture-negative sepsis among VLBW infants

    Biomarkers of inflammation

    The use of biomarkers, specifically acute phase reactants, to guide antibiotic therapy in the NICU has long been proposed among neonates.46 An obvious drawback is that these biomarkers reflect systemic inflammation that can be caused by other conditions besides bacterial infection. The scope for biomarker-guided antibiotic use includes: determining initiation, determining continuation when an infection is suspected but not confirmed and determining duration in diseases with an unambiguous need for antibiotics such as bacteraemic sepsis.

    The sensitivity of biomarkers, even in combination, is not high enough to be the sole determinant in withholding antibiotic initiation in the extremely preterm population.47–49 Biomarker-guided antibiotic initiation is likely to perform best in scenarios with a low prior probability of true infection, high antibiotic use rates and among populations with low risk of morbidity if therapy is delayed. Consequently, most studies of biomarker-guided initiation have been conducted in outpatient settings.50–52 In intensive care unit, two trials in adult patients have studied antibiotic initiation based on procalcitonin (PCT)-guided algorithms. One study found no effect, and although the other found a significant reduction in antibiotic use,53 a 53% non-compliance in the PCT arm raised concerns about generalisability of the study.51 53 54 One trial in neonates found the addition of interleukin 8 (≥70 pg/mL) to standard management (clinical signs and C-reactive protein (CRP) >10 mg/L) among 1291 NICU admissions resulted in a reduction of antibiotic initiation for suspected EOS from 49.6% to 36.1% (p<0.001) without any ‘missed’ infections.55 The study however was not focused on preterm infants and included only 13 cases of culture-confirmed infection.

    Multiple studies report significant reductions in antibiotic duration using biomarker-guided decision tools (particularly PCT) without changes in mortality or reinfection.51 Most of these studies include patients with a known focus of infection such as community-acquired pneumonia and exclude immunosuppressed patients or patients with an unknown infection source.51 In contrast, biomarkers have been used in neonates to determine duration of therapy for CNI with variable impact.48 The Neonatal Procalcitonin Intervention Study trial randomised infants born ≥34 weeks’ gestation with suspected EOS to antibiotic therapy guided by PCT measurements.56 Antibiotic duration was decreased by 9.9 hours (55.1 vs 65 hours, p<0.001) and length of stay by 3.5 hours (123 vs 126.5 hours, p=0.002) in the PCT arm. The recommended antibiotic regimens of 5–7 days for culture-negative infants in the standard arm classified as intermediate risk are greater than that reported at other centres,28 suggesting that the efficacy of this intervention will vary depending on local practice. The opposite effect of significantly increased antibiotic use has been reported with CRP use and argues against incorporation of using biomarkers to guide antibiotic durations in CNI without evidence for improved outcomes with such practice.57 58

    A final use of biomarkers may be to determine length of therapy for conditions in which antibiotic use in mandated. Hemels et al 59 observed that most CONS bacteraemia at their centre resolved within 72 hours of antibiotic initiation when the infants demonstrated clinical improvement, CRP levels decreased and central catheters were removed.30 This group later reported an observational experience of treating infants meeting such criteria with 3 or 7 days of antibiotics, and found no difference in resolution of bacteraemia or clinical outcome.59 Couto et al conducted a pre-post study using CRP measurements to determine length of antibiotic treatment among infants with culture-confirmed sepsis (77 vs 122 infants).60 A significant reduction (16 to 9 medians days) was observed in the postimplementation period when antibiotics were stopped if CRP declined to <12 mg/L.60 Whether resolution of a host inflammatory marker consistently reflects resolution of tissue-level bacteraemia with negligible recurrent bacteraemia requires larger studies.

    Overall, the role of biomarkers in determining antibiotic prescription among preterm infants remains promising but unclear. Studies reporting antibiotic use reduction with biomarker-guided therapy have high baseline antibiotic use rates that will impact the anticipated effect size when translated to a different setting. While we await definitive studies perhaps the best first step would be to optimise blood culture collection technique and consider discontinuation of antibiotics in culture-negative infants.61

    Conclusion

    Despite the challenges of implementing antibiotic stewardship in the premature infant, promising strategies that specifically target this population exist. Incorporating these strategies requires a readjustment of our risk-benefit mindset such that we acknowledge and account for the risk of unnecessary antibiotic use. Much of the focus in antibiotic use among premature infants has been to protect the child from infection—while undoubtedly a relevant focus, that protection should not happen at the risk of injury to the uninfected child. Achieving this balance requires standardisation of care, measurement of antibiotic use, strong balance measures and continuous evaluation of practices and outcomes. An urgent need of the field lies in building the ‘equipoise’ around the current approach to antibiotic use that will enable systematic examination of the risk and benefits.

    Acknowledgments

    We would like to acknowledge Dr. Samuel Garber for providing the guideline for early-onset sepsis antibiotic initiation used at Pennsylvania hospital.

    References

    1. ↵
      2. Hsieh EM ,
      3. Hornik CP ,
      4. Clark RH , et al
      . Medication use in the neonatal intensive care unit. Am J Perinatol 2014;31:811–22.doi:10.1055/s-0033-1361933
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. ↵
      2. Cotten CM ,
      3. Taylor S ,
      4. Stoll B , et al
      . Prolonged duration of initial empirical antibiotic treatment is associated with increased rates of necrotizing enterocolitis and death for extremely low birth weight infants. Pediatrics 2009;123:58–66.doi:10.1542/peds.2007-3423
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      2. Flannery DD ,
      3. Ross RK ,
      4. Mukhopadhyay S , et al
      . Temporal trends and center variation in early antibiotic use among premature infants. JAMA Netw Open 2018;1:e180164.doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0164
      OpenUrl
    4. ↵
      2. Stoll BJ ,
      3. Hansen N ,
      4. Fanaroff AA , et al
      . Late-onset sepsis in very low birth weight neonates: the experience of the NICHD Neonatal Research Network. Pediatrics 2002;110:285–91.doi:10.1542/peds.110.2.285
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    5. ↵
      2. Puopolo KM ,
      3. Mukhopadhyay S ,
      4. Hansen NI , et al
      . Identification of extremely premature infants at low risk for early-onset sepsis. Pediatrics 2017;140:e20170925.doi:10.1542/peds.2017-0925
    6. ↵
      2. Schulman J ,
      3. Dimand RJ ,
      4. Lee HC , et al
      . Neonatal intensive care unit antibiotic use. Pediatrics 2015;135:826–33.doi:10.1542/peds.2014-3409
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    7. ↵
      2. Azad MB ,
      3. Moossavi S ,
      4. Owora A , et al
      . Gut microbiota development, and predisposition to obesity. Nestle Nutr Inst Workshop Ser 2017;88:67–79.
      OpenUrl
    8. ↵
      2. Corvaglia L ,
      3. Tonti G ,
      4. Martini S , et al
      . Influence of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis for group b streptococcus on gut microbiota in the first month of life. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2016;62:304–8.doi:10.1097/MPG.0000000000000928
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    9. ↵
      2. Fouhy F ,
      3. Guinane CM ,
      4. Hussey S , et al
      . High-throughput sequencing reveals the incomplete, short-term recovery of infant gut microbiota following parenteral antibiotic treatment with ampicillin and gentamicin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012;56:5811–20.doi:10.1128/AAC.00789-12
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    10. ↵
      2. Kuppala VS ,
      3. Meinzen-Derr J ,
      4. Morrow AL , et al
      . Prolonged initial empirical antibiotic treatment is associated with adverse outcomes in premature infants. J Pediatr 2011;159:720–5.doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.05.033
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    11. ↵
      2. Ting JY ,
      3. Synnes A ,
      4. Roberts A , et al
      . Association between antibiotic use and neonatal mortality and morbidities in very low-birth-weight infants without culture-proven sepsis or necrotizing enterocolitis. JAMA Pediatr 2016;170:1181–7.doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.2132
      OpenUrl
    12. ↵
      2. Cox LM ,
      3. Yamanishi S ,
      4. Sohn J , et al
      . Altering the intestinal microbiota during a critical developmental window has lasting metabolic consequences. Cell 2014;158:705–21.doi:10.1016/j.cell.2014.05.052
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. ↵
      2. Deshmukh HS ,
      3. Liu Y ,
      4. Menkiti OR , et al
      . The microbiota regulates neutrophil homeostasis and host resistance to Escherichia coli K1 sepsis in neonatal mice. Nat Med 2014;20:524–30.doi:10.1038/nm.3542
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    14. ↵
      2. Olszak T ,
      3. An D ,
      4. Zeissig S , et al
      . Microbial exposure during early life has persistent effects on natural killer T cell function. Science 2012;336:489–93.doi:10.1126/science.1219328
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    15. ↵
      2. Carr D ,
      3. Barnes EH ,
      4. Gordon A , et al
      . Effect of antibiotic use on antimicrobial antibiotic resistance and late-onset neonatal infections over 25 years in an Australian tertiary neonatal unit. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2017;102:F244–50.doi:10.1136/archdischild-2016-310905
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    16. ↵
      Investigators of the Delhi Neonatal Infection Study (DeNIS) collaboration. Characterisation and antimicrobial resistance of sepsis pathogens in neonates born in tertiary care centres in Delhi, India: a cohort study. Lancet Glob Health 2016;4:e752–60.doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30148-6
      OpenUrl
    17. ↵
      2. Stoll BJ ,
      3. Hansen NI ,
      4. Sánchez PJ , et al
      . Early onset neonatal sepsis: the burden of group B Streptococcal and E. coli disease continues. Pediatrics 2011;127:817–26.doi:10.1542/peds.2010-2217
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    18. ↵
      2. Greenberg RG ,
      3. Kandefer S ,
      4. Do BT , et al
      . Late-onset sepsis in extremely premature infants: 2000-2011. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2017;36:774–9.doi:10.1097/INF.0000000000001570
      OpenUrlPubMed
    19. ↵
      2. Patel RM ,
      3. Kandefer S ,
      4. Walsh MC , et al
      . Causes and timing of death in extremely premature infants from 2000 through 2011. N Engl J Med 2015;372:331–40.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1403489
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    20. ↵
      2. Zaoutis TE ,
      3. Prasad PA ,
      4. Localio AR , et al
      . Risk factors and predictors for candidemia in pediatric intensive care unit patients: implications for prevention. Clin Infect Dis 2010;51:e38–45.doi:10.1086/655698
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    21. ↵
      2. Ting JY ,
      3. Synnes A ,
      4. Roberts A , et al
      . Association of antibiotic utilization and neurodevelopmental outcomes among extremely low gestational age neonates without proven sepsis or necrotizing enterocolitis. Am J Perinatol 2018;35:972–8.doi:10.1055/s-0038-1632390
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    22. ↵
      2. Cantey JB ,
      3. Wozniak PS ,
      4. Pruszynski JE , et al
      . Reducing unnecessary antibiotic use in the neonatal intensive care unit (SCOUT): a prospective interrupted time-series study. Lancet Infect Dis 2016;16:1178–84.doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30205-5
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    23. ↵
      2. Chiu CH ,
      3. Michelow IC ,
      4. Cronin J , et al
      . Effectiveness of a guideline to reduce vancomycin use in the neonatal intensive care unit. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2011;30:273–8.doi:10.1097/INF.0b013e3182011d12
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. ↵
      (HICPAC) TRotHICPAC. Healthcare infection control practices advisory committee. antibiotic stewardship statement for antibiotic guidelines. 2016.
    25. ↵
      2. Patel SJ ,
      3. Saiman L
      . Principles and strategies of antimicrobial stewardship in the neonatal intensive care unit. Semin Perinatol 2012;36:431–6.doi:10.1053/j.semperi.2012.06.005
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    26. ↵
      2. Cantey JB ,
      3. Baird SD
      . Ending the culture of culture-negative sepsis in the neonatal ICU. Pediatrics 2017;140:e20170044.doi:10.1542/peds.2017-0044
    27. ↵
      2. Schelonka RL ,
      3. Scruggs S ,
      4. Nichols K , et al
      . Sustained reductions in neonatal nosocomial infection rates following a comprehensive infection control intervention. J Perinatol 2006;26:176–9.doi:10.1038/sj.jp.7211411
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    28. ↵
      2. Dhudasia MB ,
      3. Mukhopadhyay S ,
      4. Puopolo KM
      . Implementation of the sepsis risk calculator at an academic birth hospital. Hosp Pediatr 2018;8:243–50.doi:10.1542/hpeds.2017-0180
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    29. ↵
      2. Kuzniewicz MW ,
      3. Puopolo KM ,
      4. Fischer A , et al
      . A quantitative, risk-based approach to the management of neonatal early-onset sepsis. JAMA Pediatr 2017;171:365–71.doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.4678
      OpenUrl
    30. ↵
      2. Schulman J ,
      3. Profit J ,
      4. Lee HC , et al
      . Variations in neonatal antibiotic use. Pediatrics 2018;142:e20180115.doi:10.1542/peds.2018-0115
    31. ↵
      2. Bizzarro MJ ,
      3. Shabanova V ,
      4. Baltimore RS , et al
      . Neonatal sepsis 2004-2013: the rise and fall of coagulase-negative staphylococci. J Pediatr 2015;166:1193–9.doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2015.02.009
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    32. ↵
      2. Nzegwu NI ,
      3. Rychalsky MR ,
      4. Nallu LA , et al
      . Implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship program in a neonatal intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:1137–43.doi:10.1017/ice.2017.151
      OpenUrlPubMed
    33. ↵
      2. Mukhopadhyay S ,
      3. Puopolo KM
      . Clinical and microbiologic characteristics of early-onset sepsis among very low birth weight infants: opportunities for antibiotic stewardship. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2017;36:477–81.doi:10.1097/INF.0000000000001473
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    34. ↵
      2. Pichichero ME ,
      3. Todd JK
      . Detection of neonatal bacteremia. J Pediatr 1979;94:958–60.doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(79)80233-4
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    35. ↵
      2. Tremoulet A ,
      3. Le J ,
      4. Poindexter B , et al
      . Characterization of the population pharmacokinetics of ampicillin in neonates using an opportunistic study design. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014;58:3013–20.doi:10.1128/AAC.02374-13
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    36. ↵
      2. Nielsen EI ,
      3. Sandström M ,
      4. Honoré PH , et al
      . Developmental pharmacokinetics of gentamicin in preterm and term neonates: population modelling of a prospective study. Clin Pharmacokinet 2009;48:253–63.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    37. ↵
      2. McCarthy KN ,
      3. Hawke A ,
      4. Dempsey EM
      . Antimicrobial stewardship in the neonatal unit reduces antibiotic exposure. Acta Paediatr 2018;107:1716–21.doi:10.1111/apa.14337
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    38. ↵
      2. Schrag SJ ,
      3. Farley MM ,
      4. Petit S , et al
      . Epidemiology of invasive early-onset neonatal sepsis, 2005 to 2014. Pediatrics 2016;138:138.doi:10.1542/peds.2016-2013
    39. ↵
      2. Dellit TH ,
      3. Owens RC ,
      4. McGowan JE , et al
      . Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America guidelines for developing an institutional program to enhance antimicrobial stewardship. Clin Infect Dis 2007;44:159–77.doi:10.1086/510393
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    40. ↵
      Recommendations of the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Recommendations for preventing the spread of vancomycin resistance. MMWR Recomm Rep 1995;44:1–13.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    41. ↵
      2. Ericson JE ,
      3. Thaden J ,
      4. Cross HR , et al
      . No survival benefit with empirical vancomycin therapy for coagulase-negative staphylococcal bloodstream infections in infants. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2015;34:371–5.doi:10.1097/INF.0000000000000573
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    42. ↵
      2. Thaden JT ,
      3. Ericson JE ,
      4. Cross H , et al
      . Survival benefit of empirical therapy for staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections in infants. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2015;34:1175–9.doi:10.1097/INF.0000000000000850
      OpenUrl
    43. ↵
      2. Shane AL ,
      3. Hansen NI ,
      4. Stoll BJ , et al
      . Methicillin-resistant and susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and meningitis in preterm infants. Pediatrics 2012;129:peds. 2011-0966.doi:10.1542/peds.2011-0966
    44. ↵
      2. Holzmann-Pazgal G ,
      3. Khan AM ,
      4. Northrup TF , et al
      . Decreasing vancomycin utilization in a neonatal intensive care unit. Am J Infect Control 2015;43:1255–7.doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2015.06.028
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    45. ↵
      2. Cantey JB ,
      3. Wozniak PS ,
      4. Sánchez PJ
      . Prospective surveillance of antibiotic use in the neonatal intensive care unit: results from the SCOUT study. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2015;34:267–72.doi:10.1097/INF.0000000000000542
      OpenUrl
    46. ↵
      2. Philip AG ,
      3. Mills PC
      . Use of C-reactive protein in minimizing antibiotic exposure: experience with infants initially admitted to a well-baby nursery. Pediatrics 2000;106:E4.doi:10.1542/peds.106.1.e4
    47. ↵
      2. Benitz WE ,
      3. Han MY ,
      4. Madan A , et al
      . Serial serum C-reactive protein levels in the diagnosis of neonatal infection. Pediatrics 1998;102:E41.doi:10.1542/peds.102.4.e41
    48. ↵
      2. Coggins SA ,
      3. Wynn JL ,
      4. Hill ML , et al
      . Use of a computerized C-reactive protein (CRP) based sepsis evaluation in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants: a five-year experience. PLoS One 2013;8:e78602.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0078602
    49. ↵
      2. Turner MA ,
      3. Power S ,
      4. Emmerson AJ
      . Gestational age and the C reactive protein response. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2004;89:F272–3.doi:10.1136/adc.2002.011288
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    50. ↵
      2. Cals JW ,
      3. Schot MJ ,
      4. de Jong SA , et al
      . Point-of-care C-reactive protein testing and antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med 2010;8:124–33.doi:10.1370/afm.1090
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    51. ↵
      2. Quenot JP ,
      3. Luyt CE ,
      4. Roche N , et al
      . Role of biomarkers in the management of antibiotic therapy: an expert panel review II: clinical use of biomarkers for initiation or discontinuation of antibiotic therapy. Ann Intensive Care 2013;3:21.doi:10.1186/2110-5820-3-21
      OpenUrl
    52. ↵
      2. Nora D ,
      3. Salluh J ,
      4. Martin-Loeches I , et al
      . Biomarker-guided antibiotic therapy-strengths and limitations. Ann Transl Med 2017;5:208.doi:10.21037/atm.2017.04.04
      OpenUrl
    53. ↵
      2. Bouadma L ,
      3. Luyt CE ,
      4. Tubach F , et al
      . Use of procalcitonin to reduce patients' exposure to antibiotics in intensive care units (PRORATA trial): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010;375:463–74.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61879-1
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    54. ↵
      2. Layios N ,
      3. Lambermont B
      . Procalcitonin for antibiotic treatment in intensive care unit patients. Curr Infect Dis Rep 2013;15:394–9.doi:10.1007/s11908-013-0360-2
      OpenUrl
    55. ↵
      2. Franz AR ,
      3. Bauer K ,
      4. Schalk A , et al
      . Measurement of interleukin 8 in combination with C-reactive protein reduced unnecessary antibiotic therapy in newborn infants: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics 2004;114:1–8.doi:10.1542/peds.114.1.1
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    56. ↵
      2. Stocker M ,
      3. van Herk W ,
      4. El Helou S , et al
      . Procalcitonin-guided decision making for duration of antibiotic therapy in neonates with suspected early-onset sepsis: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (NeoPIns). Lancet 2017;390:871–81.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31444-7
      OpenUrl
    57. ↵
      2. Mukherjee A ,
      3. Davidson L ,
      4. Anguvaa L , et al
      . NICE neonatal early onset sepsis guidance: greater consistency, but more investigations, and greater length of stay. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2015;100:F248–49.doi:10.1136/archdischild-2014-306349
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    58. ↵
      2. Kiser C ,
      3. Nawab U ,
      4. McKenna K , et al
      . Role of guidelines on length of therapy in chorioamnionitis and neonatal sepsis. Pediatrics 2014;133:992–8.doi:10.1542/peds.2013-2927
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    59. ↵
      2. Hemels MA ,
      3. van den Hoogen A ,
      4. Verboon-Maciolek MA , et al
      . Shortening the antibiotic course for the treatment of neonatal coagulase-negative staphylococcal sepsis: fine with three days? Neonatology 2012;101:101–5.doi:10.1159/000330600
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    60. ↵
      2. Couto RC ,
      3. Barbosa JA ,
      4. Pedrosa TM , et al
      . C-reactive protein-guided approach may shorten length of antimicrobial treatment of culture-proven late-onset sepsis: an intervention study. Braz J Infect Dis 2007;11:240–5.doi:10.1590/S1413-86702007000200015
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    61. ↵
      2. Mukhopadhyay S ,
      3. Puopolo KM
      . Relevance of neonatal anaerobic blood cultures: new information for an old question. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc 2018;7:e126–7.doi:10.1093/jpids/pix095
      OpenUrl
      2. Garcia-Prats JA ,
      3. Cooper TR ,
      4. Schneider VF , et al
      . Rapid detection of microorganisms in blood cultures of newborn infants utilizing an automated blood culture system. Pediatrics 2000;105:523–7.doi:10.1542/peds.105.3.523
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      2. Kumar Y ,
      3. Qunibi M ,
      4. Neal TJ , et al
      . Time to positivity of neonatal blood cultures. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2001;85:F182–F186.doi:10.1136/fn.85.3.F182
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      2. Guerti K ,
      3. Devos H ,
      4. Ieven MM , et al
      . Time to positivity of neonatal blood cultures: fast and furious? J Med Microbiol 2011;60:446–53.doi:10.1099/jmm.0.020651-0
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      2. Biondi E ,
      3. Evans R ,
      4. Mischler M , et al
      . Epidemiology of bacteremia in febrile infants in the United States. Pediatrics 2013;132:990–6.doi:10.1542/peds.2013-1759
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors SM conceptualised and drafted the initial manuscript, conducted literature review and approved the final manuscript as submitted. SS helped draft the initial manuscript, reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted. KMP contributed to literature review, reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted.

    • Funding This study was funded by Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (grant number 1K23HD088753-01A1), and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (grant number 1K08HL132053-01A1).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.