Bacterial InfectionsANSWERNCT03397433
ANti-infective Stewardship Using the Wisca Tool in the Electronic Medical Record
A study testing Information Technology physician assist in people with Bacterial Infections, run by Endeavor Health at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Beginning in the mid-to late 1980s and accelerating through the 1990s and 2000s the shield of antibiotic invincibility began to crack sufficiently so that it was apparent to everyone we faced a serious problem. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Bacterial Infections
- What is being tested?
- Information Technology physician assist
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 9,673 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 15 Jun 2015to 30 Jun 2019
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Any person admitted to the hospital with pneumonia, cellulitis, intraabdominal infection, or urinary tract infection
Who cannot join
- Any person without the 4 studied infections
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
NorthShore University HealthSystem Research Institute
Evanston, Illinois, 60201
About this study
Beginning in the mid-to late 1980s and accelerating through the 1990s and 2000s the shield of antibiotic invincibility began to crack sufficiently so that it was apparent to everyone we faced a serious problem. The investigators will demonstrate and expand the use of information technology based on the ingenious weighted-incidence, syndromic, combination antibiogram (WISCA) tool for the widespread use of automated clinician prompts enhancing empiric antibiotic therapy as part of a comprehensive infection control stewardship program that reduces antibiotic resistance. This research program will demonstrate that use of such a tool lowers mortality, improves outcome, lowers antimicrobial resistance and reduces healthcare cost.
Read the detailed description
The decade of the 1970s was a time when the PI was completing his training and beginning a career in Infectious Diseases and Microbiology. This was an era when many new anti-infective compounds were being introduced, ranging from novel penicillins to extended-spectrum cephalosporins to aminoglycosides. The main antimicrobial resistance concern at the time was Staphylococcus aureus that was no longer susceptible to penicillin; methicillin, oxacillin, and nafcillin had solved that problem. Even for those strains that later were methicillin-resistant (MRSA), vancomycin had been available since the 1950s. Later the carbapenems and in the 1980s the newer fluoroquinolones, beginning with ciprofloxacin, were introduced for clinical use. At the time it seemed that the challenge of treating serious infection in humans had been met and that other diseases were a higher priority. Indeed, in 1978 one of the world's leaders in infectious diseases, Dr. Robert Petersdorf, commented that "Even with my great personal loyalty to Infectious Disease, I cannot conceive of the need for 309 more [graduating trainees in] infectious disease...unless they spend their time culturing each other". However, in Alexander Fleming's 1945 Nobel prize lecture he warned of the danger of antimicrobial resistance stating "it is not difficult to make microbes resistant to penicillin in the laboratory by exposing them to concentrations not sufficient to kill them, and the same thing has occurred occasionally happen in the body . . . and by exposing (his) microbes to nonlethal quantities of the drug make them resistant". It was also at this time that Infection Control began as an established discipline with CDC offering the first course in 1968 and the Joint Commission requiring a hospital position for Infection Control in 1969. Subsequently, beginning in the mid-to late 1980s and accelerating through the 1990s and 2000s the shield of antibiotic invincibility began to crack sufficiently so that it was apparent to everyone we faced a serious problem. Resistance began to be reported in Gram negative bacteria toward the newer cephalosporin, fluoroquinolone, and even the carbapenem drugs. During this same period modern medicine witnessed the emergence and spread of a new healthcare associated infection called Clostridium difficile associated diarrhea, as well as MRSA becoming pandemic. It was during this time that the initial studies focused on reversing antimicrobial resistance began. In fact, Drs. Dale Gerding and Lance Peterson undertook the first ever antibiotic cycling program using amikacin and gentamicin to demonstrate that withdrawal of an antibiotic to which resistance had developed would restore the activity of that drug. Humanity now faces a healthcare setting where as many as 70% of the bacterial infections afflicting patients are resistant to at least one antimicrobial that was initially active against historical bacterial ancestors. In a sense, the investigators have been preparing for this funding announcement for nearly an entire career - and are confident that the investigators can 'answer' the challenge of reversing antibacterial resistance and reducing that threat for healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The objectives are in the main area that describes the focus for this application, which is Antimicrobial Stewardship: Preventing the development and spread of resistant organisms in the healthcare setting.
There are two specific aims for this research program to accomplish. They are:
- Specific Aim 1: Complete development of the personalized weighted-incidence, syndromic, combination antibiogram (WISCA) tool and validate its performance as a comprehensive strategy to improve the treatment of infectious diseases for all hospitalized patients.
- The investigators will demonstrate and expand the use of information technology based on the WISCA for the widespread use of automated clinician prompts enhancing empiric antibiotic therapy as part of a comprehensive infection control stewardship program that reduces antibiotic resistance.
- Specific Aim 2: Demonstrate that use of such a tool improves patient outcome, lowers antimicrobial resistance and reduces cost.
- The clinical and economic outcome measures will include changes in length of stay, duration of treatment, use of therapeutic drug monitoring, inpatient mortality, adverse events from antibacterial therapy, admission and discharge location (with the goal being fewer persons needing skilled care after discharge than is now required), 30 day readmission rates, unintended consequences from antimicrobial agent use, such as Clostridium difficile infection, antimicrobial drug cost and antimicrobial susceptibility.
All the investigator faculty are well aware of current developments in the relevant fields and are actively involved in cutting edge research that will be applied in a comprehensive, integrated fashion to solve the problem of antimicrobial resistant HAIs. The investigators look forward to working on this Large Research Project with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for the improvement in the care of United States citizens.
- Conditions
- Bacterial Infections
- Being tested
- Information Technology physician assist
- Keywords
- Antibiotic Stewardship, Information Technology, Healthcare Outcomes, Antibiotic Resistance, Bacterial Infection
- Medical subject headings
- Bacterial Infections
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Information Technology physician assistOther
The intervention hospitals will have a progress note placed in the electronic health record by a reviewing Infectious Disease specialist that comments on the initial antibiotic choice. The comment is based on an electronic prediction tool (Information Technology physician assist) as to what the best therapy is for the individual patient whose health record is reviewed.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Experimental | In this arm, an Information Technology physician assist tool will be used to predict best available therapy for patients coming to the hospital with either pneumonia, cellulitis, intraabdominal infection, or complicated urinary tract infection.
Intervention: After review of the information technology recommendation by a board certified Infectious Disease physician, the recommendation will be discussed with the primary care physician and treatment implemented. Receives: Other: Information Technology physician assist |
| Control | No intervention | In the two control hospitals there will be no use of the information technology tool for implementation of initial treatment (No intervention). No notes will be placed in the electronic health record and no contact as a result of this research will be made with the medical care team. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Changes in length of stay
Changes in length of hospital stay (in days) between intervention and control groups
Measured: 36 months
Rapid response to initial therapy
Duration of treatment (in days) between intervention and control groups
Measured: 36 Months
Reduced cost of ancillary testing
Rate of use of therapeutic drug monitoring between intervention and control groups - ancillary testing such as therapeutic drug monitoring adds to cost of anti-infective therapy and use of fewer antibiotics when they are not needed is expected to reduce this cost
Measured: 36 months
Lower mortality
Rate of inpatient mortality between intervention and control groups
Measured: 36 months
Reduced adverse events
Rate of adverse events from antibacterial therapy between intervention and control groups
Measured: 36 months
Improved response to Infectious Disease therapy
Rate of change between admission and discharge location (with the goal being fewer persons needing skilled care after discharge than is now required) between intervention and control groups - improved therapy is expected to give a better response and permit patients to return home rather than needing to go to a skilled nursing facility following their inpatient therapy
Measured: 36 months
Reduced occurrence of infection recurrence
30 day readmission rates (for repeated infection therapy) between intervention and control groups is a measure that is expected to differentiate between patients who receive optimal therapy that avoids recurrence of infection from those who do not
Measured: 36 months (the total time frame of the crossover study)
Fewer unintended consequences of antibiotic use
Rates of Clostridium difficile infection between intervention and control groups - antibiotic use is the main cause of the unintended consequence of Clostridium difficile infection and less antibiotic use is expected to have a lower rate of Clostridium difficile infection in the intervention group
Measured: 36 months
Reduced therapy cost
Antimicrobial drug cost between intervention and control groups
Measured: 36 months
Less antimicrobial resistance
Antimicrobial resistance rates between intervention and control groups
Measured: 36 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted12 Jan 2018
- Study start15 Jun 2015
- Primary completion31 Jul 2018
- Study completion30 Jun 2019
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Bacterial InfectionsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Model description
- This is a prospective, pragmatic trial of initial antibiotic prescribing review by Infectious Disease Specialists. The study involves 4 hospitals, 2 of which are intervention and 2 control for 18 months, followed by switching the intervention and control hospitals in a crossover fashion for another 18 months. Medical and economic outcomes will be assessed and reported
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 9,673 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Endeavor Health
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Lance R Peterson, MD, Principal investigator, Endeavor Health
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03397433
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- EH13-368
- Acronym
- ANSWER
- Status last verified
- Aug 2020
- First submitted
- 29 Dec 2017
- Last updated
- 27 Aug 2020
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 27 Aug 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- ANti-infective Stewardship Using the Wisca Tool in the Electronic Medical Record
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03397433
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ANSWER / EH13-368
- Conditions
- Bacterial Infections
- Keywords
- Antibiotic Stewardship, Information Technology, Healthcare Outcomes, Antibiotic Resistance, Bacterial Infection
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 9,673 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Endeavor HealthUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 15 Jun 2015 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Jul 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Jun 2019 (actual)
- First posted
- 12 Jan 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Beginning in the mid-to late 1980s and accelerating through the 1990s and 2000s the shield of antibiotic invincibility began to crack sufficiently so that it was apparent to everyone we faced a serious problem. The investigators will demonstrate and expand the use of information technology based on the ingenious weighted-incidence, syndromic, combination antibiogram (WISCA) tool for the widespread use of automated clinician prompts enhancing empiric antibiotic therapy as part of a comprehensive infection control stewardship program that reduces antibiotic resistance. This research program will demonstrate that use of such a tool lowers mortality, improves outcome, lowers antimicrobial resistance and reduces healthcare cost.
Detailed description
The decade of the 1970s was a time when the PI was completing his training and beginning a career in Infectious Diseases and Microbiology. This was an era when many new anti-infective compounds were being introduced, ranging from novel penicillins to extended-spectrum cephalosporins to aminoglycosides. The main antimicrobial resistance concern at the time was Staphylococcus aureus that was no longer susceptible to penicillin; methicillin, oxacillin, and nafcillin had solved that problem. Even for those strains that later were methicillin-resistant (MRSA), vancomycin had been available since the 1950s. Later the carbapenems and in the 1980s the newer fluoroquinolones, beginning with ciprofloxacin, were introduced for clinical use. At the time it seemed that the challenge of treating serious infection in humans had been met and that other diseases were a higher priority. Indeed, in 1978 one of the world's leaders in infectious diseases, Dr. Robert Petersdorf, commented that "Even with my great personal loyalty to Infectious Disease, I cannot conceive of the need for 309 more [graduating trainees in] infectious disease...unless they spend their time culturing each other". However, in Alexander Fleming's 1945 Nobel prize lecture he warned of the danger of antimicrobial resistance stating "it is not difficult to make microbes resistant to penicillin in the laboratory by exposing them to concentrations not sufficient to kill them, and the same thing has occurred occasionally happen in the body . . . and by exposing (his) microbes to nonlethal quantities of the drug make them resistant". It was also at this time that Infection Control began as an established discipline with CDC offering the first course in 1968 and the Joint Commission requiring a hospital position for Infection Control in 1969. Subsequently, beginning in the mid-to late 1980s and accelerating through the 1990s and 2000s the shield of antibiotic invincibility began to crack sufficiently so that it was apparent to everyone we faced a serious problem. Resistance began to be reported in Gram negative bacteria toward the newer cephalosporin, fluoroquinolone, and even the carbapenem drugs. During this same period modern medicine witnessed the emergence and spread of a new healthcare associated infection called Clostridium difficile associated diarrhea, as well as MRSA becoming pandemic. It was during this time that the initial studies focused on reversing antimicrobial resistance began. In fact, Drs. Dale Gerding and Lance Peterson undertook the first ever antibiotic cycling program using amikacin and gentamicin to demonstrate that withdrawal of an antibiotic to which resistance had developed would restore the activity of that drug. Humanity now faces a healthcare setting where as many as 70% of the bacterial infections afflicting patients are resistant to at least one antimicrobial that was initially active against historical bacterial ancestors. In a sense, the investigators have been preparing for this funding announcement for nearly an entire career - and are confident that the investigators can 'answer' the challenge of reversing antibacterial resistance and reducing that threat for healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The objectives are in the main area that describes the focus for this application, which is Antimicrobial Stewardship: Preventing the development and spread of resistant organisms in the healthcare setting.
There are two specific aims for this research program to accomplish. They are:
- Specific Aim 1: Complete development of the personalized weighted-incidence, syndromic, combination antibiogram (WISCA) tool and validate its performance as a comprehensive strategy to improve the treatment of infectious diseases for all hospitalized patients.
- The investigators will demonstrate and expand the use of information technology based on the WISCA for the widespread use of automated clinician prompts enhancing empiric antibiotic therapy as part of a comprehensive infection control stewardship program that reduces antibiotic resistance.
- Specific Aim 2: Demonstrate that use of such a tool improves patient outcome, lowers antimicrobial resistance and reduces cost.
- The clinical and economic outcome measures will include changes in length of stay, duration of treatment, use of therapeutic drug monitoring, inpatient mortality, adverse events from antibacterial therapy, admission and discharge location (with the goal being fewer persons needing skilled care after discharge than is now required), 30 day readmission rates, unintended consequences from antimicrobial agent use, such as Clostridium difficile infection, antimicrobial drug cost and antimicrobial susceptibility.
All the investigator faculty are well aware of current developments in the relevant fields and are actively involved in cutting edge research that will be applied in a comprehensive, integrated fashion to solve the problem of antimicrobial resistant HAIs. The investigators look forward to working on this Large Research Project with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for the improvement in the care of United States citizens.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- This is a prospective, pragmatic trial of initial antibiotic prescribing review by Infectious Disease Specialists. The study involves 4 hospitals, 2 of which are intervention and 2 control for 18 months, followed by switching the intervention and control hospitals in a crossover fashion for another 18 months. Medical and economic outcomes will be assessed and reported
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Experimental | Other: Information Technology physician assistIn this arm, an Information Technology physician assist tool will be used to predict best available therapy for patients coming to the hospital with either pneumonia, cellulitis, intraabdominal infection, or complicated urinary tract infection. Intervention: After review of the information technology recommendation by a board certified Infectious Disease physician, the recommendation will be discussed with the primary care physician and treatment implemented. |
| Control | No intervention | –In the two control hospitals there will be no use of the information technology tool for implementation of initial treatment (No intervention). No notes will be placed in the electronic health record and no contact as a result of this research will be made with the medical care team. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Any person admitted to the hospital with pneumonia, cellulitis, intraabdominal infection, or urinary tract infection
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Any person without the 4 studied infections
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Information Technology physician assistThe intervention hospitals will have a progress note placed in the electronic health record by a reviewing Infectious Disease specialist that comments on the initial antibiotic choice. The comment is based on an electronic prediction tool (Information Technology physician assist) as to what the best therapy is for the individual patient whose health record is reviewed. | Other | Intervention |
Primary outcome
Changes in length of stay
Time frame: 36 months
Changes in length of hospital stay (in days) between intervention and control groups
Rapid response to initial therapy
Time frame: 36 Months
Duration of treatment (in days) between intervention and control groups
Reduced cost of ancillary testing
Time frame: 36 months
Rate of use of therapeutic drug monitoring between intervention and control groups - ancillary testing such as therapeutic drug monitoring adds to cost of anti-infective therapy and use of fewer antibiotics when they are not needed is expected to reduce this cost
Lower mortality
Time frame: 36 months
Rate of inpatient mortality between intervention and control groups
Reduced adverse events
Time frame: 36 months
Rate of adverse events from antibacterial therapy between intervention and control groups
Improved response to Infectious Disease therapy
Time frame: 36 months
Rate of change between admission and discharge location (with the goal being fewer persons needing skilled care after discharge than is now required) between intervention and control groups - improved therapy is expected to give a better response and permit patients to return home rather than needing to go to a skilled nursing facility following their inpatient therapy
Reduced occurrence of infection recurrence
Time frame: 36 months (the total time frame of the crossover study)
30 day readmission rates (for repeated infection therapy) between intervention and control groups is a measure that is expected to differentiate between patients who receive optimal therapy that avoids recurrence of infection from those who do not
Fewer unintended consequences of antibiotic use
Time frame: 36 months
Rates of Clostridium difficile infection between intervention and control groups - antibiotic use is the main cause of the unintended consequence of Clostridium difficile infection and less antibiotic use is expected to have a lower rate of Clostridium difficile infection in the intervention group
Reduced therapy cost
Time frame: 36 months
Antimicrobial drug cost between intervention and control groups
Less antimicrobial resistance
Time frame: 36 months
Antimicrobial resistance rates between intervention and control groups
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 27 Aug 2020.
Related trials for Bacterial Infections
Active, not recruitingObservational study
A Study to Learn About the Safety of PREVENAR 20 Vaccine in Infants Aged Between Two to Six Months
Pneumococcal Disease
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Epidemiology of Clostridioides Difficile Infection (CDI) in Long-term Care Facilities, Assessment of Professional Practices Related to CDI Risk Prevention, and Strategies for Improving Care.
Clostridioides Difficile Infection
RecruitingObservational study
Modeling Host-Pathogen Interaction Using Lymphoid Organoids
Staphylococcal Infections
RecruitingObservational study
Natural History of Individuals With Immune System Problems That Lead to Fungal Infections
Chronic Mucocutaneous Candidiasis, Invasive Aspergillosis
RecruitingObservational study
Acute Treatment and Long-term Assessment of Adult Infectious Meningitis
Viral Meningitis, Bacterial Meningitis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Lance R Peterson, MD principal investigator
Endeavor Health
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Information Technology physician assist in people with Bacterial Infections, run by Endeavor Health at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 27 Aug 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Changes in length of stay (time frame: 36 months). The study lists 10 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 27 Aug 2020.