The Antibiotic Resistance and Prescribing in European Children Project: A Neonatal and Pediatric Antimicrobial Web-based Point Prevalence Survey in 73 Hospitals Worldwide

BACKGROUND: The neonatal and pediatric antimicrobial point prevalence survey (PPS) of the Antibiotic Resistance and Prescribing in European Children project (http://www.arpecproject.eu/) aims to standardize a method for surveillance of antimicrobial use in children and neonates admitted to the hospital within Europe. This article describes the audit criteria used and reports overall country-specific proportions of antimicrobial use. An analytical review presents methodologies on antimicrobial use.

METHODS: A 1-day PPS on antimicrobial use in hospitalized children was organized in September 2011, using a previously validated and standardized method. The survey included all inpatient pediatric and neonatal beds and identified all children receiving an antimicrobial treatment on the day of survey. Mandatory data were age, gender, (birth) weight, underlying diagnosis, antimicrobial agent, dose and indication for treatment. Data were entered through a web-based system for data-entry and reporting, based on the WebPPS program developed for the European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption project.

RESULTS: There were 2760 and 1565 pediatric versus 1154 and 589 neonatal inpatients reported among 50 European (n = 14 countries) and 23 non-European hospitals (n = 9 countries), respectively. Overall, antibiotic pediatric and neonatal use was significantly higher in non-European (43.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 41.3-46.3% and 39.4%; 95% CI: 35.5-43.4%) compared with that in European hospitals (35.4; 95% CI: 33.6-37.2% and 21.8%; 95% CI: 19.4-24.2%). Proportions of antibiotic use were highest in hematology/oncology wards (61.3%; 95% CI: 56.2-66.4%) and pediatric intensive care units (55.8%; 95% CI: 50.3-61.3%).

CONCLUSIONS: An Antibiotic Resistance and Prescribing in European Children standardized web-based method for a 1-day PPS was successfully developed and conducted in 73 hospitals worldwide. It offers a simple, feasible and sustainable way of data collection that can be used globally.

Establishing an EGFR mutation screening service for non-small cell lung cancer - sample quality criteria and candidate histological predictors.

INTRODUCTION: EGFR screening requires good quality tissue, sensitivity and turn-around time (TAT). We report our experience of routine screening, describing sample type, TAT, specimen quality (cellularity and DNA yield), histopathological description, mutation result and clinical outcome. METHODS: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) sections were screened for EGFR mutations (M+) in exons 18-21. Clinical, pathological and screening outcome data were collected for year 1 of testing. Screening outcome alone was collected for year 2. RESULTS: In year 1, 152 samples were tested, most (72%) were diagnostic. TAT was 4.9 days (95%confidence interval (CI)=4.5-5.5). EGFR-M+ prevalence was 11% and higher (20%) among never-smoking women with adenocarcinomas (ADCs), but 30% of mutations occurred in current/ex-smoking men. EGFR-M+ tumours were non-mucinous ADCs and 100% thyroid transcription factor (TTF1+). No mutations were detected in poorly differentiated NSCLC-not otherwise specified (NOS). There was a trend for improved overall survival (OS) among EGFR-M+ versus EGFR-M- patients (median OS=78 versus 17 months). In year 1, test failure rate was 19%, and associated with scant cellularity and low DNA concentrations. However 75% of samples with poor cellularity but representative of tumour were informative and mutation prevalence was 9%. In year 2, 755 samples were tested; mutation prevalence was 13% and test failure only 5.4%. Although samples with low DNA concentration (2.2 ng/μL), the mutation rate was 9.2%. CONCLUSION: Routine epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) screening using diagnostic samples is fast and feasible even on samples with poor cellularity and DNA content. Mutations tend to occur in better-differentiated non-mucinous TTF1+ ADCs. Whether these histological criteria may be useful to select patients for EGFR testing merits further investigation.