Aller au contenu principal
Accès ouvert déclaré 2026 article

Battle of the mnemonics, SPACE versus HECK-Yes! A cross-sectional, nationwide survey of infectious diseases clinicians to evaluate clinical and microbiologic practice patterns for infections caused by Enterobacterales at risk of inducible AmpC production

0Citations signalées, ce qui n’est pas une note de qualité
1Institutions déclarées
1Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background Enterobacterales considered at risk of inducible AmpC production are denoted by mnemonics including SPACE and HECK-Yes! However, these mnemonics may fail to account for the variability in AmpC induction potential, which lends to variation in antibiotics chosen for management of associated infections and susceptibility reporting. This study aimed to evaluate clinical and microbiologic practice patterns for the management of infections caused by Enterobacterales at risk of inducible AmpC production. Methods This cross-sectional survey was developed by a multidisciplinary infectious diseases (ID) team and distributed via ID-related listservs (November-December 2024). The survey assessed institutional demographics, β-lactam of choice, and microbiologic reporting for Enterobacterales with a moderate risk (Enterobacter cloacae complex, Klebsiella aerogenes, Citrobacter freundii) and low risk (Serratia marcescens, Morganella morganii, Providencia spp.) of inducible AmpC production. Results Of 94 complete responses, most were from pharmacists (58.5%) and physicians (38.3%) working in adult academic medical centres (39.4%) or community hospitals (37.2%). Cefepime was the preferred β-lactam for invasive (87.2%) and non-invasive (68.1%) infections caused by moderate-risk inducible AmpC producers, while ceftriaxone was preferred for invasive (57.4%) and non-invasive (60.7%) infections caused by low-risk inducible AmpC Inducers. Cefepime (98.8% versus 98.8%), meropenem (85.5% versus 83.1%), piperacillin/tazobactam (72.3% versus 83.1%), and ceftriaxone (67.5% versus 94.0%) were commonly reported antibiotics on non-urinary antibiograms for moderate risk and low risk Enterobacterales, respectively. The beta-lactams reported in institutional antibiograms and microbiology susceptibility reporting were generally similar. Conclusions This survey highlights differences in practice patterns for management of infections caused by inducible AmpC-producing Enterobacterales. These results emphasize the importance of standardized, evidence-based antimicrobial stewardship approaches and continued clinical investigation to better optimize therapy for infections caused by Enterobacterales capable of inducible AmpC production.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.

Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert

DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.

Titre Crossref
Battle of the mnemonics, SPACE versus HECK-Yes! A cross-sectional, nationwide survey of infectious diseases clinicians to evaluate clinical and microbiologic practice patterns for infections caused by Enterobacterales at risk of inducible AmpC production
Date Crossref
30/04/2026
Éditeur
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Type
journal-article

Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.

Les institutions déclarées

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Les sujets associés

Antibiotic Resistance in BacteriaAntibiotic Use and ResistanceNosocomial Infections in ICU

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Les publications sont interrogées à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, AfricArXiv, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé d’accès. OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant n’est nécessaire et aucune donnée externe n’est enregistrée en base. Consulter les sources et leurs limites.