Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T00:56:01.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Variation in ampicillin dosing for lower respiratory tract infections and neonatal bacterial infections in US children’s hospitals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2022

Elizabeth A. Daniels*
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
Christopher C. McPherson
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
Jason G. Newland
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
Brian R. Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, MO
*
Author for correspondence: Elizabeth A. Daniels, MD, Department of Pediatrics, St. Louis Children’s Hospital, 1 Children’s Place, St. Louis, MO, 63110. E-mail: edaniels@wustl.edu

Abstract

Objective:

We examined ampicillin dosing in pediatric patients across 3 conditions: (1) bacterial lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in infants and children >3 months, (2) neonates with suspected or proven sepsis, and (3) neonates with suspected central nervous system (CNS) infections. We compared our findings to dosing guidance for these specific indications.

Design:

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting:

The study included data from 32 children’s hospitals in the United States.

Methods:

We reviewed prescriptions from the SHARPS study of antimicrobials, a survey of antibiotic prescribing from July 2016 to December 2017. Prescriptions were analyzed for indication, total daily dose per kilogram, and presence of antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) review. LRTI prescriptions were compared to IDSA recommendations for community-acquired pneumonia. Neonatal prescriptions were compared to recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Prescriptions were categorized as “optimal” (80%–120% of recommended dosing), “suboptimal” (<80% of recommended dosing), or “excessive” (>120% of recommended dosing).

Results:

Among 1,038 ampicillin prescriptions, we analyzed 88 prescriptions for LRTI, 499 prescriptions for neonatal sepsis, and 27 prescriptions for neonatal CNS infection. Of the LRTI prescriptions, 77.3%were optimal. Of prescriptions for neonatal sepsis, 81.6% were excessive compared to AAP bacteremia recommendations but 78.8% were suboptimal compared to AAP meningitis guidelines. Also, 48.1% of prescriptions for neonatal CNS infection were suboptimal, and 50.6% of prescriptions were not reviewed by the ASP.

Conclusions:

LRTI dosing is generally within the IDSA-recommended range. However, dosing for neonatal sepsis often exceeds the recommendation for bacteremia but is below the recommendation for meningitis. This variability points to an important opportunity for future antimicrobial stewardship efforts.

Information

Type
Original Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.
Figure 0

Table 1.Neonatal Dosing for Bacteremia and Meningitis per AAP GBS Guidelines by Estimated Gestational Age at Birth (EGA) and Postnatal Age (PNA)

Figure 1

Fig. 1.Ampicillin dosing for neonates with suspected or proven sepsis compared to American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommendations. Dosing is in mg/kg/day, grouped by estimated gestational age at birth (EGA) and postnatal age (PNA), and is compared to AAP recommendations for bacteremia (dotted line) and AAP recommendations for group B Streptococcus (GBS) meningitis (solid line).

Supplementary material: File

Daniels et al. supplementary material

Daniels et al. supplementary material

Download Daniels et al. supplementary material(File)
File 147.3 KB