Effect of Antibiotic Prescription Audit and Feedback on Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Mailed feedback to primary care physicians on antibiotic prescribing for patients aged 65 years and older: pragmatic, factorial randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether providing family physicians with feedback on their antibiotic prescribing compared with that of their peers reduces antibiotic prescriptions. To also identify effects on antibiotic prescribing from case-mix adjusted feedback reports and messages emphasising antibiotic associated harms.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, factorial randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Primary care physicians in Ontario, Canada PARTICIPANTS: All primary care physicians were randomly assigned a group if they were eligible and actively prescribing antibiotics to patients 65 years or older. Physicians were excluded if had already volunteered to receive antibiotic prescribing feedback from another agency, or had opted out of the trial.

INTERVENTION

A letter was mailed in January 2022 to physicians with peer comparison antibiotic prescribing feedback compared with the control group who did not receive a letter (4:1 allocation). The intervention group was further randomised in a 2x2 factorial trial to evaluate case-mix adjusted versus unadjusted comparators, and emphasis, or not, on harms of antibiotics.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Antibiotic prescribing rate per 1000 patient visits for patients 65 years or older six months after intervention. Analysis was in the modified intention-to-treat population using Poisson regression.

RESULTS

5046 physicians were included and analysed: 1005 in control group and 4041 in intervention group (1016 case-mix adjusted data and harms messaging, 1006 with case-mix adjusted data and no harms messaging, 1006 unadjusted data and harms messaging, and 1013 unadjusted data and no harms messaging). At six months, mean antibiotic prescribing rate was 59.4 (standard deviation 42.0) in the control group and 56.0 (39.2) in the intervention group (relative rate 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 0.96). Unnecessary antibiotic prescribing (0.89 (0.86 to 0.92)), prolonged duration prescriptions defined as more than seven days (0.85 (0.83 to 0.87)), and broad spectrum prescribing (0.94 (0.92 to 0.95)) were also significantly lower in the intervention group compared with the control group. Results were consistent at 12 months post intervention. No significant effect was seen for including emphasis on harms messaging. A small increase in antibiotic prescribing with case-mix adjusted reports was noted (1.01 (1.00 to 1.03)).

CONCLUSIONS

Peer comparison audit and feedback letters significantly reduced overall antibiotic prescribing with no benefit of case-mix adjustment or harms messaging. Antibiotic prescribing audit and feedback is a scalable and effective intervention and should be a routine quality improvement initiative in primary care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04594200.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on antibiotic prescribing in high-prescribing primary care physicians in Switzerland

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate antibiotic prescribing of medium-to-high prescribing primary care physicians being followed up after the completion of a Swiss national intervention trial of antibiotic prescription audit and feedback in the first SARS-CoV-2 pandemic year.

METHODS

We used health insurer based claims data to calculate monthly antibiotic prescription rates per 100 consultations (primary endpoint) and applying interrupted time series (ITS) analysis methods, we estimated the immediate (step change) and sustained effects (slope) of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in 2020 on antibiotic prescribing compared to the pre-pandemic trial period from 2017-2019.

RESULTS

We analysed data of 2945 of 3426 physicians (86.0%) from the trial with over 4 million consultations annually, who were in 2020 still in practice. Consultations dropped by 43% during the first pandemic year compared with 2017. Median monthly antibiotic prescription rates per 100 consultations in 2017 were 8.44 (Interquartile range [IQ] 6.32-11.50) and 8.35 (6.34-11.74) in the intervention and control groups, respectively, and increased to 15.63 (10.69-23.81) and 16.31 (10.65-24.72) per 100 consultations in 2020. ITS-derived incidence rate ratios for overall antibiotic prescriptions were 2.32 (95% CI 2.07-2.59) for the immediate pandemic effect, and 0.96 (0.95-0.98) for the sustained effect (change in slope in 2020 compared with 2017-2019).

DISCUSSION

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic had a major impact on antibiotic prescription patterns in primary care in Switzerland. For future viral pandemics, intervention plans with timely activation steps to minimize unjustified antibiotic consumption in primary care should be prepared.

A survey study on antibiotic prescription practices for acute asthma exacerbations: An European academy of allergy and clinical immunology task force report

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines recommend treating asthma exacerbations (AAEs) with bronchodilators combined with inhaled and/or systemic corticosteroids. Indications for antibiotic prescriptions for AAEs are usually not incorporated although the literature shows antibiotics are frequently prescribed.

AIM

To investigate the antibiotic prescription rates in AAEs and explore the possible determining factors of those practices.

METHODS

A digital survey was created to determine the antibiotic prescription rates in AAEs and the influencing factors for the prescription practices. The survey was distributed among European academy of allergy and clinical immunology (EAACI) members by mass emailing and through regional/national societies in the Netherlands, Italy, Greece, and Poland. Furthermore, we retrieved local antibiotic prescription rates.

RESULTS

In total, 252 participants completed the survey. Respondents stated that there is a lack of guidelines to prescribe antibiotics in AAEs. The median antibiotic prescription rate in this study was 19% [IQR: 0%-40%] and was significantly different between 4 professions: paediatrics 0% [IQR: 0%-37%], pulmonologists 25% [IQR: 10%-50%], general practitioners 25% [IQR: 0%-50%], and allergologists 17% [IQR: 0%-33%]) (p = 0.046). Additional diagnostic tests were performed in 71.4% of patients before prescription and the most common antibiotic classes prescribed were macrolides (46.0%) and penicillin (42.9%). Important clinical factors for health care providers to prescribe antibiotics were colorised/purulent sputum, abnormal lung sounds during auscultation, fever, and presence of comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

In 19% of patients with AAEs, antibiotics were prescribed in various classes with a broad range among different subspecialities. This study stresses the urgency to compose evidence-based guidelines to aim for more rational antibiotic prescriptions for AAE.

Feedback Intervention for the Control of Glucocorticoid Prescription in Primary Care Institutions: A Cluster Randomized Cross-Over Controlled Trial in Southwest China

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to assess the effect of glucocorticoid prescription feedback intervention in complex primary care institutions for regulating its inappropriate use.

Design Setting and Interventions

A six-month cluster randomized cross-over controlled trial was conducted in primary care institutions. A total of 347 physicians from 69 participating institutions were randomly allocated to either group A or group B. Both groups were given feedback interventions or serve as control. The feedback intervention comprised two components: a real-time pop-up warning of inappropriate glucocorticoid prescriptions based on the Hospital Information System and a high-proportion prescription feedback intervention warning system.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome measure was the 10-day inappropriate glucocorticoid prescription rate, while the 10-day glucocorticoid prescription rate served as secondary outcome measure.

Results

At baseline, the 10-day inappropriate glucocorticoid prescription rates were 66.63% and 66.57% in group A and group B, respectively, showing no significant difference (p = 0.140). Following the intervention, group A exhibited a significant reduction in 10-day inappropriate glucocorticoid prescription rate at the crossing point by 13.69% (p < 0.001). In contrast, group B, which served as the control group, experienced an increase of 5.93% (p = 0.037) at the same crossover point. After the crossover point, there was a decrease in 10-day inappropriate glucocorticoid prescription rate for both groups. Group B as the intervention group demonstrated a reduction of 28.22% compared to the crossing point (p < 0.001), whereas group A showed a decrease of 12.20% (p = 0.339). The characteristics of physicians did not significantly influence the inappropriate glucocorticoid prescription rate.

Conclusion

The real-time pop-up warning of inappropriate glucocorticoid prescriptions based on the Hospital Information System and high-proportion prescription feedback intervention warning system can effectively regulate the inappropriate glucocorticoid prescribing behavior of physicians.

Trial Registration

ISRCTN11747547.

Effects of a multimodal intervention in primary care to reduce second line antibiotic prescriptions for urinary tract infections in women: parallel, cluster randomised, controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether a multimodal intervention in general practice reduces the proportion of second line antibiotic prescriptions and the overall proportion of antibiotic prescriptions for uncomplicated urinary tract infections in women.

DESIGN

Parallel, cluster randomised, controlled trial.

SETTING

General practices in five regions in Germany. Data were collected between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

General practitioners from 128 randomly assigned practices.

INTERVENTIONS

Multimodal intervention consisting of guideline recommendations for general practitioners and patients, provision of regional data for antibiotic resistance, and quarterly feedback, which included individual first line and second line proportions of antibiotic prescribing, benchmarking with regional or supra-regional practices, and telephone counselling. Participants in the control group received no information on the intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was the proportion of second line antibiotics prescribed by general practices, in relation to all antibiotics prescribed, for uncomplicated urinary tract infections after one year between the intervention and control group. General practices were randomly assigned in blocks (1:1), with a block size of four, into the intervention or control group using SAS version 9.4; randomisation was stratified by region. The secondary outcome was the prescription proportion of all antibiotics, relative within all cases (instances of UTI diagnosis), for the treatment of urinary tract infections after one year between the groups. Adverse events were assessed as exploratory outcomes.

RESULTS

110 practices with full datasets identified 10 323 cases during five quarters (ie, 15 months). The mean proportion of second line antibiotics prescribed was 0.19 (standard deviation 0.20) in the intervention group and 0.35 (0.25) in the control group after 12 months. After adjustment for preintervention proportions, the mean difference was -0.13 (95% confidence interval -0.21 to -0.06, P<0.001). The overall proportion of all antibiotic prescriptions for urinary tract infections over 12 months was 0.74 (standard deviation 0.22) in the intervention and 0.80 (0.15) in the control group with a mean difference of -0.08 (95% confidence interval -0.15 to -0.02, P<0.029). No differences were noted in the number of complications (ie, pyelonephritis, admission to hospital, or fever) between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The multimodal intervention in general practice significantly reduced the proportion of second line antibiotics and all antibiotic prescriptions for uncomplicated urinary tract infections in women.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS00020389.

Point-of-care multiplex molecular diagnosis coupled with procalcitonin-guided algorithm for antibiotic stewardship in lower respiratory tract infection: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to show that coupling molecular syndromic respiratory panel (RP) testing with procalcitonin (PCT) measurement in the emergency department improves antibiotic (ATB) stewardship in lower respiratory tract infection.

METHODS

Open-label, prospective, randomized interventional trial, conducted from 2019 to 2022 in an adult emergency department. Patients with a suspicion of lower respiratory tract infection were randomized into an intervention arm (PCT measurement and point-of-care BIOFIRE RP2.1 plus testing, accompanied by a recommended ATB algorithm) or a standard of care (SOC) arm (PCT allowed as current practice). The primary endpoint was the duration of antibiotic exposure.

RESULTS

Four hundred fifty-one patients were randomized, median age 65 years (Q1-Q3: 49-77), the hospitalization rate was 59.9% (270/451), the median length of stay 5 days (Q1-Q3: 3 - 12), and the 28-day mortality rate 5.3% (23/451). The median duration of ATB exposure was 6 days (Q1-Q3: 0-9) and 5 days (Q1-Q3: 0-9) in the SOC and interventional arm respectively (p = 0.71). ATB was started in 29.6 % (67/226) and 33.8% (76/225) respectively (p = 0.54). The BIOFIRE RP2.1 plus identified at least one viral species in 112/225 patients (49.8%) of intervention arm. Two hundred twelve out of two hundred twenty-six (93.8%) SOC patients had PCT measurement. The adherence rate to algorithm in the intervention arm was 93.3 % (210/225).

CONCLUSION

Displaying PCT and real-time RP results to emergency physicians failed to significantly reduce ATB exposure in lower respiratory tract infection suspicions. However, the median ATB duration and rate of initiation were already low in the SOC arm using PCT measurement routinely.

Attitudes of primary care physicians towards antimicrobial stewardship and the impact of a multi-part training course - a pilot study

Background

A plethora of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs has been initiated during the past years, focusing on hospital settings. Primary-care physicians have seldom been addressed, although the majority of antibiotic prescriptions are issued for outpatients. We sought to investigate attitudes of primary-care physicians and the impact of a customized training course.

Methods

Primary-care physicians in southwest Germany were invited to a multi-part training course on AMS in the primary-care setting. Participants were asked to answer a questionnaire about their attitude and factors that hinder them from implementing AMS or enable them to perform AMS. In addition, a knowledge assessment exam at the beginning and end of the training was conducted on selected infectious diseases/syndromes.

Results

In total, 36 primary-care physicians participated in the training course. The predominant age group was 51-60 years old (36%; 13/36). The majority, 23/35 (66%), indicated never having had AMS training, while 22/35 (63%) acknowledged partly implementing AMS activities in their daily routine. The primary barrier was lack of expertise, while the main motives were reducing antimicrobial resistance and optimizing patient care. The provision of guidelines was regarded as more important than feedback on their prescription behavior. Exam performance improved from the initial to the final exam on all topics.

Conclusion

Customized AMS training courses are a feasible and potentially complimentary tool to address antibiotic misuse in the primary-care setting.

Best practice guidance for antibiotic audit and feedback interventions in primary care: a modified Delphi study from the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial resistance: Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network (JPIAMR-PAAN)

BACKGROUND

Primary care is a critical partner for antimicrobial stewardship efforts given its high human antibiotic usage. Peer comparison audit and feedback (A&F) is often used to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. The design and implementation of A&F may impact its effectiveness. There are no best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F in antibiotic prescribing in primary care.

OBJECTIVE

To develop best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care in high income countries by leveraging international expertise via the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance-Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network.

METHODS

We used a modified Delphi process to achieve convergence of expert opinions on best practice statements for peer comparison A&F based on existing evidence and theory. Three rounds were performed, each with online surveys and virtual meetings to enable discussion and rating of each best practice statement. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate consensus with a median threshold score of 4 to indicate a consensus statement.

RESULTS

The final set of guidelines include 13 best practice statements in four categories: general considerations (n = 3), selecting feedback recipients (n = 1), data and indicator selection (n = 4), and feedback delivery (n = 5).

CONCLUSION

We report an expert-derived best practice recommendations for designing and evaluating peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care. These 13 statements can be used by A&F designers to optimize the impact of their quality improvement interventions, and improve antibiotic prescribing in primary care.

Regional and national antimicrobial stewardship activities: a survey from the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance-Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network (JPIAMR-PAAN)

Background

Antibiotic overuse and misuse in primary care are common, highlighting the importance of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) efforts in this setting. Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions can improve professional practice and performance in some settings.

Objectives and methods

To leverage the expertise from international members of the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance - Primary care Antibiotic Audit and feedback Network (JPIAMR-PAAN). Network members all have experience of designing and delivering A&F interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in primary care settings. We aim to introduce the network and explore ongoing A&F activities in member regions. An online survey was administered to all network members to collect regional information.

Results

Fifteen respondents from 11 countries provided information on A&F activities in their country, and national/regional antibiotic stewardship programmes or policies. Most countries use electronic medical records as the primary data source, antibiotic appropriateness as the main outcome of feedback, and target GPs as the prescribers of interest. Funding sources varied across countries, which could influence the frequency and quality of A&F interventions. Nine out of 11 countries reported having a national antibiotic stewardship programme or policy, which aim to provide systematic support to ongoing AMS efforts and aid sustainability.

Conclusions

The survey identified gaps and opportunities for AMS efforts that include A&F across member countries in Europe, Canada and Australia. JPIAMR-PAAN will continue to leverage its members to produce best practice resources and toolkits for antibiotic A&F interventions in primary care settings and identify research priorities.