['Third day intervention': an analysis of the factors associated with following the recommendations on the prescribing of antibiotics]

Who listens and who doesn't? Factors associated with adherence to antibiotic stewardship intervention in a Singaporean tertiary hospital

INTRODUCTION

Antibiotic stewardship programmes (ASPs) can improve patient outcomes by prospective audit and feedback with interventions. However, adherence to ASP interventions is not mandatory. Identifying factors associated with improved adherence may help to enhance ASP recommendations and activities.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted, comprising all ASP interventions performed as part of the prospective audit and feedback strategy in our institution (an acute tertiary-care hospital in Singapore) from January 2016 to July 2018. Adherence to ASP intervention was ascertained based on documented compliance with the recommended interventions within 48h. Factors associated with adherence to ASP interventions, such as patient demographics, clinical condition, type of infection, and characteristics of ASP interventions were identified using the χ² test for categorical variables. On multivariate analysis, factors independently associated with adherence to ASP intervention were identified using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Adherence to ASP intervention was 81.9% (5758/7028). On univariate and multivariate analysis, interventions coupled with direct communication via phone call (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.61, 95% CI 1.23-2.08) were associated with higher odds of adherence, whereas admission to a surgical unit, intervention involving carbapenem use, and recommendation to de-escalate or discontinue antibiotics were associated with lower odds of adherence to ASP interventions.

CONCLUSION

Although adherence rates to ASP interventions were relatively high, interventions made to the surgical unit and recommendations related to carbapenem use were not so well received. Interventions communicated verbally via phone call were well received, highlighting the need for a close working relationship between ASP teams and hospital physicians.

Antimicrobial stewardship program at a tertiary care academic medical hospital: Clinical, microbiological and economic impact. A 5-year temporary descriptive study

Introduction

Few prospective studies analyze, with sufficient duration, the impact of an antimicrobial stewardship program (AMSP) carried out entirely in a hospital.

Methods

Descriptive study evaluating the consumption of antimicrobials expressed in defined daily doses (DDD) per 100 hospital occupied bed-days (OBDs) stratified in medical, surgical and intensive care unit (ICU) and the incidence of densities (ID) per 1,000 hospital OBDs of the prevalent multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) in a tertiary hospital, over a period of 5 years before and after the implementation of an AMSP. Analysis of direct costs and those associated with hospital stay and mortality.

Results

A total of 32,802 patients with antibiotic treatment were included in the intervention period (2013–2017). Non-imposed advice was exercised in 14.9%. The degree of adherence to recommendation was 87.9%, direct treatment and de-escalation being the most frequently admitted interventions (P<0.001). Overall hospital consumption of antibacterials in DDD/100s decreased by 5.7% (77.04 vs. 71.33) between 2008 and 2017. In ICU, the average DDD/100s showed a reduction from 155 to 113 (mean difference -18, P=0.005). There was a decrease in the DI/1000 OBDs of MDROs in the post-intervention period (RR 0.78; CI 95% [0.73, 0.84], P<0.001). The average annual cost of antibacterials declined from €1,435,048 to €955,805 (mean difference -€469,243; P=0.001).

Conclusion

Long-term maintenance of a hospital AMSP was associated with a reduction in antibiotic consumption, especially in ICU, as well as a beneficial ecological impact and economic savings.

Prescription of antibiotics in Riga and Vilnius tertiary children's hospitals

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the use of antibiotics among hospitalised children in Riga (Latvia) and in Vilnius (Lithuania) at two tertiary paediatric centres.

Methods

A point prevalence survey (PPS) was conducted using validated and standardised Antibiotic Resistance and Prescribing in European Children (ARPEC) project methodology during November 2012. All inpatients less than 18 years old were included in the study. All data were recorded for patients with active antimicrobial prescriptions at 8 am on the day of the survey. Data were entered into the ARPEC-webPPS programme and were validated online for accuracy.

Results

The proportion of patients receiving antimicrobial therapy was statistically different: 128 (37.0%) patients in Riga and 83 (26.3%) in Vilnius. The most common age group in Riga and Vilnius was 1-5 years. The most commonly used antibiotic classes for the treatment and prophylaxis of infection were third-generation cephalosporins (38; 25.5% prescriptions) in Riga and second-generation cephalosporins (16; 19.8%) in Vilnius. Parenteral use of antimicrobials was higher in Riga than in Vilnius: 111 (74.5%) prescriptions to paediatric patients in Riga and 45 (55.6%) prescriptions in Vilnius.

Conclusions

The PPS identified differences in antibiotic use in both hospitals and problem areas for improvement: high use of third-generation cephalosporins for paediatric patients (in Riga) and predominant use of parenteral antibiotics. Further collaboration between both centres is needed because sharing audit data and antimicrobial stewardship initiatives may encourage further changes in practice at both institutions.

Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic resistance is a major public health problem. Infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria are associated with prolonged hospital stay and death compared with infections caused by susceptible bacteria. Appropriate antibiotic use in hospitals should ensure effective treatment of patients with infection and reduce unnecessary prescriptions. We updated this systematic review to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effectiveness and safety of interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients and to investigate the effect of two intervention functions: restriction and enablement.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched for additional studies using the bibliographies of included articles and personal files. The last search from which records were evaluated and any studies identified incorporated into the review was January 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRS). We included three non-randomised study designs to measure behavioural and clinical outcomes and analyse variation in the effects: non- randomised trials (NRT), controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies. For this update we also included three additional NRS designs (case control, cohort, and qualitative studies) to identify unintended consequences. Interventions included any professional or structural interventions as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. We defined restriction as 'using rules to reduce the opportunity to engage in the target behaviour (or increase the target behaviour by reducing the opportunity to engage in competing behaviours)'. We defined enablement as 'increasing means/reducing barriers to increase capability or opportunity'. The main comparison was between intervention and no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. We performed meta-analysis and meta-regression of RCTs and meta-regression of ITS studies. We classified behaviour change functions for all interventions in the review, including those studies in the previously published versions. We analysed dichotomous data with a risk difference (RD). We assessed certainty of evidence with GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 221 studies (58 RCTs, and 163 NRS). Most studies were from North America (96) or Europe (87). The remaining studies were from Asia (19), South America (8), Australia (8), and the East Asia (3). Although 62% of RCTs were at a high risk of bias, the results for the main review outcomes were similar when we restricted the analysis to studies at low risk of bias.More hospital inpatients were treated according to antibiotic prescribing policy with the intervention compared with no intervention based on 29 RCTs of predominantly enablement interventions (RD 15%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 14% to 16%; 23,394 participants; high-certainty evidence). This represents an increase from 43% to 58% .There were high levels of heterogeneity of effect size but the direction consistently favoured intervention.The duration of antibiotic treatment decreased by 1.95 days (95% CI 2.22 to 1.67; 14 RCTs; 3318 participants; high-certainty evidence) from 11.0 days. Information from non-randomised studies showed interventions to be associated with improvement in prescribing according to antibiotic policy in routine clinical practice, with 70% of interventions being hospital-wide compared with 31% for RCTs. The risk of death was similar between intervention and control groups (11% in both arms), indicating that antibiotic use can likely be reduced without adversely affecting mortality (RD 0%, 95% CI -1% to 0%; 28 RCTs; 15,827 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Antibiotic stewardship interventions probably reduce length of stay by 1.12 days (95% CI 0.7 to 1.54 days; 15 RCTs; 3834 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One RCT and six NRS raised concerns that restrictive interventions may lead to delay in treatment and negative professional culture because of breakdown in communication and trust between infection specialists and clinical teams (low-certainty evidence).Both enablement and restriction were independently associated with increased compliance with antibiotic policies, and enablement enhanced the effect of restrictive interventions (high-certainty evidence). Enabling interventions that included feedback were probably more effective than those that did not (moderate-certainty evidence).There was very low-certainty evidence about the effect of the interventions on reducing Clostridium difficile infections (median -48.6%, interquartile range -80.7% to -19.2%; 7 studies). This was also the case for resistant gram-negative bacteria (median -12.9%, interquartile range -35.3% to 25.2%; 11 studies) and resistant gram-positive bacteria (median -19.3%, interquartile range -50.1% to +23.1%; 9 studies). There was too much variance in microbial outcomes to reliably assess the effect of change in antibiotic use. Heterogeneity of intervention effect on prescribing outcomesWe analysed effect modifiers in 29 RCTs and 91 ITS studies. Enablement and restriction were independently associated with a larger effect size (high-certainty evidence). Feedback was included in 4 (17%) of 23 RCTs and 20 (47%) of 43 ITS studies of enabling interventions and was associated with greater intervention effect. Enablement was included in 13 (45%) of 29 ITS studies with restrictive interventions and enhanced intervention effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-certainty evidence that interventions are effective in increasing compliance with antibiotic policy and reducing duration of antibiotic treatment. Lower use of antibiotics probably does not increase mortality and likely reduces length of stay. Additional trials comparing antibiotic stewardship with no intervention are unlikely to change our conclusions. Enablement consistently increased the effect of interventions, including those with a restrictive component. Although feedback further increased intervention effect, it was used in only a minority of enabling interventions. Interventions were successful in safely reducing unnecessary antibiotic use in hospitals, despite the fact that the majority did not use the most effective behaviour change techniques. Consequently, effective dissemination of our findings could have considerable health service and policy impact. Future research should instead focus on targeting treatment and assessing other measures of patient safety, assess different stewardship interventions, and explore the barriers and facilitators to implementation. More research is required on unintended consequences of restrictive interventions.

Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients

BACKGROUND

The first publication of this review in Issue 3, 2005 included studies up to November 2003. This update adds studies to December 2006 and focuses on application of a new method for meta-analysis of interrupted time series studies and application of new Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Risk of Bias criteria to all studies in the review, including those studies in the previously published version. The aim of the review is to evaluate the impact of interventions from the perspective of antibiotic stewardship. The two objectives of antibiotic stewardship are first to ensure effective treatment for patients with bacterial infection and second support professionals and patients to reduce unnecessary use and minimize collateral damage.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effectiveness of professional interventions that, alone or in combination, are effective in antibiotic stewardship for hospital inpatients, to evaluate the impact of these interventions on reducing the incidence of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens or Clostridium difficile infection and their impact on clinical outcome.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE from 1980 to December 2006 and the EPOC specialized register in July 2007 and February 2009 and bibliographies of retrieved articles. The main comparison is between interventions that had a restrictive element and those that were purely persuasive. Restrictive interventions were implemented through restriction of the freedom of prescribers to select some antibiotics. Persuasive interventions used one or more of the following methods for changing professional behaviour: dissemination of educational resources, reminders, audit and feedback, or educational outreach. Restrictive interventions could contain persuasive elements.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCT), controlled before-after (CBA) and interrupted time series studies (ITS). Interventions included any professional or structural interventions as defined by EPOC. The intervention had to include a component that aimed to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients, either by increasing effective treatment or by reducing unnecessary treatment. The results had to include interpretable data about the effect of the intervention on antibiotic prescribing or microbial outcomes or relevant clinical outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data and assessed quality. We performed meta-regression of ITS studies to compare the results of persuasive and restrictive interventions. Persuasive interventions advised physicians about how to prescribe or gave them feedback about how they prescribed. Restrictive interventions put a limit on how they prescribed; for example, physicians had to have approval from an infection specialist in order to prescribe an antibiotic. We standardized the results of some ITS studies so that they are on the same scale (percent change in outcome), thereby facilitating comparisons of different interventions. To do this, we used the change in level and change in slope to estimate the effect size with increasing time after the intervention (one month, six months, one year, etc) as the percent change in level at each time point. We did not extrapolate beyond the end of data collection after the intervention. The meta-regression was performed using standard weighted linear regression with the standard errors of the coefficients adjusted where necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update we included 89 studies that reported 95 interventions. Of the 89 studies, 56 were ITSs (of which 4 were controlled ITSs), 25 were RCT (of which 5 were cluster-RCTs), 5 were CBAs and 3 were CCTs (of which 1 was a cluster-CCT).Most (80/95, 84%) of the interventions targeted the antibiotic prescribed (choice of antibiotic, timing of first dose and route of administration). The remaining 15 interventions aimed to change exposure of patients to antibiotics by targeting the decision to treat or the duration of treatment. Reliable data about impact on antibiotic prescribing data were available for 76 interventions (44 persuasive, 24 restrictive and 8 structural). For the persuasive interventions, the median change in antibiotic prescribing was 42.3% for the ITSs, 31.6% for the controlled ITSs, 17.7% for the CBAs, 3.5% for the cluster-RCTs and 24.7% for the RCTs. The restrictive interventions had a median effect size of 34.7% for the ITSs, 17.1% for the CBAs and 40.5% for the RCTs. The structural interventions had a median effect of 13.3% for the RCTs and 23.6% for the cluster-RCTs. Data about impact on microbial outcomes were available for 21 interventions but only 6 of these also had reliable data about impact on antibiotic prescribing.Meta-analysis of 52 ITS studies was used to compare restrictive versus purely persuasive interventions. Restrictive interventions had significantly greater impact on prescribing outcomes at one month (32%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 61%, P = 0.03) and on microbial outcomes at 6 months (53%, 95% CI 31% to 75%, P = 0.001) but there were no significant differences at 12 or 24 months. Interventions intended to decrease excessive prescribing were associated with reduction in Clostridium difficile infections and colonization or infection with aminoglycoside- or cephalosporin-resistant gram-negative bacteria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis. Meta-analysis of clinical outcomes showed that four interventions intended to increase effective prescribing for pneumonia were associated with significant reduction in mortality (risk ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97), whereas nine interventions intended to decrease excessive prescribing were not associated with significant increase in mortality (risk ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results show that interventions to reduce excessive antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients can reduce antimicrobial resistance or hospital-acquired infections, and interventions to increase effective prescribing can improve clinical outcome. This update provides more evidence about unintended clinical consequences of interventions and about the effect of interventions to reduce exposure of patients to antibiotics. The meta-analysis supports the use of restrictive interventions when the need is urgent, but suggests that persuasive and restrictive interventions are equally effective after six months.