Does a reduction in antibiotic consumption always represent a favorable outcome from an intervention program on prescribing practice?

Revised hospital antibiotic formulary reduces antimicrobial consumption and promotes a shift towards narrow-spectrum antibiotic usage

BACKGROUND

In Japan, the national action plan to adress antimicrobial resistance problems aimed to reduce the use of oral cephalosporins, quinolones, and macrolides per day per 1000 inhabitants by 50% from the levelin 2013 by 2020. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a revised antibiotic formulary on in- and out-hospital oral antibiotic prescribing practices at a 600-bed university hospital.

METHOD

A retrospective before-and-after comparison study was conducted. All antimicrobial consumption data in the reviewed classes from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2018, were extracted from the hospital database's electronic medical records. The data were measured in the defined daily dose and antibiotic use density (defined daily dose per 1000 patient-days).

RESULTS

The total oral antibiotic use densities for in-hospital prescriptions in 2013 and 2018 were 117.95 and 75.42, respectively, and 239.83 and 193.88, respectively, for out-hospital prescriptions. From 2013 to 2018, antibiotic use densities of second- and third-generation cephalosporins, macrolides and fluoroquinolones for in-hospital prescriptions changed annually by -49.00%, -92.67%, +0.49% and -48.19%, and out-hospital prescriptions of these antibiotics changed by +76.69%, -86.37%, -16.29% and -51.75%, over the same period. Penicillin prescriptions increased by 71.31% for in-hospital and 42.72% for out-hospital prescriptions over this period.

CONCLUSIONS

The revised hospital antibiotic formulary reduced total antibiotic consumption and increased the use of narrow-spectrum antibiotics for both in- and out-hospital prescriptions.

Antibiotic resistance during and beyond COVID-19

Antibiotics underpin the 'modern medicine' that has increased life expectancy, leading to societies with sizeable vulnerable elderly populations who have suffered disproportionately during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Governments have responded by shuttering economies, limiting social interactions and refocusing healthcare. There are implications for antibiotic resistance both during and after these events. During spring 2020, COVID-19-stressed ICUs relaxed stewardship, perhaps promoting resistance. Counterpoised to this, more citizens died at home and total hospital antibiotic use declined, reducing selection pressure. Restricted travel and social distancing potentially reduced community import and transmission of resistant bacteria, though hard data are lacking. The future depends on the vaccines now being deployed. Unequivocal vaccine success should allow a swift return to normality. Vaccine failure followed by extended and successful non-pharmaceutical suppression may lead to the same point, but only after some delay, and with indefinite travel restrictions; sustainability is doubtful. Alternatively, failure of vaccines and control measures may prompt acceptance that we must live with the virus, as in the prolonged 1889-94 'influenza' (or coronavirus OC43) pandemic. Vaccine failure scenarios, particularly those accepting 'learning to live with the virus', favour increased outpatient management of non-COVID-19 infections using oral and long t ½ antibiotics. Ultimately, all models-except those envisaging societal collapse-suggest that COVID-19 will be controlled and that hospitals will revert to pre-2020 patterns with a large backlog of non-COVID-19 patients awaiting treatment. Clearing this will increase workloads, stresses, nosocomial infections, antibiotic use and resistance. New antibiotics, including cefiderocol, are part of the answer.

Strategies to enhance rational use of antibiotics in hospital: a guideline by the German Society for Infectious Diseases

Introduction

In the time of increasing resistance and paucity of new drug development there is a growing need for strategies to enhance rational use of antibiotics in German and Austrian hospitals. An evidence-based guideline on recommendations for implementation of antibiotic stewardship (ABS) programmes was developed by the German Society for Infectious Diseases in association with the following societies, associations and institutions: German Society of Hospital Pharmacists, German Society for Hygiene and Microbiology, Paul Ehrlich Society for Chemotherapy, The Austrian Association of Hospital Pharmacists, Austrian Society for Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Austrian Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Robert Koch Institute.

Materials and methods

A structured literature research was performed in the databases EMBASE, BIOSIS, MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library from January 2006 to November 2010 with an update to April 2012 (MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library). The grading of recommendations in relation to their evidence is according to the AWMF Guidance Manual and Rules for Guideline Development.

Conclusion

The guideline provides the grounds for rational use of antibiotics in hospital to counteract antimicrobial resistance and to improve the quality of care of patients with infections by maximising clinical outcomes while minimising toxicity. Requirements for a successful implementation of ABS programmes as well as core and supplemental ABS strategies are outlined. The German version of the guideline was published by the German Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF) in December 2013.

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.

Limited efficacy of a nonrestricted intervention on antimicrobial prescription of commonly used antibiotics in the hospital setting: results of a randomized controlled trial

Most interventions aimed at diminishing the use of antimicrobials in hospitals have focussed on newly introduced antibiotics and very few have been randomly controlled. We evaluated the impact on antibiotic consumption of an intervention without restrictions in antibiotic use, focussed on commonly used antibiotics with a controlled randomized trial. All new prescriptions of levofloxacin, carbapenems, or vancomycin in hospitalized patients were randomized to an intervention or a control group. Intervention consisted of an antibiotic regimen counselling targeted to match local antibiotic guidelines, performed using only patients' charts. Clinical charts of patients assigned to the control group were reviewed daily by a pharmacist. The primary endpoint was a reduction in consumption of the targeted antibiotics. Two hundred seventy-eight prescriptions corresponding to 253 patients were included: 146 were assigned to the intervention and 132 to the control group. Total consumption of the targeted antibiotics (median [IQR]) was slightly lower in the intervention (8 [4-12] defined daily doses [DDDs] per patient) than in the control group (10 [6-16] DDDs per patient; p = 0.04). No differences in number of DDDs were observed when antibiotics of substitution were included (11.05 [6-18.2] vs 10 [6-16.5] in the intervention and control groups, respectively, p = 0.13). The total number of days on treatment with the targeted antibiotics was lower in the intervention (4 [3-7] days per patient) than in the control group (6 [4-10] days per patient; p = 0.002). Differences in number of days on treatment only reached statistical significance in the prescriptions of carbapenems. There were no differences between intervention and control groups in terms of number of deaths, hospital readmissions, length of hospital stay, or antibiotic costs. In this trial, an intervention without restrictions focussed on antimicrobial prescriptions of commonly used antibiotics in the hospital setting had a limited efficacy to reduce consumption and did not save costs. Future strategies to promote a more rational antimicrobial use should be evaluated with a randomized controlled design.