Scientific evidence and research in antimicrobial stewardship

Impact of Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions to Improve Antibiotic Prescribing for Hospital Inpatients in Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions to improve antibiotic use are being implemented in Africa, but their impact is not fully known.

AIM

To estimate the effectiveness of interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing for hospital inpatients.

METHODS

Systematically searched for studies from PubMed, Embase, African Journals online and Google scholar from January 2010 to July 2022. Studies were included if they reported the impact of AMS interventions on outcomes of interest for hospital inpatients in Africa. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care guidelines and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute tool. Findings were summarized in tables and meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models.

FINDINGS

Twenty-eight studies were included, 89% being uncontrolled before and after studies. Most interventions employed were multifaceted and found to be effective, evidenced by increased compliance, reduction in antibiotic utilization and cost, and slight reduction or no difference in mortality and length of hospital stay (LOS). Meta-analysis generated a relative risk of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.70∼0.97) for mortality, and a standard mean difference of -0.30 (95% CI: -0.41∼-0.19) for LOS. Generally, a decrease in resistance to most microorganisms was observed. Despite an increase in the number of AMS studies conducted in Africa, the studies lack in most quality design features for AMS studies.

CONCLUSION

Antimicrobial stewardship interventions are likely to be effective, however efforts are still required to align the study design with the quality design features required for validity and to inform practice.

Diagnostic Stewardship as a Team Sport: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Improved Implementation of Interventions and Effect Measurement

Diagnostic stewardship aims to deliver the right test to the right patient at the right time and is optimally combined with antimicrobial stewardship to allow for the right interpretation to translate into the right antimicrobial at the right time. Laboratorians, physicians, pharmacists, and other healthcare providers have an opportunity to improve the effectiveness of diagnostics through collaborative activities around pre-analytical and post-analytical periods of diagnostic testing. Additionally, special considerations should be given to measuring the effectiveness of diagnostics over time. Herein, we perform a narrative review of the literature on these potential optimization opportunities and the temporal factors that can yield changes in diagnostic effectiveness. Our objective is to inform on these considerations to ensure enhanced value through improved implementation and measurement of effectiveness for local stakeholder metrics and/or clinical outcomes research.

A Review of Quality Measures for Assessing the Impact of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs in Hospitals

The growing problem of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has led to calls for antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) to control antibiotic use in healthcare settings. Key strategies include prospective audit with feedback and intervention, and formulary restriction and preauthorization. Education, guidelines, clinical pathways, de-escalation, and intravenous to oral conversion are also part of some programs. Impact and quality of ASP can be assessed using process or outcome measures. Outcome measures are categorized as microbiological, patient or financial outcomes. The objective of this review was to provide an overview of quality measures for assessing ASP and the reported impact of ASP in peer-reviewed studies, focusing particularly on patient outcomes. A literature search of papers published in English between 1990 and June 2015 was conducted in five databases using a combination of search terms. Primary studies of any design were included. A total of 63 studies were included in this review. Four studies defined quality metrics for evaluating ASP. Twenty-one studies assessed the impact of ASP on antimicrobial utilization and cost, 25 studies evaluated impact on resistance patterns and/or rate of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Thirteen studies assessed impact on patient outcomes including mortality, length of stay (LOS) and readmission rates. Six of these 13 studies reported non-significant difference in mortality between pre- and post-ASP intervention, and five reported reductions in mortality rate. On LOS, six studies reported shorter LOS post intervention; a significant reduction was reported in one of these studies. Of note, this latter study reported significantly (p < 0.001) higher unplanned readmissions related to infections post-ASP. Patient outcomes need to be a key component of ASP evaluation. The choice of metrics is influenced by data and resource availability. Controlling for confounders must be considered in the design of evaluation studies to adequately capture the impact of ASP and it is important for unintended consequences to be considered. This review provides a starting point toward compiling standard outcome metrics for assessing ASP.

Antimicrobial stewardship: philosophy versus practice

To promote the judicious use of antimicrobials and preserve their usefulness in the setting of growing resistance, a number of policy-making bodies and professional societies have advocated the development of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Although these programs have been implemented at many institutions in the United States, their impact has been difficult to measure. Current recommendations advocate the use of both outcome and process measures as metrics for antimicrobial stewardship. Although patient outcome metrics have the greatest impact on the quality of care, the literature shows that antimicrobial use and costs are the indicators measured most frequently by institutions to justify the effectiveness of antimicrobial stewardship programs. The measurement of more meaningful outcomes has been constrained by difficulties inherent to these measures, lack of funding and resources, and inadequate study designs. Antimicrobial stewardship can be made more credible by refocusing the antimicrobial review process to target specific disease states, reassessing the usefulness of current metrics, and integrating antimicrobial stewardship program initiatives into institutional quality and safety efforts.