Cluster randomized trial of an antibiotic time-out led by a team-based pharmacist

The pharmacists' interventions after a Drug and Therapeutics Committee (DTC) establishment during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction

Healthcare systems in developing countries faced significant challenges during COVID-19, grappling with limited resources and staffing shortages. Assessment of the impact of pharmaceutical care expertise, particularly in critical care units during the pandemics, in developing countries remains poorly explored. The principal aim of our study was to assess the impact of the Drug and Therapeutics Committee (DTC), comprising clinical pharmacists, on the incidence, types, and severity of medication errors and associated costs in using COVID-19 medications, especially antibiotics.

Methods

An interventional pre-post study was carried out at a public isolation hospital in Egypt over 6 months.

Results

Out of 499 medication orders, 238 (47.7%) had medication errors, averaging 2.38 errors per patient. The most frequent were prescribing errors (44.9%), specifically incorrect drug choice (57.9%), excessive dosage (29.9%), treatment duplication (4.5%), inadequate dosage (4.5%), and overlooked indications (3.6%). Linezolid and Remdesivir were the most common medications associated with prescribing errors. Pharmacists intervened 315 times, primarily discontinuing medications, reducing doses, introducing new medications, and increasing doses. These actions led to statistically significant cost reductions (p < 0.05) and better clinical outcomes; improved oxygen saturation, decreased fever, stabilised respiratory rates, and normalised white blood cell counts. So, clinical pharmacist interventions made a notable clinical and economic difference (66.34% reduction of the expenses) in antibiotics usage specifically and other medications used in COVID-19 management during the pandemic.

Conclusion

Crucially, educational initiatives targeting clinical pharmacists can foster judicious prescribing habits.

Evaluation of an Opt-Out Protocol for Antibiotic De-Escalation in Patients With Suspected Sepsis: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Sepsis guidelines recommend daily review to de-escalate or stop antibiotics in appropriate patients. This randomized, controlled trial evaluated an opt-out protocol to decrease unnecessary antibiotics in patients with suspected sepsis.

METHODS

We evaluated non-intensive care adults on broad-spectrum antibiotics despite negative blood cultures at 10 US hospitals from September 2018 through May 2020. A 23-item safety check excluded patients with ongoing signs of systemic infection, concerning or inadequate microbiologic data, or high-risk conditions. Eligible patients were randomized to the opt-out protocol vs usual care. Primary outcome was post-enrollment antibacterial days of therapy (DOT). Clinicians caring for intervention patients were contacted to encourage antibiotic discontinuation using opt-out language. If continued, clinicians discussed the rationale for continuing antibiotics and de-escalation plans. To evaluate those with zero post-enrollment DOT, hurdle models provided 2 measures: odds ratio of antibiotic continuation and ratio of mean DOT among those who continued antibiotics.

RESULTS

Among 9606 patients screened, 767 (8%) were enrolled. Intervention patients had 32% lower odds of antibiotic continuation (79% vs 84%; odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], .47-.98). DOT among those who continued antibiotics were similar (ratio of means, 1.06; 95% CI, .88-1.26). Fewer intervention patients were exposed to extended-spectrum antibiotics (36% vs 44%). Common reasons for continuing antibiotics were treatment of localized infection (76%) and belief that stopping antibiotics was unsafe (31%). Thirty-day safety events were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

An antibiotic opt-out protocol that targeted patients with suspected sepsis resulted in more antibiotic discontinuations, similar DOT when antibiotics were continued, and no evidence of harm.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT03517007.

Effectiveness of an Electronic Automated Antibiotic Time Out Alert in the Setting of Gram-Negative Bacteremia

To minimize complications associated with over-utilization of antibiotics, many antimicrobial stewardship programs have incorporated an antibiotic time out (ATO); however, limited data are available to support its effectiveness. This was a single-center retrospective cohort study assessing the impact of the automated electronic ATO in the setting of Gram-negative bacteremia. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received a modification of therapy within 24 h of final culture results. Secondary outcomes included modification at any point in therapy, time to modification of therapy, time to de-escalation, and days of therapy of broad-spectrum antibiotics. There was a total of 222 patients who met inclusion criteria, 97 patients pre-ATO and 125 patients post-ATO. The primary outcome of modification of therapy within 24 h of final culture results was not significantly different (24% vs. 30%, p = 0.33). The secondary outcome of modification of therapy at any point in therapy was not significantly different between the two groups (65% vs. 67%, p = 0.73). All other secondary outcomes were not significantly different. The ATO alert was not associated with a higher rate of antibiotic modification within 24 h of culture results in patients with GNB. Further efforts are needed to optimize the ATO strategy and antibiotic prescribing practices.

Pharmacist-led education-based antimicrobial stewardship interventions and their effect on antimicrobial use in hospital inpatients: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes optimize antimicrobial use and address antimicrobial resistance. Pharmacists are often key agents of these programmes. The effectiveness of hospital-based AMS interventions when they are led by pharmacists, however, has not previously been reported.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacist-led AMS interventions in improving antimicrobial use for hospital inpatients.

METHODS

Standard systematic review methods were used. The search strategies and databases used in a previous Cochrane review were applied. Studies that reported pharmacist-led AMS interventions were included. Narrative synthesis was used to report the findings. PRISMA guidelines were followed.

FINDINGS

From 6971 records retrieved and screened, 52 full-text articles were included. Most studies were undertaken in teaching hospitals (N = 45) and many were conducted in North America (N = 27). Most interventions targeted junior or ward physicians and lasted between one and six months. All studies evaluated educational interventions often in combination with other interventions and reported improvements 'in compliance with target AMS practice'. Greater compliance was achieved with multiple interventions. Pharmacist-led interventions reduced the duration of antimicrobial therapy without increasing mortality. No consistency of evidence was achieved in relation to interventions and reduced duration of hospital stay, nor infections due to antimicrobial resistance or occurrence of Clostridium difficile.

CONCLUSION

This is the first systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacist-led AMS interventions in hospital inpatients. Education-based interventions were effective in increasing guideline compliance and reducing duration of antimicrobial therapy. Future hospital-based AMS programmes should consider the involvement of pharmacists to deliver and promote AMS interventions and programmes.

Antimicrobial Time-Out for Vancomycin by Infectious Disease Physicians Versus Clinical Pharmacists: A Before-After Crossover Trial

Background

The present study assessed the impact of time-out on vancomycin use and compared the strategy's efficacy when led by pharmacists versus infectious disease (ID) physicians at a tertiary care center.

Methods

Time-out, consisting of a telephone call to inpatient providers and documentation of vancomycin use >72 hours, was performed by ID physicians and clinical pharmacists in the Departments of Medicine and Surgery/Critical Care. Patients in the Department of Medicine were assigned to the clinical pharmacist-led arm, and patients in the Department of Surgery/Critical Care were assigned to the ID physician-led arm in the initial, 6-month phase and were switched in the second, 6-month phase. The primary outcome was the change in weekly days of therapy (DOT) per 1000 patient-days (PD), and vancomycin use was compared using interrupted time-series analysis.

Results

Of 587 patients receiving vancomycin, 132 participated, with 79 and 53 enrolled in the first and second phases, respectively. Overall, vancomycin use decreased, although the difference was statistically nonsignificant (change in slope, -0.25 weekly DOT per 1000 PD; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.68 to 0.18; P = .24). The weekly vancomycin DOT per 1000 PD remained unchanged during phase 1 but decreased significantly in phase 2 (change in slope, -0.49; 95% CI, -0.84 to -0.14; P = .007). Antimicrobial use decreased significantly in the surgery/critical care patients in the pharmacist-led arm (change in slope, -0.77; 95% CI, -1.33 to -0.22; P = .007).

Conclusions

Vancomycin time-out was moderately effective, and clinical pharmacist-led time-out with surgery/critical care patients substantially reduced vancomycin use.