Effectiveness of a vancomycin restriction policy in changing the prescribing patterns of house staff

Nonmodal Clinical Decision Support and Antimicrobial Restriction Effects on Rates of Fluoroquinolone Use in Uncomplicated Infections

BACKGROUND

Medication alert overrides remain persistently high over the past decade, influenced by factors such as "alert fatigue" and lack of provider acceptance.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the aggregate rate of fluoroquinolone (FQ) prescribing for the treatment of acute sinusitis, acute bronchitis, and uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) in adult inpatients prior to (historical control group) and after (prospective intervention group) implementation of a program requiring indication when ordering FQ antibiotics in combination with a nonmodal best-practice alert regarding the latest U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommendations. We then compared rates of prescribing among provider type, severity of infection, and patient age.

METHODS

Qualified orders were defined as new FQ orders for acute sinusitis, acute bronchitis, and uncomplicated UTI for adult inpatients between July 2016 through September 2016 (control) or November 2016 through January 2017 (intervention). The primary endpoint was a provider-initiated FQ order for a target indication. Secondary endpoints included FQ orders by provider type and patient age. Rates of FQ use among the target indications were compared between groups by chi-square test of independence with Yates' correction in the analysis of the primary endpoint and Fisher's exact test for secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

FQ prescribing for acute bronchitis, and uncomplicated UTI occurred at a rate of 86/350 (24.6%) and 62/394 (15.7%) in the control and experimental groups, respectively (p = 0.0035). No patients receiving FQ qualified for a diagnosis of acute sinusitis.

CONCLUSION

A program combining FQ restriction in combination with nonmodal messaging may have decreased the rate of prescribing for acute bronchitis and uncomplicated UTI, although the contributions of each individual element could not be rigorously assessed.

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.

Implementation of antibiotic management teams in Belgian hospitals

In 2002-03, the Belgian government subsidized in part the activities of local Antibiotic Managers (AMs) in 36 hospitals selected based on the presence of an operational multidisciplinary Antibiotic Management Team (AMT). AMs were trained as Internists (28), Microbiologists (13) and Hospital Pharmacists (13). The hospitals were representative of Belgian hospitals in affiliation, regional origin and size. The financing scheme allowed the implementation of 175 antibiotic management interventions, with a mean of 5 interventions/hospital. The activities reported in the first 9-month progress reports were analyzed according to national guidelines for AMTs. All hospitals irrespective of size or affiliation had undertaken a wide range of measures: review of formulary (29), implementation of new clinical guidelines (24), restricted access to selected antibiotics (25), improvement of antibiotic susceptibility testing methods (12), development of antibiotic consumption database (35) and analysis of antibacterial susceptibility data (31). Advertisement type categorization of communication methods showed that education of prescribers was based on multimodal communication. All hospitals used at least one passive method, 39% at least one active method and 55% at least one personalized method. The quality of communication was higher in hospitals with teaching affiliation. In conclusion, hospitals that received a financial incentive under theAMT pilot phase have developed multimodal antibiotic policy interventions independently of the hospital size and teaching status. Extension to all Belgian hospitals appears warranted. The impact of AMTs and AMs on the quality of use of antibiotics and trends of antibiotic resistance and cost will be monitored based on standardized indicators.

Appropriateness of glycopeptide use in a hospital in Italy

The aims of this study were to quantify the rate of inappropriate glycopeptide use. The study was carried out by reviewing all medical records of patients who received a glycopeptide in a hospital located in Italy. A total of 452 patients received glycopeptides, with a rate of inappropriate use of 90.9%. Appropriateness of glycopeptide prescriptions was significantly higher in Intensive Care Units compared with surgical wards (odds ratio (OR) = 0.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.01-0.14), in younger patients (OR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.95-0.99) and in those patients who received the prescription for therapy rather than prophylaxis (OR = 0.2; 95% CI = 0.06-0.66). Models were also developed to predict appropriateness of glycopeptide indications for therapy and prophylaxis. The information obtained in our audit may enable development of strategies to improve physician prescribing patterns.

An antibiotic order form intervention does not improve or reduce vancomycin use

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether a paper-based antibiotic ordering system is an effective antibiotic stewardship measure.

METHODS

An antibiotic order form (AOF) was introduced in July 2001 at a pediatric tertiary care hospital. Vancomycin courses prescribed before and after the AOF introduction were retrospectively reviewed based on Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee guidelines. The impact of the AOF on the appropriateness of vancomycin prescribing was evaluated in univariate and multivariable analyses that adjusted for other factors associated with appropriateness of vancomycin use. The density of vancomycin use after introduction of the AOF was also assessed.

RESULTS

Compliance with the AOF was poor (<50%) during the planned study period; therefore an additional 2 months of improved compliance (70-80%) were included. Rates of inappropriate vancomycin use increased during the study periods: 35% before AOF; 39% post-AOF; and 51% during the improved compliance period. On adjusted analysis, vancomycin utilization was significantly more inappropriate after introduction of the AOF. Vancomycin doses per 1000 patient days increased after introduction of the AOF.

CONCLUSIONS

Inappropriate vancomycin use and vancomycin use overall increased after the introduction of an AOF. An AOF intervention did not have its intended effect of improving and reducing vancomycin use.

Impact of a series of interventions in vancomycin prescribing on use and prevalence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci

BACKGROUND

In response to vancomycin-resistant bacteria, particularly vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), measures have been recommended to improve on the appropriate use of vancomycin.

METHODS

Intervention 1 consisted of an automatic 72-hour vancomycin stop order; Intervention 2, a standardized procedure for sampling of blood cultures; and Intervention 3, an interdisciplinary critical care team.

RESULTS

After Intervention 1, inappropriate use decreased, particularly in treatment of febrile neutropenia and undocumented gram-positive infections. After Intervention 2, the baseline rate of inappropriately drawn blood cultures (IDBCs) was unchanged, and use in patients with IDBCs was comparable during both periods. Before Intervention 3, 38/55 orders continuing > 72 hours were considered inappropriate versus 24/53 (p < .025) after. After the interventions, hospitalwide vancomycin use was reduced. Yet the overall rate of VRE infection initially decreased but then increased once again over time.

DISCUSSION

Despite substantial reduction in hospitalwide vancomycin use, the impact on the overall rate of VRE was inconsistent and ward dependent.

Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients

BACKGROUND

Up to 50% of antibiotic usage in hospitals is inappropriate. In hospitals infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria are associated with higher mortality, morbidity and prolonged hospital stay compared with infections caused by antibiotic-susceptible bacteria. Clostridium difficile associated diarrhoea (CDAD) is a hospital acquired infection that is caused by antibiotic prescribing.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effectiveness of professional interventions that alone, or in combination, are effective in promoting prudent antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients, to evaluate the impact of these interventions on reducing the incidence of antimicrobial resistant pathogens or CDAD and their impact on clinical outcome.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) specialized register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE from 1980 to November 2003. Additional studies were obtained from the bibliographies of retrieved articles

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCT/CCT), controlled before and after studies (CBA) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies of antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients. Interventions included any professional or structural interventions as defined by EPOC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers extracted data and assessed quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty six studies were included and 51 (77%) showed a significant improvement in at least one outcome. Six interventions only aimed to increase treatment, 57 interventions aimed to decrease treatment and three interventions aimed to both increase and decrease treatment. The intervention target was the decision to prescribe antibiotics (one study), timing of first dose (six studies), the regimen (drug, dosing interval etc, 61 studies) or the duration of treatment (10 studies); 12 studies had more than one target. Of the six interventions that aimed to increase treatment, five reported a significant improvement in drug outcomes and one a significant improvement in clinical outcome. Of the 60 interventions that aimed to decrease treatment 47 reported drug outcomes of which 38 (81%) significantly improved, 16 reported microbiological outcomes of which 12 (75%) significantly improved and nine reported clinical outcomes of which two (22%) significantly deteriorated and 3 (33%) significantly improved. Five studies aimed to reduce CDAD. Three showed a significant reduction in CDAD. Due to differences in study design and duration of follow up it was only possible to perform meta-regression on a few studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results show that interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients are successful, and can reduce antimicrobial resistance or hospital acquired infections.

Prophylactic use of vancomycin in adult cardiology and cardiac surgery

The recent appearance of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis strains that have reduced susceptibility to vancomycin, and the spread of vancomycin-resistant enterococci, raise the specter of endovascular infections that will be difficult or impossible to cure with available drugs. We review issues concerning the prophylactic use of vancomycin in adult cardiology and cardiac surgery with special attention to dosing and indications. There is no indication for the routine use of prophylactic vancomycin in pacemaker implantations, cardiac catheterization, and transesophageal echocardiography. In institutions with a high incidence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus and S. epidermidis, vancomycin may be used for antibiotic prophylaxis in place of cephalosporins for pacemaker or defibrillator implantation. The strongest evidence in support of the prophylactic use of vancomycin is during cardiac surgeries, particularly valvular surgeries in institutions with a high prevalence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus and S. epidermidis. When vancomycin is used prior to open heart surgery, the dose should be 15 mg/kg rather than the standard 1 g dose that is often recommended in the literature and used by 85% of institutional pharmacists who responded to our survey. Cardiologists and cardiac surgeons should assume leadership roles in promoting its responsible use.

Antibiotic resistance from two perspectives: man and microbe

Despite much effort, antibiotic resistance continues to increase. Looking back, it is clear that this was an inevitable consequence of antibiotic use. From a bacterial viewpoint, the introduction of antibiotics was a tremendous stimulus to evolution. As a survival reaction to stress (selection pressure) bacteria, by means of their extreme biochemical and genetic versatility, have adapted to 21st Century conditions. Resistance can be to some extent contained by less and better use of antibiotics, but ultimately novel approaches to the treatment and prevention of infectious diseases will have to be forthcoming. This will only be achieved if best use is made of alternative resources presently available and most importantly, man's ingenuity must be fully engaged.

Room for improvement: a systematic review of the quality of evaluations of interventions to improve hospital antibiotic prescribing

INTRODUCTION

In 1999, the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC) and Hospital Infection Society (HIS) convened a working party on optimization of antibiotic prescribing in hospitals. This study was undertaken in order to evaluate the current evidence base on the effectiveness of interventions to change antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients.

METHODS

We have systematically reviewed the literature from 1980 to identify interventions that alone, or in combination, are effective in improving antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients. The protocol was peer reviewed and has been published by the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) Group of the Cochrane Collaboration (www.update-software.com/cochrane/).

RESULTS

We identified 306 papers, of which 91 (30%) met the minimum inclusion criteria for a Cochrane EPOC review. The reasons for exclusion were uncontrolled before and after design (141/306; 46%) and inadequate interrupted time series (74/306; 24%) with fewer than three observations before and after the intervention. Most of the rejected interrupted time series (ITS) studies had only one or two data points before the intervention with many (up to 15) after it. Only 15 (40%) of the 38 included ITS studies had a statistical analysis and 11 of these used inappropriate statistical tests (e.g. t-test of pre- and post-intervention mean data) rather than analysis of time trends. Regression analysis of the proportion of included studies by year of publication did show a significant positive correlation (R2 = 0.7886). Nonetheless, of 47 papers published since 2000, only 19 (40%) met the minimum eligibility criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of evaluations used fundamentally flawed methodology. There is limited evidence of improvement over time. These problems could be resolved if researchers and referees of protocols or manuscripts implemented the EPOC methodology.