Antimicrobial Stewardship in General Practice: A Scoping Review of the Component Parts

Pricing, Procurement and Reimbursement Policies for Incentivizing Market Entry of Novel Antibiotics and Diagnostics: Learnings from 10 Countries Globally

BACKGROUND

Fostering market entry of novel antibiotics and enhanced use of diagnostics to improve the quality of antibiotic prescribing are avenues to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which is a major public health threat. Pricing, procurement and reimbursement policies may work as AMR 'pull incentives' to support these objectives. This paper studies pull incentives in pricing, procurement and reimbursement policies (e.g., additions to, modifications of, and exemptions from standard policies) for novel antibiotics, diagnostics and health products with a similar profile in 10 study countries. It also explores whether incentives for non-AMR health products could be transferred to AMR health products.

METHODS

This research included a review of policies in 10 G20 countries based on literature and unpublished documents, and the production of country fact sheets that were validated by country experts. Initial research was conducted in 2020 and updated in 2023.

RESULTS

Identified pull incentives in pricing policies include free pricing, higher prices at launch and price increases over time, managed-entry agreements, and waiving or reducing mandatory discounts. Incentives in procurement comprise value-based procurement, pooled procurement and models that delink prices from volumes (subscription-based schemes), whereas incentives in reimbursement include lower evidence requirements for inclusion in the reimbursement scheme, accelerated reimbursement processes, separate budgets that offer add-on funding, and adapted prescribing conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

While a few pull incentives have been piloted or implemented for antibiotics in recent years, these mechanisms have been mainly used to incentivize launch of certain non-AMR health products, such as orphan medicines. Given similarities in their product characteristics, transferability of some of these pull incentives appears to be possible; however, it would be essential to conduct impact assessments of these incentives. Trade-offs between incentives to foster market entry and thus potentially improve access and the financial sustainability for payers need to be addressed.

New paradigms on antibiotic recommendations for community-acquired infections in Spain

Over the last years, the susceptibility activity of the most common microorganisms causing community-acquired infections has significantly changed in Spain. Based on the susceptibility rates of Streptococcus pyogenes, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Escherichia coli, and Klebsiella pneumoniae collected from outpatients aged 15 or older with symptoms of respiratory or urinary tract infections in several Microbiology Departments in Catalonia in 2021, penicillin V should be first choice for most respiratory tract infections, amoxicillin and clavulanate for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations and a single dose of fosfomycin or a short-course nitrofurantoin should remain first-line treatments for uncomplicated urinary tract infections. Updated information on antimicrobial resistance for general practitioners is crucial for achieving appropriate empirical management of the most common infections by promoting more rational antibiotic use.

Agreement between rapid antigen detection test and culture for group A streptococcus in patients recently treated for pharyngotonsillitis - a prospective observational study in primary care

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to compare rapid antigen detection test (RADT) and throat culture for group A streptococci (GAS) among patients recently treated with penicillin V for GAS pharyngotonsillitis.

DESIGN AND SETTING

The study was a secondary analysis within a randomized controlled trial comparing 5 versus 10 days of penicillin V for GAS pharyngotonsillitis. Patients were recruited at 17 primary health care centres in Sweden.

SUBJECTS

We included 316 patients ≥ 6 years of age, having 3-4 Centor criteria, a positive RADT and a positive throat culture for GAS at inclusion, and also having a RADT and throat culture for GAS taken at a follow-up visit within 21 days.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

RADT and conventional throat culture for GAS.

RESULTS

This prospective study showed 91% agreement between RADT and culture at follow-up within 21 days. Only 3/316 participants had negative RADT with a positive throat culture for GAS at follow-up, and 27/316 patients with positive RADT had a negative culture for GAS. Log rank test did not reveal any difference in the decline over time of positive tests between RADT and throat culture (p = 0.24). Agreement between RADT and throat culture for GAS at the follow-up was not associated with treatment duration, number of days from inclusion until follow-up, throat symptoms at follow-up, gender, or age.

CONCLUSION

RADT and culture for GAS agreed to a high extent also after recent penicillin V treatment. RADT for GAS means a low risk for missing the presence of GAS.KEY POINTSTesting for group A streptococci (GAS) before antibiotic treatment can reduce antibiotic prescription for pharyngotonsillitis. It has been proposed that rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) for group A streptococci after recent penicillin V treatment may be falsely positive due to possible persisting antigens from non-viable bacteria.The decline of the presence of GAS was similar between RADT and conventional throat culture in patients who had recently completed penicillin V treatment for GAS pharyngotonsillitisRADT for GAS is useful in identifying the presence of GAS after recent penicillin V treatment.

Utility of healthcare-worker-targeted antimicrobial stewardship interventions in hospitals of low- and lower-middle-income countries: a scoping review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) initiatives in hospitals often include the implementation of clustered intervention components to improve the surveillance and targeting of antibiotics. However, impacts of the individual components of AMS interventions are not well known, especially in low- and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs).

OBJECTIVE

A scoping review was conducted to summarize evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) on the impact of common hospital-implemented healthcare-worker-targeted components of AMS interventions that may be appropriate for LLMICs.

METHODS

Major databases were searched systematically for SRs of AMS interventions that were evaluated in hospitals. For SRs to be eligible, they had to report on at least one intervention that could be categorized according to the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care taxonomy. Clinical and process outcomes were considered. Primary studies from LLMICs were consulted for additional information.

RESULTS

Eighteen SRs of the evaluation of intervention components met the inclusion criteria. The evidence shows that audit and feedback, and clinical practice guidelines improved several clinical and process outcomes in hospitals. An unintended consequence of interventions was an increase in the use of antibiotics. There was a cumulative total of 547 unique studies, but only 2% (N=12) were conducted in hospitals in LLMICs. Two studies in LLMICs reported that guidelines and educational meetings were effective in hospitals.

CONCLUSION

Evidence from high- and upper-middle-income countries suggests that audit and feedback, and clinical practice guidelines have the potential to improve various clinical and process outcomes in hospitals. The lack of evidence in LLMIC settings prevents firm conclusions from being drawn, and highlights the need for further research.

Factors Influencing the Implementation of Antimicrobial Stewardship in Primary Care: A Narrative Review

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is directly driven by inappropriate use of antibiotics. Although the majority of antibiotics (an estimated 80%) are consumed in primary care settings, antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) activities in primary care remain underdeveloped and factors influencing their implementation are poorly understood. This can result in promising stewardship activities having little-to-no real-world impact. With this narrative review, we aim to identify and summarize peer-reviewed literature reporting on (1) the nature and impact of AMS interventions in primary care and (2) the individual and contextual factors influencing their implementation. Reported activities included AMS at different contextual levels (individual, collective and policy). AMS activities being often combined, it is difficult to evaluate them as stand-alone interventions. While some important individual and contextual factors were reported (difficulty to reach physicians leading to a low uptake of interventions, tight workflow of physicians requiring implementation of flexible and brief interventions and AMS as a unique opportunity to strengthen physician-patients relationship), this review identified a paucity of information in the literature about the factors that support or hinder implementation of AMS in primary care settings. In conclusion, identifying multilevel barriers and facilitators for AMS uptake is an essential step to explore before implementing primary care AMS interventions.

Role of Pharmacists in Antimicrobial Stewardship During COVID-19 Outbreak: A Scoping Review

Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, pharmacists have been on the front lines of health care, offering vital services. Consequently, the need for pharmacists to support an effective antibiotic stewardship (AMS) program during the COVID-19 outbreak has become increasingly evident. This scoping review was performed to examine related articles in 2020-2022 published in the Scopus, SAGE, and Cochrane databases with the keywords "Pharmacist" and "Antibiotic Stewardship" and "COVID-19". The inclusion criteria were full-text articles written in English. A total of 15 articles were included in this review to describe the role of pharmacists in AMS during the COVID-19 outbreak. In general, pharmacists are responsible for identifying and treating patients during pandemics, ensuring the continued supply and accessibility of medications, promoting health policies, and monitoring antibiotic use for COVID-19 cases and co-infections. At the hospital, as the most significant element for pharmacists on the AMS team, the apparent change is demonstrated in educating patients on telehealth services, clarifying misconceptions about treatments and antibiotic consumption, as well as taking a leadership position to establish local guidelines for the COVID-19 treatment protocol. Pharmacists have an important role in the AMS program, and the COVID-19 pandemic was perceived as a highlight their importance. Therefore, their work with the AMS program needs to be improved as they learn to extend their role in telehealth services, educate and clarify the misconceptions about COVID-19 treatments and other antibiotic consumption in the community, inventory control the COVID-19 drug, antibiotics, and vaccine, as well as take the lead in establishing local guidelines on antibiotic consumption during the pandemic outbreak.

A Novel GPPAS Model: Guiding the Implementation of Antimicrobial Stewardship in Primary Care Utilising Collaboration between General Practitioners and Community Pharmacists

Interprofessional collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists (CPs) is central to implement antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes in primary care. This study aimed to design a GP/pharmacist antimicrobial stewardship (GPPAS) model for primary care in Australia. An exploratory study design was followed that included seven studies conducted from 2017 to 2021 for the development of the GPPAS model. We generated secondary and primary evidence through a systematic review, a scoping review, a rapid review, nationwide surveys of Australian GPs and CPs including qualitative components, and a pilot study of a GPPAS submodel. All study evidence was synthesised, reviewed, merged, and triangulated to design the prototype GPPAS model using a Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety theoretical framework. The secondary evidence provided effective GPPAS interventions, and the primary evidence identified GP/CP interprofessional issues, challenges, and future needs for implementing GPPAS interventions. The framework of the GPPAS model informed five GPPAS implementation submodels to foster implementation of AMS education program, antimicrobial audits, diagnostic stewardship, delayed prescribing, and routine review of antimicrobial prescriptions, through improved GP-CP collaboration. The GPPAS model could be used globally as a guide for GPs and CPs to collaboratively optimise antimicrobial use in primary care. Implementation studies on the GPPAS model and submodels are required to integrate the GPPAS model into GP/pharmacist interprofessional care models in Australia for improving AMS in routine primary care.

Appropriateness of Antibiotic Prescriptions in Chinese Primary Health Care and the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Typically Descriptive and Longitudinal Database Study in Yinchuan City

Background: The appropriateness of antibiotic prescriptions in primary care has not been well evaluated in China in recent years. Furthermore, the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on antibiotic prescriptions has not yet been investigated in China. We aimed to assess the appropriateness of antibiotic prescriptions and to evaluate the potential association between the COVID-19 pandemic and antibiotic prescriptions in primary care settings of Yinchuan, a city in China. Methods: This study included 155 primary care institutions and 10,192,713 outpatient visits. Outpatient prescriptions were classified as appropriate, potentially appropriate, inappropriate, or not linked to any diagnosis for antibiotic use following a validated evaluation scheme. Interrupted time-series analyses were performed to assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on antibiotic prescriptions in Chinese primary care facilities. Results: During the study period, 1,287,678 (12.6%, 95% confidence interval [12.6-12.7]) of 10,192,713 outpatient visits in primary care resulted in antibiotic prescriptions. Among 1,287,678 antibiotic prescriptions, 653,335 (50.7% [50.6-50.9]) were inappropriate, 463,081 (36.0% [35.8-36.1]) were potentially appropriate, 171,056 (13.3% [13.1-13.5]) were appropriate, and 206 could not be linked to any diagnosis. Furthermore, patient, physician, and institutional factors were associated with inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions; there was an overall decreasing trend in the proportions of inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions, with the highest level in 2017 (67.1% [66.8-67.5]) and the lowest in 2021 (40.8% [40.3-41.3]). A total of 1,416,120 individual antibiotics were prescribed, of which 1,087,630 (76.8%) were broad-spectrum and 777,672 (54.9%) were classified in the World Health Organization's "Watch" category. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with changes of -2.8% (-4.4 to -1.3) in the level and 0.3% (0.2-0.3) in the monthly trend of antibiotic prescription rates, as well as changes of -5.9% (-10.2 to -1.5) in the level and 1.3% (1.0-1.6) in the monthly trend of the proportions of inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions. Conclusion: More than half of the antibiotic prescriptions were inappropriate during the study period in primary care in Yinchuan. The COVID-19 pandemic may be associated with a decrease in the overall and inappropriate use of antibiotics in primary care settings in China.

Comparing public attitudes, knowledge, beliefs and behaviours towards antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance in Australia, United Kingdom, and Sweden (2010-2021): A systematic review, meta-analysis, and comparative policy analysis

BACKGROUND

Social and behavioural drivers of inappropriate antibiotic use contribute to antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Recent reports indicate the Australian community consumes more than twice the defined daily doses (DDD) of antibiotics per 1000 population than in Sweden, and about 20% more than in the United Kingdom (UK). We compare measures of public knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) surrounding AMR in Australia, the UK and Sweden against the policy approaches taken in these settings to address inappropriate antibiotic use.

METHODS

National antimicrobial stewardship policies in Australia, Sweden, and the UK were reviewed, supplemented by empirical studies of their effectiveness. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and CINAHL databases for primary studies of the general public's KAP around antibiotic use and AMR in each setting (January 1 2011 until July 30 2021). Where feasible, we meta-analysed data on the proportion of participants agreeing with identical or very similar survey questions, using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Policies in Sweden enact tighter control of community antibiotic use; reducing antibiotic use through public awareness raising is not a priority. Policies in the UK and Australia are more reliant on practitioner and public education to encourage appropriate antibiotic use. 26 KAP were included in the review and 16 were meta-analysable. KAP respondents in Australia and the UK are consistently more likely to report beliefs and behaviours that are not aligned with appropriate antibiotic use, compared to participants in similar studies conducted in Sweden.

CONCLUSIONS

Interactions between public knowledge, attitudes and their impacts on behaviours surrounding community use of antibiotics are complex and contingent. Despite a greater focus on raising public awareness in Australia and the UK, neither antibiotic consumption nor community knowledge and attitudes are changing significantly. Clearly public education campaigns can contribute to mitigating AMR. However, the relative success of policy approaches taken in Sweden suggests that practice level interventions may also be required to activate prescribers and the communities they serve to make substantive reductions in inappropriate antibiotic use.

A systems thinking approach for antimicrobial stewardship in primary care

INTRODUCTION

The establishment of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in primary care is central to substantially reduce the antimicrobial use and the associated risk of resistance. This perspective piece highlights the importance of systems thinking to set up and facilitate AMS programs in primary care.

AREAS COVERED

The challenges that primary care faces to incorporate AMS programmes is multifactorial: an implementation framework, relevant resources, team composition, and system structures remain under-researched, and these issues are often overlooked and/or neglected in most parts of the world. Progress in the field remains slow in developed countries but potentially limited in low- and middle-income countries.

EXPERT OPINION

The key AMS strategies to optimize antimicrobial use in primary care are increasingly known; however, health system components that impact effective implementation of AMS programs remain unclear. We highlight the importance of systems thinking to identify and understand the resource arrangements, system structures, dynamic system behaviors, and intra- and interprofessional connections to optimally design and implement AMS programs in primary care. An AMS systems thinking systemigram (i.e. a visual representation of overall architecture of a system) could be a useful tool to foster AMS implementation in primary care.

What does antimicrobial stewardship look like where you are? Global narratives from participants in a massive open online course

Background

Whilst antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is being implemented globally, contextual differences exist. We describe how the use of a massive open online course (MOOC) platform provided an opportunity to gather diverse narratives on AMS from around the world.

Methods

A free 3 week MOOC titled ‘Tackling antimicrobial resistance: a social science approach’ was launched in November 2019. Learners were asked specific questions about their experiences of AMS via 38 optional free-text prompts dispersed throughout the modules. Content analysis was used to identify key emerging themes from the learners’ responses in the first three runs of the MOOC.

Results

Between November 2019 and July 2020, 1464 learners enrolled from 114 countries. Overall, 199 individual learners provided a total of 1097 responses to the prompts. The diverse perspectives describe unique challenges present in different contexts including ill-defined roles for pharmacists and nurses in AMS; inadequate governance and policy inconsistencies in surveillance for antibiotic consumption and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in some countries; lack of ownership of antibiotic decision-making and buy-in from different clinical specialties; and human resource and technological constraints. Patients’ knowledge, experiences and perspectives were recognized as a valuable source of information that should be incorporated in AMS initiatives to overcome cultural barriers to the judicious use of antibiotics.

Conclusions

Analysis of learner comments and reflections identified a range of enablers and barriers to AMS implementation across different healthcare economies. Common challenges to AMS implementation included the role of non-physician healthcare workers, resource limitations, gaps in knowledge of AMR, and patient engagement and involvement in AMS.

Antimicrobial stewardship in Australia: the role of qualitative research in programme development

Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in Australia is supported by a number of factors, including enabling national policies, sectoral clinical governance frameworks and surveillance programmes, clinician-led educational initiatives and health services research. A One Health research programme undertaken by the National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship (NCAS) in Australia has combined antimicrobial prescribing surveillance with qualitative research focused on developing antimicrobial use-related situational analyses and scoping AMS implementation options across healthcare settings, including metropolitan hospitals, regional and rural hospitals, aged care homes, general practice clinics and companion animal and agricultural veterinary practices. Qualitative research involving clinicians across these diverse settings in Australia has contributed to improved understanding of contextual factors that influence antimicrobial prescribing, and barriers and facilitators of AMS implementation. This body of research has been underpinned by a commitment to supplementing 'big data' on antimicrobial prescribing practices, where available, with knowledge of the sociocultural, technical, environmental and other factors that shape prescribing behaviours. NCAS provided a unique opportunity for exchange and cross-pollination across the human and animal health programme domains. It has facilitated synergistic approaches to AMS research and education, and implementation of resources and stewardship activities. The NCAS programme aimed to synergistically combine quantitative and qualitative approaches to AMS research. In this article, we describe the qualitative findings of the first 5 years.

Changing Patient and Public Beliefs About Antimicrobials and Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) Using a Brief Digital Intervention

Background: A key driver of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is patient demand for unnecessary antibiotics, which is driven by patients’ beliefs about antibiotics and AMR. Few interventions have targeted beliefs to reduce inappropriate demand.

Objective: To examine whether a brief, online algorithm-based intervention can change beliefs that may lead to inappropriate antibiotic demand (i.e. perceptions of antibiotic necessity and lack of concern about antibiotic harm).

Design: Pre- and post-intervention study.

Participants: Participants were 18 years or older, and residing in the United Kingdom, who self-selected to participate via Amazon mTurk, an online survey plaform, and via research networks.

Intervention: Participants were presented with a hypothetical situation of cold and flu symptoms, then exposed to the intervention. The online intervention comprised: 1) a profiling tool identifying individual beliefs (antibiotic necessity, concerns, and knowledge) driving inappropriate antibiotic demand; 2) messages designed to change beliefs and knowledge (i.e. reduce antibiotic necessity, and increase antibiotic concerns and knowledge), and 3) an algorithm linking specific messages to specific beliefs and knowledge.

Main measures: The profiling tool was repeated immediately after the intervention and compared with baseline scores to assess change in beliefs. A paired samples t-test was used to determine intervention effect.

Key Results: A total of 100 respondents completed the study. A significant change in beliefs relating to inappropriate demand was observed after the intervention, with a reduction in beliefs about antibiotic necessity (t = 7.254; p < 0.0001), an increase in antibiotic concerns (t = −7.214; p < 0.0001), and increases in antibiotic and AMR knowledge (t = −4.651; p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: This study is the first to demonstrate that patient beliefs about antibiotics and AMR associated with inappropriate demand can be changed by a brief, tailored online intervention. This has implications for the design of future interventions to reduce unnecessary antimicrobial use.

Divergent and Convergent Attitudes and Views of General Practitioners and Community Pharmacists to Collaboratively Implement Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs in Australia: A Nationwide Study

Setting up an interprofessional team for antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) to improve the quality and safety of antimicrobial use in primary care is essential but challenging. This study aimed to investigate the convergent and divergent attitudes and views of general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists (CPs) about AMS implementation and their perceived challenges of collaboration to design a GP–pharmacist collaborative AMS (GPPAS) model. Nationwide surveys of GPs and CPs across Australia were conducted January-October 2019. Chi square statistics and a theoretical framework were used for comparative analyses of quantitative and qualitative data, respectively. In total, 999 participants responded to the surveys with 15.4% (n = 386) response rates for GPs and 30.7% (n = 613) for CPs. GPs and CPs were aware about AMS however their interprofessional perceptions varied to the benefits of AMS programs. CPs indicated that they would need AMS training; significantly higher than GPs (GP vs. CP; 46.4% vs. 76.5%; p < 0.0001). GPs’ use of the Therapeutic Guideline Antibiotic was much higher than CPs (83.2% vs. 45.5%; p < 0.0001). No interprofessional difference was found in the very-limited use of patient information leaflets (p < 0.1162) and point-of-care tests (p < 0.7848). While CPs were more willing (p < 0.0001) to collaborate with GPs, both groups were convergent in views that policies that support GP–CP collaboration are needed to implement GPPAS strategies. GP–pharmacist collaborative group meetings (54.9% vs. 82.5%) and antimicrobial audit (46.1% vs. 86.5%) models were inter-professionally supported to optimise antimicrobial therapy, but an attitudinal divergence was significant (p < 0.001). The challenges towards GP–CP collaboration in AMS were identified by both at personal, logistical and organisational environment level. There are opportunities for GP–CP collaboration to improve AMS in Australian primary care. However, strengthening GP–pharmacy collaborative system structure and practice agreements is a priority to improve interprofessional trust, competencies, and communications for AMS and to establish a GPPAS model in future.

Feasibility and Validity of a Framework for Antimicrobial Stewardship in General Practice: Key Stakeholder Interviews

There is little guidance about developing systems for antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) for general practice. A literature review identified six key components: governance, monitoring of antibiotic prescribing and resistance with feedback to prescribers, consultation support, education of the public and general practitioners, pharmacist and nurse involvement, and research, which were incorporated into a potential framework for the general practice context. Objectives: to determine the feasibility and validity of the proposed AMS framework. A secondary objective was to identify likely bodies responsible for implementation in Australia. We undertook interviews with 12 key stakeholders from government, research, and professional groups. Data were analysed with a thematic approach. The framework was considered valid and feasible. No clear organisation was identified to lead AMS implementation in general practice. The current volume-based antibiotic prescription monitoring system was considered insufficient. AMS education for the public, further development of GP education, and improved consultation support were strongly recommended. The role of community-based pharmacists and nurses is largely unexplored, but their involvement was recommended. A clear leader to drive AMS in general practice is essential for an action framework to gain traction. Monitoring and feedback of antibiotic prescribing require urgent development to include monitoring of prescribing appropriateness and patient outcomes.