Search

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Most of the antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) literature has focused on antimicrobial consumption for the treatment of infections, for the prophylaxis of surgical site infection and for the prevention of endocarditis. The role of AMS for medical antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) has not been adequately addressed. AIMS: To identify targets for AMS interventions for medical AP in adult patients. SOURCES: Targeted searches were conducted in PubMed. CONTENT: The various indications for medical AP and relevant evidence from practice guidelines are outlined. The following were identified as potential targets for AMS interventions: (a) addressing under-utilization of antibiotic-sparing strategies (e.g. for recurrent urinary tract infections, recurrent soft-tissue infections, recurrent exacerbations associated with bronchiectasis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), (b) reducing unnecessary AP beyond recommended indications (e.g. for acute pancreatitis, bite wounds, or urinary catheter manipulations), (c) reducing the use of AP with a broader spectrum than necessary, (d) reducing the use of AP for longer than the recommended duration (e.g. AP for prevention of osteomyelitis in open fractures or AP in high-risk neutropenia), (e) evaluating the role of antibiotic cycling to prevent the emergence of resistance during prolonged AP (e.g. in recurrent urinary tract infections or prophylaxis for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis), and (f) addressing research gaps regarding appropriate indications or antibiotic regimens for medical prophylaxis. IMPLICATIONS: This review summarizes current trends in AP and proposes targets for AMS interventions. BACKGROUND: The effect of fluid management strategies in critical illness-associated diaphragm weakness are unknown. This study hypothesized that a liberal fluid strategy induces diaphragm muscle fiber edema, leading to reduction in diaphragmatic force generation in the early phase of experimental pediatric acute respiratory distre

Contains fulltext : 193452.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), Background: This study was conducted as part of the Driving Reinvestment in Research and Development and Responsible Antibiotic Use (DRIVE-AB) project and aimed to develop generic quality indicators (QIs) for responsible antibiotic use in the inpatient setting. Methods: A RAND-modified Delphi method was applied. First, QIs were identified by a systematic review. A complementary search was performed on web sites of relevant organizations. Duplicates were removed and disease and patient-specific QIs were combined into generic indicators. The relevance of these QIs was appraised by a multidisciplinary international stakeholder panel through two questionnaires and an in-between consensus meeting. Results: The systematic review retrieved 70 potential generic QIs. The QIs were appraised by 25 international stakeholders with diverse backgrounds (medical community, public health, patients, antibiotic research and development, regulators, governments). Ultimately, 51 QIs were selected in consensus. QIs with the highest relevance score included: (i) an antibiotic plan should be documented in the medical record at the start of the antibiotic treatment; (ii) the results of bacteriological susceptibility testing should be documented in the medical record; (iii) the local guidelines should correspond to the national guidelines but should be adapted based on local resistance patterns; (iv) an antibiotic stewardship programme should be in place at the healthcare facility; and (v) allergy status should be taken into account when antibiotics are prescribed. Conclusions: This systematic and stepwise method combining evidence from literature and stakeholder opinion led to multidisciplinary international consensus on generic inpatient QIs that can be used globally to assess the quality of antibiotic use.

Contains fulltext : 193591.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), Background: Quantifying antibiotic use is an essential element of antibiotic stewardship since it allows comparison between different settings and time windows, and measurement of the impact of interventions. However, quantity metrics (QMs) and methods have not been standardized. Objectives: To propose a set of QMs for antibiotic use in inpatients (IQMs) that are accepted globally by professionals in a range of disciplines. The study was conducted within the Driving Reinvestment in Research and Development and Responsible Antibiotic Use (DRIVE-AB) project. Methods: A systematic literature review using MEDLINE identified articles on measuring inpatient antibiotic use, published up to 29 January 2015. A consensually selected list of national and international web sites was screened for additional IQMs. IQMs were classified according to the type of numerator used and presented to a multidisciplinary panel of stakeholders. A RAND-modified Delphi consensus procedure, which consisted of two online questionnaires and a face-to-face meeting, was performed. Results: The systematic literature review and web site search identified 168 eligible articles from which an initial list of 20 IQMs, composed of 20 different numerators and associated denominators was developed. The consensus procedure resulted in a final set of 12 IQMs. Among this final set, DDDs per 100(0) patient-days and days of therapy per patient-days were most frequently found in the review. The panel recommended that antibiotic use should be expressed in at least two metrics simultaneously. Conclusions: Our consensus procedure identified a set of IQMs that we propose as an evidence-based global standard.

Contains fulltext : 193497.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), Objectives: Variation in antibiotic use may reflect inappropriate use. We aimed to systematically describe the variation in measures for antibiotic use among settings or providers. This study was conducted as part of the innovative medicines initiative (IMI)-funded international project DRIVE-AB. Methods: We searched for studies published in MEDLINE from January 2004 to January 2015 reporting variation in measures for systemic antibiotic use (e.g. DDDs) in inpatient and outpatient settings. The ratio between a study's reported maximum and minimum values of a given measure [maximum:minimum ratio (MMR)] was calculated as a measure of variation. Similar measures were grouped into categories and when possible the overall median ratio and IQR were calculated. Results: One hundred and forty-three studies were included, of which 85 (59.4%) were conducted in Europe and 12 (8.4%) in low- to middle-income countries. Most studies described the variation in the quantity of antibiotic use in the inpatient setting (81/143, 56.6%), especially among hospitals (41/81, 50.6%). The most frequent measure was DDDs with different denominators, reported in 23/81 (28.4%) inpatient studies and in 28/62 (45.2%) outpatient studies. For this measure, we found a median MMR of 3.7 (IQR 2.6-5.0) in 4 studies reporting antibiotic use in ICUs in DDDs/1000 patient-days and a median MMR of 2.3 (IQR 1.5-3.2) in 18 studies reporting outpatient antibiotic use in DDDs/1000 inhabitant-days. Substantial variation was also identified in other measures. Conclusions: Our review confirms the large variation in antibiotic use even across similar settings and providers. Data from low- and middle-income countries are under-represented. Further studies should try to better elucidate reasons for the observed variation to facilitate interventions that reduce unwarranted practice variation. In addition, the heterogeneity of reported measures clearly shows that there is need for standardization.

Item does not contain fulltext, Objectives: Quality indicators (QIs) assessing the appropriateness of antibiotic use are essential to identify targets for improvement and guide antibiotic stewardship interventions. The aim of this study was to develop a set of QIs for the outpatient setting from a global perspective. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed by searching MEDLINE and relevant web sites in order to retrieve a list of QIs. These indicators were extracted from published trials, guidelines, literature reviews or consensus procedures. This evidence-based set of QIs was evaluated by a multidisciplinary, international group of stakeholders using a RAND-modified Delphi procedure, using two online questionnaires and a face-to-face meeting between them. Stakeholders appraised the QIs' relevance using a nine-point Likert scale. This work is part of the DRIVE-AB project. Results: The systematic literature review identified 43 unique QIs, from 54 studies and seven web sites. Twenty-five stakeholders from 14 countries participated in the consensus procedure. Ultimately, 32 QIs were retained, with a high level of agreement. The set of QIs included structure, process and outcome indicators, targeting both high- and middle- to low-income settings. Most indicators focused on general practice, addressing the common indications for antibiotic use in the community (particularly urinary and respiratory tract infections), and the organization of healthcare facilities. Twelve indicators specifically addressed outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT). Conclusions: We identified a set of 32 outpatient QIs to measure the appropriateness of antibiotic use. These QIs can be used to identify targets for improvement and to evaluate the effects of antibiotic stewardship interventions.

Contains fulltext : 193592.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), Background: The international Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) project DRIVE-AB (Driving Reinvestment in Research and Development and Responsible Antibiotic Use) aims to develop a global definition of 'responsible' antibiotic use. Objectives: To identify consensually validated quantity metrics for antibiotic use in the outpatient setting. Methods: First, outpatient quantity metrics (OQMs) were identified by a systematic search of literature and web sites published until 12 December 2014. Identified OQMs were evaluated by a multidisciplinary, international stakeholder panel using a RAND-modified Delphi procedure. Two online questionnaires and a face-to-face meeting between them were conducted to assess OQM relevance for measuring the quantity of antibiotic use on a nine-point Likert scale, to add comments or to propose new metrics. Results: A total of 597 articles were screened, 177 studies met criteria for full-text screening and 138 were finally included. Twenty different OQMs were identified and appraised by 23 stakeholders. During the first survey, 14 OQMs were excluded and 6 qualified for discussion. During the face-to-face meeting, 10 stakeholders retained five OQMs and suggestions were made considering context and combination of metrics. The final set of metrics included defined daily doses, treatments/courses and prescriptions per defined population, treatments/courses and prescriptions per defined number of physician contacts and seasonal variation of total antibiotic use. Conclusions: A small set of consensually validated metrics to assess the quantity of antibiotic use in the outpatient setting was obtained, enabling (inter)national comparisons. The OQMs will help build a global conceptual framework for responsible antibiotic use.

Background A variety of indicators is commonly used to monitor antibiotic prescriptions as part of national antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes. Objectives To make an inventory of indicators that assess antibiotic prescriptions and are linked to specific targets and incentives, at a national level. Methods A cross-sectional survey (three-item questionnaire) was conducted in 2017 among all ESGAP (ESCMID Study Group for Antimicrobial stewardshiP) members, coming from 23 European countries and 16 non-European countries. Results Almost all (20/23, 87%) European countries belonging to the ESGAP network participated, as well as one non-European country. Computerized systems routinely linking antibiotic prescriptions to clinical diagnoses were reported for only two countries (Turkey and Croatia). Only 6/21 (29%) countries had national indicators with both clear targets and incentives (Bulgaria, Croatia, France, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal). We identified a total of 21 different indicators used in these countries, 16 concerning inpatients (9 quality indicators and 7 quantity metrics) and 8 concerning outpatients (all quantity metrics); some indicators were used in both settings. Three types of incentives were used: financing mechanism, hospitals' accreditation and public reporting. Some respondents reported that such indicators with both clear targets and incentives were used at a regional level in their country (e.g. Andalusia in Spain and England in the UK). Conclusions National indicators, with clear targets and incentives, are not commonly used in Europe and we observed wide variations between countries regarding the selected indicators, the units of measure and the chosen targets.

Item does not contain fulltext, We surveyed European medical schools regarding teaching of prudent antibiotic prescribing in the undergraduate curriculum. We performed a cross-sectional survey in 13 European countries (Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom) in 2013. Proportional sampling was used, resulting in the selection of two to four medical schools per country. A standardized questionnaire based on literature review and validated by a panel of experts was sent to lecturers in infectious diseases, medical microbiology and clinical pharmacology. In-depth interviews were conducted with four lecturers. Thirty-five of 37 medical schools were included in the study. Prudent antibiotic use principles were taught in all but one medical school, but only four of 13 countries had a national programme. Interactive teaching formats were used less frequently than passive formats. The teaching was mandatory for 53% of the courses and started before clinical training in 71%. We observed wide variations in exposure of students to important principles of prudent antibiotic use among countries and within the same country. Some major principles were poorly covered (e.g. reassessment and duration of antibiotic therapy, communication skills). Whereas 77% of the respondents fully agreed that the teaching of these principles should be prioritized, lack of time, mainly due to rigid curriculum policies, was the main reported barrier to implementation. Given the study design, these are probably optimistic results. Teaching of prudent antibiotic prescribing principles should be improved. National and European programmes for development of specific learning outcomes or competencies are urgently needed.

Item does not contain fulltext