An exception-reporting approach for wound swab culture: effect on post-report antibiotic initiation.

A prior analysis suggested that wound swab culture (WSC) results were driving unnecessary antibiotic use in patients who were not already receiving treatment. As a quality-improvement initiative, our laboratory introduced an "exception-reporting" protocol on 1 March 2023, whereby typical wound pathogens susceptible to recommended empiric therapy (flucloxacillin/cefalexin) were not reported, and a comment was provided, stating no significant resistant organisms had been detected. Full results were available to clinicians on request. Cultures falling outside protocol criteria were reported in the standard fashion. This analysis sought to assess the effect of exception-reporting on post-report antibiotic initiation (PRAI). All community WSC results were matched to antibiotic dispensing records from October 2021 to December 2023. Sampling without treatment pre-report was termed "test and wait" (TaW). Following TaW, PRAI was identified if antibiotics were started within 5 days post-report. There were 1,819 and 764 WSCs received in the pre-change and post-change periods, respectively, where an initial TaW approach had been taken and an organism eligible for exception-reporting had been isolated. In the post-change period, 407 (53.3%) met the criteria and were exception-reported. PRAI occurred in 901 (49.5%) pre-change samples, compared to 102 (25.1%, P < 0.01) with exception-reporting. There was no detectable increase in hospitalization or repeat WSC collection in the 30 days following exception-reporting. Exception-reporting was associated with a markedly reduced proportion of patients being initiated on antibiotics following WSC where an organism had been isolated. The naming of organisms in reports appears to drive unnecessary antibiotic prescribing in many patients. These results require confirmation in other jurisdictions. IMPORTANCE: Wound swab culture is a high-volume test performed in clinical microbiology laboratories. In this analysis, we have shown that an alternative approach to reporting positive wound swab cultures has resulted in a large reduction in post-report antibiotic initiation, suggesting that the current standard method of reporting generates considerable unnecessary antibiotic use. If these findings are replicated elsewhere, wider adoption of this reporting would represent an opportunity for many clinical microbiology laboratories to have a significant impact on community antimicrobial stewardship.

Effect of directive laboratory comments on prescribing response to positive throat swab cultures.

BACKGROUND: In patients without ethnicity risk factors for acute rheumatic fever (ARF), our local guidelines recommend limiting antibiotic use following a positive throat swab culture (TSC). If symptoms are severe, a 5-7 day course is recommended. Despite this, most local patients with a positive TSC for group A Streptococcus (GAS) or Streptococcus dysgalactiae subsp. equisimilis (SDSE) were being prescribed 10 days of antibiotics. In response, we added comments to positive TSC reports recommending shorter treatment durations in those without ARF risk factors. No other antimicrobial stewardship initiatives were implemented. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of these comments on antibiotic course duration after positive TSC. METHODS: All community TSC results from 1 October 2021 to 31 March 2023 (1 year pre- to 6 months post-change) were matched to antibiotic dispensing data. Patients who had been empirically dispensed an antibiotic prior to the culture report were excluded. The outcome of interest was the antibiotic duration dispensed in the 5 day period after the TSC report. RESULTS: Following introduction of the comments, median course duration reduced from 10 (IQR 5-10) to 7 days (IQR 0-10; P < 0.01) and from 7 (IQR 0-10) to 0 days (IQR 0-5; P < 0.01) following GAS- and SDSE-positive TSC, respectively, in those without ARF risk factors. The percentage of people receiving 10 days of antibiotics decreased from 63.0% to 37.0% (P < 0.01) and 41.2% to 14.6% (P < 0.01) for GAS and SDSE, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of comments providing direct prescribing advice to requestors appears to have been highly effective at improving guideline-compliant prescribing following positive TSC report.

Post-report antibiotic initiation following community non-sterile-site microbiology results: an opportunity for labs to lead stewardship?

OBJECTIVES: Positive culture results from non-sterile sites (NSSs) are poorly predictive of clinical infection. Despite this, these results are often interpreted as an indication for antibiotics, even in patients with limited signs of infection. We sought to quantify the influence of NSS culture results on post-report antibiotic initiation (PRAI) in patients who had not been started on antibiotics pre-report. METHODS: All community wound/skin swab and sputum cultures were matched to antibiotic dispensing records from February 2017 to July 2022. Prescribing behaviour was assessed pre- and post-report. Sampling without treatment pre-report was termed 'test-and-wait' (TaW). Following TaW, PRAI was identified if antibiotics were started within 5 days post-report. RESULTS: There were 65 480 wound/skin swabs and 8126 sputum samples, with TaW occurring in 21 740 (35.1%) and 4185 (54.4%), respectively. Following a TaW approach PRAI occurred in 43.3% when an organism was reported, versus 10.8% (P < 0.01) for a 'no growth' report for wound/skin swabs. For the same comparison with sputum, PRAI occurred in 47.9% versus 10.8% (P < 0.01). On multivariate analysis reporting an organism remained strongly associated with PRAI. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting an organism in those not already on antibiotics was strongly associated with PRAI. We hypothesize that for many patients TaW suggests limited evidence of infection (i.e. insufficient to justify antibiotic treatment at time of sampling), meaning positive NSS results may be driving a considerable volume of potentially unnecessary antibiotic use. Further study on this topic is required, but strategies to reduce PRAI may offer laboratories an opportunity to meaningfully impact antimicrobial stewardship efforts.

Making available information from studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry: some current practices.

Since the web-based registry ClinicalTrials.gov was launched on 29 February 2000, the pharmaceutical industry has made available an increasing amount of information about the clinical trials that it sponsors. The process has been spurred on by a number of factors including a wish by the industry to provide greater transparency regarding clinical trial data; and has been both aided and complicated by the number of institutions that have a legitimate interest in guiding and defining what should be made available. This article reviews the history of this process of making information about clinical trials publicly available. It provides a reader's guide to the study registries and the databases of results; and looks at some indicators of consistency in the posting of study information.