Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 25(5): 555-561, 2019 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30472426

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial stewardship aims to optimize antibiotic use and minimize selection of antimicrobial resistance. The methodological quality of published studies in this field is unknown. AIMS: Our objective was to perform a comprehensive systematic review of antimicrobial stewardship research design and identify features which limit validity and translation of research findings into clinical practice. SOURCES: The following online database was searched: PubMed. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies published between January 1950 and January 2017, evaluating any antimicrobial stewardship intervention in the community or hospital setting, without restriction on study design or outcome. CONTENT: We extracted data on pre-specified design quality features and factors that may influence design choices including (1) clinical setting, (2) age group studied, (3) when the study was conducted, (4) geographical region, and (5) financial support received. The initial search yielded 17 382 articles; 1008 were selected for full-text screening, of which 825 were included. Most studies (675/825, 82%) were non-experimental; 104 (15%) used interrupted time series analysis, 41 (6%) used external controls, and 19 (3%) used both. Studies in the community setting fulfilled a median of five out of 10 quality features (IQR 3-7) and 3 (IQR 2-4) in the hospital setting. Community setting studies (25%, 205/825) were significantly more likely to use randomization (OR 5.9; 95% CI 3.8-9.2), external controls (OR 5.6; 95% CI 3.6-8.5), and multiple centres (OR 10.5; 95% CI 7.1-15.7). From all studies, only 48% (398/825) reported clinical and 23% (190/825) reported microbiological outcomes. Quality did not improve over time. IMPLICATIONS: Overall quality of antimicrobial stewardship studies is low and has not improved over time. Most studies do not report clinical and microbiological outcome data. Studies conducted in the community setting were associated with better quality. These limitations should inform the design of future stewardship evaluations so that a robust evidence base can be built to guide clinical practice.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Antimicrobial Stewardship , Community-Acquired Infections/drug therapy , Cross Infection/drug therapy , Health Services Research/methods , Research Design/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Young Adult
2.
Neth J Med ; 76(9): 389-396, 2018 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30465653

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus whether patients with healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) should be considered as a patient with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics, or as a patient with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), and treated with narrow-spectrum antibiotics. HCAP research has focused mostly on the predictive value for non-susceptibility to broad-spectrum antibiotics and multi-drug resistant pathogens, in settings with moderate to high levels of antibiotic resistance. We investigated whether HCAP criteria predicts non-susceptibility to different empirical strategies, including narrow-spectrum antibiotics in the Dutch setting. METHODS: In a post hoc analysis of patients with moderate-severe CAP in seven Dutch hospitals, we compared in vitro antibiotic susceptibilities of definite and possible causative pathogens of CAP and HCAP to amoxicillin and broader antibiotic regimens. In a sensitivity analysis, pathogens with missing susceptibilities were assumed susceptible (best-case scenario) or non-susceptible (worst-case scenario). RESULTS: Among 2,283 patients with moderate-severe CAP, 23.1% (n = 527) were classified as HCAP. Non-susceptibility to amoxicillin ranged from 11.3% (95% CI 9.9-12.8%; best-case) to 14.4% (95% CI 12.8-16.1%; worst-case) in CAP patients and from 16.7% (95% CI 13.8-20.1%; best-case) to 19.7% (95% CI 16.6-23.3%; worst-case) in HCAP patients. The largest reduction in non-susceptibility was achieved by adding ciprofloxacin to amoxicillin treatment in both CAP patients (10% absolute risk reduction) and HCAP patients (11-16% reduction). CONCLUSIONS: In the Netherlands, HCAP criteria predict higher amoxicillin non-susceptibility in patients hospitalized with moderate-severe CAP. Although broadening the antibiotic spectrum of empiric treatment reduced the likelihood of non-susceptibility, absolute reductions of non-susceptibility in HCAP patients were too low to justify the universal use of broad-spectrum empirical therapy.No abstract available.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Community-Acquired Infections/drug therapy , Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia/drug therapy , Microbial Sensitivity Tests/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Bacterial/drug therapy , Aged , Amoxicillin/therapeutic use , Community-Acquired Infections/microbiology , Drug Resistance, Bacterial , Female , Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia/microbiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands , Pneumonia, Bacterial/microbiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...