A national antimicrobial guide with local, customizable versions: how is it used? A two-year analysis.

Objectives: Guideline adherence is one of the most important objectives for antibiotic stewardship. The Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy (SWAB) developed an online national guide (SWAB-ID) in 2006. Every Dutch hospital is offered the opportunity to customize the national version to their local context and distribute it through an independent website. We studied user data to see how often the guidelines on therapy, prophylaxis and medication are used. Methods: Data on usage between 19 June 2020 and 30 June 2022 were extracted through Google Analytics for the national site and the 53 hospitals using a customized version of the national guide. User data were divided into three main groups: users of the national guide SWAB-ID, and users of the sites of general hospitals and university hospitals. Results: A total of 1 837 126 searches were analysed, of which 1 393 681 (75.9%) concerned therapy, 111 774 (6.1%) prophylaxis and 331 671 (18%) medication. Of these searches, 456 854 (24.9%) were performed on the national site, 950 887 (51.8%) by general hospitals and 429 385 (23.4%) by university hospitals. The most commonly searched tracts among all user groups were lower respiratory tract (21.8%), kidney and urinary tract (16.6%) and skin and soft tissues (11.8%). The most commonly searched conditions were community-acquired pneumonia (15.3%), cystitis (13.5%) and sepsis (11.3%). The top ranked pages on medication differed for the three categories of users. Conclusions: The SWAB-ID antimicrobial guide is used extensively by both general and university hospitals. The online guide can help in prescribing therapy according to the guideline.

The Effect of Antibiotic Restriction Programs on Prevalence of Antimicrobial Resistance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In hospital settings, restriction of selected classes of antibiotics is usually believed to contribute to containment of resistance development. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of restricting the use of specific antibiotic classes on the prevalence of resistant bacterial pathogens. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in Embase and PubMed/OVID MEDLINE. We included studies until June 4, 2020 in which a restrictive antibiotic policy was applied and prevalence of resistance and use of antibiotics were reported. We calculated the overall effect of antimicrobial resistance between postintervention versus preintervention periods using pooled odds ratios (ORs) from a mixed-effects model. We stratified meta-analysis by antibiotic-pathogen combinations. We assessed heterogeneity between studies using the I2 statistic and sources of heterogeneity using meta-regression. RESULTS: We included 15 individual studies with an overall low quality of evidence. In meta-analysis, significant reductions in resistance were only observed with nonfermenters after restricting fluoroquinolones (OR = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62-0.97) and piperacillin-tazobactam (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.72-0.92). High degrees of heterogeneity were observed with studies restricting carbapenem (Enterobacterales, I2 = 70.8%; nonfermenters, I2 = 81.9%), third-generation cephalosporins (nonfermenters, I2 = 63.3%), and fluoroquiolones (nonfermenters, I2 = 64.0%). Results were comparable when excluding studies with fewer than 50 bacteria. There was no evidence of publication bias for any of the antibiotic-pathogen combinations. CONCLUSIONS: We could not confirm that restricting carbapenems or third-generation cephalosporins leads to decrease in prevalence of antibiotic resistance among Enterobacterales, nonfermenters, or Gram-positive bacteria in hospitalized patients. Nevertheless, reducing fluoroquinolone and piperacilline-tazobactam use may decrease resistance in nonfermenters.

Knowledge and use of antibiotics in six ethnic groups: the HELIUS study.

Background: The increase of antimicrobial resistance, mainly due to increased antibiotic use, is worrying. Preliminary evidence suggests that antibiotic use differs across ethnic groups in the Netherlands, with higher use in people of non-Dutch origin. We aimed to determine whether appropriate knowledge and use of antibiotics differ by ethnicity and whether knowledge on antibiotics is associated with antibiotic use. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study analyzing baseline data (2011-2015) from a population-based cohort (HELIUS study), which were linked to data from a health insurance register. We included 21,617 HELIUS participants of South-Asian Surinamese, African-Surinamese, Turkish, Moroccan, Ghanaian, and Dutch origin. Fifteen thousand seven participants had available prescription data from the Achmea Health Data-base (AHD) in the year prior to their HELIUS study visit. Participants were asked five questions on antibiotic treatment during influenza-like illness, pneumonia, fever, sore throat and bronchitis, from which higher versus lower antibiotic knowledge level was determined. Number of antibiotic prescriptions in the year prior to the HELIUS study visit was used to determine antibiotic use. Results: The percentage of individuals with a higher level of antibiotic knowledge was lower among all ethnic minority groups (range 57 to 70%) compared to Dutch (80%). After correcting for baseline characteristics, including medical conditions, first-generation African Surinamese and Turkish migrants received a significantly lower number of antibiotic prescriptions compared to individuals of Dutch origin. Only second-generation Ghanaian participants received more prescriptions compared to Dutch participants (aIRR 2.09, 95%CI 1.06 to 4.12). Higher level of antibiotic knowledge was not significantly associated with the number of prescriptions (IRR 0.92, 95%CI 0.85 to 1.00). Conclusions: Levels of antibiotic knowledge varied between ethnic groups, but a lower level of antibiotic knowledge did not correspond with a higher number of antibiotic prescriptions.

Current evidence on hospital antimicrobial stewardship objectives: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial stewardship is advocated to improve the quality of antimicrobial use. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether antimicrobial stewardship objectives had any effects in hospitals and long-term care facilities on four predefined patients' outcomes: clinical outcomes, adverse events, costs, and bacterial resistance rates. METHODS: We identified 14 stewardship objectives and did a separate systematic search for articles relating to each one in Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and PubMed. Studies were included if they reported data on any of the four predefined outcomes in patients in whom the specific antimicrobial stewardship objective was assessed and compared the findings in patients in whom the objective was or was not met. We used a random-effects model to calculate relative risk reductions with relative risks and 95% CIs. FINDINGS: We identified 145 unique studies with data on nine stewardship objectives. Overall, the quality of evidence was generally low and heterogeneity between studies was mostly moderate to high. For the objectives empirical therapy according to guidelines, de-escalation of therapy, switch from intravenous to oral treatment, therapeutic drug monitoring, use of a list of restricted antibiotics, and bedside consultation the overall evidence showed significant benefits for one or more of the four outcomes. Guideline-adherent empirical therapy was associated with a relative risk reduction for mortality of 35% (relative risk 0·65, 95% CI 0·54-0·80, p<0·0001) and for de-escalation of 56% (0·44, 0·30-0·66, p<0·0001). Evidence of effects was less clear for adjusting therapy according to renal function, discontinuing therapy based on lack of clinical or microbiological evidence of infection, and having a local antibiotic guide. We found no reports for the remaining five stewardship objectives or for long-term care facilities. INTERPRETATION: Our findings of beneficial effects on outcomes with nine antimicrobial stewardship objectives suggest they can guide stewardship teams in their efforts to improve the quality of antibiotic use in hospitals. FUNDING: Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy and Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment.