Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
BMC Infect Dis ; 24(1): 870, 2024 Aug 27.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39192209

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of an intervention package on the prescription of antibiotic and subsequently the rate of clinical recovery for non-severe acute febrile illnesses at primary health centers. METHODS: Patients over 6 months of age presenting to primary health care centres with fever or history of fever within the past 7 days were randomized to receive either the intervention package constituted of point-of-care tests including COVID-19 antigen tests, a diagnostic algorithm and training and communication packages, or the standard practice. The primary outcomes were antibiotic prescriptions at Day 0 (D0) and the clinical recovery at Day 7 (D7). Secondary outcomes were non-adherence of participants and parents/caregivers to prescriptions, health workers' non-adherence to the algorithm, and the safety of the intervention. RESULTS: A total of 1098 patients were enrolled. 551 (50.2%) were randomized to receive the intervention versus 547 (49.8%) received standard care. 1054 (96.0%) completed follow-up and all of them recovered at D7 in both arms. The proportion of patients with antibiotic prescriptions at D0 were 33.2% (183/551) in the intervention arm versus 58.1% (318/547) under standard care, risk difference (RD) -24.9 (95% CI -30.6 to -19.2, p < 0.001), corresponding to one more antibiotic saved every four (95% CI: 3 to 5) consultations. This reduction was also statistically significant in children from 6 to 59 months (RD -34.5; 95% CI -41.7 to -27.3; p < 0.001), patients over 18 years (RD -35.9; 95%CI -58.5 to -13.4; p = 0.002), patients with negative malaria test (RD -46.9; 95% CI -53.9 to -39.8; p < 0.001), those with a respiratory diagnosis (RD -48.9; 95% CI -56.9 to -41.0, p < 0.001) and those not vaccinated against COVID-19 (-24.8% 95%CI -30.7 to -18.9, p-value: <0.001). A significant reduction in non-adherence to prescription by patients was reported (RD -7.1; 95% CI -10.9 to -3.3; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The intervention was associated with significant reductions of antibiotic prescriptions and non-adherence, chiefly among patients with non-malaria fever, those with respiratory symptoms and children below 5 years of age. The addition of COVID-19 testing did not have a major impact on antibiotic use at primary health centers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinitrial.gov; NCT04081051 registered on 06/09/2019.


Asunto(s)
Algoritmos , Antibacterianos , COVID-19 , Fiebre , Atención Primaria de Salud , Humanos , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Masculino , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Preescolar , Lactante , Burkina Faso , Fiebre/tratamiento farmacológico , Niño , Pruebas en el Punto de Atención , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescente , Adulto , Sistemas de Atención de Punto
2.
Clin Infect Dis ; 77(Suppl 2): S134-S144, 2023 07 25.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37490742

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Low- and middle-income countries face significant challenges in differentiating bacterial from viral causes of febrile illnesses, leading to inappropriate use of antibiotics. This trial aimed to evaluate the impact of an intervention package comprising diagnostic tests, a diagnostic algorithm, and a training-and-communication package on antibiotic prescriptions and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Patients aged 6 months to 18 years with fever or history of fever within the past 7 days with no focus, or a suspected respiratory tract infection, arriving at 2 health facilities were randomized to either the intervention package or standard practice. The primary outcomes were the proportions of patients who recovered at day 7 (D7) and patients prescribed antibiotics at day 0. RESULTS: Of 1718 patients randomized, 1681 (97.8%; intervention: 844; control: 837) completed follow-up: 99.5% recovered at D7 in the intervention arm versus 100% in standard practice (P = .135). Antibiotics were prescribed to 40.6% of patients in the intervention group versus 57.5% in the control arm (risk ratio: 29.3%; 95% CI: 21.8-36.0%; risk difference [RD]: -16.8%; 95% CI: -21.7% to -12.0%; P < .001), which translates to 1 additional antibiotic prescription saved every 6 (95% CI: 5-8) consultations. This reduction was significant regardless of test results for malaria, but was greater in patients without malaria (RD: -46.0%; -54.7% to -37.4%; P < .001), those with a respiratory diagnosis (RD: -38.2%; -43.8% to -32.6%; P < .001), and in children 6-59 months old (RD: -20.4%; -26.0% to -14.9%; P < .001). Except for the period July-September, the reduction was consistent across the other quarters (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the package can reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescription without compromising clinical outcomes. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov; NCT04081051.


Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Malaria , Humanos , Niño , Adolescente , Lactante , Preescolar , Burkina Faso , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Prescripciones , Malaria/tratamiento farmacológico , Instituciones de Salud , Algoritmos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA