RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are frequently prescribed unnecessarily in outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We sought to evaluate factors associated with antibiotic prescribing in outpatients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. METHODS: We performed a population-wide cohort study of outpatients aged ≥66 years with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021 in Ontario, Canada. We determined rates of antibiotic prescribing within 1 week before (prediagnosis) and 1 week after (postdiagnosis) reporting of the positive SARS-CoV-2 result, compared to a self-controlled period (baseline). We evaluated predictors of prescribing, including a primary-series COVID-19 vaccination, in univariate and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: We identified 13 529 eligible nursing home residents and 50 885 eligible community-dwelling adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the nursing home and community residents, 3020 (22%) and 6372 (13%), respectively, received at least 1 antibiotic prescription within 1 week of a SARS-CoV-2 positive result. Antibiotic prescribing in nursing home and community residents occurred, respectively, at 15.0 and 10.5 prescriptions per 1000 person-days prediagnosis and 20.9 and 9.8 per 1000 person-days postdiagnosis, higher than the baseline rates of 4.3 and 2.5 prescriptions per 1000 person-days. COVID-19 vaccination was associated with reduced prescribing in nursing home and community residents, with adjusted postdiagnosis incidence rate ratios (95% confidence interval) of 0.7 (0.4-1) and 0.3 (0.3-0.4), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prescribing was high and with little or no decline following SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis but was reduced in COVID-19-vaccinated individuals, highlighting the importance of vaccination and antibiotic stewardship in older adults with COVID-19.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , Idoso , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , SARS-CoV-2 , Estudos de Coortes , Teste para COVID-19 , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Pacientes Ambulatoriais , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Vacinação , Ontário/epidemiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: A randomized controlled trial involving a high-risk, unvaccinated population that was conducted before the Omicron variant emerged found that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was effective in preventing progression to severe COVID-19. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in preventing severe COVID-19 while Omicron and its subvariants predominate. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study in Ontario that included all residents who were older than 17 years of age and had a positive polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 between Apr. 4 and Aug. 31, 2022. We compared patients treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir with patients who were not treated and measured the primary outcome of hospital admission from COVID-19 or all-cause death at 1-30 days, and a secondary outcome of all-cause death. We used weighted logistic regression to calculate weighted odds ratios (ORs) with confidence intervals (CIs) using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to control for confounding. RESULTS: The final cohort included 177 545 patients, 8876 (5.0%) who were treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 168 669 (95.0%) who were not treated. The groups were well balanced with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics after applying stabilized IPTW. We found that the occurrence of hospital admission or death was lower in the group given nirmatrelvir-ritonavir than in those who were not (2.1% v. 3.7%; weighted OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.47-0.67). For death alone, the weighted OR was 0.49 (95% CI 0.39-0.62). Our findings were similar across strata of age, drug-drug interactions, vaccination status and comorbidities. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 case of severe COVID-19 was 62 (95% CI 43-80), which varied across strata. INTERPRETATION: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with significantly reduced odds of hospital admission and death from COVID-19, which supports use to treat patients with mild COVID-19 who are at risk for severe disease.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19 , Estudos de Coortes , Ritonavir/uso terapêutico , Hospitais , Antivirais/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Approximately 25% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions are unnecessary among family physicians in Canada. Minimizing unnecessary antibiotics is key for community antibiotic stewardship. However, unnecessary antibiotic prescribing is much harder to measure than total antibiotic prescribing. We investigated the association between total and unnecessary antibiotic use by family physicians and evaluated inter-physician variability in unnecessary antibiotic prescribing. METHODS: This was a cohort study based on electronic medical records of family physicians in Ontario, Canada, between April 2011 and March 2016. We used predefined expected antibiotic prescribing rates for 23 common primary care conditions to calculate unnecessary antibiotic prescribing rates. We used multilevel Poisson regression models to evaluate the association between total antibiotic volume (number of antibiotic prescriptions per patient visit), adjusted for multiple practice- and physician-level covariates, and unnecessary antibiotic prescribing. RESULTS: There were 499 570 physician-patient encounters resulting in 152 853 antibiotic prescriptions from 341 physicians. Substantial inter-physician variability was observed. In the fully adjusted model, we observed a significant association between total antibiotic volume and unnecessary prescribing rate (adjusted rate ratio 2.11 per 10% increase in total use; 95% CI 2.05-2.17), and none of the practice- and physician-level variables were associated with unnecessary prescribing rate. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated substantial inter-physician variability in unnecessary antibiotic prescribing in this cohort of family physicians. Total antibiotic use was strongly correlated with unnecessary antibiotic prescribing. Total antibiotic volume is a reasonable surrogate for unnecessary antibiotic use. These results can inform community antimicrobial stewardship efforts.
Assuntos
Antibacterianos , Médicos de Família , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Estudos de Coortes , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde , Humanos , Prescrição Inadequada , Ontário , Padrões de Prática MédicaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Pharmacist prescribing authority is expanding, while antimicrobial resistance is an increasing global concern. We sought to synthesize the evidence for antimicrobial prescribing by community pharmacists to identify opportunities to advance antimicrobial stewardship in this setting. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to characterize the existing literature on community pharmacist prescribing of systemic antimicrobials. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts for English-language articles published between 1999 and June 20, 2019, as well as hand-searched reference lists of included articles and incorporated expert suggestions. RESULTS: Of 3793 articles identified, 14 met inclusion criteria. Pharmacists are most often prescribing for uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI), acute pharyngitis and cold sores using independent and supplementary prescribing models. This was associated with high rates of clinical improvement (4 studies), low rates of retreatment and adverse effects (3 studies) and decreased health care utilization (7 studies). Patients were highly satisfied (8 studies) and accessed care sooner or more easily (7 studies). Seven studies incorporated antimicrobial stewardship into study design, and there was overlap between study outcomes and those relevant to outpatient antimicrobial stewardship. Pharmacist intervention reduced unnecessary prescribing for acute pharyngitis (2 studies) and increased the appropriateness of prescribing for UTI (3 studies). CONCLUSION: There is growing evidence to support the role of community pharmacists in antimicrobial prescribing. Future research should explore additional opportunities for pharmacist antimicrobial prescribing and ways to further integrate advanced antimicrobial stewardship strategies in the community setting. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2021;154:xx-xx.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In 2010, a pan-Canadian study on the current state and benefits of provincial drug information systems (DIS) found that substantial benefits were being realized and that pharmacists perceived DIS to be a valuable tool in the evolving models of pharmacy practice. To understand changes in digital health and the impact on practice since that time, a survey of community pharmacists in Canada was conducted. METHODS: In 2014, Canada Health Infoway (Infoway) and the Canadian Pharmacists Association (CPhA) invited community pharmacists to participate in a Web-based survey to understand their use and perceived benefits of digital health in practice. The survey was open from April 15 to May 12, 2014. RESULTS: Of the 447 survey responses, almost all used some form of digital health in practice. Those with access to DIS and provincial laboratory information systems (LIS) reported increased productivity and better quality of care. Those without access to these systems would overwhelmingly like access. DISCUSSION: There have been significant advances in digital health and community pharmacy practice over the past several years. In addition to digital health benefits in the areas of productivity and quality of care, pharmacists are also experiencing substantial benefits in areas related to recently expanded scope of practice activities such as ordering lab tests. CONCLUSION: Community pharmacists frequently use digital health in practice and recognize the benefits of these technologies. Digital health is, and will continue to be, a key enabler for practice transformation and improved quality of care. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2016;149:xx-xx.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Overuse of antimicrobials in residents of long-term care homes is common and can result in harm. Antimicrobial stewardship interventions are needed in the long-term care (LTC) homes setting to improve the appropriate use of antimicrobials. Previous literature has highlighted the importance of documenting antimicrobial indication as a strategy that contributes to improve antimicrobial use; however, there is a lack of evidence in LTC homes. This study examines the prevalence, clarity, and facility-level variability of antibiotic indication documentation in this setting. METHODS: This is an observational retrospective study of oral antibiotic prescriptions dispensed to 218 homes between January 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022 in Ontario, Canada. Indication was obtained from reviewing antibiotic prescription data. Clarity was determined by comparing documented indication to the National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey (NAPS). Descriptive analysis was performed to examine the prevalence and clarity of indication documentation. Funnel plots were generated to examine variability in prevalence of indication documentation and clarity at the home level. RESULTS: Overall, 22.9% (7998/34,867) of prescriptions had an indication documented. The proportion of indications that were clear was 37% (2984/7998). The most common indications were for urinary (45%), skin and soft tissue (19.9%) and respiratory infections (15.0%). At the home level, the median prevalence of indication was 19.6% (interquartile range [IQR]: 10.8%-31.4%) and median prevalence of clear indications was 35.1% (IQR: 23.8%-42.9%). Funnel plots revealed substantial variability in indication prevalence with 46.3% of homes falling outside of 99% limits but minimal variability in indication clarity between homes with only 8.7% of homes outside of 99% control limits. CONCLUSIONS: There is an opportunity to increase both the prevalence and clarity of antibiotic prescriptions in LTC homes. Future work should focus on determining how best to support prescription indication documentation in this setting with consideration being given to prescription workflow and most common antibiotic prescription indications.
Assuntos
Antibacterianos , Documentação , Assistência de Longa Duração , Casas de Saúde , Padrões de Prática Médica , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Ontário/epidemiologia , Casas de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Idoso , Masculino , Feminino , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Padrões de Prática Médica/estatística & dados numéricos , Gestão de Antimicrobianos , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Instituição de Longa Permanência para Idosos/estatística & dados numéricos , Prescrições de Medicamentos/estatística & dados numéricos , Prescrição Inadequada/estatística & dados numéricos , Prescrição Inadequada/prevenção & controleRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether providing family physicians with feedback on their antibiotic prescribing compared with that of their peers reduces antibiotic prescriptions. To also identify effects on antibiotic prescribing from case-mix adjusted feedback reports and messages emphasising antibiotic associated harms. DESIGN: Pragmatic, factorial randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care physicians in Ontario, Canada PARTICIPANTS: All primary care physicians were randomly assigned a group if they were eligible and actively prescribing antibiotics to patients 65 years or older. Physicians were excluded if had already volunteered to receive antibiotic prescribing feedback from another agency, or had opted out of the trial. INTERVENTION: A letter was mailed in January 2022 to physicians with peer comparison antibiotic prescribing feedback compared with the control group who did not receive a letter (4:1 allocation). The intervention group was further randomised in a 2x2 factorial trial to evaluate case-mix adjusted versus unadjusted comparators, and emphasis, or not, on harms of antibiotics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Antibiotic prescribing rate per 1000 patient visits for patients 65 years or older six months after intervention. Analysis was in the modified intention-to-treat population using Poisson regression. RESULTS: 5046 physicians were included and analysed: 1005 in control group and 4041 in intervention group (1016 case-mix adjusted data and harms messaging, 1006 with case-mix adjusted data and no harms messaging, 1006 unadjusted data and harms messaging, and 1013 unadjusted data and no harms messaging). At six months, mean antibiotic prescribing rate was 59.4 (standard deviation 42.0) in the control group and 56.0 (39.2) in the intervention group (relative rate 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 0.96). Unnecessary antibiotic prescribing (0.89 (0.86 to 0.92)), prolonged duration prescriptions defined as more than seven days (0.85 (0.83 to 0.87)), and broad spectrum prescribing (0.94 (0.92 to 0.95)) were also significantly lower in the intervention group compared with the control group. Results were consistent at 12 months post intervention. No significant effect was seen for including emphasis on harms messaging. A small increase in antibiotic prescribing with case-mix adjusted reports was noted (1.01 (1.00 to 1.03)). CONCLUSIONS: Peer comparison audit and feedback letters significantly reduced overall antibiotic prescribing with no benefit of case-mix adjustment or harms messaging. Antibiotic prescribing audit and feedback is a scalable and effective intervention and should be a routine quality improvement initiative in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04594200.
Assuntos
Antibacterianos , Retroalimentação , Médicos de Atenção Primária , Padrões de Prática Médica , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Prescrições de Medicamentos/estatística & dados numéricos , Prescrições de Medicamentos/normas , Ontário , Serviços Postais , Padrões de Prática Médica/estatística & dados numéricosRESUMO
Benefits from information and communication technology tend to grow over time as system use matures. This study examines pharmacists' experiences with provincial drug information systems (DIS) across Canada. At the time of survey, two provinces had more mature DIS (more than five years) and three provinces had less mature DIS (five years or less).
Assuntos
Sistemas de Informação/tendências , Preparações Farmacêuticas , Farmacêuticos , Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde , Canadá , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) continues to be a global public health issue amid the COVID-19 pandemic; however, unprecedented demands on hospital antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs) potentially altered their core activities. Objective: We sought to understand how ASPs have been involved in and impacted by the pandemic. Methods: The 2021 Ontario ASP Landscape Survey was developed based on previous provincial questionnaires and emerging literature on the impact of COVID-19 on hospital ASPs. After pre-testing and piloting, the online questionnaire was distributed to hospital antimicrobial stewardship practitioners in the fall of 2021. Descriptive statistics and inductive thematic analysis were performed. Results: The response rate was 78% (98/125 organizations); 96% (94/98) of organizations had or were in the process of formalizing an ASP and 53% (50/94) reported designated funding/resources. Despite 82% reporting no change in dedicated full-time equivalents during the pandemic, ASPs were frequently involved in developing treatment guidelines/clinical pathways (51%), anticipating/managing drug shortages (46%) and obtaining investigational use drugs (32%). While many core ASP activities continued, prospective audit and feedback and prescriber education were modified or suspended by 43% and 40% of programmes, respectively. Decreased frequency, adaptation of activities (i.e. virtual or other technology) and challenges with staffing/resources were commonly reported themes. Knowledge translation (KT) activities and 'collaboration and coordination' also emerged as salient themes. Conclusions: Hospital antimicrobial stewardship practitioners in Ontario have made significant contributions to the pandemic response while continuing to deliver adapted ASP services, despite resource constraints. Moving forward, ASPs will need to continue building capacity while leveraging broader networks to advance the antimicrobial stewardship agenda.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Large observational studies have demonstrated the real-world effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in preventing severe COVID-19 in higher risk individuals, but have provided limited information on other aspects of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir use. Our objective was to evaluate prescribing outcomes such as the prevalence of drug-drug interactions (DDI), adverse drug events (ADE) and treatment adherence in an outpatient community clinic setting. METHODS: We conducted a single-centre retrospective cohort study of adult outpatients prescribed nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in our community COVID-19 assessment clinic in Toronto, Ontario between March 3 and September 20, 2022. We performed a descriptive analysis of the patient population, DDIs, DDI interventions, treatment adherence, ADEs and clinical outcomes of patients prescribed nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. RESULTS: There were 637 individuals prescribed nirmatrelvir-ritonavir during the study period. The median age was 70, the median number of risk factors for severe disease were 2, 45% were immunocompromised and 82% had received 3 or more COVID-19 vaccine doses. 95% (542/572) completed the 5-day course of therapy with 68% (388/572) having complete symptom resolution by 28-day. Eleven percent (60/572) experienced recurrent symptoms following the completion of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Over 70% had one or more clinically significant DDIs requiring mitigation and 62% of patients experienced at least one ADE, which was most commonly dysgeusia or gastrointestinal-related. Ninety-five percent (542/572) of patients completed therapy as prescribed. Overall, hospitalization within 28 days was 3.3% with 1.2% attributed to COVID-19 and there were no deaths. INTERPRETATION: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a high prevalence of clinically significant DDIs, which required mitigation strategies and a high frequency of mild ADEs. Collaborative assessment to address medication alterations resulted in high treatment adherence.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Efeitos Colaterais e Reações Adversas Relacionados a Medicamentos , Adulto , Humanos , Idoso , Pacientes Ambulatoriais , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Estudos Retrospectivos , Ritonavir/uso terapêutico , Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19 , Didanosina , Antivirais/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
Objective: To evaluate inter-physician variability and predictors of changes in antibiotic prescribing before (2019) and during (2020/2021) the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of physicians in Ontario, Canada prescribing oral antibiotics in the outpatient setting between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2021 using the IQVIA Xponent data set. The primary outcome was the change in the number of antibiotic prescriptions between the prepandemic and pandemic period. Secondary outcomes were changes in the selection of broad-spectrum agents and long-duration (>7 d) antibiotic use. We used multivariable linear regression models to evaluate predictors of change. Results: There were 17,288 physicians included in the study with substantial inter-physician variability in changes in antibiotic prescribing (median change of -43.5 antibiotics per physician, interquartile range -136.5 to -5.0). In the multivariable model, later career stage (adjusted mean difference [aMD] -45.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] -52.9 to -37.8, p < .001), family medicine (aMD -46.0, 95% CI -62.5 to -29.4, p < .001), male patient sex (aMD -52.4, 95% CI -71.1 to -33.7, p < .001), low patient comorbidity (aMD -42.5, 95% CI -50.3 to -34.8, p < .001), and high prescribing to new patients (aMD -216.5, 95% CI -223.5 to -209.5, p < .001) were associated with decreases in antibiotic initiation. Family medicine and high prescribing to new patients were associated with a decrease in selection of broad-spectrum agents and prolonged antibiotic use. Conclusions: Antibiotic prescribing changed throughout the COVID-19 pandemic with overall decreases in antibiotic initiation, broad-spectrum agents, and prolonged antibiotic courses with inter-physician variability. These findings present opportunities for community antibiotic stewardship interventions.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Frequent use of antibiotics in patients with COVID-19 threatens to exacerbate antimicrobial resistance. We aimed to establish the prevalence and predictors of bacterial infections and antimicrobial resistance in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of bacterial co-infections (identified within ≤48 h of presentation) and secondary infections (>48 h after presentation) in outpatients or hospitalised patients with COVID-19. We searched the WHO COVID-19 Research Database to identify cohort studies, case series, case-control trials, and randomised controlled trials with populations of at least 50 patients published in any language between Jan 1, 2019, and Dec 1, 2021. Reviews, editorials, letters, pre-prints, and conference proceedings were excluded, as were studies in which bacterial infection was not microbiologically confirmed (or confirmed via nasopharyngeal swab only). We screened titles and abstracts of papers identified by our search, and then assessed the full text of potentially relevant articles. We reported the pooled prevalence of bacterial infections and antimicrobial resistance by doing a random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression. Our primary outcomes were the prevalence of bacterial co-infection and secondary infection, and the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens among patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and bacterial infections. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021297344). FINDINGS: We included 148 studies of 362 976 patients, which were done between December, 2019, and May, 2021. The prevalence of bacterial co-infection was 5·3% (95% CI 3·8-7·4), whereas the prevalence of secondary bacterial infection was 18·4% (14·0-23·7). 42 (28%) studies included comprehensive data for the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among bacterial infections. Among people with bacterial infections, the proportion of infections that were resistant to antimicrobials was 60·8% (95% CI 38·6-79·3), and the proportion of isolates that were resistant was 37·5% (26·9-49·5). Heterogeneity in the reported prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in organisms was substantial (I2=95%). INTERPRETATION: Although infrequently assessed, antimicrobial resistance is highly prevalent in patients with COVID-19 and bacterial infections. Future research and surveillance assessing the effect of COVID-19 on antimicrobial resistance at the patient and population level are urgently needed. FUNDING: WHO.
Assuntos
Infecções Bacterianas , COVID-19 , Coinfecção , Humanos , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Coinfecção/tratamento farmacológico , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana , Infecções Bacterianas/tratamento farmacológicoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are two intersecting global public health crises. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on AMR across health care settings. DATA SOURCE: A search was conducted in December 2021 in WHO COVID-19 Research Database with forward citation searching up to June 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY: Studies evaluating the impact of COVID-19 on AMR in any population were included and influencing factors were extracted. Reporting of enhanced infection prevention and control and/or antimicrobial stewardship programs was noted. METHODS: Pooling was done separately for Gram-negative and Gram-positive organisms. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of 6036 studies screened, 28 were included and 23 provided sufficient data for meta-analysis. The majority of studies focused on hospital settings (n = 25, 89%). The COVID-19 pandemic was not associated with a change in the incidence density (incidence rate ratio 0.99, 95% CI: 0.67-1.47) or proportion (risk ratio 0.91, 95% CI: 0.55-1.49) of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or vancomycin-resistant enterococci cases. A non-statistically significant increase was noted for resistant Gram-negative organisms (i.e. extended-spectrum beta-lactamase, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, carbapenem or multi-drug resistant or carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Acinetobacter baumannii, incidence rate ratio 1.64, 95% CI: 0.92-2.92; risk ratio 1.08, 95% CI: 0.91-1.29). The absence of reported enhanced infection prevention and control and/or antimicrobial stewardship programs initiatives was associated with an increase in gram-negative AMR (risk ratio 1.11, 95% CI: 1.03-1.20). However, a test for subgroup differences showed no statistically significant difference between the presence and absence of these initiatives (p 0.40). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic may have hastened the emergence and transmission of AMR, particularly for Gram-negative organisms in hospital settings. But there is considerable heterogeneity in both the AMR metrics used and the rate of resistance reported across studies. These findings reinforce the need for strengthened infection prevention, antimicrobial stewardship, and AMR surveillance in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente à Meticilina , Humanos , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana , CarbapenêmicosRESUMO
Background: COVID-19 and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are two intersecting public health crises. Antimicrobial overuse in patients with COVID-19 threatens to worsen AMR. Guidelines are fundamental in encouraging antimicrobial stewardship. We sought to assess the quality of antibiotic prescribing guidelines and recommendations in the context of COVID-19, and whether they incorporate principles of antimicrobial stewardship. Methods: We performed a systematic survey which included a search using the concepts "antibiotic/antimicrobial" up to November 15, 2022 of the eCOVID-19 living map of recommendations (RecMap) which aggregates guidelines across a range of international sources and all languages. Guidelines providing explicit recommendations regarding antibacterial use in COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. Guideline and recommendation quality were assessed using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instruments, respectively. We extracted guideline characteristics including panel representation and the presence or absence of explicit statements related to antimicrobial stewardship (i.e., judicious antibiotic use, antimicrobial resistance or adverse effects as a consequence of antibiotic use). We used logistic regression to evaluate the relationship between guideline characteristics including quality and incorporation of antimicrobial stewardship principles. Protocol registration (OSF): https://osf.io/4pgtc. Findings: Twenty-eight guidelines with 63 antibiotic prescribing recommendations were included. Recommendations focused on antibiotic initiation (n = 52, 83%) and less commonly antibiotic selection (n = 13, 21%), and duration of therapy (n = 15, 24%). Guideline and recommendation quality varied widely. Twenty (71%) guidelines incorporated at least one concept relating to antimicrobial stewardship. Including infectious diseases expertise on the guideline panel (OR 9.44, 97.5% CI: 1.09-81.59) and AGREE-REX score (OR 3.26, 97.5% CI: 1.14-9.31 per 10% increase in overall score) were associated with a higher odds of guidelines addressing antimicrobial stewardship. Interpretation: There is an opportunity to improve antibiotic prescribing guidelines in terms of both quality and incorporation of antimicrobial stewardship principles. These findings can help guideline developers better address antibiotic stewardship in future recommendations beyond COVID-19. Funding: This project was funded by Michael G. DeGroote Cochrane Canada and McMaster GRADE centres.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence supporting the efficacy of shorter courses of antibiotic therapy for common infections. However, the risks of prolonged antibiotic duration are underappreciated. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the incremental daily risk of antibiotic-associated harms. METHODS: We searched three major databases to retrieve systematic reviews from 2000 to 30 July 2020 in any language. ELIGIBILITY: Systematic reviews were required to evaluate shorter versus longer antibiotic therapy with fixed durations between 3 and 14 days. Randomized controlled trials included for meta-analysis were identified from the systematic reviews. PARTICIPANTS: Adult and paediatric patients from any setting. INTERVENTIONS: Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients experiencing adverse drug events, superinfections and antimicrobial resistance. RISK OF BIAS ASSESSMENT: Each randomized controlled trial was evaluated for quality by extracting the assessment reported by each systematic review. DATA SYNTHESIS: The daily odds ratio (OR) of antibiotic harm was estimated and pooled using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-five systematic reviews encompassing 71 eligible randomized controlled trials were included. Studies most commonly evaluated duration of therapy for respiratory tract (n = 36, 51%) and urinary tract (n = 29, 41%) infections. Overall, 23 174 patients were evaluated for antibiotic-associated harms. Adverse events (n = 20 345), superinfections (n = 5776) and antimicrobial resistance (n = 2330) were identified in 19.9% (n = 4039), 4.8% (n = 280) and 10.6% (n = 246) of patients, respectively. Each day of antibiotic therapy was associated with 4% increased odds of experiencing an adverse event (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.07). Daily odds of severe adverse effects also increased (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00-1.19). The daily incremental odds of superinfection and antimicrobial resistance were OR 0.98 (0.92-1.06) and OR 1.03 (0.98-1.07), respectively. CONCLUSION: Each additional day of antibiotic therapy is associated with measurable antibiotic harm, particularly adverse events. These data may provide additional context for clinicians when weighing benefits versus risks of prolonged antibiotic therapy.
Assuntos
Antibacterianos , Adulto , Antibacterianos/efeitos adversos , Criança , HumanosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of bacterial infection in patients with COVID-19 is low, however, empiric antibiotic use is high. Risk stratification may be needed to minimize unnecessary empiric antibiotic use. OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors and microbiology associated with respiratory and bloodstream bacterial infection in patients with COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, OVID Epub and EMBASE for published literature up to 5 February 2021. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies including at least 50 patients with COVID-19 in any healthcare setting. METHODS: We used a validated ten-item risk of bias tool for disease prevalence. The main outcome of interest was the proportion of COVID-19 patients with bloodstream and/or respiratory bacterial co-infection and secondary infection. We performed meta-regression to identify study population factors associated with bacterial infection including healthcare setting, age, comorbidities and COVID-19 medication. RESULTS: Out of 33 345 studies screened, 171 were included in the final analysis. Bacterial infection data were available from 171 262 patients. The prevalence of co-infection was 5.1% (95% CI 3.6-7.1%) and secondary infection was 13.1% (95% CI 9.8-17.2%). There was a higher odds of bacterial infection in studies with a higher proportion of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) (adjusted OR 18.8, 95% CI 6.5-54.8). Female sex was associated with a lower odds of secondary infection (adjusted OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.97) but not co-infection (adjusted OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.80-1.37). The most common organisms isolated included Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci and Klebsiella species. CONCLUSIONS: While the odds of respiratory and bloodstream bacterial infection are low in patients with COVID-19, meta-regression revealed potential risk factors for infection, including ICU setting and mechanical ventilation. The risk for secondary infection is substantially greater than the risk for co-infection in patients with COVID-19. Understanding predictors of co-infection and secondary infection may help to support improved antibiotic stewardship in patients with COVID-19.
Assuntos
Gestão de Antimicrobianos , Infecções Bacterianas , COVID-19 , Infecções Respiratórias , Bactérias , Infecções Bacterianas/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções Bacterianas/epidemiologia , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Infecções Respiratórias/tratamento farmacológicoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Documenting an indication when prescribing antimicrobials is considered best practice; however, a better understanding of the evidence is needed to support broader implementation of this practice. OBJECTIVES: We performed a scoping review to evaluate antimicrobial indication documentation as it pertains to its implementation, prevalence, accuracy and impact on clinical and utilisation outcomes in all patient populations. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Published and unpublished literature evaluating the documentation of an indication for antimicrobial prescribing. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: A search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts in addition to a review of the grey literature. CHARTING AND ANALYSIS: Screening and extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. Studies were categorised inductively and results were presented descriptively. RESULTS: We identified 123 peer-reviewed articles and grey literature documents for inclusion. Most studies took place in a hospital setting (109, 89%). The median prevalence of antimicrobial indication documentation was 75% (range 4%-100%). Studies evaluating the impact of indication documentation on prescribing and patient outcomes most commonly examined appropriateness and identified a benefit to prescribing or patient outcomes in 17 of 19 studies. Qualitative studies evaluating healthcare worker perspectives (n=10) noted the common barriers and facilitators to this practice. CONCLUSION: There is growing interest in the importance of documenting an indication when prescribing antimicrobials. While antimicrobial indication documentation is not uniformly implemented, several studies have shown that multipronged approaches can be used to improve this practice. Emerging evidence demonstrates that antimicrobial indication documentation is associated with improved prescribing and patient outcomes both in community and hospital settings. But setting-specific and larger trials are needed to provide a more robust evidence base for this practice.