The Slow-Motion Catastrophe of Antimicrobial Resistance and Practical Interventions for All Prescribers.

All medical and surgical specialties depend on the pool of effective antibiotics that continues to evaporate because of the increasing prevalence of drug-resistant bacteria. Antimicrobial-resistant infections kill 700,000 patients every year. By 2050, they are projected to cause 10 million deaths per year at a cumulative global cost of $100 trillion. Professional societies and international health agencies, including the United Nations, have declared escalating antimicrobial resistance as one of the gravest and most urgent threats to global public health and issued calls for action. The propensity of bacteria to mobilize and share genetic resistance determinants across species and genera, record levels of conflict-driven human population displacement, and the dearth of new antibiotics and rapid diagnostic tests, along with climate change and the epidemic of opioid addiction, exacerbate the antimicrobial resistance crisis. The predominant cause of antibiotic resistance is exposure to antibiotics through appropriate and inappropriate use. Mindfulness, nudging by peers, and adjuncts and alternatives to antibiotics, such as phage therapies, microbiome-based therapies, and novel medical informatics applications, could help reduce antibiotic use. This article describes the antimicrobial resistance crisis and highlights points in the continuum of care in which clinicians can readily implement practical, no-cost changes to minimize antibiotic exposure.

Economic impact of potentially inappropriate prescribing and related adverse events in older people: a cost-utility analysis using Markov models.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the economic impact of three drugs commonly involved in potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in adults aged ≥65 years, including their adverse effects (AEs): long-term use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), benzodiazepines and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) at maximal dose; to assess cost-effectiveness of potential interventions to reduce PIP of each drug. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis. We developed Markov models incorporating the AEs of each PIP, populated with published estimates of probabilities, health system costs (in 2014 euro) and utilities. PARTICIPANTS: A hypothetical cohort of 65 year olds analysed over 35 1-year cycles with discounting at 5% per year. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with 95% credible intervals (CIs, generated in probabilistic sensitivity analysis) between each PIP and an appropriate alternative strategy. Models were then used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of potential interventions to reduce PIP for each of the three drug classes. RESULTS: All three PIP drugs and their AEs are associated with greater cost and fewer QALYs compared with alternatives. The largest reduction in QALYs and incremental cost was for benzodiazepines compared with no sedative medication (€3470, 95% CI €2434 to €5001; -0.07 QALYs, 95% CI -0.089 to -0.047), followed by NSAIDs relative to paracetamol (€806, 95% CI €415 and €1346; -0.07 QALYs, 95% CI -0.131 to -0.026), and maximal dose PPIs compared with maintenance dose PPIs (€989, 95% CI -€69 and €2127; -0.01 QALYs, 95% CI -0.029 to 0.003). For interventions to reduce PIP, at a willingness-to-pay of €45 000 per QALY, targeting NSAIDs would be cost-effective up to the highest intervention cost per person of €1971. For benzodiazepine and PPI interventions, the equivalent cost was €1480 and €831, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term benzodiazepine and NSAID prescribing are associated with significantly increased costs and reduced QALYs. Targeting inappropriate NSAID prescribing appears to be the most cost-effective PIP intervention.

Costs of medication in older patients: before and after comprehensive geriatric assessment.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy and inappropriate drug use cause numerous complications, such as cognitive impairment, frailty, falls, and functional dependence. The present study aimed to determine the effect of the comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) on polypharmacy, potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs), and to evaluate the economic reflections of medication changes. METHODS: One thousand five hundred and seventy-nine older patients, who had undergone CGA, were retrospectively evaluated. The drugs, drug groups, and number of drugs that the patients used were recorded. Appropriate drug therapy was identified by both CGA and STOPP/START criteria. Based on these criteria, PIMs were discontinued and PPOs were started. The monthly cost of these drugs was calculated separately for PIMs and PPOs by using the drugstore records. RESULTS: After CGA, while the prevalence of non-polypharmacy was increased from 43.3% to 65.6%, the prevalence of polypharmacy and hyperpolypharmacy was decreased from 56.7% to 34.4% and 12.0% to 3.6%, respectively. The three most common PIMs discontinued were proton pump inhibitors, anti-dementia drugs, and antipsychotics, respectively. However, the most common PPOs started were vitamin D and B12 supplements, and anti-depressants. After CGA, monthly saved total per capita cost of PIMs was US$12.8 and monthly increased total per capita cost of PPOs was $5.6. CONCLUSION: It was demonstrated that prevalence of polypharmacy, PIM, and PPO could be decreased by CGA including START/STOPP criteria in older adults. Furthermore, this will have beneficial effects on economical parameters due to decreasing drug-related health care costs.

Inequalities in prescription of hydrochlorothiazide for diabetic hypertensive patients in Colombia.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluating differences in the suitable prescription of thiazides in hypertense patients, according to affiliation regime. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an analytical cross-sectional study. The database from a previous study was used regarding two groups of hypertense patients (subsidised regime and contributory regime) who had attended out-patient consultation between 01-09-2007 and 29-02-2008. Ideal therapy was evaluated in both groups. Univariate and multivariate analysis was carried out. RESULTS: 136 patients (contributory: 41.9 %; subsidised: 58.1 %). Subsidised regime patients were older (mean=68.8±10) than those from the contributory regime (mean=64.1±11.1) (t-test, p=0.0110). Prescribing antihypertensive drugs was ideal in 49/136 of the patients (36.0 %). Ideal prescription accounted for 24/79 (30 %) of the patients in the subsidised regime and 25/57 (43.8 %) in the contributory one (OR=1.79; 95 % CI:0.88-3.64). Older people (aged ≥ 65 yo) were at risk of receiving a non-ideal prescription (OR=2.12; 95 %CI:1.02-4.38) whilst this was not so in the subsidised regime (OR=1.62; 95 % CI:0.78-3.35). CONCLUSIONS: Ideal prescription of antihypertensive drugs was low in the population being studied. There were differences regarding age ideal prescription but not concerning affiliation regime. It is suggested that a longitudinal study be carried out in the future.

Inequalities in prescription of hydrochlorothiazide for diabetic hypertensive patients in Colombia / Desigualdades en la prescripción de hidroclorotiazida en pacientes hipertensos diabéticos en Colombia

Objective Evaluating differences in the suitable prescription of thiazides in hypertense patients, according to affiliation regime. Materials and methods This was an analytical cross-sectional study. The database from a previous study was used regarding two groups of hypertense patients (subsidised regime and contributory regime) who had attended out-patient consultation between 01-09-2007 and 29-02-2008. Ideal therapy was evaluated in both groups. Univariate and multivariate analysis was carried out. Results 136 patients (contributory: 41.9 percent; subsidised: 58.1 percent). Subsidised regime patients were older (mean=68.8±10) than those from the contributory regime (mean=64.1±11.1) (t-test, p=0.0110). Prescribing antihypertensive drugs was ideal in 49/136 of the patients (36.0 percent). Ideal prescription accounted for 24/79 (30 percent) of the patients in the subsidised regime and 25/57 (43.8 percent) in the contributory one (OR=1.79; 95 percent CI:0.88-3.64). Older people (aged ≥ 65yo) were at risk of receiving a non-ideal prescription (OR=2.12; 95 percentCI:1.02-4.38) whilst this was not so in the subsidised regime (OR=1.62; 95 percent CI:0.78-3.35). Conclusions Ideal prescription of antihypertensive drugs was low in the population being studied. There were differences regarding age ideal prescription but not concerning affiliation regime. It is suggested that a longitudinal study be carried out in the future.

Objetivo Evaluar las diferencias en la adecuada prescripción de tiazidas en pacientes hipertensos, según régimen de afiliación. Materiales y métodos Estudio de corte transversal analítico. Se utilizó la base de datos de un estudio previo, dos grupos de pacientes hipertensos: régimen subsidiado y régimen contributivo que asistieron a consulta externa entre el 01-09-2007 y el 29-02-2008. Se evaluó terapia ideal en los dos grupos. Se realizó análisis univariado y multivariado. Resultados Se estudiaron 136 pacientes (contributivo: 41,9 por ciento; subsidiado: 58,1 por ciento). Los pacientes del régimen subsidiado fueron mayores (promedio= 68,8±10) que los del contributivo (promedio=64,1±11.1) (t-test, p=0,0110). La prescripción de antihipertensivos fue ideal en 49/136 (36,0 por ciento). En el régimen subsidiado la prescripción fue ideal en 24/79 (30 por ciento) y en el contributivo en 25/57 (43,8 por ciento) (OR: 1,79 IC95 por ciento (0,88-3,64)). La edad ≥65años fue riesgo de prescripción no ideal (OR: 2.12, IC95 por ciento(1,02-4,38)), mientras que no lo fue estar en el régimen subsidiado (OR=1,62, IC95 por ciento(0,78-3,35). Conclusiones La prescripción ideal de antihipertensivos es baja. Hay diferencias en la edad, en la prescripción ideal, mas no por régimen de afiliación. Se sugiere un estudio longitudinal en el futuro.