Prescriber-level surveillance of outpatient antimicrobial consumption to enable targeted antimicrobial stewardship: a nationwide observational study, Switzerland, 2015 to 2022.

BackgroundIn Europe and other high-income countries, antibiotics are mainly prescribed in the outpatient setting, which consists of primary, specialist and hospital-affiliated outpatient care. Established surveillance platforms report antimicrobial consumption (AMC) on aggregated levels and the contribution of the different prescriber groups is unknown.AimTo determine the contribution of different prescribers to the overall outpatient AMC in Switzerland.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study using claims data from one large Swiss health insurance company, covering the period from 2015 to 2022. We analysed antibiotic prescriptions (ATC code J01) prescribed in the Swiss outpatient setting. Results were reported as defined daily doses per 1,000 inhabitants per day (DID) and weighted according to the total population of Switzerland based on census data.ResultsWe analysed 3,663,590 antibiotic prescriptions from 49 prescriber groups. Overall, AMC ranged from 9.12 DID (2015) to 7.99 DID (2022). General internal medicine (40.1% of all prescribed DID in 2022), hospital-affiliated outpatient care (20.6%), group practices (17.3%), paediatrics (5.4%) and gynaecology (3.7%) were the largest prescriber groups. Primary care accounted for two-thirds of the prescribed DID. Quantity and type of antibiotics prescribed varied between the prescriber groups. Broad-spectrum penicillins, tetracyclines and macrolides were the most prescribed antibiotic classes.ConclusionPrimary care contributed considerably less to AMC than anticipated, and hospital-affiliated outpatient care emerged as an important prescriber. Surveillance at the prescriber level enables the identification of prescribing patterns within all prescriber groups, offering unprecedented visibility and allowing a more targeted antibiotic stewardship according to prescriber groups.

Are Tumor Marker Tests Applied Appropriately in Clinical Practice? A Healthcare Claims Data Analysis.

Tumor markers (TM) are crucial in the monitoring of cancer treatment. However, inappropriate requests for screening reasons have a high risk of false positive and negative findings, which can lead to patient anxiety and unnecessary follow-up examinations. We aimed to assess the appropriateness of TM testing in outpatient practice in Switzerland. We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on healthcare claims data. Patients who had received at least one out of seven TM tests (CEA, CA19-9, CA125, CA15-3, CA72-4, Calcitonin, or NSE) between 2018 and 2021 were analyzed. Appropriate determinations were defined as a request with a corresponding cancer-related diagnosis or intervention. Appropriateness of TM determination by patient characteristics and prescriber specialty was estimated by using multivariate analyses. A total of 51,395 TM determinations in 36,537 patients were included. An amount of 41.6% of all TM were determined appropriately. General practitioners most often determined TM (44.3%) and had the lowest number of appropriate requests (27.8%). A strong predictor for appropriate determinations were requests by medical oncologists. A remarkable proportion of TM testing was performed inappropriately, particularly in the primary care setting. Our results suggest that a considerable proportion of the population is at risk for various harms associated with misinterpretations of TM test results.