Search

Background: Various metrics of hospital antibiotic use might assist in guiding antimicrobial stewardship (AMS)., Objectives: To compare patient outcomes in association with three methods to measure and feedback information on hospital antibiotic use when used in developing an AMS intervention., Methods: Three methods were randomly allocated to 42 clusters from 21 Dutch hospitals: (1) feedback on quantity of antibiotic use [DDD, days-of-therapy (DOT) from hospital pharmacy data], versus feedback on (2) validated, or (3) non-validated quality indicators from point prevalence studies. Using this feedback together with an implementation tool, stewardship teams systematically developed and performed improvement strategies. The hospital length of stay (LOS) was the primary outcome and secondary outcomes included DOT, ICU stay and hospital mortality. Data were collected before (February-May 2015) and after (February-May 2017) the intervention period., Results: The geometric mean hospital LOS decreased from 9.5 days (95% CI 8.9-10.1, 4245 patients) at baseline to 9.0 days (95% CI 8.5-9.6, 4195 patients) after intervention (P < 0.001). No differences in effect on LOS or secondary outcomes were found between methods. Feedback on quality of antibiotic use was used more often to identify improvement targets and was preferred over feedback on quantity of use. Consistent use of the implementation tool seemed to increase effectiveness of the AMS intervention., Conclusions: The decrease in LOS versus baseline likely reflects improvement in the quality of antibiotic use with the stewardship intervention. While the outcomes with the three methods were otherwise similar, stewardship teams preferred data on the quality over the quantity of antibiotic use., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.)

Objectives: To investigate whether antibiotic treatment of 6 days' duration is non-inferior to treatment for 12 days in patients hospitalized for cellulitis., Methods: This multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial enrolled adult patients hospitalized for severe cellulitis who were treated with intravenous flucloxacillin. At day 6 participants with symptom improvement who were afebrile were randomized between an additional 6 days of oral flucloxacillin or placebo in a 1:1 ratio, stratified for diabetes and hospital. The primary outcome was cure by day 14, without relapse by day 28. Secondary outcomes included a modified cure assessment and relapse rate by day 90., Results: Between August 2014 and June 2017, 151 of 248 included participants were randomized. The intention-to-treat population consisted of 76 and 73 participants allocated to 12 and 6 days of antibiotic therapy, respectively (mean age 62 years, 67% males, 24% diabetics); 38/76 (50.0%) and 36/73 (49.3%) were cured in the 12- and 6-day groups respectively (ARR 0.7 percentage points, 95%CI: -15.0 to 16.3). Cure rates were 56/76 (73.7%) and 49/73 (67.1%) with the modified cure assessment (ARR 6.6, 95%CI: -8.0 to 20.8). After initial cure without relapse, day 90 relapse rates were higher in the 6-day group (6% versus 24%, p < 0.05)., Conclusions: Given the wide confidence intervals, we can neither confirm nor refute our hypothesis that 6 days of therapy is non-inferior to 12 days of therapy. However, a 6-day course resulted in significantly more frequent relapses by day 90. These findings require confirmation in future studies., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

A cornerstone of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) is monitoring quantitative antibiotic use. Frequently used metrics are defined daily dose (DDD) and days of therapy (DOT). The purpose of this study was (1) to explore for the hospital setting the possibilities of quantitative data retrieval on the level of medical specialty and (2) to describe factors affecting the usability and interpretation of these quantitative metrics. We performed a retrospective observational study, measuring overall systemic antibiotic use at specialty level over a 1-year period, from December 1st 2014 to December 1st 2015, in one university and 13 non-university hospitals in the Netherlands. We distinguished surgical and non-surgical adult specialties. The association between DDDs, calculated from aggregated dispensing data, and DOTs, calculated from patient-level prescription data, was explored descriptively and related to organizational factors, data sources (prescription versus dispensing data), data registration, and data extraction. Twelve hospitals were able to extract dispensing data (DDD), three of which on the level of medical specialty; 13 hospitals were able to extract prescription data (DOT), 11 of which by medical specialty. A large variation in quantitative antibiotic use was found between hospitals and the correlation between DDDs and DOTs at specialty level was low. Differences between hospitals related to organizational factors, data sources, data registration, and data extraction procedures likely contributed to the variation in quantitative use and the low correlation between DDDs and DOTs. The differences in healthcare organization, data sources, data registration, and data extraction procedures contributed to the variation in reported quantitative use between hospitals. Uniform registration and extraction procedures are necessary for appropriate measurement and interpretation and benchmarking of quantitative antibiotic use.

Objectives: An antibiotic checklist was introduced in nine Dutch hospitals to improve appropriate antibiotic use. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of checklist use., Methods: We compared 853 patients treated with an antibiotic before checklist introduction (usual care group) with 1207 patients treated after introduction (checklist group). We calculated the change of costs between these groups per unit effect [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)]: per extra patient receiving appropriate treatment; and per day reduction in length of hospital stay (LOS). We also calculated the benefit-to-cost ratio per day reduction in LOS. Finally, we estimated the number of checklists after which the expected benefits would compensate for costs in one hospital., Results: The cost of checklist use per patient was €10.10. Of the usual care patients, 48.8% received appropriate antibiotic treatment compared with 67.5% of the checklist patients (+18.7%). The ICER was €54.01 (1010/18.7) per extra patient with appropriate treatment. In a model calculation the expected effect of appropriate antibiotic use was a reduction in LOS of 1.05 days, which was extrapolated to a reduction of 19.64 hospital days per 100 patients. The ICER was €51.43 (1010/19.64) per day reduction in LOS. The estimated benefit of a 1 day reduction was €611. The benefit-to-cost ratio was 11.9 (611/51.43) per day reduction in LOS, indicating a cost saving of €12 for every euro spent on checklist use. The benefits would compensate for costs after use of 11 checklists., Conclusions: Efforts for further implementation of the antibiotic checklist can be justified by potential economic benefits., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: Quality indicators (QIs) have been developed to define appropriate antibiotic use in hospitalized patients. We evaluated whether a checklist based on these QIs affects appropriate antibiotic use and length of hospital stay., Methods: An antibiotic checklist for patients treated with intravenous antibiotics was introduced in nine Dutch hospitals in a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial. Prophylaxis was excluded. We included a random sample before (baseline), and all eligible patients after (intervention) checklist introduction. Baseline and intervention outcomes were compared. Primary endpoint was length of stay (LOS), analysed by intention to treat. Secondary endpoints, including QI performances, QI sum score (performance on all QIs per patient), and quality of checklist use, were analysed per protocol., Results: Between 1 November 2014 and 1 October 2015 we included 853 baseline and 5354 intervention patients, of whom 993 (19%) had a completed checklist. The LOS did not change (baseline geometric mean 10.0 days (95% CI 8.6-11.5) versus intervention 10.1 days (95% CI 8.9-11.5), p 0.8). QI performances increased between +3.0% and +23.9% per QI, and the percentage of patients with a QI sum score above 50% increased significantly (OR 2.4 (95% CI 2.0-3.0), p<0.001). Higher QI sum scores were significantly associated with shorter LOS. Discordance existed between checklist-answers and actual performance., Conclusions: Use of an antibiotic checklist resulted in a significant increase in appropriateness of antibiotic use, but not in a reduction of LOS. Low overall checklist completion rates and discordance between checklist-answers and actual provided care might have attenuated the impact of the checklist., (Copyright © 2017 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of two strategies to improve antibiotic use in patients with a complicated urinary tract infection., Design: Multicentre cluster randomised unblinded trial., Method: The departments of Internal Medicine and Urology from 19 hospitals in the Netherlands took part in this trial. Based on retrospective patient record investigations we performed baseline measurements on the scores of a validated set of quality indicators for antibiotic use in a minimum of 50 patients with a complicated urinary tract infection per department in 2009. A similar post-trial measurement took place in 2012. In 2010 we randomised the hospitals between 2 improvement strategies: a multifaceted strategy that included results of the baseline measurements, education, reminders and assistance with optional improvement interventions, and a competitive feedback strategy, in which the departments only received results of the baseline measurements and non-anonymous results from the other departments in this study arm. The primary outcome measure was improvement of the quality indicator scores. Secondary outcome measures were determinants of improvement of the indicators. (Netherlands Trial Register: NTR1742) RESULTS: The baseline and post-trial measurements were performed on 1,964 patients and 2,027 patients, respectively. Post-trial measurements revealed a significant, but limited, improvement of several indicators compared with baseline measurements. We found no significant difference in improvement between the two strategies for any indicator. The intensity with which the departments implemented improvement strategies was mostly suboptimal, but intensive implementation of a strategy was associated with greater improvement., Conclusion: The effectiveness of both improvement strategies was comparable, but limited. For real improvement in antibiotic use in patients with complicated urinary tract infections, improvement interventions should be developed and applied by local professionals themselves.

Background: Up to 50% of hospital antibiotic use is inappropriate and therefore improvement strategies are urgently needed. We compared the effectiveness of two strategies to improve the quality of antibiotic use in patients with a complicated urinary tract infection (UTI)., Methods: In a multicentre, cluster-randomized trial 19 Dutch hospitals (departments Internal Medicine and Urology) were allocated to either a multi-faceted strategy including feedback, educational sessions, reminders and additional/optional improvement actions, or a competitive feedback strategy, i.e. providing professionals with non-anonymous comparative feedback on the department's appropriateness of antibiotic use. Retrospective baseline- and post-intervention measurements were performed in 2009 and 2012 in 50 patients per department, resulting in 1,964 and 2,027 patients respectively. Principal outcome measures were nine validated guideline-based quality indicators (QIs) that define appropriate antibiotic use in patients with a complicated UTI, and a QI sumscore that summarizes for each patient the appropriateness of antibiotic use., Results: Performance scores on several individual QIs showed improvement from baseline to post-intervention measurements, but no significant differences were found between both strategies. The mean patient's QI sum score improved significantly in both strategy groups (multi-faceted: 61.7% to 65.0%, P = 0.04 and competitive feedback: 62.8% to 66.7%, P = 0.01). Compliance with the strategies was suboptimal, but better compliance was associated with more improvement., Conclusion: The effectiveness of both strategies was comparable and better compliance with the strategies was associated with more improvement. To increase effectiveness, improvement activities should be rigorously applied, preferably by a locally initiated multidisciplinary team., Trial Registration: Nederlands Trial Register 1742.

Background: Recently we developed and validated generic quality indicators that define 'appropriate antibiotic use' in hospitalized adults treated for a (suspected) bacterial infection. Previous studies have shown that with appropriate antibiotic use a reduction of 13% of length of hospital stay can be achieved. Our main objective in this project is to provide hospitals with an antibiotic checklist based on these quality indicators, and to evaluate the introduction of this checklist in terms of (cost-) effectiveness., Methods/design: The checklist applies to hospitalized adults with a suspected bacterial infection for whom antibiotic therapy is initiated, at first via the intravenous route. A stepped wedge study design will be used, comparing outcomes before and after introduction of the checklist in nine hospitals in the Netherlands. At least 810 patients will be included in both the control and the intervention group. The primary endpoint is length of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints are appropriate antibiotic use measured by the quality indicators, admission to and duration of intensive care unit stay, readmission within 30 days, mortality, total antibiotic use, and costs associated with implementation and hospital stay. Differences in numerical endpoints between the two periods will be evaluated with mixed linear models; for dichotomous outcomes generalized estimating equation models will be used. A process evaluation will be performed to evaluate the professionals' compliance with use of the checklist. The key question for the economic evaluation is whether the benefits of the checklist, which include reduced antibiotic use, reduced length of stay and associated costs, justify the costs associated with implementation activities as well as daily use of the checklist., Discussion: If (cost-) effective, the AB-checklist will provide physicians with a tool to support appropriate antibiotic use in adult hospitalized patients who start with intravenous antibiotics., Trial Registration: Dutch trial registry: NTR4872.

Background: Recommended therapy duration for patients hospitalized with cellulitis is 10-14 days. Unnecessary use of antibiotics is one of the key factors driving resistance. Recent studies have shown that antibiotic therapy for cellulitis in outpatients can safely be shortened, despite residual inflammation. This study will compare in hospitalized patients the safety and effectiveness of shortening antibiotic therapy for cellulitis from 12 to 6 days., Methods/design: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial, adult patients admitted with cellulitis will be included. Cellulitis is defined as warmth, erythema, and induration of the skin and/or subcutaneous tissue, with or without pain (including erysipelas). All patients will initially be treated with intravenous flucloxacillin, and will be evaluated after 5-6 days. Those who have improved substantially (defined as being afebrile, and having a lower cellulitis severity score) will be randomized at day 6 between additional 6 days of oral flucloxacillin (n = 198) or placebo (n = 198). Treatment success is defined as resolution of cellulitis on day 14 (disappearance of warmth and tenderness, improvement of erythema and edema), without the need of additional antibiotics for cellulitis by day 28. Secondary endpoints are relapse rate (up to day 90), speed of recovery (using a cellulitis severity score until day 28, and VAS scores on pain and swelling until day 90), quality of life (using the SF-36 and EQ-5D questionnaires) and costs (associated with total antibiotic use and health-care resource utilization up to day 90)., Discussion: Inclusion is planned to start in Q2 2014., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02032654) and the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR4360).

Background: Many perinatal interventions are performed to improve long-term neonatal outcome. To evaluate the long-term effect of a perinatal intervention follow-up of the child after discharge from the hospital is necessary because serious sequelae from perinatal complications frequently manifest themselves only after several years. However, long-term follow-up is time-consuming, is not in the awareness of obstetricians, is expensive and falls outside the funding-period of most obstetric studies. Consequently, short-term outcomes are often reported instead of the primary long-term end-point. With this project, we will assess the current state of affairs concerning follow-up after obstetric RCTs and we will develop multivariable prediction models for different long-term health outcomes. Furthermore, we would like to encourage other researchers participating in follow-up studies after large obstetric trials (> 350 women) to inform us about their studies so that we can include their follow-up study in our systematic review. We would invite these researchers also to join our effort and to collaborate with us on the external validation of our prediction models., Methods/design: A systematic review of neonatal follow-up after obstetric studies will be performed. All reviews of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth group will be assessed for reviews on interventions that aimed to improve neonatal outcome. Reviews on interventions primary looking at other aspects than neonatal outcome such as labour progress will also be included when these interventions can change the outcome of the neonate on the short or long-term. Our review will be limited to RCTs with more than 350 women. Information that will be extracted from these RCTs will address whether, how and for how long follow-up has been performed. However, in many cases long-term follow-up of the infants will not be feasible. An alternative solution to limited follow-up could be to develop prediction models to estimate long-term health outcomes of the newborn based on specific perinatal outcomes and other covariates. For the development of multivariable prediction models for several health outcomes, we will use data available from a Dutch cohort study of preterm (< 32 weeks) and/or small for gestational age infants (< 1500 g). These infants were born in The Netherlands in 1983 and followed until they reached the age of 19., Discussion: The systematic review will provide insight in the extent and methods used for follow-up assessments after obstetric RCTs in the past. The prediction models can be used by future studies to extrapolate short-term outcomes to a long-term horizon or to indicate for which neonates long-term follow-up is required, as their outcomes (either absence or presence of sequelae) cannot be adequately predicted from short-term outcomes and clinical background characteristics.

Objectives: The optimal duration of antibiotic therapy in patients with uncomplicated pneumonia may be shorter than that recommended in the current guidelines. A shorter duration will probably also lead to a cost reduction. This study evaluates the costs associated with 3 versus 8 day antibiotic therapy and subsequent follow-up in patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate-severe community-acquired pneumonia., Patients and Methods: The economic evaluation was based on primary resource utilization data collected within the framework of a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial. As 3 day therapy was shown to be clinically not inferior to 8 day therapy, the cost-minimization analysis was performed based on direct medical and indirect non-medical costs, estimated from a societal perspective for the 28 days following hospital admission., Results: Lower costs of shorter therapy during hospital admission (euro 209 lower) were partially offset by higher costs for primary healthcare providers (euro 66 higher). The average costs generated per patient by resource utilization during admission and follow-up were estimated as euro 3,959 in the 3 day group versus euro 4,102 in the 8 day group (difference euro 143 in favour of shorter therapy). The difference was affected by changes in assumptions concerning the unit costs for hospital stay but was consistently in favour of shorter therapy., Conclusions: Shorter duration of antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients with uncomplicated pneumonia does not result in a substantial substitution of resource utilization to primary healthcare providers. As 3 day antibiotic therapy does not lead to inferior clinical results, these findings support a 3 day therapy as a more efficient strategy.

Study Objectives: The long-term outcomes of patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in terms of symptom resolution and health-related quality of life (HRQL) is unknown. Our objective was to determine the rate of symptom resolution using validated patient-based outcome measures, and to assess HRQL 18 months after the episode., Participants: Patients were recruited from a group enrolled in a randomized trial comparing two durations of treatment for CAP. Between 2000 and 2003, we included 102 adults with a mild-to-moderate-severe CAP (pneumonia severity index, < or = 110)., Interventions: CAP-related symptoms were assessed until month 18 using the CAP score. The CAP score was divided into respiratory and well-being sections to assess the recovery of respiratory and well-being symptoms separately. The HRQL was assessed at 18 months using the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short form (SF-36) questionnaire and compared to a Dutch reference group., Results: Respiratory symptoms resolved within 14 days, while the well-being symptoms resolved more slowly. Taking the prepneumonia status into account, patients recovered fully from pneumonia after 6 months. Patients with comorbid conditions had significantly more symptoms prepneumonia and during follow-up than patients without comorbidities, but at all time points the proportion of patients that reached > or = 80% of the prepneumonia health level did not depend on comorbidity, age, or etiology. SF-36 scores at 18 months were significantly impaired in four of the eight dimensions for patients with comorbid illness, but did not differ from the reference population for patients without comorbid illness., Conclusion: Patients with mild-to-moderate-severe CAP recover fully from pneumonia after 6 months. The presence of symptoms beyond 28 days and any impairment in HRQL were found to reflect age and comorbidity rather than the persistent effects of the pneumonia itself.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of discontinuing treatment with amoxicillin after three days or eight days in adults admitted to hospital with mild to moderate-severe community acquired pneumonia who substantially improved after an initial three days' treatment., Design: Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled non-inferiority trial., Setting: Nine secondary and tertiary care hospitals in the Netherlands., Participants: Adults with mild to moderate-severe community acquired pneumonia (pneumonia severity index score < or = 110)., Interventions: Patients who had substantially improved after three days' treatment with intravenous amoxicillin were randomly assigned to oral amoxicillin (n = 63) or placebo (n = 56) three times daily for five days., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was the clinical success rate at day 10. Secondary outcome measures were the clinical success rate at day 28, symptom resolution, radiological success rates at days 10 and 28, and adverse events., Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable, with the exception of symptom severity, which was worse in the three day treatment group. In the three day and eight day treatment groups the clinical success rate at day 10 was 93% for both (difference 0.1%, 95% confidence interval--9% to 10%) and at day 28 was 90% compared with 88% (difference 2.0%,--9% to 15%). Both groups had similar resolution of symptoms. Radiological success rates were 86% compared with 83% at day 10 (difference 3%,--10% to 16%) and 86% compared with 79% at day 28 (difference 6%,--7% to 20%). Six patients (11%) in the placebo group and 13 patients (21%) in the active treatment group reported adverse events (P = 0.1)., Conclusions: Discontinuing amoxicillin treatment after three days is not inferior to discontinuing it after eight days in adults admitted to hospital with mild to moderate-severe community acquired pneumonia who substantially improved after an initial three days' treatment.