RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Interventions for improving antibiotic prescribing in the community: systematic review and meta-analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.11.20.24317684
DO 10.1101/2024.11.20.24317684
A1 Andrews, Rebecca A J
A1 Santiago, Virginia Hernandez
A1 Guthrie, Bruce
A1 Marwick, Charis A
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/23/2024.11.20.24317684.abstract
AB Background Antibiotic resistance is a public health priority and antibiotic use in humans is a major contributing factor to its development. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing in the community, where most antibiotics are prescribed, are widely implemented with varying effect. The aim was to systematically review and meta-analyse evidence on effectiveness of different types of antibiotic prescribing interventions in the community.Methods and Findings Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were searched from database inception to 16 August 2021 to identify randomised controlled trials comparing antibiotic stewardship interventions versus usual care in community settings. Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Studies were grouped according to type of intervention. Meta-analyses employed random effects models. The outcome for meta-analyses was change in total antibiotic prescribing rates attributable to the intervention, compared to usual care, calculated as percentage differences. Other measures of change in antibiotic prescribing were included in narrative description.Of 26,130 studies screened, 74 were included, with 53 comparisons from 45 studies meta- analysed. 50% of included studies had high risk of bias. Single interventions with statistically significant reductions in total antibiotic prescribing were point of care tests for antigen detection (−28.0% reduction, 95%CI−38.2 to−17.8); educational materials (−17.0%, −31.0 to - 3.0); printed decision-support systems (−10.8%,−15.7 to -6.0), educational workshops (− 8.7%,−12.8 to -4.7), and; educational outreach (−6.0%,−10.6 to−1.4). Multifaceted interventions were not more effective than single interventions (education + audit and feedback –9.9%, −12.8 to -7.0; other multifaceted -9.4%, −17.2 to −1.6). Effect sizes in sensitivity analyses excluding trials at high risk of bias were similar or larger.Conclusions Community antibiotic stewardship interventions were effective but with considerable variation in effect size. The most effective trial interventions may be more difficult to implement in practice, a key challenge for antibiotic stewardship.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42014010160Competing Interest StatementVHS: support from the Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government, for funding her time to undertake this work as part of her PhD. Within the past 3 years, funding from the University of St Andrews (employing institution) to fund a PhD project looking at antimicrobial stewardship in primary care out-of-hours and antimicrobial resistance work, and funding from the Chief Scientist Office for COVID−19 research (unrelated work). BG: funding from National Institute of Health Research and Legal and General PLC to employing institution for unrelated work. RA: no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. CM: RA: no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.Funding StatementYesAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.Not ApplicableThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:No ethics approval was requiredI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.Not ApplicableI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Not ApplicableI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.Not ApplicableAll data are contained within the manuscript, supporting files and references.