Implementing antibiotic stewardship in high-prescribing English general practices: a mixed-methods study

Procalcitonin-guided duration of antibiotic treatment in children hospitalised with confirmed or suspected bacterial infection in the UK (BATCH): a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, two-arm, individually randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Procalcitonin is a rapid response biomarker specific for bacterial infection, which is not routinely used in the UK National Health Service. We aimed to assess whether using a procalcitonin-guided algorithm would safely reduce the duration of antibiotic therapy compared with usual care, in which C-reactive protein is the commonly used biomarker.

METHODS

The BATCH trial was a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, parallel, two-arm, individually randomised, controlled trial conducted in 15 hospitals in England and Wales. Children aged 72 h to 18 years who were admitted to hospital and were being treated with intravenous antibiotics for suspected or confirmed bacterial infection and who were expected to remain on intravenous antibiotics for more than 48 h were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either current clinical management alone (usual care group) or clinical management with the addition of a procalcitonin test guided algorithm (procalcitonin group). Participants were randomly assigned by minimisation, with site and age group (0-6 months, 6 months to 2 years, 2-5 years, and older than 5 years) as minimisation factors and a random element to reduce predictability. Participants were randomly assigned remotely using a secure 24 h web-based randomisation programme. The coprimary outcomes were duration of intravenous antibiotic use, assessed for superiority, and a composite safety measure, assessed for non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin 5%). The primary analysis sample for each coprimary endpoint included all randomly assigned participants with available outcome data. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, ISRCTN11369832.

FINDINGS

Between June 11, 2018, and Oct 12, 2022, 15 282 children were screened for eligibility, 1949 of whom were randomly assigned to receive procalcitonin-guided antibiotic therapy (n=977) or usual care (n=972). The median intravenous antibiotic duration was 96·0 h (IQR 59·5-155·5) in the procalcitonin group and 99·7 h (61·2-153·8) in the usual care group (hazard ratio 0·96 [95% CI 0·87-1·05]). 78 (9%) of 917 participants in the procalcitonin group and 85 (9%) of 904 participants in the usual care group had at least one event covered by the composite safety outcome measure (estimated adjusted risk difference -0·81% [95% CI upper bound 1·11]).

INTERPRETATION

In children with suspected or confirmed bacterial infection admitted to hospitals in England and Wales for intravenous antibiotic treatment of at least 48 h, the introduction of a procalcitonin-guided algorithm did not reduce duration of intravenous antibiotics treatment and is non-inferior to usual care for safety outcomes. Therefore, evidence does not support the use of procalcitonin-guided algorithms where robust effective paediatric antibiotic stewardship programmes are established.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health and Care Research.

A systematic review of national interventions and policies to optimize antibiotic use in healthcare settings in England

OBJECTIVES

To identify and assess the effectiveness of national antibiotic optimization interventions in primary and secondary care in England (2013-2022).

METHODS

A systematic scoping review was conducted. Literature databases (Embase and Medline) were used to identify interventions and evaluations. Reports included the UK AMR Strategy (2013-2018), National Action Plan (2019-2024) and English Surveillance Programme for Antimicrobial Utilisation and Resistance (ESPAUR) reports (2014-2022). The design, focus and quality of evaluations and the interventions' effectiveness were extracted.

FINDINGS

Four hundred and seventy-seven peer-reviewed studies and 13 reports were screened. One hundred and three studies were included for review, identifying 109 interventions in eight categories: policy and commissioning (n = 9); classifications (n = 1); guidance and toolkits (n = 22); monitoring and feedback (n = 17); professional engagement and training (n = 19); prescriber tools (n = 12); public awareness (n = 17); workforce and governance (n = 12).Most interventions lack high-quality effectiveness evidence. Evaluations mainly focused on clinical, microbiological or antibiotic use outcomes, or intervention implementation, often assessing how interventions were perceived to affect behaviour. Only 16 interventions had studies that quantified effects on prescribing, of which six reported reductions. The largest reduction was reported with structural-level interventions and attributed to a policy and commissioning intervention (primary care financial incentives). Behavioural interventions (guidance and toolkits) reported the greatest impact in hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Many interventions have targeted antibiotic use, each pulling different levers across the health system simultaneously. On the basis of these studies, structural-level interventions may have the greatest impact. Collectively, the combination of interventions may explain England's decline in prescribing but direct evidence of causality is unavailable.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial stewardship support for general practices in England: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

In England, clinical commissioning group (CCG; now replaced by Integrated Care Systems [ICSs]) and primary care network (PCN) professionals support primary care prescribers to optimise antimicrobial stewardship (AMS).

AIM

To explore views and experiences of CCG and PCN staff in supporting AMS, and the impact of COVID-19 on this support.

DESIGN & SETTING

Qualitative interview study in primary care in England.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews with staff from CCG and PCNs responsible for AMS were conducted at two timepoints via telephone. These were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven interviews were conducted with 14 participants (nine CCG, five PCN) in December 2020-January 2021 and February-May 2021. The study found that AMS support was (1) deprioritised in order to keep general practice operational and deliver COVID-19 vaccines; (2) disrupted as social distancing made it harder to build relationships, conduct routine AMS activities, and challenge prescribing decisions; and (3) adapted, with opportunities identified for greater use of technology and changing patient and public perceptions of viruses and self-care. It was also found that resources to support AMS were valued if they were both novel, to counter AMS 'fatigue', and sufficiently familiar to fit with existing and/or future AMS.

CONCLUSION

AMS needs to be reprioritised in general practice in the post-pandemic era and within the new ICSs in England. This should include interventions and strategies that combine novel elements with already familiar strategies to refresh prescribers' motivation and opportunities for AMS. Behaviour change interventions should be aimed at improving the culture and processes for how PCN pharmacists voice concerns about AMS to prescribers in general practice and take advantage of the changed patient and public perceptions of viruses and self-care.