Antibiotic Review Kit for Hospitals (ARK-Hospital): study protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial

Antibiotic review kit for hospitals (ARK-Hospital): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Strategies to reduce antibiotic overuse in hospitals depend on prescribers taking decisions to stop unnecessary antibiotic use. There is scarce evidence for how to support these decisions. We evaluated a multifaceted behaviour change intervention (ie, the antibiotic review kit) designed to reduce antibiotic use among adult acute general medical inpatients by increasing appropriate decisions to stop antibiotics at clinical review.

METHODS

We performed a stepped-wedge, cluster (hospital)-randomised controlled trial using computer-generated sequence randomisation of eligible hospitals in seven calendar-time blocks in the UK. Hospitals were eligible for inclusion if they admitted adult non-elective general or medical inpatients, had a local representative to champion the intervention, and could provide the required study data. Hospital clusters were randomised to an implementation date occurring at 1-2 week intervals, and the date was concealed until 12 weeks before implementation, when local preparations were designed to start. The intervention effect was assessed using data from pseudonymised routine electronic health records, ward-level antibiotic dispensing, Clostridioides difficile tests, prescription audits, and an implementation process evaluation. Co-primary outcomes were monthly antibiotic defined daily doses per adult acute general medical admission (hospital-level, superiority) and all-cause mortality within 30 days of admission (patient level, non-inferiority margin of 5%). Outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (ie, excluding sites that withdrew before implementation). Intervention effects were assessed by use of interrupted time series analyses within each site, estimating overall effects through random-effects meta-analysis, with heterogeneity across prespecified potential modifiers assessed by use of meta-regression. This trial is completed and is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN12674243.

FINDINGS

58 hospital organisations expressed an interest in participating. Three pilot sites implemented the intervention between Sept 25 and Nov 20, 2017. 43 further sites were randomised to implement the intervention between Feb 12, 2018, and July 1, 2019, and seven sites withdrew before implementation. 39 sites were followed up for at least 14 months. Adjusted estimates showed reductions in total antibiotic defined daily doses per acute general medical admission (-4·8% per year, 95% CI -9·1 to -0·2) following the intervention. Among 7 160 421 acute general medical admissions, the ARK intervention was associated with an immediate change of -2·7% (95% CI -5·7 to 0·3) and sustained change of 3·0% (-0·1 to 6·2) in adjusted 30-day mortality.

INTERPRETATION

The antibiotic review kit intervention resulted in sustained reductions in antibiotic use among adult acute general medical inpatients. The weak, inconsistent intervention effects on mortality are probably explained by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospitals should use the antibiotic review kit to reduce antibiotic overuse.

FUNDING

UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Microbial diversity and antimicrobial resistance in faecal samples from acute medical patients assessed through metagenomic sequencing

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a threat to global public health. However, unsatisfactory approaches to directly measuring the AMR burden carried by individuals has hampered efforts to assess interventions aimed at reducing selection for AMR. Metagenomics can provide accurate detection and quantification of AMR genes within an individual person's faecal flora (their gut "resistome"). Using this approach, we aimed to test the hypothesis that differences in antimicrobial use across different hospitals in the United Kingdom will result in observable differences in the resistome of individual patients. Three National Health Service acute Hospital Trusts with markedly different antibiotic use and Clostridioides difficile infection rates collected faecal samples from anonymous patients which were discarded after C. difficile testing over a period of 9 to 15 months. Metagenomic DNA was extracted from these samples and sequenced using an Illumina NovaSeq 6000 platform. The resulting sequencing reads were analysed for taxonomic composition and for the presence of AMR genes. Among 683 faecal metagenomes we found huge variation between individuals in terms of taxonomic diversity (Shannon Index range 0.10-3.99) and carriage of AMR genes (Median 1.50 genes/cell/sample overall). We found no statistically significant differences in diversity (median Shannon index 2.16 (IQR 1.71-2.56), 2.15 (IQR 1.62-2.50) and 2.26 (IQR 1.55-2.51)) or carriage of AMR genes (median 1.37 genes/cell/sample (IQR 0.70-3.24), 1.70 (IQR 0.70-4.52) and 1.43 (IQR 0.55-3.71)) at the three trusts respectively. This was also the case across the sample collection period within the trusts. While we have not demonstrated differences over place or time using metagenomic sequencing of faecal discards, other sampling frameworks may be more suitable to determine whether organisational level differences in antibiotic use are associated with individual-level differences in burden of AMR carriage.

COVID-19 Mixed Impact on Hospital Antimicrobial Stewardship Activities: A Qualitative Study in UK-Based Hospitals

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a well-known global threat due to the subsequent increase in antimicrobial usage. Several antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies have been implemented to curb irrational prescribing and reduce the AMR burden. However, since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has enormously impacted the healthcare system and jeopardized public health, causing millions of deaths globally. Our semi-structured qualitative study aimed to explore the impact of COVID-19 on AMS activities in the UK hospitals. Seventeen interviews were conducted with health care professionals who were part of AMS teams (consultant medical microbiologists, infectious disease consultants, antimicrobial pharmacists). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. An inductive thematic framework was adopted to analyse and create the themes. After agreement of the hierarchical framework definition, all transcripts were coded accordingly. Four main themes and 15 sub-themes were identified. These main themes were: (1) AMS activities or strategies before and during the pandemic; (2) challenges to implementing AMS activities before and during the pandemic; (3) information from public authorities on AMS during the pandemic; and (4) new AMS activities/strategies adopted during the pandemic. Staff vacancies, redeploying of AMS staff to other duties and meeting the burden related to the COVID-19 and lack of resources were the most frequently identified contributing factors to withheld AMS activities during the pandemic. However, modifications to the hybrid working environment, i.e., remote or flexible working, allowed for resumption of AMS activities including virtual ward rounds, virtual meetings and other activities. Further research needs to assess the impact of the hybrid delivery system on AMS activities.

Patient engagement with antibiotic messaging in secondary care: a qualitative feasibility study of the ‘review and revise’ experience

Background

We aimed to investigate and optimise the acceptability and usefulness of a patient leaflet about antibiotic prescribing decisions made during hospitalisation, and to explore individual patient experiences and preferences regarding the process of antibiotic prescription ‘review and revise’ which is a key strategy to minimise antibiotic overuse in hospitals.

Methods

In this qualitative study, run within the feasibility study of a large, cluster-randomised stepped wedge trial of 36 hospital organisations, a series of semi-structured, think-aloud telephone interviews were conducted and data were analysed using thematic analysis. Fifteen adult patients who had experienced a recent acute medical hospital admission during which they had been prescribed antimicrobials and offered a patient leaflet about antibiotic prescribing were recruited to the study.

Results

Participants reacted positively to the leaflet, reporting that it was both an accessible and important source of information which struck the appropriate balance between informing and reassuring. Participants all valued open communication with clinicians, and were keen to be involved in antibiotic prescribing decisions, with individuals reporting positive experiences regarding antibiotic prescription changes or stopping. Many participants had prior experience or knowledge of antibiotics and resistance, and generally welcomed efforts to reduce antibiotic usage. Overall, there was a feeling that healthcare professionals (HCPs) are trusted experts providing the most appropriate treatment for individual patient conditions.

Conclusions

This study offers novel insights into how patients within secondary care are likely to respond to messages advocating a reduction in the use of antibiotics through the ‘review and revise’ approach. Due to the level of trust that patients place in their care provider, encouraging HCPs within secondary care to engage patients with greater communication and information provision could provide great advantages in the drive to reduce antibiotic use. It may also be beneficial for HCPs to view patient experiences as cumulative events that have the potential to impact future behaviour around antibiotic use. Finally, pre-testing messages about antibiotic prescribing and resistance is vital to dispelling any misconceptions either around effectiveness of treatment for patients, or perceptions of how messages may be received.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12674243 (10 April 2017),

Why do hospital prescribers continue antibiotics when it is safe to stop? Results of a choice experiment survey

BACKGROUND

Deciding whether to discontinue antibiotics at early review is a cornerstone of hospital antimicrobial stewardship practice worldwide. In England, this approach is described in government guidance ('Start Smart then Focus'). However, < 10% of hospital antibiotic prescriptions are discontinued at review, despite evidence that 20-30% could be discontinued safely. We aimed to quantify the relative importance of factors influencing prescriber decision-making at review.

METHODS

We conducted an online choice experiment, a survey method to elicit preferences. Acute/general hospital prescribers in England were asked if they would continue or discontinue antibiotic treatment in 15 hypothetical scenarios. Scenarios were described according to six attributes, including patients' presenting symptoms and whether discontinuation would conflict with local prescribing guidelines. Respondents' choices were analysed using conditional logistic regression.

RESULTS

One hundred respondents completed the survey. Respondents were more likely to continue antibiotics when discontinuation would 'strongly conflict' with local guidelines (average marginal effect (AME) on the probability of continuing + 0.194 (p < 0.001)), when presenting symptoms more clearly indicated antibiotics (AME of urinary tract infection symptoms + 0.173 (p < 0.001) versus unclear symptoms) and when patients had severe frailty/comorbidities (AME = + 0.101 (p < 0.001)). Respondents were less likely to continue antibiotics when under no external pressure to continue (AME = - 0.101 (p < 0.001)). Decisions were also influenced by the risks to patient health of continuing/discontinuing antibiotic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines that conflict with antibiotic discontinuation (e.g. pre-specify fixed durations) may discourage safe discontinuation at review. In contrast, guidelines conditional on patient factors/treatment response could help hospital prescribers discontinue antibiotics if diagnostic information suggesting they are no longer needed is available.