Advertisement

Redundant combinations of antianaerobic antimicrobials: impact of pharmacist-based prospective audit and feedback and prescription characteristics

  • Moonsuk Kim
  • Hyung-Sook Kim
  • Young Joo Song
  • Eunsook Lee
  • Kyoung-Ho Song
  • Pyoeng Gyun Choe
  • Wan Beom Park
  • Ji Hwan Bang
  • Eu Suk Kim
  • Sang-Won Park
  • Nam Joong Kim
  • Myoung-don Oh
  • Hong Bin KimEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the intervention targeting the redundant combination of antianaerobic antimicrobials on its incidence and associated antimicrobial consumption. To reveal the characteristics of the combination and the change in the related workload over time was an additional aim of the study. The combinations of metronidazole or clindamycin with antianaerobic antimicrobials were classified into redundant or acceptable, according to the target indications. A pharmacist-based prospective audit and feedback targeting the redundant antianaerobic combination was conducted. Segmented regression analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of the intervention. As a quantitative index of the interventional activity, the change in the number of signed consultation notes was evaluated. After the initiation of the intervention, the median monthly cumulative incidence of the redundant combination decreased from 5.29 (Interquartile range [IQR] 4.94–5.70) to 3.33 (IQR 2.87–3.71) (p < 0.001) per 1000 admissions per month. The consumption of concurrently administered metronidazole and clindamycin decreased from 3.34 (IQR 2.97–4.10) to 1.74 (IQR 1.19–1.93) (p < 0.001) per 1000 patient-days per month. Segmented regression analysis revealed that the monthly cumulative incidence decreased by 28.5% after the initiation of the intervention (change in level − 1.640, p = 0.019) and the monthly consumption decreased by 33.9% (change in level − 1.409, p = 0.009). The number of consultation notes per 1000 admissions per month decreased over time (regression coefficient − 0.004, p < 0.001). The pharmacist-based intervention significantly reduced the incidence and associated antimicrobial consumption of the redundant antianaerobic combination. The overall related workload reduced steadily over time.

Keywords

Antimicrobial stewardship Pharmacist-based intervention Redundant antimicrobial therapy Inappropriate antimicrobial use Anaerobic bacteria 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We express our gratitude to the Center for Medical Informatics in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital for the cooperation in developing and maintaining the intervention.

Funding information

The research was financially supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, the Republic of Korea (Grant number: HI16C0684).

Compliance with ethical standards

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (IRB No. B-1502-286-113). The study was conducted after obtaining a waiver of informed consent from individual patients.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Barlam TF, Cosgrove SE, Abbo LM, Macdougall C, Schuetz AN, Septimus EJ, Srinivasan A, Dellit TH, Falck-Ytter YT, Fishman NO, Hamilton CW, Jenkins TC, Lipsett PA, Malani PN, May LS, Moran GJ, Neuhauser MM, Newland JG, Ohl CA, Samore MH, Seo SK, Trivedi KK (2016) Implementing an antibiotic stewardship program: guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Clin Infect Dis 62:e51–e77.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciw118 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davey P, Marwick CA, Scott CL, Charani E, McNeil K, Brown E, Gould IM, Ramsay CR, Michie S (2017) Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD003543.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003543.pub4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fridkin S, Baggs J, Fagan R, Magill S, Pollack LA, Malpiedi P, Slayton R, Khader K, Rubin MA, Jones M, Samore MH, Dumyati G, Dodds-Ashley E, Meek J, Yousey-Hindes K, Jernigan J, Shehab N, Herrera R, McDonald CL, Schneider A, Srinivasan A, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2014) Vital signs: improving antibiotic use among hospitalized patients. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 63:194–200PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flanders SA, Saint S (2014) Why does antimicrobial overuse in hospitalized patients persist? JAMA Intern Med 174:661.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.897 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glowacki RC, Schwartz DN, Itokazu GS, Wisniewski MF, Kieszkowski P, Weinstein RA (2003) Antibiotic combinations with redundant antimicrobial spectra: clinical epidemiology and pilot intervention of computer-assisted surveillance. Clin Infect Dis 37:59–64.  https://doi.org/10.1086/376623 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schultz L, Lowe TJ, Srinivasan A, Neilson D, Pugliese G (2014) Economic impact of redundant antimicrobial therapy in US hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 35:1229–1235.  https://doi.org/10.1086/678066 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rattanaumpawan P, Morales KH, Binkley S, Synnestvedt M, Weiner MG, Gasink LB, Fishman NO, Lautenbach E (2011) Impact of antimicrobial stewardship programme changes on unnecessary double anaerobic coverage therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother 66:2655–2658.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkr321 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huttner B, Jones M, Rubin MA, Madaras-Kelly K, Nielson C, Goetz MB, Neuhauser MM, Samore MH (2012) Double trouble: how big a problem is redundant anaerobic antibiotic coverage in veterans affairs medical centres? J Antimicrob Chemother 67:1537–1539.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dks074 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Song YJ, Kim M, Huh S, Lee J, Lee E, Song KH, Kim ES, Kim HB (2015) Impact of an antimicrobial stewardship program on unnecessary double anaerobic coverage prescription. Infect Chemother 47:111–116.  https://doi.org/10.3947/ic.2015.47.2.111 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laible BR, Nazir J, Assimacopoulos AP, Schut J (2010) Implementation of a pharmacist-led antimicrobial management team in a community teaching hospital: use of pharmacy residents and pharmacy students in a prospective audit and feedback approach. J Pharm Pract 23:531–535.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0897190009358775 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Apisarnthanarak A, Lapcharoen P, Vanichkul P, Srisaeng-Ngoen T, Mundy LM (2015) Design and analysis of a pharmacist-enhanced antimicrobial stewardship program in Thailand. Am J Infect Control 43:956–959.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2015.05.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim B, Kim J, Kim SW, Pai H (2016) A survey of antimicrobial stewardship programs in Korea, 2015. J Korean Med Sci 31:1553–1559.  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.10.1553 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Penm J, Li Y, Zhai S, Hu Y, Chaar B, Moles R (2014) The impact of clinical pharmacy services in China on the quality use of medicines: a systematic review in context of China’ s current healthcare reform. 849–872. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czt067
  14. 14.
    Bukhsh A, Khan TM, Lee SWH, Lee L (2018) Efficacy of pharmacist based diabetes educational interventions on clinical outcomes of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus : a network meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol 9:339.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.00339 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Malte CA, Berger D, Saxon AJ, Hagedorn HJ, Achtmeyer CE, Mariano AJ, Hawkins EJ (2018) Electronic medical record alert associated with reduced opioid and benzodiazepine coprescribing in high-risk veteran patients. Med Care 56:171–178.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000861 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martin M, Wilson FP (2018) Utility of electronic medical record alerts to prevent drug nephrotoxicity. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 13:CJN.13841217.  https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.13841217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boyanova L, Kolarov R, Mitov I (2015) Recent evolution of antibiotic resistance in the anaerobes as compared to previous decades. Anaerobe 31:4–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2014.05.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Veloo ACM, van Winkelhoff AJ (2015) Antibiotic susceptibility profiles of anaerobic pathogens in The Netherlands. Anaerobe 31:19–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2014.08.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Park SM, Kim HS, Jeong YM, Lee JH, Lee E, Lee E, Song KH, Kim HB, Kim ES (2017) Impact of intervention by an antimicrobial stewardship team on conversion from intravenous to oral fluoroquinolones. Infect Chemother 49:31–37.  https://doi.org/10.3947/ic.2017.49.1.31 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Moonsuk Kim
    • 1
  • Hyung-Sook Kim
    • 2
  • Young Joo Song
    • 2
  • Eunsook Lee
    • 2
  • Kyoung-Ho Song
    • 1
    • 3
  • Pyoeng Gyun Choe
    • 3
  • Wan Beom Park
    • 3
  • Ji Hwan Bang
    • 3
  • Eu Suk Kim
    • 1
    • 3
  • Sang-Won Park
    • 3
  • Nam Joong Kim
    • 3
  • Myoung-don Oh
    • 3
  • Hong Bin Kim
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Internal MedicineSeoul National University Bundang HospitalSeongnamRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of PharmacySeoul National University Bundang HospitalSeongnamRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Internal MedicineSeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations