Barriers to optimal antibiotic use for community-acquired pneumonia at hospitals: a qualitative study. Procalcitonin guidance for reduction of antibiotic use in low-risk outpatients with community-acquired pneumonia. Prophylactic antibiotics in the insertion of Tenckhoff catheters. Communication training and antibiotic use in acute respiratory tract infections. A cluster randomised controlled trial in general practice. [The value of serum procalcitonin in treatment of community acquired pneumonia in outpatient]. Effectiveness of a multiple intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract symptoms in primary care: randomised controlled trial. Implementation of an evidence-based guideline to reduce duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy and length of stay for patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized controlled trial. A survey of clinical trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in colon surgery: evidence against further use of no-treatment controls. Oral versus systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in elective colon surgery: a randomized study and meta-analysis send a message from the 1990s.
Physician adherence to key recommendations of guidelines for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is often not optimal. A better understanding of factors influencing optimal performance is needed to plan effective change.
                The authors used semistructured interviews with care providers in three Dutch medium-sized hospitals to qualitatively study and understand barriers to appropriate antibiotic use in patients with CAP. They discussed recommendations about the prescription of empirical antibiotic therapy that adheres to the guidelines, timely administration of antibiotics, adjusting antibiotic dosage to accommodate decreased renal function, switching and streamlining therapy, and blood and sputum culturing. The authors then classified the barriers each recommendation faced into categories using a conceptual framework (Cabana).
                Eighteen interviews were performed with residents and specialists in pulmonology and internal medicine, with medical microbiologists and a clinical pharmacist. Two additional multidisciplinary small group interviews which included nurses were performed. Each guideline recommendation elicited a different type of barrier. Regarding the choice of guideline-adherent empirical therapy, treating physicians said that they worried about patient outcome when prescribing narrow-spectrum antibiotic therapy. Regarding the timeliness of antibiotic administration, barriers such as conflicting guidelines and organisational factors (for example, delayed laboratory results, antibiotics not directly available, lack of time) were reported. Not streamlining therapy after culture results became available was thought to be due to the physicians' attitude of "never change a winning team".
                Efforts to improve the use of antibiotics for patients with CAP should consider the range of barriers that care providers face. Each recommendation meets its own barriers. Interventions to improve adherence should be tailored to these factors. Use of antibiotics in outpatients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is empirical, which may lead to overuse and selection pressure for resistance. Procalcitonin (PCT) levels may predict the severity of CAP and may be used to guide antibiotic use in hospitalized patients. This study evaluated the value of PCT measurements for guiding antibiotic use in low-risk outpatients with CAP.
                This was a randomized intervention trial conducted between February 2005 and December 2008 that included 172 consecutive patients with suspected CAP, of whom 156 completed the study. The control group received antibiotics according to current guidelines. In the PCT group, antibiotic treatment was based on PCT levels as follows: <0.1 µg/L, strongly discouraged; ≤0.25 µg/L, discouraged; >0.25 µg/L, encouraged. The primary end-points were total antibiotic use and duration of antibiotic treatment; laboratory and clinical outcomes were measured.
                Prescription of antibiotics on admission (84.4% vs 97.5%; P = 0.004), total antibiotic exposure (relative risk 0.55, 95% CI: 0.51-0.60; P = 0.003) and duration of antibiotic treatment (median 5 days vs 7 days; P < 0.001) were reduced in the PCT guidance group, compared with patients treated according to current guidelines. At 4-week follow up, all patients had survived and laboratory and clinical outcomes were similar in the two groups.
                Under PCT guidance, antibiotic use was reduced and duration of antibiotic treatment was shortened in low-risk outpatients with CAP, without apparent harm.
                © 2011 The Authors; Respirology © 2011 Asian Pacific Society of Respirology. We assessed the efficacy of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in a prospective trial for patients undergoing insertion of Tenckhoff catheters for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). The prophylactic regimen was a single dose of cefazolin (500 mg) and gentamicin (80 mg) given intravenously half an hour before surgery. There was no significant difference in the number of exit site infections (8 in the antibiotic group vs. 8 in the controls) and the number of episodes of peritonitis (5 in the antibiotic group vs. 2 in the controls). Our study showed that prophylactic preoperative antibiotics did not reduce the number of exit site infections and peritonitis after the insertion of Tenckhoff catheters. A cluster-randomised controlled trial in general practice
                Physician-patient communication plays a key role in treatment decisions in primary care. We aimed to reduce the antibiotic prescription rate for acute respiratory tract infections using a short training programme in patient-centred communication.
                We conducted a cluster-randomised controlled trial in 45 general practices in Switzerland. Thirty physicians received evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute respiratory tract infections; 15 physicians randomised to the full intervention additionally received training in patient-centred communication. A further 15 physicians, not randomised, served as a control to blind the physicians in the other two groups to the true comparison. The primary outcome was the antibiotic prescription rate reported by pharmacists. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction and enablement, re-consultation rates, days with restrictions, and days off work. 1108 adults with acute respiratory infections were screened between January and May 2004. Outcomes were measured in 837 consultations; 624 patients had follow-up interviews at 7 and 14 days.
                The antibiotic prescription rate reported by pharmacists was low in both full and limited intervention groups (13.5% and 15.7% respectively) but only half of the antibiotics were prescribed according to guidelines (53.8% and 53.1%). No significant differences were seen between the two randomised groups in primary and secondary outcomes. In both groups patient satisfaction was high (median score for both 68 out of 70).
                In this trial, patient-centred communication training did not reduce the rate of antibiotic prescriptions below an already unusually low level. Even with this low prescription rate, patient satisfaction with received care was high. To evaluate the value of serum procalcitonin (PCT) on antibiotic use in treatment of community acquired pneumonia (CAP) in outpatient.
                From November 2006 to February 2008, a total of 127 patients with CAP in outpatient were randomly assigned into two groups: PCT group (n = 63) and control group (n = 64). PCT levels of all patients were measured after study admission. On the base of similarly normal treatment, the control group received antibiotics according to the attending physicians and the PCT group were treated with antibiotics according to serum PCT levels: antibiotic treatment was applied with PCT level > or = 0.25 microg/L and was discouraged with PCT level < 0.25 microg/L. Clinical efficacy, rate of antibiotics use, duration courses and costs of antibiotics were observed.
                Clinical efficacy of the PCT group was similar with the control group (92.1% vs 87.5%, P > 0.05); rate and costs of antibiotics use was lower, antibiotic duration of the PCT group was shorter than that of the control group (P < 0.05, P < 0.001, P < 0.001).
                PCT could be used in treatment of CAP for antibiotic use in outpatient, which may reduce antibiotic use, shorten antibiotic duration and lower costs of antibiotic. To assess the effectiveness of a multiple intervention aimed at reducing antibiotic prescription rates for symptoms of the respiratory tract in primary care.
                Randomised controlled trial.
                Twelve peer review groups including 100 general practitioners with their collaborating pharmacists in the region of Utrecht, Netherlands.
                The intervention consisted of group education meetings, with a consensus procedure on indication for and type of antibiotics and with training in communication skills; monitoring and feedback on prescribing behaviour; group education for assistants of general practitioners and pharmacists; and education material for patients. The control group did not receive any of these elements.
                Antibiotic prescription rates for acute symptoms of the respiratory tract and patients' satisfaction.
                89 general practitioners completed the study (89%). At baseline, prescription rates for antibiotics for respiratory tract symptoms did not differ between intervention and control group (27% v 29%, respectively). After nine months, the prescription rates in the intervention group fell to 23%, whereas the control group's rose to 37% (mean difference in change -12%, 95% confidence interval -18.9% to -4.0%). Multilevel analysis confirmed the results of the unadjusted analysis (intervention effect -10.7%, -20.3% to -1.0%). Patients' satisfaction was high and did not differ in the two groups at baseline or after the intervention.
                A multiple intervention reduced prescribing rates of antibiotics for respiratory tract symptoms while maintaining a high degree of satisfaction among patients. Further research should focus on the sustainability and cost effectiveness of this intervention. Patients with pneumonia often remain hospitalized after they are stable clinically, and the duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy is a rate-limiting step for discharge. The purpose of this study was to determine whether implementation of an evidence-based guideline would reduce the duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy and length of stay for patients hospitalized with pneumonia.
                In a seven-site, cluster randomized clinical trial, we enrolled 325 control and 283 intervention patients who were admitted by one of 116 physician groups. Within site, physician groups were assigned randomly to receive a practice guideline alone (control arm) or a practice guideline that was implemented using a multifaceted strategy (intervention arm). The effectiveness of guideline implementation was measured by the duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy and length of stay; differences in the rates of discontinuation and hospital discharge were assessed with proportional hazards models. Medical outcomes were assessed at 30 days.
                Intravenous antibiotic therapy was discontinued somewhat more quickly in the intervention group (hazard ratio [HR] =1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00 to 1.52; P = 0.06) than in the control group. Intervention patients were discharged more quickly, but the difference was not statistically significant (HR = 1.16; 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.38; P = 0.11). Fewer intervention (55% [157/283]) than control (63% [206/325]) patients had medical complications during the index hospitalization (P = 0.04), with no differences in other medical outcomes, including mortality, rehospitalization, and return to usual activities, between treatment arms.
                The multifaceted guideline implementation strategy resulted in a slight reduction in the duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy and a nonsignificant reduction in length of stay, without affecting patient outcomes. To evaluate the use of antibiotics given prophylactically of colon surgery, we examined 26 trials published from 1965 to 1980 in which patients given various antibiotic regiments were compared with controls given no antibiotic treatment. In 22 (85 per cent of these trials) antibiotics reduced postoperative wound infection (p less than 0.05 in 14). Combining the results of the trials published from 1965 to 1975 reveals a 95 per cent confidence interval from the true difference in infection rates of 14 +/- 6 per cent (36 per cent for control group vs. 22 per cent for treatment group) and the true difference in death rates of 6.7 +/- 4.4 per cent (11.2 per cent for control group vs 4.5 per cent for treatment group). Yet trials employing control groups given no treatment continue to be reported. Since the use of such controls is justified only when no effective alternative therapy exists, we believe that any further trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in colon surgery should employ a previously proved standard. However, steadily increasing efficacy of treatment means that comparisons of new therapies with standard therapies will become prohibitively expensive because of the large number of patients required. To compare the efficacy of combined oral and systemic antibiotics (combined) versus systemic antibiotics (systemic) alone in preventing surgical site infection in elective surgery of the colon, and to perform a meta-analysis of randomized studies comparing combined versus systemic antibiotics in elective colon surgery.
                A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.
                The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Montreal, a university-affiliated community hospital.
                Two hundred and fifteen patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery of the colon.
                Patients were randomized to receive neomycin and metronidazole orally (109 patients) or identical placebos (106 patients) on the final preoperative day. All were given amikacin and metronidazole intravenously just before operation. Thirteen randomized series comparing combined and systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in elective colon surgery were identified for meta-analysis.
                Rates of postoperative surgical site infections: risk differences, risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs); organisms found in the colon and wound fat at surgery, and in infected wounds.
                Three patients in the systemic group, and 5 in the combined group were excluded. Wound infections occurred in 5 patients in the combined group but in 17 in the systemic group (p < 0.01, RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.11-0.75). Bacteria isolated from wound infections and wound fat were similar to those found in the colon. They were more frequent in the colon in the systemic group (p < 0.001) and occurred in wound fat in the systemic group twice as often as in the combined group (p < 0.001). By stepwise logistic regression, the presence of bacteria in wound fat at surgery was the strongest predictor of postoperative wound infection (p < 0.002). In the meta-analysis, the summary weighted risk difference in surgical site infections between groups (d(w)) and the summary RR both favoured combined prophylaxis (d(w) = 0.56, 95% CI 0.26-0.86; RR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.24-0.78; p < 0.001).
                In elective surgery of the colon combined oral and systemic antibiotics are superior to systemic antibiotics in preventing surgical site infections. Orally administered antibiotics add value by reducing bacterial loading of the colon and wound fat contamination, both associated with postoperative wound infection. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials reported from 1975 to 1995 supports these conclusions.
Currently available evidence from RCTs is insufficient to make evidence-based recommendations for the choice of antibiotic to be used for the treatment of CAP in ambulatory patients. Pooling of study data was limited by the very low number of studies assessing the same antibiotic pairs. Individual study results do not reveal significant differences in efficacy between various antibiotics and antibiotic groups. Multi-drug comparisons using similar administration schedules are needed to provide the evidence necessary for practice recommendations.