Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31418804›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2019

Feasibility of Core Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions in Community Hospitals.

Deverick J Anderson, Shera Watson, Rebekah W Moehring, Lauren Komarow, Matthew Finnemeyer, Rebekka M Arias, Jacqueline Huvane, Carol Bova Hill, Nancie Deckard, Daniel J Sexton and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical TrialMulticenter StudyVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02212808 (A Multicenter, 3-Stage Cluster Randomized Historically-Controlled Crossover Trial to Determine the Feasibility and Outcomes From Two Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions in Community Hospitals), which is not on this map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02212808 nacompletednot on this map

A Multicenter, 3-Stage Cluster Randomized Historically-Controlled Crossover Trial to Determine the Feasibility and Outcomes From Two Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions in Community Hospitals

TypeinterventionalSponsorDuke UniversityRan2014 to 2015Enrolled3,972ConditionsAntibiotic Stewardship in Community HospitalsArmsAntimicrobial restriction, Post-antimicrobial prescription review
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Three stages of laboratory stewardship in improving appropriateAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Establishing obstetrics-specific metrics and interventions for antimicrobial stewardship.Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada · 2023
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Deverick J AndersonDuke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Division of Infectious Diseases, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Shera WatsonDuke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Division of Infectious Diseases, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Rebekah W MoehringDuke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Division of Infectious Diseases, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Lauren KomarowThe Biostatistics Center, The George Washington University, Rockville, Maryland.
Matthew FinnemeyerDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Rebekka M AriasDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
Jacqueline HuvaneDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
Carol Bova HillDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
Nancie DeckardDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
Daniel J SextonDuke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Division of Infectious Diseases, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG)
Clinical Research Institute · USDuke University · USGeorge Washington University · USHarvard University · US

Funding

Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG)UM1AI104681 · NIAID · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Vance G. Fowler, Henry F HENRY CHAMBERS · 2013 to 2026
$180.8M
Defining Measures of Impact for Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs in Community HospitalsK08HS023866 · AHRQ · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MOEHRING, REBEKAH WHITE · 2015 to 2019
$739k
AHRQ HHS K08 HS023866NIAID NIH HHS UM1 AI104681
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The feasibility of core Infectious Diseases Society of America-recommended antimicrobial stewardship interventions in community hospitals is unknown. Objective: To determine the feasibility and results of implementing 2 core stewardship intervention strategies in community hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: Three-stage, multicenter, prospective nonrandomized clinical trial with crossover design. The setting was 4 community hospitals in North Carolina (median bed size, 305; range, 102-425). Participants were all patients receiving targeted study antibacterial agents or alternative, nonstudy antibacterial agents. The study dates were October 2014 through October 2015. All statistical analyses were completed as of October 2016. Interventions: Two antimicrobial stewardship strategies targeted vancomycin hydrochloride, piperacillin-tazobactam, and the antipseudomonal carbapenems on formulary at the study hospitals: (1) modified preauthorization (PA), in which the prescriber had to receive pharmacist approval for continued use of the antibiotic after the first dose, and (2) postprescription audit and review (PPR), in which the pharmacist would engage the prescriber about antibiotic appropriateness after 72 hours of therapy. Two hospitals performed modified PA for 6 months, then PPR for 6 months after a 1-month washout. The other 2 hospitals performed the reverse. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the feasibility of implementing the interventions, determined by (1) approval by hospital administration and committees at each study hospital; (2) completion of pharmacist training; (3) initiation and implementation as determined by number, type, and outcomes of interventions performed; and (4) time required for interventions. Secondary outcomes included antimicrobial use (days of therapy) compared with matched historical periods and length of hospitalization. Results: A total of 2692 patients (median age, 65 years; interquartile range, 53-76 years) underwent a study intervention; 1413 (52.5%) were female, 1323 (49.1%) were white, and 1047 (38.9%) were African American. Intervention approvals took a median of 95 days (range, 56-119 days); during these discussions, strict PA was deemed not feasible. Instead, the modified PA intervention was used throughout the study. Pharmacists performed 1456 modified PA interventions (median per hospital, 350 [range, 129-628]) and 1236 PPR interventions (median per hospital, 298 [range, 273-366]). Study antimicrobials were determined to be inappropriate 2 times as often during the PPR period (41.0% [435 of 1060] vs 20.4% [253 of 1243]; P < .001). Pharmacists recommended dose change more often during the modified PA intervention (15.9% [232 of 1456] vs 9.6% [119 of 1236]; P < .001) and de-escalation during PPR (29.1% [360 of 1236] vs 13.0% [190 of 1456]; P < .001). The median time dedicated to the stewardship interventions varied by hospital (range of median hours per week, 5-19). Overall antibiotic use decreased during PPR compared with historical controls (mean [SD] days of therapy per 1000 patient-days, 925.2 [109.8] vs 965.3 [109.4]; mean difference, -40.1; 95% CI, -71.7 to -8.6), but not during modified PA (mean [SD] days of therapy per 1000 patient-days, 931.0 [102.0] vs 926.6 [89.7]; mean difference, 4.4; 95% CI, -55.8 to 64.7). Conclusions and Relevance: Strict PA was not feasible in the study hospitals. In contrast, PPR was a feasible and effective strategy for antimicrobial stewardship in settings with limited resources and expertise. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02212808.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsHospitals, CommunityAdultAgedAntimicrobial StewardshipAttitude of Health PersonnelClinical AuditCross-Over StudiesDrug UtilizationFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorth CarolinaPharmacistsAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID31418804
PMCPMC6704742
OpenAlexW2967455168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.