Cluster randomized trial of an antibiotic time-out led by a team-based pharmacist

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (11) ◽  
pp. 1266-1271
Author(s):  
Trevor C. Van Schooneveld ◽  
Mark E. Rupp ◽  
R. Jenifer Cavaleiri ◽  
Elizabeth Lyden ◽  
Kiri Rolek
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Early Period ◽  
Cluster Randomized Trial ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Effective Strategies ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Time Out ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Cluster Randomized ◽  
Medicine Team

AbstractObjective:Antibiotic time-outs (ATOs) have been advocated to improve antibiotic use without dedicated stewardship resources, but their utility is poorly defined. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of an ATO led by a team-based pharmacist.Design:Cluster randomized controlled trial.Setting:Six medicine teams at an academic medical facility.Patients:Inpatients who received antibiotics and were cared for by a medicine team.Intervention:In phase A (2 months) pharmacist-led ATOs were implemented on 3 medicine teams (ATO-A) while 3 teams maintained usual care (UC-A). In phase B (2 months), ATOs were continued in the ATO group (ATO-B) and ATOs were initiated in the UC group (UC ATO-B). We targeted 2 ATO points: early (<72 hours after antibiotics were initiated) and late (after the early period but ≤5 days after antibiotic initiation).Results:In total, 290 ATOs were documented (181 early, 87 late, and 22 subsequent) among 538 admissions. The most common ATO recommendations were narrow therapy (148 of 290), no change (124 of 290), and change to oral (30 of 290). ATO initiation was lower in the UC ATO-B group than in either ATO group (21.8% UC ATO-B vs 69.2% ATO-A and -B). Overall antibiotic use was not different between the groups (P = .51), although intravenous (IV) levofloxacin use decreased in the UC group after ATO implementation (49 DOT/1,000 PD vs 20 DOT/1,000 PD; P = .022). The ratio of oral (PO) to intravenous (IV) DOT was lower in the UC group than in any of the ATO groups (P = .032). We detected no differences in mortality, length of stay, readmission, C. difficile infection, or antibiotic adverse events.Conclusions:Implementation of a pharmacist-led ATO was feasible and well accepted but did not change overall antibiotic use. An ATO may promote increased use of oral antibiotics, but more effective strategies for self-stewardship are needed.

scholarly journals Azithromycin Reduction to Reach Elimination of Trachoma (ARRET): study protocol for a cluster randomized trial of stopping mass azithromycin distribution for trachoma

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdou Amza ◽  
Boubacar Kadri ◽  
Beido Nassirou ◽  
Ahmed M. Arzika ◽  
Ariana Austin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Cluster Randomized Trial ◽  
World Health ◽  
Baseline Assessment ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Cluster Randomized ◽  
Health Organization

Abstract Background The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends annual mass azithromycin distribution until districts drop below 5% prevalence of trachomatous inflammation—follicular (TF). Districts with very low TF prevalence may have little or no transmission of the ocular strains of Chlamydia trachomatis that cause trachoma, and additional rounds of mass azithromycin distribution may not be useful. Here, we describe the protocol for a randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate whether mass azithromycin distribution can be stopped prior to the current WHO guidelines. Methods The Azithromycin Reduction to Reach Elimination of Trachoma (ARRET) study is a 1:1 community randomized non-inferiority trial designed to evaluate whether mass azithromycin distribution can be stopped in districts with baseline prevalence of TF under 20%. Communities in Maradi, Niger are randomized after baseline assessment either to continued annual mass azithromycin distribution or stopping annual azithromycin distribution over a 3-year period. We will compare the prevalence of ocular C. trachomatis (primary outcome), TF and other clinical signs of trachoma, and serologic markers of trachoma after 3 years. We hypothesize that stopping annual azithromycin distribution will be non-inferior to continued annual azithromycin distributions for all markers of trachoma prevalence and transmission. Discussion The results of this trial are anticipated to provide potentially guideline-changing evidence for when mass azithromycin distributions can be stopped in low TF prevalence areas. Trial registration number This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04185402). Registered December 4, 2019; prospectively registered pre-results.

scholarly journals Addition of Lymphatic Stimulating Self-Care Practices Reduces Acute Attacks among People Affected by Moderate and Severe Lower-Limb Lymphedema in Ethiopia, a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 4077
Author(s):  
Jan Douglass ◽  
Fikre Hailekiros ◽  
Sarah Martindale ◽  
Hayley Mableson ◽  
Fikre Seife ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Self Care ◽  
Cluster Randomized Trial ◽  
Northern Ethiopia ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Care Groups ◽  
Secondary Infections ◽  
Care Practices ◽  
Acute Attacks ◽  
Cluster Randomized

Lymphedema causes disability and exacerbates poverty in many countries. The management of lymphatic filariasis (LF) and podoconiosis-related lymphedema involves daily hygiene to reduce secondary infections, but self-massage and deep-breathing, which have proven beneficial in cancer-related lymphedema, are not included. A cluster randomized trial in northern Ethiopia investigated the effects of lymphatic stimulation for people affected by moderate to severe lymphedema. Participants were allocated to either standard (control n = 59) or enhanced (intervention n = 67) self-care groups. Primary outcomes were lymphedema stage, mid-calf circumference, and tissue compressibility. Secondary outcomes were the frequency and duration of acute attacks. After 24 weeks, fewer patients were assessed as severe (control −37.8%, intervention −42.4%, p = 0.15) and there were clinically relevant changes in mid-calf tissue compressibility but not circumference. There was a significant between-group difference in patients who reported any acute attacks over the study period (control n = 22 (38%), intervention n = 7 (12%), p = 0.014). Daily lymphedema self-care resulted in meaningful benefits for all participants with a greater reduction in acute episodes among people performing lymphatic stimulation. Observations of a change in lymphedema status support earlier findings in Bangladesh and extend the demonstrated benefits of enhanced self-care to people affected by podoconiosis.

Empirical Insights for Improving Sexual Assault Prevention: Evidence From Baseline Data for a Cluster-Randomized Trial of IMPower and Sources of Strength

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (15-16) ◽  
pp. 1855-1875
Author(s):  
Evan Rosenman ◽  
Clea Sarnquist ◽  
Rina Friedberg ◽  
Mary Amuyunzu-Nyamongo ◽  
Gabriel Oguda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Sexual Assault ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomized Trial ◽  
Empirical Science ◽  
Sexual Assault Prevention ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Cluster Randomized ◽  
Assault Prevention

The empirical science of measuring and preventing sexual assault is in its infancy, especially when considering adolescents in developing nations. We analyze pre-intervention data collected in a two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial of a classroom-based sexual assault prevention program deployed to Class 6 students around Nairobi, Kenya. We estimate that 7.2% of girls were raped in the prior 12 months. We identify school- and individual-level risk factors for rape. We isolate, as much as possible, variation in probability of rape attributable to a subset of these risk factors. We discuss statistical challenges and solutions in each of these domains.

Influential methods reports for group-randomized trials and related designs

2022 ◽  
pp. 174077452110634
Author(s):  
David M Murray
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Group Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomized Trial ◽  
Stepped Wedge ◽  
Group Randomized Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Relative Citation ◽  
Group Randomized Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomized

Background. This article identifies the most influential methods reports for group-randomized trials and related designs published through 2020. Many interventions are delivered to participants in real or virtual groups or in groups defined by a shared interventionist so that there is an expectation for positive correlation among observations taken on participants in the same group. These interventions are typically evaluated using a group- or cluster-randomized trial, an individually randomized group treatment trial, or a stepped wedge group- or cluster-randomized trial. These trials face methodological issues beyond those encountered in the more familiar individually randomized controlled trial. Methods. PubMed was searched to identify candidate methods reports; that search was supplemented by reports known to the author. Candidate reports were reviewed by the author to include only those focused on the designs of interest. Citation counts and the relative citation ratio, a new bibliometric tool developed at the National Institutes of Health, were used to identify influential reports. The relative citation ratio measures influence at the article level by comparing the citation rate of the reference article to the citation rates of the articles cited by other articles that also cite the reference article. Results. In total, 1043 reports were identified that were published through 2020. However, 55 were deemed to be the most influential based on their relative citation ratio or their citation count using criteria specific to each of the three designs, with 32 group-randomized trial reports, 7 individually randomized group treatment trial reports, and 16 stepped wedge group-randomized trial reports. Many of the influential reports were early publications that drew attention to the issues that distinguish these designs from the more familiar individually randomized controlled trial. Others were textbooks that covered a wide range of issues for these designs. Others were “first reports” on analytic methods appropriate for a specific type of data (e.g. binary data, ordinal data), for features commonly encountered in these studies (e.g. unequal cluster size, attrition), or for important variations in study design (e.g. repeated measures, cohort versus cross-section). Many presented methods for sample size calculations. Others described how these designs could be applied to a new area (e.g. dissemination and implementation research). Among the reports with the highest relative citation ratios were the CONSORT statements for each design. Conclusions. Collectively, the influential reports address topics of great interest to investigators who might consider using one of these designs and need guidance on selecting the most appropriate design for their research question and on the best methods for design, analysis, and sample size.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document