antibiotic consumption surveillance
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

6
(FIVE YEARS 4)

H-INDEX

2
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-41
Author(s):  
Zikria Saleem ◽  
Mohamed Azmi Hassali ◽  
Furqan Khurshid Hashmi ◽  
Shama Qaisar ◽  
Mahnoor Ahmad ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (46) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eline Vandael ◽  
Koen Magerman ◽  
Samuel Coenen ◽  
Herman Goossens ◽  
Boudewijn Catry

Background Studies have demonstrated the link between antimicrobial consumption and the development of antimicrobial resistance. Surveillance of antimicrobial consumption is an action point of the European Commission’s ‘One Health Action Plan Against Antimicrobial Resistance’. Aim This study aims to compare two methodologies for antibiotic consumption surveillance, investigate the 14-year evolution of antibiotic consumption in Belgian acute care hospitals and discuss future perspectives. Methods We compared self-reported data (old methodology) and reimbursement data (new methodology) of national antibiotic consumption surveillance in hospitals. Descriptive analyses were performed on the reimbursement data collected per year and per trimester (2003–2016), per hospital and per unit. Antibiotic consumption was compared with European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption Network (ESAC-Net) results. Results The median differences for defined daily doses (DDDs)/1,000 patient days and DDDs/1,000 admissions were 3.09% and 3.94% when comparing the old vs new methodology. Based on reimbursement data, the median antibiotic consumption in 2016 in 102 Belgian acute care hospitals was 577.1 DDDs/1,000 patient days and 3,890.3 DDDs/1,000 admissions with high variation between hospitals (interquartile ranges (IQR): 511.3–655.0 and 3,450.0–4,400.5, respectively), and similar to 2015. Based on DDDs/1,000 patient days, the magnitude of consumption is comparable with the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, but is higher when based on DDDs/1,000 admissions. Conclusion Antibiotic consumption in Belgian acute care hospitals has remained overall stable over time. However, the high variation across hospitals should be further investigated. This surveillance data could be used for benchmarking and assessing interventions to improve antibiotic consumption in these hospitals.


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. e026792
Author(s):  
Selina Patel ◽  
Arnoupe Jhass ◽  
Susan Hopkins ◽  
Laura Shallcross

IntroductionEcological and individual-level evidence indicates that there is an association between level of antibiotic exposure and the emergence and spread of antibiotic resistance. The Global Point Prevalence Survey in 2015 estimated that 34.4% of hospital inpatients globally received at least one antimicrobial. Antimicrobial stewardship to optimise antibiotic use in secondary care can reduce the high risk of patients acquiring and transmitting drug-resistant infections in this setting. However, differences in the availability of data on antibiotic use in this context make it difficult to develop a consensus of how to comparably monitor antibiotic prescribing patterns across secondary care. This review will aim to document and critically evaluate methods and measures to monitor antibiotic use in secondary care.Methods and analysisWe will search Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and websites of key organisations for published reports where an attempt to measure antibiotic usage among adult inpatients in high-income hospital settings has been made. Two independent reviewers will screen the studies for eligibility, extract data and assess the study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A description of the methods and measures used in antibiotic consumption surveillance will be presented. An adaptation of the Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects Equity framework will be used to consider the practicality of implementing different approaches to measuring antibiotic usage in secondary care settings. A descriptive comparison of definitions and estimates of (in)appropriate antibiotic usage will also be carried out.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this study as no primary data will be collected. The results will be published in relevant peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences or meetings where possible. This review will inform future approaches to scale up antibiotic consumption surveillance strategies to attempt to maximise impact through standardisation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018103375


2017 ◽  
Vol 72 (10) ◽  
pp. 2931-2937 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gesche Först ◽  
Katja de With ◽  
Nadine Weber ◽  
Johannes Borde ◽  
Christiane Querbach ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The WHO/ATC (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical) index DDD (WHO-DDD) is commonly used for drug consumption measurement. Discrepancies between WHO-DDD and actual prescribed daily doses (PDD) in hospitals have prompted alternative dose definitions adapted to doses recommended in hospital practice guidelines [recommended daily doses (RDD)]. Methods In order to validate RDD we performed modified point prevalence surveys in 24 acute care hospitals and recorded 20620 PDD of antibiotics given to 4226 adult patients on the day of the survey and the 6 preceding days. We calculated RDD and WHO-DDD and compared them with PDD. Results The rate of RDD corresponding to PDD was higher than the corresponding rate for WHO-DDD (pooled data, 55% versus 30%) and the differences were similar across the hospital sample, but varied according to drug/drug class, route of administration, indication and renal function. RDD underestimated actual consumption by 14% overall, while WHO-DDD overestimated total antibacterial consumption by 28% (pooled data; median values RDD −10% versus WHO-DDD +32%). The deviations of estimated from actual drug use volumes were largest for β-lactams (RDD −11% versus WHO-DDD +49%), in particular for penicillins (−11% versus +64%), if WHO-DDD were used. Conclusions Hospital antibiotic consumption surveillance systems using current WHO-DDD should address the uneven discrepancies between actual prescribing and consumption estimates according to drug class that may lead to misclassification in benchmark analyses. We recommend using validated RDD as a supplementary measure to the WHO-DDD for detailed analyses.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document