Value of hospital antimicrobial stewardship programs [ASPs]:a systematic review

Abstract Background Hospital antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) aim to promote judicious use of antimicrobials to combat antimicrobial resistance. For ASPs to be developed, adopted, and implemented, an economic value assessment is essential. Few studies demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of ASPs. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the economic and clinical impact of ASPs. Methods An update to the Dik et al. systematic review (2000–2014) was conducted on EMBASE and Medline using PRISMA guidelines. The updated search was limited to primary research studies in English (30 September 2014–31 December 2017) that evaluated patient and/or economic outcomes after implementation of hospital ASPs including length of stay (LOS), antimicrobial use, and total (including operational and implementation) costs. Results One hundred forty-six studies meeting inclusion criteria were included. The majority of these studies were conducted within the last 5 years in North America (49%), Europe (25%), and Asia (14%), with few studies conducted in Africa (3%), South America (3%), and Australia (3%). Most studies were conducted in hospitals with 500–1000 beds and evaluated LOS and change in antibiotic expenditure, the majority of which showed a decrease in LOS (85%) and antibiotic expenditure (92%). The mean cost-savings varied by hospital size and region after implementation of ASPs. Average cost savings in US studies were $732 per patient (range:$2.50 to $2640), with similar trends exhibited in European studies. The key driver of cost savings was from reduction in LOS. Savings were higher among hospitals with comprehensive ASPs which included therapy review and antibiotic restrictions. Conclusions Our data indicates that hospital ASPs have significant value with beneficial clinical and economic impacts. More robust published data is required in terms of implementation, LOS, and overall costs so that decision-makers can make a stronger case for investing in ASPs, considering competing priorities. Such data on ASPs in lower- and middle-income countries is limited and requires urgent attention

Potential impact on estimated treatment effects of information lost to follow-up in randomised controlled trials (LOST-IT): systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reporting, extent, and handling of loss to follow-up and its potential impact on the estimates of the effect of treatment in randomised controlled trials. DESIGN: Systematic review. We calculated the percentage of trials for which the relative risk would no longer be significant under a number of assumptions about the outcomes of participants lost to follow-up. DATA SOURCES: Medline search of five top general medical journals, 2005-07. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that reported a significant binary primary patient important outcome. RESULTS: Of the 235 eligible reports identified, 31 (13%) did not report whether or not loss to follow-up occurred. In reports that did give the relevant information, the median percentage of participants lost to follow-up was 6% (interquartile range 2-14%). The method by which loss to follow-up was handled was unclear in 37 studies (19%); the most commonly used method was survival analysis (66, 35%). When we varied assumptions about loss to follow-up, results of 19% of trials were no longer significant if we assumed no participants lost to follow-up had the event of interest, 17% if we assumed that all participants lost to follow-up had the event, and 58% if we assumed a worst case scenario (all participants lost to follow-up in the treatment group and none of those in the control group had the event). Under more plausible assumptions, in which the incidence of events in those lost to follow-up relative to those followed-up is higher in the intervention than control group, results of 0% to 33% trials were no longer significant. CONCLUSION: Plausible assumptions regarding outcomes of patients lost to follow-up could change the interpretation of results of randomised controlled trials published in top medical journals

Prediction scores do not correlate with clinically adjudicated categories of pulmonary embolism in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND: Prediction scores for pretest probability of pulmonary embolism (PE) validated in outpatient settings are occasionally used in the intensive care unit (ICU). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the correlation of Geneva and Wells scores with adjudicated categories of PE in ICU patients. METHODS: In a randomized trial of thromboprophylaxis, patients with suspected PE were adjudicated as possible, probable or definite PE. Data were then retrospectively abstracted for the Geneva Diagnostic PE score, Wells, Modified Wells and Simplified Wells Diagnostic scores. The chance-corrected agreement between adjudicated categories and each score was calculated. ANOVA was used to compare values across the three adjudicated PE categories. RESULTS: Among 70 patients with suspected PE, agreement was poor between adjudicated categories and Geneva pretest probabilities (kappa=0.01 [95% CI -0.0643 to 0.0941]) or Wells pretest probabilities (kappa=-0.03 [95% CI -0.1462 to 0.0914]). Among four possible, 16 probable and 50 definite PEs, there were no significant differences in Geneva scores (possible = 4.0, probable = 4.7, definite = 4.5; P=0.90), Wells scores (possible = 2.8, probable = 4.9, definite = 4.1; P=0.37), Modified Wells (possible = 2.0, probable = 3.4, definite = 2.9; P=0.34) or Simplified Wells (possible = 1.8, probable = 2.8, definite = 2.4; P=0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Pretest probability scores developed outside the ICU do not correlate with adjudicated PE categories in critically ill patients. Research is needed to develop prediction scores for this population

Prediction Scores Do Not Correlate with Clinically Adjudicated Categories of Pulmonary Embolism in Critically Ill Patients

BACKGROUND: Prediction scores for pretest probability of pulmonary embolism (PE) validated in outpatient settings are occasionally used in the intensive care unit (ICU).OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the correlation of Geneva and Wells scores with adjudicated categories of PE in ICU patients.METHODS: In a randomized trial of thromboprophylaxis, patients with suspected PE were adjudicated as possible, probable or definite PE. Data were then retrospectively abstracted for the Geneva Diagnostic PE score, Wells, Modified Wells and Simplified Wells Diagnostic scores. The chance-corrected agreement between adjudicated categories and each score was calculated. ANOVA was used to compare values across the three adjudicated PE categories.RESULTS: Among 70 patients with suspected PE, agreement was poor between adjudicated categories and Geneva pretest probabilities (kappa 0.01 [95% CI −0.0643 to 0.0941]) or Wells pretest probabilities (kappa −0.03 [95% CI −0.1462 to 0.0914]). Among four possible, 16 probable and 50 definite PEs, there were no significant differences in Geneva scores (possible = 4.0, probable = 4.7, definite = 4.5; P=0.90), Wells scores (possible = 2.8, probable = 4.9, definite = 4.1; P=0.37), Modified Wells (possible = 2.0, probable = 3.4, definite = 2.9; P=0.34) or Simplified Wells (possible = 1.8, probable = 2.8, definite = 2.4; P=0.30).CONCLUSIONS: Pretest probability scores developed outside the ICU do not correlate with adjudicated PE categories in critically ill patients. Research is needed to develop prediction scores for this population.Peer Reviewe