Developing a behavioural intervention package to identify and amend incorrect penicillin allergy records in UK general practice and subsequently change antibiotic use

Objectives: To develop a behavioural intervention package to support clinicians and patients to amend incorrect penicillin allergy records in general practice. The intervention aimed to: (1) support clinicians to refer patients for penicillin allergy testing (PAT), (2) support patients to attend for PAT and (3) support clinicians and patients to prescribe or consume penicillin, when indicated, following a negative PAT result. Methods: Theory-based, evidence-based and person-based approaches were used in the intervention development. We used evidence from a rapid review, two qualitative studies, and expert consultations with the clinical research team to identify the intervention ‘guiding principles’ and develop an intervention plan. Barriers and facilitators to the target behaviours were mapped to behaviour change theory in order to describe the proposed mechanisms of change. In the final stage, think-aloud interviews were conducted to optimise intervention materials. Results: The collated evidence showed that the key barriers to referral of patients by clinicians were limited experience of referral and limited knowledge of referral criteria and PAT. Barriers for patients attending PAT were lack of knowledge of the benefits of testing and lack of motivation to get tested. The key barriers to the prescription and consumption of first-line penicillin following a negative test result were patient and clinician beliefs about the accuracy of PAT and whether taking penicillin was safe. Intervention materials were designed and developed to address these barriers. Conclusions: We present a novel behavioural intervention package designed to address the multiple barriers to uptake of PAT in general practice by clinicians and patients. The intervention development details how behaviour change techniques have been incorporated to hypothesise how the intervention is likely to work to help amend incorrect penicillin allergy records. The intervention will go on to be tested in a feasibility trial and randomised controlled trial in England

Developing a model for decision-making around antibiotic prescribing for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in acute NHS hospitals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: Qualitative results from the Procalcitonin Evaluation of Antibiotic use in COVID-19 Hospitalised patients (PEACH Study)

\ua9 Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Objective To explore and model factors affecting antibiotic prescribing decision-making early in the pandemic. Design Semistructured qualitative interview study. Setting National Health Service (NHS) trusts/health boards in England and Wales. Participants Clinicians from NHS trusts/health boards in England and Wales. Method Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with clinicians in six NHS trusts/health boards in England and Wales as part of the Procalcitonin Evaluation of Antibiotic use in COVID-19 Hospitalised patients study, a wider study that included statistical analysis of procalcitonin (PCT) use in hospitals during the first wave of the pandemic. Thematic analysis was used to identify key factors influencing antibiotic prescribing decisions for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the pandemic (March to May 2020), including how much influence PCT test results had on these decisions. Results During the first wave of the pandemic, recommendations to prescribe antibiotics for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were based on concerns about secondary bacterial infections. However, as clinicians gained more experience with COVID-19, they reported increasing confidence in their ability to distinguish between symptoms and signs caused by SARS-CoV-2 viral infection alone, and secondary bacterial infections. Antibiotic prescribing decisions were influenced by factors such as clinician experience, confidence, senior support, situational factors and organisational influences. A decision-making model was developed. Conclusion This study provides insight into the decision-making process around antibiotic prescribing for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the pandemic. The importance of clinician experience and of senior review of decisions as factors in optimising antibiotic stewardship is highlighted. In addition, situational and organisational factors were identified that could be optimised. The model presented in the study can be used as a tool to aid understanding of the complexity of the decision-making process around antibiotic prescribing and planning antimicrobial stewardship support in the context of a pandemic. Trial registration number ISRCTN66682918

The impact of the introduction of fidaxomicin on the management of Clostridium difficile infection in seven NHS secondary care hospitals in England: a series of local service evaluations.

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is associated with high mortality. Reducing incidence is a priority for patients, clinicians, the National Health Service (NHS) and Public Health England alike. In June 2012, fidaxomicin (FDX) was launched for the treatment of adults with CDI. The objective of this evaluation was to collect robust real-world data to understand the effectiveness of FDX in routine practice. In seven hospitals introducing FDX between July 2012 and July 2013, data were collected retrospectively from medical records on CDI episodes occurring 12 months before/after the introduction of FDX. All hospitalised patients aged ≥18 years with primary CDI (diarrhoea with presence of toxin A/B without a previous CDI in the previous 3 months) were included. Recurrence was defined as in-patient diarrhoea re-emergence requiring treatment any time within 3 months after the first episode. Each hospital had a different protocol for the use of FDX. In hospitals A and B, where FDX was used first line for all primary and recurrent episodes, the recurrence rate reduced from 10.6 % to 3.1 % and from 16.3 % to 3.1 %, with a significant difference in 28-day mortality from 18.2 % to 3.1 % (p < 0.05) and 17.3 % to 6.3 % (p < 0.05) for hospitals A and B, respectively. In hospitals using FDX in selected patients only, the changes in recurrence rates and mortality were less marked. The pattern of adoption of FDX appears to affect its impact on CDI outcome, with maximum reduction in recurrence and all-cause mortality where it is used as first-line treatment

Dogs Leaving the ICU Carry a Very Large Multi-Drug Resistant Enterococcal Population with Capacity for Biofilm Formation and Horizontal Gene Transfer

The enterococcal community from feces of seven dogs treated with antibiotics for 2–9 days in the veterinary intensive care unit (ICU) was characterized. Both, culture-based approach and culture-independent 16S rDNA amplicon 454 pyrosequencing, revealed an abnormally large enterococcal community: 1.4±0.8×108 CFU gram−1 of feces and 48.9±11.5% of the total 16,228 sequences, respectively. The diversity of the overall microbial community was very low which likely reflects a high selective antibiotic pressure. The enterococcal diversity based on 210 isolates was also low as represented by Enterococcus faecium (54.6%) and Enterococcus faecalis (45.4%). E. faecium was frequently resistant to enrofloxacin (97.3%), ampicillin (96.5%), tetracycline (84.1%), doxycycline (60.2%), erythromycin (53.1%), gentamicin (48.7%), streptomycin (42.5%), and nitrofurantoin (26.5%). In E. faecalis, resistance was common to tetracycline (59.6%), erythromycin (56.4%), doxycycline (53.2%), and enrofloxacin (31.9%). No resistance was detected to vancomycin, tigecycline, linezolid, and quinupristin/dalfopristin in either species. Many isolates carried virulence traits including gelatinase, aggregation substance, cytolysin, and enterococcal surface protein. All E. faecalis strains were biofilm formers in vitro and this phenotype correlated with the presence of gelE and/or esp. In vitro intra-species conjugation assays demonstrated that E. faecium were capable of transferring tetracycline, doxycycline, streptomycin, gentamicin, and erythromycin resistance traits to human clinical strains. Multi-locus variable number tandem repeat analysis (MLVA) and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) of E. faecium strains showed very low genotypic diversity. Interestingly, three E. faecium clones were shared among four dogs suggesting their nosocomial origin. Furthermore, multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) of nine representative MLVA types revealed that six sequence types (STs) originating from five dogs were identical or closely related to STs of human clinical isolates and isolates from hospital outbreaks. It is recommended to restrict close physical contact between pets released from the ICU and their owners to avoid potential health risks

Use of Procalcitonin during the First Wave of COVID-19 in the Acute NHS Hospitals: A Retrospective Observational Study

A minority of patients presenting to hospital with COVID-19 have bacterial co-infection. Procalcitonin testing may help identify patients for whom antibiotics should be prescribed or withheld. This study describes the use of procalcitonin in English and Welsh hospitals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A web-based survey of antimicrobial leads gathered data about the use of procalcitonin testing. Responses were received from 148/151 (98%) eligible hospitals. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was widespread introduction and expansion of PCT use in NHS hospitals. The number of hospitals using PCT in emergency/acute admissions rose from 17 (11%) to 74/146 (50.7%) and use in Intensive Care Units (ICU) increased from 70 (47.6%) to 124/147 (84.4%). This increase happened predominantly in March and April 2020, preceding NICE guidance. Approximately half of hospitals used PCT as a single test to guide decisions to discontinue antibiotics and half used repeated measurements. There was marked variation in the thresholds used for empiric antibiotic cessation and guidance about interpretation of values. Procalcitonin testing has been widely adopted in the NHS during the COVID-19 pandemic in an unevidenced, heterogeneous way and in conflict with relevant NICE guidance. Further research is needed urgently that assesses the impact of this change on antibiotic prescribing and patient safety

Oral versus intravenous antibiotics for bone and joint infections: the OVIVA non-inferiority RCT

Background Management of bone and joint infection commonly includes 4–6 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotics, but there is little evidence to suggest that oral (PO) therapy results in worse outcomes. Objective To determine whether or not PO antibiotics are non-inferior to IV antibiotics in treating bone and joint infection. Design Parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1), open-label, non-inferiority trial. The non-inferiority margin was 7.5%. Setting Twenty-six NHS hospitals. Participants Adults with a clinical diagnosis of bone, joint or orthopaedic metalware-associated infection who would ordinarily receive at least 6 weeks of antibiotics, and who had received ≤ 7 days of IV therapy from definitive surgery (or start of planned curative treatment in patients managed non-operatively). Interventions Participants were centrally computer-randomised to PO or IV antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on PO therapy was permitted in either arm. Main outcome measure The primary outcome was the proportion of participants experiencing treatment failure within 1 year. An associated cost-effectiveness evaluation assessed health resource use and quality-of-life data. Results Out of 1054 participants (527 in each arm), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.30%) participants. Treatment failure was identified in 141 out of 1015 (13.89%) participants: 74 out of 506 (14.62%) and 67 out of 509 (13.16%) of those participants randomised to IV and PO therapy, respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, using multiple imputation to include all participants, the imputed risk difference between PO and IV therapy for definitive treatment failure was –1.38% (90% confidence interval –4.94% to 2.19%), thus meeting the non-inferiority criterion. A complete-case analysis, a per-protocol analysis and sensitivity analyses for missing data each confirmed this result. With the exception of IV catheter complications [49/523 (9.37%) in the IV arm vs. 5/523 (0.96%) in the PO arm)], there was no significant difference between the two arms in the incidence of serious adverse events. PO therapy was highly cost-effective, yielding a saving of £2740 per patient without any significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the two arms of the trial. Limitations The OVIVA (Oral Versus IntraVenous Antibiotics) trial was an open-label trial, but bias was limited by assessing all potential end points by a blinded adjudication committee. The population was heterogenous, which facilitated generalisability but limited the statistical power of subgroup analyses. Participants were only followed up for 1 year so differences in late recurrence cannot be excluded. Conclusions PO antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to IV therapy when used during the first 6 weeks in the treatment for bone and joint infection, as assessed by definitive treatment failure within 1 year of randomisation. These findings challenge the current standard of care and provide an opportunity to realise significant benefits for patients, antimicrobial stewardship and the health economy. Future work Further work is required to define the optimal total duration of therapy for bone and joint infection in the context of specific surgical interventions. Currently, wide variation in clinical practice suggests significant redundancy that likely contributes to the excess and unnecessary use of antibiotics. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91566927. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Procalcitonin evaluation of antibiotic use in COVID-19 hospitalised patients (PEACH): protocol for a retrospective observational study

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel virus responsible for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although COVID-19 is a viral illness, many patients admitted to hospital are prescribed antibiotics, based on concerns that COVID-19 patients may experience secondary bacterial infections, and the assumption that they may respond well to antibiotic therapy. This has led to an increase in antibiotic use for some hospitalised patients at a time when accumulating antibiotic resistance is a major global threat to health. Procalcitonin (PCT) is an inflammatory marker measured in blood samples and widely recommended to help diagnose bacterial infections and guide antibiotic treatment. The PEACH study will compare patient outcomes from English and Welsh hospitals that used PCT testing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic with those from hospitals not using PCT. It will help to determine whether, and how, PCT testing should be used in the NHS in future waves of COVID-19 to protect patients from antibiotic overuse. PEACH is a retrospective observational cohort study using patient-level clinical data from acute hospital Trusts and Health Boards in England and Wales. The primary objective is to measure the difference in antibiotic use between COVID-19 patients who did or did not have PCT testing at the time of diagnosis. Secondary objectives include measuring differences in length of stay, mortality, intensive care unit admission, and resistant bacterial infections between these groups

Intra- and Interspecies Genomic Transfer of the Enterococcus faecalis Pathogenicity Island

Enterococci are the third leading cause of hospital associated infections and have gained increased importance due to their fast adaptation to the clinical environment by acquisition of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity traits. Enterococcus faecalis harbours a pathogenicity island (PAI) of 153 kb containing several virulence factors including the enterococcal surface protein (esp). Until now only internal fragments of the PAI or larger chromosomal regions containing it have been transfered. Here we demonstrate precise excision, circularization and horizontal transfer of the entire PAI element from the chromosome of E. faecalis strain UW3114. This PAI (ca. 200 kb) contained some deletions and insertions as compared to the PAI of the reference strain MMH594, transferred precisely and integrated site-specifically into the chromosome of E. faecalis (intergenic region) and Enterococcus faecium (tRNAlys). The internal PAI structure was maintained after transfer. We assessed phenotypic changes accompanying acquisition of the PAI and expression of some of its determinants. The esp gene is expressed on the surface of donor and both transconjugants. Biofilm formation and cytolytic activity were enhanced in E. faecalis transconjugants after acquisition of the PAI. No differences in pathogenicity of E. faecalis were detected using a mouse bacteraemia and a mouse peritonitis models (tail vein and intraperitoneal injection). A 66 kb conjugative pheromone-responsive plasmid encoding erm(B) (pLG2) that was transferred in parallel with the PAI was sequenced. pLG2 is a pheromone responsive plasmid that probably promotes the PAI horizontal transfer, encodes antibiotic resistance features and contains complete replication and conjugation modules of enterococcal origin in a mosaic-like composition. The E. faecalis PAI can undergo precise intra- and interspecies transfer probably with the help of conjugative elements like conjugative resistance plasmids, supporting the role of horizontal gene transfer and antibiotic selective pressure in the successful establishment of certain enterococci as nosocomial pathogens

Oral versus intravenous antibiotics for bone and joint infection

BACKGROUND The management of complex orthopedic infections usually includes a prolonged course of intravenous antibiotic agents. We investigated whether oral antibiotic therapy is noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy for this indication. METHODS We enrolled adults who were being treated for bone or joint infection at 26 U.K. centers. Within 7 days after surgery (or, if the infection was being managed without surgery, within 7 days after the start of antibiotic treatment), participants were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous or oral antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on oral antibiotics were permitted in both groups. The primary end point was definitive treatment failure within 1 year after randomization. In the analysis of the risk of the primary end point, the noninferiority margin was 7.5 percentage points. RESULTS Among the 1054 participants (527 in each group), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.3%). Treatment failure occurred in 74 of 506 participants (14.6%) in the intravenous group and 67 of 509 participants (13.2%) in the oral group. Missing end-point data (39 participants, 3.7%) were imputed. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a difference in the risk of definitive treatment failure (oral group vs. intravenous group) of −1.4 percentage points (90% confidence interval [CI], −4.9 to 2.2; 95% CI, −5.6 to 2.9), indicating noninferiority. Complete-case, per-protocol, and sensitivity analyses supported this result. The between-group difference in the incidence of serious adverse events was not significant (146 of 527 participants [27.7%] in the intravenous group and 138 of 527 [26.2%] in the oral group; P=0.58). Catheter complications, analyzed as a secondary end point, were more common in the intravenous group (9.4% vs. 1.0%). CONCLUSIONS Oral antibiotic therapy was noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy when used during the first 6 weeks for complex orthopedic infection, as assessed by treatment failure at 1 year. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; OVIVA Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN91566927. opens in new tab.