Arnold S R, Straus S E
University of Tennessee, Pediatrics, Le Bonheur Children's Medical Center, 50 N Dunlap St., Memphis, TN 38103, USA.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Oct 19;2005(4):CD003539. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003539.pub2.
The development of resistance to antibiotics by many important human pathogens has been linked to exposure to antibiotics over time. The misuse of antibiotics for viral infections (for which they are of no value) and the excessive use of broad spectrum antibiotics in place of narrower spectrum antibiotics have been well-documented throughout the world. Many studies have helped to elucidate the reasons physicians use antibiotics inappropriately.
To systematically review the literature to estimate the effectiveness of professional interventions, alone or in combination, in improving the selection, dose and treatment duration of antibiotics prescribed by healthcare providers in the outpatient setting; and to evaluate the impact of these interventions on reducing the incidence of antimicrobial resistant pathogens.
We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) specialized register for studies relating to antibiotic prescribing and ambulatory care. Additional studies were obtained from the bibliographies of retrieved articles, the Scientific Citation Index and personal files.
We included all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCT and QRCT), controlled before and after studies (CBA) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies of healthcare consumers or healthcare professionals who provide primary care in the outpatient setting. Interventions included any professional intervention, as defined by EPOC, or a patient-based intervention.
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality.
Thirty-nine studies examined the effect of printed educational materials for physicians, audit and feedback, educational meetings, educational outreach visits, financial and healthcare system changes, physician reminders, patient-based interventions and multi-faceted interventions. These interventions addressed the overuse of antibiotics for viral infections, the choice of antibiotic for bacterial infections such as streptococcal pharyngitis and urinary tract infection, and the duration of use of antibiotics for conditions such as acute otitis media. Use of printed educational materials or audit and feedback alone resulted in no or only small changes in prescribing. The exception was a study documenting a sustained reduction in macrolide use in Finland following the publication of a warning against their use for group A streptococcal infections. Interactive educational meetings appeared to be more effective than didactic lectures. Educational outreach visits and physician reminders produced mixed results. Patient-based interventions, particularly the use of delayed prescriptions for infections for which antibiotics were not immediately indicated effectively reduced antibiotic use by patients and did not result in excess morbidity. Multi-faceted interventions combining physician, patient and public education in a variety of venues and formats were the most successful in reducing antibiotic prescribing for inappropriate indications. Only one of four studies demonstrated a sustained reduction in the incidence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria associated with the intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of an intervention on antibiotic prescribing depends to a large degree on the particular prescribing behaviour and the barriers to change in the particular community. No single intervention can be recommended for all behaviours in any setting. Multi-faceted interventions where educational interventions occur on many levels may be successfully applied to communities after addressing local barriers to change. These were the only interventions with effect sizes of sufficient magnitude to potentially reduce the incidence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Future research should focus on which elements of these interventions are the most effective. In addition, patient-based interventions and physician reminders show promise and innovative methods such as these deserve further study.
许多重要的人类病原体对抗生素产生耐药性的发展与长期接触抗生素有关。在全球范围内,抗生素被滥用于病毒感染(抗生素对病毒感染毫无价值)以及过度使用广谱抗生素而非窄谱抗生素的情况已被充分记录。许多研究有助于阐明医生不合理使用抗生素的原因。
系统回顾文献,以评估单独或联合使用专业干预措施在改善门诊环境中医护人员所开抗生素的选择、剂量和治疗时长方面的有效性;并评估这些干预措施对降低抗菌药物耐药病原体发生率的影响。
我们检索了Cochrane有效实践与护理组织小组(EPOC)的专门登记册,以查找与抗生素处方和门诊护理相关的研究。其他研究则从检索到的文章的参考文献、科学引文索引和个人档案中获取。
我们纳入了所有随机和半随机对照试验(RCT和QRCT)、前后对照研究(CBA)以及中断时间序列(ITS)研究,这些研究涉及在门诊环境中提供初级护理的医疗消费者或医疗专业人员。干预措施包括EPOC所定义的任何专业干预措施或基于患者的干预措施。
两位综述作者独立提取数据并评估研究质量。
39项研究考察了针对医生的印刷教育材料、审核与反馈、教育会议、教育外展访问、财务和医疗系统变革、医生提醒、基于患者的干预措施以及多方面干预措施的效果。这些干预措施针对了病毒感染时抗生素的过度使用、细菌感染(如链球菌性咽炎和尿路感染)时抗生素的选择以及急性中耳炎等病症时抗生素的使用时长。单独使用印刷教育材料或审核与反馈仅导致处方量无变化或仅有微小变化。唯一的例外是一项研究记录了芬兰在发布关于禁止将大环内酯类药物用于A组链球菌感染的警告后,大环内酯类药物的使用持续减少。互动式教育会议似乎比讲授式讲座更有效。教育外展访问和医生提醒产生了不同的结果。基于患者的干预措施,特别是对无需立即使用抗生素的感染采用延迟处方,有效减少了患者的抗生素使用,且未导致发病率增加。在各种场所和形式下将医生、患者和公众教育相结合的多方面干预措施在减少不适当指征的抗生素处方方面最为成功。四项研究中只有一项表明与干预措施相关的抗生素耐药菌发生率持续降低。
干预措施对抗生素处方的有效性在很大程度上取决于特定处方行为以及特定社区中存在的变革障碍。在任何环境下,都无法针对所有行为推荐单一干预措施。在解决当地变革障碍后,在多个层面进行教育干预的多方面干预措施可能成功应用于社区。这些是唯一具有足够大效应量以潜在降低抗生素耐药菌发生率的干预措施。未来的研究应聚焦于这些干预措施的哪些要素最为有效。此外,基于患者的干预措施和医生提醒显示出前景,像这样的创新方法值得进一步研究。